Civil Rights Act of 1964 - A Great Moment in History?

[DaddyTorgo]

Let's see what the general opinion of the board is on this piece of legislation.

[Groundhog]

Well, I guess it depends. Hard to say. Obviously it's a great moment in modern history, but longterm it could be one of those things that kids read about and wonder "really? there was a time when black people couldn't vote or stay in certain hotels? How strange!".

[Greyroofoo]

No trout option?

[DaddyTorgo]

No trout option?

Nope. I was looking for a serious poll.

[Chief Rum]

Two problems with this poll, especially if it's intended to be serious:

1. "great" and "history" are entirely too non-specific and undefined by the pollster.
2. anyone inclined to vote against it would have to be okay with the view that voting no means to some that you're a racist

At least it isn't a public poll.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Nope. I was looking for a serious poll.

Then you'd need not only a more diverse cross-section that the leftist leanings here but you'd also need a format where people assumed their identities were secure & were likely to be more comfortable answering honestly.

I checked, as far as I could tell you did the right thing & blanked the respondents answers, but I'd bet a dollar to a donut the average user didn't assume that would be the case (not thinking you'd do it intentionally but rather that it would just naturally be the case).

[molson]

The results were good, though I wish it could have been accomplished by constitutional amendment, though it would have taken longer. It really kicked off the idea of the federal government doing whatever it thinks is good, and any analysis of whether they actually have the authority to do it is completely ignored. Now here, it was something good they did with that questionable authority, but that certainly isn't always the case.

We've created these legal fictions and stretched reason to accomplish very admirable things. The constitution is now absolutely meaningless, because if the federal government and the courts wants something, good or bad, it will happen, and the constitution will be interpreted to allow it. That's all fine and dandy as long as we agree with the end result.

I don't know how long it would have taken for something like the civil rights act to be a real national consensus, where all states follow suit and the constitution can be amended, but if that was the goal, and our leaders knew how to get there, and we got there, then we'd live in a much more tolerant society right now. Forcing this kind of thing down others' throats certainly is the fastest, band-aid solution to a problem, but I don't know how much it really does for race relations long term. Because then tolerance has two obstacles - the prejudice, and the resentment of being told how to live and run their government.

But I did vote yes. Because it was a compromise, a safe bet, and we're better off. I think we could have accomplished something greater though.

[SirFozzie]

I voted no.. but before anyone jumps me with the baseball bat, let me explain.

It's a shameful step in our history.. that 100 or so years after the Civil War was fought and American killed American over "states rights/slavery" (pick your poison that it was still necessary to legislate these rights in, that we had ignorant southern politicians decreeing "Segregation Now.. Segregation Tomorrow, Segregation Forever!".

We still had African-Americans forced to ride in the back of a bus, to be ordered around as if they were menials, that people were attacked with firehoses and dogs, and even killed, because they dared protest that they deserved to be treated like whites..

While I think that not everything has been skittles and roses since, on either side (there are too many who cling to old racist ways, or believe that because of the mistreatment of their fathers, and grand-fathers, that the world OWES them more then a fair shot just like any other person).. I think it was good that we finally came to our senses..

It's not a great moment in history.. because we should still be ashamed that it took us so long to get there.

[Groundhog]

I voted no

SIRFOZZIE IS A RACIST!!!!!!1!!








:D

[DaddyTorgo]

Then you'd need not only a more diverse cross-section that the leftist leanings here but you'd also need a format where people assumed their identities were secure & were likely to be more comfortable answering honestly.

I checked, as far as I could tell you did the right thing & blanked the respondents answers, but I'd bet a dollar to a donut the average user didn't assume that would be the case (not thinking you'd do it intentionally
but rather that it would just naturally be the case).

of course i blanked the "see who voted what" option. I made specially sure of that.

good spin though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

of course i blanked the "see who voted what" option. I made specially sure of that. good spin though.

I assume Chief Rum was just spinning it too, since he pointed out the same thing moments before (apparently while I was typing).

And hey, I gave you credit for not making it public, a lot of people probably wouldn't have even thought of it & I duly noted it (even calling attention to it,thereby giving you more opportunity for votes). But my point was more that I believe the average FOFC'er would have assumed it would be public since that seems to be the overwhelming majority of polls here.

[Chief Rum]

I assume Chief Rum was just spinning it too, since he pointed out the same thing moments before (apparently while I was typing).

Heh...what's really funny, Jon, is that you and I probably disagree on almost as much as you and Dems do, but we're probably seen as not too far different from one another to those who lean more toward the left. ;)

[DaddyTorgo]

I assume Chief Rum was just spinning it too, since he pointed out the same thing moments before (apparently while I was typing).

And hey, I gave you credit for not making it public, a lot of people probably wouldn't have even thought of it & I duly noted it (even calling attention to it,thereby giving you more opportunity for votes). But my point was more that I believe the average FOFC'er would have assumed it would be public since that seems to be the overwhelming majority of polls here.

the spinning part i was referring to in your post was in the discussion about needing a wider opinion. not that it really matters.

[RainMaker]

Tough to view it as a whole. I think there are parts that are good and bad.

The government side is one and everyone should agree with. The government should not segregate or treat certain individuals differently based on race, ethnicity, or gender. For that, the CRA is a major accomplishment and a great moment in history.

As for the private side, I can see both points of view. As Jon mentioned, you are legislating people to be nice to one another. You're telling the owner of his private hotel that he has to accept everyone even if he doesn't want to. A hotel he purchased with his money and owns.

Now not accepting blacks or women or whatever that hotel owner wants only hurts him in the long run. It's a stupid business decision and eventually he would go out of business. But is it wrong to state that he does have a right to invite who he wants on to his property when he wants? While it's much deeper than other issues, you can compare it a little to smoking. If some guy owns a restaurant and wants to allow his patrons to smoke, so be it. If it hurts his business, it's his choice and the non-smoking establishment down the street can take it from him.

I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of that shit evens out over time in the private sector. The owner of the Knicks could be the biggest racist on the planet but he wouldn't be dumb enough to field a white-only team. Or the CEO of Pepsi wouldn't demand his products only be sold to men. Bad businessmen go out of business for making dumb mistakes like that.

And as an example, just look at the South. This is a part of the country that has worried more about blacks getting rights than their advancement over the last 100+ years. Now they sit as the poorest, least educated geographic segment of our population. Lets face it, without some massive federal government welfare to those states along with oil and tourism, that part of the country is basically Mexico.

[Groundhog]

The owner of the Knicks could be the biggest racist on the planet but he wouldn't be dumb enough to field a white-only team.

Clippers would have been a better example.

[Karlifornia]

Then you'd need not only a more diverse cross-section that the leftist leanings here but you'd also need a format where people assumed their identities were secure & were likely to be more comfortable answering honestly.

Yes....there isn't enough faceless cowardice on the internet. Let's make our FOFC polls anonymous so cunts can be cunts without anyone knowing. If you're gonna vote no, then fine. Put a post down below explaining your reasoning. I understand that in the scope of history it may not be in the "Hall Of Fame". If you abstain because you're scared you'll be perceived as racist, then you either are racist, or are too stupid to put your reasoning into writing.

Should convictions only exist when people can't call you out on them? I'm confuzzled. If not, then please take those cowards to task.

[Karlifornia]

Oh, and I guess I deleted the part in my post where I said I voted yes because I wouldn't exist without it. That slants my view considerably.

[Chief Rum]

If you abstain because you're scared you'll be perceived as racist, then you either are racist, or are too stupid to put your reasoning into writing.

Thanks for proving my point.

And while I agree with your general point that one should stand for their convictions, your type of pigeonholing of the "no" responses is exactly the kind of blindness that creates the need for an anonymous poll.

[RainMaker]

And, what if the hotel/restaurant/factory/etc. is the only one in your town? Too bad? Be treated like a second class citizen if you want a bed to sleep in or food to eat? A private business has all the rights in the world as long as it doesn't infringe on other rights and racial/gender/etc. discrimination does that.
Rights aren't the same on private property. I can kick you out of my house if I don't like what you're saying. I don't have to let you carry a weapon into my home. I'm not saying it isn't despicable, but when it comes to private property, I think people should be given the right to do what they want.

[SackAttack]

Rights aren't the same on private property. I can kick you out of my house if I don't like what you're saying. I don't have to let you carry a weapon into my home. I'm not saying it isn't despicable, but when it comes to private property, I think people should be given the right to do what they want.

But here's where you start to run into issues. So you have a hotel that's the only one in town that refuses to serve certain groups.

How much you wanna bet that same town doesn't have statutes against "vagrancy," so if someone's sleeping in their car or wherever because the hotel won't serve them, they get fined/jailed/run out of town?

"People should be able to do whatever they want on private property" is true to a point, but it's also a platitude that sounds great in theory but in practice can have some really pernicious applications.

[RainMaker]

But here's where you start to run into issues. So you have a hotel that's the only one in town that refuses to serve certain groups.

How much you wanna bet that same town doesn't have statutes against "vagrancy," so if someone's sleeping in their car or wherever because the hotel won't serve them, they get fined/jailed/run out of town?

"People should be able to do whatever they want on private property" is true to a point, but it's also a platitude that sounds great in theory but in practice can have some really pernicious applications.
What happens if there are no hotels at all in town? Would you be opposed to a law requiring someone to sleep in your guest room?

Or how about if you own a Mexican restaurant in a town full of them? Should you be required to something else because there are some people who can't eat spicy food in town?

Either scenario legislated what you can do and who you are forced to have on your private property.

[Karlifornia]

Thanks for proving my point.

And while I agree with your general point that one should stand for their convictions, your type of pigeonholing of the "no" responses is exactly the kind of blindness that creates the need for an anonymous poll.

Bullshit, Chief. Vote no. I IMPLORE anyone to vote no, if they feel that way. Whether it's fair or not, it would be in anyone's best interests to explain why they voted "no" or "yes". Say it doesn't belong in the pantheon. You could also say it does. That's fine. If you defend your vote with any reasoning, then it's all good. If I were JimGA, I would feel nearly infinitely less strong about this than I do. I have my feelings, and I expressed them, and I feel that someone that doesn't do the same is shortchanging everyone.

[Chief Rum]

Bullshit, Chief. Vote no. I IMPLORE anyone to vote no, if they feel that way. Whether it's fair or not, it would be in anyone's best interests to explain why they voted "no" or "yes". Say it doesn't belong in the pantheon. You could also say it does. That's fine. If you defend your vote with any reasoning, then it's all good. If I were JimGA, I would feel nearly infinitely less strong about this than I do. I have my feelings, and I expressed them, and I feel that someone that doesn't do the same is shortchanging everyone.

My response had nothing to do with the stance to publically announce and defend your decision, and I even pointed out that I agreed with you on that.

Where I disagreed is your stance that anyone who votes no and keeps silent is either a racist or stupid. That's the real bullshit--the fact you can't see the grey area, where a thinking, intelligent person might have a reasonable objection to the non-racial parts of the CRA, but would not be willing to publically say so, because there exist people like you who will hate on him and call him a racist even if he posts his reasonings.

And don't tell me you wouldn't--not only is it personal for you, as you noted, but no one could make a "racist or stupid" black & white issue type of comment like you did and be considered to have a rational, unbiased opinion.

[SackAttack]

What happens if there are no hotels at all in town? Would you be opposed to a law requiring someone to sleep in your guest room?

False equivalence. Is that person going to pay me for the privilege of sleeping in my guest room? There is a difference between being forced to do something as a private citizen in a private residence and the law stating that I, as a proprietor of a business, cannot treat two groups of people differently because of superficial differences.

Or how about if you own a Mexican restaurant in a town full of them? Should you be required to something else because there are some people who can't eat spicy food in town?

Either scenario legislated what you can do and who you are forced to have on your private property.

Slippery slope, straw man, and red herring all wrapped up in one, if I'm remembering my logical fallacies correctly.

Here you're using the example of a proprietor having to change the fundamental nature of his or her business because of a difference in clientele. The implication there is that the hotel owner would have to close up shop if he had to start serving "other people," and the "town full of them" is particularly noxious in that context.

I mean, as long as we're dragging out the logical fallacies, I should be able to beat the shit out of anybody I want to for any reason on my private property, right? It isn't the government's business whether I'm beating the shit out of someone for being black, for being gay, for looking at my daughter funny or just because I'm an ornery bastard. I'm a private citizen on my private property.

Or is that a line you're not willing to cross in that argument? Once you start to set limits on what constitutes appropriate behavior even on "private property," a just society makes sure that those limits apply equally to all its citizenry, not just a certain group favored because they meet a narrowly defined set of social criteria.

[RainMaker]

False equivalence. Is that person going to pay me for the privilege of sleeping in my guest room? There is a difference between being forced to do something as a private citizen in a private residence and the law stating that I, as a proprietor of a business, cannot treat two groups of people differently because of superficial differences.

Here you're using the example of a proprietor having to change the fundamental nature of his or her business because of a difference in clientele. The implication there is that the hotel owner would have to close up shop if he had to start serving "other people," and the "town full of them" is particularly noxious in that context.
No. The argument is that on private property you should be able to invite who you want in. You should not be forced to invite in someone who you do not want in your establisment or private residence. I'm pointing out that it's hypocritical for you to say that you can invite in your home who you want but a business owner can't do the same on their private property.

This isn't a race, ethnicity, or gender thing to me. It's a private property issue (and a Libertarian view of it). If I own the property, I should be allowed to decide who I want on it. If I only want to allow fat people in my home, then so be it. If I refuse to invite women over to my Super Bowl party, then so be it. The same rules that apply to my private property should apply to someone else's.

Your hypothetical scenarios avoid one crucial thing. The ability for someone to say fuck it and move to the town over to sleep (and to take business away from that owner). It is not a right for us to be able to sleep/eat wherever we want, whenever we want. I can't have a Picnic on your lawn without your permission.

I mean, as long as we're dragging out the logical fallacies, I should be able to beat the shit out of anybody I want to for any reason on my private property, right? It isn't the government's business whether I'm beating the shit out of someone for being black, for being gay, for looking at my daughter funny or just because I'm an ornery bastard. I'm a private citizen on my private property.
As long as the other person is a willing participant, then yes. Whether it be a fight club or some kinky BDSM thing going on, if all adults involved are consenting, do as you wish on your property.

Or is that a line you're not willing to cross in that argument? Once you start to set limits on what constitutes appropriate behavior even on "private property," a just society makes sure that those limits apply equally to all its citizenry, not just a certain group favored because they meet a narrowly defined set of social criteria.
Well I'm rather Libertarian when it comes to what you can/can't do on your own private property. As long as it involves consenting adults and does not cause direct harm to others, then do it. Whether that's drugs, gambling, alcohol, fight clubs, orgies, or whatever else you can think of. If I'm on my private property and not bothering anyone outside of it, then why the hell not? Our society has gotten too caught up in getting off on telling others what they can/can't do.

[RainMaker]

Assuming of course, you have the ability to get to the next town and the next town also won't accept your money.

I understand your viewpoint. In theory, it might even work within a small community. But, the reasons for the Civil Rights Act was passed is simple - an entire group of people were being treated by second class citizens by all the people with actual power/wealth/standing in a community. You might think that's fine, I don't.
I agree with your reasoning for why it's passed. I'm just saying that the federal government should only be concerned with how they treat their citizens. They have no business treating them like second-class citizens and that was fixed in the CRA. But I don't think you can legislate morality on private citizens. You shouldn't be telling private citizens who they should and shouldn't like.

And as I mentioned earlier, these businesses only hurt themselves. Turning away business only hurts yourself. The South has done this for a long time and focused more on race than on advancing themselves. Look where it has gotten them. They are the poorest and least educated states in our country. They only hurt themselves.

[RainMaker]

So, do you think race relations would be better if restaraunts and hotels could still discriminate based on race, sex, or sexual orientation? Because I sure as hell don't. So, it seems you can change peoples beliefs in the long run with governmental pressure.
I'm not sure where it would be. I do think there is a lot of revisionist history when it comes to the Civil Rights Act. A large portion of the country had no problem with equal rights and the vote was more about the South.

Do you believe that views have changed in the South dramatically since then? In younger generations yes, but that had little to do with CRA. In fact, I think you can argue that it hurt blacks down South. People do not like being told what to think and who to accept. So there is probably a good portion of the population who stuck to their beliefs as "fuck you" to the government.

Also, you say those businesses hurt themselves. But yet, it was the rich power structure that supported those Jim Crow laws. Those people were fine, even if the most of the people were in worse situations than the rest of the country. The businessmen who owned the restaurants, hotels, etc. weren't hurting at all.
It was a double-edged sword for the rich. They often supported it because they had to. White voted in much greater numbers due to the fact that most blacks didn't care to vote for various reasons. So candidates in support of Jim Crow won and the rich needed to support them to get laws passed in their favor. Not much different than today where the lobbyists switch teams when a new party takes over in Washington.

As for business owners, many fought Jim Crow. In fact, there were a lot of railcar companies that took local laws to court and even delayed the onset of them. And remember, the part of the country where Jim Crow was most prominent was the poorest part of our country. So their businessmen weren't doing that well.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And as an example, just look at the South. This is a part of the country that has worried more about blacks getting rights than their advancement over the last 100+ years. Now they sit as the poorest, least educated geographic segment of our population. Lets face it, without some massive federal government welfare to those states along with oil and tourism, that part of the country is basically Mexico.

At some point the statistical irony of that observation might hit you.

[miked]

LOL

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

LOL

[SportsDino]

I think the issue is systemic discrimination. Apply it to jobs. You hire 'who you want' into your 'private business'. Get a vast majority of the capital and business owners to collude and you have, completely through private sector, systematically lowered the standard of living for an entire class of human beings.

Do I support affirmative action... no, I'm generally against quotas and subsidies. But am I for a racist business owner getting sued if he writes racial slurs all over a resume with a big red 'reject applicant' stamped on it... hell yes. And all lesser forms of discrimination that can be reasonably prosecuted (sadly they are PR aware enough these days to not give off any evidence of their racism, which some seem to think means bringing in a quota system as an answer).

Everyone is all for states rights until its their rights being squished. If majority minority states started passing anti-white restrictions you would see Jon start advocating for armed rebellion (in my opinion).

[Noop]

No. It is as stated early something that should have been done a long time ago. I wish more people would realize that white men are not the enemy, its rich men. Too farther explain I believe if the rich were black and the poor were white then the same thing would happen.

[Marc Vaughan]

No. It is as stated early something that should have been done a long time ago. I wish more people would realize that white men are not the enemy, its rich men. Too farther explain I believe if the rich were black and the poor were white then the same thing would happen.

I've never understood that attitude I'm afraid - I've known rich people who are idiots and poor people who are idiots .... same thing with all other factors, every aspect of humanity has groups of idiots attached to it whether they be of a particular skin colour, hobby, geographical location or religion.

Its about time that people realised that prats are prats and there isn't any particular warning factor you can look out for with them.

Yes prats in certain circumstances can do more damage than one in another - but discriminating against people because they're 'rich' is no better than discriminating against people for any other reason imho.

[Crapshoot]

Thanks for proving my point.

And while I agree with your general point that one should stand for their convictions, your type of pigeonholing of the "no" responses is exactly the kind of blindness that creates the need for an anonymous poll.

I'm sorry Chief, but this isn't a convenient opt-out - if you're against legislation that gave people basic rights and dragged a significant chunk of this country (aka the South) into allowing people the right to vote, the onus is damn well on you to explain why - have the courage of your convictions. "But let me explain" is fine, but its a justification anymore than it would be for supporting any other monstrosity.

[Chief Rum]

I'm sorry Chief, but this isn't a convenient opt-out - if you're against legislation that gave people basic rights and dragged a significant chunk of this country (aka the South) into allowing people the right to vote, the onus is damn well on you to explain why - have the courage of your convictions. "But let me explain" is fine, but its a justification anymore than it would be for supporting any other monstrosity.

Hmm, you seem to be trying to "rephrase" the point in discussion. This isn't about being "against the legislation". This is about "is this act a great moment in history?". There's a rather wide chasm between not being for one and not being for the other; it's very easy to be entirely supportive of this act, but to not consider it a "great moment in history".

My point is that a race issue like this, being a sensitive issue as always that cause heated responses on all sides, it's not likely that such people--people who feel passionately and strongly about this issue--are going to be interested in the reasoning behind why someone doesn't fully endorse this as "a great moment in history." They're just going to rip into that person, whether their reasons make sense or not.

Karl is saying if you vote No and do not put up a reason or publically proclaim it, you're either a racist or stupid. My original point is that people would not want to speak out on this at all, because the irrationality of the impassioned people on the other side would blanket label the "No" voters as racists, giving them a scarlet letter, as it were. That is a reasonable fear for No voters to have, IMO, and Karl and his "racist or stupid" response was Exhibit A for why that's the case.

FTR, this is not a poll I have voted in nor do I know if I would vote Yes or No. I don't know much about the CRA except what I learned in school aeons ago, and most of what I remember is the removal of race barriers, which, of course, I am 100% for. I'm not familiar with these other issues Jon has brought up or the widespread ramifications of the act that might have gone beyond the scope of what was intended, so I can't speak to them without further research (which I don't have the time nor the inclination to do). I sitll stand by the point that the poll is too vague in its definitions of "great" and "history".

[Young Drachma]

I
White voted in much greater numbers due to the fact that most blacks didn't care to vote for various reasons.


This just isn't accurate as it relates to the 1950s and 1960s.

[Young Drachma]

A lot happened to get us to that point in history. Here are three books that contain a great bit of history surrounding what went on then.

Trouble In Mind - Leon Litwack
The Education of Blacks in the South 1860-1935 - James D. Anderson
Race and The Invisible Hand - Deidre Royster

Litwack cites Anderson quite a bit, but I recall giving the Anderson book to a college professor of education during undergrad (who was the provost and just taught a class...) and his eyes were just huge. He couldn't believe how much of that stuff he never knew.

Carry on.

[Young Drachma]

Actually, more like the time period between the end of Reconstruction and the passage of the CRA.

Exactly. If someone told me I would be hung for going to vote or insult my intelligence by making me take a test that their mother didn't have to take to vote, I'd probably think twice about it too.

[SackAttack]

No. The argument is that on private property you should be able to invite who you want in. You should not be forced to invite in someone who you do not want in your establisment or private residence. I'm pointing out that it's hypocritical for you to say that you can invite in your home who you want but a business owner can't do the same on their private property.

No it isn't.

It isn't in the slightest. There are all sorts of rules businesses have to adhere to by virtue of the fact that they're *in business*. There are zoning laws that prohibit certain activities from taking place in certain areas. There are licensing laws. You can't, for example, in some communities erect grossly enormous signs. All of that is part of the rulebook you agree to play by when you start a business. A law that says "You can't treat a certain group of people like dirt because you don't like the color of their skin" is just one more page in that rulebook. If you have a problem with that, you're just as free not to open a restaurant. Nobody's forcing you to start a business. Right?

This isn't a race, ethnicity, or gender thing to me. It's a private property issue (and a Libertarian view of it). If I own the property, I should be allowed to decide who I want on it. If I only want to allow fat people in my home, then so be it. If I refuse to invite women over to my Super Bowl party, then so be it. The same rules that apply to my private property should apply to someone else's.

The crucial fallacy here is that you're conflating a place of business, where you are (hopefully) making money from the community's patronage, with a private residence. Every example I've seen from you of any worth has to do with what you're doing in your home. C'mon. A "Super Bowl party" as a reasonable comparison to your previous "only hotel in town"? You're smarter than that.

Your hypothetical scenarios avoid one crucial thing. The ability for someone to say fuck it and move to the town over to sleep (and to take business away from that owner). It is not a right for us to be able to sleep/eat wherever we want, whenever we want. I can't have a Picnic on your lawn without your permission.

And once again, your scenarios are imagining a world where trespassing because I feel like it is exactly the same as "Here's my money, I'd like to rent one of your rooms for the night." You're imagining a world where racism is institutionalized that a group of people are unable to find a place that will rent them a room, but able to find a means of transportation that will willingly and easily get them to "the next town over." You're imagining a world where that racism is completely self-contained, that one town is isolated from any group that doesn't mesh with its racial identity, but that the next town over is openly accepting of people from all walks of life.

And, bottom line - if that's true or possible today, that's coming from a world 56 years removed from the Civil Rights Act. In 1963 in the South, that just wasn't going to happen. Your "next town over" from, say, Hattiesburg might as well have been Detroit.


As long as the other person is a willing participant, then yes. Whether it be a fight club or some kinky BDSM thing going on, if all adults involved are consenting, do as you wish on your property.

No, no. Sorry. You don't get that distinction. This is all about my right to behave as I wish on my private property. That's what's at issue here, right? It's not about whether my behavior on that private property causes material harm to someone else, because it's mine. I own it. And I can do what I want on it. Isn't that what you've been saying all along?

Well I'm rather Libertarian when it comes to what you can/can't do on your own private property. As long as it involves consenting adults and does not cause direct harm to others, then do it. Whether that's drugs, gambling, alcohol, fight clubs, orgies, or whatever else you can think of. If I'm on my private property and not bothering anyone outside of it, then why the hell not? Our society has gotten too caught up in getting off on telling others what they can/can't do.

Oh, "direct" harm, huh? So anything indirect, any harm caused about which you can say "Well, *I* didn't make him freeze to death in that snowstorm. That's Mother Nature, you can't blame that on me!" is okay?

So you have an issue with me beating holy hell out on my own property of some unconsenting guy because I don't like him, but you don't have a problem with me, and those like me, treating him and those like him as a group of second class citizens (or worse) because we have money and influence and they do not? You don't have a problem with us running for local and statewide office and using the system to codify those "private individual beliefs" into law, so that we now have political cover for being a dick?

[Rizon]

Nope. I was looking for a serious poll.

First time on this message board? Welcome!


:D

[DanGarion]

Might as well just asked was the North winning the Civil war a great moment in history. You'd probably get the same idiots saying no...

[RainMaker]

No it isn't.

It isn't in the slightest. There are all sorts of rules businesses have to adhere to by virtue of the fact that they're *in business*. There are zoning laws that prohibit certain activities from taking place in certain areas. There are licensing laws. You can't, for example, in some communities erect grossly enormous signs. All of that is part of the rulebook you agree to play by when you start a business. A law that says "You can't treat a certain group of people like dirt because you don't like the color of their skin" is just one more page in that rulebook. If you have a problem with that, you're just as free not to open a restaurant. Nobody's forcing you to start a business. Right?
You can make laws and regulations on virtually anything. The issue isn't whether they have a right to do it, it's whether you think it was something that should be done. An enormous sign is a plight to the community and can effect overall property value and quality of life for everyone. I think it's a slippery slope, but I do believe a local community has a right to designate rules within reason on that kind of stuff. When it comes to licensing laws or regulations at a restaurant for instance, most of that is for the public health. Spreading salmonella to your community is not good for anyone.

And that statement should be in your personal rulebook. It's in mine as well. But I don't think our government should be in the business of demanding that everyone like each other.

The crucial fallacy here is that you're conflating a place of business, where you are (hopefully) making money from the community's patronage, with a private residence. Every example I've seen from you of any worth has to do with what you're doing in your home. C'mon. A "Super Bowl party" as a reasonable comparison to your previous "only hotel in town"? You're smarter than that.

And once again, your scenarios are imagining a world where trespassing because I feel like it is exactly the same as "Here's my money, I'd like to rent one of your rooms for the night." You're imagining a world where racism is institutionalized that a group of people are unable to find a place that will rent them a room, but able to find a means of transportation that will willingly and easily get them to "the next town over." You're imagining a world where that racism is completely self-contained, that one town is isolated from any group that doesn't mesh with its racial identity, but that the next town over is openly accepting of people from all walks of life.

And, bottom line - if that's true or possible today, that's coming from a world 56 years removed from the Civil Rights Act. In 1963 in the South, that just wasn't going to happen. Your "next town over" from, say, Hattiesburg might as well have been Detroit.

No, no. Sorry. You don't get that distinction. This is all about my right to behave as I wish on my private property. That's what's at issue here, right? It's not about whether my behavior on that private property causes material harm to someone else, because it's mine. I own it. And I can do what I want on it. Isn't that what you've been saying all along?
Yes, this is about your right to invite who you want on to your private property. You used your money to purchase that land and you should have a right to decide which people are allowed to use it. As deplorable as some would be with that right, it's still a right.

And perhaps more importantly, you just can't legislate morality. The CRA didn't change the views of blacks in the South at that time. And in some cases, it made it worse. Social change needs to be done by the people as a whole, not by politicians. The government should of course treat every citizen equally when it comes to their services, but the public needs to work this out on their own. It's the same reason I don't think the wars in the Middle East will change views on our country from people over there. You just can't ram morality down someone's throat. People don't like being told what to think by politicians.

Oh, "direct" harm, huh? So anything indirect, any harm caused about which you can say "Well, *I* didn't make him freeze to death in that snowstorm. That's Mother Nature, you can't blame that on me!" is okay?
So what happens if that hotel has no vacancy? Should they be left to the same standards if some someone freezes to death in a snowstorm? Are you to blame for every homeless person in your town who goes to bed without a warm bed tonight?

I understand where you're going with the hypothetical scenario. But a restauarant is not responsible for feeding every hungry person in the community, nor is a hotel responsible for housing every person without a bed.

So you have an issue with me beating holy hell out on my own property of some unconsenting guy because I don't like him, but you don't have a problem with me, and those like me, treating him and those like him as a group of second class citizens (or worse) because we have money and influence and they do not? You don't have a problem with us running for local and statewide office and using the system to codify those "private individual beliefs" into law, so that we now have political cover for being a dick?
You are trying to turn this into a debate on morality when it's not. I find everything you said to be utterly deplorable. But just as with the KKK, while I find their rhetoric to be disgusting, I feel they have a right to say it in this country.

And private individual beliefs are put into law all the time. The CRA is one case of that.

[Marc Vaughan]

Litwack cites Anderson quite a bit, but I recall giving the Anderson book to a college professor of education during undergrad (who was the provost and just taught a class...) and his eyes were just huge. He couldn't believe how much of that stuff he never knew.

How 'heavy going' are those books? - I have a voracious reading appetite and they sound intruiging ...

[SackAttack]

You can make laws and regulations on virtually anything. The issue isn't whether they have a right to do it, it's whether you think it was something that should be done. An enormous sign is a plight to the community and can effect overall property value and quality of life for everyone. I think it's a slippery slope, but I do believe a local community has a right to designate rules within reason on that kind of stuff. When it comes to licensing laws or regulations at a restaurant for instance, most of that is for the public health. Spreading salmonella to your community is not good for anyone.

You consider an enormous sign to be a plight to the community and a detrimental effect on the quality of life, but not a world in which one group of people can be treated differently for no reason other than their pigment is different?

Why is there concern for the public health, but only for the health of those the business proprietor gives a shit about in the first place?

And that statement should be in your personal rulebook. It's in mine as well. But I don't think our government should be in the business of demanding that everyone like each other.

Frankly, it's not about everyone liking each other. It's about treating one another with a modicum of common decency. Nobody said you have to want to soul-kiss a customer to take their money for services rendered.

Yes, this is about your right to invite who you want on to your private property. You used your money to purchase that land and you should have a right to decide which people are allowed to use it. As deplorable as some would be with that right, it's still a right.

So we've established it's okay for me to beat the shit out of people I don't like on my privately-owned property. Does that, then, extend upwards to the government, who are, after all, an appendage representing the public will?

They still own large swaths of the West, last I checked.

And perhaps more importantly, you just can't legislate morality. The CRA didn't change the views of blacks in the South at that time. And in some cases, it made it worse. Social change needs to be done by the people as a whole, not by politicians. The government should of course treat every citizen equally when it comes to their services, but the public needs to work this out on their own.

But again, what we're talking about here is not Augusta National as a private club doing their thing. What we're talking about is an endemic way of life. We're talking about an entire *society* that believes and acts that way. When you get to that level, you aren't talking about private property and personal rights any longer.

If you allow a system like that to fester, you get one of three things. You get riots, where that oppressed class gets tired of the way they're treated and resorts to violence to change hearts and minds. Maybe that oppressed class outbreeds their oppressors, and in 50 years have the numbers to put their own people into office - assuming, of course, they can get around the institutionalized roadblocks like poll taxes - and turn the tables. Do you have faith that they'd simply repeal the laws negatively affecting them and not put the shoe on the other foot and say "see how YOU assholes like it"?

Or, and this is the least likely outcome, society just gradually grows to say "Hey. Why are we doing this?" When you're talking about a divide based on skin color, that just doesn't happen without some kind of external stimulus.

It's the same reason I don't think the wars in the Middle East will change views on our country from people over there. You just can't ram morality down someone's throat. People don't like being told what to think by politicians.

If the wars were ever meant to change those views, whoever came up with that idea needs to be slapped upside the head. People don't like being told what to think by politicians unless those politicians agree with them fundamentally in some way. It's why Mike Huckabee scares the shit out of me - because there are enough people out there who would be perfectly happy with an imposition of Christianity and its values on the whole of our society who would freak if it were any other religion.


So what happens if that hotel has no vacancy? Should they be left to the same standards if some someone freezes to death in a snowstorm? Are you to blame for every homeless person in your town who goes to bed without a warm bed tonight?

I understand where you're going with the hypothetical scenario. But a restauarant is not responsible for feeding every hungry person in the community, nor is a hotel responsible for housing every person without a bed.

Now you're equating a full hotel with one that doesn't want to serve "your kind." You're grasping. It's not remotely the same thing. You're trying to bring a "can't be helped" scenario into equivalence with a "won't be helped" scenario.

You are trying to turn this into a debate on morality when it's not. I find everything you said to be utterly deplorable. But just as with the KKK, while I find their rhetoric to be disgusting, I feel they have a right to say it in this country.

That's where we disagree. I think, fundamentally, it is about morality. Look, again going back to that era, a lot of the same people who favored the continuation of white supremacy were the same people who'd stand up in church on Sundays and say "Glory hallelujah, Amen" while ignoring the admonition to "love thy neighbor," or at least using mental gymnastics to redefine what "neighbor" meant.

A lot of the arguments they used in favor of their position were, fundamentally, about morality. Unless you think that somehow the anti-miscegenation laws were about something other than allowing "their kind" to marry "white girls" because it was somehow fundamentally wrong and immoral. That wasn't about private individuals being allowed to do their thing on private property. That was, plain and simple, about keeping "their kind" from polluting white culture.

It's absolutely about morality in the end. The question is, which morality? The one that says certain people are inferior just because and I shouldn't have to deal with them, or the one that says that there exists a minimum level of decency and respect with which all humans should be treated?

[Autumn]

And as I mentioned earlier, these businesses only hurt themselves. Turning away business only hurts yourself. The South has done this for a long time and focused more on race than on advancing themselves. Look where it has gotten them. They are the poorest and least educated states in our country. They only hurt themselves.

You probably didn't mean to word it this way, but to suggest that the businesses "only hurt themselves" is a real gaffe. No, what they hurt was generations of people who grew up being told they were second rate. Whatever financial loss these businesses might have suffered is pretty much nonexistent when rated against that.

[Young Drachma]

How 'heavy going' are those books? - I have a voracious reading appetite and they sound intruiging ...

If by heavy going you mean dense, not at all.

Litwack's the only one of the three that wasn't produced by an academic, so it's probably the easiest to get through, because it's interesting.

Anderson's is the most interesting in my mind, because it uncovers a real treasure trove of material related to how much blacks in the post-Reconstruction south valued education and it focuses on how certain factions were integral in changing the way blacks learned for their own purposes.

Royster's book is probably the least of the three I'd recommend, though it's interesting and easy to get through because she's a sociologist and it's just a bunch of case studies.

[RainMaker]

You consider an enormous sign to be a plight to the community and a detrimental effect on the quality of life, but not a world in which one group of people can be treated differently for no reason other than their pigment is different?

Why is there concern for the public health, but only for the health of those the business proprietor gives a shit about in the first place?

Frankly, it's not about everyone liking each other. It's about treating one another with a modicum of common decency. Nobody said you have to want to soul-kiss a customer to take their money for services rendered.
I can't avoid the sign or the diseases a restaurant might pass on to the community. I can avoid an establishment that is racist. It's like those who want more obscenity laws in place for television. If you don't what's on a particular channel, change it. If you don't like what a particular restauarant does, don't eat there.

So let me ask you this. If you own a restaurant in a multi-racial community, do you have a right to kick out someone who walks in wearing a KKK outfit? What if you ran a health club for women? Do you have a right to reject applications from men since your business is built around women?

So we've established it's okay for me to beat the shit out of people I don't like on my privately-owned property. Does that, then, extend upwards to the government, who are, after all, an appendage representing the public will?
No, we never established that. I said quite clearly that you don't have a right to assault someone on your property unless they are consenting to it.

But again, what we're talking about here is not Augusta National as a private club doing their thing. What we're talking about is an endemic way of life. We're talking about an entire *society* that believes and acts that way. When you get to that level, you aren't talking about private property and personal rights any longer.

If you allow a system like that to fester, you get one of three things. You get riots, where that oppressed class gets tired of the way they're treated and resorts to violence to change hearts and minds. Maybe that oppressed class outbreeds their oppressors, and in 50 years have the numbers to put their own people into office - assuming, of course, they can get around the institutionalized roadblocks like poll taxes - and turn the tables. Do you have faith that they'd simply repeal the laws negatively affecting them and not put the shoe on the other foot and say "see how YOU assholes like it"?

Or, and this is the least likely outcome, society just gradually grows to say "Hey. Why are we doing this?" When you're talking about a divide based on skin color, that just doesn't happen without some kind of external stimulus.
The thing is, society didn't believe that way. It was just the South that was opposed to the CRA. Most of the country was accepting blacks and doing business with them. Sure there was racism in parts of the country, but the tide had shifted dramatically.

It's this notion that the CRA somehow ended racism is what bothers me. There was so much more to it for decades that led up to the CRA being put in place. It's akin to us passing a Gay Marriage Law and then proclaiming that this was the exact moment when homosexuality became accepted by the public.

If the wars were ever meant to change those views, whoever came up with that idea needs to be slapped upside the head. People don't like being told what to think by politicians unless those politicians agree with them fundamentally in some way. It's why Mike Huckabee scares the shit out of me - because there are enough people out there who would be perfectly happy with an imposition of Christianity and its values on the whole of our society who would freak if it were any other religion.
But isn't that hypocritical? You want to impose your values of racial harmony on society to those who don't want it. You and I view Mike Huckabee the same way that those in the South viewed the CRA. It was something they didn't believe in and they were being forced by law to abide by it.

Now you're equating a full hotel with one that doesn't want to serve "your kind." You're grasping. It's not remotely the same thing. You're trying to bring a "can't be helped" scenario into equivalence with a "won't be helped" scenario.
Your argument was that the individual had a fundamental right to sleep at that hotel. I'm asking what happens if that hotel has no vacancy.

That's where we disagree. I think, fundamentally, it is about morality. Look, again going back to that era, a lot of the same people who favored the continuation of white supremacy were the same people who'd stand up in church on Sundays and say "Glory hallelujah, Amen" while ignoring the admonition to "love thy neighbor," or at least using mental gymnastics to redefine what "neighbor" meant.

A lot of the arguments they used in favor of their position were, fundamentally, about morality. Unless you think that somehow the anti-miscegenation laws were about something other than allowing "their kind" to marry "white girls" because it was somehow fundamentally wrong and immoral. That wasn't about private individuals being allowed to do their thing on private property. That was, plain and simple, about keeping "their kind" from polluting white culture.

It's absolutely about morality in the end. The question is, which morality? The one that says certain people are inferior just because and I shouldn't have to deal with them, or the one that says that there exists a minimum level of decency and respect with which all humans should be treated?
And that's where I disagree with you. I don't think the government should be deciding what is moral. Just as you mentioned earlier, you don't want Mike Huckabee and his flock to define your morals. So in a way, you dont' either.

Take gambling for instance. The government has told me this is immoral and I am not allowed to do it. I find nothing immoral about it and find it to be a perfectly acceptable form of entertainment for an adult. But I do find religion that protects child rapists to be immoral while most of the society doesn't.

I just believe as a free nation, morality should not be legislated. Just as I might find the KKK to be morally bankrupt, I feel in a free nation they have a right to voice their opinion. You can't have freedom without taking the bad elements with it. Society will ultimately right many of these wrongs, just as it was with racism in that era.

[RainMaker]

You probably didn't mean to word it this way, but to suggest that the businesses "only hurt themselves" is a real gaffe. No, what they hurt was generations of people who grew up being told they were second rate. Whatever financial loss these businesses might have suffered is pretty much nonexistent when rated against that.
That is an unfortunate byproduct of a free nation. But treating someone else as second rate should not be a crime. I don't believe the jerk at a restaurant who makes a snide remark to his waitress should be arrested.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The thing is, society didn't believe that way. It was just the South that was opposed to the CRA. Most of the country was accepting blacks and doing business with them.

Did you know ... that roughly 1/4 of all votes cast -- 33 of 130 -- against the original house version of the '64 CRA came from states that were not "Southern" (i.e. not part of the CSA)?

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)
(but ya gotta scroll down a ways)

I tried to find the complete roll call of the House but have failed so far. The Senate version (which eventually passed the House) was 289-126, so a couple of votes shifted from the original, I haven't found a breakdown for those yet.

[RainMaker]

Did you know ... that roughly 1/4 of all votes cast -- 33 of 130 -- against the original house version of the '64 CRA came from states that were not "Southern" (i.e. not part of the CSA)?

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)
(but ya gotta scroll down a ways)

I tried to find the complete roll call of the House but have failed so far. The Senate version (which eventually passed the House) was 289-126, so a couple of votes shifted from the original, I haven't found a breakdown for those yet.
That's still only 10% of non-CSA House members who voted against it. Only 6 non-CSA Senators did too.

And many of those weren't necessarily racial votes, but Libertarian votes. Goldwater for instance came out and said that it's not the governments job to legislate morality. He would have voted for it with the exception of the inclusion of the private sector (he had supported previous CRA attempts that were limited to government).

[Autumn]

That is an unfortunate byproduct of a free nation. But treating someone else as second rate should not be a crime. I don't believe the jerk at a restaurant who makes a snide remark to his waitress should be arrested.

Right, but I wasn't talking about crimes. I was talking about saying "the businesses only hurt themselves." To suggest in any way that the businesses were the victims of their policies is really going off track I think.

[molson]

Right, but I wasn't talking about crimes. I was talking about saying "the businesses only hurt themselves." To suggest in any way that the businesses were the victims of their policies is really going off track I think.

It's off track in the sense, that as you said, you can't compare that loss to the loss suffered by African-Americans in America's history, of course. But that isn't really the point. The point is that if a company refuses to hire black people - that company is at a serious disadvantage to a company that goes after the best people regardless of race. That itself is going to promote change. That encourages everyone to break through prejudice with their success and accomplishments. That's the ideal kind of change - though it's easier said than done in reality.

Sports teams in the 50s and 60s, college and pros, surely had a lot of racists in the front office and head coaching ranks - but they also wanted to win and make money. And in sports, with statistics and game outcomes, it's really trackable, and very concrete, how well everyone is doing. It is quite clear when an African-American (or anybody) is helping a team, unlike in business, where it might not be so clear who's contributing what. (Giving a white guy an office job over a superior black guy is not as noticeable as starting a white guy over a superior black player in a sport), I think that's part of why sports were generally ahead of the curve in a racial sense. The Red Sox were a blatantly racist team for decades, and they were subsequently a non-factor for decades. Now, even completely ignoring the PR catastrophe it would be, if any team refused to hire minority athletes, they would suck, so that way of thinking has gone away.