Talk about old chestnuts… no, having a dress code is not the same. There’s a history of racism and violence in this country, and the Civil Rights Act is one of the ways we’ve tried to rectify that. There is nothing in this history of racism and violence about wearing t-shirts.
But mainly there was popular support for simple human decency.
Will, perhaps you ought to learn what Jim Crow, segregation, and lynchings were, and why they stopped (mostly), and tell us what role the “free market” played either way, hmm?
Now you’re being silly again. We can’t make everyone’s lives equal nor should we try. But we can and we must stop discrimination based on skin color, gender, sexual preference, religion, etc.
Jim crow- administered by the state
segregation- mostly by the state
lynchings- failure of state to prevent ACTUAL violence
None of these were market phenomenon. I have no idea what you are rambling on about.
You can’t stop discrimination. That’s hubris.
The free market utterly failed to protect anyone’s rights in these instances. Jim Crow and segregation were not just ‘administered by the state’ – they included an enormous amount of day-to-day support by local communities’ non-state apparatuses. Sundown towns are just one example. It took state action to protect the rights of black people.
You can make it illegal in lots of instances. Since the passage of the CRA, there has been a lot less discrimination.
Am I missing something? I read that article and it sounded to me like the story is about the history of racism in Vidor and how that reputation continues to cause non-whites to avoid moving there. Maybe I’m not reading between the lines, but the author is criticizing the town for not working hard enough to change its reputation; but not of attempting to continue to foster that reputation.
You refuse to draw meaningful distinctions between the real definition of violence and your definition which includes non-violent things.
Those that were segregated by law, you mean? That was resistance to the state. Capitalism is what happens outside of the state.
Sure there is. I refuse, you refuse, Exxon refuses, Ruby Tuesday refuses, to provide services in the desert.
Again:You refuse to draw meaningful distinctions between the real definition of violence and your definition which includes non-violent things.
Yes, discrimination has decreased, but that is not attributed to state action. Only people ignorant of human nature would even claim such a thing. Discrimination has decreased since the CRA for the same reason it was decreasing in the period leading up to the CRA. In my opinion it came from increased favorable voluntary associations between individuals of different races.
But you *can *stop *acting *on discriminatory beliefs. And, for the most part, we have. Are you suggesting it has never been a problem?
You’re using “free market” as an odd synonym for “lack of legal regulation”. And, while you’re right that, for a despicably long time, government controlled by racists permitted those things to exist (through inaction, failure to stop them), they did not *cause *them or the attitudes that did.
Hold up, buddy. The free market is not meant to protect against violence. The government has a monopoly on the protection racket. Blame them. Jim Crow LAWS were not administered by the state? You have crossed the Rubicon of twisted language my friend.
In the sense of ‘violence against black people before Civil Rights’, all of these things are absolutely included in that category. It’s a far more valid comparison than your silly t-shirts argument.
And those that were segregated by choice.
Ridiculous. Comparing the right to not open a business in the desert to the supposed ‘right’ to turn away customers based on race to the business you’ve already opened doesn’t even deserve a response.
Wrong. You refuse to acknowledge the real history of violence and oppression against black people, by both state and market actors, before the CRA.
Yes I can. If the government of Vidor passed laws which treated one race differently from another, that would be a problem. If the government of Vidor treats all races the same, and it’s mainly whites who choose to live there, why should that be a problem?
When I was a college professor, I often attended academic conferences in math and physics where the racial composition was something like 100 whites, 50 Asians, and no blacks, Hispanics, or Native Americans. Are mathematicians and physicists secretly planning to create sundown towns as soon as the Civil Rights Act is repealed? Or in their case, is it somehow okay to have an environment with very few blacks or Hispanics.
It was one. Not long ago. I’m not sure why you think it won’t go back to that or that it isn’t the de facto situation now.
On its face? It’s not.
But every other surrounding town has a demographic mix more representative of SE Texas. Something is different about Vidor that’s not true a few miles over.
Is that necessarily a problem? No. But it is suggestive. And, in this particular case, it’s a well known secret in this part of Texas (a deliberate oxymoron in this case) the town is both incredibly racist and incredibly corrupt, including elements of its city government and judiciary.
And, yes, in this part of Texas, it’s almost a euphemism. Here’s a Texas Monthly article where a small Texas town is described as a “mini-Vidor”, meaning it has a bunch of racism and corruption.
That’s unrealistically naive or deliberately obtuse.
Sorry. Not the best article on it, but it’s still the seat of white power movements and racism in the area.
I still remember how shocked I was 10 years ago when they were announcing a black family moving into town (this is news in Vidor) and a lady at a diner said, “Oh, they’re fine people. I don’t mind them eating in the same restaurant. I just don’t want to live next to one.” This wasn’t 50 years ago. This was in the 21st century.
So what?
As I’ve noted twice already in this thread, whether or not the government should do anything here is a different debate from whether or not there is even a problem.
It’s one thing to argue whether or not something should be done. It’s another to claim the problem doesn’t exist in the first place. And it’s still another to attempt to conflate the two.
So you’re seriously arguing that the CRA and associated legislation has had nothing to do with the elimination of lynchings, segregation, the near-elimination of turning away black people from restaurants, and related phenomena? You can’t be serious.
You conveniently forget the word ‘segregation’ (and sundown towns) in my statement. It was not just the state that oppressed black people. It was groups of white business owners, ‘concerned citizens’ councils’, and the like. And it continued for decades, even after the CRA, in the aforementioned sundown towns.
Seriously, are you just OK with sundown towns? You don’t think it’s a problem if black people suddenly are unable to drive from town A to town C because town B won’t let them get gas?
Uh, Jim Crow laws were passed by State Legislatures.
- Honesty
This is a good point- it took Federal Government action to end the discriminatory laws passed by many states and localities.
I would like to point out that the idea that “the market” will fix things automatically is an article of faith, it isn’t a fact.