The US South through a Colonization Lens - Shower thought about white liberals

Is it the duty of the enlightened progressive to civilise the simple southern savage?


  • Total voters
    84
Can we stop acting like America is the worst nation ever?

No, Americans moving in over natives was not 'genocide'. If you want a real genocide, read Ghengis Khan.
No, Americans did not own the largest, harshest slave empire in the world. Read about the Ottoman Empire.
No, America is not the most imperialistic country in the 20th century; read about China, Russia.

Fuck off Americans, read a fucking history book before you conclude 'AMUHRICUH WORSHT PLAIS EVUH'!
 
I'm arguing on the internet. Your friends don't even know I exist, and I don't have any power to harm them.
Good. Let's keep it that way.

Fuck off Americans, read a fucking history book before you conclude 'AMUHRICUH WORSHT PLAIS EVUH'!
We're far from the worst ever. Not even the Top 10.

But that doesn't mean we didn't fuck up in places.
 
I want southern independence. Yankees can stay On their side of the potomac.
We'd have to build a wall to keep them out, because they sure as hell can't stay the fuck away on their own. They think by moving here, they'll automatically absorb some of our cool via osmosis. But it doesn't work like that. It comes natural when you have it but when you don't it can't be faked or acquired through imitation.
 
We'd have to build a wall to keep them out, because they sure as hell can't stay the fuck away on their own. They think by moving here, they'll automatically absorb some of our cool via osmosis. But it doesn't work like that. It comes natural when you have it but when you don't it can't be faked or acquired through imitation.
If only they'd take some of the degneracy back with them, we'd be set....
 
Dixie is effectively an occupied nation. The culture and heritage of White Southerners is deliberately oppressed in every facet of American society. The media dehumanizes the White Southerner in movies and television frequently. They've deliberately made the Southern dialect out to be a sign of being uneducated while simultaneously making Ebonics out to be something of cultural importance. They depict "trailer trash" as horrible, backwards people who don't deserve any sympathy while simultaneously crying about the horrible plight of the poor black man - who is clearly a victim of systemic oppression. Furthermore, Christianity (the primary religion of White Southerners) is becoming increasingly bastardized as the media and government effectively demonize the faith. And all that's not to mention the deliberate demographic replacement of White Southerners, not just by non-Whites today, but also by carpetbaggers immediately following the Civil War.

I'd argue that the progressive, liberal, Marxist, etc. don't have any interest at all in "educating", "reforming", or "reconstructing" the South. They're interested in the cultural and ethnic genocide of the South. Consider that it is taboo for the Southern White man to fly any flag relating to Southern independence, to celebrate men like Robert E. Lee, to argue for his rights as a Southern White man, to so much as suggest that the Civil War narrative is flawed, or even to assert that his race is real. Now consider the situation of the freed blacks: It is NOT taboo for blacks to form explicitly racial organizations of any kind, it is NOT taboo to celebrate murderers like Nat Turner, it is NOT taboo for blacks to argue for their rights as blacks, it is NOT taboo to demonize the Southern White man, and it is most certainly NOT taboo to assert that the black race is real.

In fact, modern American society is essentially built upon the oppression of Southern Whites. The core of American social policy resides not in any document dating back to this country's founding, but rather in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which itself is the descendant of the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board decision, which stripped Southern schools of their freedom of association. The notion that the Civil Rights Act made anyone the equal of anyone else is ludicrous, because it simply did the opposite. Whereas the law previously applied to everyone equally, the Civil Rights Act effectively made minorities into a protected class and gave them the freedom to go where they simply weren't wanted. And what did the federal government do when White Southerners stood up for their right to decide who went to the schools that they built and they paid for? Same things as always, they used force.

View attachment 3332424

And to what end was this done? Black people are in an arguably worse position than before. They can now go and eat in White restaurants and ride in the front of the bus, sure. But has that fixed their communities? No, it didn't. Blacks are less safe than they were back then. All that unleashing them on the rest of us did was make us less safe, degrade our communities, cripple our schools, and destroy our cities. Are we supposed to believe that wasn't intentional? If the issue was that black schools were underfunded, why didn't the feds just give them funding? If the issue was that blacks weren't allowed in White businesses, why didn't the government do anything to help black businesses? If the problem was that blacks had terrible housing, why didn't the government try to improve their housing? Desegregation didn't solve any of these problems because it wasn't designed to. It, just like the emancipation of blacks in the Civil War, was no more than a strategy to disenfranchise the White Southern voter.

On a side note, the idea that segregation was unconstitutional is a total farce. The Founders never intended for blacks to be free, and Thomas Jefferson explicitly stated in his Notes on the State of Virginia that emancipation of blacks would require that they "be removed beyond the reach of mixture". So anyone who wants to argue along the lines of American ideals need not apply.
I don't have to say anything. Thank you.
 
You can and generations of Neo-Confederate types did. But Leftists would not accept that argument because they ascribe higher moral standards to Europeans (which, as is often noted, is patronizing to non-Europeans).

As for the accuracy of it, the Radical Republicans did more or less hate Southern culture - not just slavery, they hated the South in general - and that is a feeling that has been strong in New England from the day the colonists got off the boat until now. New Englanders and Deep Southerners have a cultural rivalry that runs back to England itself (Puritans vs Cavaliers), their ideologies while similar compared to other nations are still basically incompatible. New Englanders also have a messiah/superiority complex.

Anyways, the Radical Republicans did have a goal of rebuilding the South into a copy of New England, had these retarded ideas about teaching the Northern dialect/accent in schools, correcting the Southerner's incorrect farm techniques (lol), and proselytizing godless Southerners (Southern evangelicalism apparently not counting) and such, but it never had state backing, was only really done by missionaries and social worker types that failed miserably at it. Government wise, they used Blacks to establish puppet states, until those were overthrown, and they settled themselves, carpetbaggers being like colonists and in the modern day cities like Atlanta and Nashville and the entire South Florida and North Virginia/Maryland areas being carpetbagger colonies. Politically Southern politics went from being a sort of thuggish but functional one-party state to a corrupt shitshow under a different one-party state. Economically, railroads exploited the South and kept it underindustrialized and Yankees played some role in creating the company towns in the coalfields, but so did Deep South plantation masters too.

Overall I think it's kind of overdramatic to view it as colonization, the United States government was incredibly merciful to its defeated enemies (who else lets the defeated rebels just go home and beat their chests until the end of time about the rebellion?) and they quickly took power back, because normal Yankees got sick of occupying a country for nearly twenty years against reactionary ethnically sectarian terrorists (sound familiar?).

I will say,

While there are lots of identities that are persecuted in the modern US, I think the Southerner/Appalachian is unique in being the only one that has no advocates of note and in being mainstreamed so much nobody even gives it much thought. Conservatives WILL whine about Whites, Christians, straights, etc. being discriminated against, and Middle Americans/rurals in general, but not much about Southerners as Southerners. It is considered very normal to stereotype as "lol stupids."

As for the stereotypes in question, much of it just strikes me as asinine - I have never seen an actual basis for the Yankee's self-fellating, there's nothing about the behavior of those people that strikes me as intelligent - but a lot of it comes down to that the South is used as a sort of scapegoat for everything wrong in the country (hating the South allows hating America without having to extend the criticism to your own towns) and is the only region demonized for how it used to be. Nobody goes to New England expecting to see witch burnings or California expecting to see Chinese lynchings, but they do project this 1970 South image onto the modern South. It's not the only region that is always imagined as its past state - the West is too - but the West is romanticized, not demonized. Yet, everybody I know who I've talked to about it who moved in from outside has expressed surprise at how peaceful race relations are (shocker: sucking up to Blacks makes them more feral). Southerners are also often imagined as being hostile to outsiders, despite being a very polite and friendly people compared to the HEY JACKASS Northern cities.

To rant more about that race point, the most racially diverse places I go in are Pentecostal churches and meat-and-three (traditional Southern cooking) diners, in contrast to places where the carpetbagger university faculty types go. The people speak the same and are essentially the same culture. Mixed-race marriages are common and the rural Southern Blacks do things like ride ATVs around and fish. Northern Blacks diverged into something completely different and way more belligerent. I have known Northerners who would never dare say nigger but hold way more hate in their hearts for Blacks than redneck crackers around here who say it constantly but have Black friends. Additionally, I maintain that Northern culture always had more genuine hate for Blacks than Southern culture did; the South was just more aggressive and honest in enforcing its caste system. This is a view that is based in part on the eyewitness accounts of people like Alexis de Tocqueville and Martin Luther King Junior.

Education wise, I don't know, they can go on about test scores or whatever but it all looks the same in outcome to me. It turns out that when you adjust for cost of living the Northern states and West Coast are about as poor as the South (California and Oregon are on the level of places like fucking Arkansas) but also live much less free lives. Artistically, the area is supposed to be backwards, yet pretty much all of America's early 1900s music comes out of the South: between country, jazz, and rock and roll, the roots of every one of the main branches of American music does. Northern food tastes like shit. Everywhere in the country has a literary tradition, but the South has its own things going on with things like Faulkner and O'Conner. In general, one reason why I prefer the South is because, except for the Mexican Southwest, its culture has way more flavor compared to the the lifelessness of Northern culture.

I forgot where I was going with this, in general I just think that most of the big accusations are completely baseless.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Artistically, the area is supposed to be backwards, yet pretty much all of America's early 1900s music comes out of the South: between country, jazz, and rock and roll, the roots of every one of the main branches of American music does
Though keep in mind we were also the ones that most decried those same art forms as "Jungle music" or "The devil's music". We're strange that way.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Syaoran Li
To elaborate on a point about the North and West not being THAT wealthy, I calculated my own cost of living adjusted GDP once off some cost of living index I found online, but the numbers came out pretty differently than the official government figures (which I didn't know at the time existed).

Well, looking at it again I was talking out my ass. The Northeast actually does still manage notably better, although the big thing is that the mayonnaise goblins of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains do WAY better after adjusting for cost of living, like, Wyoming is top 3 material.

But I feel obligated to present my average state per capita incomes anyways:

BEFORE ADJUSTMENT
Northeast $63,300
West Coast $60,900
South $47,500

AFTER ADJUSTMENT
Northeast $60,100
West Coast $55,300
South $52,400

MULTIPLIERS
Northeast: 33% higher than South before adjustment, only 15% after
West: 28% higher than South before adjustment, only 6% after

See, the North goes from being rather significant to only a bit, and the West actually falls to near parity! So much for Californian riches. Admittedly, though, this was just an average of states, not weighted by population, and Hawaii is real fucky.

You're also not going to really find any Southern states beating Northeastern ones, but Tennessee and Louisiana beat Vermont (LOL) and a bunch of them beat Maine. Also, how about the West? Hawaii is a total shithole (third poorest state, ahead of New Mexico and Mississippi and just barely), Oregon is straight up poorer than Arkansas, Washington actually performs admirably because for some reason it has a lower cost of living than Oregon. California is less than 6% wealthier than the aforementioned Louisiana and Tennessee, not to even account for Texas that is closer.

If you start adjusting for things like inequality, the South is rather unequal, but so is the North and West, so the attractiveness of the great American interior gets even greater. So the South is poorer, yeah, but it's just exaggerated to an absurd degree compared to the reality.

I defined a Northeastern state as Maryland, Delaware, New England, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey
I defined West Coast as Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, California
I defined South as Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, West and East Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida

Now, take all that and add on the indignity of living in a fag state where if you buy a firearm online you ahve to select hte "California-compliant" or "Massachusetts-compliant" option. Yeah real great state there

Fuck Yankees
 
I will say this, anyone who would like to ascribe the KKK to the old South must understand that like modern Neo-Nazis they're just useful idiots for politicians and men with a silver dollar to their name. What I'm getting at is, rich man bad because they fuck with people too much.
The KKK is mythologized in a very unhelpful way. Firstly, it is basically defunct in the modern day, even within White supremacist circles it's just a joke since it consists of methhead crackers and Feds. Talking about it is like whining about the Weather Underground bombing things, it's several decades too late, but because there are SOME people who OCCASIONALLY march - and do nothing else - it is still kept in people's imaginations as a real thing.

But aside from that, the KKK came in different waves and the image most people have of it is a composite of all three, and the most important Klan, the second, is the one that's least talked about.

First Klan: Basically just a Southern nationalist terrorist organization, wanted to suppress Blacks and Republicans; a terrorist wing of the Democratic Party. It waged a terror campaign for the purpose of overturning Reconstruction, which got it violently suppressed, but was ultimately a success. Sort of like a Pyrrhic victory in reverse (they lost but still got what they wanted in the end).

Second Klan: Essentially an American fascist movement, being based around American nationalism with Jewry, Catholics, non-Whites, ethnic Whites, Communists, labor organizations, and other such. Basically, around the same time Fascism was becoming appealing to the world in general, the socially progressive Civil War generations were starting to fade away. Generations that didn't give a shit about grandpa fighting to free the slaves, but having to deal with mass migrations of Blacks and foreigners into their Northern cities, and distant enough from the war to romanticize it, started seeing Southerners as the same victims that Southerners saw themselves. Nobody was interested in continuing regional animus so they reapproached each other. This tied in heavily with the Progressives (who had both a socialistic and a fascistic side, the two were very muddled back then) like Woodrow Wilson. America never had a prominent fascist political party or a coherent fascist ideology, but the Klan's intense White nativist Protestant identity - an echo of the Know-Nothings, really - was as close as it came. Faded away when progressivism came back but in its more recognizable form under FDR.

THE SECOND KLAN WAS A NATIONAL PHENOMENON. IT WAS NOT SOUTHERN NATIONALIST THOUGH IT USED SOUTHERN IMAGERY. IT EXISTED EVERYWHERE FROM NEW ENGLAND TO THE WEST COAST, THE ROCKIES TO THE SOUTH.

I do regard Woodrow Wilson as being the closest thing America ever had to a Hitler. (I absolutely despise him.)

The Second Klan introduced all the pageantry we recognize as Klan crap now.

Third Klan: Basically just an anti-segregation terrorist organization formed by Southerners, inspired more by the First Klan, but it also had its remnants from the Second Klan as well as people pissed off in places like Wisconsin (Milwaukee) where working class ethnic Whites (like Poles) hated dealing with Blacks. Died a horrible death when the Feds went in and crushed it. Discredited itself by doing disgusting shit like bombing little kids in church.


Some basic Klan myths:
The Klan was just Southern.
One of the biggest states for Klan recruitment was Illinois. California had tons of Klan activity. It was a national phenomenon.

The Klan was just rural.
Major cities had large Klans and Klans tended to form in the cities first.

The Klan was uneducated poors.
The Klan was a tool of the business class against labor organization, like the coal miners in Appalachia. The leadership of the Klan tended to be the same as the civic leaders in public, businessmen, police chiefs, mayors. Respectable people ran the Klan. That's kind of how they were able to get away with stuff.


Bonus fun fact: The robes come out of Mardi Gras type celebrations, you see Spanish Catholic priests wear similar stuff. The cross burning comes from Scottish culture, carrying a burning cross from village to village was how a lord signaled to his people to prepare for war. It was like a symbolic declaration of war against the Blacks. This was some pageantry made up by The Clanmsan (Birth of a Nation), sort of astroturfed into being a real thing.



This is only barely related, but you know what people don't tend to talk about with Appalachia?

The time a huge fucking army 10,000 strong, Italian guido immigrants, Blacks, Appalachians, Hungarians, launched an insurrection, spurred on by Communists, against coal mining companies that were trying, unsuccessfully, to use race to turn them on each other. They were fucking bombed by biplanes. The coal miners lived in "company towns" where you were paid in Monopoly money only redeemable at stores (that could then act like a monopsonistic employer and monopolistic grocer, basically trapping you), forced to stay by debt with mine guards that would loom over them with machine guns, searches of houses for unapproved literature, evictions, spies in the mines, murders of union organizers. The National Guard was called out and their stupid, misguided patriotism lead the miners to stop. West Virginia was a dictatorship of the coal companies and across Appalachia people noted that miners did not give a shit about race. But who cares about jerking off the one time America had a little socialist proto-revolution, BIGGEST INTERNAL WAR SINCE THE CIVIL WAR, where White and Black Southerners fought alongside each other.

Battle of Blair Mountain
 
Last edited:
The KKK is mythologized in a very unhelpful way. Firstly, it is basically defunct in the modern day, even within White supremacist circles it's just a joke since it consists of methhead crackers and Feds. Talking about it is like whining about the Weather Underground bombing things, it's several decades too late, but because there are SOME people who OCCASIONALLY march - and do nothing else - it is still kept in people's imaginations as a real thing.

But aside from that, the KKK came in different waves and the image most people have of it is a composite of all three, and the most important Klan, the second, is the one that's least talked about.

First Klan: Basically just a Southern nationalist terrorist organization, wanted to suppress Blacks and Republicans; a terrorist wing of the Democratic Party. It waged a terror campaign for the purpose of overturning Reconstruction, which got it violently suppressed, but was ultimately a success. Sort of like a Pyrrhic victory in reverse (they lost but still got what they wanted in the end).

Second Klan: Essentially an American fascist movement, being based around American nationalism with Jewry, Catholics, non-Whites, ethnic Whites, Communists, labor organizations, and other such. Basically, around the same time Fascism was becoming appealing to the world in general, the socially progressive Civil War generations were starting to fade away. Generations that didn't give a shit about grandpa fighting to free the slaves, but having to deal with mass migrations of Blacks and foreigners into their Northern cities, and distant enough from the war to romanticize it, started seeing Southerners as the same victims that Southerners saw themselves. Nobody was interested in continuing regional animus so they reapproached each other. This tied in heavily with the Progressives (who had both a socialistic and a fascistic side, the two were very muddled back then) like Woodrow Wilson. America never had a prominent fascist political party or a coherent fascist ideology, but the Klan's intense White nativist Protestant identity - an echo of the Know-Nothings, really - was as close as it came. Faded away when progressivism came back but in its more recognizable form under FDR.

THE SECOND KLAN WAS A NATIONAL PHENOMENON. IT WAS NOT SOUTHERN NATIONALIST THOUGH IT USED SOUTHERN IMAGERY. IT EXISTED EVERYWHERE FROM NEW ENGLAND TO THE WEST COAST, THE ROCKIES TO THE SOUTH.

I do regard Woodrow Wilson as being the closest thing America ever had to a Hitler. (I absolutely despise him.)

The Second Klan introduced all the pageantry we recognize as Klan crap now.

Third Klan: Basically just an anti-segregation terrorist organization formed by Southerners, inspired more by the First Klan, but it also had its remnants from the Second Klan as well as people pissed off in places like Wisconsin (Milwaukee) where working class ethnic Whites (like Poles) hated dealing with Blacks. Died a horrible death when the Feds went in and crushed it. Discredited itself by doing disgusting shit like bombing little kids in church.


Some basic Klan myths:
The Klan was just Southern.
One of the biggest states for Klan recruitment was Illinois. California had tons of Klan activity. It was a national phenomenon.

The Klan was just rural.
Major cities had large Klans and Klans tended to form in the cities first.

The Klan was uneducated poors.
The Klan was a tool of the business class against labor organization, like the coal miners in Appalachia. The leadership of the Klan tended to be the same as the civic leaders in public, businessmen, police chiefs, mayors. Respectable people ran the Klan. That's kind of how they were able to get away with stuff.


Bonus fun fact: The robes come out of Mardi Gras type celebrations, you see Spanish Catholic priests wear similar stuff. The cross burning comes from Scottish culture, carrying a burning cross from village to village was how a lord signaled to his people to prepare for war. It was like a symbolic declaration of war against the Blacks. This was some pageantry made up by The Clanmsan (Birth of a Nation), sort of astroturfed into being a real thing.
I know a lot about the Klan because I wanted to make more racism jokes but the Second Klan ultimately failed due to the usual sexual harassment and retarded buffoonery you'd expect a bunch of retards to do.
 
I know a lot about the Klan because I wanted to make more racism jokes but the Second Klan ultimately failed due to the usual sexual harassment and retarded buffoonery you'd expect a bunch of retards to do.
What's the story there?

I'm in a kind of bad mood (was bickering with someone, a bit) so I'm kind of ranty tonight.
 
>>The time a huge fucking army 10,000 strong, Italian guido immigrants, Blacks, Appalachians, Hungarians, launched an insurrection, spurred on by Communists, against coal mining companies that were trying, unsuccessfully, to use race to turn them on each other. They were fucking bombed by biplanes. The coal miners lived in "company towns" where you were paid in Monopoly money only redeemable at stores (that could then act like a monopsonistic employer and monopolistic grocer, basically trapping you), forced to stay by debt with mine guards that would loom over them with machine guns, searches of houses for unapproved literature, evictions, spies in the mines, murders of union organizers. The National Guard was called out and their stupid, misguided patriotism lead the miners to stop. West Virginia was a dictatorship of the coal companies and across Appalachia people noted that miners did not give a shit about race. But who cares about jerking off the one time America had a little socialist proto-revolution, BIGGEST INTERNAL WAR SINCE THE CIVIL WAR, where White and Black Southerners fought alongside each other.

Battle of Blair Mountain

But nah, that's not part of our Heritage. The only thing distinctive about the South is how we related to Niggers and how making sure we couldn't keep them as slaves or second class citizens destroyed us. /sneed
 
I’ve always felt that the way the North treated the South post-Civil War was like how an invading nation treats a conquered one honestly. Thaddeus Russell (the host of the Unregistered podcast and author of A Renegade History of the United States) described it as the original Afghanistan, and I’m inclined to agree. As @Ughubughughughughughghlug said:
they [the South] quickly took power back [after Reconstruction], because normal Yankees got sick of occupying a country for nearly twenty years against reactionary ethnically sectarian terrorists (sound familiar?).

There’s a really good book by Colin Woodard called American Nations that describes how America is really 11 different individual confederations held together by a central government. Two of these nations are what he calls Yankeedom and the Deep South. The former was founded by Puritans who envisioned a collectivist religious utopia, and the latter by Anglo-American West Indies plantation owners who something more akin to an old Greco-Roman enlightened, civilized, idle slave society. Because these visions of society are so at odds with each other, the two nations have fought endlessly over the North American continent. For various reasons, Yankeedom has tended to dominate in the end, whether that conflict be the Civil War or the fight over civil rights in the 60s. This, of course, has led to a lot of resentment from white southerners who feel that their culture is being eroded.

And who can blame them? The North throughout its history has been a moralistic busybody that wishes to impose its vision of society on the rest of the continent. The South, meanwhile, has been mostly content to preserve what they already have. I personally think things would be better off today if the South was able to peacefully secede to form its own nation separate from the North and the Civil War didn’t happen. But that was always unlikely considering the North’s hatred for the South and its desire to bring “civilization” to the “backwards savages”.
 
Dixie is effectively an occupied nation. The culture and heritage of White Southerners is deliberately oppressed in every facet of American society. The media dehumanizes the White Southerner in movies and television frequently. They've deliberately made the Southern dialect out to be a sign of being uneducated while simultaneously making Ebonics out to be something of cultural importance. They depict "trailer trash" as horrible, backwards people who don't deserve any sympathy while simultaneously crying about the horrible plight of the poor black man - who is clearly a victim of systemic oppression. Furthermore, Christianity (the primary religion of White Southerners) is becoming increasingly bastardized as the media and government effectively demonize the faith. And all that's not to mention the deliberate demographic replacement of White Southerners, not just by non-Whites today, but also by carpetbaggers immediately following the Civil War.

I'd argue that the progressive, liberal, Marxist, etc. don't have any interest at all in "educating", "reforming", or "reconstructing" the South. They're interested in the cultural and ethnic genocide of the South. Consider that it is taboo for the Southern White man to fly any flag relating to Southern independence, to celebrate men like Robert E. Lee, to argue for his rights as a Southern White man, to so much as suggest that the Civil War narrative is flawed, or even to assert that his race is real. Now consider the situation of the freed blacks: It is NOT taboo for blacks to form explicitly racial organizations of any kind, it is NOT taboo to celebrate murderers like Nat Turner, it is NOT taboo for blacks to argue for their rights as blacks, it is NOT taboo to demonize the Southern White man, and it is most certainly NOT taboo to assert that the black race is real.

In fact, modern American society is essentially built upon the oppression of Southern Whites. The core of American social policy resides not in any document dating back to this country's founding, but rather in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which itself is the descendant of the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board decision, which stripped Southern schools of their freedom of association. The notion that the Civil Rights Act made anyone the equal of anyone else is ludicrous, because it simply did the opposite. Whereas the law previously applied to everyone equally, the Civil Rights Act effectively made minorities into a protected class and gave them the freedom to go where they simply weren't wanted. And what did the federal government do when White Southerners stood up for their right to decide who went to the schools that they built and they paid for? Same things as always, they used force.

View attachment 3332424

And to what end was this done? Black people are in an arguably worse position than before. They can now go and eat in White restaurants and ride in the front of the bus, sure. But has that fixed their communities? No, it didn't. Blacks are less safe than they were back then. All that unleashing them on the rest of us did was make us less safe, degrade our communities, cripple our schools, and destroy our cities. Are we supposed to believe that wasn't intentional? If the issue was that black schools were underfunded, why didn't the feds just give them funding? If the issue was that blacks weren't allowed in White businesses, why didn't the government do anything to help black businesses? If the problem was that blacks had terrible housing, why didn't the government try to improve their housing? Desegregation didn't solve any of these problems because it wasn't designed to. It, just like the emancipation of blacks in the Civil War, was no more than a strategy to disenfranchise the White Southern voter.

On a side note, the idea that segregation was unconstitutional is a total farce. The Founders never intended for blacks to be free, and Thomas Jefferson explicitly stated in his Notes on the State of Virginia that emancipation of blacks would require that they "be removed beyond the reach of mixture". So anyone who wants to argue along the lines of American ideals need not apply.
Southern elites have regularly dominated the US government since the 1910s. Oddly enough, it was they who often lead the charge on "southern colonization".

The south was integrated and allowed to keep much of the core of it's culture. Before 1861 it was dominated by an aristocracy and that has not changed.
 
Back