Why did they US stop being Apartheid state? Like first they where

>>2962794
After the late 80's to mid 90's segregation came back it's just unspoken.

>>2962799
Well apparently its not enough

>>2962794
>Land of the free
>Open slavery from 1776-1861
>Apartheid from 1861-1964
No wonder people where laughing at the US

>>2962799
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8yiYCHMAlM

>>2962794
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=united+states+civil+rights+movement
fuck off

>>2962794
Whites grew guilty.

>>2962799
Self-segregation is not the same as mandatory segregation.

>>2962834
>Self-segregation is not the same as mandatory segregation.
It is when the people "self-segregating" have the power and money to keep other people out. Which is what happens.

>>2962794
Brown v. Board of Education

In 1955 all states were ordered to desegregate "with all deliberate speed".

>>2962831
>>2962850
>did not understand the question

>>2962836
They have that power insofar as they raise property prices and niggers can't afford to live there.

But can anyone blame them?

>>2962867
Yes, easily.

>>2962878
Why? How entitled can you get?

>>2962867
yes. yes they can. in fact, many do. and quite fervently I might add

>>2962863
>made a bait thread
>upset when anons reference historical events that cover thread topic in its entirety
I say again, fuck off.

>>2962885
But why? Are you against freedom of association?

>>2962878
>>2962885
But how? whats wrong with choosing to live in expensive nice area which you can afford?
Not even white here

>>2962794
It's hard to rally potential capitalist - aligning countries against Russia around the concepts of democracy, capitalism, and freedom when part of your own population is disenfranchised from these ideals because of shit that should have been resolved 100 years ago.

It also doesn't help when communist agitators in universities go around claiming things would be more inclusive in a communist society.

US wasn't a slaver state nor was it an apartheid state. US was a federalistic union with very large autonomy for each member to discourage strong central government and prevent a possible tyranny. So each state had an autonomy to do those things and some were slaver and later apharteid. As centrals government authority grew it imposed it's values and ways on the states.

>>2962887
I'm neither for or against it, I'm just stating that many people have and continue to blame the elite class in the US for purposely excluding minority groups of their choosing i.e. black people.

I don't have an opinion about this because why the fuck should I?

>>2962885
>question was why?
>answers with a date
>gets angry when pointed to the fact

>>2962897
So it was commie pressure after WW2 that changed things

>>2962898
being delusional much?

File: U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png (49KB, 2880x1684px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 2880x1684px

>>2962812
You forgot
>Prison state 1964-Present

It's like every time they gain too much freedom all of sudden they have to invent something to tone it down.

>>2962909
The why would be answered if you understood the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education as stated above.

>>2962917
please explain your point then anon.

>>2962917
>explains how the Segregation ended
>not why
nice try anon

File: 29-eat-dates-fb.jpg (77KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1200x630px

>>2962909
the civil rights movement was the "why" you cretin. civil unrest all across the country, millions of people protesting for several years, federal court cases siphoning revenue from wealthy whites bad enough to make it more profitable to just unfuck their race bias, I could go on but the reason I'm telling you to fuck off is because /his/ is ideally a board for people who already study history, not fags that meme it.

the civil rights movement isn't a "date". pic related is, and I'm certain it's also the size of your brain

>>2962936
Wow, you are so cool, c-can I touch you?

>>2962936
>triggered

>>2962917
>Question why
>Answer how
>>2962936
Back to tumblr

>>2962936
>the civil rights movement was the "why" you cretin.
I thought it was the Brown v. Board of Education supreme court case. YOu said so.

>>2962950
not an argument, my nig

>>2962936
>I could go on but the reason I'm telling you to fuck off is because /his/ is ideally a board for people who already study history, not fags that meme it.
Is this pasta?

>>2962799
Literally what? Are you the kind of person who thinks Trump is unironically a Nazi too? If anything practices like redlining actually stopped around that time.

>>2962897
Does this mean the de-segregation wasn't because of a change of society but instead was induced by the government/elites because it was embarrassing?

>>2962912
>being delusional much?

The US constitution never mandated slavery or segregation but it did outlaw it.

>>2962965
If somebody is building a whole industry on slavery, he is a slaver. Semantics won't change that.
If you practice Apartheid openly for a century, then that makes you an Apartheid state, semantics won't change that either.

>>2962836
No, it isn't you dumb ape. Mandatory segregation is a law on the books, it's legitimized. Self-segregation is people living how they want to live without forcibly keeping people in an inferior position. You can't stop it without enacting the exact kind of legislation that was repealed to remove segregation in the first place: legislation that mandates who can live where.

>>2962976
The USA never mandated slavery, the state didn't own slaves or propagate the slave trade. It was in no way a slaver state. Free citizens practiced slavery, states in the union relied upon it. But nothing in the United States constitution mandated or even condoned slavery. Same goes for segregation: the USA never passed a single segregation law at the federal level, because such laws were outside the scope of the federal government.

You are basically going about this backward. The US is not a society where the state tells people how things will be and that's how they are. The state didn't say "go forth and enslave and live separately." In the first place the federal state didn't have that much power back then. It was the people who did these things. Free citizens who practiced slavery, who demanded segregation and then used their local legislatures to enforce it. The federal government had neither the authority nor the means to make such laws, and could not stop them even if they wanted to because it was outside the scope of their powers defined in the Constitution. It wasn't until the US Constitution was amended to prohibit slavery and end segregation that these things were brought into the purview of the United States government and anything could be mandated by them, and the first thing the US government mandated on the issue of slavery was to ban it completely.

>>2963033
>Free citizens who practiced slavery, who demanded segregation and then used their local legislatures to enforce it.
And that's all that's needed to make USA a slaver state and later an apartheid state.

>>2963033
Again, if it is legal to hold slaves on your territory, and as a result of this a huge slavery based plantation industry ensues on your territory, then you are a slaver nation.
No state right vs. federal right bullshit will change that.

>>2963033
Ok, that makes the US a federally and partially democratic slaver nation and apartheid state then.

>>2963038
No, it isn't. Because you don't understand how a federated system works. State legislature =/= national legislature. The US had no official policy on either slavery or segregation. Several US states did, but states are entities unto themselves with their own laws and legislatures.

>Again, if it is legal to hold slaves on your territory, and as a result of this a huge slavery based plantation industry ensues on your territory, then you are a slaver nation
By this logic if it's legal to smoke pot then you're a nation of stoners. Or if it's legal to fight duels then you're a nation of duelists. Only 4% of the nation owned slaves at the height of slavery, most of them concentrated in one region (the south). Slavery wasn't mandated by the state, wasn't propagated by the state, and generally wasn't even practiced by the people. You keep insisting things that just don't make any sense.

The US was permissive because its constitution greatly limited the powers of the federal government. That's what allowed slavery and segregation to thrive in the states that enforced those institutions. Which, I remind you, were never national institutions of the United States.

>>2963044
No it doesn't

>>2963056
>state
>national
>federal
>yada yada yada
In the end, the US was one of the biggest slavers at the time and later a segregated nation. Legislative nitpicking doesn't change facts.

>>2963056
Negros must have been so happy that they were not enslaved on a federal level but only on a state lever

>>2963056
If 10% of the federal population is slaves, that's a slaver state, whether the institution is enforced on federal or local level. The constitution and federal legislation, so far as it does not ban slavery, is irrelevant.

>>2962916
Yeah, truly the land of the free

>>2963038
No, the law is one determined by the people. A war was fought between states to federally ban slavery. Such a war could never be fought if it were a slave nation.

>>2962812
>no wonder people where
>people where
>third world education

>>2963067
>one of the biggest slavers of the time
Not even close.

>>2963033
State governments in the deep South literally established secret police departments to keep segregation in place. The segregated system had the full backing of some states.

>>2963511
>yuropoor failing to understand what a federation is
Your fault, not mine

>>2963234
>>2963511
>we wuz federatiodn n shiet
>thas why we wuz never slavers
>nor segregationists
>despite large scale slavery and segregation
legislative nitpicking again?

>>2963495
Apart from Brazil the US was the largest slaver of the time.

>>2962836
>black churches
>black lawyers' and doctors' association
>black music awards
>black movie awards
>black TV channels
It's obvious the ones segregating the most are the blacks who prefer to live among and associate with only other blacks. During the mid 2000s they literally viewed the influx of white European players into the NBA as a violation of their spaces for fuck's sake.

>>2962836
>white people move away from black-majority neighborhoods
>RACISM! WHITE FLIGHT! APARTHEID! SEGREGATION!

>white people move back to black-majority neighborhoods
>RACISM! GENTRIFICATION! ECONOMIC OPPRESSION!

You black faggots will never be satisfied no matter what we do.

>>2964176
Clearly, Segregation of races is the blacks fault then. Slavery probably too.

>>2964246
Modern segregation is almost 100% of their fault. Watch the documentary "Flag Wars" about a neighborhood in Columbus Ohio where (mostly gay) white people started moving into a predominantly black neighborhood. There are literally blacks on screen admitting they don't want to see any white people in their neighborhoods and how they're going to do everything they can to fight them. It was made by a liberal too, so don't expect some right wing slant.

It's kind of contradictory for conservatives to complain about it since many of them are of the opinion that you earn what you work for. Since they believe people have the right to settle in enclaves with like-minded people and flee areas when crime goes up and property rates go down, barring the immigration issue the principal isn't fundamentally different from foreign ethnicities choosing to settle in the same community and setting up services and businesses in the area. In the past Irish pubs and Italian Bistros might have been just as opposed as halal shops and Mexican restaurants.
https://youtu.be/C8sWK2fp3DM

>>2964264
>Modern segregation is almost 100% of their fault.
oh, you must be from /pol/

>>2964442
Nice non-argument faggot.

>>2964159
My state legitimately never had a slave in it.

>>2964451
So? There were plenty enough states that did have slaves.

>>2964449
It's ok /pol/ack, it's just it is not really possible to have a discussion with you, you lack the mental capability and so pretty much every post you make is full of insults, logical fallacies and anecdotal data from tinfoil hat websites.
I'l pass on that.

So did the Apartheid in the US end because of inner social pressure or because of outer political pressure?

>>2962794
Rosa Parks

>>2964481
Esl?

>>2964481
And those aren't my state and thus it can not be called a slave state.

>>2964493
Then scram.

>>2962794
>then suddenly equal rights.
It's because a lot of people stopped obeying the law which forced legislators to change the law in the favor of tge lawbreakers. Now illegals are doing it.

>>2963033
What? But the 3/5ths clause literally insinuates federal compromise for slavery.
Stop flexing the constitution before you read it, faggot.

>>2966994
The 3/5 bullshit existed just to bloat southern electorate votes. They didn't want niggers to be considered full citizens, but at the same time they needed their numbers for elections since southern states were packed to the brim with them.

>>2966994
3/5ths was about representation. It had nothing to do with mandating slavery.

The US was never an apartheid state

>>2967042
Technically the US was not, but some individual states were.

People descended from african slaves were tired of being excluded from most of society despite being citizens of a free and equal nation

Its probably hard to understand when you're still in middle school and rattle off internet memes that were once used in jest but now taken as gospel

>>2964493
kys obvious moron

>>2962812
free from british rule

>>2966994
Don't forget the part in the Constitution where even non slaver states where required to return runaway slaves and that chattel rights extend to them. That plus the fact that the MAJORITY of states in the US was slavery makes the US a slaver nation.