Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Boy does this sound ever so sixties. Government out, they are in each of our lives enough.
We are all individuals who should be able to make up our own mind and determine what is best for ourselves and our faimily. For those who choose to segretate, fine, for those who do not that is your choice. But what the hell here in 2011 shouldn't we be over this kind of thinking, and if not, what the hell have we learned from the past.
The courts began the process of reviving racial classification in schools by ignoring the distinction between desegregation and integration. Desegregation is a restriction on government power. The state may not use race as the basis for school assignments. Desegregation permits racial separation as long as it is not compelled by the government. Integration, by contrast, is a state-mandated result. The government overrides personel and parental choice in order to make sure that different racial groups get the same education and obtain it together. Desegregation establishes the principle of choice, whereas integration seeks to compel a particular result.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly endorsed desegregation rather than integration , and clarified the distinction. Yet in the case of schools, courts came to consider desegregation truly accomplished only if whites and blacks were actually using the facilities in rough proportion to their numbers in society. In other words courts ignored the distinction between securing a right and guranteeing its excercise. Courts navigated around the seemingly clear language of the law to coerce integration in the name of enforcing desegregation, and to use the terms interchangeably to disguise this transition. Martin Luther King, jr understood this.
Well said. Clear & precise.
However, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also destroyed the right of private businesses to decide who they accepted as customers and laid the basis for many government interventions in the marketplace and hiring practices in the name of "equality."
Martin Luther King did understand this, and wanted even more government intervention to achieve equality of result rather than equality of opportunity. Or rather, in his mind, as well as most die-hard integrationists, there was no difference between the two.
Boy does this sound ever so sixties. Government out, they are in each of our lives enough.
We are all individuals who should be able to make up our own mind and determine what is best for ourselves and our faimily. For those who choose to segretate, fine, for those who do not that is your choice. But what the hell here in 2011 shouldn't we be over this kind of thinking, and if not, what the hell have we learned from the past.
Those who choose to segregate, fine?
Choosing to segregate is a de facto assertion that some people are your inferiors. They are your inferiors not because of choices they've made, but because of some intangible thing like who their forebears are.
Are you really arguing that it's okay for a restaurant to serve someone because of their forebears? Please defend that argument.
However, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also destroyed the right of private businesses to decide who they accepted as customers and laid the basis for many government interventions in the marketplace and hiring practices in the name of "equality."
Martin Luther King did understand this, and wanted even more government intervention to achieve equality of result rather than equality of opportunity. Or rather, in his mind, as well as most die-hard integrationists, there was no difference between the two.
Bullsh*t. It's easy to kill the CRA of 1964 when you don't belong to the group that's being discriminated against, as i'm sure that's true in your case.
If you wanna crush MLK...do it for the real reasons that you despise the man instead of using this nonsense about "government intervention to achieve equality" (as if you really give a damn about that).
If blacks couldn't turn to the government, who in the hell were they supposed to turn to? White folks had a few hundred years to do it without government intervention and they failed. And blacks (and others) had no reason to wait for whites to come around when the constitution GUARANTEED us the same rights as any white man. This is the real problem you have....you wanted blacks to be patient and wait for white acceptance. That way, the power of acceptance remains in your hands while we wait for table scraps.
...The bottom line in this discussion is quite simple.Do you believe that some groups of people are inferior to other because of the color of their skin? If yes, you do believe that, then clearly you believe in the advantages of segregation.If you don't believe that, if you believe that all races of people are your equals, then you understand that segregation is an assertion of inequality, and whatever advantages it might afford part of a society, the disadvantages outweigh those advantages.We were a segregated society for many decades. There is going to be a cost to removing the legal and social barriers that were constructed as part of segregation. But we are a better society for recognizing the incalculable harm that results from segregation, not just to the oppressed but also to the oppressor.
You are beyond reason. You cannot equate a preference for segregation with a belief in the inferiority of other races without evidence, yet you do so. I prefer to live in a mostly white neighborhood, instead of, say, a mostly Chinese neighborhood. That's self-segregation. Yet Chinese out-perform whites in school, on IQ tests, and in economic achievement. They are, by those measures, superior to whites. Yet most whites continue to want to associate mainly with whites, live mainly amongst whites, and so on.
You can't, or won't see it, because you are rigidly holding on to an insupportable position. You say we are a better society for recognizing the harm of segregation but offer no evidence for that statement. You say incalculable harm results from segregation but offer no evidence for that, either.
You are beyond reason. You cannot equate a preference for segregation with a belief in the inferiority of other races without evidence, yet you do so. I prefer to live in a mostly white neighborhood, instead of, say, a mostly Chinese neighborhood. That's self-segregation. Yet Chinese out-perform whites in school, on IQ tests, and in economic achievement. They are, by those measures, superior to whites. Yet most whites continue to want to associate mainly with whites, live mainly amongst whites, and so on.
You can't, or won't see it, because you are rigidly holding on to an insupportable position. You say we are a better society for recognizing the harm of segregation but offer no evidence for that statement. You say incalculable harm results from segregation but offer no evidence for that, either.
You can spout your opinion all day long.
Without evidence to support it, it means nothing.
A preference for segregation is an assertion of inferiority in others. There is no reason to segregate unless there is a perceived benefit in segregation, and that belief is premised on superiority. You can rationalize it any way you want, like the bs about the Chinese you just spouted off. Because, you will note, you qualified it. "By those measures" is a qualification, and it's a qualification that states that those aren't the "measures" that are important to YOU. Self-segregation is about the "measures" that ARE important to you, which may be intangible and unquantifiable, but are still about your perception of white supremacy.
And I'm saying that you can fail to recognize that you harm yourself by believing that others are inferior to you because of race, ethnicity or whatever, but I can see the harm done. You de-humanize yourself by arguing for racial superiority. It's an artificial way to look at the world, we are all one race, the human race. Just as eye-color does not make anyone superior to anyone else, neither does skin color.
A preference for segregation is an assertion of inferiority in others. There is no reason to segregate unless there is a perceived benefit in segregation, and that belief is premised on superiority. You can rationalize it any way you want, like the bs about the Chinese you just spouted off. Because, you will note, you qualified it. "By those measures" is a qualification, and it's a qualification that states that those aren't the "measures" that are important to YOU. Self-segregation is about the "measures" that ARE important to you, which may be intangible and unquantifiable, but are still about your perception of white supremacy.
And I'm saying that you can fail to recognize that you harm yourself by believing that others are inferior to you because of race, ethnicity or whatever, but I can see the harm done. You de-humanize yourself by arguing for racial superiority. It's an artificial way to look at the world, we are all one race, the human race. Just as eye-color does not make anyone superior to anyone else, neither does skin color.
Again, you fail to connect any belief in superiority with a desire for segregation. You lose the argument. I prefer to be among my own kind - even if they aren't as smart, attractive, or nice as others - because that's my free choice (or should be my free choice).
Do you believe government should choose your marriage partner?
Because you claim the ability to see harm whereas I cannot, do you claim the right to decide where I can live or who my friends are?
That's really what forced integration is all about - the denial to the individual of the right to make his own decisions and the transference of that right to the government.
Which is a large part of what's wrong with this country today.
Again, you fail to connect any belief in superiority with a desire for segregation. You lose the argument. I prefer to be among my own kind - even if they aren't as smart, attractive, or nice as others - because that's my free choice (or should be my free choice).
Do you believe government should choose your marriage partner?
Because you claim the ability to see harm whereas I cannot, do you claim the right to decide where I can live or who my friends are?
That's really what forced integration is all about - the denial to the individual of the right to make his own decisions and the transference of that right to the government.
Which is a large part of what's wrong with this country today.
If your "own kind" are stupid, ugly and uncouth, what is the attraction?
Do you believe we should be FORCED to integrate blacks in previously all white and segregated schools? I know the courts decided that separate but equal is unconstitutional, but what do you think? If you were on the supreme court, how would you have ruled?
Should people have the freedom to live in white only neighborhoods and to send their kids to white only schools?
Some say force integration was a failure and that social change must occur naturally and that any GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION in race relations is WRONG. Forced integration of schools was DEFINITELY government intervention on the private lives of white americans that didn't wish to associate themselves with blacks.
If your "own kind" are stupid, ugly and uncouth, what is the attraction?
They're mine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
