Civil Right Movement Discussion.

[Silvia-Tom]

In my US History class our semester topic is the African-American Civil Rights Movement and today we had a hour discussion about if it was racist to be neutral about the movement in that time.I believe that if you have a neutral opinion about the movement it does not make you racist in any way.Being against it would mean you are against equal rights between races, which would be racist, but how does a neutral opinion make you racist?

Well anyways, we had to vote if we thought it was racist or not and I was the only one in my class thinking that it was not. Awkward moment - I can tell you that.

All this being said I want to add that I'm not 1% racist, I have many friends from all over the world/ethnic groups since I've travelled a lot. Most of my life I've not been in my home country so usually I'm the minority.

I wanted some input on this topic, just so I know if I'm totally off on this topic or not.

[ashibah83]

EVERYONE, yes EVERYONE, regardless of race, ethnic background, or religion is racist to a certain degree...... i live in the south so i see it A LOT, and not just black v white(it goes both ways), its just ignorant for people to think that not having an opinion, which is basically neutral, as being racist, stereotypes are racist, its almost inexcapable........

[Alfador]

For someone feeling strongly enough about a cause, apathy is seen as opposition. They tend to take a "with us or against us" attitude.

Example: I don't give a s*** about Same sex marriage. I really don't. It in no way affects me. Here in the people's republic of Massachusetts, where freedom of one's opinions and thoughts is apparently forbidden, I have been vilified by supporters of same sex marriage for not supporting their cause. Go figure.

That's not to say there isn't a somewhat legitimate rationale to that reasoning. I can easily see someone looking back on many of the things that happened during and before the civil rights movement, and thinking to themselves that someone would have to be a soulless bastard to not be offended by those things.

Besides, WTF kind of bulls*** topic is that for a history class. What happened is history. How you feel about it and whether your feelings make you racist or not seems a lot more like sociology or some other BS social science to me.

[troskinatior]

They probably thought being neutral was being racist because it was wrong how the blacks and the whites were segregated and if you don't care that it was happening then you wouldn't want it to change, which means your racist... does that make any sense.

Example: In WW2 the allies asked the Swiss to help them fight the axis, then declined because they were neutral, so the allies thought they were traders because they didn't care who won or lost (not sure if that really happened, I made it up)

But anyway I agree with you. I get called racist because of stuff like that all the time.

[Alfador]

I think the Swiss WWII connection is a little different. It was less about standing up for something and more about sovereignty and security. Most of the atrocities done by the Nazis weren't widely known until the closing days of the war. The motivation to strike back was mostly a threat of being the next target.

Switzerland is difficult enough to attack that they figured (correctly) that as long as they didn't give anyone a reason to fear or hate them, risk-reward balance wasn't sufficiently low enough to warrant an attack on them by anyone.

With civil rights it was really more of an issue of "this is wrong, it's horrible and offensive, and thus needs to be fixed."

I think Civil rights is unique apart from war, gay rights, and other similar things in that the issue was so violent, so oppressive, and so identifiable. Maintaining complete apathy to what happened then isn't necessarily racist, but it pretty much means you're either ok with that, or you're ok with massive amounts of targeted violence regardless of the grouping. Not sure that's too appealing either.

[Jesda]

I'm against heavy federal legislation that came as a result of the movement.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Switzerland is difficult enough to attack that they figured (correctly) that as long as they didn't give anyone a reason to fear or hate them, risk-reward balance wasn't sufficiently low enough to warrant an attack on them by anyone.

Side note: The Swiss shot down pretty much any plane that crossed their border during WW2.

Example: In WW2 the allies asked the Swiss to help them fight the axis, then declined because they were neutral, so the allies thought they were traders because they didn't care who won or lost (not sure if that really happened, I made it up)

Traitors