Little Greta comes clean

[seer]

Nothing happened to my "common courtesy dictates that we exercise polite discretion", it is an essential component of a civil society.



The Jim Crow laws were widely supported (including by Christians) particularly in the southern states. The discrimination and segregation that had been institutionalized by them were (officially at least) only brought to an end a mere 50 years ago when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. But simplicio is correct in that they have survived to this day in many forms by many people despite the Civil Rights Act.

And Jim Crow laws were widely rejected and fought against by many Christians. So again your broad brushing only confirms that you exercise no common courtesy when it comes to Christians.

[simplicio]

By definition, if a policy has no racist goals, it is not a racist policy. Racism is about motivation or belief.







That is, by definition, impossible. Policies can be discriminatory in effect, or can affect different groups differently, etc.

We have words that accurately describe this situation, using 'racist' and 'racism' muddies the waters by attributing motive and belief to an action or policy where there is none. That's poor thinking and I believe contributes to a perception of racism where it may not exist.







And so racism as a problem in American society persists. Policies that are not racist are perceived as racist because we use language incorrectly and poorly. People who are not being discriminated against because of their race think that they are, because they have been taught that all discrimination, and all differences, are racially motivated.


None of the above is denying that there is real racism - but if we call everything 'unfair' or 'uneven' "racism" then racism will never, and can never, end.

Two examples: Redlining and segregated hospitals. I believe that those polices were mostly implemented by men who did see the inherent racism in those policies, and often did not have any racist intent.

Added in edit: Was the Plessy decision really racist? Many have argued that it was not. And one example is they way Christians worship, very much separate and equal.

[seanD]

And Jim Crow laws were widely rejected and fought against by many Christians. So again your broad brushing only confirms that you exercise no common courtesy when it comes to Christians.

The true irony in Tass's incessant anti-religious bigoted blustering is that the progressive left is trying to bring back segregation. You just can't make this stuff up.

[seer]

The true irony in Tass's incessant anti-religious bigoted blustering is that the progressive left is trying to bring back segregation. You just can't make this stuff up.

It is amazing isn't it. College Campuses are some of the most segregated places in the US. Where the military is one of the most integrated institutions...

[One Bad Pig]

It is amazing isn't it. College Campuses are some of the most segregated places in the US. Where the military is one of the most integrated institutions...

It was a progressive former college president who resegregated the military.

[seer]

It was a progressive former college president who resegregated the military.

Wilson?

[rogue06]

It was a progressive former college president who resegregated the military.

Pretty much the entire federal government.

[Tassman]

And Jim Crow laws were widely rejected and fought against by many Christians.

Incorrect. The Jim Crow laws were widely enforced by Christians, given that according to Gallup 95% of Americans identified as Christian up to the 1950's.

So again your broad brushing only confirms that you exercise no common courtesy when it comes to Christians.

One exercises “common courtesy” when it comes to tolerating the delusional beliefs of others. But, it’s a statement of fact that “many states—particularly in the South—used poll taxes, literacy tests and other measures to keep their African-American citizens essentially disenfranchised. They also enforced strict segregation through “Jim Crow” laws and condoned violence from white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan”.

https://www.history.com/topics/black...vil-rights-act

[simplicio]

It was a progressive former college president who resegregated the military.

Wilson continued an already existing trend within the army. The army relegated colored troops to the frontier, a hardship tour of duty. With the "closing" of the frontier in 1890, what little avenues of advancement for colored troops closed.

The experience of the Spanish American War showed the black troops made good soldiers. But the black troops faced sever troubles, such as murder when on American soil.

Even officers who were familiar with black troops succumbed to the prevailing view, such as Teddy Roosevelt and Gen Blackjack Pershing. The 369th, a colored unit, fought with distinction in WWI, but under French leadership.

The military was not integrated before Wilson. The same views current in society affected the outlook of leaders.

Being a progressive did not insulate Wilson from odious views. Neither did his Christianity, nor his southern heritage.

[rogue06]

Incorrect. The Jim Crow laws were widely enforced by Christians...

And let's never forget that they were loyal, rock-ribbed Democrats. Just like the KKK was founded and run by Democrats.

[seer]

Incorrect. The Jim Crow laws were widely enforced by Christians, given that according to Gallup 95% of Americans identified as Christian up to the 1950's.

You mean Catholics and northern Protestants supported Jim Crow laws?

One exercises “common courtesy” when it comes to tolerating the delusional beliefs of others. But, it’s a statement of fact that “many states—particularly in the South—used poll taxes, literacy tests and other measures to keep their African-American citizens essentially disenfranchised. They also enforced strict segregation through “Jim Crow” laws and condoned violence from white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan”.

https://www.history.com/topics/black...vil-rights-act

What is your point? That is not all Christians, you are simply broad brushing again. And that is the point, you are bias and hypocritical Tass... Common courtesy would include honesty on your part...

[Tassman]

What is your point? That is not all Christians, you are simply broad brushing again. And that is the point, you are bias and hypocritical Tass... Common courtesy would include honesty on your part...

The point is that one accepts the beliefs, delusions and idiosyncrasies of others, one does NOT discriminate against them as you are doing re LGBT people - and as historically a great many American Christians regarding blacks did.

[Tassman]

And let's never forget that they were loyal, rock-ribbed Democrats. Just like the KKK was founded and run by Democrats.

...and Christians, which comprised 95% of Americans in that era.

[simplicio]

And let's never forget that they were loyal, rock-ribbed Democrats. Just like the KKK was founded and run by Democrats.

Democrat and Christian. Let's never forget that they were Christian.

Were they racist because they were Democrat, or Democrat because they were racist?

Were they Christian because they were racist, or racist because they were Christian?

We ought to examine some alternatives: Were Republicans racist? Were non Christians racist? Did the Kkk influence Republican politics? Did Dems oppose the klan? (Tammany Hall and big city machine politics)

[simplicio]

You mean Catholics and northern Protestants supported Jim Crow laws?




What is your point? That is not all Christians, you are simply broad brushing again. And that is the point, you are bias and hypocritical Tass... Common courtesy would include honesty on your part...

Do you really not know that segregation was accepted in the north? There were relatively few of the actual statutes enforcing segregation. But segregation was institutionalized, forming the structure or fabric of society. Banking policies, hospital administration, employment practices, educational practices, all served to achieve the effective segregation of the races.