Good Intentions Aside, Separate Still Isn't Equal
LeMod Pol
Good Intentions Aside,
Separate Still Isn't Equal
By Jonathan Turley
Few legal doctrines are more dangerous or despised than
that of separate but equal rights -- the philosophy
that legitimized racial apartheid in the United States.
It took the sacrifices of the civil rights struggle to
put an end to both this doctrine and the officially
sanctioned segregation that it justified.
Yet only months after the nation celebrated the 50th
anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education -- the
landmark Supreme Court decision that struck down the
doctrine as unconstitutional -- some public and private
institutions are again dabbling in separate but equal
policies.
Two examples highlight this insidious trend. The first
comes in the very area in which the battle for civil
rights was waged most fiercely decades ago -- the
schools. It involves a New York City high school
created specifically for gay and lesbian students two
years ago. The second concerns the California prison
system, whose 25-year policy of strict racial
segregation of incoming prisoners has been challenged
in a case now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Both plans are being vigorously defended on pragmatic
grounds -- arguments long used by segregationists. From
the court's first articulation of the doctrine in 1896,
separate but equal was always an exercise of pragmatism
over principle. Rather than confront racial animus,
society chose to yield to it -- to achieve the
appearance of racial coexistence through racial
separation. While there are clearly differences between
the old segregationists and the new (particularly in
terms of their motives), there remain striking
similarities in their methods.
New York's Harvey Milk High School was created with the
best possible intentions. Named for the assassinated
San Francisco gay rights leader, it was meant to
provide a sanctuary for gay and lesbian students who
face tremendous pressures and even violence in many
schools. Gay rights activists have long modeled their
work on the civil rights movement. But such civil
rights leaders as Martin Luther King Jr. and Thurgood
Marshall steadfastly refused to accept segregation in
public schools -- even though thousands of black
students faced violence in desegregated systems. They
understood that, to be truly equal, blacks had to be
assimilated into every aspect of American life, even if
the objective could only be reached after a period of
painful confrontation.
Much like the integration of black students into white
schools, the rise of a new generation of openly proud
gay and lesbian students has led to greater tensions in
New York schools. The city's response was to
essentially remove the victims and call it an act of
reform. Mayor Michael Bloomberg defended the policy on
the grounds that a separate school "lets them get an
education without having to worry." Yet, in classic
civil rights terms, it is hard to see how removing gay
students is any more a solution to homophobic violence
in New York schools than removing James Meredith would
have been a solution to racial violence at the
University of Mississippi.
Harvey Milk -- or Gay High, as it is often called --
has become a lesson in the unintended consequences of
segregation. Its creation reinforces the stereotype of
gay students as fundamentally different and in need of
special treatment. Some have suggested that the $3.2
million spent to establish the school could be better
used to create a systemwide program of counseling and
education for all students on the issues of sexual
orientation and discrimination. In a city with roughly
300,000 public high school students, Harvey Milk's
100-student capacity can handle only a small fraction
of the city's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender
teenagers. The remainder must deal with the stigma of a
segregated group and predictable taunts that they
should "go to Harvey Milk," where they belong.
On America's other coast, California provides a second
example of a separate but equal policy. The state
prison has sought to control violence and reduce gang
activity by temporarily segregating incoming prisoners
on the basis of race. Hispanic prisoners from Southern
California are separated from those from the north;
Japanese and Chinese inmates are kept apart; and
smaller groups -- Laotians, Vietnamese, Cambodians and
Filipinos -- are segregated as well.
Other large states such as Illinois and New York face
similar gang demographics, but none has adopted this
sort of automatic segregation. California's policy of
yielding to racism rather than fighting it began almost
three decades ago with small concessions, and escalated
into a systemwide policy of apartheid for convicts
entering any prison. In 1999, when tensions between
northern and southern Hispanics erupted into riots at
Pelican Bay State Prison, the standard response of
corrections professionals elsewhere would have been to
crack down on the inmates with a policy of zero
tolerance of violence. Instead, California solved the
problem by sending each group to its own prison, where
it could reign as the dominant Hispanic gang.
Despite the fact that this racial segregation policy
has been in place for 25 years, California prisons
continue to convulse with racial violence. In 2002,
there were about 7,000 incidents of assault and battery
and seven deaths — the vast majority linked to racial
gangs. Officials insist that the violence would be
worse without segregation for new prisoners. The
federal appellate court in San Francisco agreed last
year, rejecting a challenge from Garrison Johnson, a
black prisoner who refused to join a gang and felt more
threatened in a segregated environment. Using a test
heavily weighted in favor of the prison, the court
demanded that Johnson prove the impossible -- that
violence would not occur in cells if the policy were
lifted.
Officials insist that they are just dealing with the
realities of racial gangs and their mutual hostility.
One prison official observed that "if we have a
Northern Hispanic with a Southern Hispanic, they
already have a conflict before they come to prison" and
the best thing is to simply give them their own space.
It is the very logic that the Supreme Court used when
it created the separate but equal doctrine in Plessy v.
Ferguson, saying the Constitution did not require "a
commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory
to either." Integration, the court said then, would
have to be "the result of natural affinities, a mutual
appreciation of each other's merits and the voluntary
consent of individuals." It seems unlikely that the
white skinheads, black Crips, and Hispanic Fresno
Bulldogs will achieve "mutual appreciation" any time
soon.
The decisions to embrace separate but equal policies in
a high school and a prison system are telling and
tragic. Both schools and prisons represent controlled
environments that strive in part to shape future
conduct through compelled behavior and observation.
High schools are the last such environment before most
individuals join the larger society -- they are the
critical forum to teach not just basic curricular
skills but basic citizenship skills. Removing gay and
lesbian students allows prejudices and intolerance to
continue unnoticed and unaddressed, permitting hateful
students to become hateful adults.
Prisons are populated by certifiably asocial
individuals, who failed to learn basic social
principles and values. As a controlled and supervised
environment, the prison is supposed to reinforce social
rules of conduct through compulsory measures. The
segregation policies of the California prisons not only
leave racist and violent impulses unaddressed, they
actually reinforce those impulses by yielding to them.
A segregated prison is fertile ground for gang
recruitment.
Equally disturbing is the growing level of
"self-segregation" in institutions where there is no
claim of racial violence or intolerance. Some colleges
and universities now hold official and separate
graduation ceremonies for certain minority groups; a
growing number have created separate housing aimed
specifically at minorities. The University of
Pennsylvania houses almost one-quarter of its African
American students at the W.E.B. Du Bois College House,
and other schools including the University of Michigan
and Dartmouth College have similar options. In a
rhetorical echo of the Plessy decision, the segregated
dormitories at Dartmouth are called "affinity houses."
While many of these are voluntary choices by the
students, such self-segregation still frames the
academic experience in at least partially racial terms.
This lesson was not lost on one Latino student at
Amherst College, who was quoted in a report by the New
York Civil Rights Coalition as saying: "Before I came
to Amherst, I wasn't thinking about race or class or
gender or sexual orientation, I was just thinking about
people wanting to learn."
The resurrection of separate but equal is not some
reflection of its inherent truth or merit. Rather, it
is a reflection of a society that has increasingly
favored the most expedient over the most ethical means
of addressing contemporary problems. The separate but
equal doctrine was the very scourge of the civil rights
movement, but it continues to have pragmatic appeal --
certainly over the more abstract principle of
integration. After all, principle is often quite costly
while pragmatism offers at least the outward appearance
of tranquility at a bargain price. However, as new
citizens walk out of places like the New York schools
and California prisons, society may rediscover not just
the convenience but the costs of separate but equal
programs.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor at
George Washington University.
© 2005, Jonathan Turley
--
LP
"We are fighting today for security, for progress,
and for peace, not only for ourselves but for all
men, not only for one generation but for all
generations. We are fighting to cleanse the world
of ancient evils, ancient ills."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
State of the Union Address - 1942
CB
>
> The resurrection of separate but equal is not some
> reflection of its inherent truth or merit. Rather, it
> is a reflection of a society that has increasingly
> favored the most expedient over the most ethical means
> of addressing contemporary problems. The separate but
> equal doctrine was the very scourge of the civil rights
> movement, but it continues to have pragmatic appeal --
> certainly over the more abstract principle of
> integration. After all, principle is often quite costly
> while pragmatism offers at least the outward appearance
> of tranquility at a bargain price. However, as new
> citizens walk out of places like the New York schools
> and California prisons, society may rediscover not just
> the convenience but the costs of separate but equal
> programs.
Yeah, moralality winning over political correctness
--
CB
"He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon
will be, void of all regard for his country."
--Samuel Adams
Cary Kittrell
>
> >
> > The resurrection of separate but equal is not some
> > reflection of its inherent truth or merit. Rather, it
> > is a reflection of a society that has increasingly
> > favored the most expedient over the most ethical means
> > of addressing contemporary problems. The separate but
> > equal doctrine was the very scourge of the civil rights
> > movement, but it continues to have pragmatic appeal --
> > certainly over the more abstract principle of
> > integration. After all, principle is often quite costly
> > while pragmatism offers at least the outward appearance
> > of tranquility at a bargain price. However, as new
> > citizens walk out of places like the New York schools
> > and California prisons, society may rediscover not just
> > the convenience but the costs of separate but equal
> > programs.
>
> Yeah, moralality winning over political correctness
So, you feel that segregation is an aspect of "moralality"?
-- cary
CB
"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:cv506c$l3i$1...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
What does that say for the old school DemocRATs of the old South? Or for
that matter California needing slave labor from Mexico today? Republicans
have been screaming to shut down illegal immigration for years but Liberals
have needed their slave vote to hang onto power.
Yeah, it's a moral issue, one of pulling ones own weight.
--
CB
"The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent
and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all
Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation
of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of
conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment." --George Washington
Cary Kittrell
>
> "Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
> news:cv506c$l3i$1...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
> > In article <cv4m3i$2k$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com> "CB" <C...@prayforme.com>
> > writes:
[someone wrote:]
{...}
> >>
> >> >
> >> > The resurrection of separate but equal is not some
> >> > reflection of its inherent truth or merit. Rather, it
> >> > is a reflection of a society that has increasingly
> >> > favored the most expedient over the most ethical means
> >> > of addressing contemporary problems. The separate but
> >> > equal doctrine was the very scourge of the civil rights
> >> > movement, but it continues to have pragmatic appeal --
> >> > certainly over the more abstract principle of
> >> > integration. After all, principle is often quite costly
> >> > while pragmatism offers at least the outward appearance
> >> > of tranquility at a bargain price. However, as new
> >> > citizens walk out of places like the New York schools
> >> > and California prisons, society may rediscover not just
> >> > the convenience but the costs of separate but equal
> >> > programs.
> >>
> >> Yeah, moralality winning over political correctness
> > So, you feel that segregation is an aspect of "moralality"?
>
> What does that say for the old school DemocRATs of the old South? Or for
> that matter California needing slave labor from Mexico today? Republicans
> have been screaming to shut down illegal immigration for years but Liberals
> have needed their slave vote to hang onto power.
>
> Yeah, it's a moral issue, one of pulling ones own weight.
I asked about segregation. You seem to be talking about everything
but.
So let's focus, shall we? You seemed to be saying that segregation was
some kind of moral imperative.
Is this true? Is that what you think?
-- cary
(oh: a tidbit for you to reflect on: every time Congress, responding
to what it thinks might be a popular mandate, tries to strengthen
immigration enforcement, the attempt gets shot down by heavy
lobbying by business interests. do you contend that big business
is chiefly run by Democrats?)
wjyoung
by Roderick T. Long
[Posted October 19, 2001]
[The following lecture was presented during the Philosophy of Liberty
Conference at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama,
Saturday, September 29, 2001.]
All men are created equal.
When Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, set out to
enunciate the philosophical principles underlying the American
Revolution—the principles of ’76, as later generations would call
them—that’s the one he put down first, as the foundation and
justification of all the rest. Equality—not, as one might expect, liberty.
The original draft of the Declaration highlights the importance of
equality still more clearly. The final and better-known version states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
But what Jefferson originally wrote was this:
We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable: that all men are
created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive
rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of
life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
As far as I can tell, the wording was changed for stylistic reasons
rather than substantive ones. The final draft does flow more smoothly.
But the original draft is more philosophically precise. By contrast with
the final draft, where equality and liberty are presented simply as two
fundamental principles, with their relation to one another left unclear,
in the original draft the value of liberty is explicitly said to be
secondary to, and derivative from, the value of equality.
Yet we who regard ourselves as the inheritors of the principles of ’76
do not speak as often, or as warmly, about equality. We talk, instead,
about liberty; we call ourselves libertarians, not egalitarians. We
don’t give our books titles like The Constitution of Equality, or For a
New Equality, or How I Found Equality in an Unequal World. By contrast,
those who do most often invoke the language of equality in contemporary
political discourse tend be the enemies of the principles of ’76, as we
understand those principles. How could equality be our ideal, if it is
also theirs?
The answer, of course, is that we need to specify: equality of what?
equality in what respect? Our egalitarian opponents favor socioeconomic
equality—sometimes interpreted as equality of socioeconomic opportunity,
sometimes interpreted as equality of socioeconomic outcome. (The
difference between the two becomes increasingly blurred these days as
inequality of outcome is taken as prima facie evidence of inequality of
opportunity.) What sort of equality do we stand for?
<those questions explored at the following link>
http://www.vonmises.org/fullstory.asp?control=804&FS=Equality%3A++The+Unknown+Ideal
CB
I believe in natural segregation. It isn't a moral issue unless forced onto
an unwilling segment of society then given substandard tools for Education,
housing and standards of living.
Given the same economic resources people naturally associate with people of
their own belief, culture and ethnicity. In such a case, morality isn't an
issue.
Did I avoid your race bating trap or were you genuine in your curiosity?
CB
<Laff@Pajamaloon> wrote in message
news:t65d111kkkqsll5a2...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:24:12 -0500, "CB" <C...@prayforme.com> wrote:
>>
>>What does that say for the old school DemocRATs of the old South?
>
> Christ on a crutch, Barta
>
> The "old democrats of the south" were CONSERVATIVES.
>
> Up to, and including the Civil rights legislation in the early 60's,
> southern democrats fought tooth and nail to defeat anything smacking
> of giving minorities equality
Could you be so kind as to define the words, "is", "alone" and Redneck (as
defind by Charlie Rangel) for me?
zzbu...@netscape.net
> >news:cv506c$l3i$1...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
> >> In article <cv4m3i$2k$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com> "CB"
<C...@prayforme.com>
> >> writes:
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > The resurrection of separate but equal is not some
> >>> > reflection of its inherent truth or merit. Rather, it
> >>> > is a reflection of a society that has increasingly
> >>> > favored the most expedient over the most ethical means
> >>> > of addressing contemporary problems. The separate but
> >>> > equal doctrine was the very scourge of the civil rights
> >>> > movement, but it continues to have pragmatic appeal --
> >>> > certainly over the more abstract principle of
> >>> > integration. After all, principle is often quite costly
> >>> > while pragmatism offers at least the outward appearance
> >>> > of tranquility at a bargain price. However, as new
> >>> > citizens walk out of places like the New York schools
> >>> > and California prisons, society may rediscover not just
> >>> > the convenience but the costs of separate but equal
> >>> > programs.
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, moralality winning over political correctness
> >>
> >> So, you feel that segregation is an aspect of "moralality"?
> >
> >What does that say for the old school DemocRATs of the old South?
>
>
> The "old democrats of the south" were CONSERVATIVES.
>
> Up to, and including the Civil rights legislation in the early 60's,
> southern democrats fought tooth and nail to defeat anything smacking
> of giving minorities equality
>
> the "old democrats" were racist. You can't talk apples and oranges
> and be coherent. Political party isn't the issue, it's political
> IDEOLOGY
>
> CONSERVATIVE views of the southern bloc influenced the democratic
> party considerably, since they were the ones who sided with the south
> during the Civil war. Northern republicans were LIBERAL (the party
of
> lincoln).
But that's only because the only people who
understand the Lincoln doctrine less than
Republican idiots in Georgia Conventions
are the Democratic idiots in Chicago Conventions.
Since he was the only US president further
removed from the status of liberal,
since King George III ran the US.
CB
<Laff@Pajamaloon> wrote in message
news:b55d11pskb8mcc3a0...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 07:12:32 -0500, "CB" <C...@prayforme.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> The resurrection of separate but equal is not some
>>> reflection of its inherent truth or merit. Rather, it
>>> is a reflection of a society that has increasingly
>>> favored the most expedient over the most ethical means
>>> of addressing contemporary problems. The separate but
>>> equal doctrine was the very scourge of the civil rights
>>> movement, but it continues to have pragmatic appeal --
>>> certainly over the more abstract principle of
>>> integration. After all, principle is often quite costly
>>> while pragmatism offers at least the outward appearance
>>> of tranquility at a bargain price. However, as new
>>> citizens walk out of places like the New York schools
>>> and California prisons, society may rediscover not just
>>> the convenience but the costs of separate but equal
>>> programs.
>>
>>Yeah, moralality winning over political correctness
>
The morality of enslaving two generations of black\white folk into thinking
voting DemocRAT would remove the stigma/shame of unwed mothers and
irresponsible fathers. Morality once meant facing the constituencies of poor
choices.
Liberalism means never having to face ones own failure to live up to what
society requires in becoming self reliant.
>
> You're a fucking racist and homophobe
You're a low life who'll never make it to 'cashier' with your attitude and
character.
>
> You think that's "moral"??
I think you're a low life racist who's so shallow in mental capacity, only
rasist words come out of that hole of yours.
I think you're suffering from what George Washington died from and because
of your character, like an Alzheimer's victim clinging to what was important
in their life, only hatred only comes out of you now.
CB
> <Laff@Pajamaloon> wrote in message
> news:b55d11pskb8mcc3a0...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 07:12:32 -0500, "CB" <C...@prayforme.com
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The resurrection of separate but equal is not some
>>>> reflection of its inherent truth or merit. Rather, it
>>>> is a reflection of a society that has increasingly
>>>> favored the most expedient over the most ethical means
>>>> of addressing contemporary problems. The separate but
>>>> equal doctrine was the very scourge of the civil rights
>>>> movement, but it continues to have pragmatic appeal --
>>>> certainly over the more abstract principle of
>>>> integration. After all, principle is often quite costly
>>>> while pragmatism offers at least the outward appearance
>>>> of tranquility at a bargain price. However, as new
>>>> citizens walk out of places like the New York schools
>>>> and California prisons, society may rediscover not just
>>>> the convenience but the costs of separate but equal
>>>> programs.
>>>
>>>Yeah, moralality winning over political correctness
>>
>> What "morality"?
>
> The morality of enslaving two generations of black\white folk into thinking
> voting DemocRAT would remove the stigma/shame of unwed mothers and
CB
"wjyoung" <wjy...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:111cvak...@corp.supernews.com...
Bob LeChevalier
>> I asked about segregation. You seem to be talking about everything
>> but.
>>
>> So let's focus, shall we? You seemed to be saying that segregation was
>> some kind of moral imperative.
>>
>> Is this true? Is that what you think?
>
>I believe in natural segregation. It isn't a moral issue unless forced onto
>an unwilling segment of society then given substandard tools for Education,
>housing and standards of living.
>
>Given the same economic resources people naturally associate with people of
>their own belief, culture and ethnicity.
Not "naturally". They have to be TAUGHT to be exclusive, and they
have to be TAUGHT specifically which groups to exclude and how to
identify them.
Kids in a playground without adult direction do not group by
appearance or culture; at some stages most of them segregate by
gender, but even this isn't universal, and it is clearly a stage.
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier
He didn't use any of those words, and he isn't Bill Clinton, so the
meaning of the word "is" shouldn't matter. (or are YOU Bill Clinton?)
Shadow Walker
Like having voted for Bush ? Yes, that is a pure shame. A traitor to
the United States of America, and her people.
>
> Liberalism means never having to face ones own failure to live up to what
> society requires in becoming self reliant.
Contrary to your fantasy, many liberals are self sufficient.
And many Xians give birth to children, while unwed.
wjyoung
http://www.vonmises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=804&fs=equality%3a++the+unknown+ideal
The general intent of the speech was to explore the principles of the
Declaration of Independence, specifically the notion that all men are
created equal. But equality of what? The question is answered here:
> For the answer to this question we must turn from Jefferson to
> Jefferson’s source, John Locke, who tells us exactly what "equality"
> in the libertarian sense is: namely, a condition
>
> wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having
> more than another, there being nothing more evident than that
> creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the
> same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should
> also be equal one amongst another, without subordination or
> subjection. . . .[3]
>
> In short, the equality that Locke and Jefferson speak of is equality
> in authority: the prohibition of any "subordination or subjection"
> of one person to another. Since any interference by A with B’s
> liberty constitutes a subordination or subjection of B to A, the
> right to liberty follows straightforwardly from the equality of
> "power and jurisdiction." As Locke explains:
>
> [B]eing all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in
> his life, health, liberty or possessions. . . . And, being furnished
> with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there
> cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorise
> us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s
> uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours.[4]
The speaker explores other common pursuits that follow the self-evident
truth that all men are created equal. Consider the notion of equality
before the law.
> "[T]he justice of equality of treatment depends first of all on the
> justice of the treatment itself. Suppose, for example, that Jones,
> with his retinue, proposes to enslave a group of people. Are we to
> maintain that "justice" requires that each be enslaved equally? And
> suppose that someone has the good fortune to escape. Are we to
> condemn him for evading the equality of justice meted out to his
> fellows?[1]"
How about equality of liberty? Is it good enough that we are all
equally enslaved?
How about socioeconomic inequality?
> Nor will it do to reply that socioeconomic inequality is itself a
> form of inequality in authority, and so should be forbidden for the
> same reason. For, as Rothbard points out, this combination of ideas
> is inconsistent:
>
> A refuses to make an exchange with B. What are we to say . . . if B
> brandishes a gun and orders A to make the exchange? . . . B is
> committing violence; there is no question about that. . . . [T]his
> violence is either invasive and therefore unjust, or defensive and
> therefore just. If we adopt the "economic-power" argument, we must
> choose the latter position; if we reject it, we must adopt the
> former. . . . The "middle-of-the-road" statist cannot logically say
> that there are "many forms" of unjustified coercion. He must choose
> one or the other and take his stand accordingly. Either he must say
> that there is only one form of illegal coercion—overt physical
> violence—or he must say that there is only one form of illegal
> coercion—refusal to exchange.[11]
I'm not sure I can do the article justice in 500 words. I offer one
last excerpt:
> Wendy McElroy has traced the interplay within the feminist movement
> of three distinct egalitarian ideals: a "mainstream" ideal—equality
> before the law—and two more "radical" ideals—socioeconomic equality,
> which McElroy identifies as a socialist or Marxist ideal, and what I
> have been calling equality in authority, which McElroy identifies as
> an individualist or libertarian ideal:
>
> [T]he meaning of equality differs within the feminist movement.
> Throughout most of its history, American mainstream feminism
> considered equality to mean equal treatment under existing laws and
> equal representation within existing institutions. The focus was not
> to change the status quo in a basic sense, but rather to be included
> within it. The more radical feminists protested that existing laws
> and institutions were the source of injustice and, thus, could not be
> reformed. . . . [T]heir concepts of equality reflected this. To the
> individualist, equality was a political term referring to the
> protection of individual rights; that is, protection of the moral
> jurisdiction every human being has over his or her own body. To
> socialist-feminists, it was a socio-economic term. . . . While
> Marxist class analysis uses the relationship to the mode of
> production as its point of reference, libertarian class analysis uses
> the relationship to the political means as its standard. Society is
> divided into two classes: those who use the political means, which
> is force, to acquire wealth or power and those who use the economic
> means, which requires voluntary interaction. The former is the
> ruling class which lives off the labor and wealth of the latter.[8]
My intent with sharing this article was to challenge the assertions of
the author of the original article that "separate still isn't equal".
Mr. Jonathan Turley, what kind of equality do you seek? It seems that
he proposes equal authority before the law.
Curly Surmudgeon
> What's it say in 500 words?
Sheesh. Can you not afford a dictionary?
After all the corrections you've been offered, all the suggestions of
getting and using a dictionary, all the references to dictionary.com you
still can't comprehend common American. Sad.
If you'll use it then I'll send you my daughter's elementary school
paperback dictionary. Send your postal addres in email to "curly" at the
url below.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.curlysurmudgeon.com http://mp3.dubyaspeak.com/internets.mp3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CB
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:f3qe11ph4lpha2rev...@4ax.com...
> "CB" <C...@prayforme.com> wrote:
>>> I asked about segregation. You seem to be talking about everything
>>> but.
>>>
>>> So let's focus, shall we? You seemed to be saying that segregation was
>>> some kind of moral imperative.
>>>
>>> Is this true? Is that what you think?
>>
>>I believe in natural segregation. It isn't a moral issue unless forced
>>onto
>>an unwilling segment of society then given substandard tools for
>>Education,
>>housing and standards of living.
>>
>>Given the same economic resources people naturally associate with people
>>of
>>their own belief, culture and ethnicity.
>
> Not "naturally". They have to be TAUGHT to be exclusive, and they
> have to be TAUGHT specifically which groups to exclude and how to
> identify them.
>
> Kids in a playground without adult direction do not group by
> appearance or culture; at some stages most of them segregate by
> gender, but even this isn't universal, and it is clearly a stage.
If only we were all childlike (in that respect), but were not.
CB
> "CB" <C...@prayforme.com> wrote:
>><Laff@Pajamaloon> wrote in message
>>news:t65d111kkkqsll5a2...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:24:12 -0500, "CB" <C...@prayforme.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>What does that say for the old school DemocRATs of the old South?
>>>
>>> Christ on a crutch, Barta
>>>
>>> The "old democrats of the south" were CONSERVATIVES.
>>>
>>> Up to, and including the Civil rights legislation in the early 60's,
>>> southern democrats fought tooth and nail to defeat anything smacking
>>> of giving minorities equality
>>
>>Could you be so kind as to define the words, "is", "alone" and Redneck (as
>>defind by Charlie Rangel) for me?
>
> He didn't use any of those words, and he isn't Bill Clinton, so the
> meaning of the word "is" shouldn't matter. (or are YOU Bill Clinton?)
The only reason I axed Rosey to define the meaning of "is" and
"alone"...is...I know he's just playing word games like Slick to avoid the
obvious.
Southern DemocRATs were responsible for most of the racism back in the old
days, only to have decent people jump over to the 'Right' side.
Rosell thinks by relabeling people he can avoid party affiliation or take to
minutia until (3 Card Monty) enlightenment is achieved.
But as we all know and AlGore put so well, "you can't change a leopards
stripes"
CB
"Shadow Walker" <sha...@onecall.net> wrote in message
news:cv7ql4$dcm$4...@news.onecall.net...
I know and to that have my respect.
>
> And many Xians give birth to children, while unwed.
What 'is' Xians?
--
CB
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed
their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these
liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His
wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that
His justice cannot sleep for ever."
--Thomas Jefferson
CB
<Laff@Pajamaloon> wrote in message
news:qvse11h75eo3sfmo3...@4ax.com...
>
> Blacks supported Democrats because of the way conservatives treated
> them.
>
> Conservatives enslaved, beat, lynched, castrated, forcefully
> sterilized, intimidated, whipped, disfranchied, raped, and tortured
> blacks for generations.
>
> Not to mention under conservative government, the most atrocious acts
> of violence were perpetrated OFFICIALLY such as segregation, and
> forces sterilization (for unwanteds)
>
> The Civil Rights act finally gave blacks the same access to "welfare",
> food, clothing, education and shelter as most whites enjoyed.
Algore Sr. and the Grand Wizard Poo'ba dude in the Dim Party voted against
it.
Yours truly believes in equal rights too, just not at the expense of Bell
Curves, quotas or awarding success based on minority status.
The old days are over. I would hope that people have character enough to
'earn' success, not qualify for it.
>
> Your parroting of the racist, homophobic conservative (republican)
> line is ample evidence of your racism.
Your the one casting aspersions based on prejudice. You don't like me
holding individuals accountable to higher ruling authority be it to God,
scholastic achievement or to duh 'mahn' (A tribute to Muddy Waters, the best
Blues harmonica player who ever dun lived).
>
> Conservatives hated the idea of blacks becoming equal.
Southern Dems
Listing
> "welfare" as a major component of black culture and character is
> racist, you ignorant slob.
>
Your words, bigot, not mine
>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> "Unfrozen Caveman Politician Gore":
>> <C...@prayforme.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> No one wants a foul mouthed nigger working for him, no matter
>> what skin he wears.
That describes you
Bob LeChevalier
>Southern DemocRATs were responsible for most of the racism back in the old
>days, only to have decent people jump over to the 'Right' side.
That's because they were only "Democrats" because being labeled a
Republican in the Deep South was political suicide until the 60s or
so. They weren't really Democrats any more than George Bush is, and
didn't much cooperate with the rest of the Democratic party. Once
they lost control of the party that they had maintained through the
seniority system, they bolted.
Gray Shockley
>> Southern DemocRATs were responsible for most of the racism back in the old
>> days, only to have decent people jump over to the 'Right' side.
>
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:43, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> That's because they were only "Democrats" because being labeled a
> Republican in the Deep South was political suicide until the 60s or
> so.
1964.
>They weren't really Democrats any more than George Bush is, and
> didn't much cooperate with the rest of the Democratic party.
Um,m,m - actually, as long as they had power - and they had
a /lot/ of it - they were "members in good standing -
although both "sides" would, quite often, deny it.
> Once
> they lost control of the party that they had maintained through the
> seniority system, they bolted.
>
Bingo.
When the "Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party" was
recognized as the legitimate representative of the
Democratic Party and the former Dixiecrats were considered
to be illegitimate, there was no place else for the racists
and other losers to go but to the Republican party.
Thus we had leaders as well as members of the Klans, the
Mississippi Sovereignty Commission (Mississippi's
experiment in "secret political police"), the white
Citizens Council and their ilk one day being "Democrats"
and the next day or week or month, having religious
conversions to the "Republican" party.
> lojbab
Our present governor, Haley Barbour, is a former national
Republican power player (which means "big bucks", of
course) and knows more about D.C. than he does about
Mississippi.
And knows more about lobbying for big business in D.C. than
he does about school children in the Delta or taxes in this
state.
He's smarter than Bush but without Bush's integrity.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
[snicker]
Rich Travsky
Enslaving? LOL. Tell us how many black republicons are in Congress (Hint: Zero)
The cons had one for a while, Watts, but he left unhappy with the cons.
And remember Faye Anderson?
And then there's this little gem:
http://www.cjr.org/year/92/1/picayune.asp
In early March 1989, after his legislative victory, Duke
addressed a Populist party convention in Chicago, telling
the audience of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and skinheads
that he had run for office under the GOP label "because that's
where so many of our people are," adding, "I am a Republican,
but I am and always will be a Populist Republican!" Unbeknownst
to Duke, an opponent tape-recorded his remarks and later offered
the story to the Picayune.
Dana
>
>
> Good Intentions Aside,
> Separate Still Isn't Equal
> Two examples highlight this insidious trend. The first
> comes in the very area in which the battle for civil
> rights was waged most fiercely decades ago -- the
> schools. It involves a New York City high school
> created specifically for gay and lesbian students two
> years ago.
Why have a separate and equal school just for gays?
wjyoung
> Mr. Jonathan Turley, what kind of equality do you seek? It seems that
> he proposes equal authority before the law.
Correction: It seems that he proposes equality before the law.
Cary Kittrell
So, you're saying that people have a natural tendency to segregate,
and that there's nothing wrong with this unless it's forced
on them from outside?
If so, I can more or less agree. But if that's what you're saying,
I have n idea what "morality" is winning out over which
bit of "political correctness" in your original statement.
-- cary
The Bandit
alarmed when an "all white school" is discovered. We have a ways to
go.....