# Civil Rights and other Social Changes: Wouldn't they have occured anyway? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 26, 2010, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-rights-and-other-social-changes-wouldnt-they-have-occured-anyway/540788 "2010-05-26T02:53:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-rights-and-other-social-changes-wouldnt-they-have-occured-anyway/540788/41 "2010-05-27T03:12:06Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > It is, naturally impossible to say. > > Sure, things didn’t change much for Blacks for a hundred years, and then the government stepped in in the 60s and everything changed. But in contrast things hadn’t changed much for women or Asians for a hundred years (or 50 years if you think suffrage was a revolutionary change). Then in the 60s things suddenly changed with essentially no government interference. I am not sure where you got the notions expressed in your last sentence, but it is patently not accurate. Most of the changes regarding the treatment of women in the workplace happened through either judicial or legislative changes. Equal pay for identical jobs, affirmative action to grant access to previously closed employment, removal of discriminatory dress codes, and a number of other changes to women’s situation all were the result of changes in law. You are a little closer in regards to Asians, but following WWII, a number of discriminatory laws regarding Japanese and Chinese were reversed or repealed. Once those laws were removed, the general changes in the laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were siezed upon by Asians to guarantee their access to finances, housing, and jobs, just as they were employed by blacks for the same purposes. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-rights-and-other-social-changes-wouldnt-they-have-occured-anyway/540788/42 "2010-05-27T10:09:40Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Yes, it was crammed down a lot of people’s throats. But those people who didn’t like it weren’t a majority, except in some places. > [@](#): > > California was the first state in the nation to end the ban on interracial marriage in 1948 with the State Supreme Court ruling in Perez v. Sharp. As can be seen in the [table below](http://www.marriageequality.org/images/poll1.gif), these court decisions didn’t reflect the popular sentiment at the time. In 1958 (10 years after the Perez decision), the first Gallup poll on this issue showed 94% of Americans opposed interracial marriage and in 1968 (a year after the Loving decision), 72% opposed interracial marriage. > > If the Supreme Court would have waited for favorable polling data, interracial couples would have been excluded from marriage until 1991 which was the year of the first Gallup poll that showed more Americans in favor of interracial marriage than opposed. It?s unthinkable today to consider that type of ban existing for so long. > > [Marriage Equality USA](http://www.marriageequality.org/polls-and-studies) > [@](#): > > Opinion poll data suggest that Brown (v. Board of Education) did not educate many southern whites. A 1959 Gallup poll showed that only 8 percent of southern white ssupported _Brown_, down from 15% in earlier polls. Rather than persuading southern whites to support desegregation, _Brown_ inspired them to ridicule the Court… > > [Brown versus Board of Education and the civil rights movement](http://books.google.com/books?id=LEEMAWCU45oC&pg=PT141&dq=Opinion+poll+data+suggest+that+Brown+did+not+educate&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Opinion%20poll%20data%20suggest%20that%20Brown%20did%20not%20educate&f=false) Even if in some places 100% of the people were tolerant, this does not change the vast swaths of America where these decisions in fact were “crammed down a lot of people’s throats” - and it was these places that legislation was aimed for. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-rights-and-other-social-changes-wouldnt-they-have-occured-anyway/540788/43 "2010-05-27T10:39:16Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > With the integration of sports and entertainment (that happened pretty much without government help in the private sector), it would be a small leap to imagine the rest of public accommodations following suit. I disagree. I think it is pretty obvious that for a long time in American history, blacks were perfectly allowed to entertain whites but that didn’t mean they were “equal” in any meaningful way. And Boston has particularly been dogged by the same types of criticisms with regard to the Celtics from Bill Russell [even up to today](http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/playing_through_the_pain/). There is a huge leap between allowing a black man to entertain us or to help our athletic teams succeed and going to viewing that person as an equal in their neighborhoods, their places of employment, marrying into their families or even voting for them for office. I am aware there is a level of cognitive dissonance that allows someone to cheer for a player they would write off as a “nigger” if they wanted to buy the house next to theirs, but rasism is not logical so there isn’t much of a reason to expect logic from racists. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-rights-and-other-social-changes-wouldnt-they-have-occured-anyway/540788/44 "2010-05-27T11:59:59Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m not claiming things were always rosily-more-perfect every year, but the decade-by-decade figures show vast improvement. Nothing in life is ever a solid march to glory, but there’s no denying the economic and social improvements for blacks, particularly in the supposedly racist and stodgy 50’s. The dramatic jump between the 1880s and the 1890s is no statistical anomaly or “noise” – it’s a HUGE shift that shows a telling change in behavior and attitude. > [@](#): > > Secondly, I wouldn’t use Loewen as a support for anything mroe important than an umbrella stand. And then only if he was dead and stuffed first. He’s always half-full of his political or social biases and it’s better to just use another source, sincethere’s no knowing how far selective he’s being. I was mildly suprised when I first read his book (keep in mind, I was barely doub,le-digits) and outright pissed when I realized jsut how selective he’d been in his arguments and evidence. This blanket dismissal of anything in Loewen’s books is absurd – that man is definitely selective and has an agenda, but he doesn’t make up facts, and he heavily footnotes. Your dislike of him doesn’t change the fact that his actions seriously set back black opportunity in the Federal government, a status that took decades to reverse. ---
**Author:** ![lalenin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3da27b/32.png) [@lalenin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lalenin)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-rights-and-other-social-changes-wouldnt-they-have-occured-anyway/540788/45 "2010-05-27T13:00:38Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Bollocks. Cuba became became less like America following the revolution, yet the lot for most people improved. > > The idea that a nation can only become better fed by becoming more like the US is utter crap. I would have gladly eaten bollocks in Cuba, but I’m sure the government would have found a way to ration those too. If you think Cubans were better fed after the Castros came to power then you should look up the time called “Special Period”. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-rights-and-other-social-changes-wouldnt-they-have-occured-anyway/540788/46 "2010-05-27T13:19:59Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > I disagree. I think it is pretty obvious that for a long time in American history, blacks were perfectly allowed to entertain whites but that didn’t mean they were “equal” in any meaningful way. And Boston has particularly been dogged by the same types of criticisms with regard to the Celtics from Bill Russell [even up to today](http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/playing_through_the_pain/). > > There is a huge leap between allowing a black man to entertain us or to help our athletic teams succeed and going to viewing that person as an equal in their neighborhoods, their places of employment, marrying into their families or even voting for them for office. > > I am aware there is a level of cognitive dissonance that allows someone to cheer for a player they would write off as a “nigger” if they wanted to buy the house next to theirs, but rasism is not logical so there isn’t much of a reason to expect logic from racists. But during that time, there were repressive laws that gave a societal sanction to prejudice, and I notice you didn’t address that part of my post. Care to correct the glaring error you made in the OP? If you want to assume that the government would continue to keep Jim Crow laws on the books, then I agree-- social progress would be minimal, if at all. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-rights-and-other-social-changes-wouldnt-they-have-occured-anyway/540788/47 "2010-05-27T13:39:36Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But during that time, there were repressive laws that gave a societal sanction to prejudice, and I notice you didn’t address that part of my post. I don’t see how it matters when your examples of supposed enlightenment are flawed. > [@](#): > > Care to correct the glaring error you made in the OP? If you want to assume that the government would continue to keep Jim Crow laws on the books, then I agree-- social progress would be minimal, if at all. The Great Debate stands on its own even if I might have been not 100% correct in what prompted the thread and discussion. However even if you are correct, all he cared about was the private business aspect of the Act, he probably doesn’t vote on it which means he is for all intents and purposes against it. I nean, if he is so principaled as to take a stand against it half a century later, does he vote for it in 1964? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-rights-and-other-social-changes-wouldnt-they-have-occured-anyway/540788/48 "2010-05-27T15:57:13Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Even if in some places 100% of the people were tolerant, this does not change the vast swaths of America where these decisions in fact were “crammed down a lot of people’s throats” - and it was these places that legislation was aimed for. First of all, very few people were 100% tolerant. As you said below, believing blacks should have the right to vote is one thing, believing they should have the right to go to lunch counters and ride in the front of the bus is another, believing in integrated schools is another thing, believing in integrated neighborhoods is another thing, believing in interracial marriage is yet another thing. There were plenty of people who supported formal legal equality for blacks yet didn’t want to associate with blacks, or who supported some forms of integration but not others, or who thought blacks were inferior to whites but didn’t dislike blacks, or who think black people drive like this and white people drive like this, and so on. There’s all kinds of racism in the world, like a gorgeous mosiac of racism. And of course it was crammed down the throats of SOME people, that’s what those national guardsmen at the schools were all about. I’m just arguing against the notion that the civil rights movement was a goverment-led movement. No, it was a popular movement that grew in power until the government finally paid attention. Of course, there was a reactionary popular movement against civil rights at the same time, and there were plenty of people in government who jumped onboard the anti-civil rights bandwagon. It turned out that the pro-civil rights movement won. But without the popular movement government wouldn’t have done a thing. Legislators reflect the people. And the legislators from the areas where lots of (white) people supported Jim Crow turned out to be, shockingly, big supporters of Jim Crow. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-rights-and-other-social-changes-wouldnt-they-have-occured-anyway/540788/49 "2010-05-27T16:34:31Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > I don’t see how it matters when your examples of supposed enlightenment are flawed. Where were lunch counters segregated? Why did Blacks flock to the North (when they could) during the Jim Crow era? The fact is, things were better (if not perfect) even in the private sector for Blacks in the North than in the South. Nothing flawed about that. > [@](#): > > The Great Debate stands on its own even if I might have been not 100% correct in what prompted the thread and discussion. Given we’re only talking about 10% of the CRA, saying you’re not “100% correct” is a bit of a stretch. You’re much closer to 0% correct than 100% correct. > [@](#): > > However even if you are correct, all he cared about was the private business aspect of the Act, he probably doesn’t vote on it which means he is for all intents and purposes against it. I nean, if he is so principaled as to take a stand against it half a century later, does he vote for it in 1964? We don’t know that. All we have is what he says now, which is that he would vote for it. But regardless of what RP would do, if you want to frame this as a “Libertarian” debate, then Libertarians do not accept any form of government sanctioned discrimination by racy ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-rights-and-other-social-changes-wouldnt-they-have-occured-anyway/540788/50 "2010-05-27T16:40:05Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > First of all, very few people were 100% tolerant. 100% of people are not anything, I’d venture. The issue is whether there was a public groundswell for change that was a majority or not and I don’t think it was. > [@](#): > > I’m just arguing against the notion that the civil rights movement was a goverment-led movement. No, it was a popular movement that grew in power until the government finally paid attention. If the populace was so in favor of these changes, then why did the government need to step in at all? Seems to me that if attitudes had already up and changed, those “Whites Only” signs would have vanished, replaced by lines of mixed-race folks arm-in-arm sining “Kumbaya.” Only that didn’t happen. And when the laws were changed, that _really_ didn’t happen, which is also evidence - along with the polling data I already presented - that people were not as overwhelmingly enlightened as you claim. Did some people protest, make some noise? Of course. But an overwhelming majority of those protesting in the south were not white southerners, you know - they were indiginous blacks and Yankee infiltrators who were going where they didn’t belong (according to the prevalent opinion in the area at the time). I think you are overstating how much popular sentiment was on the side of change here, especially in the areas where legislation was geared. It seems obvious to me that if such a large number of people were against discrimination that the laws and court cases wouldn’t have been necessary. I don’t know why it’s not obvious to you. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-rights-and-other-social-changes-wouldnt-they-have-occured-anyway/540788/51 "2010-05-27T16:46:04Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I am not sure where you got the notions expressed in your last sentence, but it is patently not accurate. > > Most of the changes regarding the treatment of women in the workplace happened through either judicial or legislative changes. Equal pay for identical jobs, affirmative action to grant access to previously closed employment, removal of discriminatory dress codes, and a number of other changes to women’s situation all were the result of changes in law. I think everyone is neglecting one very important factor in this, which was the availability of effective birth control starting in the early 1960s. This gave married women the option of a career instead of one broken by pregnancy, and set the stage for the laws you mention. Remember, however, that ERA failed - not that it is necessary any more. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-rights-and-other-social-changes-wouldnt-they-have-occured-anyway/540788/52 "2010-05-27T16:50:53Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Where were lunch counters segregated? Why did Blacks flock to the North (when they could) during the Jim Crow era? The fact is, things were better (if not perfect) even in the private sector for Blacks in the North than in the South. Nothing flawed about that. Your examples that I was responding to were about entertainment and sports. Those are flawed. As for the fact that blacks could leave their oppression… Well, isn’t that as stupid an argument as “America: Love it or leave it?” The black population in the South shouldn’t have HAD TO move to have the same protections that all Americans deserved. I believe the South did not win that war… > [@](#): > > We don’t know that. All we have is what he says now, which is that he would vote for it. Occam’s Razor suggests otherwise but you have every right to ignore or not demand consistancy. > [@](#): > > But regardless of what RP would do, if you want to frame this as a “Libertarian” debate, then Libertarians do not accept any form of government sanctioned discrimination by racy If that means being against things such as Affirmative Action or other decisions which were designed to assist those who were marginalized for centuries with a fair shot, then from what I can tell the Libertarian position wouldn’t have worked during the '60s and '70s and it’s why I don’t believe it can work now. That said, this debate can easily have nothing to do with Libertarianism - the OP of whether change would have happened without government policy changes still stands even if we ignore whatever is supposed to be the Libertarian decree on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-rights-and-other-social-changes-wouldnt-they-have-occured-anyway/540788/53 "2010-05-27T16:57:59Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > 100% of people are not anything, I’d venture. The issue is whether there was a public groundswell for change that was a majority or not and I don’t think it was. > > If the populace was so in favor of these changes, then why did the government need to step in at all? Seems to me that if attitudes had already up and changed, those “Whites Only” signs would have vanished, replaced by lines of mixed-race folks arm-in-arm sining “Kumbaya.” > > Only that didn’t happen. And when the laws were changed, that _really_ didn’t happen, which is also evidence - along with the polling data I already presented - that people were not as overwhelmingly enlightened as you claim. > > Did some people protest, make some noise? Of course. But an overwhelming majority of those protesting in the south were not white southerners, you know - they were indiginous blacks and Yankee infiltrators who were going where they didn’t belong (according to the prevalent opinion in the area at the time). > > I think you are overstating how much popular sentiment was on the side of change here, especially in the areas where legislation was geared. > > It seems obvious to me that if such a large number of people were against discrimination that the laws and court cases wouldn’t have been necessary. I don’t know why it’s not obvious to you. I’m not saying it was an overwhelming majority. But neither was an overwhelming majority AGAINST civil rights, except, as you point out, in the South. Yes, civil rights were shoved down the throat of the South. I don’t dispute that. Of course, civil rights weren’t shoved down the throat of a very large part of the South, since there were lots and lots of black people in the South, and they weren’t against civil rights. When you factor in the black folks in the South, the overwhelming opposition to civil rights doesn’t look so overwhelming. Of course, those black folks couldn’t vote (because they had no, you know, civil rights), and so the government of the south didn’t represent them, they represented the white folks, and the overwhelming majority of white folks in the south didn’t want civil rights for blacks. I don’t see what’s confusing to you. Martin Luther King and all the other civil rights activists were the ones who got the government to finally enforce civil rights. Of course we need laws against discrimination, even if most people don’t discriminate. Just like we need laws against theft even though most people don’t steal. Government didn’t create the prohibition against theft out of thin air, human beings have a moral sense that led them to believe that theft is wrong, and constituted governments to enforce that moral sense. If you think the civil rights movement was a government movement, why don’t you respond to my question about why the government didn’t protect civil rights in the 30s and 40s? Why did the enlighted people in the government wait until the 50s and 60s? The answer is that the people in government aren’t any more enlightened than the citizenry that vote them into office. It wasn’t just the citizens of the south that were opposed to civil rights, the government officials of the south were opposed as well. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-rights-and-other-social-changes-wouldnt-they-have-occured-anyway/540788/54 "2010-05-27T17:06:25Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > I’m not saying it was an overwhelming majority. Then what are you saying? And why? > [@](#): > > But neither was an overwhelming majority AGAINST civil rights, except, as you point out, in the South. Which is the whole point since the SOuth was the region that these laws affected most profoundly. > [@](#): > > Yes, civil rights were shoved down the throat of the South. I don’t dispute that. This is exactly why they were necessary and did not predate an enlightened society that wanted them. > [@](#): > > Of course, civil rights weren’t shoved down the throat of a very large part of the South, since there were lots and lots of black people in the South, and they weren’t against civil rights. :rolleyes: Since when have those oppressed ever got a vote that counts? > [@](#): > > If you think the civil rights movement was a government movement… Who said that? The OP specifically asks whether changes would have come around without the government help, not that the government never had a single push to reach the point where they did help. You seem to think that it would have and use the voices for change as your evidence. I don’t think so and I use the overwhelming dissent in the face of change from another, more sizable portion of the populace, a dissent that is pretty clear looking at images, reading speeches and examining the polling data available to us. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-rights-and-other-social-changes-wouldnt-they-have-occured-anyway/540788/55 "2010-05-27T17:39:17Z")
Why are people focusing on American progress? Nothing about the OP’s question is specific to America, it’s about whether humanity has a natural tendency to progress towards civil rights and social freedoms or not. Which means that we can look at all humanity for data on the subject. Humanity has been around for a _long time_. If humanity had _any_ kind of inherent trend towards civil rights, then everyone everywhere would have them by now, and things wouldn’t have been much different two hundred years ago. So if humanity had an inherent trend towards civil rights then we wouldn’t have needed a Civil Rights Act or emancipation at all. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-rights-and-other-social-changes-wouldnt-they-have-occured-anyway/540788/56 "2010-05-27T19:22:15Z")
> [@ed malin](#): > > If you are referencing my question about other countries as just as the US: > Which of these provides freedom of speech to the level we do. I know it’s not Britain or Canada or Germany. France, IIRC, has a list of official names for children born there. I don’t know about the others. I’m not slamming those countries. But anyplace that can gag you for speaking your mind is lacking a basic tenet of ‘justice’. Which of those has a Guantanamo Bay? Which has the highest rate in the world for killing its own citizens? Which has the highest prison population, with an obvious racial slant to who gets incarcerated? Those are much bigger metrics for justice. And the official names thing is specifically to protect children from their parents. No Moon Units or Kal Els in France, and that’s a \*good \*thing. Kids shouldn’t be the vehicle for their parent’s “artistic” expression. It’s not like America has unfettered freedom of speech, either. “Free Speech” zones at campaign rallies, for instance, the Victorian moral standards of the FCC, etc. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-rights-and-other-social-changes-wouldnt-they-have-occured-anyway/540788/57 "2010-05-27T19:34:06Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Your examples that I was responding to were about entertainment and sports. Those are flawed. Nope. Kids growing up with sports idols are different than some 50 year old guy who grudgingly acknowledges a Black man’s accomplishments. > [@](#): > > As for the fact that blacks could leave their oppression… Well, isn’t that as stupid an argument as “America: Love it or leave it?” The black population in the South shouldn’t have HAD TO move to have the same protections that all Americans deserved. I believe the South did not win that war… Can you quote the part where I made that argument? I just compared the relative positions of Blacks in different parts of the country-- one part that had oppressive Jim Crow Laws, and one that didn’t (or didn’t have quite as oppressive ones). That’s exactly on point with the question you ask in the OP. > [@](#): > > Occam’s Razor suggests otherwise but you have every right to ignore or not demand consistancy. And I say Occam’s Razor suggest the opposite. So, perhaps we should just leave Occam out of this-- it’s not a valid debate argument anyway. > [@](#): > > If that means being against things such as Affirmative Action or other decisions which were designed to assist those who were marginalized for centuries with a fair shot, then from what I can tell the Libertarian position wouldn’t have worked during the '60s and '70s and it’s why I don’t believe it can work now. The question of how one transitions from an oppressive, Jim Crow-type situation to a Libertarian one is open. I wouldn’t argue that flipping the switch one day would make everything A-OK. However, the idea that something which “didn’t work” in the 60s won’t work today is not really much of an argument. If we look at the tremendous strides that Gays have made in the last decade, mostly without government help, we can see that people’s views change depending on the times they grow up in. > [@](#): > > That said, this debate can easily have nothing to do with Libertarianism - the OP of whether change would have happened without government policy changes still stands even if we ignore whatever is supposed to be the Libertarian decree on the subject. I don’t even understand what that means. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-rights-and-other-social-changes-wouldnt-they-have-occured-anyway/540788/58 "2010-05-27T19:37:21Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > I don’t see what’s confusing to you. Martin Luther King and all the other civil rights activists were the ones who got the government to finally enforce civil rights. > > Of course we need laws against discrimination, even if most people don’t discriminate. Just like we need laws against theft even though most people don’t steal. Government didn’t create the prohibition against theft out of thin air, human beings have a moral sense that led them to believe that theft is wrong, and constituted governments to enforce that moral sense. > > If you think the civil rights movement was a government movement, why don’t you respond to my question about why the government didn’t protect civil rights in the 30s and 40s? Why did the enlighted people in the government wait until the 50s and 60s? > > The answer is that the people in government aren’t any more enlightened than the citizenry that vote them into office. It wasn’t just the citizens of the south that were opposed to civil rights, the government officials of the south were opposed as well. I think another important factor is here is the role TV played in this. Images of Civil Rights protesters being brutalized by the police broadcast across the nation ignited a furor that would have been very difficult to accomplish without those vivid images. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2010, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-rights-and-other-social-changes-wouldnt-they-have-occured-anyway/540788/59 "2010-05-28T14:30:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Nope. Kids growing up with sports idols are different than some 50 year old guy who grudgingly acknowledges a Black man’s accomplishments. Not when those kids and the kids of those 50 year olds. > [@](#): > > Can you quote the part where I made that argument? I just compared the relative positions of Blacks in different parts of the country-- one part that had oppressive Jim Crow Laws, and one that didn’t (or didn’t have quite as oppressive ones). That’s exactly on point with the question you ask in the OP. What was the point of saying that blacks could move to another part of AMerica to not be lynched then? The issue is that in the south those problems remained. They also could have moved to Canada which was supposedly more tolerant of race (Jackie Robinson started his career in Canada playing for a minor league team there for that reason) but that doesn’t change anything about regions (large ones0 being very resistant to changes. > [@](#): > > And I say Occam’s Razor suggest the opposite. So, perhaps we should just leave Occam out of this-- it’s not a valid debate argument anyway. Then we could get into why you would support someone who would be vocciferous in oposition to something 50 years after the fact but who would still vote for it. But yes, that is another thread… > [@](#): > > The question of how one transitions from an oppressive, Jim Crow-type situation to a Libertarian one is open. We don’t need to bring Libertarianism into this. One can go from oppressive to \*non-\*oppressive without resorting to Libertarianism. All things not Libertarian oppress. > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t argue that flipping the switch one day would make everything A-OK. However, the idea that something which “didn’t work” in the 60s won’t work today is not really much of an argument. If we look at the tremendous strides that Gays have made in the last decade, mostly without government help, we can see that people’s views change depending on the times they grow up in. I actually used attitudes towards gays as a possibility that we could change. However, being gay is different than being black or a woman or Asian or whatever else because a vast majority of gays are not drag queens wearing rainbow tee-shirts in San Francisco or the Village in NYC. That said, some of the advancement of GLBT rights has been done through the courts and through legislation, and not a triffling amount either. > [@](#): > > I don’t even understand what that means. What it means is that the question can be asked “Would civil rights have come around eventually even without the CRA and other legislation and court decisions that advanced civil rights” without using the L-word. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/civil-rights-and-other-social-changes-wouldnt-they-have-occured-anyway/540788.md?page=2)