The south would have desegregated itself

[VanceMack]

"Northern desegregation"

:lamo

 

[LowDown]

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?

It's kind of an odd argument to bring up considering that the US is in the process of re-segregating itself, the political left is in the forefront of that, and it is most severe in blue states.

The proper question is whether or not the proponents of identity politics are capable of seeing the error of their ways and reversing it. So far the evidence indicates not; they gain to much from the conflict.

As far as acceptance of LGBT is concerned, our history indicates that division will continue because that's what the usual suspects want. There will always be something to stir the pot about, LGBT or something.

 

[devildavid]

Try to focus here. Slavery ended almost 100 years before desegregation. Let's argue one thing at a time okay? I suggest you read some of Thomas Sowell's book on race and culture. There is a whole lot to learn there.

Black family traditions roots in this country are in slavery. The negative impact of that was never completely shaken off, Thomas Sowell notwithstanding. Poor blacks never developed a strong family unit. Sowell experienced that himself first hand. What he believes today has much to do with his embrace of a conservative libertarian ideology.

 

[devildavid]

It's kind of an odd argument to bring up considering that the US is in the process of re-segregating itself, the political left is in the forefront of that, and it is most severe in blue states.

The proper question is whether or not the proponents of identity politics are capable of seeing the error of their ways and reversing it. So far the evidence indicates not; they gain to much from the conflict.

As far as acceptance of LGBT is concerned, our history indicates that division will continue because that's what the usual suspects want. There will always be something to stir the pot about, LGBT or something.

How exactly is the left at the forefront of re-segregation? LGBT rights has nothing to do with segragation or creating divisions. It is an issue of equal treatment under the law. Who are the usual suspects and what pot are they stirring? Was there a time in our history where our country was perfected and did not need to change? History has shown me that this was never the case. I actually see more hope, especially in young people, that race and sex are non-issues and acceptance and embrace of differences is slowly becoming the norm. I think that is a positive development in our country and hope it spreads rapidly.

 

[LowDown]

How exactly is the left at the forefront of re-segregation? LGBT rights has nothing to do with segragation or creating divisions. It is an issue of equal treatment under the law. Who are the usual suspects and what pot are they stirring? Was there a time in our history where our country was perfected and did not need to change? History has shown me that this was never the case. I actually see more hope, especially in young people, that race and sex are non-issues and acceptance and embrace of differences is slowly becoming the norm. I think that is a positive development in our country and hope it spreads rapidly.

And you identify with what universe?

 

[devildavid]

And you identify with what universe?

Huh? I did not know you had a monopoly on perceiving reality.

 

[LowDown]

Huh? I did not know you had a monopoly on perceiving reality.

I'd just like to know where it is that race and sex is becoming less of an issue.

 

[Port & Starboard]

I wanted to get a black persons perspective on this issue and found a few sites that counter the OP's claim of segregation being a southern problem. Reading a article by the staff of the AtlantaBlackStar , they say that (8) of the top (10) most segragated cities are in the north.

Boston
Cleveland
Philly
Chicago
NYC
Milwaukee
Detroit

St. Louis was in the top 10, but is in the midwest.

Miami being the only southern state in the top 10.

Top 10 Most Segregated Cities in the US - Atlanta Black Star

 

[devildavid]

I'd just like to know where it is that race and sex is becoming less of an issue.

In this country in the real world in the attitudes of young people.

 

[DashingAmerican]

I've lived in Alabama most of my life and I think that, for the most part, it's an accepting state. That being said, there is still racism or discrimination. The younger generation is increasingly accepting, with only minor youthful idiots holding to the racism of the past. Would this progress have happened without the civil rights movement? Who knows? That's speculation. I can't imagine myself being discriminant toward anyone.

 

[AlbqOwl]

No, I'm stating that in some cases, they were and are. You don't allow a child to abuse a pet or sibling until injury or death, you grab them by the arm and force them to stop doing so. If the South needed the same in order to stop treating its citizens like dog****, then so be it :shrug:

I am debating segregation and the most effective and beneficial way to end it. That is the topic of this thread. If you prefer to debate slavery, I suggest a thread in which that is the topic. Or start your own.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Yes, social pressure can be more powerful than government edicts. It can have a powerful negatve impact that becomes ingrained in society.

Not when social pressure is to do the right thing. I am not talking about the idiotic stupid thuggery and hoodlumism and bullying tactics of numbnuts and a-holes who terrorize people and destroy things and try to hurt people to demand and get their way. I am talking about the gentle pressure of society to do things the right way and encouraging people to do that.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Black family traditions roots in this country are in slavery. The negative impact of that was never completely shaken off, Thomas Sowell notwithstanding. Poor blacks never developed a strong family unit. Sowell experienced that himself first hand. What he believes today has much to do with his embrace of a conservative libertarian ideology.

I'll tell you what I told another member. The OP offers an interesting topic on the best way to end segregation. If you want to debate slavery, please find a thread devoted to that or start your own.

 

[a351]

I am debating segregation and the most effective and beneficial way to end it. That is the topic of this thread. If you prefer to debate slavery, I suggest a thread in which that is the topic. Or start your own.

As am I. Segregation in the South was indeed systematic abuse of minorities which necessitated government act on behalf of the victimized party. Allowing the perpetrators to keep doing so until they had a change of heart would only serve the interests of the offending party, not society nor those actually in need of assistance.

 

[LowDown]

In this country in the real world in the attitudes of young people.

So you've got nothing.

 

[AlbqOwl]

As am I. Segregation in the South was indeed systematic abuse of minorities which necessitated government act on behalf of the victimized party. Allowing the perpetrators to keep doing so until they had a change of heart would only serve the interests of the offending party, not society nor those actually in need of assistance.

Segregation in the South was not harming the black community as much as the 'do-gooders' wish to believe, however. Despite segregation, black people were moving up the corporate ladder, starting their own successful businesses, were enjoying stable traditional families which was great for the kids, and enjoyed strong supportive institutions at the time the "War on Poverty" was initiated in the 1964's, the same legislation that ended legal segregation. At that time the black demographic was the fastest advancing group economically. And town after town was voluntarily desegregating by that time.

Insert bullying tactics by the government and we had race riots almost immediately--something virtually non existent prior to desegregation. There was immediate push back from Americans who did not easily accept being ordered how they had to live their lives. Easing of racial tensions and hatreds that had been going on for decades came to a screeching halt as did the economic advancement of black people as a demographic.

From Thomas Sowell who was born into, grew up in, and started his professional life during segregation:

. . .every census from 1890 to 1950, black labor force participation rates were higher than those of whites. Only since the 1960s has that reversed. The marriage rates of black males was never as much as 5 percentage points different from those of white males until the 1960s. Now fatherless families have become a ghetto norm.

Liberals love to point to the civil rights advances of the 1960s as their trump card. But the desegregation of schools and other institutions began in the 1950s. The fact that the trend continued in the 1960s is hardly surprising.

Nor was the economic rise of blacks a product of 1960s legislation. That rise was faster in the 1940s and 1950s than in the 1960s or afterward.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were important pieces of legislation. But a higher percentage of Republicans than of Democrats voted for these bills in both Houses of Congress.

Even if we give 1960s liberals the credit they think they deserve, if they were single-handedly responsible for all civil rights advances, how could that compensate for their undermining of such basic institutions as the family, law enforcement and education?

Food stamps are no substitute for a father, busing is no substitute for a decent education and racial breast-beating is no substitute for being able to walk the streets without fear of hoodlums and murderers.

They used to say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating but apparently that isn't fashionable any more. Today, the proof of the pudding is in how good it made you feel to cook it. That is why liberals are so nostalgic about the 1960's.​

Thomas Sowell

 

[Celebrity]

Segregation in the South was not harming the black community as much as the 'do-gooders' wish to believe, however. Despite segregation, black people were moving up the corporate ladder, starting their own successful businesses, were enjoying stable traditional families which was great for the kids, and enjoyed strong supportive institutions at the time the "War on Poverty" was initiated in the 1964's, the same legislation that ended legal segregation. At that time the black demographic was the fastest advancing group economically. And town after town was voluntarily desegregating by that time.

Insert bullying tactics by the government and we had race riots almost immediately--something virtually non existent prior to desegregation. There was immediate push back from Americans who did not easily accept being ordered how they had to live their lives. Easing of racial tensions and hatreds that had been going on for decades came to a screeching halt as did the economic advancement of black people as a demographic.

From Thomas Sowell who was born into, grew up in, and started his professional life during segregation:

. . .every census from 1890 to 1950, black labor force participation rates were higher than those of whites. Only since the 1960s has that reversed. The marriage rates of black males was never as much as 5 percentage points different from those of white males until the 1960s. Now fatherless families have become a ghetto norm.

Liberals love to point to the civil rights advances of the 1960s as their trump card. But the desegregation of schools and other institutions began in the 1950s. The fact that the trend continued in the 1960s is hardly surprising.

Nor was the economic rise of blacks a product of 1960s legislation. That rise was faster in the 1940s and 1950s than in the 1960s or afterward.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were important pieces of legislation. But a higher percentage of Republicans than of Democrats voted for these bills in both Houses of Congress.

Even if we give 1960s liberals the credit they think they deserve, if they were single-handedly responsible for all civil rights advances, how could that compensate for their undermining of such basic institutions as the family, law enforcement and education?

Food stamps are no substitute for a father, busing is no substitute for a decent education and racial breast-beating is no substitute for being able to walk the streets without fear of hoodlums and murderers.

They used to say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating but apparently that isn't fashionable any more. Today, the proof of the pudding is in how good it made you feel to cook it. That is why liberals are so nostalgic about the 1960's.​

Thomas Sowell

That nostalgia works both ways. Segregation did not promote cultural values reconcilable with the society in which we currently exercise our rights. No matter how it was achieved, desegregation works out great for individuals who share the community with one another. If someone doesn't want to share their community, they're welcome to do that with their own private resources. I don't think fatherless families have become a "ghetto norm."

Do you really think that the entire South is suffering from fatherlessness? If not, I fail to see how segregation in the South is related. Your jab at impoverished families is pretty ineffective in the sense that desegregation improved cultural welfare.

Whether or not Americans push back against policy that is enriching their culture is another matter entirely aside from poverty.

 

[SheWolf]

I do not doubt that there would be segregation today, either in its de facto or de jure form. Optimistically, it would be ameliorated to somewhat function within the modern American administrative state, but restrictions would apply elsewhere--whether by law or by social practice. My instinct is that the restrictions would be wide and substantive.

I also know about the Cobb situation very well. And I absolutely agree that they do exist. However, Cobb was a minority within the state. Most citizens expressed horror at his plans. Cobb was essentially removed from social support and power by the state's 89% white populace. That is not to say that the state does not fall within racial tensions or divisions (anyone who has spent a great deal of time in that state knows very well that it does exist), but your example here isn't that strong.

I never believed Cobb succeeded at his goal. I believe he has moved out of the community, and I recall he even got arrested. I didn't mention the story as evidence of White Power movements having success in segregating modern societies, but to point out that people like still exist. If there was a modern community somewhere in the US that looked like Jim Crow, that's where Cobb and his kind would go. Because such a community does not exist, Cobb and his kind wanted to create one in North Dakota. So my argument is essentially that some people still want Jim Crow, and if the south were given the chance to desegregate itself, it would not have completely happened. There would be pockets of segregation and white power politics.

 

[AlbqOwl]

That nostalgia works both ways. Segregation did not promote cultural values reconcilable with the society in which we currently exercise our rights. No matter how it was achieved, desegregation works out great for individuals who share the community with one another. If someone doesn't want to share their community, they're welcome to do that with their own private resources. I don't think fatherless families have become a "ghetto norm."

Do you really think that the entire South is suffering from fatherlessness? If not, I fail to see how segregation in the South is related. Your jab at impoverished families is pretty ineffective in the sense that desegregation improved cultural welfare.

Whether or not Americans push back against policy that is enriching their culture is another matter entirely aside from poverty.

. . .One in four children in the United States is being raised by a single parent — a percentage that has been on the rise and is higher than other developed countries, according to a report released Wednesday.

Of the 27 industrialized countries studied by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the U.S. had 25.8 percent of children being raised by a single parent, compared with an average of 14.9 percent across the other countries.

In the African American community, 72 percent of Black children are raised in a single parent household. . .​

72% Of Black Kids Raised In Single Parent Household, 25 Percent In U.S. | News One

And you can bet that a large percentage of that 72% are the kids in the projects and ghettos. I don't believe I mentioned the south at all.

You can argue with Dr. Sowell's statistics all you want, but I warn you that you will have a very tough time disproving them. I know because I tried like the dickens for weeks to do so and failed. He achieved his credentials and earned his place at Harvard where he graduated Magna Cum Laude in a segregated society without benefit of affirmative action or any other government program other than the G.I. bill. He would go on to earn his PhD in Economics. He has devoted a great deal of his adult life researching and writing on the American culture and its histories, including the good and bad of various landmark legislation.

The rigidly partisan types want to see everything in clear black and white (no pun intended). The truth of the matter is generally far different, and we would all be wise to think through the unintended negative consequences of what we do, however well intended what we do might be. To ignore those unintended bad consequences can so easily cause suffering for the very people that were supposed to be helped. Many if not most could have been avoided by being less gung go on being do-gooders and putting more emphasis on what people actually need rather than what we think they need.

 

[SheWolf]

As an addendum Shewolf, I might add that this story came out in the past two weeks, but essentially few cared--including the Department of Health. Cobb was an undesirable presence for the state and its citizens.

Town broke law when it razed building wanted by supremacist | | bismarcktribune.com

There is documentary about Leith called Welcome to Leith. I saw it recently, and I heard all the accusations from Cobb that he was treated unfairly. He accused the community of illegally cutting off his sewer and water. I also saw the videos of him walking around with guns "protecting" himself, but I think he was trying to play victim a lot. The communities may have broken laws because of their biased against him, but he was not just an innocent victim. Many residents of Leith did feel terrorized and threatened by him. I also saw that he has 14% Subsaharan African in him... :lol:

I love the way he is leaning over as he his waiting to hear what the other 14% is. :lamo

 

[SheWolf]

Do you think the most virulent segragationists are really capable of this? Societies are equally capable of imposing unofficial authoritarian social mandates on where certains groups stand in society. I'm not just talking about race based segregation. My wife came from a small town near a small city I lived in and experienced discriminaton in high school because of this. And this was among working class white people. I have found, unfortunately, that people want to always want to find some group to look down upon for the most superficial of reasons. I'm sorry to say but I don't share your faith in people to do the right thing.

I didn't find her comment to be entirely realistic myself. We usually don't wait for people do the right thing. We especially don't wait very long for parents to stop abusing, neglecting, or hurting their kids. The government will take their parental rights away in a second, and the rest of us immediately support that action.

If we waited for segregation to end on it's own, it would have a taken a few generations. But even then, every single individual person would not have been for desegregation. There are still people who want segregation today, so what would Albq propose doing... just let pockets and segregated enclaves exist for those people?

 

[SheWolf]

I meant include your post with my reply so you would see it. (Post #28) Below are my thoughts:

"Hey! This is another way to divide the country. The demagogues and currently leaders are always interested in doing it. North vs South, Black vs white, trans vs straight, male vs female and the list keeps growing!"

The discussion of segregation is divisive? Segregation ended a long time ago, how is discussing history dividing people today?

 

[TheGoverness]

The discussion of segregation is divisive? Segregation ended a long time ago, how is discussing history dividing people today?

He may be talking about segregation in relation to the Confederacy and the Civil War.

 

[SheWolf]

Slavery would also have ended on its own without a bloody and devastating Civil War. And if it had occurred naturally, it would have been much better for black people just as it would have been had segregation been allowed to die out on its own.

For some reason, I think if your people were owned as slaves or you were a black person you would support the government stepping in and ending the practice sooner rather than later.

If I were alive that time, I would like to think that would fight against injustice, slavery, and support the Civil Rights Movement instead of standing around and telling everybody to wait... :shock:

 

[SheWolf]

I am not debating individual cases. I am debating a much larger concept. Had America allowed segregation to have ended on its own, it would have been much easier for black people to transition into a multi racial society. Black institutions would not have been destroyed before they were no longer helpful; the black family would not have been decimated; and there would not have been the racial tensions that persist to this very day.

Everything would have been better for modern black people if slavery and Jim Crow lasted longer???

Where do you come up with this stuff??