Allen should 'fess up and be done with it.

[_JS]

You sure about that?  Where?

You never heard of the riots in Boston after the forced busing to end segregation of schools? The Watt's Riot in L.A. (enshrined by a Buffalo Springfield tune)?

The South was nasty and brutal with their racism. They were also more brazen about it. Yet, I don't see how that makes it any better than the brand practiced in the North and West. Also note that we haven't even discussed the Indian laws and wars. We could delve into how the First Nations were brutalized by your nation (and ours) Mike. The point being that there are a lot of dirty hands involved in racism. To point out the Southern U.S. alone is a bit unfair.

[Michael Tee]

The formal and institutionalized racism of the South persisted from almost the end of the Civil War to the mid-1960s.  Legally entrenched racism and segregation for over 100 years.  This is so obvious that it should be beyond debate.

What part of "legally entrenched" do my interlocutors not understand?  Were the Boston riots or the segregated schools they protected legally entrenched forms?  I donk't think so.  Were the Watts riots of L.A. protesting a legally entrenched Jim Crow society?  That's absurd to suggest. 

The Indians were fucked over universally -  - Canada, USA, Latin America, East, West, North and South.  I suggest we leave them out of the equation altogether because they are a common substratum that links all of the Western Hemisphere allowing no differentiation between any of its regions.  If the measure of racism and iniquity were to be set on the basis of the treatment of the Indians, no place is different from any other place.  But as you can see from the South's treatment of its former slaves, some racist bastards are very much worse than other racist bastards.  That's life.  Nobody's perfect.  I'm sure if the Indians had won the continent back from the whites, the whites would have plenty to complain about.

Ami points out some historical anomalies - - compromises allowing some Union states to keep their slaves, etc.  But the fact is that there was no formal institutionalized Jim Crow racist system of franchise denial and terrorization by law enforcement and official government comparable to the South in any other part of America.  Similarly, his observations about the strength of racist feelings in various parts of the country are purely anecdotal and run counter to experience and common sense.  If in fact the other sectors of America are as virulently racist as the South used to be, why don't they support a repeal of the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act to bring back the kind of society the South used to have in the past?

It was never my contention that the rest of the country was free of racism.  Just that the South was more racist because of legally entrenched long-term state-wide and region-wide official formal racism.  And nobody has rebutted that proposition.  Hell, for the most part, nobody even addressed it.

[_JS]

The Indians were fucked over universally -  - Canada, USA, Latin America, East, West, North and South.  I suggest we leave them out of the equation altogether because they are a common substratum that links all of the Western Hemisphere allowing no differentiation between any of its regions.

But you would agree that it was racism, including the horrible schools they were purposefully sent to?

I'd suggest that the Native Americans are used to being left out of the conversation.

Why is informal racism better than formal racism? I'm not here to defend the South and I've lived here for quite some time and know it well. And yes, racism still exists here. There are still communities where families are "run off" for being non-white. I won't defend that for anything. I'm just curious as to why non-statutory racism is somehow better.

[Amianthus]

What part of "legally entrenched" do my interlocutors not understand?  Were the Boston riots or the segregated schools they protected legally entrenched forms?  I donk't think so.

What is missing for a segregated, government-run public school system to become "protected legally entrenched forms"?

I'm pretty sure they were setup using the justification of Plessy v. Ferguson, a Supreme Court decision. Is a legal decision OKing segregated schools not enough to make it "legally entrenched"?

Ditto for Chicago's segregated public housing which I also mentioned earlier.

[Michael Tee]

<<Why is informal racism better than formal racism?>>

With informal racism you can appeal for justice or police protection and you get it.  Maybe not all the time but most of the time and you have a right to expect it.  If there is formal racism, you are disenfranchised, the police are chosen without your input, the courts will enforce the laws that declare you unequal, if you resist the system you will legally be hosed down, savaged by police dogs, beaten by police truncheons, sometimes to death, fined and jailed.  All without recourse, because that's the law.  Your kids will almost never get a decent public school education and if they do it is rare and almost fortuitous.  You will never work at a decent job.  You will never be free of debt to the white man for his merchandise, or his share of the crop.  This was the condition of black Americans in the South for 100 years after the end of the Civil War, yet - - incredibly - - the God-damned country had the fucking nerve to present itself to the world as a model of democracy and enlightenment.  Un - fucking - believable.  WHO did they think they were fooling?

The segregated housing of Boston or Chicago was in all probability ILLEGALLY segregated, I don't have the details but there isn't a thing in the Illinois or Massachusetts state constitutions that I'm aware of that would have sanctioned segregated-by-law facilities of any kind in either state.  The riots in Boston, and I believe in Cicero Illinois, were by WHITE racists protesting the laws that gave blacks the equality that allowed them to move into their suburbs.  The laws actually protected minorities against the discrimination ILLEGALLY visited upon them byu white racists and bigots.

[Amianthus]

The segregated housing of Boston or Chicago was in all probability ILLEGALLY segregated, I don't have the details but there isn't a thing in the Illinois or Massachusetts state constitutions that I'm aware of that would have sanctioned segregated-by-law facilities of any kind in either state.

As I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson sanctioned "segregated-by-law" facilities. The Supreme Court speaks at a national level, not at the state level.

The riots in Boston, and I believe in Cicero Illinois, were by WHITE racists protesting the laws that gave blacks the equality that allowed them to move into their suburbs.

The group protesting in Cicero was led by Martin Luther King, Jr. You're not suggesting that King led a group of racist whites in protest, are you?

[The_Professor]

Plane made an interesting and intriguing point about racsists representing racsists. Why mgiht this be any dfferent than whites representing whites in Congress or blacks representing blacks or cajuns representing cajuns or homeschoolers representing a town of homeschooling families or?? Is the principle similarl?

[Plane]

Plane made an interesting and intriguing point about racsists representing racsists. Why mgiht this be any dfferent than whites representing whites in Congress or blacks representing blacks or cajuns representing cajuns or homeschoolers representing a town of homeschooling families or?? Is the principle similarl?

   Racism is a good thing to have less of in general , in specific cases it is hard to find exceptions in which more racism improves anything .

    It is not better or worse than division of peoples by other factors like class or religion , is is just one of those devils tools that almost anyone can find doing dirty work here and there almost all the time almost everywhere.

    It is a conceit of the north that they are virtuous and free of this devil , well lucky them if so , I kind of doubt it.

     In a democracy the people can have what they want if they want it long enough , what the people are persueded is good for them the government is sure to try.

     It is possible to invade , occupy , controll a territory and force them to do right till they get used to it , but the much superior method is to teach the truth and change what the people want .

     MT points out that a very rough Racism survived the abolition of slavery by at least a century , but was that racism then killed back somewhat by government or has there really been a change of heart in the course of generations? Forceable occupation and Fiat replaced slavery with chain gangs, the Boll wevel and two world wars  changed our economy , scandal and embarrassment changed the chain gangs and the nonviolent SCLC was very persuasive to a generation and to leadership that was getting ready for change.


I wonder if the entire change could have been accomplished non-violently , I don't know .