3 ms·

> When blacks were prevented from voting or serving on a jury, no one considered their economic status. When housing covenants were created that expressly forba

> When blacks were prevented from voting or serving on a jury, no one considered their economic status. When housing covenants were created that expressly forbade selling to blacks, no carve outs were made for blacks of a certain income level. Wouldn't you consider those laws a mistake? Wouldn't you want the law to be blind to race, considering the potential evil you've outlined? I don't understand this reasoning. "Black people used to have their own set of laws, and that was bad, so now we are going to continue to write a set of laws that only apply to black people".

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
>...Black people used to have their own set of laws, and that was bad, so now we are going to continue to write a set of laws that only apply to black people If you're arguing that Jim Crow laws are equivalent to diversity officers in schools in effect, I'm not really sure what to tell you.
SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
My understanding is that people with resources tend to acquire more resources, which means people who were excluded are as a demographic already set behind with little opportunity to catch up. In order to correct the bias alternate channels need to be made. (That’s the logic anyways. I haven’t seen any evidence the result is as expected…)
acjohnson55 5y ago
The impact of generations of de jure racism didn't simply disappear when the laws were overturned. My parents were already in school when the schools were first forced to integrate. Some of their cousins lived under segregation in the South and did not have access to even secondary education, let alone higher ed. On top of that, there are laws that persisted beyond segregation and even to the present day that are highly discriminatory in their impact, even if they are not in their literal content.
unclebucknasty 5y ago
>Wouldn't you consider those laws a mistake? >I don't understand this reasoning...now we are going to continue to write a set of laws that only apply to black people Yes, it was a mistake, with grave intergenerational consequences. The idea behind new targeted laws is to make some effort to acknowledge and remedy the damage done. I think you may not fully appreciate the massive, compounded, multi-trillion dollar impacts of this legacy, in conjunction with the profound trauma of psychic and physical violence inflicted over generations. Because it's hard to imagine someone fully internalizing that, then effectively declaring, "can't we just say 'our bad', call it even, and move on?"

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago

>...Black people used to have their own set of laws, and that was bad, so now we are going to continue to write a set of laws that only apply to black people If you're arguing that Jim Crow laws are equivalent to diversity officers in schools in effect, I'm not really sure what to tell you.

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago

My understanding is that people with resources tend to acquire more resources, which means people who were excluded are as a demographic already set behind with little opportunity to catch up. In order to correct the bias alternate channels need to be made. (That’s the logic anyways. I haven’t seen any evidence the result is as expected…)

acjohnson55 5y ago

The impact of generations of de jure racism didn't simply disappear when the laws were overturned. My parents were already in school when the schools were first forced to integrate. Some of their cousins lived under segregation in the South and did not have access to even secondary education, let alone higher ed. On top of that, there are laws that persisted beyond segregation and even to the present day that are highly discriminatory in their impact, even if they are not in their literal content.

unclebucknasty 5y ago

>Wouldn't you consider those laws a mistake? >I don't understand this reasoning...now we are going to continue to write a set of laws that only apply to black people Yes, it was a mistake, with grave intergenerational consequences. The idea behind new targeted laws is to make some effort to acknowledge and remedy the damage done. I think you may not fully appreciate the massive, compounded, multi-trillion dollar impacts of this legacy, in conjunction with the profound trauma of psychic and physical violence inflicted over generations. Because it's hard to imagine someone fully internalizing that, then effectively declaring, "can't we just say 'our bad', call it even, and move on?"