Thread: Is Racial Segregation really a human rights Violation?

"rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds"
- Democratic Party Senator Robert Byrd, vowing he would never fight in a racially-integrated armed service

(if any of you think this is an excert from the early American history, you should know that Robert Byrd died only two years ago)

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

"rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds"
- Democratic Party Senator Robert Byrd, vowing he would never fight in a racially-integrated armed service

(if any of you think this is an excert from the early American history, you should know that Robert Byrd died only two years ago)

any particular reason you believe the KKK is representative of modern day America?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

That being said I think sometimes people forget that equality in the States is a relatively new thing.

Originally Posted by alexa

any particular reason you believe the KKK is representative of modern day America?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

That being said I think sometimes people forget that equality in the States is a relatively new thing.

I love it... this guy was a KKK member who later "denounces" racial intolerance... supports Vietnam, but criticises Iraq... sounds like he rides the waves and either doesn't know who he is, or just talk a lot of (*)(*)(*)(*) depending on whatever people want to hear.

Originally Posted by alexa

That being said I think sometimes people forget that equality in the States is a relatively new thing.

Easy come, easy go

I think that racial segregation is certainly in conflict with natural law when it is forced - for instance, when there are government laws which establish it. I would support the right of any person to segregate (by race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, age, et cetera) on his own property. I would also support his right not to segregate on his own property.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

Is racial segregation completely incompatible with human rights?

Depends on what you mean by 'racial' and 'human rights'. There are no object morals, so things can symbolically mean anything you want them to. It's the authority figure that decides.

Beast Mode, I just wanted to say that I agree that perhaps morality as you or I see it isn't entirely objective; that said, "human rights" are separate. As a follower of Murray Rothbard I would doubt anyone who said you couldn't discern a theory of rights in a scientific manner. Rothbard, in his book "The Ethics of Liberty" does not try to lay out morals as far as whether or not lying is immoral, or whether abortion is immoral or not. He comes up with a theory of 'Natural Law' based on property rights, and while I don't agree entirely with him (I disagree on his avoidance of coming up with a theory on animal rights mainly because it is based solely on what I feel to be the discredited assumption that humans are the only animals at all capable of reason). His work in the area has given me some faith in the idea that an objective 'Natural Law' could be discovered using property rights as a basis - and I think his ideas could be expanded upon and evolved a whole lot more.

As for "racial", I find that a lot more subjective and agree with you pretty much 100%.

But what's an authority figure? Is that perhaps a parent, or a religious institution, or a teacher,...?

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

Is racial segregation completely incompatible with human rights? Is it possible there may be forms of racial segragation that are fair, or even desirable to the majority of people within both races?

Consider that there can be different extents of racial segregation, ranging from completely voluntary on both sides, to forced separation of different ethnicities into different nations. Indeed, on several occassions both the USA and UN have actively supported national separatism along ethnic lines (Serbia, South Sudan, Ossetia).

One form of racial segregation, for example, might simply be to offer racially segregated class rooms to students, so that a student could choose either a racially-mixed class, or a class of only his own ethnicity. The degrees of voluntary choice could be variable; for example a student of a certain ethnicity might or might not be allowed into the class designated specifically for a different ethnicity. Or private employers could simply be allowed to choose who they hire, using race as a factor if they so choose.

The United Nations has supported the 'International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights'. Is it overreaching its original intentions?

There are, of course, several valid reasons people would want to be racially segregated. People generally prefer to be amongst those of their same ethnicity. And there can often be cultural frictions. Asian people often prefer to live under a stricter and more regulated society than hispanic people for example. Different ethnic groups comitt crimes at significantly different rates, which can lead to resentment from other ethnicities. Some ethnicities may simply just wish to preserve their cultural integrity and reduce the possibility of future assimilation.

While racial/ethnic segregation has historically often been used as a tool of oppression, I am just saying that the concept itself is not necessarily unfair.

Voluntary segregation seems to be a contradiction. Segregation involves separating people, restricting access. You can voluntarily gather with whoever you want, even folks of the same 'race' -- but that's not segregation. Segregation is when you tell someone else they can't join in. When it become segregation, it stops being voluntary.

Originally Posted by Eaol

I would support the right of any person to segregate (by race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, age, et cetera) on his own property. I would also support his right not to segregate on his own property.

Too bad the American government infringed upon this right with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that tells people who they can and cannot sell their house to, what criteria banks can use to lend money (even if it is worse for their profits), and who an employer can and cannot hire.

Originally Posted by Taxpayer

Segregation is when you tell someone else they can't join in. When it become segregation, it stops being voluntary.

You mean like immigration residency and employment laws?

Do you have any idea what would happen in your country if the laws that segregate people by nationality/citizenship suddenly dissappeared?
Take a look at how things are in Africa to get some idea.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

You mean like immigration residency and employment laws? Do you have any idea what would happen in your country if the laws that segregate people by nationality/citizenship suddenly dissappeared?

Then maybe discrimination based on citizenship might be useful in some circumstances. Now back to the topic of racial segregation...