What Exit, could you clarify something, please?

The BBQ Pit
1

Could you explain why you thought this post was a derailment of the thread, while you did not think that the comment to which it was responding was itself a derailment of the thread? Wouldn’t your own response to me also be a derailment? Couldn’t you have left the original claim and the counter to that claim be the sum total and end of the matter unless you had something else substantive to add? See, if I respond to you there, where you addressed me, then it likely would lead to a derailment. So,if you wanted to express your own opinion — which you did do — and you thought it might make a good GD topic — which is what you said — then why didn’t you just open a GD thread and express your opinion there?

I hope I haven’t upset you by asking this question. I ask because I did not respond until the thread had gone to three pages where it had already moved off in several directions discussing racial and ethnic stereotypes from Poland to Sicily to Southern India, with side-arguments about everything from whether MrDibble is black to MrDibble’s own “made-up offenderati” reference directed toward me (to which I did not respond). Therefore, I was surprised by your nearly moderatorial comment that seemed to be almost a parody of itself.

Thanks. :slight_smile:

2

No hidden agenda, your theory was interesting, my interest in it would have at least hi-jacked the thread if not derailed it. If you cared to take up the debate, I thought maybe we could do it in GD rather than in the thread. The pit is just as good and maybe a better place to discuss what you posted.

I thought I would be the ‘derailer’, not that you did any derailing.

What you said was:

If I understand your post, you seem to feel that discrimination in the South was no worse that discrimination in the North. This disagrees with everything I have read, learned and experienced on the subject. Perhaps, I misunderstood you.

Jim

3

Thanks very much for your thoughtful response. It’s a great relief to understand you as I do now.

Yes, if you check the sources I gave, you’ll see that racial discrimination is not now and never has been limited to the South, or even prevalent in the South over the North. I do understand the issue of slavery overriding other issues, but I don’t think we can discount the North’s role in that terrible institution. It was Northern merchants who sold the slaves, and while slave ownership was more prominent in the South, it was nowhere near nonexistent in the North. This site has prodigious information that you might find interesting.

I already linked you to Paton’s experiences in the 1950s. During the civil unrest of the 1960s, terribly destructive race riots broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Detroit, Boston, and other Northern and Western cities that in terms of sheer damage and casualty to the black community overshadowed any such events in the South. And today, as you can see from this map, the picture that was painted of racism being confined to a few pockets in the South is simply false. California, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other states outside Dixie have their fair share.

4

Your own map show that the vast majority of hate groups are in the South. Indeed, none of what you’ve said shows that discrimination wasn’t (and isn’t) worse in the South, just that it also existed (and exists) in the North. Why should the damage done in race riots correlate to the severity of discrimination? Several of the race riots you cite began with events that were commonplace in the South, but had a much different effect in the North. Indeed, it is interesting to note that there were almost no race riots in the South. Why do you think that is?

Even if race riots are themselves a measure of the severity of discrimination, I don’t see how you can argue that these races riots are worse than the thousands of lynchings that took place in the South.

If we wanted to do an objective comparison, we would look at quantifiable instances of discrimination. Like the SPLC did with that map. We might also ask how many states in the North sent their national guards out to prevent school integration? How many Northern states instituted black codes and Jim Crow laws? How long did segregation of transportation and businesses persist in the South versus the North? And similar questions.

5

Okay, I think we are disagreeing on degree, not fact.

The North had a lot of racism. There is no question of that fact. The South is a lot better today than it was in the past and the amount of difference racism between the North and the South may be negligible now. However from 1900 through 1970, racism was worse in the south.

The lynchings were far too common into the 30s and overwhelmingly in the south.

Maintaining rules of segregation lasted into the 60s again overwhelmingly in the south.

The race riots were horrible and they were everywhere. They were a reaction to the continued racism that existed everywhere in the country. African Americans even in the North, even in NYC, Chicago and LA had far less opportunities in life than Whites. Of this we fully agree.

I simply object to the concept that racism was as bad in the north as the south. Starting as far back as the 1860s and spearheaded by the greats like John & Abigail Adams, the north and especially Massachusetts did move away from Slavery and the slave trade. Boston was one of the first ports in the US to stop the slave trade. Through the duration of the time of slavery, it is obvious that the North and the South moved further and further apart on this most important issue.

In the Anti-Bellum period, the south gave rise to that most evil of institutions, the KKK and the policy of unequal justice and segregation. The north had problems, but was less horrible about it. Enter the new Century, the 1900s, the North started making progress; my own parents went to an integrated school in the 30s and 40s. They shared classes and the cafeteria and even water fountains with the African Americans in the school*. This was in NYC, but it happened in most lower class neighborhoods in the North East. This almost never happened in most of the South at that time.

The lynchings lasted or at least made a come back in the 60s. This again was overwhelmingly in the south. The Civil Rights movement had to fight harder in the south in the 50s and 60s. Pro-Sports players still could not room and eat with their white teammates in the South, and yet they could in the North and the West. It is not until the 1970s that racism finally started letting go in the South.

Jim {Sorry for the confusion in the other thread, I guess this does not count as a pitting. I thought it was my first at first.}

  • Sorry for a little sarcastic humor, the water fountain thing has always left me with a permanent :rolleyes: :confused: :mad:
6

The Jewish Defense League is a hate group? :confused:

7

Well they hate anti-semitics, does that count? :wink:

Actually, I missed that, which article mentioned the JDL as a hate group.

Jim

8

Check Lib’s linked map, and click on Alaska.

9

:smack: Makes one suspicious of much else from that site. I wonder how and why they consider the JDL a hate group.

Good catch.

Jim

10

So does the FBI. Check out Wiki. You might be thinking of the Anti-Defamation League.

11

Could be because the FBI has classified it as a right-wing terrorist group. Keep in mind that the map I linked you to is from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a renowned civil rights watchdog (located in Montgomery, Alabama, I might add.) Here’s some more on the Jewish Defense League (JDL). Maybe y’all have confused it with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

12

The SPLC tends to be a little enthusiastic about labeling hate groups, but here’s an example of why it’s listed:

13

Yep. Seems like the JDL certainly qualifies. Learn something every day. Thanks.

14

Oops, yep. Thanks, ADL not JDL. Now it makes sense.

Thanks also **Liberal ** and Hunter Hawk.

ETA: Liberal, were you going to get back to me on my post about racism being worse in the south than the north until recently? **Richard Parker ** had a good post worthy of debate.

Jim

15

We could all engage in that, yes, but it’d just be a battle of our conflicting interpretations and experiences. If you’ve read Paton’s article, then you know that racism in the North has always been more passive-aggressive than racism in the South. But that doesn’t mean that it has been less there than here. Richard could point out past lynchings, but I could point out that in 2006, Pennsylvania had nearly 4 times as many SPL citations as Alabama. You could point out slavery, but I could point out where the slaves came from (the North).

Again, I’m just saying that there’s plenty of racism to go around, and that the statement from the ATMB thread — that racism in the US today is limited to “a very few parts of the South” — is objectively false. There really isn’t anything to debate about that, is there?

16

That isn’t what you were “just saying” in your OP. You said that there wasn’t reason to believe it was more prevalent in the South. There are, in fact, lots of objective reasons to believe this.

17

Fun little nit pick:

It’s ante-bellum, not anti-bellum. Ante means before, as in before the (civil) war period.
Thank you and carry on.

18

Tom Servo: “I’m Anti-Bellamy Brothers; does that count?”

19

:cool:

20

Of course there was more racism in the south. There were more opportunities for racism in the south, in 1910 90% of african-americans lived in the south. That changed a bit in the next few decades and what do you know, the number of white on black hate crimes and organized hate groups in the north increased dramatically. The second founding of the KKK for instance grew to it’s peak of power in the 20s and had huge membership throughout the country, coincidentally at the peak of the biggest migration of african-americans from the south to the north and midwest. I’m always perplexed when people from states that have statistically been lily white for the vast majority of their history point fingers at the south’s history of racial injustice in comparison to their own (and usually overlook the ugly and nearly forgotten history of anti-semetic, anti-immigrant, anti-catholic groups that are comparable). The south has it’s problems, we’ve worked on them and will continue to do so… we also have a long history of integrated and complicated racial relations and cultural exchange that is not nearly examined enough, it’s not a black and white issue.