• mechoman444@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    “Racial isolation” itself is not a harm; only state-enforced segregation is. After all, if separation itself is a harm, and if integration therefore is the only way that Blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about Blacks. Under this theory, segregation injures Blacks because Blacks, when left on their own, cannot achieve. To my way of thinking, that conclusion is the result of a jurisprudence based on a theory of black inferiority,” he said in 2004.

    Says a well educated black man sitting on the supreme Court of the United States only because of brown v. Board.

    I don’t know if calling this man an Uncle Tom is appropriate so I won’t. But man it sure does feel like he is.

      • Jax@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        seem to think he’s arguing for

        No… The point they were making is that he’s arguing against something that he directly benefited from.

  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    “Racial isolation” itself is not a harm;

    Yes. It is. Isolation inherently breeds tribalism, prejudice, and fear of the other. It is extremely harmful.

    only state-enforced segregation is.

    And what would you call racial Gerrymandering if not state-enforced segregation, Clarence? I mean, apart from voter manipulation and disenfranchisement, that is.

    After all, if separation itself is a harm, and if integration therefore is the only way that Blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about Blacks.

    No, the idea that separation is harmful doesn’t presuppose the reason being that black people are inferior. It is harmful because black people are often treated as inferior and are not given equal treatment, resources, and opportunity. Black schools in the Jim Crow south weren’t worse because they were full of and run by black people. They were worse because they were fucking broke. Schools are largely funded by property taxes. And black home ownership has always been lower than white home ownership, and the value of those homes (and thus their property taxes) has always been lower on average. That means less money going to black schools per capita. Less money means fewer resources and opportunities. It’s pretty fucking simple, Clarence.

    I’m sure your next question is why black families owned fewer and cheaper homes. Well, the first and most obvious reason is that black families started with a handicap. They came from poor slaves who had nothing and had to start completely from scratch. White Americans had control of industry, agriculture, commerce, and government. Black Americans had to play catch up once freed.

    Then, when the GI benefits of the returning soldiers of WWII helped millions of white families buy their first homes, those benefit weren’t honored for black soldiers. When new valuable homes and nice schools were being built in the suburbs, those neighborhoods were red-lined, preventing black families from buying these valuable properties even when they had the finances to do so. When new highways and industrial works were being put in, things that bring pollution and drop property values, those things were intentionally built in and around black neighborhoods, robbing the existing black home owners of long term wealth. Do those things still happen now? Mostly no, and never explicitly racially biased. But this is not ancient history. This is in your life time, Clarence. It’s effects are still seen today and black people are still poorer, own fewer homes and less expensive homes as a result of generations of oppressive and unequal treatment. It’s absurd to equate acknowledging black poverty with deeming blacks inferior. This state was inflicted in them, not their fault.

    Under this theory, segregation injures Blacks because Blacks, when left on their own, cannot achieve. To my way of thinking, that conclusion is the result of a jurisprudence based on a theory of black inferiority,” he said in 2004.

    If black people had been left to their own, they wouldn’t have been slaves, wouldn’t have been screwed out of their benefits they earned fighting for this country that hated them, wouldn’t have been forbidden from moving into white neighborhoods, and wouldn’t have had their homes tainted against their will by industry and transport that enriched white people. Let’s also not discount the effects of unequal treatment under the law, unequal enforcement of the law, and unequal justice for crimes against them. Let’s also not forget that at the time the Brown decision was made, black people were still being FUCKING LYNCHED, CLARENCE. This fallacy of “separate but equal” has no legs to stand on. It never existed. Fuck all the way off, Clarence, you fucking sell out self-hating prick.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yes. It is. Isolation inherently breeds tribalism, prejudice, and fear of the other. It is extremely harmful.

      It depends. If we think about Middle-Eastern and Balkan stuff, physical separation may really be better than mixed living which may turn into a mutual slaughter any day. That would be because cultural isolation doesn’t require physical separation, and other things.

      If we think about poorer and richer layers of the same general culture, with the poorer layers having more people with African ancestry - then yes.