So... how about that Tea Party?

[Final-Fan]

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:
So what you're saying is that segregation helps racists stay racist, and encourages racism.  I can certainly believe that.  And desegregation helps discourage racism. 

But I'm not sure why people would be more racist now than if desegregation hadn't been forced outside of government or gov't-supported institutions.  Just because people will resist forced change generally, and this resistance ossified?  Or the "affirmative action effect"?  Or what? 
If it's too complicated to explain to a layman in a reasonably-sized post, just say so.  I'm a big boy, I can take it. 

Generally it's a little bit of both... change just like affirmitive action, change mandated from the government can often be seen as being caused by the government.  It could even be rationalized by looking at most people activly not trying to be racist as being brainwashed by the government, and all that nonsense.  It lets groups stay more insular, vs a change by the people, which can't be denied as clearly just a movement by the people.

Forced desegregation in private buisnesses basically aloud people to say "they would of never alowed this if they weren't forced too, and if they think differently now it's because they were brainwashed."  In general that appears to be the platform of a lot of racist people.  Most people would be with them if it wasn't for the government.

Theoretically if they would of only would of stopped desegregation in state instutitions, racism would of lowered, and buisnesses would of desegregated themselves and racists would have been generally "defeated".

It would of just started to swing heavily as soon as the profit of including black people surpassed the negative economic loss of boycotting from white people.  It's like when black atheletes started breaking into white only sports.

The question is though... when would this of happened.  Which is a very real question.  It likely would of happened later, but when it did had a much more condensed timeframe to getting equal rights. 

I think it would of happened by now, but in honesty I can't be certain.  In some areas though, racism does seem MUCH more codified in culture.  When, during say the time of the Civil War... despite the fact that the North and South disagreed on whether slavery should be allowed... their generally beliefs on the state of the black man were about the same.
They just felt differently on how to handle this race of men that were "inferoir but still men."

Even an "eased" seregation would of worked better... but it's hard to argue for "eased" or moderation when you can make things drastically better for people in the short term.

It's like Africa... there are a lot of convincing arguements that the Aid we provide these nations is actually doing more harm then good, proping up dictators, making people reliant on aid and making their populations grow far greater then they should.
Still, it'd be awfully hard to cut funding because of how much worse life would be for those currently living.

In retrospect, this most definitely would have happened IMO due to the big business effect.  (It's the good side of huge corporations being heartless -- they're not racist if it'll make them a penny to be tolerant, just as they'd make soup out of your grandmother for the same reason.)

But I don't think that trend was obvious enough for them to see it at the time. 

As for South Park, I suppose that's because they're risk takers a lot of areas.  (I'd say "including taste" but that covers too much ground -- South Park can be tasteless in like a dozen different ways.)  Fortunately only Family Guy seems to be pushing the edge in "stretch a joke out until absolutely everyone wants it to end.  Then add 30 seconds."