segregationists

[Amator Veritatis]

It would seem that a segregationist might be characterised as conservative, liberal, moderate or some other designation, dependent upon his views on a vast range of issues, be they religious, philosophical, social or otherwise. A segregationist would amply be characterised a racist by the modern usage of the word, though, he would not necessarily believe that any race is superior to another. An Italian who wishes that his neighbourhood be populated solely by Italians and that his parish church be a cultural Italian parish would certainly not be deemed a racist by a great number of people, especially if he were wishing such things in a foreign land in which acculturation were a serious threat to his social traditions, as has been the case in America throughout its history. Expanding this principle to a larger scale, one could logically conclude the need or at least the wish of some to establish segregationist laws which would seek to maintain the cultural or social continuity of certain nationalities, peoples or even races. The concept of desiring cultural monotony is certainly not [i]de facto[/i] racism. If one were to support segregation for purely cultural reasons, it would seem inaccurate to deem him a racist properly speaking, though racism could, of course, be one reason an individual might hold segregationist views. With that being said, however, I do not necessarily advocate segregation, especially in most modern societies, permeated, as they are, with pluralism and certain misconceptions about such a position in addition. In any event, I would characterise a segregationist as an individual pursuing the separation of races, and though I would characterise [i]most [/i]American segregationists as racists, I also believe we must be careful not to apply terms, especially negative, to individuals when they are inaccurate. This attitude is precisely the one which has caused so much contention between races throughout modern history, especially that of America.

Edited February 22, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[Amator Veritatis]

[quote]pre-Industrial Revolution dinosaurs.[/quote]

I also wish to comment that this opinion is a curious one, indeed. Firstly, the Industrial Revolution, socially speaking, has been a veritable disaster as far as craftsmanship and agriculture are concerned. One would be better served describing modern man as a dinosaur or, better yet, a caveman of sorts, being unable to skillfully craft much of anything. Secondly, the fact remains that segregation--both of races and of cultures--persisted throughout the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, properly so-called. The connexion between the Industrial Revolution and desegregation is unsubstantiated. The fact that the advent of factories necessarily effected manufactural pluralism insofar as men were brought to cities for work, in no way necessitates that such factories need be employed by members of the different races or even of different nationalities, much less that such races or nationalities would be forced to live in the same neighbourhoods or share the same facilities. Thirdly, the fact that such a state might indeed have been effected by the Industrial Revolution--though such has not shown to be the case--would not inevitably illustrate an ideological error on the part of the segregationist, for the possibility remains that the Industrial Revolution itself could have been a gravely erroneous social phenomena. Further, It would be quite odd for a Catholic to argue that life prior to the Industrial Revolution was socially inferior to the time after the Revolution, though that discussion would be better suited for a separate thread.

Cf., my previous post stating that I do not necessarily advocate segregation, especially in modern societies.

Edited February 22, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='avemaria40' date='Feb 21 2006, 04:08 PM']idk, i dont think u can label ppl like that.  It depends on the person's other political views.

FYI: neone who believes in racial segregation needs to move to Manhattan and learn how to live w/ppl of different skin colors.
[right][snapback]894013[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

or to tx...i am surrounded by mexicans and a lot of blacks. and i dont mind. especially the mexicans...there cool.

[Carrie]

[quote name='Azriel' date='Feb 21 2006, 04:40 PM']Quite frankly, I consider them ignorant.
[right][snapback]893963[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I could not have said it better myself.

[Nathan]

Straight-up racist.

What kind of poll is this, anyway?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Feb 22 2006, 01:25 PM']Firstly, the Industrial Revolution, socially speaking, has been a veritable disaster as far as craftsmanship and agriculture are concerned. One would be better served describing modern man as a dinosaur or, better yet, a caveman of sorts, being unable to skillfully craft much of anything. [right][snapback]894864[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Of course.
That's why we, in the post-industrial age, all live in caves, and are starving to death, being only able to eat what we can gather in the forests, or kill with our crudely-made clubs, post-industrial agriculture being a disaster and nobody being able to make anything.

The fact is, the population exploded, and the amount of food and goods produced increased exponentially after the industrial revolution, as did the material wealth and well-being of the average person.

But indeed, this whole topic is off-topic, and should be continued in another thread.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Nathan' date='Feb 22 2006, 03:10 PM']Straight-up racist.

What kind of poll is this, anyway?
[right][snapback]894954[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, this being another dairygirl poll, we all know it has a mysterious "hidden agenda."
But I must admit that even I am puzzled as to how exactly this relates to "gay marriage" or smoking dope.

I don't know, but I would presume we're supposed to all agree that segregation is "conservative," at which she will ask how we can possibly be [b]conservative[/b], when conservatives are [b]racist[/b]!

(Or some similar nonsense)

[Amator Veritatis]

[quote]Of course. That's why we, in the post-industrial age, all live in caves, and are starving to death, being only able to eat what we can gather in the forests, or kill with our crudely-made clubs, post-industrial agriculture being a disaster and nobody being able to make anything. lol.gif[/quote]

For the sake of clarification, and because the topic of the poll seems to have been exhausted in any event, I feel I ought respond to a few comments. Please note that my reference to modern man being likened to a caveman was a result of a previous individual which seemed to characterise men before the Industrial Revolution as dinosaurs. In this manner, I thought it fitting to characterise modern man as a caveman as regards his craftsmanship. The sentence prior, in which both the craftsmanship and agricultural advances of the period after the Industrial Revolution were cited, was simply a general statement about the inability of modern man, in general, to practice the skills of craft and farming. Of course, no one denies that certain individuals are capable of either or both of these skills, simply that these individuals are much less common. I also made the point that, in regard to craftsmanship, that they are less able as the past, being incapable of skillfully crafting much of anything.

[quote]The fact is, the population exploded, and the amount of food and goods produced increased exponentially after the industrial revolution, as did the material wealth and well-being of the average person.[/quote]

An increase in population is, in itself, neutral, as is the increase in the amount of goods. The fact that increased production was a result of unnatural means which, in retrospect, can be seen as harmful to the soul and character of man would render such increases as detriments. The increasing of the amount of food is, itself, beneficial, though, if a result of an unnatural means similar to that of manufactured goods, would be rendered either neutral or detrimental. The increase of material wealth is a minimal benefit which becomes a detriment if obtained through immoral means. The increasing of material well-being of the average person is quite good, but if it is at the expense of the spiritual well-being, it is a grave detriment. Such is the case with the Industrial Revolution. The terror which was the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, in effect, both enslaved and destroyed the labourer and deprived him of his just freedoms and natural benefits which might be attained through an agricultural or skilled craft. Perhaps this would be an interesting topic with its own thread. For now, I must depart for the night.

[Paphnutius]

I taught woodcarving and leatherworking for five years at Boy Scout summer camp, that is before I taught rock climbing and rappeling my last year. I dislike farmign though.

As you were.

[Winchester]

There just aren't too many who believe this should be codified in ot law. I do believe I've found racists in equal measure, though different flavors, in all political classes.

[dairygirl4u2c]

My only point in this thread is to show that the terms liberal and conservative hold little substantial meaning. They're both relative to how they are being used. Liberal can mean someone who doesn't allow people to die on the streets or it can mean someone who goes against Church teaching.
I would though say that if you were to characterize racists as anything then conservative. I base this on the fact that the south used to be liberal and then became republican when the strongly segregationist ran during the civil rights movement. Also, as far as people trying to prevent groups from receiving civil rights, be they women or homosexuals (which I know is different as far as homosexuals go) they were always the conservatives. I figure this point might help especially teh conservatives see that you should allow terms to be applied so loosely lest the term racist be applied to conservatives.
Maybe people already know this and jsut argue anyway. The terms her eare argued abotu so much that you'd think it'd be common knowledge by now. Maybe peple just like to argue, I don't know.
Much like I am, you might say...
who knows..

[IcePrincessKRS]

I wouldn't use any of the poll choices. I'd say "Racist." If segregation were in place I would never have been born.

[MagiDragon]

These choices are really pretty horrible. Since we're talking about a form of segregation that is beyond the control of the segregated, i'd go with the label of "Non-Christians."

If we're talking about the segregation of people into groups and pitting one class against another, then i would call those people "liberals."

Edited March 6, 2006 by MagiDragon

[Monoxide]

Mix them, just as long as no blacks or whites come near me... (oh wait..)

[kdewolf2]

I'd say "liberals" are so-called because they have traditionally advocated individual freedom and autonomy, which often comes into conflict with the Church's teachings which are more communitarian and insist on human solidarity. However, the so-called liberal Democrats are often very communitarian and only individualistic about a few issues, so I'm not sure they could properly be called "liberals" (libertas, freedom) in any intelligible sense of the word. The "conservatives" are so-called because they wish to conserve, or preserve, traditional arrangements of society, despite the predilections of individual members. I'd say, in the context of the civil rights movement, those who wished to preserve segregation were "conservatives," by definition. Now, to the extent that somebody who wishes to enact change in society is often called a "liberal," the opponents of segregation could be and were called "liberals." However, the desire to bring about greater solidary and sense of community between races is hardly "liberal" in the sense of individualistic; I'd say somebody who wishes to bring about social change is more properly called "progressive."

I'd say that segregation, to the extent it's motivated by racial fear or hatred, is certainly deplorable and contrary to the teaching of Christ. However, Christ's message is not easily categorized in political terms. It's not conservative unless the traditional arrangements of society more adequately reflect the teachings of Christ more than the proposed changes. It's not liberal unless society has become too oppressive and stifles man's freedom and dignity, and liberalization is therefore needed. It's not progressive unless they social change is necessary and the traditional arrangements of society do not reflect the will of Christ. I'd say, Christ would have sided with the liberals in the civil rights movement; but, Amator Veritatis makes a fairly good argument for voluntary ethnic segregation which is not based on racial fear or hatred.