Can any member of the rabid right-libertarian front justify this statement?

[flaja]

American is worse off because of desegregation and the (racial) civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

 

[Hobbit]

American is worse off because of desegregation and the (racial) civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

I wouldn't say it was because of desegregation, but rather because of its execution. In some ways, it went too fast. In others, too slow. For example, blacks, for long periods of time, had to fight off police dogs and fire hoses just to be allowed to hold public meetings or ride in the front of the bus. Politicians, mostly in the South, looked the other way to get the votes of the racist white majority. On the other hand, school segregation was way too forced and awkward. If it had started in kindergarten, rather than being universally enforced throughout, students could likely have grown accustomed to it rather than coming to school one year to find that they had to be in the same classroom as 'darkies.' It was a societal change that was handled more with votes in mind than what was actually good for the people involved, and the subsequent race-baiting and gunpoint diversity still cripples our society today, as people are forced to go well out of their way to make sure that schools, workplaces, and everything else is a racial cross-section of society at large.

Once again, it's not about the idea, it's about the execution.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

American is worse off because of desegregation and the (racial) civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

Why would it need to be justified? What is the relevance?

Here, I can do it to. Would flaja justify this statement? Illegal Aliens have more rights than US citizens within our borders?

 

[flaja]

Here, I can do it to. Would flaja justify this statement? Illegal Aliens have more rights than US citizens within our borders?

Illegals don't have a right to be here, but once here they do have the same due process legal rights as anyone else. The Constitution does not limit due process rights to U.S. citizens- something I have covered in another thread.

 

[dilloduck]

Illegals don't have a right to be here, but once here they do have the same due process legal rights as anyone else. The Constitution does not limit due process rights to U.S. citizens- something I have covered in another thread.

Which right trumps the other? Since they don't have a right to be here shouldn't they file thier due process papers from another country ?
We're talking about illegally usurped rights here.

 

[flaja]

Which right trumps the other? Since they don't have a right to be here shouldn't they file thier due process papers from another country ?
We're talking about illegally usurped rights here.

If we catch an illegal, he is entitled to a hearing so we can prove his illegal status. Otherwise we risk deporting someone who is a citizen. In the same vein, we cannot automatically declare someone to be a murderer, bank robber, car thief or anything else just because they are an illegal alien.

 

[KarlMarx]

American is worse off because of desegregation and the (racial) civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

Actually, in some ways it may be better off. I read something by Thomas Sowell once that argued that discrimination based on race and sex would have eventually ended because of economic reasons.

The reason was that the demand for labor over the past several decades has exceeded the supply of white males between the ages of 18 and 65. Therefore, women and minorities were able to enter the workplace. My recollection was that women entered the 1970s to make ends meet rather than to find careers or make a political statement. So, this may be proof that Thomas Sowell was right.

It makes sense. Just think of the law of supply and demand. If the demand for labor is high, and you limit the supply of labor because of race or sex, you automatically increase the price (because you've limited the supply). On the other hand, if you hire any qualified person regardless of race or sex, you keep the cost of labor down.

The same argument can be used to argue against affirmative action and other quota based systems that attempt to rectify past discrimination. The labor market is not sensitive to past racial or sex based discrimination. If you discriminate in favor of women or minorities, you will increase the cost of labor (by the same reasons I gave before).

 

[flaja]

The reason was that the demand for labor over the past several decades has exceeded the supply of white males between the ages of 18 and 65.

How much of this economic activity is due to the fact that minorities are no longer restricted to menial jobs and thus have more purchasing power? How much is due to the fact mothers routinely work outside of the home so their children can have things like $600 video games rather than working to put food on the table?

Without the civil rights movement, would it have been possible for minorities and women to enter the workforce in such large numbers?

 

[dilloduck]

American is worse off because of desegregation and the (racial) civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

It's really impossible to know because we have no way of knowing how things would have been if we would have let society operate without government interference. The messed with the prime directive, Captain.

 

[flaja]

It's really impossible to know because we have no way of knowing how things would have been if we would have let society operate without government interference. The messed with the prime directive, Captain.

So its OK to discriminate against people and lynch people just as long as the government doesn’t get involved?

 

[insein]

Why does anyone have to justify the quote? We dont even know who said it? Had you said "What do you think about..." then it would have been a good topic starter but coming out as an attack against a certain group to justify something that wasnt said by anyone but yourself is odd.

 

[dilloduck]

So its OK to discriminate against people and lynch people just as long as the government doesn’t get involved?

I said nothing of the sort------read it again.

It's really impossible to know ----------

 

[Little-Acorn]

Isn't little flaja a hoot?

He makes up a ridiculous statement, and then phrases a series of insults as a "question". And then he sits back and waits for serious responses!

:sleepy1:

Only in America...! :teeth:

 

[flaja]

I said nothing of the sort------read it again.

Discrimination against black people had been perfectly legal for almost 80 years prior to the start of the civil rights movement. The Supreme Court had even ruled that such discrimination was legal (Plessy). You cannot reasonably say society would have changed any time soon without government action. In this regard you are saying that discrimination and all the ills that go with it are perfectly OK. You are so paranoid of government that you will permit injustice rather than have the government act.

 

[dilloduck]

Discrimination against black people had been perfectly legal for almost 80 years prior to the start of the civil rights movement. The Supreme Court had even ruled that such discrimination was legal (Plessy). You cannot reasonably say society would have changed any time soon without government action. In this regard you are saying that discrimination and all the ills that go with it are perfectly OK. You are so paranoid of government that you will permit injustice rather than have the government act.

The government is supposed to be the people---as it ceases become the people I trust it less. Discrimination still occurs. Whites are just the only people that can't bitch about it. This theoretical---"What if __? " of yours is goofy.

 

[William Joyce]

American is worse off because of desegregation and the (racial) civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

White America is worse off.

Desegregation and civil rights were premised on the idea that blacks were inherently equal to whites in every way, and that the only reason for their lag was white racism.

The reality is that blacks are inherently less intelligent and inherently prone to poor behavior. Just look at how they conduct themselves in societies where whites aren't even found: Haiti, Africa, etc. This may sound "mean," but it's the truth. How does "racism" account for Haiti's failures?

So declaring that blacks must be "equal" to whites, then, necessarily meant a massive transfer of wealth from whites to blacks. LBJ and his Great Society were a great example of this. Billions and probably trillions have been spent on this effort, yet today, blacks are not only where they once were, they're even worse off! Meanwhile, white schools were ruined by desegregation, because black behavior is so disruptive. White communities were ruined by integration, and whites fled to the suburbs. Whites gave up careers because of affirmative action, were subjected to criminal assaults, made to feel guilty for black failure, and pretty much gave up on even the idea that they were entitled to peaceful and prosperous lives of their own. "White guilt" came to be the ruling emotion for whites, and is today. White politicians of every stripe bend over backward to be solicitous of blacks, but it only emboldens blacks to demand more, more, more.

Blacks, however, have seen their incomes and status artificially inflated by this white generosity. They have seen their criminal behavior excused by "white racism," as in the OJ case. They have seen swift and severe punishments for whites who point out the obvious about them. They are the beneficiaries of lavish government spending programs for education, etc. They get more and more welfare, and if someone criticizes it, they are "racist." They are essentially insulated from even the slightest criticism of their own failures by the overpowering accusation of "racism." Meanwhile, they are appointed to Supreme Court Justice, Secretary of State and any number of positions that thousands of white people would have been as qualified or more for. They get chairs at prestigious universities without having to produce any scholarship. As with Jayson Blair, they are picked to be reporters for the New York Times, and don't have to do any reporting... they simply make up stories! Their anger is such that they can shoot up an entire subway car declaring that they want to "kill all white people," but the only reaction from the media and government will be that "we need gun reform." The truth about blacks is that left to their own devices, they would revert to primitive status in a matter of months. The only thing that props them up is the achievements of white societies. You may think that sounds "racist," but ask yourself: IS IT TRUE? WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO BET THAT IF ALL BLACK FOLKS WERE SET UP IN A TROPICAL PARADISE SOMEWHERE, THAT THEY'D CREATE THE SPLENDOR OF ROME, EUROPE AND AMERICA IN A FEW HUNDRED YEARS? I wouldn't.

 

[Gunny]

American is worse off because of desegregation and the (racial) civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

America is STILL suffering the effects of FORCED desegregation/integration. Only blind idealogues like you don't see it.

 

[flaja]

The government is supposed to be the people---as it ceases become the people I trust it less. Discrimination still occurs. Whites are just the only people that can't bitch about it. This theoretical---"What if __? " of yours is goofy.

With the exception of affirmative actions laws and programs, how have white people ever been legally discriminated against?

Until the Voting Rights Act it was customary to use things like literacy tests, poll taxes and grandfather clauses to bar blacks from voting. Thus blacks had no way to access the legislative process by which they could rectify their status as 2nd class citizens. In this regard every act of discrimination against black people had the sanction of law. White politicians had no political motive to legally end discrimination because they could not gain the votes of blacks who could not legally vote and taking a public stand against racism would likely cost them the votes of bigoted whites. Very few politicians ever had the courage to oppose discrimination.

Without the Voting Rights Act, we could not have government by the people.

The fact that people, like you, insist that civil rights could have been achieved without government action shows just far this country still has to go.

 

[flaja]

America is STILL suffering the effects of FORCED desegregation/integration. Only blind idealogues like you don't see it.

What are these effects and why are they so detrimental?

 

[William Joyce]

shows just far this country still has to go.

Go where?

Many will only be satisfied once the entire white race is either wiped out completely, or worn down to a servile, quivering nub of fearful ninnies whose only function on this Earth is to serve the desires of the other races.

Oh, crap. That kind of describes us today!