As you like to tell everyone else, I'm not going to do your research for you. It is of note though, that there is no Raleigh city schools anymore. The city schools merged with the county in large part to reverse the declines of the city school system. Raleigh has done better than many systems, but it is far from the national power you seem to imply. How childish. I ask a question regarding your experiences, and you respond like a spoiled little brat. In my experience, when you were there significantly colors your experience, so if I might ask, when were you at EC Brooks? If so, then perhaps you would be so kind as to point out what I had omitted.
Not exactly. Actually, I was trying to bring the funny. Apparently, I failed. Respeck. They started busing for the year I was in 3rd grade.
More exactly than you may remember. Middle class (in Raleigh's case, mostly white) flight had decimated the city schools (as it had in many cities). Merger with the county system was one way that was attempted to reintegrate the schools. Wake County also tried some nnovative things, like an extensive magnet schools program to try and increase the rate of voluntary integration. Anyway, enough history. Thanks. I was a few years ahead of you. Do you remember all of the programs that they got rid of to pay for buses? How often did you have art or pe or music? Even interscholastic athletics was hit hard! Can you imagine anything in NC more important than sports!
Because your friends don't have nuclear weapons and large conventional armies? Because your friends don't have large economies which interact with our economy in the global marketplace? Because your friends don't have sovereignty which would be an issue when dealing with terrorism and international crime? Because your friends don't have control over environmental issues which ultimately affect us as well? Because your friends aren't holding the citizenship of thousands or millions of people trying to emigrate here, legally or otherwise? Because your friends don't enter into international treaties with us and with other countries we deal with? Because your friends aren't poor nations with inadequate health care infrastructure dealing with AIDS? Because your friends aren't poor nations dealing with a lack of freshwater access?
You realize how foreign those images are to most of us under 40. Even if Paul got everything that he wanted and he is as racist as you may elude to we are not returning to that. Our society has evolved. To say otherwise is just completely delusional. We are better people now. BTW, I think I'm done with Paul now. I like the ideas he espouses but to be honest he is not the man we need as president right now. Maybe later. Maybe somone else with ideological similarities. But not now. So once again, President McCain has become my man.
Your faith in the people of this nation and the progress that the civil rights movement has made to change hearts and minds is disappointing. One man and his $500 is not going to make the USA 1950's Alabama. Pat yourself on the back. We have come a long way, Dave and it is due to people like you. The glass is not half empty. Matter of fact it's 90% full.
It occurred to me yesterday, after putting dannytoone on my racist-ignore list, that I'd probably see the "things are different today" response. Which got me to thinking about the earlier exchange on interstate commerce. Why is the concept of the economy stuck in 1880's mode when it has so clearly and radically changed even from what it was 15 years ago? While at the same time, I'm supposed to believe that human nature is completely different from 40 years ago? Do you really think it's consistent to claim that commerce can't evolve over centuries, but people do over a couple of decades? P.S. Saying those images are "foreign" may be a sad commentary. They are some of the most important historical moments in our history. They should be burned in every citizen's consciousness. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume by foreign you meant "not seen today" rather than unknown.
Commerce has evolved. Who's saying it hasn't? Do you think it's human nature to oppress those that don't look like them? I sure don't. Our society has learned it's lesson and has moved on. No, they are known. But they are foriegn as in that's not the America that those of us under 40 know and it's inconceivable that would occur again. Face it, you won the battle. You have created a better society.
Tribalism is innate in humans. Whether its D.C. United hating on the cheatin' Red Bulls , Sigma Betas hating on the Alpha Pis, or New Jersey hating on Georgia, there's a part of human nature there. Racism is a by-product of tribalism. It is defeated by making other races part of your "tribe" but it is a never-ending task. As far as "oppression" of other races/ethnicities goes I cite history, dating from time immemorial to 5 minutes ago. Whether you believe it human nature or not, it is part of the human condition. So I find the "racism is over" argument bogus and will find it bogus when my children's children are grown. Is it better? Yes. Is it gone? Well, dannytoone tells me it's not.
Human nature is universal, and doesn't change much. We're capable of noble acts, selfless sacrifice, and great empathy--both individually and collectively. We're also capable of great cruelty, indifference to others, and callous disregard for our neighbors. It's not about social engineering. Society doesn't exist in a vacuum--it's a product of many things--culture, history, economic factors, etc. One of those factors is the political and legal framework we've created. We don't live apart from it--we live IN it. Our laws, our legal system, our form of government--they don't totally define us, but they certainly contribute.
I couldn't agree more. Thtas why laws that encourage seperation, no matter how noble the intent are detremental to a more harmonious society.
Maybe I'm skimming through these threads too quickly, but--which laws? Are we talking about affirmitive action now? If so, I agree with you. If not--what do you mean?
My grandparents are an interracial marriage from Portugal. When they immigrated from Portugal to the US, they didn't understand that they were trading fascism for racism and bigotry. Their interracial status never meant anything at all in Portugal. In the US, they encountered severe racism from both whites and blacks. THAT is the reason I would like to strangle ignorant bitches like JKWD that think racism from blacks towards whites is impossible. Granted, it wasn't the south. But it was right in the middle of the civil rights movement, when tempers were high. As much as they despised the racism, they never thought twice about moving back. It came up as a topic after Salazar was kicked out...but by then, a lot of the racism had subsided. So yes, I haven't personally witnessed all that they have experienced, but I have witnessed some of it and I have been around to hear the stories. I vividly remember one experience in kindergarten. My mom didn't come to pick me up from school one day, but my grandmother did. When I saw her, I walked over and held her hand and started walking back home. A school administrator ran over and asked her who she was. Upon being informed that she was my grandmother, the administrator ripped me out of her arms and called the police and told two security guards that she was kidnapping me. I experienced in front of my eyes my grandmother being taken to the ground by the security guards with tears in her eyes and screaming to let her go. When the police arrived, they asked the administrator what happened, and she told them that there was no way that this black woman, could possibly be my grandmother. Upon asking me a few questions and calling my mom, she was released. Could it have been a misunderstanding? Possibly, but I saw the look in that womans eyes and I felt a pain and betrayal that kindergardners rarely have to experience. You can't even explain the emotion of a four year old kid that gets his grandmother thrown to the ground and harassed...even though I didn't understand at the time that it was because of my grandmas color that she was treated like that. Its okay though...my experiences have taught me to recognize bigots like John Galt and JKWD, and to treat them at face value. I purposely didn't disclose things like this initially in this thread, because I thought it was possible for people to think about what I was saying rather than judge based on face value. It wasn't a surprise to encounter shitheadedness from JKWD and Superdave and Jeremy Eritria, but I was not expecting it from John Galt...I had figured that someone who could graduate from law school could understand an opposing viewpoint without making premature judgments of me. I'm through with this topic...I don't have the courage nor the willpower that Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell have.
But it really is physically impossible for blacks to be racist against whites. You see, people born in Africa have a special gene that blocks what scientists call "R-cells," which are prevalent in Caucasian, or "devil," races. R-cells were put into the white race when they were created by Yakub in his secret laboratory six thousand years ago. R-cells are found primarily in Wonder bread, mayonnaise, white wine, and the middle of Oreo cookies. They are passed during the mother's pregnancy through the cracker canal, and absorbed through the baby's ofay system. The presence of African, or "human," chromosomes, however, help inhibit R-cells. This is why biracial people can't be racist, despite devil blood. No one gives a shit about you, your kindergarten, or what you tell yourself in order to justify your ignorance. Don't worry about not having the courage of Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell. You already do. You seriously think "LOL I'm part black" suddenly makes all the crap you've spouted out relevant or intelligent or true? Dream the ******** on. "I'm from Portugal" doesn't mean you get to post untrue things that a two-second Google search would have corrected you on. And by the way, your big "reveal" actually makes you look even worse. "Black Americans were sometimes mean to my parents, therefore Jim Crow laws should be put back on the books!" You've got ISSUES, pal. One of the above paragraphs is true. Try to spot which one! I think you'll have fun. While I'm here...MattBurlew, unburdened by intelligence, you already TRIED to harsh on my candidate, and you fell flat on your face. Let me guess, your grandmother was Inuit so that makes it okay?
You mean, "good job of not going back and memorizing your every post". Anyway, so which is worse : the harm that occurs when a grocery store owner won't sell food to some vagrant who comes into the store without a shirt on or the motel owner who doesn't sell a room in his motel room for the night to a black couple... I mean, a young unmarried couple? Or what if that motel owner can't rent a room out because that couple has a kid and according to fire code that kid has to have a roll-away to sleep on? Or.... The point being it amazes me that racism has become some trump card. Please, give me a break. A lot of a bad gnarly shit happens in this world. Racism is just one of the many. It's a shame that it's degenerated into some trump card to "win" some discussion. Can we get back to discussing Ron Paul? I mean, if we want to get into "racism" then let's start a thread about Clinton's (mis)adventures in Africa. That would should be good for a few thousand threads.
Geez, I can't believe I have to go through this again. But....since you keep trying to move the goalposts, here goes. You first said this..... Based on the part I put in bold, you were clearly talking segregation not by the state but by private businesses. So, I responded by saying..... You then almost immediately started contradicting yourself by saying..... Notice how in the part I bolded, you're now saying that private discrimination does not equal Jim Crow....when only one post earlier you were referring to private property laws as the "rest of them"....as in the rest of the Jim Crow laws that were taken down. So clearly, even you were originally referring to both types of laws as Jim Crow laws. Based on your self-contradictory response, I replied...... So you're now trying to draw a distinction that you didn't draw whatsoever in your initial post on the matter. Were you being imprecise in what you wrote originally or are you being imprecise now? I'm well aware of the various consequences of government action, particularly with regard to these laws. I just discount your "potentially huge drawbacks" of resentment as outweighing the concrete benefits. FFS, don't you find it hilarious that you had to caveat your drawbacks with "potentially" ?? As for your chimp study....I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by citing it here in response. I ask this one question, however.......you say that private discrimination would've ended without government intervention because business owners are going to see that it's not in their best business interest to discriminate. Doesn't your cited study show that humans don't always act in their best interest? First, I only assumed your ridiculous hypothesis for argument's sake. As you have no conclusive proof that desegregation of hotels and lunch counters has created even more harm than the segregation itself, the premise of your rape law analogy is false. That being said, let me reiterate. Laws that don't take deterrence into account, or are not primarily motivated by creating a deterrent effect, have always existed. That's not some new phenomena that started in 1964. You really need to read my posts more carefully. I did not deny that Putnam considered forced integretion. I said that the study did not focus on forced integration. Rather, it focused on immigration. This is from the abstract that you previously cited...... Note the focus on immigration. Also note that one of the aspects of forced integration that Putnam considered was integration of the military. Further note that he shows that the integration of the military resulted in more comfort with ethnic diversity.