do ya'll realize the US was an apartheid country prior to ~1970?

[© tweed]

just making sure?

[opebo]

Absolutely.  Reminds us of LBJ's achievement.

[© tweed]

Absolutely.  Reminds us of LBJ's achievement.

be careful, it wasn't the achievement of one white man in a powerful position, but that of millions of the nameless that risked their lives to make something so.

[opebo]

Absolutely.  Reminds us of LBJ's achievement.

be careful, it wasn't the achievement of one white man in a powerful position, but that of millions of the nameless that risked their lives to make something so.

Not sure that's how it works, but yes, it wasn't one person, of course.

[Vosem]

a) Before 1965 (by 1970 it was over), and only in the South. (Certainly there was cultural racism against blacks in the North, but I don't believe there was legally sanctioned racism like the South or South Africa.)
 
b) Yes, I do realize, parts of the US had very racist laws prior to the 1960s. So what?

Absolutely.  Reminds us of LBJ's achievement.

be careful, it wasn't the achievement of one white man in a powerful position, but that of millions of the nameless that risked their lives to make something so.

People risked their lives to participate in protests (sort of), but ultimately, yes, LBJ and Congress were the ones who succeeded in passing the civil rights legislation, not 'millions of the nameless'.

[Antonio the Sixth]

a) Before 1965 (by 1970 it was over)

Old habits take quite some time to disappear. I highly doubt that segregation immediately and universally ended right at the moment Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act.

[Comrade Funk]

Segregation is still around in some parts of the South. It just isn't law.

[Vosem]

a) Before 1965 (by 1970 it was over)

Old habits take quite some time to disappear. I highly doubt that segregation immediately and universally ended right at the moment Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act.

It did legally. If you're speaking culturally, everybody is an apartheid country to some extent; xenophobia, unfortunately, is a pretty universal reaction. That said, 1970 I suppose is as good a place to start as any other; it was the last year a major-party Southern candidate ran an explicitly racist campaign (Albert Watson, Republican candidate from South Carolina), and he lost. By 1970 segregation was pretty clearly a lost cause.

Segregation is still around in some parts of the South. It just isn't law.

Then it's not around. Also your signature is stupid as f**k.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Also your signature is stupid as f**k.

...Really, Vosem? My distaste for you has risen.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Also your signature is stupid as f**k.

...Really, Vosem? My distaste for you has risen.

You weren't familiar with Vosem's views on this? There's a particular kind of American exceptionalism that submits that Americans flat-out need not have to care for one another as much as people in other countries with comparable standards of living.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I don't think the US had residential segregation of the rigid type that apartheid suggests. To the extent it did - and does - have residential segregation, my understanding is it was actually more pronounced in the 1970s than it had been in the 1950s, and as much in the North as in the South.

[fezzyfestoon]

Segregation is still around in some parts of the South. It just isn't law.

Re-segregation is all the rage in many, many urban areas today.

[Vosem]

Also your signature is stupid as f**k.

...Really, Vosem? My distaste for you has risen.

You're right, that was uncool. I apologize, Comrade Funk; I just don't believe that Congressmen would be any more likely to pass a nationwide healthcare law if their own free healthcare was removed, and (especially considering most Congressmen aren't exactly poor) it seems like a very odd point to make. Obviously Congressmen don't deserve free healthcare any more than the average person would.

Also your signature is stupid as f**k.

...Really, Vosem? My distaste for you has risen.

You weren't familiar with Vosem's views on this? There's a particular kind of American exceptionalism that submits that Americans flat-out need not have to care for one another as much as people in other countries with comparable standards of living.

I've already explained why I think my views on healthcare leave people better off, and I don't think this is the right thread to repeat them.

I don't think the US had residential segregation of the rigid type that apartheid suggests. To the extent it did - and does - have residential segregation, my understanding is it was actually more pronounced in the 1970s than it had been in the 1950s, and as much in the North as in the South.

Yes, what with 'white flight' residential segregation grew more pronounced, but that's not apartheid; it's like saying Slovakia is apartheid because Hungarians live only along the Danube and the Slovakians live everywhere else. The government really did become impartial.

Segregation is still around in some parts of the South. It just isn't law.

Re-segregation is all the rage in many, many urban areas today.

What?

[TJ in Oregon]

Vosem, Cleveland is basically still segregated. The vast majority of the black people live in areas that are overwhelmingly black and most of the white people live in areas that are overwhelmingly white. You may not notice in Westlake, but take a trip over to the east side sometime, it's definitely true.

[Vosem]

Vosem, Cleveland is basically still segregated. The vast majority of the black people live in areas that are overwhelmingly black and most of the white people live in areas that are overwhelmingly white. You may not notice in Westlake, but take a trip over to the east side sometime, it's definitely true.

I understand that cities are basically segregated -- I used to live in New York City, and even in Westlake you live close enough in Cleveland that you'd be blind not to notice. (Actually, living anywhere in the US you'd have to be blind not to notice.) But my point is that that doesn't constitute the same sort of systemic oppression, segregation, and denial of rights that occurred under apartheid. Residential segregation is common but it's not like black people aren't allowed to buy certain goods white people can.

[© tweed]

"you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about."  - Good Will Hunting

[Vosem]

"you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about."  - Good Will Hunting

Coming from you, that made me laugh

[© tweed]

the most overused of all epithetical phrases --

[J. J.]

My all time favorite post:

Oh great another Republican Philadelphian has entered!  Where from?  Let me guess.. the Northeast. 

Try Broad and Erie.

As for rude, I'm from North Philly.  :-)  All of my posts are heavily censored.

Broad and Erie??? A Republican?? I never thought I'd be seeing that day come.  I think Al Sharpton would beat Bush handily in the precincts surrounding that area.

I've lived in North Philly for 13 years.

[後援会]

As horrible as racism in the 50's/60's was, it wasn't comparable to apartheid. I would not casually toss words around in order to set up simplistic equivalences. Calling 1960's America (or for that matter, modern Israel) apartheid smacks to me of ignorance of simply how incredibly awful apartheid was. There is a very good reason that of all the racist regimes in the world (and there were many) at the time, only South Africa (and I suppose Rhodesia too, but nobody cares about Rhodesia anymore) became an international pariah.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

As horrible as racism in the 50's/60's was, it wasn't comparable to apartheid. I would not casually toss words around in order to set up simplistic equivalences. Calling 1960's America (or for that matter, modern Israel) apartheid smacks to me of ignorance of simply how incredibly awful apartheid was. There is a very good reason that of all the racist regimes in the world (and there were many) at the time, only South Africa (and I suppose Rhodesia too, but nobody cares about Rhodesia anymore) became an international pariah.

No.

Of course Apartheid was quite different from the US south - but that was partly due to demographics rather than 'stronger racist sentiment'.

[All Along The Watchtower]

a) Before 1965 (by 1970 it was over)

Old habits take quite some time to disappear. I highly doubt that segregation immediately and universally ended right at the moment Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act.

It did legally. If you're speaking culturally, everybody is an apartheid country to some extent; xenophobia, unfortunately, is a pretty universal reaction. That said, 1970 I suppose is as good a place to start as any other; it was the last year a major-party Southern candidate ran an explicitly racist campaign (Albert Watson, Republican candidate from South Carolina), and he lost. By 1970 segregation was pretty clearly a lost cause.

Segregation is still around in some parts of the South. It just isn't law.

Then it's not around. Also your signature is stupid as f**k.

lol such an Atlas post

[Vosem]

a) Before 1965 (by 1970 it was over)

Old habits take quite some time to disappear. I highly doubt that segregation immediately and universally ended right at the moment Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act.

It did legally. If you're speaking culturally, everybody is an apartheid country to some extent; xenophobia, unfortunately, is a pretty universal reaction. That said, 1970 I suppose is as good a place to start as any other; it was the last year a major-party Southern candidate ran an explicitly racist campaign (Albert Watson, Republican candidate from South Carolina), and he lost. By 1970 segregation was pretty clearly a lost cause.

Segregation is still around in some parts of the South. It just isn't law.

Then it's not around. Also your signature is stupid as f**k.

lol such an Atlas post

I apologized for that. I would delete it, but I don't like deleting posts, it makes me feel dishonest.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Also your signature is stupid as f**k.

...Really, Vosem? My distaste for you has risen.

You weren't familiar with Vosem's views on this? There's a particular kind of American exceptionalism that submits that Americans flat-out need not have to care for one another as much as people in other countries with comparable standards of living.

Oh, I was aware of his views. That's why I dislike(d) him in the first place. I just didn't think he needed to bring it up.

[後援会]

No.

Of course Apartheid was quite different from the US south - but that was partly due to demographics rather than 'stronger racist sentiment'.

It's not an issue of racial sentiment. It's an issue of the actual racist measures enforced by the society and government. And on that measure, the South quite frankly does not compare to Apartheid SA. There's a reason the South was challenged by a non-violent civil rights movement, while SA was challenged by a largely violent insurrectionist/terroristic movement. Call Jim Crow what it was. And call Apartheid what it was. As something mentioned, it's one of the most overused epithets in political discourse and it's almost never appropriate. Like Godwin's Law-lite.