What was the logic behind segregation?
469429
It's not logic...it's prejudice & ignorance.
687289
The U.S. Military was one of the first workplaces to treat African Americans with respect and become fully integrated.\n\nThe reason is simple. In the military your desire is to be surrounded by the best, period. Descrimination in the military against better qualified minorities just gets troop killed.\n\nWhen life or death decisions are being made, a meritocracy is the only way to go.
55733
Even though the decision was THE landmark Supreme Court decision involving discrimination and civil rights, the realities of Brown v. Board of Ed. were miles away from the theoretical rights the decision granted.\n\nIt was particularly bad in the south.  Little Rock, University of Alabama, Mississippi State are just the three school discrimination stand-offs that come to mind first.  All three were violent, frightening, and involved elected leaders as high as governor actively--and literally--standing in the way of black students attending white schools and universities.  The humiliation and harm they endured is beyond my imagination.\n\nIt wasn't much better in the North.  While not openly hostile to blacks in white schools, there was enough of an ugly undercurrent that it finally surfaced once forced busing to achieve racial integration began.  Boston, Cleveland, and San Francisco among many northern cities experienced often violent protests of the practice, shattering the illusion that it was only the south that believed in "separate but equal".
151409
Mendel's First Law (Segregation) states that during gamete formation, each member of an allelic pair (the two 'copies' of a gene) separates from the other member and forms the "genetic supply" of the gamete. That is to say, as each allele is on one of a pair of homologous chromosomes, they will separate from each other during meiosis. \nThis may appear as very basic, but the realization that there were _pairs_ of "factors" (the term 'allele' did not exist in Mendel's time) that separated and then could combine was important because until then, it was thought that inheritance meant some kind of "blend" between elements from both parents. It was very difficult to figure out how, for instance, a flower color that skipped a generation and then appeared again could remain as a discrete element (the reasoning was: if I mix red and white plants, I'll get plants with rose color. Mixing rose with red or white should yield lighter or darker color, but not the originals).\n\nThe Second Law (Independent Assortment) can only be understood when studying _more than one_ allelic pair. The simplest case is the dihybrid cross, in which you analyze the outcome of a cross with respect to 2 different allele pairs. What Mendel found is that the segregation of the alleles of one allelic pair is independent of the segregation of the alleles of another allelic pair. That is to say, if one pair codes for flower color and the other for seed size, in the 2nd generation you will get all the possible combinations of these allele pairs. Remember we're talking of genotypes and _not_ phenotypes (that is, all the alleles will be present, but some will not be 'visible'). \nThe 2nd law works perfectly when the pairs of alleles in question are situated on different chromosomes. If the two pairs are on the same chromosome, there are more possibilities of certain combinations to occur; this is called genetic linkage.
550365
Logic is A=B, B=C, therefore A=C. (sees the steps in a process, understands cause and effect, etc)\n\nCritical thinking says.... "okay, that is true, but why? and what can I do with that knowledge? and how will affect/effect me now and in the future?"
714274
The answer is:  indivisibility.
633894
Pretend this passage is part of a story you're reading. Read this passage, then I've got a question for you to answer.\n\n     It was a hot, sunny afternoon in the inner city. The three bald youths, wearing T-shirts and baggy pants, walked down the cracked sidewalk, their bling dangling around their shoulders. One carried a boombox playing Snoop Dogg loudly. One wore a baseball cap, its bill turned to the side. Another wore sunglasses.\n\n     All right. Now my question is: What ethnicity were these three youths? Answer, then continue reading.\n\n     My point is that you very probably thought of these youths as African-American, even though the description of them never actually said so. Why can't they be whites, or Latino? You see, stereotyping is programmed into our behavior patterns, it's hardwired into our thought processes. It's part of what makes us human. It's a survivial mechanism--we tend to organize others into groups that we want to try to stay away from, and groups that we want to try to join, because these groups could either harm us or hurt us. Such concerns are beyond "good" and "bad", it's just the way we are.
1140001
If they are under a package then they can restrict based on the package regardless of the race makeup.  It would only be illegal if they restricted the housing based on race and in this case that does not appear to be the case.  All members of the group are restricted therefore since it is applied across the board it would be hard/impossible to prove it was done on the basis of race and not the "package".  \n\nOnce must remember that in order for it to be racist the decison must have been made based on race.  While obviously there is a number of the same race under the package deal as long as it is applied to all who are part of the package then it is obviously not based on race.\n\nTo the two poster above, you are correct racist is illegal, BUT in this case the poster has described the discrimination is based on the package deal selected, NOT race.
213617
In 1890, the State of Louisiana had passed a law that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars. Concerned, several black and white citizens in New Orleans formed an association dedicated to the repeal of that law. They persuaded Homer Plessy, who was one-eighth black (an octoroon), to test it. In 1892, Plessy purchased a first-class ticket on the East Louisiana Railway from New Orleans. Once he had boarded the train, Plessy informed the train conductor of his actual racial lineage, and after Plessy had taken a seat in the whites section he was asked to vacate it and sit instead in the "blacks only" section. Plessy refused and was immediately arrested.\n\nEventually the case made its path to the U.S. Supreme Court. Plessy built his case on from abridging the "privileges and immunities" of United States citizens, or denying those citizens due process or the equal protection of the law. Albion Tourgée, a lawyer representing Plessy, argued that the Louisiana railroad segregation law implied the inferiority of African-Americans.
978661
Have fun:\nhttp://www.math.nyu.edu/~griffith/teaching/06numanalysis/labs/bisection/
524932
A few reasons:\n\n1.  1896 the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that segregation was legal so long as the facilities were "equal."\n\n2.  Lynchings were becoming more and more common at an alarming rate during this time period (until Ida B. Wells began her crusade to end lynchings.)\n\n3.  Jim Crow laws were being passed throughout the South in which all facilities were segregated for blacks and whites (schools, churches, mortuaries, cemetaries, swimming pools, entrances, movie theaters, etc...)\n\n4.  The second rise of the Ku Klux Klan began in 1915 and the Klan grew to 4 million members by the mid-1920s.\n\n5.  W.E.B. DuBois organized the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1906, thus giving a voice to address the wrongs leveled against African-Americans at this time\n\n\nThese are some valid reasons for focusing on racism during these years.
576981
Segregation in schools began to be ended in 1955 with the Brown v. Board of Education decision. However, there were several other court decisions that followed in the next two decades to enforce the Brown decision. In some places segregation did not end until the 1970's.
992227
De jure means by law or rule\nDe facto means by fact.\n\nDe facto segregation means that blacks still live in predominately black neighborhoods, that blacks and whites tend to go to different churches and join different clubs.  That even though it's no longer the law (de jure) that blacks and whites must be socially separated, they still are mostly socially segregated.  This is more true in some cities than others.  Probably more true in the south.  For example here in oklahoma city the bars that cater to whites have very few blacks.  the bars that cater to blacks have very few whites.  many white people don't realize there's another 'black' world that they don't visit.  Blacks are the minority and they are mostly aware that the world is predominately white.
590884
Because in the west the borders were decided when no one lived there, so they just drew straight lines, because they didn't care what the geography was. Same with the cities. In the west the cities were planned out, on maps, so the city blocks were drawn straight. In the east, the states' boundaries were decided after people moved there, and were drawn on the maps after they were physically explore. The cities were established before they had urban planning, so the streets are as they built them instead of planned.
366040
i believe that was the best decision ever made.  i think that if schools hadn't of been integrated then there would still be a lot of prejudice in america. now there is less hate among people and more understanding and people have realized that they or their ancestors were wrong about how they thought.
642709
well Nazi's and the Nat's (the apartheid government of the time) were both interested in seperating the citizens according to race/culture. Both used violent methods to do so. Both had an ideology of seperating the races in order to "protect" a certain race. Oh and neither worked in the end.
429215
Logic helps eliminate false conclusions.