06-26-2018, 02:23 PM
(06-26-2018, 01:42 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Good God Jim Crow? Really? The overreaction on these boards never ceases to amaze me. It's neutral just like jim Crow laws so they have to be the same thing. Like a lot of things from this admin, it's a knee jerk poorly thought out plan, but can we please just stick to the criticism of they are clueless a lot of the time. I think that's sufficient insult.
It was a response to someone saying that if laws/policies were written in a neutral manner then they should stand, even if they were written with discriminatory intent. Many Jim Crow laws fall into that category. It is an apt comparison.
(06-26-2018, 01:46 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Wait, what? What's neutral about saying "no white person shall [insert action here] with negro person"?
Poll taxes, literacy tests, felon disenfranchisement, red lining, etc., etc. All of these laws were racially neutral but were targeted against black people during the Jim Crow era.
(06-26-2018, 01:46 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So, it was the courts that won the civil rights movement? I'd like to think that eventually we as a country would have inevitably come around and recognized that denying equal rights based on skin color is wrong.
The courts played a large role. Had the courts not ruled the way they did then we would never have seen the CRA, VRA, or FHA, all of which were also tested in the courts and upheld. As to inevitably coming around to that, that's great to think that. But seeing as we still aren't there I doubt that.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
