Segregation now, segregation forever!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The USA did outlaw segregation in 1875, this law lasted very briefly but it did pass and was, for a time, the law.

Just because laws against abortion were overturned by the S. Ct. does not mean that for a time abortion was illegal.

I seem to remember you argued that the USA could not have outlawed segregation in 1975 because segregation did not exist at that time, do I remember that correctly?

You couldn't show me any legislation which outlawed segregation, sorry. We've been through all of this, page after page of it... you failed to show what you continue to claim, and I have challenged you, and you've not met the challenge to prove what you claim! How many times you post your lie, doesn't have a damn thing with how true it becomes, so what is the point here? You just want to practice typing the same shit over and over? I don't understand... this is not a matter of opinions, the legislation you've shown us has not one word in it that prohibits or outlaws segregation... it's not mentioned, period! The CRA of 1875 was not "overturned" by the SCOTUS, the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson, that segregation policies did not discriminate and were within the law.

Segregation, in so far as a publicly instituted policy, did not exist to any real extent in 1875, there was no tenable reason for it to. I've typed this over and over, I don't understand why I need to type it again. Before 1875, there was NO reason for a business to provide service to blacks... not separate... not equal... not unequal... there was simply no legal reason for them to be compelled to go to the expense and trouble of providing ANY service to black people. You want to pretend they had a reason and were doing that, and the CRA of 1875 sought to change that condition of segregation... didn't happen... couldn't have happened, because "segregation" hadn't yet happened.... not on a large national scale.

Now..... If you have followed that so far, you will be interested to know, the CRA of 1875 was actually the FOUNDATION and underpinning for ALL of the segregationist policies which were implemented in the years and decades to come! Because the Congress had ruled that blacks had to be given "equal access" and certain white establishments were faced with all-white patrons who would simply not tolerate integration, the "solution" they found within the law, was Segregation... separate but equal access.

 

[Spurtski]

 

[Jarod]

You couldn't show me any legislation which outlawed segregation, sorry. We've been through all of this, page after page of it... you failed to show what you continue to claim, and I have challenged you, and you've not met the challenge to prove what you claim! How many times you post your lie, doesn't have a damn thing with how true it becomes, so what is the point here? You just want to practice typing the same shit over and over? I don't understand... this is not a matter of opinions, the legislation you've shown us has not one word in it that prohibits or outlaws segregation... it's not mentioned, period! The CRA of 1875 was not "overturned" by the SCOTUS, the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson, that segregation policies did not discriminate and were within the law.

Segregation, in so far as a publicly instituted policy, did not exist to any real extent in 1875, there was no tenable reason for it to. I've typed this over and over, I don't understand why I need to type it again. Before 1875, there was NO reason for a business to provide service to blacks... not separate... not equal... not unequal... there was simply no legal reason for them to be compelled to go to the expense and trouble of providing ANY service to black people. You want to pretend they had a reason and were doing that, and the CRA of 1875 sought to change that condition of segregation... didn't happen... couldn't have happened, because "segregation" hadn't yet happened.... not on a large national scale.

Now..... If you have followed that so far, you will be interested to know, the CRA of 1875 was actually the FOUNDATION and underpinning for ALL of the segregationist policies which were implemented in the years and decades to come! Because the Congress had ruled that blacks had to be given "equal access" and certain white establishments were faced with all-white patrons who would simply not tolerate integration, the "solution" they found within the law, was Segregation... separate but equal access.

Check out your first post again, when did segregation start in America?

You are all over the place....

 

[Jarod]

Of course, these very words from the late Democrat George C. Wallace, are inflammatory and racist, in context of today's American society. We hear them, and we cringe in discomfort, as the obvious racial bigotry shines through, and we have to do something to help us cope with the guilt of knowing a white man ever even uttered these words! So we canonize Wallace as a southern racist bigot, who just didn't get it. In fact, anyone who "supported segregation" is tarnished and scorned, because we have to find a way to excuse ourselves for the truth.

The truth is, we began life in a segregated society at the end of the Civil War. For an entire century, our society was indeed segregated, adopted and maintained segregationist policies, and supported continued segregationist policies in every phase of government, which was completely controlled by whites. We were segregationists through the end of the 1800s, into the 1900s, through two world wars... we sent black soldiers to fight and die for America, and returned them home to sit on the back of the bus. We did this in the South, North, East and West! There was nowhere we didn't practice segregation and discrimination against black Americans! This WAS the law!

When we hear Liberals speak today, of political pasts... we often hear "he supported segregation!" As if, 'segregation' were this obscure radical idea some southern rednecks adopted, and wanted to impose on the rest of the free and uninhibited, open-minded people of America! As if some Bubba had said, ya know what'd be a good idear, if we segregated them ni**ers from the whites! To hear liberals speak of it, that is what you would think Segregation were all about! They fail to comprehend that we lived in a completely segregate society! We had lived in it for 100 years! It was the way things were!

People who were "supportive of segregation", were merely supporting the popular status quot, what had always been the practice, what society had accepted and maintained for 100 years! To not support segregation policy, was radical! THAT was the radical view, THAT was viewed as being controversial. What's more, blacks were not a factor in getting elected, so the politicians would have been politically stupid NOT to support segregationist policies! The truth, as ugly as it may be, is that every politician prior to 1965, is responsible for supporting segregationist policy, because they DID! Repeatedly! For a century, every president, every Congress, and every Judge they appointed, upheld and maintained a system of complete and total segregation in America!

This FACT and TRUTH needs to be realized and understood by ALL! Because, frankly, we are in danger of losing focus on the magnitude of Civil Rights. Does it not bother black people, that Liberals have perverted the meaning of "segregation" into a petty insulate retort thrown at Republicans to convey a sense of racism which doesn't exist? Is it not important they have somewhat marginalized Civil Rights, and made it far less historically significant, in order to politicize conservatism? This would really bug me if I were a black American.

Abraham Lincoln, The Great Emancipator, did not make blacks and whites equal in society, in fact, Lincoln opposed the very idea of it, (see: Lincoln/Douglas debates), so as great as his achievements are, Lincoln was also a staunch segregationist. So were all the presidents to follow, including the beloved liberal FDR! They ALL supported and condoned a policy of complete segregation across America!

The segregation prior to 1964 has ended. The wall will never go up again! Blacks are now a vital part of the political process, as well as those who support black interests. Civil Rights was indeed significant in changing the politics of America forever, and it has been monumental in doing so! Some people like to pretend it was always this way, except for a brief period in the mid 60s, when racist rednecks wanted to segregate society, and the Great Liberals stood with the blacks to defeat them!

When did segregation start again?

You do know that in 1875 the civil war was over, right? It had been for over a decade by then!!!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Jarhead, I have already said that I am through with this debate. We have gone over all of this already, nothing new is being brought up, you failed to demonstrate a refutation of my initial point, and persist with some petty nit-picky bullshit about irrelevant details. Most of these are merely a matter of your incompetent reading comprehension skills, some are because you lack common sense and the ability to apply reason and logic, and some are technical corrections which I have admitted to long ago. At no point have you "won" the argument here, at no point have you established a valid point, or refuted anything that I have made as a point. If you want to dance around like a retard because you proved some technical detail inaccurate, which didn't have beans to do with the topic or the point, then you go right ahead... I know it gets boring in your pathetic empty and lonely world, I can tolerate your celebrating what you perceive as a great victory here. But I am not participating in your mental masturbation exercise anymore, I said what I had to say, it's all there for everyone to read, and since there is no more argument and you can't refute my point, this ends the debate for me.

 

[Jarod]

Jarhead, I have already said that I am through with this debate. We have gone over all of this already, nothing new is being brought up, you failed to demonstrate a refutation of my initial point, and persist with some petty nit-picky bullshit about irrelevant details. Most of these are merely a matter of your incompetent reading comprehension skills, some are because you lack common sense and the ability to apply reason and logic, and some are technical corrections which I have admitted to long ago. At no point have you "won" the argument here, at no point have you established a valid point, or refuted anything that I have made as a point. If you want to dance around like a retard because you proved some technical detail inaccurate, which didn't have beans to do with the topic or the point, then you go right ahead... I know it gets boring in your pathetic empty and lonely world, I can tolerate your celebrating what you perceive as a great victory here. But I am not participating in your mental masturbation exercise anymore, I said what I had to say, it's all there for everyone to read, and since there is no more argument and you can't refute my point, this ends the debate for me.

You keep saying you are done, but you keep adding more.

Here is the point, you have made ALL KINDS OF INCORRECT assertations about AMERICAN HISTORY in an attempt to justify a point that is invalid. There were options for Americans to choose the correct side on this issue for centuries prior to the 1960's, many did not!

Your arguments are not supported by reality, you might be able to make a case, but when you are incorrect in your supporting argument, the structure of your argument crumbles.

Its often how the mind of a Conservative works, they BELIVE one thing, then construct a reality that is often made up, to try to support that BELIFE. It dont work!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You keep saying you are done, but you keep adding more.

Here is the point, you have made ALL KINDS OF INCORRECT assertations about AMERICAN HISTORY in an attempt to justify a point that is invalid. There were options for Americans to choose the correct side on this issue for centuries prior to the 1960's, many did not!

Your arguments are not supported by reality, you might be able to make a case, but when you are incorrect in your supporting argument, the structure of your argument crumbles.

Its often how the mind of a Conservative works, they BELIVE one thing, then construct a reality that is often made up, to try to support that BELIFE. It dont work!

I didn't say I was done posting in the thread, I said I was done with this debate. NOTHING asserted by me has been shown incorrect. You myopically nit picked some detail, but you couldn't refute my point. Indeed there was the option to pick the correct side on this issue, but many did not... THAT IS MY WHOLE ENTIRE FUCKING POINT NITWIT! You are somehow trying to manipulate my words and turn my point around, create some false perception of what has been said, then rail against that! The thread is here for anyone who wants to bother reading it, I have not made the silly arguments you continue to claim I have made. Those arguments are created in your head, probably because you desperately NEED to find some point of disagreement with me because I am a Conservative, or because I go by Dixie, or because I have a Rebel Flag... OR because I am different from you! It's very TELLING of your character!

I've been in a LOT of debates over the years, this is the FIRST time I have ever encountered an opposition who literally wanted to reverse MY point, while adopting it for their OWN, and claim they "won" the debate! It's unreal! It's almost as insane as passing a bill into law without voting for it!

 

[Jarod]

I didn't say I was done posting in the thread, I said I was done with this debate. NOTHING asserted by me has been shown incorrect. You myopically nit picked some detail, but you couldn't refute my point. Indeed there was the option to pick the correct side on this issue, but many did not... THAT IS MY WHOLE ENTIRE FUCKING POINT NITWIT! You are somehow trying to manipulate my words and turn my point around, create some false perception of what has been said, then rail against that! The thread is here for anyone who wants to bother reading it, I have not made the silly arguments you continue to claim I have made. Those arguments are created in your head, probably because you desperately NEED to find some point of disagreement with me because I am a Conservative, or because I go by Dixie, or because I have a Rebel Flag... OR because I am different from you! It's very TELLING of your character!

I've been in a LOT of debates over the years, this is the FIRST time I have ever encountered an opposition who literally wanted to reverse MY point, while adopting it for their OWN, and claim they "won" the debate! It's unreal! It's almost as insane as passing a bill into law without voting for it!

You are still debating, I dont mind, its just that you said you were done...

Your origional point was that NOONE in ANY POWER was able to or did choose the correct side.

I have succeeded in at least changing your point, and illistrating your ignorance of American History.

I agree with your new point..

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are still debating, I dont mind, its just that you said you were done...

Your origional point was that NOONE in ANY POWER was able to or did choose the correct side.

I have succeeded in at least changing your point, and illistrating your ignorance of American History.

I agree with your new point..

No sir, I am not debating, the "debate" was settled with history back on page 11, if you missed it, you can go read it again, I have no need to re-post it. You tried to say that since Congress passed a CRA in 1875, our government outlawed segregation, and I demonstrated how that was a misconception. Then you tried to parse the meaning of "no one" as if I intended it to apply to 100% of the people in America, which is just silly and foolish. Aside from that contextual error, you've not proven my point invalid, you've not rendered any counterpoint, and you have no argument to present, so the debate can not proceed further, it is over. You've not changed a single thing about my point, you have been given clarification of the point over and over, and refuse to accept clarification, insisting it is me changing my position! I've not changed anything about my position or my point, as articulated in the opening post of the thread. You have a couple of problems going here... First, you want to argue and fight with me because we disagree politically. It doesn't matter how ridiculous and superficial the fight is, you are compelled to do it because you don't like my politics. Second, you are so blinded by your own bigotry and prejudice, you are unable to grasp any context of what I post. It simply computes and translates differently in your head, and you are literally reading things I have never posted. Finally, you are a pinhead. In order to deal with your own sense of guilt for your own racist tendencies, you have concocted some scapegoats, The South... The Right... Rednecks... Republicans... You have to rewrite history so that these are the villains and you and the Liberals are the heroes, because that absolves you from having to deal with your guilt.

You see, Jarhead.... I am a well-studied psychiatrist, I know (and knew) exactly what your response would be to this thread, and I predicted as much in the opening post. And it's not just about slavery, the Civil War, or Civil Rights, it encompasses every aspect of your life. From the War in Iraq to Health Care Reform, and everything in between... to you, there is YOUR side, fighting for what is right, and there is MY side... the ENEMY... whom you can't ever be seen as agreeing with, because that would be traitorous to Liberalism. So if it takes distorting history, distorting the context of history, or outright lying your ass off repeatedly, that is what you do because you think you have to. It's your duty as a good little liberal warrior.

 

[Jarod]

No sir, I am not debating, the "debate" was settled with history back on page 11, if you missed it, you can go read it again, I have no need to re-post it. You tried to say that since Congress passed a CRA in 1875, our government outlawed segregation, and I demonstrated how that was a misconception. Then you tried to parse the meaning of "no one" as if I intended it to apply to 100% of the people in America, which is just silly and foolish. Aside from that contextual error, you've not proven my point invalid, you've not rendered any counterpoint, and you have no argument to present, so the debate can not proceed further, it is over. You've not changed a single thing about my point, you have been given clarification of the point over and over, and refuse to accept clarification, insisting it is me changing my position! I've not changed anything about my position or my point, as articulated in the opening post of the thread. You have a couple of problems going here... First, you want to argue and fight with me because we disagree politically. It doesn't matter how ridiculous and superficial the fight is, you are compelled to do it because you don't like my politics. Second, you are so blinded by your own bigotry and prejudice, you are unable to grasp any context of what I post. It simply computes and translates differently in your head, and you are literally reading things I have never posted. Finally, you are a pinhead. In order to deal with your own sense of guilt for your own racist tendencies, you have concocted some scapegoats, The South... The Right... Rednecks... Republicans... You have to rewrite history so that these are the villains and you and the Liberals are the heroes, because that absolves you from having to deal with your guilt.

You see, Jarhead.... I am a well-studied psychiatrist, I know (and knew) exactly what your response would be to this thread, and I predicted as much in the opening post. And it's not just about slavery, the Civil War, or Civil Rights, it encompasses every aspect of your life. From the War in Iraq to Health Care Reform, and everything in between... to you, there is YOUR side, fighting for what is right, and there is MY side... the ENEMY... whom you can't ever be seen as agreeing with, because that would be traitorous to Liberalism. So if it takes distorting history, distorting the context of history, or outright lying your ass off repeatedly, that is what you do because you think you have to. It's your duty as a good little liberal warrior.

Now you are a Psychiatrist, hahaha... You are funny, astrologist or palmist maybe, but Psychiartist, Ha Ha ha... ROTFLMAO.......

Listen you entire point was that noone had a choice and that everyone was a racist pig. Its not true, there was always a choice and many good people, some in political power, made that choice.

There was a choice when these men, women and children were rounded up in Africa, shanghied to America and enslaved. There was a choice when the plantations were built, there was a choice when the civil war was fought, there was a choice in 1875, there was a choice in 1950, and there is a choice now.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Now you are a Psychiatrist, hahaha... You are funny, astrologist or palmist maybe, but Psychiartist, Ha Ha ha... ROTFLMAO.......

Listen you entire point was that noone had a choice and that everyone was a racist pig. Its not true, there was always a choice and many good people, some in political power, made that choice.

There was a choice when these men, women and children were rounded up in Africa, shanghied to America and enslaved. There was a choice when the plantations were built, there was a choice when the civil war was fought, there was a choice in 1875, there was a choice in 1950, and there is a choice now.

Again, you are taking something I said completely out of the context presented, and forming some ridiculous meaning to it, that simply doesn't convey honesty about what was said.

I never argued that no one had a choice or everyone was a racist pig. I merely pointed out that society had a vastly different view on the matter in 1875. To pretend that society was not inherently racist back then, is to be ignorant of the history of racism AND our history. Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Hancock, Jay, Paine, Mason... none of these men made the "choice" to ban slavery or outlaw discrimination based on race.

Later, even Lincoln would make the "choice" to say blacks and whites were not equal because of their race. The history is full of such comments from abolitionists of the day, most of whom advocated a plan to ship black people far, far away from America, because they did NOT want to integrate. Now, was Lincoln a "racist pig" because he said he didn't feel the negro could ever be integrated into white society? I don't think, by the standards of that time, he was a "racist pig" but by a modern understanding, his words are certainly very racist and discriminatory toward blacks, and he clearly seemed to shun the idea of integrating them into white society.

Your problem continues to be, that you would like to paint the past in the social enlightenment of today, and that was the point, purpose, intent and meaning of this thread. History shows a different society than the one you like to think was here. When you think about a Strom Thurmond supporting segregation in 1948(?) ...you apply a modern-day understanding of what is "racist" and "piggish" to the cultural majority of society of a different time. What we find deplorable today, our great grandparents simply didn't find deplorable or 'racist' in any way, they didn't see the "evil" of segregation, it was not considered discriminatory. It was accepted, it was condoned, it was endorsed, it was sanctioned, it was approved, it was politically correct, it was the law and how people did business and went about their business. Black people, unless they were of celebrity status, were social outcasts, and that was pretty much anywhere in America from 1600s to 1954....and some places, even today!

 

[Jarod]

Again, you are taking something I said completely out of the context presented, and forming some ridiculous meaning to it, that simply doesn't convey honesty about what was said.

I never argued that no one had a choice or everyone was a racist pig. I merely pointed out that society had a vastly different view on the matter in 1875. To pretend that society was not inherently racist back then, is to be ignorant of the history of racism AND our history. Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Hancock, Jay, Paine, Mason... none of these men made the "choice" to ban slavery or outlaw discrimination based on race.

Later, even Lincoln would make the "choice" to say blacks and whites were not equal because of their race. The history is full of such comments from abolitionists of the day, most of whom advocated a plan to ship black people far, far away from America, because they did NOT want to integrate. Now, was Lincoln a "racist pig" because he said he didn't feel the negro could ever be integrated into white society? I don't think, by the standards of that time, he was a "racist pig" but by a modern understanding, his words are certainly very racist and discriminatory toward blacks, and he clearly seemed to shun the idea of integrating them into white society.

Your problem continues to be, that you would like to paint the past in the social enlightenment of today, and that was the point, purpose, intent and meaning of this thread. History shows a different society than the one you like to think was here. When you think about a Strom Thurmond supporting segregation in 1948(?) ...you apply a modern-day understanding of what is "racist" and "piggish" to the cultural majority of society of a different time. What we find deplorable today, our great grandparents simply didn't find deplorable or 'racist' in any way, they didn't see the "evil" of segregation, it was not considered discriminatory. It was accepted, it was condoned, it was endorsed, it was sanctioned, it was approved, it was politically correct, it was the law and how people did business and went about their business. Black people, unless they were of celebrity status, were social outcasts, and that was pretty much anywhere in America from 1600s to 1954....and some places, even today!

Well, I am glad you have mostly come around to my way of thinking... Vastly different than your first few posts, but that is the mark of a truely intelegent person, one who can learn during a discussion.

The only point Id like to make here is that no matter how POPULAR an idea was in 1870 or 1600... wrong is wrong!

Ohh, and I am glad you stoped debating!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well, I am glad you have mostly come around to my way of thinking... Vastly different than your first few posts, but that is the mark of a truely intelegent person, one who can learn during a discussion.

The only point Id like to make here is that no matter how POPULAR an idea was in 1870 or 1600... wrong is wrong!

Ohh, and I am glad you stoped debating!

Jarhead, I know you are glad I stopped debating, you were starting to have some bloody stool from the reaming you were getting... who says I can't be compassionate?

I don't see how I have "come around to your way of thinking" on this, or anything. My point has been the same from the moment I typed the subject line to this thread. I made that point, and I backed it with irrefutable fact. You raised no legitimate objections to the point, and failed to establish illegitimate ones, because I prevented you from doing so. Now you want to pretend you have 'changed' my way of thinking? LMFAOOoooooo! You're TOO much, Jarhead!

Yes, we agree... WRONG is WRONG! So, advocating ABORTION is WRONG! Thanks for admitting that! Thanks for clarifying that YOU are in support of WRONGNESS and you know and realize it! It doesn't matter it will be another 20~30 years to repeal Roe v. Wade, WRONG is still WRONG, right??? When we finally end the horrid practice, we can turn you and your spawn into hideous people who are worse than Hitler or Pol Pot ever dreamed of being, because you cavalierly murdered way more people allowing the practice of abortion! We can go ahead and apply that future perception to you now, because that is how our great-great grandchildren will view you, because WRONG in 2121 was WRONG in 2010!


Are you starting to see my point? We can't retroactively judge our predecessors, based on current political correctness! We can realize they were wrong about things, we can fault them for not having the character to realize how they were wrong... There is a valid debate there, and it's fine to have that debate, but the positions taken of the time, should be kept in context of the time, and not distorted by current perceptions. We hear "segregation" and it is like fingernails on a chalkboard, we can't imagine how anyone would ever support it, or think it was a fair and equal thing. But America did, not ALL of America, but a vast and overwhelming majority, for a long long time. When we look at history, we must keep this in mind to remain objective toward history, we can't apply our current understandings and emotions to people who were clueless to those understandings and emotions!

Now Jarhead, that was my intention and point when I decided to make this thread. You and Chicklet, along with a few other pinheads, demonstrated my point better than I ever could have without you. I can't tell you how much I appreciate that, although I know you didn't do it intentionally, it just happened. I knew it would happen, because I know how pinheads think, how their empty little minds work, what drives them to the lunacy they espouse.... it's a blessing and a curse.

 

[Jarod]

Supporting something that is wrong, even if it is the status quo, is still wrong. 20 years from now, being against gay marriage will be as bad as being a segregationist.

Throught our history there have been people who stood up to the fact that segregation and racism was bad, it was not until the 1960's that the idea took hold and society changed.

On a side note, I knew Gov. Wallace. While he used racial politics to gain his positions, (he was on both sides of the issue depending on what was the best way to get elected) personally he was a kind, gentle and honest man. I never discussed his position on race, but judging from those he was friendly with, I would assume that he felt balck people were deserving of kindness and fair treatment much in the way children are so deserving.

My second post sounds a lot like your last post.

Glad to see you ahve come around!

You might be right on Abortion, we will see in 20 or 30 years. I dont like abortion, I wish there was never a need for it, and that the issue could be put to bed because there were no unwanted pregnancies or because an embryo could be saved, but I see it as a necessary evil in todays society. I dont see that segregation was ever a necessary evil.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

My second post sounds a lot like your last post.

Glad to see you ahve come around!

You might be right on Abortion, we will see in 20 or 30 years. I dont like abortion, I wish there was never a need for it, and that the issue could be put to bed because there were no unwanted pregnancies or because an embryo could be saved, but I see it as a necessary evil in todays society. I dont see that segregation was ever a necessary evil.

No, you don't see it, for the same reason many pinheads don't see it, because you didn't live in that era, in that society! The actual term "necessary evil" was originated over slavery! That is precisely how Jefferson and Adams viewed slavery! Segregation was a byproduct of emancipation, how can you not comprehend that it would also be seen as a "necessary evil" by the mainstream of that time? We The People have OFTEN considered things "necessary evil" and justified a continuation of it... the status quot! It doesn't make it right, it never makes it right, but we still do it! In 1875, when you argued our forefathers stood up for integration, women weren't even allowed to vote! Of the people in power, mostly white men of European descent, our nation wholly justified both slavery before and segregation afterward, and did not view them as any sort of "inequality" or anything other than "necessary evil."

Again, I have made the same point from the moment I typed the subject line to this post. I have not "come around" but you seem to have, after you thought about what was being said. That's good enough for me, better than I ever imagined I would get here, usually it seems I just get ignored or tuned out, but I get the sense that you've really gained some insight through this thread, and that makes me happy. I feel we have achieved a breakthrough, and I know you have the urge to lash out in anger at me, trying to pretend that I have come around to your way of thinking.... but that is the funny thing about when you are spinning and don't realize it, when you stop, it makes you a little dizzy, and you have that weird sensation... I understand completely.

 

[Jarod]

No, you don't see it, for the same reason many pinheads don't see it, because you didn't live in that era, in that society! The actual term "necessary evil" was originated over slavery! That is precisely how Jefferson and Adams viewed slavery! Segregation was a byproduct of emancipation, how can you not comprehend that it would also be seen as a "necessary evil" by the mainstream of that time? We The People have OFTEN considered things "necessary evil" and justified a continuation of it... the status quot! It doesn't make it right, it never makes it right, but we still do it! In 1875, when you argued our forefathers stood up for integration, women weren't even allowed to vote! Of the people in power, mostly white men of European descent, our nation wholly justified both slavery before and segregation afterward, and did not view them as any sort of "inequality" or anything other than "necessary evil."

Again, I have made the same point from the moment I typed the subject line to this post. I have not "come around" but you seem to have, after you thought about what was being said. That's good enough for me, better than I ever imagined I would get here, usually it seems I just get ignored or tuned out, but I get the sense that you've really gained some insight through this thread, and that makes me happy. I feel we have achieved a breakthrough, and I know you have the urge to lash out in anger at me, trying to pretend that I have come around to your way of thinking.... but that is the funny thing about when you are spinning and don't realize it, when you stop, it makes you a little dizzy, and you have that weird sensation... I understand completely.

So are you argueing that slavery and segregation were necessary evils?

 

[Jarod]

Well they didn't disagree, did they? We certainly had a segregate society for 100 years, long after the days of the Quakers and Abolitionists! I don't know that I ever saw anything from either Quakers or Abolitionists which suggested blacks and whites were equal or should be considered equal in society. They opposed the enslavement of human beings, they felt they should be free, and in that sense, given equal consideration as fellow human beings, but none of them ever suggested they were equal to whites or advocated for such policies.

Here is where the modern day liberal nitwit, gets Civil Rights and the Civil War confused... the literally view the Civil War as the beginning of Civil Rights, and it wasn't. Those who favored abolition to slavery, were NOT advocates of racial equality! They just weren't! And to continue pretending that this was the case, is simply ignorant of historical fact, and an insult to Civil Rights, in my opinion.

THat was your point way back then, and it seems you acknoledge now that there were advocates of racial equality in 1875... 1866 and prior...

The roots of the civil rights movement of the 1960's go back to 1875 and 1866 and even further if you care to trace it!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So are you argueing that slavery and segregation were necessary evils?

No Jarhead, this is NOT an argument about what is right or wrong, or who supports and advocates the old view and who doesn't. I have never argued that our forefathers were RIGHT on this issue, I merely presented a context for what they argued at the time. Much as you view abortion as a "necessary evil," they viewed slavery, then segregation. As I said, that is precisely where the term "necessary evil" originated. It doesn't mean I share their viewpoint, and I really do hope you are smart enough to understand that.

THat was your point way back then, and it seems you acknoledge now that there were advocates of racial equality in 1875... 1866 and prior...

The roots of the civil rights movement of the 1960's go back to 1875 and 1866 and even further if you care to trace it!

I have never argued that there were not ANY advocates for equality, and I have corrected that misnomer numerous times throughout the thread, are you not reading my fucking words, or what? I KNOW THERE WERE SOME PEOPLE ADVOCATING RACIAL EQUALITY! There! Is that fucking clear enough for you to comprehend? Repeat that sentence to yourself a few times and try to grasp the understanding of what I said, okay? Because, this makes about the umpteenth time I've had to correct you on this, and I shouldn't have to do that, if you are actually READING what is posted!

The number of people in political power, advocating what we commonly know today as "equality" were few to none in 1875. You want to think of Abe Lincoln as an advocate of integration, racial equality... but that simply is not true, he didn't favor integration, he didn't feel the races were equal, or would ever be equal. People had a completely different mindset regarding this issue of "equality" in 1875. For the most part, and you can believe this or not, the FEW examples of people who dared to advance the idea that black and white people were truly equal, mostly ended up swing in a tree somewhere. This was NOT a common line of thinking, it was NOT something people were standing defiantly for, and in terms of percentage per capita, I would say it would be along the lines of polygamists of today... is there some widespread movement of polygamists trying to change the laws and society? No, we don't see that, we don't really even hear about it, and our political leaders certainly aren't advocating for it.... still, there are SOME people who do support that viewpoint... there are always SOME people!

 

[Jarod]

No Jarhead, this is NOT an argument about what is right or wrong, or who supports and advocates the old view and who doesn't. I have never argued that our forefathers were RIGHT on this issue, I merely presented a context for what they argued at the time. Much as you view abortion as a "necessary evil," they viewed slavery, then segregation. As I said, that is precisely where the term "necessary evil" originated. It doesn't mean I share their viewpoint, and I really do hope you are smart enough to understand that.



I have never argued that there were not ANY advocates for equality, and I have corrected that misnomer numerous times throughout the thread, are you not reading my fucking words, or what? I KNOW THERE WERE SOME PEOPLE ADVOCATING RACIAL EQUALITY! There! Is that fucking clear enough for you to comprehend? Repeat that sentence to yourself a few times and try to grasp the understanding of what I said, okay? Because, this makes about the umpteenth time I've had to correct you on this, and I shouldn't have to do that, if you are actually READING what is posted!

The number of people in political power, advocating what we commonly know today as "equality" were few to none in 1875. You want to think of Abe Lincoln as an advocate of integration, racial equality... but that simply is not true, he didn't favor integration, he didn't feel the races were equal, or would ever be equal. People had a completely different mindset regarding this issue of "equality" in 1875. For the most part, and you can believe this or not, the FEW examples of people who dared to advance the idea that black and white people were truly equal, mostly ended up swing in a tree somewhere. This was NOT a common line of thinking, it was NOT something people were standing defiantly for, and in terms of percentage per capita, I would say it would be along the lines of polygamists of today... is there some widespread movement of polygamists trying to change the laws and society? No, we don't see that, we don't really even hear about it, and our political leaders certainly aren't advocating for it.... still, there are SOME people who do support that viewpoint... there are always SOME people!

You are the one who keeps mentioning Abe Lincoln, I never brought him up once.

There were however, people in Congres and other great advocates who fought hard for racial equality.... ALL though history!

Your example of George Wallace, at one point in his career and life, he was an awfull racist who did great harm to the black community in Alabama. I know however that he could be a kind and caring man with redeeming qualities. He was a great speaker, one who made you feel warm while listening to him, he was also VERY loyal.

Everyone has good things about them and bad. If you asked me about Wallace as it ralates to helping the cause of African Americans, Id say, in all, he was very bad and harmfull...

If you asked me if Wallace was kind and generous to my family... Id say GREATLY so!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are the one who keeps mentioning Abe Lincoln, I never brought him up once.

There were however, people in Congres and other great advocates who fought hard for racial equality.... ALL though history!

Your example of George Wallace, at one point in his career and life, he was an awfull racist who did great harm to the black community in Alabama. I know however that he could be a kind and caring man with redeeming qualities. He was a great speaker, one who made you feel warm while listening to him, he was also VERY loyal.

Everyone has good things about them and bad. If you asked me about Wallace as it ralates to helping the cause of African Americans, Id say, in all, he was very bad and harmfull...

If you asked me if Wallace was kind and generous to my family... Id say GREATLY so!

He was an "awful racist" because you are applying a modern standard to what he advocated. You lack the comprehension of context, the prevailing sentiment of the times. When he said "segregation now, segregation forever" it was regarding forced Federal integration. There were very few integrated state schools at the time, most school systems had adopted a segregated system which had been upheld for decades by the courts... not making an excuse for this... not saying it was right... but the states had done, up until that point, exactly what the law indicated they should and could do. They built black and white schools, not because they were racist haters of black people who wanted to treat them unequal... that is from a modern understanding... they were acting in accordance to what the law of the time was, and doing what the collective rest of society was doing. Support for the practice to continue without Federal interference, was popular, not just in the South, but anywhere there was a sizable black population.

You have to try and imagine what it was like before people thought about 'equality' as they do today. The meaning has certainly changed over the years, and continues to change. Many segregationists argued it was "equality" to segregate, they were doing the same for both whites and blacks, and both would be more content and happy amongst their own kind... blacks wouldn't be "equal" trying to compete in white schools... it was doing them a favor to segregate them... save them the social detriment... all of these arguments were presented by people and agreed with, for years! You and I don't make those arguments, WE don't view things from that perspective, but THEY did! Our whole society did! From New York to California, and everywhere in between, we went down that road.

The argument here, has never been whether there weren't always some people who fought for equality, I named several off the top of my head earlier... there were advocates of racial equality, it just wasn't predominate.

Back to Wallace... do you honestly believe, if a person believes in their heart, there is a superior race and an inferior race, they can overcome that? How can Wallace "at one point in his career" be an awful racist, yet in his later career, garners 87% of the black vote in Alabama? I say, he either completely fooled a lot of black Alabamians, or he wasn't really racist at heart. He supported the popular status quot of the time, whether that was "right or wrong," or whether it fits our modern criteria for "equality" regarding race, that is entirely a different thing. We have to put thing in the context of the time, we can't apply our modern understanding of things, because they simply had a different perspective because of the culture and the times. That is a reality we have to accept, whether we are proud of it or not, whether we find it repulsive to face or not.