Was Integration A Poor Decision?

[Ladsin2]

Clips have been circulating of a blacktivist on Trevor Noah's show. In the show Noah explains he is skeptical of the idea that integration was the right move. The respondent agrees. So I thought this would be an interesting thing to ask the GaG community. I remember that this was actually an argument in the 60s when integration was contemplated. Some notable black separatists argued that blacks should return to Africa ((ie Garvey) and other's thought they should be given their own state (ie Malcolm X).

Since this question seems to be coming back into the zeitgeist what does GaG think?

Yes, integration was the right idea poorly executed.

Yes, integration was the right idea correctly executed.

No, the black diaspora should have been sent back to Africa.

No, the black diaspora should have been given their own state.

Other

[Anonymous]

It depends on what your objective is, if you want to preserve what is different about blacks and whites then segregation is what is required. If you want to merge them overtime then integration is necessary.

The Power to force integration at the federal level was nonetheless absurdly unconstitutional abuse of power.

[Ladsin2]

Interesting. You don't think it's possible for two populations to stay distinct despite integration? I'd say Ashkenazim Jews are pretty well integrated into the US, but they still keep many distinct aspects of their culture.

[Opinion Owner]

@ladsin2
There are 2 ways to maintain a culture
1: prevent others from expanding,
2: expand on to others.

The first option is segregation, the 2nd option is simply being dominate in integration.
That means the dominate culture today is a culture that is good at spreading to others. Therefore for subcultures like the ones you suggest to exist they must have segregated themselfs. That means walls of distance, or walls of culture that are too strong.

Ultimately unless your constantly upgrading that wall it will break down and your culture will degrade and assimilate more and more over time until it is not distinct.

Genetics follow the same basic strategy, Except its a lot easier to exterminate the rival genetics.

[Ladsin2]

Interesting thought process. Jews; however, are heavily integrated in society in charge of much of our popular media. Yet, they maintain much of their Jewish identity (if you ask them at least). Do you think that's a misperception on their part?

[Opinion Owner]

@ladsin2
The Jews I do know are no more culturally distinct than the devout members of any other faith. The number of Jews in Name only would seem to suggest they are losing members to the toxic state sponsored athism just like the other religions.

Thus what we see are the devout members who have put up personal walls to protect themselfs.

[Ladsin2]

That makes sense. Thanks!

[Syntosi]

History shows that integration is always the best option and that alternatives is not only worse but does not work in the first place. This is such a definitive answer that its more of a fact than anything else quite frankly.

[Ladsin2]

What examples of good integration are you thinking of? How are you defining good as well? Let's pick a non-US example as that's the one that's obviously in argument and has been for so long.

[Syntosi]

USA, Roman Empire, Persian Empire, Various Muslim states during their golden age, China etc.. etc..

Anytime a nation is prospering to an unusual degree or having a boom in innovation or technology it tends to correlate to them having a more open society and integrating many different people and their ideas. It is the cornerstone of pretty much any movement, be they art or architecture or science or just economy.

[Ladsin2]

Let's take those in turn. I've heard it said that the expansionist tendencies of the Roman Empire was part of the cause of it's fall. How do you see integrating foreign populations into the Roman Empire as being a boon, and what time frame are you thinking of?

[Syntosi]

The biggest strength of Rome was its ability to integrate foreign cultures and technologies. Pretty much every enemy they fought or culture they absorbed taught them something new. Nothing you think of as Roman actually originated with them. Not their weapons, not their tactics, not their architecture, not their religion, etc.. etc..

In a way they tried to stay "ethnically pure" originally by limiting who could be an actual "Roman citizen" and who was a 2nd or even 3rd class citizen but that changed over the years to become more and more inclusive due to necessity. Rome was the "Original" mixing pot of cultures.. unless you count China.

[Ladsin2]

Do you have an approximate timeframe on when you think they decided to fully integrate foreigners? Peter Heather, "The Fall of the Roman Empire" seems to argue that the fall of the Roman Empire was due to mass migration without forced assimilation. A brief google search shows his argument as being something like, "immigration was always allowed and sometimes encouraged. This immigration was coupled with forced assimilation. When the army was off to fight the Persians Germanic immigrants came in and couldn't be forced to assimilate logistically. Hence the Germanic armies that attacked Roman Emp from the inside out. What do you think is wrong about his argument?

[Syntosi]

There are a lot of things wrong with that argument. First of all, the biggest issue with the Roman Empire was their weak institutions. This becomes especially obvious in the transfer of power from one leader to the next both in who is chosen and how badly the country is hit from each succession as the institutions tries to restart the country.

While this is just a small indication you can still look at how quickly Rome goes through Emperors and how they constantly get assassinated or how many civil wars are fought by people claiming to be the new one.

Beyond that Rome also had another problem. They built their social foundation on the spoils of war such as slaves, land and such taken from conquered land. That works to a point but once the land stops being fertile or you stop conquering more land you run into the problem of your source of income drying up. As long as Rome was conquering new rich territories they could pave over their own problems with gold but that can't work forever.

As for the idea that Rome was attacked because they sent their army to fight Persia, that is not entirely true either. Rome did not just have one army. For example during 200AD they had 33 armies plus mercenaries, allies, militia and auxiliary forces. There was always armies marching around Rome itself as well as holding all their borders. The fact that they got defeated is another matter.

[Syntosi]

Regarding assimilation into Rome it depends on the timeperiod. The most iconic way to gain Roman citizenship would be to serve as an Auxiliary in their army but there was also periods of time where you gained it automatically after working a certain number of years, even if you were a slave.

Rome also regularly gave citizenship to important figures of the people they conquered so that they could remain and help administer and integrate the territories. Things like political figures or rich people for example.

The entire history of Rome was basically a story of expanding "citizenship". At the beginning in the Republic era only the ruling class had "citizenship". The rest of the population as such rose up and demanded it for them as well which is probably the start of this trend. Then there was a civil war in 91-87 BC inside Italy where they were gifted Roman Citizenship if they stopped their uprising so that kind of expands it to all of Italy.

After that we had Emperor Caracalla in 212 AD further expanding citizenship by declaring "all free men in the Roman Empire (at the time) were to be given full Roman Citizenship and all free women were to be elevated in rights to Roman Women (which were not the same as citizenship).

So basically there was always a process you could go through to become a Roman citizen as well as multiple points in time where they directly expanded the scope or used citizenship as a means to integrate new territory.

[Ladsin2]

Interesting, I'll have to look into that more. Thanks for the reading project.

[Syntosi]

Have a good day

[OneViewpoint]

What was a poor decision was "Reconstruction" after the Civil War. We allowed the Confederacy to live on in spirit. We should have exterminated the Confederacy, outlawed their flag and their monuments, removed and restructured their state governments and had federal troops in those states enforcing federal laws for at least 2 generations after their treason was put down. That was the time to integrate society.

Instead we allowed segregation to go on, economic inequities to continue, voter intimidation, voter obstruction, Jim Crow laws, the Klan, lynchings, job discrimination, restricted access to housing and education, etc.

As a result, we are still fighting the Civil War 160 years later.

[Ladsin2]

Pretty hot-take. Yanks should've exterminated their countrymen for wanting to leave the country. Very sherman-esque. Should've raped their women and taken the right of prima nocta as well?

[exitseven]

I think that it needed to be done for the country to move forward. Legislating something like that is a difficult thing to do. There is bound to be resistance.

[Ladsin2]

So you think good idea poorly executed because there's no good way to execute it?

[exitseven]

yes, it was especially hard in America. Americans do not like to be told what to do.

[Ladsin2]

Thanks for the response.

[jshm2]

LOL, whenever "integration" is talked about it really means "come into White values". The world has seen too much of White invasion, and doesn't need more.

It's why most are happy for the Chinese to take a shot instead. .

[Ladsin2]

Most seems like a dubious claim. Any source? If so why is all the world emigrating to white western countries?
I suppose you said integration was a bad idea. Which view do you take? Should the diaspora mvoe back to Africa or given their own state?

[SmokinAces2000]

Integration was the only option. History shows that any time black people tried to distance themselves from white people even that wasn’t enough and they felt they had to destroy black cities and burn them to the ground

[Ladsin2]

Can you name three examples? Clearly some thought that separation was the right decision. X and Garvey as listed above. Garvey's model would have black diaspora returning to Africa. Do you think white's would have followed them back to make them citizens again? If so why?

[Manwomanmythmale]

@ladsin2 black wall street

[SmokinAces2000]

1. The destruction of Black Wallstreet
2. The bombing of the 16th street Baptist church
3. The “Red Summer”

Segregation could never work because even when black people tried to distance themselves white people would come and destroy what they built and worked for so the only solution was to integrate so that black people couldn’t be attacked in concentrated places.

[SmokinAces2000]

And as for going back to Africa, black people would have been sent there with barely any money, not knowing where to go, and having to basically start their lives over

[Ladsin2]

1) Tulsa race riots are a bit more iffy than frequently claimed, but I think that's a decent example.
2) The bombing of the church was during segregation fighting back against integration. I'm not sure that's a great example.
3) I couldn't find any link of the Red Summer to a movement of blacks to segregate from whites. Any info to help out?

Malcolm X argued for reparations which would've funded their state. Garvey argued for the same. However; if your argument is correct that blacks would have nothing in Africa would that be any better than having nothing in the US where they were hated?

[Anonymous]

What is wrong with integration? It is better than how things use to be.

[Ladsin2]

Didn't say there was anything wrong with it. The conversation has been being had for the better part of a century and seems to be rolling back around again. I presume then that you said B?