Discriminations

The current level and nature of immigration makes the assimilation Mr. Clegg and Ms. Chavez claim they want impossible. Reasons:

1. Legal immigration alone is actually 2 million per year (1 million permanent residents, + 1 million temporary visas that often convert to green cards.)

2. Illegal immigration is at least at 500 thous./year. Approximately half of illegal immigrants are temporary visa overstayers.

3. Even U.S. born children of Mexican immigrants believe to some extent that the Southwest should be returned to Mexico. A local schoolteacher described in a letter to the editor how her students refused to stand for the national anthem, and told her that California would again be Mexican.
This problem cannot be fixed by assimilation -- the U.S. has a resentful citizen population with genuinely divided loyalties.

It is further very insulting to native-born Americans to claim that they can only be saved economically and culturally by mass immigration.

I think the U.S. would do just fine with a very generous level of 300 thous. or so legal immigrants per year (level before the 1965 change in quotas.)
This number can be assimilated, 2.5 million/year cannot.

Finally, it is not clear why a population projected to be 420 million+ by 2050 given current immigration is a good thing. Does anyone really think we need more traffic, more crowding and more development?

Assimilation is not just for immigrants, indeed not, and that is why large-scale immigration has to make America more like the failed societies from which so many immigrants come. To suggest otherwise, that we have some formula which can make assimilation be all for the foreigner and none for us, would be so arrogant and preposterous a claim, that no one ever makes it explicitly. By implication, though, an attempted smear job is set up by stressing assimilation as if it could be all one way, then being positioned to say that only racism, fascism, xenophobia, etc. would insist on the unassimilability of various foreign groups. A rational argument was rightly to be expected though, as to why we need millions of immigrants additional on to net public subsidy. Not only must the mass-immmigrationist, special pleader or otherwise, give reasons as to how assimilation will occur, and not be counterbalanced by Americans getting assimilated to the standards of the third world mobilized towards us, but they must indicate why we should expect immigrants to be net taxpayers. Aggression is increased on those to whom loyalty is owed, such as the net taxpayer of our citizenry, and the excuse for this is that assimilation may happen favorably, and we need to increase gross output however this can be done, and regardless of the effect on per capita standards? The road issues mentioned show a problem also, of the certainty of increase of aggression following large scale immigration, since eminent domain must be used to ramify the networks, and this is done on the property of the citizenry.

Roger Clegg writes:

>>>"In the past I’ve listed ten crucial aspects of assimilation. There’s nothing wrong with ethnic pride, and we don’t all have to eat the same foods or listen to the same music, but we do all need to: (1) speak English, (2) respect other racial and ethnic groups, and, conversely, (3) not ask for special preferences for our own racial or ethnic group. We must also not (4) bear historical grudges, (5) believe that working and studying hard are “acting white,” or (6) have children out of wedlock. On the hand, we should (7) follow the law, (8) be reasonably polite to one another, and (9) respect women. Finally (10), we should all be patriotic, proud Americans."

...

OK. I'm going to resist the temptation to be sarcastic, and address this in a serious matter. Since you focus the rest of your article exclusively at African-Americans, let's see what F. James Davis, a retired professor of sociology from Illinois State University has to say about Blacks and assimilation:

>>>"For the physically visible groups other than blacks, miscegenation promotes assimilation, despite barriers of prejudice and discrimination during two or more generations of racial mixing. As noted above, when ancestry in one of these racial minority groups does not exceed one-fourth, a person is not defined solely as a member of that group. Masses of white European immigrants have climbed the class ladder not only through education but also with the help of close personal relationships in the dominant community, intermarriage, and ultimately full cultural and social assimilation.

Young people tend to marry people they meet in the same informal social circles. For visibly non-caucasoid minorities other than blacks in the United States, this entire route to full assimilation is slow but possible.

For all persons of any known black lineage, however, assimilation is blocked and is not promoted by miscegenation. Barriers to full opportunity and participation for blacks are still formidable, and a fractionally black person cannot escape these obstacles without passing as white and cutting off all ties to the black family and community. The pain of this separation, and condemnation by the black family and community, are major reasons why many or most of those who could pass as white choose not to. Loss of security within the minority community, and fear and distrust of the white world are also factors."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/onedrop.html

Hmmm...OK, so Professor James indicates that "close personal relationships" in the "dominant community" is essential to achieve assimilation.

However, in researching YOUR writings, Mr. Clegg, I came across this gem from the National Review:

>>>"Incidentally, there is some controversy these days about the extent to which more integration is necessary for improved race relations. Certainly integration was a big part of King's vision, and a major point of divergence from the world wanted by both white segregationists and black separatists like Malcolm X. Many liberals still insist that integration is essential for racial understanding and harmony — in other words (though they wouldn't use the word), for the kind of assimilation I'm talking about. But this gets cause and effect backwards. Integration is difficult or impossible if assimilation has not been achieved first. But once there has been assimilation, integration is easy. People want to live next door to people like themselves and will shun those who reject their values, whatever the neighbors' skin color and ancestry."

http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/holiday/holiday-clegg011902.shtml

Well, what are you suggesting, Mr. Clegg? That somehow, there aren't shared American Values between Blacks and Whites that would forbid or forestall integration?

Come on, now. You're from Mississippi, right?

Thousands upon thousands of Mississippi Baptists both Black and White go to church services on Sunday Morning, do they not?

On Saturday, didn't I see Black and White players on the SAME field in Oxford going toe to toe with #1 LSU, another racially mixed football team, with a packed house full of fans from all walks of life, cheering wildly for the home team?

When looking at the fallen soldiers of the 1-155th Infantry Battalion of the Mississippi National Guard and Reserves, I see both black and white faces.

http://www.ngms.state.ms.us/1-155inf/archived/inmemoryof.html
I didn't see any segregating slot machines at the casinos in Biloxi, either--so you must be referring to something else--

Something DEEPER...

Something ELSE must be preventing this "integration/assimilation" dynamic you speak of in you Top 10 list, since obviously, Black Mississippians have a helluvalot more values in common with White Mississippians than Whites from San Francisco, or Brooklyn. I mean, hey, if you worship the same God in the same way, play on the same sports field, cheer in the same stands, and die together on the same battlefield, exactly what's the great values difference that keeps Mississippi largely segregated?

Do you need me to spell it out for you?

In further searches on your writings, you say THIS:

>>>"That leaves personal relationships, and this is indeed the area where the most remains to be done, despite the dramatic progress noted earlier. But it is a big mistake to think that integration should precede assimilation rather than vice versa, or that this kind of integration can be anything but voluntary. (For integration to be worth having, it must be voluntary.) It is also a big mistake to worry too much about the lack of integration during the time that assimilation is taking place. So people choose to live next to and have close friends who disproportionately share their background — so what?"

http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/culture/culture-cleggprint070100.html

You continue:

>>>"I would prefer a fully integrated world — that is, a world with ethnically and racially diverse neighborhoods, schools, workplaces, clubs, and churches. Integration is a good thing when it happens freely — but it becomes a bad thing when it is legislated. It is certainly bad when it is forced by law; it is probably bad even when the law only encourages it. Integration is good because it evinces colorblindness, or at least an indifference to color.

But if the government — or anyone else for that matter — decides to force or encourage integration, then those efforts necessarily show that color is not a matter of indifference, at least to whoever is forcing or encouraging it. And their efforts will shortly ensure that it is not a matter of indifference to those at whom those efforts are aimed. People don't like being bossed around, don't like being told what to do or how to behave, and it is inevitable that they will come to resent not only the bossy people, but the differently colored people who are the innocent cause of that bossiness. When and if involuntary integration is achieved, it will be at a high price — at the price, ironically, of the freedom and tolerance that makes voluntary integration so desirable in the first place."

http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/culture/culture-cleggprint070100.html

Hmm..."it (integration) is certainly bad when forced by law"...

Such as in Brown v. Board of Education? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965? All of which had to be ENFORCED by law, many of which by the barrel of a gun?

You're going to have to explain that one, sir.

It seems from reading your work over the years that a pattern forms:

You seem to favor "assimilation" at a snail's pace, adjusted for the appropriate comfort level of the dominant (white) group.

You seem to believe in the concept and theory of integration, but not at the expense of that afforementioned white comfort.

Your Top 10 list is not totally off the wall, but even given your caviat--

>>>"In doing so, I’m not suggesting that all or only African Americans are failing to do what assimilation into the larger American culture requires, because there are plenty of African Americans who aren’t failing--that’s actually also one of the points of the DVD--and plenty in other groups who are. But enough African Americans are failing in enough of the categories that it is cause for concern, and illustrates that the need for some common social ground is something we ought to demand not only of immigrants."

--You then proceed to predictably denigrate rappers and glorify Black pundits who self-immolate.

You tend to place the burden upon the minority to the point of chastising any criticism of past malevolence from the majority.

That's what I interpret from your writings on this matter.

--Cobra

I return, reluctantly, to this discussion to suggest to Cobra that the gang mentality that he harbors is the problem, not the solution.

It's not only blacks who suffer from this gang mentality. My grandfather was a bootlegger who bought his hooch from Al Capone. On both sides of my German/Irish family, young men were lectured constantly about past vendettas and the need to always remain loyal to the gang.

My father was a visionary. God bless him. He abandoned the gang mentality, became a teetotaler and struggled to turn his children toward education and success. In short, he advocated assimilation into the mainstream society. He was constantly mocked, just as Cobra mocks others, with the "traitor" accusations. To this day, those in my family who remain loyal to the gang identification tell me that I've "forgotten where I came from."

Those male members of my family who refused to leave behind the vendettas and gang allegiance paid for it with failed lives, alcoholism, drug abuse, time in prison, etc.

So, the choice is simple, Cobra. Leave behind the vendettas and the gang allegiance or pay the price in blood, failure and misery. It's no different for blacks than it was for my family. The person who pays the price for swearing allegiance to the gang, Cobra, is you.

And, now, I promise not to be heard from again on this site for a long time.

you know what, Cobra's actually right. he points out that clegg first says that "integration is good," and then tells us it's bad if government "encourages" it. funny, i thought the whole purpose of government was to encourage good things.

of course, i disagree with cobra on a lot of things (e.g., his defense of rappers and his reflexive demonizing of conservative blacks), but he's more or less right about clegg: there's certainly something driving clegg's views, and it clearly ain't some sense of racial peace and equality.

the shouting thomas guy's post was a bit odd. is he really saying that cobra has the same "gang mentality" as his violent mobster relatives because cobra disagrees with roger clegg's politics? perhaps i need someone to explain to me what "gang mentality" means nowadays, because given my current understanding of it, shouting thomas's post makes absolutely no sense. unfortunately he's decided not to return to this site for a while, so i don't expect an answer from him.

I am astonished that my statement needs clarification.

The pseudonym of the poster, "Cobra," is a name dripping in gang connotations. Tattoos of a cobra are among the most common of gang identifiers. The use of the name "Cobra" and the symbol of a cobra is laden with a history of gang affiliation and violence across all cultures. The cobra was the symbol of the most violent, black nationalist gang in U.S. history, the Symbionese Liberation Army.

I suggest that you visit Cobra's personal website to view his elaborations upon this gang symbol. You can also see how obsessed he is with the notion that whites who disagree with him (including apparently the author of this website) are merely tools of the KKK. Cobra relentlessly argues for the punishment of all white men, and the rewarding of all black men, as retribution for past actions of the KKK. His constant argument is that black violence is to be written off as mere revenge for past violence of the KKK.

Every posting of Cobra to this site is a repetition of his gang (black) complaint that justifies the continuance of his vendetta against whites. You might be surprise to know that my forebears also saw their gang allegiance as justified by societal oppression. They arrived in NYC, fresh from the coffin ships, to witness "Irish Need Not Apply" signs on employers' shops, among other complaints.

Cobra's constant argument is that his gang has the most sanctified grievance in the history of humanity, and thus is justified in eternally calling for the punishment of white men by relegating them to second class citizenship and awarding all the goods to black men. He dismisses the epidemic of black violence as just another symptom of the natural sinfulness and evil of white men.

And, as you can see in his posting, he continually calls black writers who call for an end to allegiance to the gang "traitors." They are obliged to remain obedient to the gang, so that the rival gang (the KKK) can be defeated. On his own website, Cobra depicts Ward Connerly as a willing and conscious tool of the KKK.

This is the gang mentality, par excellance. I thought this was perfectly obvious, but perhaps I was wrong.

Why do these wackos get the urge to shove more open-borders bullshit propaganda that tens of millions of immigrants are good for the economy down our throats? Who's listening? Um...whose economy is improved anyway? Maybe CNN or Wall Street Journal propaganda has turned his brain into oatmeal and have overridden basic laws of economics, yet he's in lockstep with those conservatives who want immigrants to become something they do not want to become. Oh sure, millions of Third World Immigrants are just wonderful for the economy! You open-borders,free-trade lackeys should pick up their tab since they're benefitting only you and not producing anything but lower wages for us. By the way, what Americans without brain tumors want a billion people here? Sounds like an American nightmare, promoted by those who need the Ponzi scheme of growth to make them more wealthy than they already are.

Why assimilate, when we can do things like this:

http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/11/20/asians

Roger Clegg emails that he doesn’t have time to respond to Cobra’s dissertation, but he does want to make one point (a point that also responds to Chauncey):

From Roger Clegg:
I don’t think I want to get into a point-by-point discussion with Cobra, but he does take one quotation out of context in an irritating way that I’d like to address.

Hmm..."it (integration) is certainly bad when forced by law"...

Such as in Brown v. Board of Education? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965? All of which had to be ENFORCED by law, many of which by the barrel of a gun?

You're going to have to explain that one, sir.

In the context of the article that you are quoting, it is clear that “integration” means requiring racial balance through quotas or preferential treatment, NOT simple desegregation. I’m all for ending state-mandated segregation and discrimination; what I was writing against was state-mandated racial balancing through the use of preferences and the like.

Chauncey writes:

>>>"you know what, Cobra's actually right. he points out that clegg first says that "integration is good," and then tells us it's bad if government "encourages" it. funny, i thought the whole purpose of government was to encourage good things."

Chauncey, I'm glad you can see the point I was trying to make. The agenda of the Anti-Affirmative Action Type Movement can seem appealing to those who take their "color-blindness" fables at face value. But just like an onion, when you peel back the layers of their statements, the tears begin to fall.

Chauncey writes:

>>>"of course, i disagree with cobra on a lot of things (e.g., his defense of rappers and his reflexive demonizing of conservative blacks), but he's more or less right about clegg: there's certainly something driving clegg's views, and it clearly ain't some sense of racial peace and equality."

I didn't get that impression either. I will admit that, just like any skilled lawyer, he's very good at prefacing his statements with conciliatory "golden rule" type homilies. Upon further review, however, you can see the state's rights-pitched-tent-ol' time revival meeting type statements bubbling up on the surface...like:

>>>"People don't like being bossed around, don't like being told what to do or how to behave, and it is inevitable that they will come to resent not only the bossy people, but the differently colored people who are the innocent cause of that bossiness."

Those are Roger Clegg's words, which certainly need no further embellishment.

Now, I found his response to our commentary via email through John even MORE interesting:

Roger Clegg via John writes:

>>>"I don’t think I want to get into a point-by-point discussion with Cobra, but he does take one quotation out of context in an irritating way that I’d like to address.

Hmm..."it (integration) is certainly bad when forced by law"..."

Cobra: "Such as in Brown v. Board of Education? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965? All of which had to be ENFORCED by law, many of which by the barrel of a gun?

You're going to have to explain that one, sir."

Clegg via John: "In the context of the article that you are quoting, it is clear that “integration” means requiring racial balance through quotas or preferential treatment, NOT simple desegregation. I’m all for ending state-mandated segregation and discrimination; what I was writing against was state-mandated racial balancing through the use of preferences and the like."

AGAIN, like any lawyer worth his/her salt, it is the parsing/manipulation of words that Clegg tries to use to his advantage here.

Clegg wants the reader to draw a clear distinction between the words "integration" and "desegregation", when in reality--they mean virtually the SAME THING.

de·seg·re·gate (d-sgr-gt)
v. de·seg·re·gat·ed, de·seg·re·gat·ing, de·seg·re·gates
v.tr.
1. To abolish or eliminate segregation in.
2. To open (a school or workplace, for example) to members of all races or ethnic groups, especially by force of law.
v.intr.
To become open to members of all races or ethnic groups."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/desegregation

in·te·grate (nt-grt)
v. inte·grat·ed, inte·grat·ing, inte·grates
v.tr.
1. To make into a whole by bringing all parts together; unify.
2.
a. To join with something else; unite.
b. To make part of a larger unit: integrated the new procedures into the work routine.
3.
a. To open to people of all races or ethnic groups without restriction; DESEGREGATE.
b. To admit (a racial or ethnic group) to equal membership in an institution or society."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/integrate

But that doesn't stop Mr. Clegg, good lawyer that he is from creating his OWN definition of "integration" with the "that's-how-I-personally-define-it-in-the-context-of-MY-argument" defense.

But, bubbling to the surface once more--you see the REAL sentiment in Roger Clegg's writings:

>>>"When and if involuntary integration is achieved, it will be at a high price — at the price, ironically, of the freedom and tolerance that makes voluntary integration so desirable in the first place."

Wipe away the linguistic jukes and two-step jargon..."involuntary integration" by definition is "mandated desegregation", which was the greatest wedge issue of the Twentieth Century, and the Rosetta Stone of the Southern Strategy.

I would love for Mr. Clegg to identify HIS constituency--the people who feel "bossed around" when faced with mandated desegregation/involuntary integration?

Who are these people who can integrate in the bleachers on Saturday but not in the pews on Sunday?

Who are these people, Mr. Clegg?

Stephen writes:

>>>"I am astonished that my statement needs clarification."

Oh no, my friend. You make your points PERFECTLY CLEAR to me.

And I THANK YOU, from the bottom of my heart. You're still performing at Tom Brady-like levels. As I said many times before, you're the best thing that ever happened to guy with my point of view.

--Cobra

John,

Let me get this straight: Brown vs Board of Ed - good
quotas - bad.

This is the basic contention, right? Being that Brown led directly to the enactment of quotas, how can you be in favor of the former and opposed to the latter? The basic argument in Brown was that segregation psychologically damaged blacks. This is the same logic applied with respect to racial quotas. Racial preferences will never be eliminated until Brown is overturned.

The basic argument in Brown was that segregation psychologically damaged blacks.

I'm not sure this was the "basic" argument, but it clearly was one argument. The problem with your view is that the Brown plaintiffs' attorney were explicitly clear that what they mean by "segregation" was legally imposed racial separation, NOT what later came to be called "de facto segregation."

Go back and take a close look at this long post:

http://www.discriminations.us/2007/08/historical_brownout.html

"you know what, Cobra's actually right. he points out that clegg first says that "integration is good," and then tells us it's bad if government "encourages" it. funny, i thought the whole purpose of government was to encourage good things."

Clegg wants the reader to draw a clear distinction between the words "integration" and "desegregation", when in reality--they mean virtually the SAME THING.

These are very different. That's why the attempt to pretend that "de facto" and "de jure" segregation are the same thing is so misguided.

David writes:

>>>"One vision involves the government saying that race is irrelevant and thus removing legal barriers to racial integration. That's desegregation."

Ummm...

...

???

Those are YOUR own WORDS, David. You went right ahead and defined "integration" as "desegregation" right after this passage:

Cobra writes: "Clegg wants the reader to draw a clear distinction between the words "integration" and "desegregation", when in reality--they mean virtually the SAME THING."

David writes: "No, Cobra, they don't."

You, like Clegg, are attempting to streamline and stove-pipe words to only mean whatever narrow interpretation works to support your argument.

I, on the other hand, pull my definitions from the DICTIONARY. After all, didn't Mr. Clegg admonish all of us to speak English?

Trying to project a different "vision" on your opponent, claiming that the words "integration" and "desegregation" spontaneously transform, and transmography their definitions depending upon who is using them--I mean..

Come on, David. Not even President Clinton went that far down the road with parsing words.

But you, like Mr. Clegg, keep trying.

David writes:

>>>"These are very different. That's why the attempt to pretend that "de facto" and "de jure" segregation are the same thing is so misguided."

You see? There you go again. I've had this discussion on Discriminations before.

Segregation is Segregation.

The end results are the same.

IF, and I'm not saying that you are, but IF you are claiming that you de-facto segregation is OK, but de jure is NOT, then you SUPPORT segregation.
You can't have it both ways, David, but even IF you did try, you certainly wouldn't be alone in that opinion:

>>>"So people choose to live next to and have close friends who disproportionately share their background — so what?"

--Roger Clegg

http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/culture/culture-cleggprint070100.html

http://www.thecobraslair.com/images/SEPARATE-BUT-EQUAL-NAT.gif

--Cobra

I riff on economist Karl Smith's interpretation of the Putnam study in this post at my blog:
http://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2007/09/18/be-grateful-diversity-reduces-trust/

Cobra, you say that this: "One vision involves the government saying that race is irrelevant and thus removing legal barriers to racial integration. That's desegregation." equates integration with desegregation.

No, it doesn't. It equates REMOVAL OF LEGAL BARRIERS TO INTEGRATION with desegregation.

Look, suppose you went to a black school that you were assigned to due to your race. There's another school in your neighborhood that you can't attend because it's the white school.

Then the government has a change of heart, or whatever, and says that kids won't be assigned to school due to race. That's desegregation.

At this point, you may decide to continue to attend the black school, and your friends may do the same, so that the school remains predominantly black. There could be both good and bad reasons for you to remain in that school, of course. Maybe you just actually like it there. There's no reason to think that it's always better for black kids to transfer to white schools; I've always thought it was a bit racist to assume that. However, the school is not integrated, is it? But the government is no longer segregating you.

The next step would be for the government to go back to assigning kids to school by race, this time to force a mix in the schools. This is integration, but it has very little chance of success when parents don't want their children's lives controlled by politicians trying to score points.

If government-mandated integration could work, that would be one thing. (It failed miserably in Memphis, where the public school population is

Those are YOUR own WORDS, David. You went right ahead and defined "integration" as "desegregation" right after this passage:

The end results are the same.

The "end results" of the defense attorney bribing the jury and the defense attorney putting on a good case may be the same -- acquittal -- but that doesn't mean the actions are equivalent.

And the "end results" of passing a law requiring black people to go to black schools and allowing people of any race to go to any school they want may be the same -- non-diverse schools -- but that doesn't mean the actions are equivalent.

Cobra writes: "Those are YOUR own WORDS, David. You went right ahead and defined "integration" as "desegregation" right after this passage:"

David writes: "No. I defined desgregation as removing legal barriers to integration."

Now, there you go AGAIN. Stove-piping definitions to feel more comfortable in your arguments. Roger Clegg would be proud of you.

David writes:

>>>"Even if true, so what? The "end results" of burning down a restaurant and boycotting it -- the restaurant going out of business -- may be the same, but that doesn't mean the two actions are equivalent."

Both actions are ANTI-resturant, and the resturant is no longer open in both cases. It's a victory for the anti-resturant types. Mission accomplished.

David writes:

>>>"The "end results" of the defense attorney bribing the jury and the defense attorney putting on a good case may be the same -- acquittal -- but that doesn't mean the actions are equivalent."

Both actions result in acquittals, which is a victory for the defense, and all the support the defense types. Mission accomplished.

David writes:

>>>"And the "end results" of passing a law requiring black people to go to black schools and allowing people of any race to go to any school they want may be the same -- non-diverse schools -- but that doesn't mean the actions are equivalent."

Sure they are. Allowing people to employ segregation, whether through the front door via Jim Crow (de jure), or the back door, with racist housing practices, redistricting, zoning boards, or real estate brokers(de facto) is a victory for segregationists, and we-support-segregation-types.

Mission accomplished.

--Cobra

Laura writes:

>>>"If government-mandated integration could work, that would be one thing."

Laura, now, apparently, you've fallen prey to the "definition disco dance" employed by Roger Clegg.

"Integration" and "Desegregation", by the DICTIONARY (and I posted it on this thread, scroll up) means the SAME THING.

Government mandated DESEGREGATION was what Brown vs. Board of Education was about. Government mandated DESEGREGATION was what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was about.

I don't have to tell you, because you already know, but here's the logic I hear from some of these recent posts--

Logic: If the government says that blacks and whites cannot drink from the same water fountain, that's "wrong", but if white developers, city planners and public works officials, collaborating over the years with white realtors, with the approval, explicit or tacit, of a significant portion of the white citizenry, strategically place "designated drinking fountains" in areas that can rarely be accessed by non-whites, that's OK, and a good solution for those who secretly pine for the old separate fountain laws.

Apply that "logic" to schools (which has been pointed out time and time again in study after study) and you understand my point of view.

Scholars at UCLA's Civil Rights Project back me up with FACTS:

>>>"The racial trend in the school districts studied is substantial and clear: virtually all school districts analyzed are showing lower levels of inter-racial exposure since 1986, suggesting a trend towards resegregation, and in some districts, these declines are sharp.

As courts across the country end long-running desegregation plans and, in some states, have forbidden the use of any racially-conscious student assignment plans, the last 10-15 years have seen a steady unraveling of almost 25 years worth of increased integration.

From the early 1970s to the late 1980s, districts in the South had the highest levels of black-white desegregation in the nation; from 1986-2000, however, some of the most rapidly resegregating districts for black students’ exposure to whites are in the South. Some of these districts maintained a very high level of integration for a quarter century or more until the desegregation policies were reversed."

http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/deseg/reseg_schools02.php

Do you see the big picture, Laura? IMHO, the Civil Rights Movement isn't "over." The forces that support SEGREGATION are still out there, fighting tooth and nail with every trick, tactic and tool at their disposal to make it happen. If they can't get de jure segregation, they will darn sure make de facto segregation a reality.

I'm willing to bet that Roger Clegg will find my view on these issues "irritating."

--Cobra

"Integration" and "Desegregation", by the DICTIONARY (and I posted it on this thread, scroll up) means the SAME THING.

The dictionary lists possible definitions for words. It does not explain what an individual means when he uses a particular word. The dictionary lists "to cook or bake in a microwave oven" as _a_ meaning for "nuke," but that doesn't mean that "nuke" and "cook" are "the same thing." Clegg -- and I, in my comment -- were using the words "desegregate" and "integrate" differently.

In any case, someone who thinks there's no difference between putting on a good defense and bribing a juror, or between burning down a restaurant and boycotting it, has discredited himself more thoroughly than I ever could.

I’ve written at length, and I hope with depth, on the significant distinctions between ending segregation and promoting integration. In that regard, since there is still widespread confusion about this (even in high places), I thought it would be useful for all to take a look at the following from the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htm

SEC. 407. (a) Whenever the Attorney General receives a complaint in
writing--
(1) signed by a parent or group of parents to the effect that his or their minor children, as members of a class of persons similarly situated, are being deprived by a school board of the equal protection of the laws, or
(2) signed by an individual, or his parent, to the effect that he has been denied admission to or not permitted to continue in attendance at a public college by reason of race, color, religion, or national origin,
and the Attorney General believes the complaint is meritorious and certifies that the signer or signers of such complaint are unable, in his judgment, to initiate and maintain appropriate legal proceedings for relief and that the institution of an action will materially further the orderly achievement of desegregation in public education, the Attorney General is authorized, after giving notice of such complaint to the appropriate school board or college authority and after certifying that he is satisfied that such board or authority has had a reasonable time to adjust the conditions alleged in such complaint, to institute for or in the name of the United States a civil action in any appropriate district court of the United States against such parties and for such relief as may be appropriate, and such court shall have and shall exercise jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this section, provided that nothing herein shall empower any official or court of the United States to issue any order seeking to achieve a racial balance in any school by requiring the transportation of pupils or students from one school to another or one school district to another in order to achieve such racial balance....

>>>"...nothing herein shall empower any official or court of the United States to issue any order seeking to achieve a racial balance in any school by requiring the transportation of pupils or students from one school to another or one school district to another in order to achieve such racial balance...."

Which is the loophole every de-facto SEGREGATIONIST uses to justify the racial balkanization schemes of local officals, realtors, zoning boards and collaborative white citizenry.

The old, "If you can't segregate the schools, segregate the students" trick.

And it's been working.

I just wish that people who endorse this behavior would call themselves precisely what they are...

Segregationists.

>>>"There’s some people who’ve gone over the state and said, ‘Well, George Wallace has talked too strong about segregation.’ Now let me ask you this: how in the name of common sense can you be too strong about it? You’re either for it or you’re against it. There’s not any middle ground as I know of."

--George Wallace,
1962 (from a campaign speech on federally mandated integration)

--Cobra

Dear Sir: Without the rule of law we are not a nation! No one can chose which laws they want to obey or to ignore. I believe in America's Great Melting Pot. If we allow 500 Mexicans nationals to come to america at will with only one European or one African per 500 mexicans, we will stop being Americans but Mexicans. If I wanted to be a Mexican I would move to Mexico! Their is no excuse to break the law. Being poor or needing work is not an excuse to be able to ignore the law. Their are billions of people on this earth with the same problems. There is nothing wrong with Mexico that allows these people to flee to America. We dont need people with divided loyalties. Those two million of illegals we gave mercy to in the last Amnesty are now stabbing us in the back by trying to destroy our laws on immigration to allow 12 million of their co-patriots, who would further erode our laws. If we dont say no now they we will never say no. If not now then when! When we have a West Bank or a Gaza strip in California with illegals aliens demanding their own nations like the Palestinians.