(02-17-2012 04:03 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  How far back the 1960s or the 1860s?

Neither, 1860s America was after the unconstitutional socialist/communist Louisiana and Gadsden Purchases. 1770s Articles of Confederation or bust!

Max I can only assume by your signature that you think an establishment like that today wouldn't be roundly picketed, boycotted, and drove out of business?

For the most part, probably. Though there might be some backwoods pockets still practicing it. My overarching point though was that the Act ended the discrimination in 1964, and without the Act, it would have died a slow death. It certainly would have been around in the 1970s, and probably persisted into the 1980s and 1990s. That's unacceptable to have to wait that long.

(02-17-2012 05:49 PM)Max Power Wrote:  For the most part, probably. Though there might be some backwoods pockets still practicing it. My overarching point though was that the Act ended the discrimination in 1964, and without the Act, it would have died a slow death. It certainly would have been around in the 1970s, and probably persisted into the 1980s and 1990s. That's unacceptable to have to wait that long.

In Mississippi (where I reside) this still exists in many small towns. They don't post signs because non are required the people just know the drill.

(02-17-2012 05:49 PM)Max Power Wrote:  For the most part, probably. Though there might be some backwoods pockets still practicing it. My overarching point though was that the Act ended the discrimination in 1964, and without the Act, it would have died a slow death. It certainly would have been around in the 1970s, and probably persisted into the 1980s and 1990s. That's unacceptable to have to wait that long.

Do you think simply passing that law stopped racism? All it did was hid it under a thin nearly transparent veneer.

(02-17-2012 06:15 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-17-2012 05:49 PM)Max Power Wrote:  For the most part, probably. Though there might be some backwoods pockets still practicing it. My overarching point though was that the Act ended the discrimination in 1964, and without the Act, it would have died a slow death. It certainly would have been around in the 1970s, and probably persisted into the 1980s and 1990s. That's unacceptable to have to wait that long.

Do you think simply passing that law stopped racism? All it did was hid it under a thin nearly transparent veneer.

My take is that it was not just passing the civil and voting rights laws, but enforcing them, and continuing to enforce them.

The newseum had an interesting take that if it was not for technological advances like TV most of these laws would have gone nowhere. People would hear about discrimination and civil rights marches, but when they could finally see on TV the hosing of demonstrators, the bombed churches and visual that it was real people being hurt, it was no longer something just rumored to be happening in a faraway place, but now it was in their living rooms.
This caused a huge attitude change and political pressure (mainly outside the south).

Laws themselves cannot not end racism, it takes a cultural shift and new attitudes to grow and develop. The laws just made overt discrimination illegal. There was also a bit of anti-south bias from people outside the south in that “it was only a southern problem” – thus bills like the voting rights act only applied to 11 states (you can probably guess which ones) which in turn infuriated many southerners who felt like they were not the only sinners. Which they were not. It was just not as obvious, or sanctioned by law in other states.

I'm under no illusion that the CRA or any law can end racism. Ending overt discrimination though, it can do and did.

(02-17-2012 06:15 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-17-2012 05:49 PM)Max Power Wrote:  For the most part, probably. Though there might be some backwoods pockets still practicing it. My overarching point though was that the Act ended the discrimination in 1964, and without the Act, it would have died a slow death. It certainly would have been around in the 1970s, and probably persisted into the 1980s and 1990s. That's unacceptable to have to wait that long.

Do you think simply passing that law stopped racism? All it did was hid it under a thin nearly transparent veneer.

Of course it didn't stop racism. Just read some of the posts on here and the Memphis board(specifically the Mocha babies thread). It even happens up her in the north. When I was looking for a new apartment, I went to one place and they made a minimum income to be eligable and the guy in the office literally said to me that the set the income level so they don't have any of "them" moving in. I kid you not. Totally true story.