Still Stuck in '64

Townhall.com ^ | May 29, 2010 | Rich Tucker

[Kaslin]

If someone offered me twice the assessed value of my home -- in cash, no questions asked -- I’d schedule a moving van. It wouldn’t matter whether the potential buyer was black, red, brown or polka dotted. The only color I’d be interested in would be green.

However, if I’d lived in my home in 1952, the year after it was built, and an African-American potential buyer had offered me twice the assessed value, I would have been forced to turn the offer down. It was the Jim Crow era, and state and local laws made it illegal to sell homes on my street to blacks.

Again -- not only was this discrimination legal, it was mandated by law.

Here’s part of a Virginia law passed in 1912: “The preservation of the public morals, public health and public order, in the cities and towns of this commonwealth is endangered by the residence of white and colored people in close proximity to one another.” Thus localities were empowered to create “segregation districts.” It was, unbelievably, a misdemeanor “for any colored person, not then residing in a district so defined and designated as a white district, to move into and occupy as a residence any building or portion thereof in such white district.”

That, in a nutshell, is why the country needed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and other federal intervention. Many states had enacted laws that prevented free enterprise. It was up to Washington to restore choice to millions of citizens.

That law is much in the news again these days, thanks to Rand Paul. On MSNBC, the Senate candidate seemed to suggest that parts of it over-reached. Dr. Paul has since clarified. “You would have voted yea. You would have voted yes in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,” Wolf Blitzer asked on CNN. “Yes,” Paul responded.

But that’s coming at this the wrong way. The question should be, “Given societal sea changes over the last 46 years, what parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act need to be reauthorized today?” Consider another question Blitzer asked Paul. “Did Woolworth -- Woolworth, the department store, have a right, at their lunch counters, to segregate blacks and whites?”

That misses the historical context. Owners were often mandated, by law, to segregate blacks and whites. “All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license,” read a Georgia law. For its part, Birmingham, Ala., passed a “separate accommodations” law as late as 1963.

The better question would be, “Would any business operating today make it a practice to segregate blacks and whites?” It’s possible. But highly unlikely. Businesses don’t make money by turning down customers.

Of course, there could still be discrimination. The owner of a Bed & Breakfast could decline to host homosexual couples, for example. In that case, federal law could theoretically force that owner to cater to gays.

But again, look at that example from the other direction: If you were gay, would you and your partner want to stay with an owner who self-identifies as opposing your lifestyle? You’d probably want to do the exact opposite -- organize a boycott of the anti-gay owner and deny him business.

There are those who look around, even in 2010, and see a deeply bigoted country. For example, moveon.org is collecting signatures on a petition to oppose “whites only” lunch counters. But is any politician or lobbying group pushing to resegregate lunch counters? It’s a petition to oppose a position that simply doesn’t exist.

Instead of seeing the progress we’ve made since the 1960s (that’s in living memory for many Americans) some insist minorities should live in fear that their rights are about to be stripped. But the burden of proof should be on the fear mongers.

Do they really believe Americans are so bigoted that we’re eager to go back to segregated facilities? Nobody could make this case, because there’s no evidence that American voters would stand for resegregation, and overwhelming evidence (based on the people we’ve elected in recent decades and the laws they’ve passed) that we wouldn’t.

Jim Crow laws were a profound injustice, based on the mistakenly decided Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court decision that enshrined “separate but equal” facilities. It required federal intervention to fix that injustice, since it had been triggered by the federal government.

But now that Jim Crow’s flown south, he’s never coming back. News flash for those in the news business: It isn’t 1964.

[webstersII]

Just as consumer culture tries to sell “Girls Gone Wild”-style sexism as “empowerment,” conservatives are trying to sell anti-women policies shrouded in pro-women rhetoric? “

Yes, they absolutely believe that.

[UCANSEE2]

“It was the Jim Crow era, and state and local laws made it illegal to sell homes on my street to blacks. “

AND , for bonus points, which party was responsible for sponsoring,writing, and passing those laws?

[wintertime]

Schools are segregated due to quality of life issues.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Private schools are far less segregated than government schools.

And...Private schools are less segregated in subtle ways as well. For instance, when lunchroom seating is studied, children in private schools are far more likely to sit at tables with mixed races of black children and white children. In government schools children in the lunchroom segregate themselves into white tables and black tables.

[super7man]

Nice.
I think that community is defined by a group of people with similar values and culture. Not by streets.

People do segregate themselves geographically though, to be part of the culture that best suits them. That is why we have Chinatown, Japantown, Little Saigon.

If a black family shared the values and culture of my community, I would be happy to have them as neighbors. My values are basically God, Family, Country, in that order. Not so hard. And equally so, the Section 8 culture would not be welcome.

[AndrewB]

"... and I’ve even been to barbecues at their place."

Dude! Really? You've actually been to a black person's house for a barbeque. How very forward thinking of you.

There is no "white lifestyle". Ozzie and Harriet have been off the air for quite some time now. There is no "black lifestyle" either.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“There is no “white lifestyle”. Ozzie and Harriet have been off the air for quite some time now. There is no “black lifestyle” either. “

B S

[Agamemnon]

Humans are animals like the rest of the orders, phyla, and geni on this planet. To be colorblind to race is to ignore fundamental differences in each other.

Seems that you need a rudimentary lesson in basic biology and taxonomy.

All human beings classified on the basis of genus and species, are classified homo sapiens What phyla does a phenotypically "black" person belong to that a phenotypically "white" person does not belong to?

We are all members of the human race -- one race. "Race" as you have attempted to classify it parrots Darwinian bilge.

Human beings vary in shades of brown. Genetically speaking no two persons differ genetically to any significant degree; the DNA of any two people will differ at most in one out of every thousand to ten thousand nucleotides, or a mere 0.01-0.1%. The Human Genome Project determined that 99.9% of the human genetic complement is the same in everyone.

"Race is a social construct, not a scientific classification, .... Any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations is both arbitrary and subjective." Robert S. Schwartz, M.D. in "Race Is a Poor Measure," New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 344, No. 18, May 3, 2001.

The only ones that are ignorant are those who buy into Darwinism and the MSM spin that glorifies his world view.

FReegards!

[SandRat]

Liberals believe that if Section 8 housing is available in upper middle class areas, the Section 8 residents will adopt upper middle class values and that when the upper-middle class see how badly Section 8 need assistance they will drop their resistance to welfare and higher taxation.

Bleeding-Heart Liberals er.. Progressives er.. Democrats er.. Democrat Socialists er.. Socialits er.. Marxists er.. Commies are idiots.

[Darnright]

>Replace “race” with “culture” and you will be on far better footing here, philosophically.<

Bingo. I don’t think there are too many people here who would welcome loud, aggressive, slovenly whites, complete with beer can littered yards and multiple junk cars on blocks, moving in next door.

[dfwgator]

It’s not about race, which is a characteristic one is born with that does not change.

It is about attitude and behavior and values. Strip the color away and that is what it boils down to.

But there are many blacks who feel that just because their skin color is black, that means they have to act a certain way, and those who don’t are not ‘keeping it real.’ There is a lot of pressure in the black community to conform.

[B4Ranch]

>There is no “white lifestyle”. Ozzie and Harriet have been off the air for quite some time now. There is no “black lifestyle” either.<

You don’t know squat about “white or black” lifestyles, do you?

[TXnMA]

"There is no "white lifestyle". Ozzie and Harriet have been off the air for quite some time now. There is no "black lifestyle" either. "

~~~~~~~

Where have you been the last twenty years?

Obviously, you have not seen (as I have -- frequently) a high-achieving black student being "ragged on" by other blacks for "actin' too white"...

YOU may not see a "lifestyle" difference -- but blacks do -- and they do everything in their power to perpetuate that difference.

[scan59]

Dude! Really? You've actually been to a black person's house for a barbeque. How very forward thinking of you.

He's trying to make some observations free of the choke-hold political correctness has on this country. It's ridicule such as yours that keeps ordinary people from expressing what they really feel. I suppose you're going to call him a racist next.

[scan59]

“There is no “white lifestyle”. Ozzie and Harriet have been off the air for quite some time now. There is no “black lifestyle” either. “

My section 8 neighbors who moved into the rental home next door might disagree with you.

[AndrewB]

Post 19 said it best:

"You are trapped in the liberal mentality of keeping people in stereotypical categories. This creates the cycle you see where people self-segregate and end up living the culture they are told they must fit in. You do have a lot of community self-segregation though attitudes that you must 'keep within your category' and act the culture you are 'expected' to act. This results in the 'other side of the tracks' mentality that seems to have segments of cities and communities that have higher crime, etc.

Free individuals living as individuals, not bound by what or how others say they must act and who they must associate with is the only way to break that cycle. It destroys the collectivist/statist attitudes where the 'controllers', be it government, community leaders, or just attitude, keep groups segregated and acting the way others define them.

No offense, but a lot of what you say is just a reflection of that old collectivist, categorization attitude that keeps the cycle going- it allows others to categorize you and define your behavior by your category instead of you being and acting like an individual, not bound by your category, and not having a category to blame for your actions."

[AndrewB]

"You don’t know squat about “white or black” lifestyles, do you?"

I'm just saying that to assume that most white people live in nice neighborhoods and don't cause trouble and that most black people are all ghetto living welfare recipients is absurd, and statistically inaccurate to boot. I live in Charleston, SC which has a 50/50 racial population mix.

[RegulatorCountry]

People actually are free to associate as a Constitutional right in this country. Government force aggravated rather than helped historic racial segregation. The correct response in hindsight would have been to remove the force and allow society to adapt as the people themselves saw fit. That was not the course taken, the course taken was to force the issue and render certain associations no longer free, which bizarrely was just the inverse of the Jim Crow laws rightly condemned. If making legal distinctions on the basis of race is wrong, it’s wrong. MLK knew this, why don’t you?

Now, we have bizarre, counterintuitive and costly efforts that amount to nothing more than a hill of beans, beans that are assiduously counted by an army of apparatchiks bound and determined to make the numbers look pretty for whatever obscure reason might be deemed a priority at any given time. That is not how people live, work or play. People associate for many reasons, common interests, religion, family, geography, class and yes, even race. There is nothing inherently wrong with this in a putatively free society, and your faux intellectual superiority is exactly what has been behind every instance of wrong based upon race in my lifetime.

Drop the force of law in this matter, accept equality under the law in deed as well as word and allow the people to live, work and play as they so choose. If segregation rematerializes in private interactions under the resulting, truly free and open society, any honest individual should see that as the desireable result freely chosen by those with the Constitutional right to do so, and won’t immediately jump on some gilded high horse to interfere because of a presumed superior knowledge as to how any individual or group of individuals *should* be conducting their affairs.

[AndrewB]

Are you responding to one of my posts? I'm confused.

Actually I couldn't agree more with what you're saying... except for the faux intellectual superiority part of course.

[rarestia]

I wasn’t speaking as an expert. Those were the first words that came to mind. I wasn’t trying to be scientific, just using them as a placeholder.

[rarestia]

Come off it, Drew. I wasn’t using a barbecue as some sort of derisive event. I’ve been to his place for movie nights, for cards, and when I used to drink, for cocktails. I could’ve used any of those social events as an example but chose barbecue. Why did you find it necessary to draw attention my choice of social outing?