• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The south would have desegregated itself

SheWolf

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
37,412
Reaction score
13,542
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I have heard the argument from various people. It is usually argued that the south would have desegregated itself for financial and economic gain, but it's hard to accept the simplicity of the argument given current events and business owners wanting to refuse GLBT patrons. Another reason I have never accepted the argument is because of niche markets. There are gay bars, women only gyms, etc. Niche marketing can be profitable, and racism still exists... really, it does. There are white power and neo-nazi movements in America today. People interested in such movements have coalesced in the past, and built power strong holds protecting their political and business interests. Waiting for the south to desegregate itself would have led to deeper racial divisions and there would still be pockets of racist strong holds, segregated businesses, corruption, etc.

I don't believe the south would have desegregated itself, as I believe there would still be businesses operating based on segregation today.

It is one thing to argue the south would have desegregated itself, and that segregation and white power movements should be be tolerated. I am simply arguing self desegregation is not a realistic argument.

What are your thoughts?
 
I have heard the argument from various people. It is usually argued that the south would have desegregated itself for financial and economic gain, but it's hard to accept the simplicity of the argument given current events and business owners wanting to refuse GLBT patrons. Another reason I have never accepted the argument is because of niche markets. There are gay bars, women only gyms, etc. Niche marketing can be profitable, and racism still exists... really, it does. There are white power and neo-nazi movements in America today. People interested in such movements have coalesced in the past, and built power strong holds protecting their political and business interests. Waiting for the south to desegregate itself would have led to deeper racial divisions and there would still be pockets of racist strong holds, segregated businesses, corruption, etc.

I don't believe the south would have desegregated itself, as I believe there would still be businesses operating based on segregation today.

It is one thing to argue the south would have desegregated itself, and that segregation and white power movements should be be tolerated. I am simply arguing self desegregation is not a realistic argument.

What are your thoughts?
If one takes the insight of slavery extension and the long-argued fight over gradual emancipation and so on, in addition to the beginnings and context of de jure and de facto segregation in the South, you kind of lean toward the proposition that such statements are optimistic and/or naive at best, and disingenuous at worst.

The South may have desegregated itself, but it would have been an extraordinarily extended and piecemeal process. You would likely have pockets of desegregated private and/or public entities, each desegregating on an argued basis. For instance, perhaps desegregation could only occur in X building for the purposes of A, B, and C, but not D, E, or F.

When Did Southern Segregation Begin?: John David Smith: 9780312257385: Amazon.com: Books
 
Last edited:
It's a very common logical fallacy; Hypothesis contrary to fact(s).

It's a big favorite of those who lost and cannot begin to admit to themselves that, indeed, the Civil War was about slavery.
 
It is one thing to argue the south would have desegregated itself, and that segregation and white power movements should be be tolerated. I am simply arguing self desegregation is not a realistic argument.

What are your thoughts?
There is absolutely no reason to believe that most of the south would have desegregated on its own.

I do think a few states probably would have changed on their own, but only after decades of pressure. E.g. I can imagine Florida desegregating. Mississippi? Louisiana? Georgia? Virginia? Arkansas? No. ****ing. Way.
 
I have heard the argument from various people. It is usually argued that the south would have desegregated itself for financial and economic gain, but it's hard to accept the simplicity of the argument given current events and business owners wanting to refuse GLBT patrons. Another reason I have never accepted the argument is because of niche markets. There are gay bars, women only gyms, etc. Niche marketing can be profitable, and racism still exists... really, it does. There are white power and neo-nazi movements in America today. People interested in such movements have coalesced in the past, and built power strong holds protecting their political and business interests. Waiting for the south to desegregate itself would have led to deeper racial divisions and there would still be pockets of racist strong holds, segregated businesses, corruption, etc.

I don't believe the south would have desegregated itself, as I believe there would still be businesses operating based on segregation today.

It is one thing to argue the south would have desegregated itself, and that segregation and white power movements should be be tolerated. I am simply arguing self desegregation is not a realistic argument.

What are your thoughts?



We can change the future but we can't change the past.

The South lost the Civil War and it won't be rising again.

Wait and see.

:lol:
 
I have heard the argument from various people. It is usually argued that the south would have desegregated itself for financial and economic gain, but it's hard to accept the simplicity of the argument given current events and business owners wanting to refuse GLBT patrons. Another reason I have never accepted the argument is because of niche markets. There are gay bars, women only gyms, etc. Niche marketing can be profitable, and racism still exists... really, it does. There are white power and neo-nazi movements in America today. People interested in such movements have coalesced in the past, and built power strong holds protecting their political and business interests. Waiting for the south to desegregate itself would have led to deeper racial divisions and there would still be pockets of racist strong holds, segregated businesses, corruption, etc.

I don't believe the south would have desegregated itself, as I believe there would still be businesses operating based on segregation today.

It is one thing to argue the south would have desegregated itself, and that segregation and white power movements should be be tolerated. I am simply arguing self desegregation is not a realistic argument.

What are your thoughts?

I did a lot of my growing up under segregation. And my small, ultra conservative redneck town desegregated voluntarily long before the government was involved in desegregation. I indeed think if the people had been left alone, cultural pressures would have gently brought about an end to segregation. And had it been done that way, it would have been infinitely more beneficial to the black people who would have been integrated into instead of forcibly inserted into the general society. And there wouldn't have been near the problems and issues that we had.

Allowing people to choose to do the right thing is always preferable to forcing them to do the right thing.
 
I have heard the argument from various people. It is usually argued that the south would have desegregated itself for financial and economic gain, but it's hard to accept the simplicity of the argument given current events and business owners wanting to refuse GLBT patrons. Another reason I have never accepted the argument is because of niche markets. There are gay bars, women only gyms, etc. Niche marketing can be profitable, and racism still exists... really, it does. There are white power and neo-nazi movements in America today. People interested in such movements have coalesced in the past, and built power strong holds protecting their political and business interests. Waiting for the south to desegregate itself would have led to deeper racial divisions and there would still be pockets of racist strong holds, segregated businesses, corruption, etc.

I don't believe the south would have desegregated itself, as I believe there would still be businesses operating based on segregation today.

It is one thing to argue the south would have desegregated itself, and that segregation and white power movements should be be tolerated. I am simply arguing self desegregation is not a realistic argument.

What are your thoughts?

You started with a fallacy though, no one has argued a right to refuse GLBT persons, overtly religious business people have not wanted to participate in homosexual weddings, which is a large distinction.

Regardless, I think it would've happened eventually, by the time of the early 2000's be ease of transportation and the adventure of instantaneous communication technologies makes ruling with an iron fist far more difficult. The 1960s was an era with many people were still trapped in their way is, because they were not mobile. You died in the town you were born in. It is easy to keep old habits and never confront them if they are never challenged
 
I did a lot of my growing up under segregation. And my small, ultra conservative redneck town desegregated voluntarily long before the government was involved in desegregation. I indeed think if the people had been left alone, cultural pressures would have gently brought about an end to segregation. And had it been done that way, it would have been infinitely more beneficial to the black people who would have been integrated into instead of forcibly inserted into the general society. And there wouldn't have been near the problems and issues that we had.

Allowing people to choose to do the right thing is always preferable to forcing them to do the right thing.

Waiting for racial desegregation to happen naturally is somthing that would have required several generations to accomplish.
 
Allowing people to choose to do the right thing is always preferable to forcing them to do the right thing.

Not when it comes to legally recognizing the fundamental rights of fellow citizens and allowing them to exercise them.

History shows it often requires the force of law for that.
 
They probably would have ended slavery.

I doubt they would have ended segregation.

Many seem to long for segregation even now.
 
Not when it comes to legally recognizing the fundamental rights of fellow citizens and allowing them to exercise them.

History shows it often requires the force of law for that.

Waiting for racial desegregation to happen naturally is somthing that would have required several generations to accomplish.

Absolutely right, gentlemen (though I would tack on to United's post a " ,if ever" to end the sentence). Moral suasion is a likely good start, but rarely an end with civil rights.
 
Waiting for racial desegregation to happen naturally is somthing that would have required several generations to accomplish.

I don't think so. I have a great respect for the ability of people to recognize and respect justice and do it through the democratic process instead of by authoritarian mandate.
 
Not when it comes to legally recognizing the fundamental rights of fellow citizens and allowing them to exercise them.

History shows it often requires the force of law for that.

Nope. History shows that the best results are when the will of the people reigns supreme. That's how we got to be a country in the first place. The people rose up against an unjust law.
 

If we're talking about emancipation, then I believe the South would have eventually done, but no one knows how long it would have taken them to do it on their own.

Otherwise, with Equal Opportunity regulations...

No, the South would not have desegregated itself even before 2015. The South is a really diverse area of the US. So many different groups are competing for resources and still use racial bias to achieve that end. As you pointed out, racism is still real. Groups which do not assign themselves a "racist" image, but who promote an agenda on the basis of empowering a group of people who are white would not have ceded much power to people of other creeds. The fact that communities in the South struggled with the issue of race and equality for a long time had a huge impact on the culture surrounding desegregation. The only reason why this issue is argued, it seems, is to recall that desegregation occurred and it worked.

History shows that the South didn't desegregate sooner, and later desegregation would not serve the South well. Our society works the way it does when everyone eats, but if/when everyone drinks from the same water, it should be an equal opportunity. Dissolving guidelines that segregate two water fountains makes it easier for people to use public resources.
 
Last edited:
I don't think so. I have a great respect for the ability of people to recognize and respect justice and do it through the democratic process instead of by authoritarian mandate.

The authoritarianism started when people decided to take others for slaves, stripped them of their identities, and turned them into property.
 
I don't think so. I have a great respect for the ability of people to recognize and respect justice and do it through the democratic process instead of by authoritarian mandate.

I can understand your position, but i think that justice was being denied to entire generations of people due to racial segregation

Was there any justice for emmet till?
 
You started with a fallacy though, no one has argued a right to refuse GLBT persons, overtly religious business people have not wanted to participate in homosexual weddings, which is a large distinction.

Regardless, I think it would've happened eventually, by the time of the early 2000's be ease of transportation and the adventure of instantaneous communication technologies makes ruling with an iron fist far more difficult. The 1960s was an era with many people were still trapped in their way is, because they were not mobile. You died in the town you were born in. It is easy to keep old habits and never confront them if they are never challenged

We still lack high speed rail. We can't say for sure that it wouldn't be possible in a vastly segregated area which practices discrimination. The discrimination of segregated housing alone could contribute to socioeconomic disparities which would treat a lower class with lower paying job, like construction.
 
Nope. History shows that the best results are when the will of the people reigns supreme. That's how we got to be a country in the first place. The people rose up against an unjust law.

But what if a federal government intervenes to stop the implementation of an unjust state law?
 
We still lack high speed rail. We can't say for sure that it wouldn't be possible in a vastly segregated area which practices discrimination. The discrimination of segregated housing alone could contribute to socioeconomic disparities which would treat a lower class with lower paying job, like construction.

We don't need high speed rail, we have high speed jet planes.....
 
I have heard the argument from various people. It is usually argued that the south would have desegregated itself for financial and economic gain, but it's hard to accept the simplicity of the argument given current events and business owners wanting to refuse GLBT patrons. Another reason I have never accepted the argument is because of niche markets. There are gay bars, women only gyms, etc. Niche marketing can be profitable, and racism still exists... really, it does. There are white power and neo-nazi movements in America today. People interested in such movements have coalesced in the past, and built power strong holds protecting their political and business interests. Waiting for the south to desegregate itself would have led to deeper racial divisions and there would still be pockets of racist strong holds, segregated businesses, corruption, etc.

I don't believe the south would have desegregated itself, as I believe there would still be businesses operating based on segregation today.

It is one thing to argue the south would have desegregated itself, and that segregation and white power movements should be be tolerated. I am simply arguing self desegregation is not a realistic argument.

What are your thoughts?

People in the South are reasonably intelligent. Given that, it seems unlikely that they would have embraced a completely retarded idea like desegregation without being forced to.
 
Fiddy, I think there would still be pockets of segregation today. Did you hear about Craig Cobb? He is a white power leader who moved to North Dakota with a plan to take over the small town by calling likeminded people to come together. People like that still exist. They want political power, but they don't have it like they used to.

If one takes the insight of slavery extension and the long-argued fight over gradual emancipation and so on, in addition to the beginnings and context of de jure and de facto segregation in the South, you kind of lean toward the proposition that such statements are optimistic and/or naive at best, and disingenuous at worst.

The South may have desegregated itself, but it would have been an extraordinarily extended and piecemeal process. You would likely have pockets of desegregated private and/or public entities, each desegregating on an argued basis. For instance, perhaps desegregation could only occur in X building for the purposes of A, B, and C, but not D, E, or F.

When Did Southern Segregation Begin?: John David Smith: 9780312257385: Amazon.com: Books
 
Nope. History shows that the best results are when the will of the people reigns supreme. That's how we got to be a country in the first place. The people rose up against an unjust law.

That was before we had a Constitution and guaranteed rights. Not everyone had the benefit of them after we finally did get one.

Those who wanted to rightly fully claim theirs after being denied them had to fight for them, sometimes needing the force of law to do so and maintain those rights. That's simple, undeniable reality.

The 20th century, especially, is rife with examples of this.
 
We don't need high speed rail, we have high speed jet planes.....

I mean public transportation. A plane ticket costs quite a bit of money, so this wouldn't do for migrant communities and families trying to leave the South. I know a guy who worked as an engineer and spent a great deal of time travelling for his job. Air travel rewards frequent fliers, but jet fuel is a lot more expensive than train fuel, at least judging by ticket pricing.
 
I have heard the argument from various people. It is usually argued that the south would have desegregated itself for financial and economic gain, but it's hard to accept the simplicity of the argument given current events and business owners wanting to refuse GLBT patrons. Another reason I have never accepted the argument is because of niche markets. There are gay bars, women only gyms, etc. Niche marketing can be profitable, and racism still exists... really, it does. There are white power and neo-nazi movements in America today. People interested in such movements have coalesced in the past, and built power strong holds protecting their political and business interests. Waiting for the south to desegregate itself would have led to deeper racial divisions and there would still be pockets of racist strong holds, segregated businesses, corruption, etc.

I don't believe the south would have desegregated itself, as I believe there would still be businesses operating based on segregation today.

It is one thing to argue the south would have desegregated itself, and that segregation and white power movements should be be tolerated. I am simply arguing self desegregation is not a realistic argument.

What are your thoughts?

Meanwhile........phony intellectual white guilt northerners are still fleeing the hood when too many blacks move in.

I wonder why?
 
Fiddy, I think there would still be pockets of segregation today. Did you hear about Craig Cobb? He is a white power leader who moved to North Dakota with a plan to take over the small town by calling likeminded people to come together. People like that still exist. They want political power, but they don't have it like they used to.

Yes, but one town isn't enough to regulate anything beyond municipal government. White power leaders who want the authority they used to have would have to control an entire state. The only way they could accomplish that at this point is through military force. I doubt any presidential candidate would support re segregation.
 
Back
Top Bottom