How risky was it to openly advocate in favor of desegregation in the Jim Crow South?

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,271
Caribbean
I suspect open advocacy of (fill in the blank) is not entirely safe in the US today. So, when one asks "how risky," like anything else, I always wonder - compared to what?
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,337
How dangerous was it for whites to advocate against segregation on pretext that segregation was an expensive nuisance?
There weren't many people openly against segregation. It is sort of like there aren't many people openly in favor of a return to segregation now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Apr 2018
710
India
There weren't many people openly against segregation. It is sort of like there aren't many people openly in favor of a return to segregation now.
This is a guess, but was segregation, as a populist rhetoric, actually more of an electoral issue kept alive by democrats? I mean, was it more a political aggravation than an actual concern among people (whites)?
Because it was really the 60s and the south was never really that privileged to place such superficial things before more pressing concerns like development and all. I mean before WW2 it was one thing but in 60s its hard to believe that the prime concern of majority whites (morons aside, and their numbers always seem huge even they are never) was to keep blacks at an arm's length above all. Sounds extremely stupid.

Or was the popular sentiment actually like rural Afghanistan during the Soviet War - 'We'll live off dirt but won't let go of Islam.' Only in this case it was something far worse.

And to what extent did the Southern Baptists aggravate the situation?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,787
SoCal
FUTURIST, I am a 75 Y,O, Male
Thanks for clarifying! :)

It looks like the "73" in your username is from two years ago back when you were 73 years old. :)

I suspect open advocacy of (fill in the blank) is not entirely safe in the US today. So, when one asks "how risky," like anything else, I always wonder - compared to what?
Advocating in favor of an unpopular cause such as incest today isn't actually going to result in physical violence against you, though. Of course, if you will actually engage in incest, then you'll get arrested, but ordinary people probably still won't engage in physical violence against you.

This is a guess, but was segregation, as a populist rhetoric, actually more of an electoral issue kept alive by democrats? I mean, was it more a political aggravation than an actual concern among people (whites)?
Because it was really the 60s and the south was never really that privileged to place such superficial things before more pressing concerns like development and all. I mean before WW2 it was one thing but in 60s its hard to believe that the prime concern of majority whites (morons aside, and their numbers always seem huge even they are never) was to keep blacks at an arm's length above all. Sounds extremely stupid.

Or was the popular sentiment actually like rural Afghanistan during the Soviet War - 'We'll live off dirt but won't let go of Islam.' Only in this case it was something far worse.

And to what extent did the Southern Baptists aggravate the situation?
I don't know about your last question here, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Southerners feared that integrating schools is going to lower their quality and that integrating neighborhoods is likewise going to result in lower-quality, poorer, and more crime-filled neighborhoods. I know that forced busing (in order to achieve school integration) was extremely unpopular in both the North and the South even as late as the 1970s. Heck, even Joe Biden was a vehement opponent of forced busing back then!
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,337
Southern white schools were bad, but black schools were much worse. There were reasons to oppose integrated schools.

Segregation enhanced the status of poor whites, and they were its strongest supporters.

White supremacy was implicit under slavery, but was challenged during Reconstruction. Many whites were not happy about black political power and the changes in relations between the races.

The system did prevent the level of intermarriage etc. that occurred in other areas, such as Brazil. Many whites were afraid most people would become part black without the repressions.

So there were certainly rational reasons why many southerners opposed integration etc., even though they are now discredited.
 
Mar 2015
865
Europe
Segregation enhanced the status of poor whites, and they were its strongest supporters.

The system did prevent the level of intermarriage etc. that occurred in other areas, such as Brazil. Many whites were afraid most people would become part black without the repressions.

So there were certainly rational reasons why many southerners opposed integration etc., even though they are now discredited.
But what did the poor whites do who did not precisely wish every black man to be equal to them - but who DID wish to marry coloured women and have their children acknowledged as equals?
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,337
But what did the poor whites do who did not precisely wish every black man to be equal to them - but who DID wish to marry coloured women and have their children acknowledged as equals?
Most whites did not want to marry blacks. It was illegal, not socially acceptable, and not something many people would think of doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,271
Caribbean
Advocating in favor of an unpopular cause such as incest today isn't actually going to result in physical violence against you, though. Of course, if you will actually engage in incest, then you'll get arrested, but ordinary people probably still won't engage in physical violence against you.
That is as naive as it is wrong.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist