this post was submitted on 26 May 2024
480 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19047 readers
3971 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 178 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

“Racial isolation” itself is not a harm;

Yes. It is. Isolation inherently breeds tribalism, prejudice, and fear of the other. It is extremely harmful.

only state-enforced segregation is.

And what would you call racial Gerrymandering if not state-enforced segregation, Clarence? I mean, apart from voter manipulation and disenfranchisement, that is.

After all, if separation itself is a harm, and if integration therefore is the only way that Blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about Blacks.

No, the idea that separation is harmful doesn't presuppose the reason being that black people are inferior. It is harmful because black people are often treated as inferior and are not given equal treatment, resources, and opportunity. Black schools in the Jim Crow south weren't worse because they were full of and run by black people. They were worse because they were fucking broke. Schools are largely funded by property taxes. And black home ownership has always been lower than white home ownership, and the value of those homes (and thus their property taxes) has always been lower on average. That means less money going to black schools per capita. Less money means fewer resources and opportunities. It's pretty fucking simple, Clarence.

I'm sure your next question is why black families owned fewer and cheaper homes. Well, the first and most obvious reason is that black families started with a handicap. They came from poor slaves who had nothing and had to start completely from scratch. White Americans had control of industry, agriculture, commerce, and government. Black Americans had to play catch up once freed.

Then, when the GI benefits of the returning soldiers of WWII helped millions of white families buy their first homes, those benefit weren't honored for black soldiers. When new valuable homes and nice schools were being built in the suburbs, those neighborhoods were red-lined, preventing black families from buying these valuable properties even when they had the finances to do so. When new highways and industrial works were being put in, things that bring pollution and drop property values, those things were intentionally built in and around black neighborhoods, robbing the existing black home owners of long term wealth. Do those things still happen now? Mostly no, and never explicitly racially biased. But this is not ancient history. This is in your life time, Clarence. It's effects are still seen today and black people are still poorer, own fewer homes and less expensive homes as a result of generations of oppressive and unequal treatment. It's absurd to equate acknowledging black poverty with deeming blacks inferior. This state was inflicted in them, not their fault.

Under this theory, segregation injures Blacks because Blacks, when left on their own, cannot achieve. To my way of thinking, that conclusion is the result of a jurisprudence based on a theory of black inferiority,” he said in 2004.

If black people had been left to their own, they wouldn't have been slaves, wouldn't have been screwed out of their benefits they earned fighting for this country that hated them, wouldn't have been forbidden from moving into white neighborhoods, and wouldn't have had their homes tainted against their will by industry and transport that enriched white people. Let's also not discount the effects of unequal treatment under the law, unequal enforcement of the law, and unequal justice for crimes against them. Let's also not forget that at the time the Brown decision was made, black people were still being FUCKING LYNCHED, CLARENCE. This fallacy of "separate but equal" has no legs to stand on. It never existed. Fuck all the way off, Clarence, you fucking sell out self-hating prick.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 65 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

You know what's really sad? How events like this are/were not taught in history classes. Or at least not properly. I had never heard about the Tulsa Massacre until I was an adult. And you know where I first heard about it? The fucking Watchmen TV series in 2019. I did research on it and was mystified that it was not only a real event, but that I had never so much as heard it mentioned before. I did finally learn about it through formal education, but only as an elective course in college about the history of American racial biases. Smh.

And it's history like this that is explicitly being filtered out by laws to protect white students from feeling uncomfortable. No student in Florida will ever learn about Tulsa now until those laws are repealed. For the record, I'm white. I think I should have learned about this in high school at minimum.

[–] Dultas@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Did you happen upon the Wilmington Insurrection of 1898? I grew up in NC and it was never mentioned in NC history classes. I was in college before I heard about it.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

I had not. I'm no longer shocked though.

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 months ago

When people like Ron De Santis talks a "war against woke!", he's talking about a war on things that make privileged people uncomfortable and poor people pissed off.

They know that if more "woke" gets out there, it'll result in the rich potentially having to share.

[–] machinaeZER0@lemm.ee 9 points 4 months ago
[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip -4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes. It is. Isolation inherently breeds tribalism, prejudice, and fear of the other. It is extremely harmful.

It depends. If we think about Middle-Eastern and Balkan stuff, physical separation may really be better than mixed living which may turn into a mutual slaughter any day. That would be because cultural isolation doesn't require physical separation, and other things.

If we think about poorer and richer layers of the same general culture, with the poorer layers having more people with African ancestry - then yes.

[–] S_204@lemm.ee -3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

You're not allowed to tell Americans that how they want the world to be isn't exactly correct.

Americans even inherently understand this by their nature of forming into their chosen tribes rather than their more historically convenient ones. You see this for left right divide, the rich poor divide along with every other divide in American society.

[–] triptrapper@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Ah yes, the chosen tribes of rich and poor. Good thing I chose rich!

[–] S_204@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

? You think you get to independently choose your group? You don't, even among the most progressive.

You kinda sorta need to be welcome in the group whatever that group is.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 months ago

Poor Confederate soldiers sort of did.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 months ago

It's a problem with any group of humans really - the majority always thinks that one size fits all, and that their situation and the appropriate solutions are the same everywhere.