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 am also amazed at how progressive some of the policies right after the Civil War were. But it was simply not realistic because of the social realities prevalent at that time.
However, if integration had happened right afterwards and succeeded, I think American race relations would be in a better place right now.
Wouldn't they need to have been better to start with, for it to have any chance of succeeding?
Wouldn't they need to have been better to start with, for it to have any chance of succeeding?
It took me a while to figure out what you were saying, but I think I got the gist of it. Here is the question that needs to re answered before proceding:
Are Race Relations in the USA defined by the attitudes and behavior of the people, or by the laws and edicts of the government?
I'd like to revisit this topic in light of Ferguson, Missouri. I grew up in Salem MO and knew there was racism there then (1960s) but had hoped that things had improved. Guess not. I wonder about what one writer says that Missouri is the most racist state in the country. Any new thoughts. I'm white and I was happy to leave Salem when I was 17.
Are Race Relations in the USA defined by the attitudes and behavior of the people, or by the laws and edicts of the government?
The former. You can scribble anything you like into your Constitution and/or legislation, and it won't matter a toss unless/until public opinion is ready to take it seriously.
The authors of Prohibition had to rediscover this half a century later.
At the risk of thread drift, but because the above post is factually wrong, I'd like to point out that in the 1970's, court-ordered desegregation busing took place all over the country, even in northern cities.
The "desegregation" orders of the 1970's were designed to integrate the public schools and establish racial balance. Not to combat a Jim Crow system.
Northern cities, including Pittsburgh, didn't segregate the schools by race even when my father was in school in the 1920's and 30's. Although different schools had different percentages of black and white students back in the day---like they do today.
I believe America would have been a 100% different country racially and culturally if races were allowed to mix early on. The only thing that would have remained consistent would be the current CLASS divisions we have now.
During the early part of the 1900s in New Orleans, all the races, especially the poor, lived side by side and co-mingled together. A white politician from the north or south didn't like this. It deeply, deeply disturbed his racist sensibilities. He told the white leaders of the city that if they wanted government funding, then they would have to separate the races which they did, unfortunately.
Much of America's music would have been affected too. If the races had mixed, then we never would have had jazz, blues, rock-n-roll, soul or rap music. Jazz, blues and rock-n-roll were considered the "devil's" music, extremely sinful and "colored" music that branched out into the mainstream.
I'll say this again, if the white man would take his foot off the black man's throat for five freaking minutes, then maybe, just MAYBE he could get somewhere without having to look over his shoulder few seconds to see if the white boogeyman is there to cause some type of havoc.
Anyways, how do you think things would have turned out differently had the "racial" voices of 1867 prevailed?
All-black public schools (or more likely none at all) in 1868.
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.