Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Systemic racism in the USA: Are whites "guiltier" if they had slavery in their past?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RDKirk" data-source="post: 77610411" data-attributes="member: 326155"><p>They don't understand why our parents fought to end segregation.</p><p></p><p>It's true that there were many more black small businesses prior to the Civil Rights Act...obviously so because white business owners didn't care to cater to the personal needs of black people, such as barbering, hair styling, and restaurants...or even mortuary services. So, black people could have those kinds of small businesses. Oh, and in many places in the South where segregation was more complete in the school system, the more educated blacks could be teachers in the town's single black elementary school and high school.</p><p></p><p>But beyond those short avenues, black advancement was largely blocked. A black man could have a successful small restaurant, but if he took his business plan to a bank for a loan to open another restaurant...well, what need was there for a black man to have two restaurants? </p><p></p><p>If a black business still somehow got too lucrative, white enterprises were likely to squeeze it out or crush it. Separate, but never equal...equality was never the intention, and inequality was zealously maintained by any means necessary.</p><p></p><p>I may have mentioned this before. In 1960, in the Oklahoma town where I spent the late 60s, black residents decided to have a middle-class housing addition. Segregated, of course, being still 1960, but middle class. It's my understanding that it took a lot of money changing hands and even some state-level legislation to make it happen over the objection of the city authorities. Separate, but never equal...</p><p></p><p>The addition got built about a mile south of the built-up area of the city, with the expectation that city growth would someday join it, there would be businesses nearby, and eventually an elementary school like all the other housing additions. </p><p></p><p>What happened: The city first built a low-income housing project on the north side between the new addition and the rest of the city, ensuring the city would never expand past that point. The city then built a prison on the east side and an airport on the west side. And never built a school. </p><p></p><p>In many other cities, the black neighborhood was where property was zoned for industry, where the landfills were located, where the freeways were routed. If there were cutbacks in city services, they happened in the black neighborhoods. If schools were short of funds, it was the black schools that got shorted.</p><p></p><p>Basically, the reason my parents' generation fought for integration is because being segregated just made us easier targets.</p><p></p><p>The irony of this misguided re-segregation discussion is this: Segregation is not safe unless you control the larger political and economic sectors. Young black people want to be segregated because they feel unsafe around "evil" white people. But these same white people control the larger political and economic sectors upon which the segregation would depend--the same situation my parents endured. If white people are still so evil, that's going back to the same bad situation. </p><p></p><p>OTOH, if white people have progressed to the point that we would be safe re-segregated...then there isn't any real reason to be re-segregated. As Chris Rock said, "We've got the best white people now that we've ever had."</p><p></p><p>They can't deal with white people because of "microaggressions." Give me a break. A "microaggression" is an act so tiny you have to go to college to learn to see it. White people were still bombing our Sunday Schools and busses in 1964; when de-segregation started in 1965, there was nothing "micro" about the aggression.</p><p></p><p>And there is always more than one thing happening. Back in those days, people were taught to be polite. If a white person was impolite or abrasive to a black person, it was nearly certainly a matter of racism. These days, manners and politeness have gone out of the window. Everyone feels free to be "authentic" and "real"...which means everyone feels free to be a jerk. So, if a white person is impolite or abrasive to a black person, it's more likely he's just a jerk.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RDKirk, post: 77610411, member: 326155"] They don't understand why our parents fought to end segregation. It's true that there were many more black small businesses prior to the Civil Rights Act...obviously so because white business owners didn't care to cater to the personal needs of black people, such as barbering, hair styling, and restaurants...or even mortuary services. So, black people could have those kinds of small businesses. Oh, and in many places in the South where segregation was more complete in the school system, the more educated blacks could be teachers in the town's single black elementary school and high school. But beyond those short avenues, black advancement was largely blocked. A black man could have a successful small restaurant, but if he took his business plan to a bank for a loan to open another restaurant...well, what need was there for a black man to have two restaurants? If a black business still somehow got too lucrative, white enterprises were likely to squeeze it out or crush it. Separate, but never equal...equality was never the intention, and inequality was zealously maintained by any means necessary. I may have mentioned this before. In 1960, in the Oklahoma town where I spent the late 60s, black residents decided to have a middle-class housing addition. Segregated, of course, being still 1960, but middle class. It's my understanding that it took a lot of money changing hands and even some state-level legislation to make it happen over the objection of the city authorities. Separate, but never equal... The addition got built about a mile south of the built-up area of the city, with the expectation that city growth would someday join it, there would be businesses nearby, and eventually an elementary school like all the other housing additions. What happened: The city first built a low-income housing project on the north side between the new addition and the rest of the city, ensuring the city would never expand past that point. The city then built a prison on the east side and an airport on the west side. And never built a school. In many other cities, the black neighborhood was where property was zoned for industry, where the landfills were located, where the freeways were routed. If there were cutbacks in city services, they happened in the black neighborhoods. If schools were short of funds, it was the black schools that got shorted. Basically, the reason my parents' generation fought for integration is because being segregated just made us easier targets. The irony of this misguided re-segregation discussion is this: Segregation is not safe unless you control the larger political and economic sectors. Young black people want to be segregated because they feel unsafe around "evil" white people. But these same white people control the larger political and economic sectors upon which the segregation would depend--the same situation my parents endured. If white people are still so evil, that's going back to the same bad situation. OTOH, if white people have progressed to the point that we would be safe re-segregated...then there isn't any real reason to be re-segregated. As Chris Rock said, "We've got the best white people now that we've ever had." They can't deal with white people because of "microaggressions." Give me a break. A "microaggression" is an act so tiny you have to go to college to learn to see it. White people were still bombing our Sunday Schools and busses in 1964; when de-segregation started in 1965, there was nothing "micro" about the aggression. And there is always more than one thing happening. Back in those days, people were taught to be polite. If a white person was impolite or abrasive to a black person, it was nearly certainly a matter of racism. These days, manners and politeness have gone out of the window. Everyone feels free to be "authentic" and "real"...which means everyone feels free to be a jerk. So, if a white person is impolite or abrasive to a black person, it's more likely he's just a jerk. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Systemic racism in the USA: Are whites "guiltier" if they had slavery in their past?
Top
Bottom