Our perceptions differ. The map and the data therefrom proves that racism is not limited to pockets of the South and indeed is in many instances greater in the north. A hate group that acts is worse than one that does nothing.
Do you still not know the proposition we are debating?
Sorry, but I don’t believe you. Your MO is to reject whatever cite you’re given, as you have done. In fact, you haven’t bothered to read them; otherwise, you’d know who wrote them. Perhaps you will list the names of historians whom you will accept, and we can go from there.
Apparently, there are two debates underway and, not surprisingly, you believe yours to be THE ONE. 
I think there are three debates.
-
That racism is not limited to pockets of the South and indeed is in many instances greater in the north TODAY.
-
Racism was **worse in the South ** in the past than in the North.
-
The north has always had racism and it was quite bad in the past.
I think with #1 we are not sure if racism is greater in the North today, but we recognize it is not limited to the South.
I hope we all agree to #2 but I am not sure we do.
I think we all agree to #3.
It isn’t a debate if we all agree (as is the case with the strawman about racism being limited to the South). The only real debate in this thread is the debate over this:
Agreed.
In some ways and times, yes. In other ways and times, no.
Agreed.
What strawman? It was a phrase directly quoted from the ATMB thread. It was a claim the person actually made.
BUT NOBODY IN THIS THREAD IS MAKING THAT CLAIM. Sheesh. The fact that you keep rebutting it and suggesting that this relates to what we’re saying makes it a strawman.
To repeat, I’d like you to list a single modern historian of repute who agrees with your construct that the North has always been as racist as the South. You have not done so.
But I see you’re now backpedaling.
Perhaps you’ll now explain that this isn’t really backpedaling, since you’re debating someone in another dimension. :rolleyes:
Again, that’s because white supremacy was never challenged or in doubt in the north. It was a simple common fact. If you live in a state who’s population is 98% white you do not need laws to enforce white political supremacy.
ok, WTF… are you not reading what I write? YES, Jim Crow laws replaced the ‘black codes’… that is my whole fucking point, the south HAD ‘black codes’ in place as a system to fall back on. I said “Because the framework of oppressive and racially divisive laws that existed in the south prior to the civil war which were easy to fall back on didn’t exist in the north?” and I was referring precisely to the black codes. The north had no need of ‘black codes’ to govern a large minority population so they did not resort to the kinds of laws the south did, it was a different reaction born from different histories. In the north you kept disagreeable minorities isolated and segregated via social and economic pressure, look at the history of the jewish and irish immigrants to see the same kinds of systems at work that were later used (at first) on the influx of african-americans. The south couldn’t rely on ‘soft’ social solutions because in certain areas of the south, african-americans actually outnumbered the whites that maintained all political and economic power, those whites had to have the power of law on their side to enforce their will.
I’m going to make an analogy…
I’m going to say “The south was free of bigotry against people of asian decent.” and that “Bigotry against asians was worse in the West than in the south.”
Those statements are factually true. California for example, can be proven to have huge documentable examples of anti-chinese legislation, hate groups and violence against asians. You will find few if any of those things in the south. Does this mean that the south was less racist against asians than California or does it simply mean that any racist attitudes the south might have held were moot simply because, statistically speaking, there were no asians living in the south? I would imagine that were those same populations of asians moved quickly to, say… the Carolinas… you would quickly find the same levels of racism present.
Acutally, I think What Exit got it right. There are at least three ongoing issues.
I’ve given you quite many who’ve documented Northern bigotry over the course of the whole history of it.
If you’re looking for confirmation of the exact phrase as I’ve worded it, tell me whether Joel Williamson, Lineberger Professor in the Humanities at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill qualifies as a “single modern historian of repute”. I’ll contact him and ask him.
Meantime, since you want to get all snotty and all (;)), how about a modern reputable historian who has stated your exact phrases in this thread? But don’t worry; I won’t fault you for stating your own argument in your own words, 'cause I ain’t dumb like that. 
What Exit said that no one is disagreeing about anything except the middle claim. We said the same thing. You cannot agree with one and not the other unless you’re not actually reading the posts.
Sorry, but I’m not limited by your arbitrary constraints. When I said that racism is and has always been just as bad everywhere, I did not mean that they are and have been identical in every particular. I did not mean that for every lynching in the South there was an identical lynching in the North. Obviously, that is almost statistically impossible. What I meant was (and have clarified repeatedly) is that racism as a whole was just as bad in the North as it was in the South by different means and different methods. I believe I have documented that quite thoroughly. Not one citation has been challenged other than by chest thumping and condescension. And now I have a person who wants me to cite an historian (meeting his approval) who has uttered my exact words. Speaking of dishonesty in debate… And so my answer to What Exit is that in some ways racism has been less in the North and more in the South, and in some ways it has been more in the North and less in the South, on the whole being about equal. That’s what I’ve meant all along, and I still believe it.
When I said you cannot agree with one and not the other, this was a statement of logic. You can’t agree with X and disagree with X. Unless we’re also revising the basic rules of logic.
My “constraints” were that you should discuss what is being debated, not what everyone agrees on. If you think that’s arbitrary, I suggest you look up the term.
Again, no one is saying that in order to prove your claim you have to show that the racist cultures have been identical in every particular. This is called a straw man, as you’re so fond of trying to point out on other’s arguments.
What we disagree on is how to measure “just as bad.” Anecdotal evidence given by pro-slavery advocates is, I think, a poor measure. A good measure would be per capita hate groups, for example. I think another good measure is what people vote for. I agree that housing discrimination and other forms of economic discrimination are also a measure. I just think that on the scale of what counts as “bad racism,” housing discrimination falls below lynching. I understand that you disagree with that, because, as you state, lynching is obvious and easier to fight. I disagree with that assessment, and short of bringing this into a debate or ethics, I’m not sure where else to go.
Why yes, you’ve been quite straightforward about all this, except for the evasions, but all in all it balances out to being responsive, except for some parts, and we should just accept that.
Overtones of Bill Clinton abound.
Yes, do see if y’all can dig up a reputable historian (any reputable historian) who is willing to go on the record as agreeing with your statement that “it is an urban legend that racial discrimination is (or has ever been) worse in the South than in the North.”
That’ll kill the “reputable” part, but maybe he/she will find it worthwhile in order to set the historical record straight and all.
And for the record, I find this Indignant Defender of Southern Tradition one of the least appealing parts of your online persona - and given the competition from the other parts, that’s saying quite a bit.
As a benchmark, Liberal, do you think the free black woman who couldn’t ride in the better part of a train had it just as bad (or worse) than the enslaved black woman who could - with her mistress, of course?
I just want to calibrate.
As I pointed out before, you’re wrong. White supremacy was constantly challenged, like in the beach incident in Chicago. It was in the south that blacks “knew better” than to use a beach near white people.
Okay, this is just getting foolish. No one has said there was no racism in the north. But racism was institutionalized in the south, and the institutionalization of racism was only abolished at gunpoint.
Racism was institutionalized at the federal level, not just in the South. (Another link for you to ignore. ;))
ETA: The racial restrictions in naturalization were not lifted until 1952.
Quite honestly, at this point, I’m satisfied for readers to take whatever they will from the arguments on either side.
But I’ll respond to Voyager as one of many favors I owe him. Slavery is an ethical abomination, whether it was the South owning slaves or the North capturing and selling them. A slave is without liberty, and therefore her life and consent have been usurped. Even if a slave is treated well in every way, she is still a slave. But coercion by other means is likewise terrible, and robs the woman of liberty. Hardships faced at the hands of Northerners who indentured blacks to poverty, land squatting, and sweat shops were terrible as well. Asking whether one of these ethical abominationa is worse than the other is silly. Is it better to be a well treated slave or a beaten down free person? I’ve been saying all along that they are pretty much equally bad.