Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as ap... - 10/8/2013 3:31:34 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

And lets remember what kicked this off, Bamas comments about Citizens and subjects.

Instead, how about you not hijacking this thread by starting the same shit over here.

K.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as ap... - 10/8/2013 5:02:03 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

so there was no de facto segregation in the north?

Jim Crowe was nation wide. The case that ended segregation was Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.

Actually you all here are only partly right. In the north there were no Jim Crow laws, blacks were hired even if for menial jobs while in the south, blacks were not hired at all. In my entire life in the north, I never saw a single sign or any policy of whites only except in want ads and for most employment but not all. Some blacks in the US even in the south under Jim Crow...did manage to vote. In S.A no black voted at all, ever for any office...period.

BTW, Brown v Bd. of Ed. only desegregated and ended the inequality of schools. It was the federal Civil Rights act that ended Jim Crow.

Apartheid in S. Africa was much worse as minorities which were almost all black and nationwide were barely citizens, were basically labor slaves, (and in many cases still are in business) while people lived in the dirt and couldn't own property. I know people that got out of S. Africa and said they thought it was worse than slavery. They were on their own completely while the slave owner did at least try to maintain his 'property.'

Crimes were constantly committed against blacks in S.A. while even some were committed against blacks in the US, few were prosecuted. In S. Africa the crimes against blacks...weren't crimes at all. The police and powerful whites, literally and constantly got away with anything including murder.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as ap... - 10/8/2013 5:07:06 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

In the long run there were greater problems in the north than in the south, this on the word of MLK

That's an interesting point. Can you expand on it a bit? What did MLK actually say?

There's also the question of the Great Migration. If the North was worse, why did millions of southern black flock there?

MLK constantly commented on just the opposite. He was amazed at how often in the north he was treated warmly as a young man. He was amazed at how easily he was accepted in the northern churches.

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as ap... - 10/8/2013 5:16:05 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

They were on their own completely while the slave owner did at least try to maintain his 'property.'

The LaLauries, in the style of their social class at the time, maintained several black slaves in slave quarters attached to the Royal Street mansion... public rumors about LaLaurie's mistreatment of her slaves were sufficiently widespread that a local lawyer was dispatched to Royal Street to remind LaLaurie of the laws relevant to the upkeep of slaves...
 
On April 10, 1834, a fire broke out in the LaLaurie residence on Royal Street, starting in the kitchen. When the police and fire marshals got there, they found a seventy-year-old woman, the cook, chained to the stove by her ankle. She later confessed to them that she had set the fire as a suicide attempt for fear of her punishment, being taken to the uppermost room, because she said that anyone who had been taken there never came back...
 
One of those who entered the premises was Judge Jean-Francois Canonge, who subsequently deposed to having found in the LaLaurie mansion, among others, a "negress ... wearing an iron collar" and "an old negro woman who had received a very deep wound on her head [who was] too weak to be able to walk"...
 
When the discovery of the tortured slaves became widely known, a mob of local citizens attacked the LaLaurie residence and "demolished and destroyed everything upon which they could lay their hands". A sheriff and his officers were called upon to disperse the crowd, but by the time the mob left, the Royal Street property had sustained major damage, with "scarcely any thing [remaining] but the walls".

Excerpted from Delphine LaLaurie

K.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as ap... - 10/8/2013 5:17:11 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

so there was no de facto segregation in the north?

Sorry, my post was directed at Bama....

In the long run there were greater problems in the north than in the south, this on the word of MLK

Actually having been raised in Detroit, there was a segregation but more so on economics. That's what created the so-called 'projects' in the north. There were large apt. complexes that were poor blacks only and also what totally ruined Harlem in NY for example. In the 20's though, Harlem was the place to be for entertainment. Harlem was almost a vertically integrated black enclave of life.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as ap... - 10/8/2013 6:01:26 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Two sets of laws doing the same thing.......keeping blacks and whites apart. It isnt hard to follow is it.

That both apartheid and segregation involve separation is undeniable, but that by no means makes them the same thing. With apartheid, the victim races or ethnic groups are removed, forcibly if necessary, to territories outside the area being racially or ethnically "cleansed".

Apartheid involves enforced territorial separation. Segregation, on the other hand, seeks to keep separate by means of segregated facilities races or ethnic groups sharing the same territory.

If you think that's a trivial quibble, we'll have to disagree for several million reasons. If Nazi policies had sought segregation instead of territorial cleansing, or if the nations of the world had opened their territories to the targeted groups, those reasons would be alive today.

K.

We're not talking segregation but Jim Crowe which was a system that also involved separation. Look up redlining.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as ap... - 10/8/2013 6:19:37 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

so there was no de facto segregation in the north?

Jim Crowe was nation wide. The case that ended segregation was Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.

Actually you all here are only partly right. In the north there were no Jim Crow laws, blacks were hired even if for menial jobs while in the south, blacks were not hired at all. In my entire life in the north, I never saw a single sign or any policy of whites only except in want ads and for most employment but not all. Some blacks in the US even in the south under Jim Crow...did manage to vote. In S.A no black voted at all, ever for any office...period.

BTW, Brown v Bd. of Ed. only desegregated and ended the inequality of schools. It was the federal Civil Rights act that ended Jim Crow.

Apartheid in S. Africa was much worse as minorities which were almost all black and nationwide were barely citizens, were basically labor slaves, (and in many cases still are in business) while people lived in the dirt and couldn't own property. I know people that got out of S. Africa and said they thought it was worse than slavery. They were on their own completely while the slave owner did at least try to maintain his 'property.'

Crimes were constantly committed against blacks in S.A. while even some were committed against blacks in the US, few were prosecuted. In S. Africa the crimes against blacks...weren't crimes at all. The police and powerful whites, literally and constantly got away with anything including murder.


Blacks were definitely hired in the South. Rosa Parks was riding that bus to get home from her job. Black men worked many menial jobs or share cropped which was little more than farming someone else's land for room and board. Middle class and wealthier whites often hired black women as domestics.

As to crimes against blacks by whites under Jim Crowe, in many places in the South those were not treated as crimes either. Lynchings of blacks was so common that the NAACP in New York had this flag made and flew it frequently outside their office.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as ap... - 10/8/2013 8:13:08 AM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

In a major outbreak of moral equivalence the two have been declared as the same thing, what do you think?


If you're talking about moral equivalence, then they were probably were on the same level, although there were some technical differences. I think Apartheid was probably more analogous to the U.S. reservation system - something designed to maintain the illusion that indigenous peoples were autonomous and had some degree of self-rule.

I think South Africa tried to set up puppet states within their territory as "independent" black-ruled nations, but I don't think they were ever recognized by the international community since they were sham governments. The U.S. didn't go quite that far, although they have tried to make it seem as if the indigenous nations had some degree of self-rule, with tribal governments, tribal police, schools, social services, etc. That system still exists today, although I think it's gotten better in recent decades, not like it used to be.

Jim Crow was different in that nearly every town and county in the Deep South had both black and white populations, whereas the Indians had been resettled to other remote areas. With Jim Crow, I think the general goal was to maintain the same kind of culture and economy in the Postbellum South that they had before the Civil War, although due to the results of that war, they had to pass it off as something "separate but equal," which was another sham, but a lot of people bought it at the time. The North gave it a nod and a wink because they were starting to get busy in the West enforcing their reservation system and (later) making some aggressive moves into the Pacific and Latin America. As long as everything was "free" and "democratic" on paper, they didn't really care all that much about what was going on in the South.

Apartheid may have been different in that respect as well, since I don't think South Africa had the same level of geopolitical aspirations that the United States had. When we gained independence, we seemed to be extremely land hungry, grabbing and acquiring as much land as we could get. The Europeans were somewhat similar during the scramble for Africa, but South Africa was still under the thumb of the British at that point.

On a scale of moral equivalence, I would suppose it all works out to be pretty much the same. Different places, different cultures, different methods employed - but it seems to come down to the same thing.

I don't know what would be worse in terms of practical differences. Jim Crow laws were ultimately reversed - although it took a long time and created a lot of misery before enough people finally stood up and demanded that such abominable practices be done away with. Some whites were still stubborn about the whole thing (and not just in the South), but the elimination of Jim Crow and the advent of equality and civil rights was inevitable.

For some reason, South Africa was even more stubborn.






(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as ap... - 10/8/2013 8:20:15 AM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

FR
Jim Crow was regional.
Apartheid was national.
Apartheid was worse because it was much harsher.
Jim Crow was worse because it was done in the U S.


I'm having difficulty with why it is so bad/wrong to treat them as morally equivalent.

I am not sure I would deem Jim Crow as "less harsh" given that it is a direct offshoot of slavery in America. Jim Crow is not something that just appeared out of nowhere, but was a direct legacy of slavery. The proper analogy is slavery to apartheid. All of the racial policies and stigmas that still exist in these societies are a direct result of these systems. And although apartheid in South Africa is no longer, as a society they are still struggling with issues of race and inclusion. Try spending some time in the townships to understand how race is still significant, and how being black in South Africa is still a tremendous difficulty. And, of course, it goes without saying that we are still struggling with issues of race in the U.S.

It should be noted that the two systems were based on slightly different views of race. In South Africa, looking white meant you were generally treated as white for official purposes, whereas in the U.S., generally speaking, racial definitions were based on blood line - i.e., even one drop of black blood made you black. Regardless of this legalistic difference, to me, the desired outcome was the same - a society controlled by whites (whether they were the minority of the majority) wanted to marginalize/undermine the influence, integrity, and self-respect of those who were not white (however each society chose to define those terms).

Morally equivalent? Yes, I would have to say, actually, they are....anyone supporting any of apartheid, slavery, Jim Crow, marginalization of people based on race is not traveling the moral high ground.....





_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as ap... - 10/8/2013 8:38:01 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

I am not sure I would deem Jim Crow as "less harsh" given that it is a direct offshoot of slavery in America. Jim Crow is not something that just appeared out of nowhere, but was a direct legacy of slavery.

Some historians view Jim Crow and prison farms as the spoils of victory the South won over the Union. It is still a salient issue in our current politics and ideaologies. I think.

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as ap... - 10/8/2013 12:44:53 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

And lets remember what kicked this off, Bamas comments about Citizens and subjects.

Instead, how about you not hijacking this thread by starting the same shit over here.

K.




You miss my point, probably deliberately. My original comment never mentioned Africa, just apartheid in the US.

Just a heads up, your Africaans is wrong as well...... Apartheid = apart + heid....... Or seperate hood. Now you can get back to telling me thats not segregation.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as ap... - 10/8/2013 3:17:16 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Just a heads up, your Africaans is wrong as well...... Apartheid = apart + heid....... Or seperate hood.

Thank you for your correction to the meaning I posted. I was under the mistaken impression that apartheid -- "apart-hood" -- meant the state or condition of being apart. I guess I was confused by words like "childhood," which means the state or condition of being a child, and "likelihood," which means the state or condition of being likely. It's amazing how much you can learn online when you're lucky enough to be in a forum with people who are smarter than you are.

K.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as ap... - 10/8/2013 4:42:34 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Just a heads up, your Africaans is wrong as well...... Apartheid = apart + heid....... Or seperate hood.

Thank you for your correction to the meaning I posted. I was under the mistaken impression that apartheid -- "apart-hood" -- meant the state or condition of being apart. I guess I was confused by words like "childhood," which means the state or condition of being a child, and "likelihood," which means the state or condition of being likely. It's amazing how much you can learn online when you're lucky enough to be in a forum with people who are smarter than you are.

K.



Yes being apart, seperateness..... are you getting the idea now ?

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as ap... - 10/8/2013 4:42:34 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

In a major outbreak of moral equivalence the two have been declared as the same thing, what do you think?


What do you think?

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as ap... - 10/8/2013 4:44:30 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		ORIGINAL: NoBimbosAllowed

Apartheid was a national policy and informal aspects of it stretched beyond the borders of SA.
Apartheid was a national policy that encompased all of the u.s.

Jim Crow was not a federal set of laws, it applied to a specific amount of states, yes?

No

That would be a direct difference.
No, that would be an attempt at creating a difference.

(in reply to NoBimbosAllowed)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as ap... - 10/8/2013 6:00:47 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Yes being apart, seperateness..... are you getting the idea now ?

Yes I'm getting the idea, similarity equals sameness. You've made this claim about synonyms before. It was wrong then, it's wrong now, and it will still be wrong tomorrow.

Are you getting that idea?

K.




< Message edited by Kirata -- 10/8/2013 6:47:59 PM >

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as ap... - 10/8/2013 6:43:37 PM   
FatDomDaddy


Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

FR
I never said that there was anything good about Jim Crow.
Just that as bad as it was Apartheid was even worse.



OK....But why?

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as ap... - 10/8/2013 7:50:34 PM   
EdBowie


Posts: 875
Joined: 8/11/2013
Status: offline 		It was state law.
quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

I think of apartheid as a government policy. Jim Crow was a policy that was administered locally.


(in reply to DarkSteven)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as ap... - 10/8/2013 7:55:42 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

FR
I never said that there was anything good about Jim Crow.
Just that as bad as it was Apartheid was even worse.


OK....But why?

Must admit I've been wondering that too.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to FatDomDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as ap... - 10/8/2013 7:57:18 PM   
EdBowie


Posts: 875
Joined: 8/11/2013
Status: offline 		I've personally seen 'whites only' water fountains, restrooms and entrances as far north as Baltimore Maryland in the 50s.


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

so there was no de facto segregation in the north?

Jim Crowe was nation wide. The case that ended segregation was Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.

Actually you all here are only partly right. In the north there were no Jim Crow laws, blacks were hired even if for menial jobs while in the south, blacks were not hired at all. In my entire life in the north, I never saw a single sign or any policy of whites only except in want ads and for most employment but not all. Some blacks in the US even in the south under Jim Crow...did manage to vote. In S.A no black voted at all, ever for any office...period.

BTW, Brown v Bd. of Ed. only desegregated and ended the inequality of schools. It was the federal Civil Rights act that ended Jim Crow.

Apartheid in S. Africa was much worse as minorities which were almost all black and nationwide were barely citizens, were basically labor slaves, (and in many cases still are in business) while people lived in the dirt and couldn't own property. I know people that got out of S. Africa and said they thought it was worse than slavery. They were on their own completely while the slave owner did at least try to maintain his 'property.'

Crimes were constantly committed against blacks in S.A. while even some were committed against blacks in the US, few were prosecuted. In S. Africa the crimes against blacks...weren't crimes at all. The police and powerful whites, literally and constantly got away with anything including murder.



(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.141