- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Was segregation a necessary evil to keep the peace?
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:37 pm
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:37 pm
To me it's an interesting question if you look at the timeline of events. Civil War ended in 1865 and so did slavery for all states. 100 years later, Civil Rights act is passed which officially ends all segregation.
This basically means that the generations from both sides who lived through the slavery days, would have been dead by the time the CRA passed. Their kids would have been old in age, their grandkids and great grandkids the ones who brought about the change.
So prior to the CRA, you would have had blacks and whites who lived through the Civil War, and their kids who would have learned all about it from their parents retelling of first hand experience. THis would have caused a lot of resentment and hate from both sides. It seemed there was little opposition from either side to segregation for many decades...probably because they hated each other and saw it fit to stay apart to minimize violence.
So was segregation a necessary, although terrible, peace keeper until the generations that dealt with slavery died off, which led to a newer generations movement to mend old wounds since they were able to clearly see how wrong segregation was?
This basically means that the generations from both sides who lived through the slavery days, would have been dead by the time the CRA passed. Their kids would have been old in age, their grandkids and great grandkids the ones who brought about the change.
So prior to the CRA, you would have had blacks and whites who lived through the Civil War, and their kids who would have learned all about it from their parents retelling of first hand experience. THis would have caused a lot of resentment and hate from both sides. It seemed there was little opposition from either side to segregation for many decades...probably because they hated each other and saw it fit to stay apart to minimize violence.
So was segregation a necessary, although terrible, peace keeper until the generations that dealt with slavery died off, which led to a newer generations movement to mend old wounds since they were able to clearly see how wrong segregation was?
9
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:40 pm to deltaland
quote:
So prior to the CRA, you would have had blacks and whites who lived through the Civil War, and their kids who would have learned all about it from their parents retelling of first hand experience. THis would have caused a lot of resentment and hate from both sides. It seemed there was little opposition from either side to segregation for many decades...probably because they hated each other and saw it fit to stay apart to minimize violence.
I think on the black side they were more terrified than hateful. And your spin that blacks somehow "agreed" it was for the best is laughable.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:44 pm to deltaland
If you genuinely believe in the traditional western concept of evil (as in an objective, universal sense) then it can never be "necessary".
The idea of necessary evil can only be logically supported using a subjective idea of morality in which an action is only immoral to some people in certain situations at a certain point in time.
The idea of necessary evil can only be logically supported using a subjective idea of morality in which an action is only immoral to some people in certain situations at a certain point in time.
This post was edited on 7/16/14 at 5:46 pm
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:44 pm to cwill
quote:
And your spin that blacks somehow "agreed" it was for the best is laughable.
Perhaps. Do you dispute that blacks self-segregate though?
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:45 pm to deltaland
Segregation didn't really start until about 30 years after the Civil War. It didn't start in LA until the Bourbon Democrats took control away for the State at the very end of the 19th century
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:46 pm to cwill
quote:
And your spin that blacks somehow "agreed" it was for the best is laughable.
Not saying they agreed, but I've just never read where any really protested it until the 1950s. It seems like more or less it was just accepted.
I would also think there would be plenty of hate from both sides...any black person who lived through that would have every right to hate white people. Some were terrified too, for obvious reasons but I would imagine that being terrorized would lead to hate and a general feeling to want to avoid white people at all costs.
I'm not trying to justify segregation..more or less just trying to get a perspective on why it ever could have existed at all. I guess I'm saying that if it didn't exist and forced integration had happened right after the Civil War would the violence and lynchings would have been much worse or would it have not been as bad?
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:46 pm to cwill
quote:
And your spin that blacks somehow "agreed" it was for the best is laughable.
Maybe they signed a "social contract" like people tell me I did.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:47 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Segregation didn't really start until about 30 years after the Civil War.
There was segregation as early as 1814 in the U.S.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:48 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Perhaps. Do you dispute that blacks self-segregate though?
A lot "black communities" have issues that cause segregation that they need to work out. If they didn't have those huge issues I wonder what the landscape would be...
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:50 pm to cwill
quote:
I think on the black side they were more terrified than hateful.
Quite a 180 society has taken in this respect. Although fear is now racist, so I guess it isn't a complete about face.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:51 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
If you genuinely believe in the traditional western concept of evil (as in an objective, universal sense) then it can never be "necessary".
More in the sense was it "necessary" in that it limited the evil i.e. lynchings and murders, by keeping the groups separated and minimizing contact.
That's my question, if integration had been forced after the Civil War, could our history between races have been more bloody?
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:51 pm to cwill
Respectfully, I think you are off base.
DE jure segregation, Jim Crow, was a function of Southern white folks and their Yankeee enablers. It was neither agreed to nor acquiesced to by most black folks in the South. It was imposed by state and local law and vigilante violence. As long as folks up North supported legal equality for blacks, it stood a shot at succeeding. But, as that Yankee support for civil rights and the 14th and 15th amendments waned in the 1870s, the Southern Redeemers imposed Jim Crow as a way of asserting their political and social control over Southern society.
de jure segregation was not necessary. It was disgusting, immoral, unConstitutional, and helped keep the South behind the rest of the nation for over a century. Its negative effects are still being felt.
DE jure segregation, Jim Crow, was a function of Southern white folks and their Yankeee enablers. It was neither agreed to nor acquiesced to by most black folks in the South. It was imposed by state and local law and vigilante violence. As long as folks up North supported legal equality for blacks, it stood a shot at succeeding. But, as that Yankee support for civil rights and the 14th and 15th amendments waned in the 1870s, the Southern Redeemers imposed Jim Crow as a way of asserting their political and social control over Southern society.
de jure segregation was not necessary. It was disgusting, immoral, unConstitutional, and helped keep the South behind the rest of the nation for over a century. Its negative effects are still being felt.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:55 pm to deltaland
quote:
So was segregation a necessary, although terrible, peace keeper
Would like to hear about this wave of terror and bloodshed that would lead to such a institution as jim crow.
Feel free to fill us in.
This post was edited on 7/16/14 at 5:56 pm
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:55 pm to deltaland
quote:n
Was segregation a necessary evil to keep the peace?
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:56 pm to deltaland
quote:
There was segregation as early as 1814 in the U.S.
And even before that. People have always self-segregated themselves along religious and ethnic lines. Catholics and protestants segregated themselves from one another, Irish immigrants didn't mix with Italian immigrants,etc.
I don't know where anyone would get the idea that every religion, race or creed were all united and living happily together until the civil war. That's never been the case anywhere in the world.
This post was edited on 7/16/14 at 5:57 pm
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:56 pm to deltaland
quote:
That's my question, if integration had been forced after the Civil War, could our history between races have been more bloody?
It absolutely would have been, but when dealing with objective ideas of morality one is not allowed to take a lesser of two evils judgement. Perpetuating evil just to stop a different kind of evil is still evil even in that context and therefore unacceptable.
Personally I think its blatantly obvious from history that morality is entirely subjective and see where you are coming from. The problem is most people aren't logically consistent when it comes to things like this. They either claim a subjective morality yet say segregation was objectively always evil, or that morality is objective but that it was necessary evil. Neither position is capable of being logically defended.
Segregation was absolutely necessary for a certain amount of time (but not all the other things that came with it), as where things like hate crimes and affirmative action. All have served their purpose. Lets not act like that was the intent of those doing the segregating, though. It was purely driven by bias and hate.
This post was edited on 7/16/14 at 5:59 pm
Posted on 7/16/14 at 5:57 pm to deltaland
Was it also necessary for white people's stuff to be so much nicer during segregation too?
Posted on 7/16/14 at 6:00 pm to cwill
quote:
And your spin that blacks somehow "agreed" it was for the best is laughable.
Gotta love the revisionist history whenever these types of threads pop up on TD.
Seriously, the way he writes it you would think blacks and whites just met at a restaurant, shook hands and said "OK, so we're both good with segregation, right? Still love you though, man!"
Posted on 7/16/14 at 6:02 pm to deltaland
quote:
It seems like more or less it was just accepted.
It was. Doesn't mean it was agreed upon, though.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 6:18 pm to constant cough
quote:
People have always self-segregated themselves along religious and ethnic lines.
Segregation is usually something enforced by the dominant class.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News