3 ms·

They shoulnd't. But it's silly to pretend that context and history don't matter. This is a state where white people historically enslaved black people, where

They shoulnd't. But it's silly to pretend that context and history don't matter. This is a state where white people historically enslaved black people, where many of the white residents are descends of slave owners, and many of the black people are descendants of the enslaved. This is hours from where black 14-year old Emmett Till was tortured and murdered by a group of white people for the crime of (allegedly) whistling at a white woman. This is a state and county where the Klan was active and murdering civil rights workers in the 60s, and enforced Jim Crow Laws that made black people legally second class citizens until the voting rights act of 1965. This is a state where a Jim Crow Era voting restriction that disproportionately disenfranchised black voters was just struck down this year[1] by a very conservative supreme court. This is a state that celebrated the confederacy - an institution that existed for the purpose of enslaving black people - in its very state flag until 2020. I could of course go on, but you get the picture. Comments like yours ignore the reality and impact of this history and context. When a state where the white population has a history of around 200 years of first enslaving, and then attempting to subjugate the black population, it's worth pointing out (as the article does) that perhaps it's a little suspicious that they've now created a de facto whites only get-together. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/04/mississippis-jim-crow-era-voting-law-appeals-court https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/04/mississippis...

Chris2048 3y ago
> it's a little suspicious that they've now created a de facto whites only get-together except for the fact racially biased events exist in all states and nations unless you can say something specific about the fair, recounting state history isn't paying heed to context, it's pure speculation. I didn't "ignore history and context", I had add little to say about it that was relevant. in fact, racial history could lead to events being white biased, purely because they are white biased (ie races choose not to mix) without any other requirement.
avgcorrection 3y ago
> This is a state where white people historically enslaved black people, where many of the white residents are descends of slave owners, and many of the black people are descendants of the enslaved. What does “many” mean? I would think that the vast majority of black people in this state are descendant of slaves while a minority of whites are descendant of slave owners because the slave owners were the upper class. Or else: since you have 32 great-great-great grandparents[1] I guess it gets exponentially more likely to be “descended from” someone the further back you go, but that doesn't seem to tell us much. [1] I guess these might not be 32 distinct individuals though due to distant inbreeding
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Estimates of slave ownership at the household level range from about 20 to 30% of white Southerners. (You'll see much lower numbers that try to mislead by a) giving the percentage against the entire US, including free states and b) by only counting the head of a household as the official "owner", not their spouse/children). That qualifies as "many" in my book, and pushes slave ownership well into parts of the middle class. (Slave labor was sometimes rented out to non-owners, as well.)
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    Fair point. Thanks for informing me.

Chris2048 3y ago

> it's a little suspicious that they've now created a de facto whites only get-together except for the fact racially biased events exist in all states and nations unless you can say something specific about the fair, recounting state history isn't paying heed to context, it's pure speculation. I didn't "ignore history and context", I had add little to say about it that was relevant. in fact, racial history could lead to events being white biased, purely because they are white biased (ie races choose not to mix) without any other requirement.

avgcorrection 3y ago

> This is a state where white people historically enslaved black people, where many of the white residents are descends of slave owners, and many of the black people are descendants of the enslaved. What does “many” mean? I would think that the vast majority of black people in this state are descendant of slaves while a minority of whites are descendant of slave owners because the slave owners were the upper class. Or else: since you have 32 great-great-great grandparents[1] I guess it gets exponentially more likely to be “descended from” someone the further back you go, but that doesn't seem to tell us much. [1] I guess these might not be 32 distinct individuals though due to distant inbreeding

ceejayoz 3y ago
Estimates of slave ownership at the household level range from about 20 to 30% of white Southerners. (You'll see much lower numbers that try to mislead by a) giving the percentage against the entire US, including free states and b) by only counting the head of a household as the official "owner", not their spouse/children). That qualifies as "many" in my book, and pushes slave ownership well into parts of the middle class. (Slave labor was sometimes rented out to non-owners, as well.)
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  Fair point. Thanks for informing me.