Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

BamaD -> Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied? (10/7/2013 5:26:47 PM)

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



DomKen -> RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied? (10/7/2013 5:29:59 PM)

Pretty much.

They both were a set of laws that limited a specific groups political, social and economic rights. The only significant difference was apartheid was the tyranny of the minority over the majority and Jim Crowe was the reverse.



jlf1961 -> RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied? (10/7/2013 5:31:39 PM)

Gee one made it impossible for people of color to vote, and the other made it damn near impossible.

Of course Jim Crow laws did not apply to Chinese, Japanese, Native Americans, just African Americans.

I believe Apartheid applied to non white South Africans.

I think they are about the same thing.



Politesub53 -> RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied? (10/7/2013 5:35:16 PM)

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



Lucylastic -> RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied? (10/7/2013 5:54:15 PM)

apparently it is



BamaD -> RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied? (10/7/2013 6:02:45 PM)

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.



DarkSteven -> RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied? (10/7/2013 6:16:38 PM)

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



vincentML -> RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied? (10/7/2013 6:22:23 PM)

Both were morally equivalent examples of inhumanity and oppression. To see differences between them would require splitting hairs. Jim Crow laws were state and municipal statues that mandated segregation. How were they different? Not!



Lucylastic -> RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied? (10/7/2013 7:32:59 PM)

so there was no de facto segregation in the north?



DomKen -> RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied? (10/7/2013 8:27:33 PM)


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.



FatDomDaddy -> RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied? (10/7/2013 9:14:07 PM)


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.



What point are you trying to make?




Lucylastic -> RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied? (10/7/2013 9:16:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

so there was no de facto segregation in the north?

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



BamaD -> RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied? (10/7/2013 10:17:02 PM)


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



BamaD -> RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied? (10/7/2013 10:19:35 PM)

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



Kirata -> RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied? (10/7/2013 11:28:22 PM)

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.



NoBimbosAllowed -> RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied? (10/7/2013 11:35:26 PM)

Apartheid was a national policy and informal aspects of it stretched beyond the borders of SA.

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

That would be a direct difference.



Politesub53 -> RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied? (10/8/2013 2:27:21 AM)


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.


Re the bolded part. So its not apartheid if you only use force to ensure different public facilities, like schools, housing, restaurants, transport etc..... Interesting concept. What about reservations ? What about the fact American Indians still have to register as either black or white citizens in Virginia ?

And lets remember what kicked this off, Bamas comments about Citizens and subjects. So if nothing else you agree not all US Citizens were indeed treated equally, hey some were even 3/5th of a person.



Politesub53 -> RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied? (10/8/2013 2:30:35 AM)


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.


So, If I only kill five people I am not as bad as someone who kills ten people.

So if I practiced apartheid I am a racist, if I only practiced segregation I am less of a racist.......

Really ?



dcnovice -> RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied? (10/8/2013 2:46:23 AM)

FR

The OP's question seems a bit like asking whether one would rather have a heart attack or a stroke.



dcnovice -> RE: Do you realy think that Jim Crow was the same as aparthied? (10/8/2013 2:54:00 AM)

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?



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875