Thread: Were Blacks better off under segregation?

I'm a rational and forgiving person, so I'll be more polite than you perhaps deserve: please crawl into your own anal cavity and die.

What? It's not as if I hate blacks or anything, I even said It was wrong that the services for blacks were sub-standard, but if that was resolved, whats the problem? Many black and whites alike thought that the US was better off under segregation, so I don't really see what the big deal is, do you have any arguments to put forward against my point, or can you not rise above petty insults?

Most modern 'racial' problems isn't really about race but about economics. Moving people around doesn't really do anything to resolve the real issues.

I've lived in multi-ethnic cities my whole life and I've never encountered racism or seen racism of any kind in these mixed cities. Living in a city filled with minorities, minorities took positions on all levels of the economic food-chain. What racial tension?

I've only ever encountered racism in cities that were not ethnically mixed. Sure you have cities where one side of the city is black, and the other side of the city is white. That is not an ethnically mixed city. What you see in these old American cities are segregated ghettos of one color. These ghettos than create a distorted image of that ethnicity.

This modern issue of segregation is an issue of poverty. Children growing up in an impoverished community get less education and have less access to resources to lift them out of their parents poverty. So, the poverty is passed on. The poverty creates crime. And an entire community of one color (or religion) remains segregated from the more developed parts of the city.

I had a friend who lived in one of these cities. She was racist even if she didn't know it. She feared all black men. She said they all looked like thieves and rapists and all the bad people on the news were black.

At first I was shocked that she could be racist, but then I realized that was the city she lived in- black and white. A city where white people had access to better education, resources and jobs, but black people were stuck struggling in the ghettos with voices forgotten. The point I'm making is - I don't know what you're babbling about - but segregation creates poverty, crime and racism.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

What? It's not as if I hate blacks or anything, I even said It was wrong that the services for blacks were sub-standard, but if that was resolved, whats the problem? Many black and whites alike thought that the US was better off under segregation, so I don't really see what the big deal is, do you have any arguments to put forward against my point, or can you not rise above petty insults?

Virtually every post you ever make is about how racism is a good idea. Get a hobby.

No, xei, sometimes I make posts about opposition to gay marriage if you recall

Also you still haven't responded to my post, just posted another petty insult.

I'm not sure what places you've observed Juroara, but I always got the impression that racial tension was even worse in the US than in western euorpe, and it's really bad here already. A survey done last year showed 73% of British people would be opposed to the UK becoming minority white, that shows that race is an issue for a majority of people and that racial tensions exist.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I'm not sure what places you've observed Juroara.

Well I wanna ask you the same question, what places are you observing in the US?

Well most of the people i've spoken to about race issues (these are the people that I dont know their viewpoint prior to speaking to them) are in california, some in alabama, and some in montana, and virtually all agree with me to an extent.

Segregating races to prevent racism is like confining every individual to his/herself, to prevent their having confrontations with other people. It is a horrible, unnecessary, and ultimately futile idea.

The points you touched on:

Originally Posted by Thatperson

would nanyone here agree that we were all better off (blacks aswell, if not moreso than whites) under segregation?

- No

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Multiracial communities are fertile soil for unnessecery racial tension.

- Just like the typical 'family' structure is fertile soil for unnecessary domestic violence. Maybe we should start breaking apart homes, and confining everyone to their own sections of the house.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

3) Pre segregation crime rates, on both balck and whites sides were much lower, both black and white schools were better performing and more disciplines, and today in most multi-racial societies, voulentary self segregation exists to a large degree anyway.

- Why not post some stats and sources on that? While you're at it, be sure to include variables such as population growth, economic changes over the years and financial factors such as educational funding in primarily-minority areas? You say you already recognize that (even while integrated) the conditions for most minority communities are sub-standard, and then you turn around and try to throw "if things were equal", as if that would somehow magically happen under segregation, when it can't even happen while we're all supposed to be equal. That makes absolutely no sense.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

4) A survey done last year showed 73% of British people would be opposed to the UK becoming minority white, that shows that race is an issue for a majority of people and that racial tensions exist.

- Yes. Racial tension exists. It will always exist, to some degree. You think that's going to go away, by giving people separate classrooms and bathrooms? I contest that it would only make things worse, because you would be further perpetuating the idea that "we" are different from "them" - that "they" should not socialize with "us". That you would even suggest that such a thing would be 'good' for mankind (humans being social creatures and all), is ridiculous, and I'm probably giving you the benefit of more than reasonable doubt, not to consider the OP as a troll post.

Some points you didn't touch on:

1) What about the implausibility of any person of color rising to significant status in America? Some of the greatest leaps in minority achievement has been because of the ability for blacks and whites to learn and progress together. Even if we were to branch off into their own regions minorities would have even less pull than they have now, in the American arena, if we didn't have (relatively) powerful figures in office, advocating for us.

2) What? Racial tension didn't exist when we were segregated? How do you think we got here, in the first place? People fought hard and died for integration. The reason they had to was because there was already racial tension. Before we were integrated, people were still being hanged. Houses and churches were still being burned. Children were being murdered simply because the consensus was that we were all 'so different' from the majority race. Again, the idea that going back to segregation would somehow quell racial tension is, frankly, idiotic.

3) Do you know what you would get, if things went back to segregation? You would get an exacerbation of the "us" vs" them" dichotomy. You would get a closing off of communities. You would get increased hateful and divisive rhetoric. You would promote the "poor black scum" vs the "rich white oppressor" ideologies. You would fuel the animosity on both sides of a racial divide - that are each working to make themselves stronger and more prosperous, in the face of an opposing neighboring culture. And then, you would get war.

Sounds like a great plan, chief.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Well most of the people i've spoken to about race issues (these are the people that I dont know their viewpoint prior to speaking to them) are in california, some in alabama, and some in montana, and virtually all agree with me to an extent.

Alabama = bible belt. Bible felt = fear of people who are different. Alabama also has a deep racist history that it hasn't wiped itself clean of. I would not be surprised if Alabama still had old communities that were still "black and white".

California has immigration issues creating anger and resentment towards hispanics. These issues are very extreme in California.

Take San Antonio TX, its also a Hispanic city, but immigration is not an issue there. Most Hispanics in San Antonio are legal, born in America, English speaking, and are fully a part of the American culture. The immigration issue in Cali is different because the majority of Mexican immigrants are not looking to integrate with the larger American society - they willfully segregate themselves keeping their strong Mexican identity, and they send the majority of their money back down to Mexico creating an economic problem for Cali.

San Antonio TX on the other hand, her Hispanics spend way too much time at the mall and eat out way too much and bbq way too much. All in all that's good for capitalism.

San Antonio did not suffer in 2008 thanks to all the mall devotees! Cali on the other hand, was hit hard. Mexican immigrants take the blame, and by extension, Hispanics.

This means economics and willful segregation is the reason for racial tensions. Montana, no idea. But I have heard that illegal immigrants are making their way up north leaving a trail of distrust and dislike for Hispanics everywhere.

Your analogy with multiracial societies and families is irrelevant, because families are the foundation of Human society and have exists for time immemorial, whilst there is absolutly no need whatsoever for multiracial communities. I don't have the statistics right at hand It will take me a couple of hours to find them, But I will try to get it for tonight, as for factoring in economics, population growth etc, there's no need. Because I'm not arguing why this was the case, I'm simply arguing things were better under segregation, for whatever reason.

Of course racial tension existed during segregation, but it was more a case of quiet distrust of of whites/blacks than blood boiling anger which decended into race riots. Why would it be that the white people who are most likly to vote for anti-immigration candidates are thsoe living in largly non-white areas, whereas those whites in 99.5% white don't vote for them. It's because they've never had to experiene living in a multiracial area.

Just for the record, I don't think segregation works, I think Racial/Ethnic Nationalism is the best model, but I think segregation was at least better than what we have today.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Your analogy with multiracial societies and families is irrelevant, because families are the foundation of Human society and have exists for time immemorial, whilst there is absolutly no need whatsoever for multiracial communities.

Your opinion about full family structure being the foundation of Human society is incorrect, because time has shown us - numerous times - that it does not take a biological mother and father to be a stable, productive member of society. And unless you're trying to paint the picture that segregation is a 'need', then the fact that there is no 'need' for multiracial culture really doesn't mean anything, in this context, neither.

You really push yourself into obscurity when you trivialize what might have been the reasons for a perceived difference, and try to focus only on that there might be a perceivable difference. When you say "I'm simply arguing things were better under segregation, for whatever reason," you're not even actually making a comprehensible argument. 'For whatever reason' implies that if there is 1 reason why someone might think segregation would have been better, it negates the other 100 why it might not have been. It's a way of throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. If you are truly trying to weigh one side over the other, then the question of why the perceived difference might only be relative becomes extremely significant. You disagree?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Of course racial tension existed during segregation, but it was more a case of quiet distrust of of whites/blacks than blood boiling anger which decended into race riots.

....Huh? You apparently weren't raised in (or know much about) the South. If you call the rape and murder of minorities - much of which was completely ignored by authorities - 'quiet distrust', then you are even more misguided than the OP implies.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Why would it be that the white people who are most likly to vote for anti-immigration candidates are thsoe living in largly non-white areas, whereas those whites in 99.5% white don't vote for them. It's because they've never had to experiene living in a multiracial area.

I honestly don't understand what you are asking, here.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Just for the record, I don't think segregation works, I think Racial/Ethnic Nationalism is the best model, but I think segregation was at least better than what we have today.

Fair enough. I happen to disagree. I think what we have now is better than what blacks had under segregation, and though it's not perfect, I think it's been worth the sacrifices made so far.

All I am getting at here is that there seems to be some consensu that things were better off post-segregation, no question. I think best illustrated by the fact that Xei seemed disgusted that I had even propsoed the idea, without actually making an argument agsint my post. I personally know of 2 Black American women in their 70's who have said they thought things were better off under segregation. Now I know 2 is a very small sample size but thats the general impression I get from older americans, both black and white.

Also What wold your opinion be of having a white ationalist nation and a black nationalist nation within the current boundaries of the US?

Here's an idea: let people freely associate (or disassociate) with whoever they want. Then we can avoid dumbass topics like this, where we discuss the merit of forcing people to disassociate.

It's not that I think there should never be any association between blacks and whites, merely separate schools, neigbhourhoods etc.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Fair enough.

wat

Haha, this is the 3rd time now that your post has been off topic, and merely a petty insult against me. Seeing as you haven't actually argued aginst my point, I assume that means you secretly agree with everything I say

Originally Posted by Thatperson

It's not that I think there should never be any association between blacks and whites, merely separate schools, neigbhourhoods etc.

And as people won't do this automatically, you are against the free association of people. So you're a totalitarian. So you're hideous.

People wont do what automatically? Self segregation? Are you aware that places such as Tower Hamelts in London, Manningham in Bradford, Sparkhill/Sparkbrook/Alum rock in Birmingham exist? Virtually every muti racial town in Europe has these segregated areas. How come every school /neighbourhood isn't 88% white then? Also, that's 4 posts in a row now, do you think you can manage post number 5 not to contain a petty insult?

People have already explained that demographic reasons cause variations in race. As you've forgotten this so quickly I can only assume you have mental problems, which makes sense given that you're a 'ethnic nationalist'. If you think variation is down to self-segregation then you don't have any problems anyway, people are free to move to locations and schools if they want. But you do have problems, because it isn't anywhere near 100%, and you need to use force for it to occur. Which makes you either a disgusting person or a weak troll.

When you start a repulsive thread you can pretty much expect to be confronted.

http://ww2.audit-commission.gov.uk/m...0Diversity.png
http://ww2.audit-commission.gov.uk/m...0Diversity.png

These arn't minor variations, These are large cities where the white population is less than 5% in some areas. I'll tell you that is isn't through force that white people are fleeing London, Birmingham, Leicester and Bradford, it's quite voulentary. And there you go again, 5 posts with petty insults. What is so wrong about being an ethnic nationalist anyway? Prior to about 1960-1970 is was the standard way of thinking for most people.

So if you are pro freedom of association, I assume you wouldn't be opposed to a White Nationalist state in the US then?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

All I am getting at here is that there seems to be some consensu that things were better off post-segregation, no question.

And you seem to have more and more trouble substantially backing that point. Saying that there is 'some consensus' about any one thing is like saying that there is 'some consensus' that cocaine is good, or 'some consensus' that sexual predation is acceptable. It, it itself, is not an argument.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I think best illustrated by the fact that Xei seemed disgusted that I had even propsoed the idea, without actually making an argument agsint my post.

I think that, if this is the basis of the logic you are using for this entire argument, you are in a world of trouble. That Xei seems disgusted that you even proposed the idea is - more likely - due to the fact that he thinks it's an asinine idea. How you figure this illustrates your point is beyond me and, at best, grasping at straws.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I personally know of 2 Black American women in their 70's who have said they thought things were better off under segregation. Now I know 2 is a very small sample size but thats the general impression I get from older americans, both black and white.

2 is such a small sample that it doesn't even warrant speaking about. I grew up as a black kid with a black family, living in predominately white areas. I knew and know so many more than "2" people - from both sides of the spectrum - who would and do completely disagree. With that being said, I admit that my anecdote doesn't mean much at all, here. Do you?

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Also What wold your opinion be of having a white ationalist nation and a black nationalist nation within the current boundaries of the US?

I answered that in point #4 of my last post, most of which you completely ignored.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

It's not that I think there should never be any association between blacks and whites, merely separate schools, neigbhourhoods etc.

To which, I would reply:

It has been well documented that segregation
across schools—denying access to resources,
inferior educational production functions, and
so on—exacerbates racial differences in
achievement.

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/fac..._SchoolSeg.pdf

Originally Posted by Xei

wat

As an expression, it's just another way of saying "Fine. I acknowledge your stance, but..."

Originally Posted by Thatperson

People wont do what automatically? Self segregation? Are you aware that places such as Tower Hamelts in London, Manningham in Bradford, Sparkhill/Sparkbrook/Alum rock in Birmingham exist? Virtually every muti racial town in Europe has these segregated areas. How come every school /neighbourhood isn't 88% white then?

Because opinions aren't the same, across the board. So of course, in any integrated area, you are going to have pockets of voluntary segregation. To imply otherwise would be nothing short of naive. The fact is that people have the choice to live somewhere that's integrated, or seek out somewhere that isn't. That such places as those you listed exist does absolutely nothing to propose that the sentiments that dominate those establishments are those of entire races, as a whole, or that they are indicative of 'what is better for' those races as a whole. The communities formed out of clusters of philosophical disagreement, and they are to be expected in any system based on choice.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

http://ww2.audit-commission.gov.uk/m...0Diversity.png
http://ww2.audit-commission.gov.uk/m...0Diversity.png


These arn't minor variations, These are large cities where the white population is less than 5% in some areas. I'll tell you that is isn't through force that white people are fleeing London, Birmingham, Leicester and Bradford, it's quite voulentary.

Black Segregation In US Drops To Lowest In Century

Originally Posted by Thatperson

What is so wrong about being an ethnic nationalist anyway? Prior to about 1960-1970 is was the standard way of thinking for most people.

Prior to the 1960's(ish), the standard way of thinking for 'most people' was that it was right to discriminate, dehumanize and completely disregard people based on color. Are you trying to imply that that was 'right'? Because "everybody was doing it?" That is one of the weakest arguments you've throw out, so far....

You're either feeding a troll or trying to reason with somebody so incurably obstinate in his sad parochialism that he hasn't changed a single line after pages and pages of this stuff in the past. He already knows all this and he's already thrown it down the memory hole a hundred times before. I really don't see any purpose.