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.
I think the problem with the morality graph is that number 3 basically becomes number 4, 5 or 6 after they pretend to do the right thing. The north certainly "talked the talked", but they certainly didn't "walk the walk" when it came to integration and race relations. .
I think that there is an actual quality differences between the assorted slots. Which is better...
A) A club which says that anyone may join, but then sets up rules which form a defacto barrier to certain types being able to join.
or
B)
A club which will not permit you to join on the basis of your race regardless of any other qualifications.
In the case of the former, you might have tremendous obstacles to overcome, but it is possible that you could morph your life into one where you now meet the qualifications for A. In the case of the latter, no matter what you do, you cannot join...ever.
Both deals stink, but wouldn't you prefer a system where you are at least being given a chance, no matter how remote that chance may be?
If anything, I think the south has actually ended up a more racially integrated place than the north where the "racial divide" still holds true in many areas and is one of the driving forces behind the current migration of African Americans back to the south.
I believe there is a great deal of truth to what you say, in that respect.
However, I think it might be a lot more true in big cities than in smaller towns. I've lived in three southern towns in the past 20 years, and I can't really say I have seen strong evidence of comfortable race relations (from my white perspective).
One of them had a virtual zero percent black population, and remains essentially segregated, and blacks are made to feel very unwelcome there. (Salem, Missouri. Missouri is probably the most racist state in the USA, and has been at least since the 50s.)
One has a 60% black population, the racial divide is palpable, little different from what it was in the 60s. Blacks and whites rarely speak to each other, and virtually never socialize, except for the conspicuous socialization of white cops arresting black citizens and white judges sending them to jail. No black workers are in positions of authority or even responsibility. Rstaurants and many shops are de-facto segregated, by custom. (Madison, Florida)
And one of them has a 7% black population, and 50% Hispanic, and the blacks characterize it as a mildly racist town, and mostly blame the Hispanics. (Victoria, Texas)
The above, of course, are all anecdotal, based on my personal observations in places I happened to become familiar with.
I believe there is a great deal of truth to what you say, in that respect.
However, I think it might be a lot more true in big cities than in smaller towns. I've lived in three southern towns in the past 20 years, and I can't really say I have seen strong evidence of comfortable race relations (from my white perspective).
One of them had a virtual zero percent black population, and remains essentially segregated, and blacks are made to feel very unwelcome there. (Salem, Missouri. Missouri is probably the most racist state in the USA, and has been at least since the 50s.)
One has a 60% black population, the racial divide is palpable, little different from what it was in the 60s. Blacks and whites rarely speak to each other, and virtually never socialize, except for the conspicuous socialization of white cops arresting black citizens and white judges sending them to jail. No black workers are in positions of authority or even responsibility. Rstaurants and many shops are de-facto segregated, by custom. (Madison, Florida)
And one of them has a 7% black population, and 50% Hispanic, and the blacks characterize it as a mildly racist town, and mostly blame the Hispanics. (Victoria, Texas)
The above, of course, are all anecdotal, based on my personal observations in places I happened to become familiar with.
The irony is that the same holds true for many areas of NJ where I live. NJ is one of the most diverse states in the country, but there is a strong sense of "racial divide". There is certainly diversity among many towns, but many areas are very much insular. In South Jersey there are several "black suburban communities" (Lawnside, Paulsboro and Willingboro are three good examples) that exist in a sea of affluent white suburbs (read 90%+ white) and are considered by most to be "bad", even if that label isn't true. For the most part the African American population tends to live in urban areas that most suburban folks treat as off limits (Camden, Trenton, Atlantic City, Burlington City, etc.).
There are also towns that have an overtly rascist image such as Gloucester City that lies along the Delaware south of Camden. Not that long ago, a home that was sold to a black family was burned to the ground and others received death threats. Even in Camden, there are strong racial tensions in some sections such as Fairview that was always traditionally a white blue collar neighborhood until recently.
The divide is most reinforced by NJ's local town based school systems where each community operates it's own individual district with a handful of regional high schools that serve more diverse populations.
Among northeast cities like Philadelphia the "divide" is also very apparent, where sections are very insular onto themselves and you have weird situations like an affluent white neighborhood of $800k row homes lying one block away from a poor black neighborhood of $60k row homes and people exist by not crossing the street into the "bad" section. I think that is part of my fascination with "urban pioneers", you know the yuppie white kids who move to the middle of poor black neighborhoods to "gentrify" them. People throw around the "gentrify" term as if it's a positive, racially neutral word. They claim to not be rascist and accept diversity, but all they are trying to do is "gentrify" a neighborhood to become just another yuppie white area.
My experience has shown me that many people in the north are open to diversity, as long as they don't have to live in diversity. In the south I find their is much more neighborhood integration and specifically school integration as the schools are generally county or regional based.
I think that there is an actual quality differences between the assorted slots. Which is better...
A) A club which says that anyone may join, but then sets up rules which form a defacto barrier to certain types being able to join.
or
B)
A club which will not permit you to join on the basis of your race regardless of any other qualifications.
In the case of the former, you might have tremendous obstacles to overcome, but it is possible that you could morph your life into one where you now meet the qualifications for A. In the case of the latter, no matter what you do, you cannot join...ever.
Both deals stink, but wouldn't you prefer a system where you are at least being given a chance, no matter how remote that chance may be?
I'd obviously prefer option A, anyone would, but that doesn't change the fact that both options are rascist, all I'm saying is call a spade a spade.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,789,849 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by censusdata
I am reading a book about the Reconstruction period in American history, roughly from 1865 to 1877. I find it amazing (for various reasons, including an unpopular conservative presidents in Andrew Johnson) that America nearly racially integrated public schools just two years after the end of the Civil War.
As you know racial integration of public schools didn't happen in 1867 and took nearly 100 more years to happen, with federal troops needed to prevent mass insurrections from breaking out.
How different do you think America would be today had racial integration occurred 100 years earlier? It seems like integrated schools radically changed Americans view of race. Not 5 years after the last public schools integrated there were no more Whites only college sports teams or colored/ White water fountains. American has race issues today but nothing like the widespread terrorism of the KKK. I think the reason for this is integrated schools.
Anyways, how do you think things would have turned out differently had the "racial" voices of 1867 prevailed?
I'm not sure that it would have made much difference and may have actually been worse. This may or may not be an incensing opinion, but those people were NOT ready for that sort of change and I think that it would have been a total failure with decades of even more overt violence.
In 1967 there were widespread negative attitudes towards those that fall into the non-White, nonAnglo-Saxon Protestant category, but I think the people who would DIE before they submitted to integration was a fractional minority. I don't think that was the case after the civil war and any sort of Federal order would have been opposed on principle; any sort of Federal order regarding racial integration would have been opposed with high-order violence.
In other words, the South openly blocked blacks from using restrooms and water fountains and public facilties, which was a virtuous display of candid honestly. While the north covertly allowed blacks to use public facilities, which was a malicious pattern of self-serving posturing.
I don't understand why you are using the adjective "virtuous" in any capacity, North or South. I never used that term at all, so it is not "in other words" (as you put it), but simply a fact (IMHO, and having lived thru the "tail-end" of Jim Crow laws and the Civil Rights Movement), that northern attitudes concerning blacks were no different -- in many ways much more biased -- than those of Southerners. What do you mean "covertly"? De facto segregation in the North was -- in lots of ways --much more "segregating" than that in the de-jure South.
Yes, too, a lot of what took place in the North WAS self-serving posturing. This is not just my personal opinion, but of many people who were part of the Civil Rights Movement (and all associated) in both regions. So long as it was confined to the South, many northern liberals and politicians were fine with it. They could "posture"...yet it never actually personally affect them and their lives and families. Once it did? They suddenly put their mouths and agenda's in reverse. Many -- who had previously supported every federal measure aimed at the South -- fled to the suburbs, stuck their own kids in private schools, and voted against treating "de-facto" in the same vein as "de-jure."
So yes, if you are insistent on classifying it in absolute dichotomy, given the day and age, I find hypocricy to be much "less admirable" than frank admission.
As NJGoat says (if I read it right), it is very easy to be "racially tolerant"...if one doesn't have to actually deal with all its abrupt, mandated, changes and "consequences." (whatever those may be).
Then, should any supercilious northerners ever show up on this board and come at us with false portrayals of milk and honey integration, we know that we have a champion ready to sally forth into the fray and smite their bogus propaganda.
As a preface, that is, in fact, what at least a noteable ilk of northerners actually do! LOL
Now, I hasten to add (and have countless times before), this observation has nothing to do with resenting any northerner
I think you are trying to steer the argument into a ditch on this particular aspect. I never said that. True, I have
Quote:
Apart from that danger, however remote, I think that this is a situation where one may construct an absolute moral hierarchy and rank the sections by weight of offensiveness.
If asked to rank the following situations for relative morality: 1) People doing the right thing for the right reasons
2) People doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
3) People pretending to do the right thing, but secretly sabotaging it when they think they can get away with it
4) People doing the wrong thing due to misguided intentions for good.
4) People doing the wrong thing but with explanatory rationalizations
5) People doing the wrong selfishly and not caring at all that it is the wrong thing.
There is not much of anything I could add to what NJ already replied; save No. 1 (bolded). In that regard, I would argue that particular rank begs a question which goes very deep into ideological/moral visions...and, perhaps most importantly, human-nature.
Idealistically, we would probably all agree that doing the right things for the right reasons, rank at the top of the pecking order. But for all practical purposes, the same is pretty much non-existent. In a more era-context, many might have said they were doing the right things for the right reasons...yet never actually applied to themselves. They were -- yes -- "doing the right things for the right reasons"...but having the luxury of never having to actually exist by those right things and right reasons; the "limosine liberal", so to speak.
Quote:
I think that there is an actual quality differences between the assorted slots. Which is better...
A) A club which says that anyone may join, but then sets up rules which form a defacto barrier to certain types being able to join.
or
B)
A club which will not permit you to join on the basis of your race regardless of any other qualifications.
In the case of the former, you might have tremendous obstacles to overcome, but it is possible that you could morph your life into one where you now meet the qualifications for A. In the case of the latter, no matter what you do, you cannot join...ever.
Over time though, it never quite worked out that way. Hense, the "Second Great Migration" back to the South.
On a related tangent, while your analogy of the "club" is colorful (no pun intended!) it is also a non-sequituer in many ways. For one thing, it presumes that a person would even want to join a club where they were not wanted; whether that be by official rules or tradition. I mean, hell, if there is a club that doesnt want me? Why would I apply for membership to begin with? Nor care either way, far as that goes? On a related tangent, I wonder why voluntary segregation is such a bad thing...? (but, ok, that is a different subject...)
Going back to that old saying: Iin the South, it didn't matter how close you got, but just dont get too high; in the North it was, get as high as you want, just don't get too close. So I venture to say, as it did happen, customs changed in the South more rapidly than those in the North.
I always like the prophetic words of the late James Judson Kilpatrick (syndicated colunnist and editor of the Richmond Times). At one time he was a rabid segregationist...but predicted something like: Southern race relations are destined to be the best and integrated in the country. For one thing, blacks and whites down here have spent a lot of time catfishing together."
As NJGoat says (if I read it right), it is very easy to be "racially tolerant"...if one doesn't have to actually deal with all its abrupt, mandated, changes and "consequences." (whatever those may be).
That pretty much sums up my point. The north had the luxury of saying all the right things because the north had always been de facto segregated. In the south blacks and whites had long lived side-by-side in the same communities, once the practice of de jure segregation had been broken down true integration was much easier to come by. The north on the other hand had always been (and largely remains so to this day) de facto segregated along neighborhood and town lines. True integration in that case is much more difficult and allows the platitude of saying the right thing, while practicing another.
I think TexasReb's statement...
Quote:
In the South, it didn't matter how close you got, but just dont get too high; in the North it was, get as high as you want, just don't get too close.
...holds a lot of truth.
One need only look at the migration patterns and their effect to see the truth:
The First Migration occurred between 1910 and 1930 and was driven by two main motivations. The first was to escape widespread and overt rascism in the south, the second was to fill labor shortages at northern factories. In fact there were even large recruitment campaigns to recruit black workers to northern cities. When they got there, they were placed into their own insular communities, but there was widespread hostility and rascism against the black workers, particularly from the newly integrated Irish and new immigrant groups that were competing for the same jobs.
The Second Migration occurred from 1930 to roughly 1960. This migration was again jobs driven, at first by the depression and then by the war. Many white women went to work in the factories and this created a large demand for service labor in many areas. Blacks immigrated to seek economic opportunity. After the war further immigration occurred as the main unions (AFL and CIO) had desegregated and there was real career opportunity. The difference came in that as this influx occurred the white urban populations universally fled to the suburbs that were virtually white only. This left northern blacks as a hyper urban and insular community within the cities.
The New Great Migration is the pattern seen since 1970 where blacks (as well as others) are now heading back to the south. The main reasons for this are the collapse of the northern manufacturing base which eliminated many of the jobs that allowed generational advancement and enough pay to support a family. On top of that, the south during the interceding period had become a much more integrated place. In the south blacks and whites lived side-by-side in many communities, the specter of racial violence was virtually gone and there were job opportunities. Compare that to the north were blacks and whites often live in de facto segregation and there is a complete lack of generational advancement jobs.
You'd have had more sexual segregation. All boys and all girls schools have never been that big in the US (not counting the time when as a general rule women simply weren't educated), and you'd see that along with a lot of other things change so that public activities were much more divided along sexual lines.
The biggest reason for segregation was that it gave poor whites someone to look down to make themselves feel better. The second biggest reason was the fear of intermarriage between whites and other races.
As long as you were integrating men with men and women with women there wasn't that much uproar. Look at how much more of an uproar was caused by school desegregation compared to military desegregation.
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.
