Stephen Werronen
History 204
November 1, 2004
The Strange Career of Jim Crow
http://users.dickinson.edu/~werrones/jimcrow.htm
C. Vann Woodward’s The Strange Career of Jim Crow is a book which charts the course of segregation from its development until its last days when the first edition of the book was published. It is aptly titled because, as Woodward reveals, the development of the Jim Crow laws and segregation does not proceed as was one might have expected. It was once commonly believed that segregation dated to before the Civil War and additionally that it was the normal state of affairs in the South, but Woodward argues that segregation did not in fact develop in the South until after the end of the Civil War and that it was not the necessary way of life in the South.
Woodward begins his argument by asserting that the ante-bellum South was not segregated, rather that it was quite the opposite. In order for the plantation owners to properly control their slaves, they required close contact with them. In the southern cities, slaves and their masters lived in the same compounds together. This was in contrast to the cities of the North at the time, which had already developed districts within their cities which were totally black and others which were inhabited only by whites. There was also segregation on public transportation and in theaters and other public places. Woodward claims that this is where segregation actually first arose—in the North.After the Civil War segregation became more common in the South. Some of the segregation was a voluntary separation which resulted naturally. Other forms were imposed, some as a part of Reconstruction. One of the first forms of segregation was that of the public schools which was put into place during Reconstruction. At the same time, however, public transportation was not widely segregated and the worst of segregation and Jim Crow legislation still lay ahead. The newly-freed slaves also served on juries, were not limited in their ability to vote, and they were elected to political office.
Woodward points out that there were alternatives to the segregation and racism that eventually took hold in the South after Reconstruction. Many politicians were willing to cooperate with the freed slaves in order to gain votes. It was not until the Compromise of 1877 that Jim Crow really began to take hold. Woodward states that as a result of this compromise the North left the freed slaves to the care of the new Southern governments and that as they shifted toward racist policies the North began to concede to them on most points. The North further lost its ability to morally oppose the South after it began spreading notions of racial superiority in order to justify actions in the Philippines. As racism grew in the South it was benefited by the national trend of white superiority.
Segregation wasn't needed in the south pre-civil war, because slaves (blacks) weren't allowed in public. They were owned products, chattel -- and you don't let your cows and chickens go walking around public unhindered, do you?
They didn't have separate public facilities because they couldn't use ANY public facilities.
~WnyresidentBut your being a dick
One of the many lessons of that post is that it is asinine to compare housing patterns in the North versus the South in terms of the South's less virulent racism. Because of slavery, the South started with a widely dispersed black population.
To complicate matters, contrary to our neat little historical myth that says: South all bad, North all good, the North, from New England to Illinois, apparently was quite racist, sociallly and politically, almost from its inception. When "send them back to Africa" Lincoln suddenly changed the war aim from big centralized government to black liberation, whites rioted from Buffalo to Manhattan.
What's the point of all these posts, anyway?
Is Free Buffalo really such a strong proponent of segregation?
Im not sure its fair to use the word racist to describe northern and midwesterners
There were a large segment of people that had attitudes very similar to Canadians. The Canadians didnt like slavery but they didnt want or feel that their country and community needed to bear the responsibility for fixing it. It was someone elses problem....in the case of Canadians...even though they opposed slavery...they did not want blacks crossing into Canada...it was a US problem. People to often think that if blacks made it to Canada then they were free....and truth for many is that Canada did not welcome them or want them.
For many northerners and midwesterners it was a very similar attitude, it was a southern problem as they were never involved in slavery and while they opposed it many did not want to inherit the problem of slaves and slavery.
It was and for many it still is just a hot potato...that you toss around so no hand gets burned.....now if the ability to avoid problems is indicative of prejudice then wow....your painting with a very wide brush.
Free Buffalo is a think tank that tries to go beyond myths and clichés and get to the heart of the matter of why Buffalo has declined for 47 straight years and whey there are 22,000 vacant houses in the city and many thousands more in the suburbs and why we are losing population and why our centuries-old institutions are dying.
In this mission, we face huge and powerful special interests that just LOVE the sickening status quo, because THEY are doing well in money and power.
The status quo forces love to manufacture excuses for decline to distract the public's attention from the real cause: themselves, the political class.
Racism is just another phony explanation for the decline of Buffalo.
It just so happens that those who use this excuse have been caught with their pants down because it's total bull. There is zero evidence for it and every time its proponents try to respond, they dig a deeper hole for themselves, like citing an article that I have already cited to buttress my case.
And when people respond with insults, or misquotes, or when people ask me where I live, or bring up Jefferson’s slaves of all things (but not Lincoln’s), these are transparent attempts to change the subject.
Hmmmmm. Not much of a mysery there. New York's high taxes, over-regulation, and excessive spending on social programs, union protectionism, political corruption/turf wars, insane tort laws, an electorate that can't look beyond the two main political parties, and the fact that the weather sucks are a good start.Originally Posted by Jim Ostrowski
"I won't live by rules that make no sense to me." - Evan Tanner 1971-2008
Transfixus sed non Mortuus
Jim doesn't like his proclamations of "it's the government's fault" questioned, so he's "proving" that segregation has nothing to do with racism.
We're all supposed to bow down in awe at his twisting of facts to fit his own narrow-minded ideology.
Your right to buy a military weapon without hindrance, delay or training cannot trump Daniel Barden’s right to see his eighth birthday. -- Jim Himes
You don't seem to understand that he's a member of the "Free Buffalo Think Tank" The people who dreamed up this billboard for Transit Rd and it's 55 mph speed limit. Stupidest bilboard location in all advertising history. No one could read all that crap going by a 55+ mph.
These are the geniuses who have a better plan.
So some of those vacancies which happen to be in, say...Lovejoy, have nothing to do with literal stoning of blacks that try to enter the area? (just one example)
I'll agree that racial segregation goes hand in hand with economic segregation. But to try and separate the two is assinine. It's no coincidence that the black population has always been overrepresented in the lower economic classes. It stems from marginalization and disenfranchisement that began when the first black foot stepped onto our country.
~WnyresidentBut your being a dick
So some of those vacancies which happen to be in, say...Lovejoy, have nothing to do with literal stoning of blacks that try to enter the area? (just one example)
I'll agree that racial segregation goes hand in hand with economic segregation. But to try and separate the two is assinine. It's no coincidence that the black population has always been overrepresented in the lower economic classes. It stems from marginalization and disenfranchisement that began when the first black foot stepped onto our soil.
~WnyresidentBut your being a dick
THE PERPETUATION OF RESIDENTIAL RACIAL SEGREGATION IN AMERICA: HISTORICAL DISCRIMINATION, MODERN FORMS OF EXCLUSION, AND INCLUSIONARY REMEDIES
MARC SEITLES[*]
Copyright © 1996 Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law
Florida State University
RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION AND ITS HARMFUL EFFECTS ON MINORITIES
A. Freedom of Choice in Housing—Minorities Need Not Apply
The right to choose where one wants to live is an historical American concept that is entrenched in our history of early westward expansion and modern suburbanization. Throughout the major part of the twentieth century, hundreds of thousands of white families made the move from city life to suburban sprawlings. The mass exodus to the suburbs left minority families behind. As discussed earlier, this homogeneous suburban picture was not adventitious but was an outgrowth of direct and intentional government policies and private discrimination Moreover, with the assistance of exclusionary zoning practices, minorities have been prevented from moving into suburban municipalities through the establishment of economic and racial barriers designed to keep suburbs homogeneous and affluent. Therefore, the freedom to choose where one wishes to live is not a concept which has resonated for a significant portion of non-white Americans.
The lack of housing choices for minorities, particularly African Americans, has meant that the quality of suburbanization that they have achieved is distinctly different than that achieved by white Americans. For African Americans, and to a lesser degree for Hispanics and Asians, the freedom to choose where they wish to live is simply not a reality Typically, black suburbanization is characterized by expansion of the urban ghetto population to areas just outside city limits. African Americans are the most residentially segregated racial or ethnic group in America. Regardless of their socioeconomic status, they are forced to persevere without the same equal housing opportunities as white Americans.
The inability of middle-class African Americans to move into suburban neighborhoods has resulted in a disproportionate number of middle-income blacks now living in poor neighborhoods. While 23% of black families earn a middle-class income, only 4% of these blacks live in a predominantly white or racially mixed neighborhood. Hence, these middle income blacks endure living conditions below those of whites at comparable income levels. Racial prejudice contributes to the inability of African Americans to translate their economic earnings into middle-class housing, particularly considering that, as discussed in the previous section, statistics show that African Americans prefer to live in neighborhoods that are racially integrated. In fact, more than one-third of all blacks live under conditions of profound racial segregation. As two prominent sociologists noted, African Americans are "unambiguously among the nation's most spatially isolated and geographically se cluded people, suffering extreme segregation across multiple dimensions simultaneously." Consequently, many African Americans live in densely populated areas in common urban centers; in plain terms, many African Americans live in ghettos.
Well, I think this is ridiculous, I know people who r and arent prejudice AND EVERYONE ONE OF THEM WOULD SELL THEIR HOME IF THE APPROPRIATE PRICE WAS NEGOTIATED REGARDLESS OF SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, MARITAL STATUS, RELIGION, RACE, ETHNICITY, ETC.
Just because a neighborhood is homogenous doesnt make it prejudice.
[QUOTE=Timmy]Well, I think this is ridiculous, I know people who r and arent prejudice AND EVERYONE ONE OF THEM WOULD SELL THEIR HOME IF THE APPROPRIATE PRICE WAS NEGOTIATED REGARDLESS OF SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, MARITAL STATUS, RELIGION, RACE, ETHNICITY, ETC.
Sure they would.
How many of your friends and acquaintences have sold property to minorities in the suburbs over your life time? A lot right?
And bye the bye. Is there a difference between segregated and prejudice?
You haven't been paying attention, Mike! Segregation has NOTHING to do with racism or prejudice -- it has to do with "big government"!
Your right to buy a military weapon without hindrance, delay or training cannot trump Daniel Barden’s right to see his eighth birthday. -- Jim Himes
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
