Doesn't that require the assumption that most white people who went along with segregation, including those in the medical field who very well could have worked and/or trained in desegregated institutions elsewhere, were homicidal maniacs ready for their first chance to kill blacks? Have you heard of
Vivien Thomas? He was a black surgical technician who helped pioneer open heart surgery in children. He invented many of the tools required for the surgery. The white surgeon, Alfred Blalock, didn't even want to do the surgeries without Vivien present. Yet Blalock didn't buck the racial social code of the day and give Vivien the public recognition he deserved. Would Blalock have purposefully killed a black patient under "forced segregation"? I don't think so.
I had not heard of him, no. I wasn't particularly framing it that you would be killed. Simply that nationalists, indignant over their own shortcomings, indoctrinated in a hate laden mantra, raised that way since the womb, cannot be discounted on the kinds of things they'd do. White police officers were murdering black men with impunity. (and whites, etc.) They were pulling people over and assaulting them. They were falsely imprisoning them for days, weeks, years or decades. The judges ruled in favor of them. The population nullified the trials. If one of the particularly violence prone, philosophically astray sociopaths happened into a position at the hospital, I would put nothing past them. We can do the hypothetical which would be a worse scenario, inadequate hospitals, or purposely procrastinating, inadequate care all day long. I'm sure in some instances you are right. In some I am right. It is a shameful part of American history to consider as much.
The truth is that many white people went along with segregation because it was expected of them. Hell, it was the law in some circumstances. I read once about a private university in Kentucky that was initially desegregated but was forced to segregate because of Kentucky law. Now, that kind of fits into the Ron Paul theory that if you could just get the government out of the way people would eventually do the right thing.
It was often the law. Many times it was economically detrimental to provide separate facilities for whites and blacks. They still were forced, at the barrel of a gun, ultimately, to comply with the law or close their business. This is why I find some's regards for government actions as being for the right reasons as being naive. We're not talking about centuries ago that these policies were around. Before my time, but still very recent. What of the current situation regarding over a million in jail/prison who've committed no crime? Certainly only but a few in government, who do not even constitute THE government, will object.
Of course getting state government out of the way in this instance meant over-riding "states rights". (I'm pretty sure I've read Ron Paul state that he was in favor of federal laws that struck down state segregation laws.)
State's 'rights' does not give states carte blanche authority to oppress people. This is a fallacy of Constitutionalism. Have you read any Lysander Spooner? Very good stuff. His opinions, though he doesn't specifically talk about state's 'rights,' are great food for thought.
Something else to consider in the equation. The "they'll take me regardless of my skin color" hospital that you might have been taken to could have been woefully inadequate even if you got there before you bled to death. My mom and aunt, both in the medical field during segregation, came home to Alabama to care for my grandmother when she had an intestinal obstruction. Those use to be fatal, but my aunt had worked with a doctor who had tested a pump that would clear them. She needed some saline (salt water) solution in order to operate the pump. She asked one of the nurses, who look shocked. She said "Well I'm not going to give it to you, but it's under the sink." My aunt looked under the sink and saw that this ignorant nurse was telling her were she could find cyanide solution as opposed to saline solution. I'm not being mean by the use of the word "ignorant" here. The nurse simply didn't know. She wasn't well trained. So, you've got a choice between a hospital 15 minutes away will well trained staff that might hate you enough to risk everything to kill you even if they don't know you, and a hospital an hour away where the staff might accidentally poison you simply because they don't know what the hell they are doing. Which one do you choose?
I addressed this a little above. Which one do I choose? Preferably neither.
And here's the 20/20 hindsight. Desegregation happened. This isn't "theory" we are talking about. And the hospitals that were once segregated now have black, white, asian and latino doctors and nurses. I don't know of any credible reports of people being offed because of their race.
A hard thing to prove, I'm sure. Not that many would want to prove it, and not that they would have been found guilty in many areas regardless. Look, I'm not saying it was rampant, or that I even have a case in mind I'm referring to. I am going off of the fact that there are fucked up people in this world. I do not find it implausible or even unlikely that some of those people gave blacks a Morphine drop with the intention to kill them. They did arguably more evil things a lot. And often with federal grants.
The jury's out on school desegregation, but hospital desegregation achieved an end that most people would agree is positive. Something else to remember. Hospitals have long been a state controlled monopoly. You just can't build a hospital anywhere you want just because you have the money. You must have a "certificate of need." I know of at least one black run hospital that started in 1901 in Nashville TN and was run out of business by state regulators for no other reason than they didn't want to see it grow. Yeah that sucks. But that's the America we live in and have lived in for some time.
This is a tragedy. This is what needs to be combated. How do people come to view this as legitimate government action? Propaganda in the forms of lies, fear campaigns, and misinformation, no doubt. Much the way that things today get passed.
I would not call for throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water on that account. There's right, and there's wrong.
Do understand people that don't support you, you have to understand their fears. No sane black person would want to go back to the days of segregation.
I don't want to either. In fact, the overwhelming majority of whites wouldn't want to as well (and the number that does is ever dwindling).
Arguments that make it sound like a rational choice aren't going to win anyone over. You can win some blacks over to the idea that affirmative action shouldn't go on indefinitely and that welfare does more harm than good. And you might get some to see the idea that the same result of desegregation could have been achieved without relying on unconstitutional methods.
That would be great.
But if you lead with "Don't you want the right to discriminate?" or "Aren't you afraid that white people might kill you in their hospitals or spit in your food at their restaurants?" you're not going to get anywhere.
It isn't, "Don't you want the right to discriminate?" It's, "Don't you want to be able do what you want with your property?" Or, "Does someone who does not own your home have the authority to tell you what color your walls must be?"
Public schools have ruined many. I doubt the majority, black or white, have much interest in the ideals of freedom. These ideas aren't new, after all.
That said, many blacks weary of the failures of the public school system, are open to the idea that forced busing isn't such a good idea or that vouchers might be a good thing. Even
white liberals are starting to criticize busing as a colossal failure. So...why fight yesterday's battles? Re-frame the fight over the commerce clause in terms of medical marijuana (for the left) and federal gun laws (for the right) and health freedom (for everybody). On the race issue, find areas where blacks and white liberals are possibly at odds.
There is no place in the movement for the white liberal. He is our affliction.”—James Baldwin
It isn't yesterday's battle. The battle of private property versus socialized, collective ownership is alive and well today. People have this idea that they have the authority, by voting, to force people to do this or that with their property. Nothing is more dangerous to freedom. Blacks,
and whites, would be wise to learn of and recognize that fact.
Thanks for the affirmation and the welcome back and the link with Wickard. Rand is at the moment doing exactly what I would tell him to if I was a close adviser. He's distancing himself from an unpopular position and building up credibility with the very people most likely to be offended by it. Americans have short attention spans and most are woefully under informed. Yes, in 2016, if/when Rand gains traction his infamous Rachel Madcow interview will be sliced and diced into one sick 30 second commercial. That's the time he will need to come forward and talk about his position. But hopefully by then he will have made enough friends and allies among black power brokers, especially in Kentucky, to be willing to stand beside and speak up for him. Right now he's at 18% among blacks against Hillary in Michigan. That's freaking huge! If that translates nationwide, then he beats Hillary hands down. Of course....he's got to get through the primary.
That's awesome, I hadn't heard that.
Now, don't forget what happened when he first won the senate. During the primary all of the attacks were concentrated on things meant to anger republican voters. He was attacked for a supposed "isolationist" foreign policy, or for wanting to legalize drugs, or for not being hard enough against abortion. The civil rights act didn't become a big issue until the general election. I expect history will repeat itself. Sure Madcow will be attacking early and often, especially if/when Rand starts winning early contests, but as long as Rand stays at 15 to 18% support among blacks against Hillary that won't matter. How can the GOP say "Don't vote for Rand. He can't win because he's racist." if Rand's poll numbers stay like that? Ron's did despite the newsletter problem. What killed Ron wasn't the newsletters or 9/11 truth or any other side issue. What killed him, besides a campaign staff that was at times skittish and at other times incompetent, is that his foreign policy was out of step with rank and file "We can't admit we were wrong about Iraq and Afghanistan" republicans. That dynamic is changing because 1) Rand soft peddles his foreign policy views and 2) Iraq and Afghanistan have become such hell holes that now the neocons are having to soft peddle their foreign policy.
So...stay the course Rand...even if you do tick off people in your own ranks.
It isn't that I'm "ticked off" with regards to this. It is a matter of principle. It's not as if I'm out harassing people on the ills of the CRA. This is a political forum so I speak on the certain problems of issues.
