Skip to comments.Still Stuck in '64
Posted on 05/29/2010 5:38:19 AM PDT by Kaslin
If someone offered me twice the assessed value of my home -- in cash, no questions asked -- Id schedule a moving van. It wouldnt matter whether the potential buyer was black, red, brown or polka dotted. The only color Id be interested in would be green.
However, if Id lived in my home in 1952, the year after it was built, and an African-American potential buyer had offered me twice the assessed value, I would have been forced to turn the offer down. It was the Jim Crow era, and state and local laws made it illegal to sell homes on my street to blacks.
Again -- not only was this discrimination legal, it was mandated by law.
Heres part of a Virginia law passed in 1912: The preservation of the public morals, public health and public order, in the cities and towns of this commonwealth is endangered by the residence of white and colored people in close proximity to one another. Thus localities were empowered to create segregation districts. It was, unbelievably, a misdemeanor for any colored person, not then residing in a district so defined and designated as a white district, to move into and occupy as a residence any building or portion thereof in such white district.
That, in a nutshell, is why the country needed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and other federal intervention. Many states had enacted laws that prevented free enterprise. It was up to Washington to restore choice to millions of citizens.
That law is much in the news again these days, thanks to Rand Paul. On MSNBC, the Senate candidate seemed to suggest that parts of it over-reached. Dr. Paul has since clarified. You would have voted yea. You would have voted yes in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Wolf Blitzer asked on CNN. Yes, Paul responded.
But thats coming at this the wrong way. The question should be, Given societal sea changes over the last 46 years, what parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act need to be reauthorized today? Consider another question Blitzer asked Paul. Did Woolworth -- Woolworth, the department store, have a right, at their lunch counters, to segregate blacks and whites?
That misses the historical context. Owners were often mandated, by law, to segregate blacks and whites. All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license, read a Georgia law. For its part, Birmingham, Ala., passed a separate accommodations law as late as 1963.
The better question would be, Would any business operating today make it a practice to segregate blacks and whites? Its possible. But highly unlikely. Businesses dont make money by turning down customers.
Of course, there could still be discrimination. The owner of a Bed & Breakfast could decline to host homosexual couples, for example. In that case, federal law could theoretically force that owner to cater to gays.
But again, look at that example from the other direction: If you were gay, would you and your partner want to stay with an owner who self-identifies as opposing your lifestyle? Youd probably want to do the exact opposite -- organize a boycott of the anti-gay owner and deny him business.
There are those who look around, even in 2010, and see a deeply bigoted country. For example, moveon.org is collecting signatures on a petition to oppose whites only lunch counters. But is any politician or lobbying group pushing to resegregate lunch counters? Its a petition to oppose a position that simply doesnt exist.
Instead of seeing the progress weve made since the 1960s (thats in living memory for many Americans) some insist minorities should live in fear that their rights are about to be stripped. But the burden of proof should be on the fear mongers.
Do they really believe Americans are so bigoted that were eager to go back to segregated facilities? Nobody could make this case, because theres no evidence that American voters would stand for resegregation, and overwhelming evidence (based on the people weve elected in recent decades and the laws theyve passed) that we wouldnt.
Jim Crow laws were a profound injustice, based on the mistakenly decided Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court decision that enshrined separate but equal facilities. It required federal intervention to fix that injustice, since it had been triggered by the federal government.
But now that Jim Crows flown south, hes never coming back. News flash for those in the news business: It isnt 1964.
Do "lunch counters" even exist? I've seen only two, that I recall, in my life, and both were in consciously-quaint local stores.
Government screws things up.
It’s all about Rand Paul’s comments about private property rights.
It isn't about them seeing a bigoted country - it is about them deliberately concocting the illusion, for political gain, that the country is still bigoted.
Forgive me if this sounds racist; I wasn’t alive during this time in our country’s history: the law is written to state, essentially, that the forced segregation of races was intended to maintain morality and community cohesiveness within the respective communities. Has integration made society any better? I agree with you ClearCase, government screws up everything, and in this case, these laws created a perceived injustice. In reality, however, wouldn’t it be safe to say that the white and black communities segregate themselves on purpose anyway?
I live in a 95% white community. The nearest black “community” consists of a few blocks of row houses and section 8 apartments about 15 miles south of me. Those folks can’t afford to live where I live, and likewise, no one from my area would want to move there. Why push the issue of integration between races when they’re going to subconsciously segregate anyway?
Humans are animals like the rest of the orders, phyla, and geni on this planet. To be colorblind to race is to ignore fundamental differences in each other. That doesn’t mean that hyenas, lions, and gazelles can’t live together, it just means that on occasion one of those lions is going to get hungry and attack.
Socialist-funded government K-12 schools remain the most massively segregated institutions in America. There is nothing that comes even close. Why?
Answer: Socialist government interference in the education market greatly poisons private housing decisions.
Introduced, support, passed and defended by DEMOCRATS!!!
The only people in America today that support and enforce segregation are liberal black people.
“I live in a 95% white community. The nearest black community consists of a few blocks of row houses and section 8 apartments about 15 miles south of me. Those folks cant afford to live where I live, and likewise, no one from my area would want to move there. Why push the issue of integration between races when theyre going to subconsciously segregate anyway?”
There are already government programs to buy up housing in areas like yours and provide that housing to Section 8 occupants. Some federal laws require aggressive action by local governments to implement such programs.
Liberals believe that if Section 8 housing is available in upper middle class areas, the Section 8 residents will adopt upper middle class values and that when the upper-middle class see how badly Section 8 need assistance they will drop their resistance to welfare and higher taxation.
I know I’m stating the obvious, but that’s completely counterintuitive. Upper-middle class folks have no tolerance for 18” woofers booming in their neighborhoods at 2 in the morning. Likewise, if some section 8 thugs were having a party at 3 AM and shot rang out, you’d have half of the neighborhood establishing a cordon around the area armed to the teeth with privately owned weapons. We would then be called racist, Jim Crow loving, KKK members for trying to defend out properties and our families.
Liberalism truly is a mental disorder.
Replace “race” with “culture” and you will be on far better footing here, philosophically.
And in that frame, you might have something. Minorities that have fully assimilated American middle class cultural values be a problem to you?
Not at all! As a matter of fact, there’s a wonderful family living a few doors down from me. They have beautiful kids who play with the neighborhood kids, swim, ride bikes, and go to school together. Likewise, the father is a businessman and the mother a teacher. They pay their taxes, go to association meetings, and help out around the community. I have no problem with any of them, and I’ve even been to barbecues at their place. If every black family in this country could be like them, I’d be all for complete an total integration.
The problem is that there are so many welfare mentality blacks in this country who disdain the “white” lifestyle, they think it better to live in the slums where whites won’t go and live their lives off of our tax dollars. Until the government does away with all forms of welfare, the blacks in America will continue to be enslaved. We have a right to pursue happiness... it’s not guaranteed to us.
Why limit this to lunch counters? Shouldn't they also include soda fountains and malt shops?
Schools are segregated due to quality of life issues. Blacks and Hispanics are associated with crime and school violence. Ask Asian immigrants who come to the US. The ones that go to majority black and hispanic schools receive daily beatings, lunch money robbery and tauntings from mainly black and hispanic students. Most Asians find the blacks are the worst while the hispanics are the least. Contrast the experience of Asian immigrants who go to majority white schools. Attacks and harassments drop drastically. So based on that experience, guess where most first generation American Asians are going to live and send their kids to school?
You are trapped in the liberal mentality of keeping people in stereotypical categories. This creates the cycle you see where people self-segregate and end up living the culture they are told they must fit in. You do have a lot of community self-segregation though attitudes that you must 'keep within your category' and act the culture you are 'expected' to act. This results in the 'other side of the tracks' mentality that seems to have segments of cities and communities that have higher crime, etc.
Free individuals living as individuals, not bound by what or how others say they must act and who they must associate with is the only way to break that cycle. It destroys the collectivist/statist attitudes where the 'controllers', be it government, community leaders, or just attitude, keep groups segregated and acting the way others define them.
You are also way off base with your 'lions and gazelles' analogy. We aren't talking about separate species here, we are all one species who happens to have slightly different traits in things like melanin content.
No offense, but a lot of what you say is just a reflection of that old collectivist, categorization attitude that keeps the cycle going- it allows others to categorize you and define your behavior by your category instead of you being and acting like an individual, not bound by your category, and not having a category to blame for your actions.
There would be no welfare if there weren't a demand. We let Big Brother control us through carrots and sticks. This isn't any sort of mentality by race, it is a liberal mentality. People of all races are enslaved by Liberalism and the only way to be free is for them as individuals to wake up and say no, I'm not going to accept your carrot. The government only supplies what there is a demand for.
Just as consumer culture tries to sell “Girls Gone Wild”-style sexism as “empowerment,” conservatives are trying to sell anti-women policies shrouded in pro-women rhetoric? “
Yes, they absolutely believe that.
“It was the Jim Crow era, and state and local laws made it illegal to sell homes on my street to blacks. “
AND , for bonus points, which party was responsible for sponsoring,writing, and passing those laws?
Schools are segregated due to quality of life issues.
Private schools are far less segregated than government schools.
And...Private schools are less segregated in subtle ways as well. For instance, when lunchroom seating is studied, children in private schools are far more likely to sit at tables with mixed races of black children and white children. In government schools children in the lunchroom segregate themselves into white tables and black tables.
People do segregate themselves geographically though, to be part of the culture that best suits them. That is why we have Chinatown, Japantown, Little Saigon.
If a black family shared the values and culture of my community, I would be happy to have them as neighbors. My values are basically God, Family, Country, in that order. Not so hard. And equally so, the Section 8 culture would not be welcome.
“There is no “white lifestyle”. Ozzie and Harriet have been off the air for quite some time now. There is no “black lifestyle” either. “
Seems that you need a rudimentary lesson in basic biology and taxonomy.
All human beings classified on the basis of genus and species, are classified homo sapiens What phyla does a phenotypically "black" person belong to that a phenotypically "white" person does not belong to?
We are all members of the human race -- one race. "Race" as you have attempted to classify it parrots Darwinian bilge.
Human beings vary in shades of brown. Genetically speaking no two persons differ genetically to any significant degree; the DNA of any two people will differ at most in one out of every thousand to ten thousand nucleotides, or a mere 0.01-0.1%. The Human Genome Project determined that 99.9% of the human genetic complement is the same in everyone.
"Race is a social construct, not a scientific classification, .... Any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations is both arbitrary and subjective." Robert S. Schwartz, M.D. in "Race Is a Poor Measure," New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 344, No. 18, May 3, 2001.
The only ones that are ignorant are those who buy into Darwinism and the MSM spin that glorifies his world view.
Bleeding-Heart Liberals er.. Progressives er.. Democrats er.. Democrat Socialists er.. Socialits er.. Marxists er.. Commies are idiots.
>Replace race with culture and you will be on far better footing here, philosophically.<
Bingo. I don’t think there are too many people here who would welcome loud, aggressive, slovenly whites, complete with beer can littered yards and multiple junk cars on blocks, moving in next door.
It’s not about race, which is a characteristic one is born with that does not change.
It is about attitude and behavior and values. Strip the color away and that is what it boils down to.
But there are many blacks who feel that just because their skin color is black, that means they have to act a certain way, and those who don’t are not ‘keeping it real.’ There is a lot of pressure in the black community to conform.
>There is no “white lifestyle”. Ozzie and Harriet have been off the air for quite some time now. There is no “black lifestyle” either.<
You don’t know squat about “white or black” lifestyles, do you?
Where have you been the last twenty years?
Obviously, you have not seen (as I have -- frequently) a high-achieving black student being "ragged on" by other blacks for "actin' too white"...
YOU may not see a "lifestyle" difference -- but blacks do -- and they do everything in their power to perpetuate that difference.
He's trying to make some observations free of the choke-hold political correctness has on this country. It's ridicule such as yours that keeps ordinary people from expressing what they really feel. I suppose you're going to call him a racist next.
My section 8 neighbors who moved into the rental home next door might disagree with you.
People actually are free to associate as a Constitutional right in this country. Government force aggravated rather than helped historic racial segregation. The correct response in hindsight would have been to remove the force and allow society to adapt as the people themselves saw fit. That was not the course taken, the course taken was to force the issue and render certain associations no longer free, which bizarrely was just the inverse of the Jim Crow laws rightly condemned. If making legal distinctions on the basis of race is wrong, it’s wrong. MLK knew this, why don’t you?
Now, we have bizarre, counterintuitive and costly efforts that amount to nothing more than a hill of beans, beans that are assiduously counted by an army of apparatchiks bound and determined to make the numbers look pretty for whatever obscure reason might be deemed a priority at any given time. That is not how people live, work or play. People associate for many reasons, common interests, religion, family, geography, class and yes, even race. There is nothing inherently wrong with this in a putatively free society, and your faux intellectual superiority is exactly what has been behind every instance of wrong based upon race in my lifetime.
Drop the force of law in this matter, accept equality under the law in deed as well as word and allow the people to live, work and play as they so choose. If segregation rematerializes in private interactions under the resulting, truly free and open society, any honest individual should see that as the desireable result freely chosen by those with the Constitutional right to do so, and won’t immediately jump on some gilded high horse to interfere because of a presumed superior knowledge as to how any individual or group of individuals *should* be conducting their affairs.
I wasn’t speaking as an expert. Those were the first words that came to mind. I wasn’t trying to be scientific, just using them as a placeholder.
Come off it, Drew. I wasn’t using a barbecue as some sort of derisive event. I’ve been to his place for movie nights, for cards, and when I used to drink, for cocktails. I could’ve used any of those social events as an example but chose barbecue. Why did you find it necessary to draw attention my choice of social outing?
I'm not advocating such a position, of course, but simply stating a historical fact for how it came about. Some sixty-odd years before Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in baseball, the sport was actually on its way to integration. Jackie was not, in fact, the first black professional baseball player. That honor belonged to Moses Fleetwood Walker who played an entire professional season in 1884 and opened the way for other black players to compete until pressure on the owners by Jim Crow laws then sweeping the nation led them to adopt an informal ban 3-4 years later, which would remain in force until Jackie Robinson was able to break it for good in 1947.
It is worth noting that the driving force behind Jim Crow laws were Democrat politicians who sold the public on the idea that the harmony acheived through legally mandated segregation was more in the public interest than civil rights outlined in the landmark 1964 legislation which we have all come to take for granted.
My question is why the demand is there in the first place? I use my brother as an example. He’s three years my junior, perfectly healthy, but addicted to pain pills. That’s a lifestyle decision that he’s chosen and chooses not to even try to quit. You and I shouldn’t have to help him any way, but he’s on food stamps as if he’s in need. He refuses to get a job, because he’ll only get one that provides benefits.
I choose to be free, you likely choose the same, why is it that the black community seems to accept their lot and not try to better themselves? Why is it that so many lower middle class whites are getting addicted to pills and meth? Why can’t any of these people break themselves away and actually understand that hard work yields results?
I’ll tell you why: liberalism has given them the option of NOT doing anything and living comfortably. Meanwhile, I’ll never lower myself to that level and bust my hump to live my life. There’s no demand for welfare because it’s necessary, there’s a demand because it’s there.
1964 was a high water mark - Republicans had long fought for civil rights - and dems jumped on the bandwagon just soon enough to take credit for the movement. Remember, MLK was a Republican. Bull Conner was NOT.
You missed my point about the Serengeti. I was using the comparison of inter-species harmony as a colloquy, not an analogy. The conversation here transposes perfectly since we’re all part of the same world, the same nation, state, city, neighborhood, but we ARE separated by unique differences in how we pray, where we eat, with whom we associate, and what we do on our weekends. The importance of the interactions lies in the ability for us to live harmoniously.
Unfortunately, the white communities have adopted a sort of NIMBY mentality with section 8 housing, for instance, and as a result the poorer black communities seem to think whites have a chip on their shoulder. Not so! I just don’t want loud music, parties, or gunfire in the middle of the night REGARDLESS of the race of the offenders.
I don’t appreciate being categorized. It’s easy to say you’re not racist, but to live that and practice it is to practice colorblindness, and I don’t believe that’s inherent in any of us. It’s a noticeable trait. Children see color, they make assumptions based on behaviors, they understand that there are differences among us. FORCING us to integrate is not the way to go. That’s my point.
The conversations here are interesting to me, because I can probably guess as to the age of many posters based on responses. Those folks who lived during these times understand and realize that at one point in our history, being black meant having to watch your back. I was raised in a traditional Catholic Italian household, and it was unspoken that an interracial relationship was out of the question. When I broke that rule and dated a black woman in college, my family so desperately wanted to believe that we were just friends that they actually asked me why she was present as family outings as if she wasn’t allowed. Her patience with those situations was exemplary, but it was my family’s unbending old world mentality that led to the demise of our relationship.
Now that many of those elders have passed on, it’s generally understood that race isn’t a big deal, and I have cousins who’ve married black men and women. It’s really no big deal, and they have beautiful children to boot! Having grown up in that mentality, however, I’ve studied black history and the history of race relations in this country in order to understand why they were that way. I still don’t get it, and I desperately wish I could understand it. Racial segregation, to me, is ridiculous for all of the reasons I’ve explained. I’m simply trying to understand the issues at hand.
Joel Chandler Harris once said, Watch out when you’re getting all you want. Fattening hogs ain’t in luck. It serves me to continue to try to understand this lest I fall into the mindsets espoused by my late elders.
So doesn't that speak to the actual problem as opposed to the perception of racism from the white community? As I see it, blacks hate each other more than they do whites. It's almost as if they're projecting their own racism onto whites to have a straw man. That's what really pisses me off. I didn't do anything wrong to a black man or woman. Why am I a racist simply for being white?
Or is the "actual problem" how "Civil Rights" are administered?
From my perspective, why is anyone who works, obligated to provide free housing, health care, etc., to support those other (able-bodied, 18-65 y.o.) adults who choose to not work?
Shhhh. Obama will hear you, and plunk down a bunch of Section 8 properties in your neighborhood.
I understand it’s an old canard, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true nor does it mean that it doesn’t hold any weight. By virtue of my association with the black community, I am disinvolved from the politics of racism. Any old white cracker with a chip on his shoulder would have nothing to do with a man of color, but I readily embrace any black man or woman willing to converse intellectually and openly about all ideas.