3 ms·

> They remember the dog bites because its cases where the government acted illegally and were taken to task. Uh, no. Society has whitewashed the history of the

> They remember the dog bites because its cases where the government acted illegally and were taken to task. Uh, no. Society has whitewashed the history of the Civil Rights Movement, but popular sentiment at the time was not with Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, the other freedom riders, etc. Civilians and the government sometimes acted illegally, sure, but some of those actions were absolutely legal. (Not to mention that the government often leaned on citizens to take illegal vigilante action so that "the government" wouldn't have to - the distinction was not always clear cut). And either way, it's hard to make the argument that they were "taken to task. Even after Brown v. Board, it took over a decade for many local governments (even in the North!) to be forced into compliance. And the actual individuals responsible for the illegal actions rarely faced any serious consequences. EDIT: Clarified the point of legality.

uncletaco 4y ago
The government acted legally. That was (and in a lot of cases still is) the problem. In fact most cities and local governments reserve the right to use hoses and dogs they just don't because it would be bad optics. As the saying goes "the more things change, the more they stay the same".
- chimeracoder 4y ago
  > The government acted legally. That was (and in a lot of cases still is) the problem. Sure - I understood "dog bites and hoses" here to be a synedoche for the general government and civilian response to the civil rights protests, some of which was legal and some of which was not. Obviously I don't know the specifics of your teachers' particular stories. It's easy to write off those atrocities with "that happened, but it was dealt with, and it's in the past now" - which, as you pointed out in the other comment, is a convenient lie. My main point was that these were not isolated incidents (as GP implied), and that - whether legal or not - those involved faced few consequences (if any) for their actions.
  - uncletaco 4y ago
    Understood and I agree. I always feel like it's important to stress that when those protests happened the government's response (by way of the police force) was considered well within it's right, in support of your main point. It's a quibble but an important quibble imo.

uncletaco 4y ago

The government acted legally. That was (and in a lot of cases still is) the problem. In fact most cities and local governments reserve the right to use hoses and dogs they just don't because it would be bad optics. As the saying goes "the more things change, the more they stay the same".

chimeracoder 4y ago
> The government acted legally. That was (and in a lot of cases still is) the problem. Sure - I understood "dog bites and hoses" here to be a synedoche for the general government and civilian response to the civil rights protests, some of which was legal and some of which was not. Obviously I don't know the specifics of your teachers' particular stories. It's easy to write off those atrocities with "that happened, but it was dealt with, and it's in the past now" - which, as you pointed out in the other comment, is a convenient lie. My main point was that these were not isolated incidents (as GP implied), and that - whether legal or not - those involved faced few consequences (if any) for their actions.
- uncletaco 4y ago
  Understood and I agree. I always feel like it's important to stress that when those protests happened the government's response (by way of the police force) was considered well within it's right, in support of your main point. It's a quibble but an important quibble imo.