Alabama Gov. George Wallace, Inauguration Speech, Jan. 14, 1963:
… I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say . . . segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . .segregation forever! [Ellipses in original]
Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, opposing the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative at an NAACP Dinner, April 30, 2006:
“Bring it on,” he roared. “We will affirm to the world that affirmative action will be here today, it will be here tomorrow and there will be affirmative action in the state forever.”
Pretty striking, but isn’t it important to note that if Wallace were to have had his way, the races would be forcibly separated, while if Kilpatrick were to have his way, the races would be forcibly integrated?
… but isn’t it important to note that if Wallace were to have had his way, the races would be forcibly separated, while if Kilpatrick were to have his way, the races would be forcibly integrated?
Yes.
But if forced integration is such a good thing, we clearly have our work cut out for us. For starters, there are an awful lot of good black students in “de facto” segregated historically black colleges who should be bused off to colleges in need of more “diversity.” And in those colleges, there are far too few blacks and women majoring in hard sciences. We certainly shouldn’t let their personal preferences (probably determined by culture and history anyway) stand in the way of the “diversity” needed by students in classes without enough of them….
This may sound crazy, but I’ve always been against the idea of the “historically black college.” I mean, what’s the point? The professions (business, the academy, science, etc) aren’t historically black – or disproportionately black. They’re overwhelmingly non-black. So wouldn’t it make more sense to give these bright kids an integrated education (integrated but still superior, if we assume that black colleges offer a superior learning environment) to prepare them for the disproportionately non-black professional world? And perhaps you were being a bit facetious, but your plan doesn’t sound that bad, actually. If personal preferences lead to de facto segregated schools (although I’d argue that the HBCU idea amounts to more than de facto segregation, but that’s another issue) and few blacks enrolling in hard sciences at other colleges, then maybe personal preferences need to be reined in a bit. Am I crazy for thinking this?
I think the history of HBCUs is that they were initially supposed to train freedmen in agriculture and technology. HBCUs also served as the primary means of higher education for Blacks prior to desegregation. Their continued existence is more attributable to providing an alternative for Blacks than as a pro-Black-segregation institution. In other words, they are continuing their function as a primary means for Blacks to acquire higher education. Is that necessary today? I don’t know.
No, Chauncey, you aren’t crazy; you just can’t seem to control your totalitarian impulse.
Pretty striking, but isn’t it important to note that if Wallace were to have had his way, the races would be forcibly separated, while if Kilpatrick were to have his way, the races would be forcibly integrated?
I think it’s more important to note that if Wallace were to have had his way, individuals would be discriminated against based on their race, while if Kilpatrick were to have his way, individuals would be discriminated against based on their race.
That’s some good rhetoric
John, I blogged this and what was striking was the “FOREVER” quote. That’s rare even amongst staunch AA supporters. The playbook says its supposed to be “temporary” or transitory. Kwame debunked that myth. It’s an entitlement in his mind.
Perhaps Mayor Kilpatrick feels that if the open wound of racism upon minorities has festered for all these centuries without any sign of a permanent healing, why should the wounded parties deny themselves aid?
–Cobra
“Perhaps Mayor Kilpatrick feels that if the open wound of racism upon minorities has festered for all these centuries without any sign of a permanent healing, why should the wounded parties deny themselves aid?”
You do not treat such a wound with toxic poison. That’s all race-baiting is.
Federal Dog writes:
>>>”You do not treat such a wound with toxic poison. That’s all race-baiting is.”
You can disagree with the type of treatment, but you can’t deny the existance of the wound, or the fact that removing ALL remedies can and in all probability WORSEN the infection. Untreated infections are often fatal.
–Cobra
Cobra, if you keep picking at it, it’ll never heal.