The South and Civil Rights

[scorpiogurl]

Continuing my education on American politics, perhaps someone could enlighten me as to why the "South" was opposed to the idea of civil rights and voted for Mr Thurmond and Mr Wallace? What were their concerns? Were they afraid of the idea of the founding fathers that every man was born equal under god?

[ilikeverin]

They were obsessed with States' Rights... for some reason.  Perhaps someone else can enlighten us on why they were

[A18]

What do you consider "civil rights?"

Anti-discrimination laws are extremely totalitarian in nature.

[scorpiogurl]

What do you consider "civil rights?"

Anti-discrimination laws are extremely totalitarian in nature.

And discrimination laws aren't?

[A18]

So are "discrimination laws," but what does that have to do with anything?

[dazzleman]

The south was obsessed with maintaining segregation and keeping blacks in an inferior position.

Like slavery before it, segregation of blacks to an inferior position in society was considered part of the southern way of life at that time.  Although Roosevelt nominally endorsed better treatment of blacks, he did little to advance that cause, while Truman showed some signs that he was serious about improving the position of blacks in the south.  This alarmed many southerners, and pushed them to Thurmond in 1948.

Likewise, in 1968, with the civil rights revolution having already happened, Wallace gave voice to southern fears and frustrations in its wake.  By then, the issue had grown larger, in the wake of the massive urban riots of the 1960s, the huge growth in crime, and the countercultural and anti-war movement.  Wallace tapped into all these issues by articulating the linkage that many people saw between them - it was liberals who supported civil rights, liberals who advocated a therapeutic and forbearing approach to rioters, liberals who were soft on crime, and liberals who supported the countercultural movement.

I think that old-line southerners had a deeply buried fear that "the negro" as they called them would rise up and pay them back for two centuries of brutal treatment, if he wasn't kept firmly in his place.  Segregation was meant to keep the negro firmly in his place in situations in which blacks and whites interacted closely together.

There is an interesting contrast in how the race issue plays out between the north and south.  There is an old, cynical saying that is partly true that goes something like this, "In the north, they don't care how big the black man gets, as long as he doesn't get too close; in the south, they don't care how close the black man gets, as long as he doesn't get too big."  It reflects a certain truth, that while the north lacked much of the institutionalized discrimination against blacks that existed in the south, blacks and whites tended to live further apart in the north, and interact less with each other.

To a large extent, blacks became the scapegoat for the south's anger and frustration that its cause lost in the civil war.  I think that is what a lot of the irrational hostility toward blacks in the south came from.

[dazzleman]

What do you consider "civil rights?"

Anti-discrimination laws are extremely totalitarian in nature.

I completely disagree.  It is not totalitarian to insist that citizens enjoy the rights guaranteed them under the constitution.  It's a shame that antidiscrimination laws were necessary, but without them, there was a sub-government totalitarianism in the south, effectively.

[scorpiogurl]

So are "discrimination laws," but what does that have to do with anything?

Well I guess I am supposing that if the Civil Rights Bill had anti-discrimination laws then there must have been a degree of discrimination (legal or illegal) otherwise it would have been irrelevant legislation. I just think it is curious that only the confederate states seemed to have an issue with this to the extent of voting for segretationalist candidates.

Maybe the south was correct and the rest of the USA were wrong.....I don't know I am just interested.

[A18]

Who said anything about giving citizens the same rights as guaranteed them by the Constitution? I certainly don't have a problem with that, and that's not what I'm talking about. Of course, in theory, there could be some ridiculous "rights" in the Constitution, but that is not that case.

Anti-discrimination laws make it illegal to discriminate, particularly in business practices (hiring, service, etc). I'm not talking about laws that repealed discriminatory laws.

[dazzleman]

So are "discrimination laws," but what does that have to do with anything?

Well I guess I am supposing that if the Civil Rights Bill had anti-discrimination laws then there must have been a degree of discrimination (legal or illegal) otherwise it would have been irrelevant legislation. I just think it is curious that only the confederate states seemed to have an issue with this to the extent of voting for segretationalist candidates.

Maybe the south was correct and the rest of the USA were wrong.....I don't know I am just interested.

It's actually not quite true that only southern states supported segregationist candidates.  George Wallace won the Michigan Democratic primary in 1972 because of a federal court ruling that would have meant busing between Detroit and its suburbs.  This ruling was later overturned in a landmark (notice how this term is usually only used to refer to liberal rulings) Supreme Court ruling in 1974 that invalidated forced busing across local jurisdictional lines unless it was proven that those lines were drawn with the intent to discriminate.  This ruling effectively ended the threat of forced busing between inner city areas and the surrounding suburbs.

Wallace also had strong support in Boston in 1976, also as a result of forced busing there.  Candidates who were not sufficiently condemnatory of busing were shouted down and jeered.  I think it could be fairly said that much of the northern enthusiasm for forcing change on the south evaporated when it started hitting the north also, in the form of forced busing and court order to put public housing in middle class white neighborhoods.

[ATFFL]

What do you consider "civil rights?"

Anti-discrimination laws are extremely totalitarian in nature.

I completely disagree.  It is not totalitarian to insist that citizens enjoy the rights guaranteed them under the constitution.  It's a shame that antidiscrimination laws were necessary, but without them, there was a sub-government totalitarianism in the south, effectively.

It is not totalitarian to say you must have a culturally diverse workforce and you must give a certain percentage of your contracts to women?

[dazzleman]

What do you consider "civil rights?"

Anti-discrimination laws are extremely totalitarian in nature.

I completely disagree.  It is not totalitarian to insist that citizens enjoy the rights guaranteed them under the constitution.  It's a shame that antidiscrimination laws were necessary, but without them, there was a sub-government totalitarianism in the south, effectively.

It is not totalitarian to say you must have a culturally diverse workforce and you must give a certain percentage of your contracts to women?

Let me be clear.  I think that the original civil rights laws were right and necessary, but I do agree that the whole thing has gone too far in many ways.

I don't think it should be legal to refuse to hire a person simply because he/she is black.  On the other hand, I don't think that anybody should have as a goal to change the ethnic/racial, or even economic, composition of schools, neighborhoods, etc. through forced means.

I simply advocate treating blacks like you'd treat anybody else.  If a black person can afford a house in a certain neighborhood, he/she should not be prevented from buying it.  Let the chips fall where they may.  But I have a big problem with government trying to change the ethnic composition of a neighborhood by placing subsidized public housing there.  Same with schools.  There should be no intentional of students on the basis of race.  But by the same token, students should not be forced out of their neighborhood schools in order to satisfy some demand for diversity in the school.

It is wrong to allow systematic discrimination without good reason against citizens who are supposed to be equal.  But government coercion in this sphere needs to have very definite limits, and I fear that those lines have been crossed in many ways.

[ilikeverin]

Blacks:the South::Jews:the rest of the world

(in 'olden times' anyway)

[AuH2O]

A good way to get handouts is to portray yourself as a victim. The more a victim you are, the more handouts you get.

[A18]

Which has what to do with Civil Rights?

[AuH2O]

Everything.

Because even once the law treats people equally, you can still make yourself out to be a victim. This is the purpose of, say, the NAACP.

The successful result is preferential treatment.

[Smash255]

Everything.

Because even once the law treats people equally, you can still make yourself out to be a victim. This is the purpose of, say, the NAACP.

The successful result is preferential treatment.

Thats not correct.  Their is a difference in the law being equal and being equal in actuality (in regards to getting the same chances and what not).  Blacks are equal in the eyes of the law, but in reality blacks still face discrimination, and are treated unfairly.  Just because the law makes it equal doesn't mean the blacks have the same opportunities & chances as whites do, and that imho is the purpose of the NAACP.  to make sure the laws are actually followed and make equality an actuallity.

[AuH2O]

Well, even assuming it is the government's job to make sure free people don't "discriminate" in ways that are not Unconstitutional-- which it isn't-- there is still the matters of degree and compensation.

The NAACP is institutionally frozen to represent victimhood. Their interest is not to improve the lives of black Americans, because they do little to actually help the people they supposedly represent, but rather to do things like boycott South Carolina (theoretically costing blacks some jobs) because a Confederate flag is located on a memorial near the State House.

Quite simply, it is true on-face that people play the victim game for selfish reasons. Not just in the US and not just with regard to race-- it is a very common occurence. I am merely pointing out that the current "Civil Rights" factions are purely self-interested and operate by way of pleading victim status.

[J. J.]

Quite simply, it is true on-face that people play the victim game for selfish reasons. Not just in the US and not just with regard to race-- it is a very common occurence. I am merely pointing out that the current "Civil Rights" factions are purely self-interested and operate by way of pleading victim status.

I support civil rights for a very selfish reason, I don't mine trampled upon.  A law that says someone won't be denied a job because of skin color, gives me the right not to be denied a job because of my skin color.  A law that says a person won't be stopped and searched because of race, means you won't be stopped and searched because of race.

It is self interest and I have no problem with it.

[AuH2O]

You took me out of context, on purpose, again.

You know I was talking about the institutional motivations of the NAACP and like groups, which are motivated to create a story of widespread victimhood WHETHER OR NOT IT EXISTS because without that, they have lost their direction.

[J. J.]

You took me out of context, on purpose, again.

You know I was talking about the institutional motivations of the NAACP and like groups, which are motivated to create a story of widespread victimhood WHETHER OR NOT IT EXISTS because without that, they have lost their direction.

I'm not disagreeing with you about victimization and I'm not addressing it. 

I certainly did not take you out of context regarding self interest.  I'm not a member of the NAACP or part of the subgroup they wish to "advance."  When they say, effectively, "It is in the self interest of our members that rights be protected," they, in effect, are protecting my rights, and yours, even if neither of us are part of the subgroup.  When they act in that manner, they are acting in both your and my self interest.

I have no problem your rights being protected, nor with mine being protected.