3 ms·
>"minimizing an entire race of people" Not minimizing. Just acknowledging that this alone doesn't characterize the general take of the complete history of the
by trimethylpurine 9mo ago
>"minimizing an entire race of people"
Not minimizing. Just acknowledging that this alone doesn't characterize the general take of the complete history of the country. It describes a nation divided on moral lines at best. Not all states participated in segregation and those states that didn't ultimately are those who won in the end. So to take that win away degrades the victory that your parents (probably) helped to win.
- raw_anon_1111 9mo agoIf this was condoned by the US Supreme Court explicitly, this was the law of the United States that anyone anywhere could be discriminated against based on the color of their skin. The federal army - ie run by the US was officially segregated until 1948 but it really was through the late 50s. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/executive-order-9981 https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/executive-order... The GI bill run by the federal government was discriminatory https://heller.brandeis.edu/news/items/releases/2023/impact-report-gi-bill.html https://heller.brandeis.edu/news/items/releases/2023/impact-...
- trimethylpurine 9mo agoYou don't think that's childish? If you want to go by just one SCOTUS ruling to make your argument then why shouldn't we go with just one to make mine? And for that matter the number of rulings that make my argument are many many more than those that make yours. Now what?