Do you think, if segregation in the U.S. hadn’t ended via (somewhat) non-violent means (peaceful protests, non-violent social rebellion, etc.), that it would be morally justified to end it via a violent revolution?
The question here can’t be answered as one could answer the question “is the sky blue?” Answering this question requires one to assume some moral system and then see whether underneath that system it’s justified or not. There are systems of moralities in the world that people adhere to in which it would be justifiable to act violently to correct some perceived immorality and there also exist systems of moralities which people adhere but that don’t have it be possible to be justified to use violence to correct a perceived immoral activity.
I agree. I’m trying to find out if people think the benefits outweigh the bloodshed, if a bloodshed would have occurred. Is there a line where the bloodshed would be too costly to justify fighting for the end of segregation? Are there circumstances when it’s better to let a system exist unjustly at the cost of saving human lives?
Nah! 
Non-violence only works within a society that is at least somewhat sympathetic and civilized. Would non-violence have worked against the NAZIs? Of course not. As a matter of fact it didn’t. Would violence have been justified to end slavery, sure, non-violence wouldn’t have worked then either. If segregation had been truly separate but equal, it would be hard to justify violence, but I don’t see how such a system could truly be equal and it certainly wasn’t in this case.
our laws still demand (or produce) segregation, they’re just less explicit and direct about it
the affluent (whites) have since used their socioeconomic status to segregate themselves and keep the “other” out
a detailed map illustrating property and home values in relation to racial demographics shines a bright light on this stark and pervasive phenomenon
a white man and a black man with the same education and job title are not equal, for example, in terms of where they’re welcome to buy a home
but we like to pretend otherwise, it helps quell the social conscience. we (often implicitly) assume “well, them blacks must be genetically inferior to us whites and asians”
or the classic: “black people are just lazy”
society reflects its people… it’d rather blame its victims than look for underlying reasons
My feeling this week is that violence is justified in proportion to which one’s freedom is encumbered;
“a FREE-MAN is he, that in those things, which by his strength and wit he is able to do, is not hindered to doe what he has a will to do.”
-Thomas Hobbes, 1651
Leviathan
The affluent darkies do the same.
Broadly speaking, I agree with you.
If blood has to be shed, then it has be the blood of that part of the group that enforces segregation. That goes without saying, and I’m just thinking out loud here. Although, with that in mind, then I think my answer to you is that it depends on the percentage of people who want to desegregate, in relation to the percentage of the population who enforce segregation. If the sentiment to desegregate is a fraction of the population who’s sentiment is to keep segregation, then the amount of blood shed needed to end segregation, if shedding blood is the only way by which to change the sentiment of the segregationists, is too much. In that scenario, the policy of segregation is, I think, obviously the best policy.
To achieve peace you must prepare for war…
Aside from the fact that segregation in the u.s is more existent then ever, sometimes violence is needed to end violence, though sometimes it only begets more violence…
Justification is only needed by the victors…
I think you bring up a good point. I guess the other consideration would be how much suffering is caused by the segregation. If a large number of people are absolutely miserable and tortured, then even if it’s only a small percentage of people who believe segregation should end, it would be worth a bloody revolution. Especially if, on a long timeline, large numbers of people will continue to be maltreated.