The Lasting Impact of the Black Civil Rights Movement

[Brian Fantana 6,689]

Is DixonHur sheeit? Did I miss something?

 

Same posting style and crazy gaslighting.

[wildcat09 29,354]

On 4/5/2018 at 8:28 PM, DixonHur said:

Do you know what the phrase "more effective" means?  What I did say is the I think congress should stick to Section 8 of Article 1 when making laws.  And low and behold, there's a duty outlined in there that could have been used against the slave states...

" To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes "

Here's a crazy idea...how about ban the interstate commerce and exportation of slave made goods.  Think that would have gotten their attention?

So let me get this right, Congress passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was bad because you think there were preferable alternatives of stopping discrimination against minorities. But on the issue of slavery, you think it would have been good for Congress to have banned it by using its authority under the commerce clause...

You do know that the commerce clause is the primary constitutional basis for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, right?

This is like that guy a few years back that argued that a constitutional amendment (i think he was talking about the 19th?) was unconstitutional.

Edited April 7, 2018 by wildcat09

[DixonHur 11,305]

38 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

So let me get this right, Congress passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was bad because you think there were preferable alternatives of stopping discrimination against minorities. But on the issue of slavery, you think it would have been good for Congress to have banned it by using its authority under the commerce clause...

The confirmation bias is strong with you guys on this thread.

First I'd like to point out that slavery was ended in the 1860's, not the 1960's so I'm not sure how you're equating the CRA with the end of slavery, but whatever works for ya.

I never said I favored using the commerce cause to end slavery, I was pointing out that it could have been used.  I'd already discussed how I thought slavery should have been ended...payment to slave owners and an allotment of land for the slaves.  That way, the freed slaves aren't forced directly back into servitude of the plantation owners as share croppers, which is exactly what happened in too many cases. 

53 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You do know that the commerce clause is the primary constitutional basis for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, right?

I guess that depends on your definition of primary. It was the justification for the inclusion of 1 of the 11 Titles (Title II)...so, it is the "primary constitutional basis" for about 9% of the Act.  Granted that's the section that gave the CRA it's teeth with the private sector, but calling the commerce clause "the primary constitutional basis" for the entire Civil Rights Act is a bit of a stretch.

My guess would be that codifying voting rights and ending the literal police attack dogs would have been higher on minorities' priority list than a table at the local diner.

1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

Is DixonHur sheeit? Did I miss something?

 

Same posting style and crazy gaslighting.

This is funny because when I saw you posted I was gonna ask if you were BT's sock.  You guys seem to be in lock step while following each other around the various threads.

[Sawbonz 27,562]

Beaumont didn’t integrate until 1981 and it was only because of a federal judge’s making them. I started 6th grade being bussed to the former “black” middle school. We had just moved from the south side of Fort Worth, and even coming from a pretty old, run down school in a bad neighborhood  I was pretty shocked at the decrepit shape it was in. Strangely, after a couple of weeks, shit started getting repaired left and right as the West End parents started hearing from their kids what a shithole it was. Nothing short of federal law was going to make things better there. 

Edited April 7, 2018 by Sawbonz

[DixonHur 11,305]

26 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Nothing short of federal law was going to make things better there. 

You're post kinda points to the opposite.  Clearly the federal laws weren't working for over a decade in Beaumont.  

The problem is that people generally don't like being told what to do.  They like ideas better when they come up with them themselves. 

What I think the CRA did was just push the racists further underground.  So instead of overt racism, we started to get more institutionalized racism.  I don't see a problem with having the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.   I know it may seem counter-intuitive, but information is power.  When you know who the bigots are, you can choose whether or not to associate with them; both personally and commercially. 

For example, the Colorado baker who didn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding.  Ok, fine.  I'm pro gay marriage, so now I know not to shop at your bakery.  If some idiot wants to limit his customer base instead of expanding it, that's his choice.  Just as it's my choice not to shop there, it's the landlords choice to raise the rent or refuse to re-up the lease at the end of the term, and it might be someone else's choice to organize a protest outside the store on the public sidewalk.  Soon, most folks who are either pro gay marriage or indifferent to it will stop shopping there too.  And the few who do, won't provide the needed revenue stream to continue business.

Shame is an undervalued tool for social conformity.

Edited April 7, 2018 by DixonHur

[Sawbonz 27,562]

The federal laws were ignored until a lawsuit, which but for the law could not happen, was filed

[Crusher 127]

On ‎4‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 1:23 PM, JBJ said:

The criticism I see most often of the CRA is ending housing discrimination.  It ushered in the flight of black wealth to the suburbs, which has left historically black areas worse off.

To me that is still better than a push.  Black people who found the opportunity and means to move out of poor urban areas did so.  The black people left behind may be worse off, but it is still better to have that opportunity, imo.

People move on, people evolve. Should we all still live in caves or huts because that's where we came from?

 

[DixonHur 11,305]

9 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

The federal laws were ignored until a lawsuit, which but for the law could not happen, was filed

Not true, Brown v. Education had already ended segregation in schools a decade before the CRA.

[Sawbonz 27,562]

I haven’t followed every post closely, but I didn’t think we were speaking only of the Civil rights act but of the civil rights movement. I’m pretty sure brown v board was an integral part of that, and that redress at the federal level was necessary to effect change in Beaumont 

[DixonHur 11,305]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I haven’t followed every post closely, but I didn’t think we were speaking only of the Civil rights act but of the civil rights movement. I’m pretty sure brown v board was an integral part of that, and that redress at the federal level was necessary to effect change in Beaumont 

Yeah, I made a post earlier, noting that the title was misleading.  The argument between BT and me was about the need for the CRA.

My argument is that the courts were already adjudicating the unconstitutional aspects of the treatment of minorities and that I think economic and social pressure would have been more effective at changing the private sector side than a federal law.

I feel like the law just pushed overt racism away and replaced it with institutional racism, which I argue is more dangerous and much harder to combat.

[Brian Fantana 6,689]

2 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Not true, Brown v. Education had already ended segregation in schools a decade before the CRA.

Your superficial (at best) understanding of history is exactly why this argument is taking place at all. This decision did not put an end to segregation in any way, shape, or form. Literally everyone that has done more than skimmed over this part of history knows that the South steadfastly resisted desegregation until the CRA forced their hand.

Effectively, all this ruling did was fuel the civil rights movement. To try and pretend it ended segregation 10 years before the CRA is either a product of a woefully ill-educated brain or someone deliberately lying.

[DixonHur 11,305]

So your big reveal is that many Southern whites were / are racist?  Well, knock me down with a feather...I had no idea.  That changes everything!

Outside of Title II, what parts of the CRA we're not already unconstitutional? 

Do you also support the Texas bathroom bills?  Because ya know, without those new laws, how would people know they can't rape women and children in bathrooms? 

In oder of importance to the success of minorities, how would you rank the following:

- equal voting rights

- equal access to education

- ability to peacefully protest without being killed or attacked by dogs / fire hoses 

- eating at Mel's diner

Hint, the last one one your list should be the only one not already protected by the Constitution.

While the CRA created the EEOC, it didn't have any real power until 1972's EEOA.

A bit off topic, but I think the biggest detriment to the success of minorities is the unequal punishments within the criminal code, specifically with regard to drug offenses...but that's a whole other thread.

Edited April 7, 2018 by DixonHur

[Brian Fantana 6,689]

Are you going to admit the thing I quoted was straight bullshit or just keep on with your retarded "they shoulda just kept suffering until it all worked itself out on its own" rhetoric?

[David Dennison 18,860]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

A bit off topic, but I think the biggest detriment to the success of minorities is the unequal punishments within the criminal code, specifically with regard to drug offenses...but that's a whole other thread.

Housing discrimination, particularly the inability to secure financing, has also played a significant role.

[DixonHur 11,305]

37 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Are you going to admit the thing I quoted was straight bullshit or just keep on with your retarded "they shoulda just kept suffering until it all worked itself out on its own" rhetoric?

Yes, folks, you heard it here first, according to Brian Fantana, the CRA ended racism and the suffering of minorities.  

You're living in a dream world if you think the CRA "worked it out".  

Go back and re-read the Brookings study. I don't think it's a coincidence that the progress made by African Americans slowed to a crawl since the passage of the CRA.  Racism went from overt to subversive.

[Brian Fantana 6,689]

Why don't you stop deflecting and admit what you said was bullshit?

[DixonHur 11,305]

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

Why don't you stop deflecting and admit what you said was bullshit?

What part is bullshit?  The part about segregation in schools being deemed unconstitutional in Brown v. Education?

 

 

[Brian Fantana 6,689]

No, the part where you said segregation was ended 10 years before CRA, when you know damned well that it wasn't.

[DixonHur 11,305]

2 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

No, the part where you said segregation was ended 10 years before CRA, when you know damned well that it wasn't.

Strawman alert! 

As Sawbones noted segregation didn't end in Beaumont until '81...the "legality" of school segregation officially ended in 1954, which was the point.  Legality and enforcement are two separate issues.

[Brian Fantana 6,689]

7 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Not true, Brown v. Education had already ended segregation in schools a decade before the CRA.

It's not a strawman when you actually said it you dumb fuck. That's a pretty unequivocal lie.

[DixonHur 11,305]

18 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

It's not a strawman when you actually said it you dumb fuck. That's a pretty unequivocal lie.

Don't worry, with practice, even you'll be able to understand English.

[bad_teammate 13,195]

4 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

Why don't you stop deflecting and admit what you said was bullshit?

It's DixonHur. Even I've gotten tired of his profound dishonesty, and I'm basically an inexhaustible resource of inability-to-resist-trolls.

He thinks and feels that minorities would be better off if we waited for the human condition to fix itself. Somehow "social and economic" pressures in Grand Saline, TX would have solved discrimination problems. Because... he thinks and feels it. No evidence. No historical precedent. Just... faith.

[DixonHur 11,305]

39 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's DixonHur. Even I've gotten tired of his profound dishonesty, and I'm basically an inexhaustible resource of inability-to-resist-trolls.

He thinks and feels that minorities would be better off if we waited for the human condition to fix itself. Somehow "social and economic" pressures in Grand Saline, TX would have solved discrimination problems. Because... he thinks and feels it. No evidence. No historical precedent. Just... faith.

Because ya gotta to have faith, faith, faith...

But I agree, aside from the evidence that the pace of progress for African Americans slowed dramatically after the CRA (BT's "mission accomplished" moment), and the historical precedent that all societies throughout history have gone through the same process...I haven't presented any evidence or historical precedent.