Racism + Rand Paul

The Montgomery Bus Boycott is from 1955. The main reason for it to succeed was that the black people were very crucially involved in the (corresponding) economy. So their economic "votes" counted, very strongly.

We live in a very different world now. Most people are simply not needed. They could enjoy themselves, if their status allows them so, or be left out of the economic circle; and that won't hurt anyone who is within it.

Here's a little anecdote, for illustration:
I suggest a more open approach
- dismiss all black people back to Africa; slaves (and wage slaves) are no longer needed
- dismiss all latinos back to mexico and south america; the drug industry and the cleaning ladies are already automated
- divide the country into two parts: Asian coders (they make the robots for you), and Whiteland of the Elves, discussing fine art and wine

~HAPPY END~
 
Ever ask yourself why we have racism still when so many people identify as not racist? It's all about how structures work upon it. Structural racism if you will.

My own home city has a problem with it. It all started a long time ago in the times of white flight and the development of suburbia within the city. Kansas City, 1924. JC Nichols founder the KC Plaza by Troost Street. It's the development of many rich neighborhoods in the twenties. Here are quotes from the deeds to the lots owned by Nichols and the NAREB regulations in the 20's.

"none of the lots hereby restricted may be conveyed to, used, owned, nor occupied by negroes as owners or tenants."--Deeds to JC Nichols' properties
"a Realtor should never be instrumental in introducing into a neighborhood / members of any race or nationality whose presence will clearly be detrimental to real estate values in that neighborhood..."--NAREB Code of Ethics 1924
At the time anyone who wasn't Germanic white descendency was considered detrimental to real estate values. This trend kept the demographic of the area stagnant. 96% of Johnson County subdivisions had racial covenants prior to 1948 when the Supreme Court struck them down as unconstitutional. Despite this it continued to be the trend until about 1962.

So what happened during the time that allowed this? Nothing illegal actually. Redlining and white flight emerged. Redlining is loosely defined as denying job access, loans, insurance, or simply increasing the cost of living to individuals based on race, sex, or whatever else. This practice was a deterrent for blacks living in the neighborhood. Of course they still came at a trickle. The effect of this was rapidly decreasing property values in areas where blacks lived in the 60's. Whites would start selling their property and move to suburbs farther from the city. In general it was looked at as whites turning over their plummeting values over to blacks. A term called blockbusting was born from this. Real estate brokers played upon the fear of whites leaving to buy houses cheap and sell high to blacks. It's probably more accurate to say this was the cause for the lowering value of the neighborhood. The increased cost of living for the new tenants further progressed it by forcing so many assets toward living that upkeep for homes diminished and brought values all over the neighborhood down.

To be specific to Kansas City's plight it was focused on the east side of Troost street. It's where it began and spread.

I actually have pictures to demonstrate this. Currently there are almost no banks east of Troost street. Simply because banks are legally required to distribute loans in the immediate area and the low class neighborhood represents huge liability.

The situation wouldn't exist if regulation to stop discrimination of property holding existed all the way back in the 20's. At this point the geography does the work of Jim Crow laws without them actually being there. These people are still disadvantaged from racism that was in place before most were born. The legislation is gone, government has been 'discriminatory' free since 1964 but the effects remain.


Picture 1 is a (rather crappy) map of KC and demographic divide as of 2000. I apologize, it grossly misrepresents the defines of the blue river which makes the grid hard to read.
Picture 2 is a description of the steps to develop this.
Picture 3 is the divide effects.
 

Attachments

  • GW412H336.gif
    GW412H336.gif
    60.3 KB · Views: 34
  • GW382H345.gif
    GW382H345.gif
    17.4 KB · Views: 34
  • GW438H584.gif
    GW438H584.gif
    149.5 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
In order to clarify, for Satya - yes, strictly politically and legally Rand is not a racist.

For me this doesn't even matter, but rather how such policy would work out; and that's intertwined with the socio-economic situation.

And if he understands such economic consequences, which I think he does; then he is a racist.
 
Last edited:
I guess by the loosest of definitions everyone is a racist then.
 
I guess I found Maddox to be more obnoxious because I know a bit about the philosophy behind Rand Pauls comments and they weren't fueled by racism. He was speaking like a politician who knows someone was trying to play gotcha games with him so I can understand where someone might see him as a closet racist at work. I think that is what Maddow was going for, scandal sells. One of the reasons I don't watch TV news anymore :)

I do not want our society to devolve into a place where some children can buy ice cream where other children are not allowed.
 
That makes two of us. Which is why it is so important that private property rights are respected. I fear for the day that black business owners can't kick white skinheads off their premises because it might discriminate against them.
 
That makes two of us. Which is why it is so important that private property rights are respected. I fear for the day that black business owners can't kick white skinheads off their premises because it might discriminate against them.

What if the white skinhead came into the black-owned business totally respectful, spoke politely, purchased items, and left?
 
I think it would be up to the business owners to decide how they handle it. What if the skinheads are covered in swastika tattoos and can be overheard making racist comments but are otherwise non-violent or aggressive?
 
I think it would be up to the business owners to decide how they handle it. What if the skinheads are covered in swastika tattoos and can be overheard making racist comments but are otherwise non-violent or aggressive?

It could be seen as passive-aggressive behavior. I agree it is up to the proprietor.

I should have clarified...how does it work when a person is not passively or aggressively exhibiting bad behavior, yet the business-owner does not like the appearance of the person who came to utilize their services? Where is the line drawn?
 
I would say that it is still up to the property owner. Even if that owners reasons for refusing them are reprehensible.

I think, while it is by no means perfect, our society is far enough along that any business owner refusing service based on race is going to be shooting themselves in the foot and will eventually suffer if they keep acting according to their beliefs.
 
I would say that it is still up to the property owner. Even if that owners reasons for refusing them are reprehensible.

I think, while it is by no means perfect, our society is far enough along that any business owner refusing service based on race is going to be shooting themselves in the foot and will eventually suffer if they keep acting according to their beliefs.

May I ask what is your perception of how far along our society is? When redlining and blockbusting still occur regularly (and even in my present neighborhood), I'm not sure we are actually that far along...
 
Last edited:
I think, while it is by no means perfect, our society is far enough along that any business owner refusing service based on race is going to be shooting themselves in the foot
Only if the excluded social subgroup is rich enough to matter.

There is profit in throwing away large portions of the poor population, based on prejudice. Which is why the world looks as it does; and why such legislation is so desired by the business. -- if they weren't going to APPLY it, and make profit off it, they wouldn't care so much.

Because, if nobody is going to DO IT, then it doesn't matter whether the government regulates it, or the market regulates it - right? So why the need to change who regulates it? Because they are going to DO IT. (the discrimination)
 
May I ask what is your perception of how far along our society is? When redlining and blockbusting still occur regularly (and even in my present neighborhood), I'm not sure we are actually that far along...

My perception is that if a business has a sign up saying "No Blacks" it is going to get quickly put out of business by a business with a sign saying "Everyone Welcome". No amount of legislation is going to fix all of the unjust actions in the world. My perception is that if people are allowed the freedom of association most children will still be able to buy ice cream in most places.

Only if the excluded social subgroup is rich enough to matter.

There is profit in throwing away large portions of the poor population, based on prejudice. Which is why the world looks as it does; and why such legislation is so desired by the business. -- if they weren't going to APPLY it, and make profit off it, they wouldn't care so much.

Because, if nobody is going to DO IT, then it doesn't matter whether the government regulates it, or the market regulates it - right? So why the need to change who regulates it? Because they are going to DO IT. (the discrimination)

Remember the black kids that weren't allowed in the pool in Philly? The business was just auctioned from bankruptcy because of the shitstorm that started from it. Were these kids rich? The world didn't seem to throw them away based on their race.

http://www.tazzdaddy.com/?p=3078
 
Last edited:
I am coming in late on this thread, but Tzimzai has articulated my thoughts on this subject so well that I would only be repeating what Tzimzai already posted.
Maybe because I am of a Libertarian mind I understand what Rand Paul was saying.
I think his comments were taken way out of context. In fact, I had a hard time understanding how they could be taken in the racist context they were.
 
Remember the black kids that weren't allowed in the pool in Philly? The business was just auctioned from bankruptcy because of the shitstorm that started from it. Were these kids rich? The world didn't seem to throw them away based on their race.

http://www.tazzdaddy.com/?p=3078
Sure, this happens while there's still some universal policy about discrimination. If such policy is to be decided locally, the mindset of the average citizen becomes: "Hey, it's a free country, go somewhere else". What will happen in practice - ghettos which grow to look like whole sub-countries, where the wealth and property per capita can't even remotely compare to the national average. Until gradually those minorities are pushed away towards the third world, because their sweatshop workforce is just not needed anymore.

It's like: "Hey, we need someone to harvest all those plantations; get some slaves. Hey, we have machines now, and those slaves, we never liked them anyway, get them back where they belong."
 
This Libertarian idealization of the enlightenment of the market is completely out of step with what market forces really do. Just look at the Louisiana cost. It is one of the most economically deprived part of the country and now it is being savaged by oil. Where as in Cape Cod, the playground of the wealthy, you can't even build a wind turbine.
 
Back
Top