The platform of the Democratic Party of 1924 is just such a defense - it “deplore(s) and condemn(s) any effort to arouse religious or racial dissension.” Given the Republican policy at the time to push for anti-lynching laws and the Democratic resistance to these, that sentence can be viewed only one way.
The platform also opposes “Asiatic” immigration.
This was the product of an infamous convention labeled the “Klanbake” by observers.
I was a pawn in the Louisville desegregation busing of the 1970s. Here are some of the things I remember. I was nine…so this has been filtered through 34 years of memory, and a lot of learning about (and even teaching) civil rights History. As a grown up, I’m convinced that most of the issues had more to do with class than race. This is later than what you are talking about in the OP, but I think the mindset stayed the same.
“They are dirty”…this is a huge part of the ‘water fountain’ problem - and honestly, many of the kids who were bused into the Louisville burbs had different standards of hygiene than we did. Even educated people can worry about the spread of disease from people who they perceive as washing less than regularly. But I’m given to understand that you simply care for black hair differently than you care for hair like mine, and skin too tends to get moisturized a lot more often - something that I doubt many white people in Kentucky in the mid-1970s understood.
“They will drag down the academic standards of the school” - again - honestly - they did. Not really their fault since desegregation busing was designed to address inequalities in school. And I was in fourth grade, so these kids had already gone through four years of inferior schooling.
“They are violent and disrespectful” - again - honestly - these kids had been raised to different standards of addressing authority than the kids from the 'burbs. But again, this was as much a class thing as a race thing - some of the kids that were bussed in were white - and some of the kids who were the biggest troublemakers that had been bussed in were white. However, given that it was white parents standing outside the buses shouting words no nine year old should hear and threatening to blow up the buses…they probably shouldn’t throw stones (although, again, honestly, they did…).
I suspect, although I was too young to pick up on it, that there were concerns about intermarriage. And here I will say something I’ve said before here “I hope my kids aren’t gay because while I am not homophobic, its a much harder life.” Similarly, in 1974 in the mid-South, I would have hoped the person my child fell in love with is another white Christian, because any other choice is going to be hard. What this logic fails to realize is that times have changed - hopefully, if my kids are gay, by the time they are adults it will be much less of a big deal (it already is). And interracial relationships are much less of a big deal now than they were then. But even a reasonable person wants an easy life for their kids.
I also remember vividly that the black kids were different. When we played on the playground and held hands their hands felt different. They smelled different. They talked different. This never bothered me, I found it interesting. But a lot of people are threatened by different.
I will also note that prior to busing the schools in Louisville were desegregated. My neighbor across the street was a middle class black girl who went to school with me. And very little of the racism that applied to the kids being bussed in applied to this girl with college educated parents living in a nice house in the suburbs.
It’s only racist if it’s not true. I think you’ll see plenty of people on this board point out that X country does or doesn’t have a fairly homogeneous society when talking about the crime rate. Homogeneity doesn’t necessarily mean “race” of course. When the Irish were coming in and made up the majority of the poor, I’m sure that having both cultural and income differences helped to create further antagonism.
Humans are, almost certainly, pack animals and hostile to any perceived opponent packs. While I think that the US should be commended for being willing to accept people of different cultures and tell everyone that it’s their duty to bond together, I wouldn’t say that this is the wisest method for a stable, crime-free country like Japan or wherever.
A bit before 1925, but from someone who wasn’t known as a “backwoods KKK member drinking beer and lynching someone”:
Appeal to tradition: "It threatens the sanctity of _____! " The blank being filled in with whatever the status quo du jour happens to be.
Thankyou. Fascinating stuff you just presented. It certainly has materially changed my understanding of the history of segregation in America.
Exactly. Even today, we don’t have a problem with segregation or discrimination along socially acceptably, or legally defensible lines. Some people today live in gated communities, send their kids to prestigious private schools, or belong to private clubs or fraternities. Some jails used to segregate people by race until very recently.
We also still have many educated people on this board who will never miss an opportunity to point out the inherent inferiority of Blacks and other minorities, yet few will call them out on their racist, backwards notions. Here are a few of my favorites:
From a thread about the difficulty of getting into med school:
From a thread about how we should combat modern racism:
There was another (by another poster) I cannot find at the moment that speculated that the relatively recent influx of Dominicans (and other Hispanics) in professional baseball and boxing was not due to culture or economics, but rather their innate superior hand speed. :dubious:
When their racial witnessing is interrupted by contradictory facts and logic, they double down on stupidity. When you have educated people who believe such things today, it is any surprise that people years past would think that such conclusions justified de jure segregation (or even slavery)? In fact, I’d go one step further in saying that if you honestly believe Blacks and others are inherently inferior, why would you want to have desegregated schools, et. al.? Maybe, we should acknowledge the fact that many people are no “less racist” than people were in the past, they just lack to courage and conviction to publicly advocate that the government or powers that be actualize and enforce their positions on race.
What exactly is “segregation” for the purposes of this argument? Are we talking about
(1) informal segregation, as maintained by people choosing to live in certain areas and school districts that happen to be racially homogeneous
(2) Private property owners choosing not to rent or sell property to particular races, or setting up race-segregated facilities,
or (3) Government decree that blacks cannot do X? (If so, define X)
Megan McArdle recently wrote a long post on gay marriage that basically comes down to
She cites the easing of divorce laws, the introduction of income tax, allowing unwed mothers to collect welfare, the destigmatisation of illegitimacy and a bunch of other examples as demonstration that changing cultural and moral arrangements can have unpredictable effects. It’s part of the conservative mindset to be suspicious of rapid social change. No racism required.
FTR I am not suggesting that McArdle would have been opposed to desegregation - in fact, she is not opposed to gay marriage either. But I think she does describe the argument pretty well.
FTR2 I think the argument is wrong.
It’s actually a perfectly reasonable justification for racism.
#2 with the emphasis that government mandates certain separation, like Louisiana in Plessy.
Great answers all. I note that some are linking segregation with opposition to gay rights. While I can possibly see some similarities, with gay rights you have the added dimension of people believing that the lifestyle is wrong or immoral.
Surely in days gone by, nobody thought that being black was sinful?
An educated segregationist of 1925 would be familiar with “scientific racism,” which was very current then; even most (white) liberals assumed blacks were mentally inferior by heredity, and had other distinguishing psychological characteristics that were in the blood, e.g., propensity to violence. See Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant. These assumptions were far more widespread for far longer than is appreciated nowadays. In fact, I’ve read on this Board that many white Americans supported the civil rights movement in the 1950s on the grounds that it is immoral to take advantage of inferior people.
Not in the same sense that some people today believe that homosexuality is sinful, but there certainly were those who believed that black people were weaker than white people when it came to controlling their baser instincts. It wasn’t that having dark skin actually made someone violent, promiscuous, lazy, etc., but that the “black race” was believed to be unintelligent and to have particular difficulty in exercising self-control. There were whites who did think of black adults as being basically overgrown children, or as being more “animalistic” than whites.
You think that doesn’t mean “race”? The way people thought then, the Irish and the English were different races. See How the Irish Became White, by Noel Ignatiev.
AFAIK, the only numerous ethnic minority in Japan is the Koreans; do they commit crimes out of proportion to their numbers?
Dunno. That’s not really the point, though. While as the Irish in the US and the Koreans in Japan can disappear into the background, it’s a bit harder for a black skinned person to appear at first blush as a white guy.
As to your , here are a few examples:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11652164&postcount=43
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9487579&postcount=5
To people who did not believe that they thought other races were superior or inferior, they may use several other explanations. Indeed, these explanations are in common use today.
One is the “social harmony” theory- the idea that mixed race facilities would cause social tensions. The idea here is that people naturally might be uncomfortable. Tempers might flare. The racists who do exist on both sides might not be able to handle it. For everyone’s sake it is better to keep people apart where they can enjoy themselves without racial tensions (this is one of the theories for why gays shouldn’t serve in the military.)
“They” certainly thought that mixing races was sinful.
They also thought that being black was the result of sin. Either the mark of Cain or the curse of Ham, or both.
So while “being” black may not have been sinful in itself, it was certainly seen as evidence of inherited sin. That’s a pretty fine distinction.