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.
The blue is incorrect. What I described indeed is "de facto segregation." De factor means "by fact" not enforced.
You are getting stuck in the your high school history classes and basing your view on institutional segregation policies. As you noted, they no longer exist. Today we have social/de facto segregation by income and by race/ethnicity.
Check out this national map showing racial populations for our entire country. You can zoom in and see where cities are segregated.
No, there is NOT ANY SEGREGATION in the USA anymore. Segregation is FORCED! What about the word FORCED do some of you not understand? What we have is (mostly) voluntary SEPERATION.
We also have involuntary SEPERATION because of economic circumstances.
Review earlier definitions.
Just because you base your view of something from your high school history class doesn't mean that that view encompasses the entirety of said term. Segregation and separation are synonyms and in housing mean the same thing regardless of how many times you slap yourself in the forehead.
I'm discussing governmental theory on an institutional basis, "A house divided cannot stand."
Who brought the Civil War into this? The union always needs to be preserved. And you have plenty of secessionist/separatist/segregationist movements right now. You hear threats of secession constantly, from Texas to California to Vermont, etc. And that is only state-level, on a smaller scale, there are countless groups who want independence.
The whole point of ending segregation was actually for "integration". Do you honestly think that this country would still exist if it was still legal for businesses to discriminate? This country would have been torn apart. The riots and violence would have never ended.
The problem with segregation is that it splits the country into innumerable factions. Each of which is pursuing its own interests, often at the expense of all the rest. As long as you have economic/social/political integration, it prevents the development of these factions.
Once an identifiable faction exists, with clear political, social, and economic interests which oppose those of other factions, it creates conflict between these factions. The moment any major identifiable faction sees that it is their economic/political interest to break away from the rest, it will.
The reason that Texas hasn't tried to secede in the 21st century, as it tried in the 19th century, is that it isn't in the interest of the state of Texas to actually leave the union. The Texas economy is thoroughly integrated with the United States. And Texas has immense influence in the Federal government as well.
The reason Texas, and the rest of the south, seceded in 1861, was because it was deemed to be in the economic and political interests of the Confederacy to separate from the Union(they didn't actually expect a war).
As a result of a clearly-identifiable faction(IE the Slave-states, agriculture, exports, etc), who had opposing interests to those of the Northern states(manufacturing), the country was nearly torn apart.
TLDR: Segregation is always destructive to any government. A small amount of segregation among groups with little money/power might be tolerable, but on a large-scale, especially when there is a segregation/separation of the ruling classes(IE those with money), it would doom any government.
And this should be obvious.
Again, the blue doesn't make sense in a general discussion about segregation since it is not enforced by law anymore on any level and segregation, as noted, occurs everywhere, not just in America; oftentimes based on ethnic origins and/or social standing/class.
Secession is not the same thing as segregation and segregation has nothing to do with the civil war in regards to today's urban segregation on race and/or income.
ETA: The country is not very integrated by neighborhood. Policy in regards to discrimination that ethnic groups faced from both government and business also were not related to segregation.
As noted earlier in the thread, most northern and western areas did not have legalized segregation in neighborhoods, schools, or businesses, yet segregation still existed in those areas in the past and today. Discrimination by businesses also existed in those areas. It was social based, not policy based. I've shared I'm from Ohio and my family has lived here since the 1850s. I have elderly relatives who remember not being able to go to certain neighborhoods or stores or restaurants even though there were no laws stopping them from doing so. What was stopping them was the threat of violence by residents/white patrons/owners of those establishments, not government. Those threats are not as relevant today, but some people still feel threatened by not being around "like" people whether ethnic or income wise. And so they choose to stay amongst their own "kind" in order to lessen those threats.
Some people just don't need to live near each other. This is idea that we can all live a racial/ethnic/religious/cultural melting pot utopia on a neighborhood level is ridiculous. People want to live in comfort, be treated equal under, and have equal access to resources. That doesn't mean we need 100% mixed neighborhoods. Part of that comfort is being around similar people. Ask people being priced out of their areas due to gentrification if mixing is cool and fun. What's even worse is being around some of these yuppie people in the arts community in my city that gentrify areas and they complain about the people that are already living there, calling them all kinds of slurs.
"Segregation" does not exist. People throw that term around these days to be dramatic. They are making up stories.
It's only segregation if it's legally forced. An ethnic enclave that exists for purely social reasons is not segregation at all.
Segregation existed for centuries in this nation and still exists elsewhere in the world. It is the game of the far-right to cover up the bigotry of the past to hide their bigotry in this day.
Again, the blue doesn't make sense in a general discussion about segregation since it is not enforced by law anymore on any level and segregation, as noted, occurs everywhere, not just in America; oftentimes based on ethnic origins and/or social standing/class.
Secession is not the same thing as segregation and segregation has nothing to do with the civil war in regards to today's urban segregation on race and/or income.
ETA: The country is not very integrated by neighborhood. Policy in regards to discrimination that ethnic groups faced from both government and business also were not related to segregation.
I wrote...
"The problem with segregation is that it splits the country into innumerable factions. Each of which is pursuing its own interests, often at the expense of all the rest. As long as you have economic/social/political integration, it prevents the development of these factions.
Once an identifiable faction exists, with clear political, social, and economic interests which oppose those of other factions, it creates conflict between these factions. The moment any major identifiable faction sees that it is their economic/political interest to break away from the rest, it will."
Basically segregation is only a problem if it produces an identifiable faction, and if that faction would perceive a benefit from separation.
But Economic-segregation doesn't actually produce an identifiable faction. Because while there are parts of a town where only poor people live, these poor people usually have family who live elsewhere, and they have themselves often lived elsewhere. Thus this group of poor people, although they may live together, generally only live together on a temporary basis, and are not united as an identifiable faction.
Secondly, even if poor people were actually an identifiable faction, rarely do poor people see it as in their economic/political interests to break away from the rest of society(IE they are dependent on social benefits). And even if they did want to break away, being poor, they lack the influence and resources to be successful.
Or in simple terms, segregation is primarily an issue if it results in the rich being segregated from each other, as hostile factions. Because every society is controlled by the rich.
If black people are all poor, their segregation doesn't matter, because they don't have the resources and influence to organize for separation(think of Native-American tribes for reference)
The moment there are black elites(or any other identifiable group), you either have to end their segregation, or they will pull the country apart.
The cause of the Civil War, was that the southern elites saw the northern elites as hostile to their economic and political interests. And the southern elites had the resources and influence to drag the the people of their states along with them.
If you think of the countries of the world only in terms of the interests of the economic and political elites, the world will make a lot more sense.
For example, in Muslim countries, while the divide is religious(IE identifiable/distinguishable factions), the fighting isn't actually religious, it is political. What they are really fighting over, is control of resources, and control of the country.
The elites of each faction control the people within. Whatever the elites want, will be done. The people will do what their leaders tell them.
Just because you base your view of something from your high school history class doesn't mean that that view encompasses the entirety of said term. Segregation and separation are synonyms and in housing mean the same thing regardless of how many times you slap yourself in the forehead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
Again, the blue doesn't make sense in a general discussion about segregation since it is not enforced by law anymore on any level and segregation, as noted, occurs everywhere, not just in America; oftentimes based on ethnic origins and/or social standing/class.
Secession is not the same thing as segregation and segregation has nothing to do with the civil war in regards to today's urban segregation on race and/or income.
ETA: The country is not very integrated by neighborhood. Policy in regards to discrimination that ethnic groups faced from both government and business also were not related to segregation.
As noted earlier in the thread, most northern and western areas did not have legalized segregation in neighborhoods, schools, or businesses, yet segregation still existed in those areas in the past and today. Discrimination by businesses also existed in those areas. It was social based, not policy based. I've shared I'm from Ohio and my family has lived here since the 1850s. I have elderly relatives who remember not being able to go to certain neighborhoods or stores or restaurants even though there were no laws stopping them from doing so. What was stopping them was the threat of violence by residents/white patrons/owners of those establishments, not government. Those threats are not as relevant today, but some people still feel threatened by not being around "like" people whether ethnic or income wise. And so they choose to stay amongst their own "kind" in order to lessen those threats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123
Segregation existed for centuries in this nation and still exists elsewhere in the world. It is the game of the far-right to cover up the bigotry of the past to hide their bigotry in this day.
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.
