Reply With Quote
Like I said in another thread, if you look for racism, you can find it. It doesn't need to exist, but you can always find it.
That's thanks largely to le II of the Civil Rights Act.
... And the fact that you probably live in San Antonio, and most "businesses" would not survive long without hispanics.
Like I said in another thread, if you look for racism, you can find it. It doesn't need to exist, but you can always find it.
No . Give him the death penalty too, if it really happened as alleged.
You can also be blind to it as well by saying it doesn't exist.
I don't think anyone says that. There are still some Neanderthals out there. I am only saying that people are too sensitive, and shouldn't be looking for it where it isn't intended.
Sorry, not just taking your word for it, Joe.
That's largely due to the entire Act removing government's ability to engage in racism and protect racists from the natural consequences of their racism.
I've never lived in San Antonio but doubt any (not even most) "businesses" would survive if they engaged in such practices today -- unless, of course, they're racism were protected by the government.
Oh, I see... So those signs would have never existed because the racists would be victims of the "consequences" of their own racism. People would not be receptive to such overt racism; and therefore they would deny those businesses their business and those businesses would go out of business.
That's a great theory except those racists in the 1960's (and before) were not victims of the consequences of their racism - which is exactly why they could survive as overt racists in the first place.
I have no doubt you would NOT see those signs here in San Antonio with or without CRA of 1964, but I also have no doubt you WOULD see those signs in Alabama or Mississippi without CRA of 1964.
Last edited by DMX7; 12-19-2011 at 05:13 PM.
Those signs existed because government allowed it, condoned it, and participated in racial discrimination.
Because they were protected by the law.
I simply disagree.
How are you distinguishing between government protecting racism in private practice and government "leaving racism alone"?
When government practiced racism itself, it also gave license to individuals to do the same.
And, with the force of government behind them, racists felt comfortable exhibiting their de able hatred.
Believe it or not, the vast majority of Americans, prior to 1964, weren't racist. But, in the face of a government that was, that majority was diluted with people too chicken to stand up for minorities that were being abused.
Once government was removed for the equation, that silent majority set about rectifying the situation. "Whites Only" signs weren't made illegal by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but, they started disappearing after it was passed, nonetheless.
Aren't Holder's comments somewhat inaccurate since Obama is bi-racial?
No, it's mostly because they're not true.
So does Mike Epps but both do it in hyperbole. that is not racism, but comedy.
Desperation card
Nothing I’ve said has implied that the vast majority of Americans were racist prior to 1964. The racism was obviously greatest in the south, and I wouldn’t agree with you that the vast majority of people living in segregated southern towns were actually closet civil rights activists that just wanted to stand up for minorities that were being abused but couldn’t .
Actually, le II did in-effect make those signs illegal for many businesses. le II - through the use of legal force - changed the culture of overt racism is private practices (e.g., “Whites Only” signs) in the South, not the "silent majority". Just ask the owner of this place:
Last edited by DMX7; 12-19-2011 at 07:22 PM.
holy !
Talk about a sign of the times...to with racism...when was the last time you saw a ten meter platform at a HOTEL POOL?
Lawyers and insurance companies banned those in the sixties too...
that and the ing examiner. wtfbbq!
daily caller
Uhh guys...original quote was in the New York Times...they just quoted the quote and it was attributed in the short article...
Here's the original source...says the same thing...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/us...pagewanted=all
"Headwinds"
Joe. You're the perfect follower. GO BLUE!!!
It looked like a cool place tbh, too bad about its history.
holy !
Talk about a sign of the times...to with racism...when was the last time you saw a ten meter platform at a HOTEL POOL?
Lawyers and insurance companies banned those in the sixties too...
the examiner is still a piece of crap
and so is the daily caller
It was just a link I hit from another site...trust me...I'm not going to the Daily Caller and Examiner every day to get my only news...
I wasn't complaining about you, or even about this story. believe it or not that was a simple rip on the DC and the Examiner.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
