Is it true that African-Americans were treated as second-class citizens during the Jim Crow era of the South?

Is it true that African-Americans were treated as second-class citizens during the Jim Crow era of the South?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    That was the point of Jim Crow.

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    You know, the whole segregation thing probably would have gone down a lot easier if they didn't insist on giving Black folk the shittiest everything just for the sake of southerner egos.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Everyone was a second class citizen in the South. Certain are more likely to complain than others.

      In theory according to Plessy v Ferguson (1896) segregation was only allowed if equal facilities were provided. In practice this was almost never the case.

      Also AAs were regularly handed out much harsher punishments in court than was the case for white defendents (ie. Black George Stinney was executed for a murder based on sketchy evidence whilst White J.W. Milam and Roy Bryant were acquitted for the murder of Emmett Till, only for them to confess to having committed the murder after the trial due to being protected from double jeopardy).

      How do you these weren’t appropriate measures given the context?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Everyone was a second class citizen in the South.
        LAWL

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Everyone was a second class citizen in the South
        Yeah maybe in the 1800's. The Jim Crow era was obviously about keeping blacks as close to slaves as they used to be. Just because some guys in DC sign a piece of paper, doesn't mean anyone changes their mind.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        What could make intentionally providing worse *everything* to the citizenry an appropriate measure?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      The treating of blacks as second-class citizens was the point. "Separate but Equal" was a fig leaf and everyone knew it.

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah from the 1870s until c. 1968

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    In theory according to Plessy v Ferguson (1896) segregation was only allowed if equal facilities were provided. In practice this was almost never the case.

    Also AAs were regularly handed out much harsher punishments in court than was the case for white defendents (ie. Black George Stinney was executed for a murder based on sketchy evidence whilst White J.W. Milam and Roy Bryant were acquitted for the murder of Emmett Till, only for them to confess to having committed the murder after the trial due to being protected from double jeopardy).

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    OP, you’re asking a board that’s 50% /misc/ junior with somehow even more stupidity and fragility.

    You aren’t going to get that many honest answers. It only took 9 posts for someone to mention JOOOZ and “b-but whites had it worse!”

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >implying OP isn't acting stupid and trying to stir something up

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Whatever they did back then was more harmonious than what came afterwards that's for sure.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      It wasn't.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Well look at the picture they're all well dressed...

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Most major race riots happened after Jim Crow. Even a lot of race riots that happened before and during that time were in the north.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          The worst race riots (likely hundreds of deaths) were between 1877 and the 1920s.

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    No.

    History revisionists like to claim black people were lynched because they were black when that's never the case, if a black person got lynched, he always had to have done something to have that happened to him.

    The KKK weren't formed to "terrorize" black people either. They were a vigilante group with the aim of making sure former slaves followed the law, because most former slaves didn't follow the law when they were released.

    Yes there was segregation, yes it was illegal for black men to be with white women. That didn't come from hate though. People were just trying to preserve what was valuable to them. That's all.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >History revisionists like to claim black people were lynched because they were black
      They were usually **accused** of something, but were never brought to trial or were abducted from jail before legal proceedings began. Really a lot of them had just gotten on someone's bad side or had violated the code of race relations.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        I'm sure many who were lynched truly deserved it. I'm sure others were falsely accused. What is the ratio of false accusations to true accusations of heinous crimes? My gut tells me about 1:3. So 75% of those who were lynched probably deserved it. Unfortunate that many innocents died but we can't reiterate every ancient injustice.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Your racist gut isn't a source.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >They were a vigilante group with the aim of making sure former slaves followed the law, because most former slaves didn't follow the law when they were released.
      They pretty much harassed and targeted everyone lol. IQfy contrarianism is fun and all but there's limit.

      I'm sure many who were lynched truly deserved it. I'm sure others were falsely accused. What is the ratio of false accusations to true accusations of heinous crimes? My gut tells me about 1:3. So 75% of those who were lynched probably deserved it. Unfortunate that many innocents died but we can't reiterate every ancient injustice.

      >I'm sure many who were lynched truly deserved it
      Even that can be fricked up because lynchings completely bypass the legal procedures to hand out a ruling and make it a total wild west. Being a theif doesn't mean getting burnt to a crisp or tossed out of town on a rail tarred and feathered is good.

      I watched a video by a black guy that said america wasn't built for us.
      Well it certainly catering to black people I don't understand. He was right about leaving america though but for the wrong reason. He thought reparations and go live somewhere else with the money I think.

      >Well it certainly catering to black people I don't understand.
      It really isn't contrary to the spergs on this site lol.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >muh lost cause

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      doesn't matter, its all been memory holed.
      he who controls the present, controls the past

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Reconstruction showed us that certain parts of the southern population could not be trusted with the franchise, and their actions in their newly freed state showed us that they needed a firm hand if they were to remain in America.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Source?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >they needed a firm hand if they were to remain in America.
      So why not let them leave America like they wanted? Yankees like to talk a lot of shit but you’re the ones who lost over 360,000 men to keep us in the Union

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Racism really is the lifeblood of the US, you guys will never be able to live without it.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      As opposed to everywhere else in the world where all the races live in harmony with each other and sing kumbaya

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    I watched a video by a black guy that said america wasn't built for us.
    Well it certainly catering to black people I don't understand. He was right about leaving america though but for the wrong reason. He thought reparations and go live somewhere else with the money I think.

    • 2 years ago
      Afro-Saxon

      >Well it certainly catering to black people I don't understand.
      No it's not.
      >Inb4 media
      Who cares.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Well I know for a fact many do in fact get section 8 and food stamps and probably some disability etc... Atleast black moms. So you can't say American society doesn't cater to black women atleast.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Social security I mean not disability. Well they come from the same pot.

        • 2 years ago
          Afro-Saxon

          >Well I know for a fact many do in fact get section 8 and food stamps and probably some disability etc..

          No that's Whites, hispanics and Asians and mainly immigrants of all races. Frick off.

          Picrel was when I was mogging some zoomalian on some other media and I learn something very interesting.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Brah that's like saying women get catered to because there's women's washrooms

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >No it's not.

        It is though. The GAE is always invoking minority groups to get its politics through, it's part of the entire moral blackmail of the technocratic apparatus.

        • 2 years ago
          Afro-Saxon

          Who?
          Also they can always just say no.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Anon, you realize being the face of minorities across the country, then refusing to represent their interests does the opposite of cater to them, right? It just nullifies their voice.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >then refusing to represent their interests does the opposite of cater to them, right?

            Depends on what you think their interests are. The Democratic Party has a patronage relationship with blacks that involves trading affirmative action and welfare checks for their votes every election.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >blacks that involves trading affirmative action and welfare checks
            Both parties do it you moron. Hell in regards to welfare it's been constantly stripped tl under both parties for decades. How the frick do you not know that?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Hell in regards to welfare it's been constantly stripped tl under both parties for decades.

            And yet blacks keep voting for the Democrats at a rate of 90/10.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >The Democratic Party has a patronage relationship with blacks that involves trading affirmative action and welfare checks for their votes every election.
            So, leverage of porkbarrel politics in a hostage arrangement with a minority group so they can maintain their day-to-day sustenance? Yeah, that's abuse, anon. Compare that with the investment in foreign industry and education immigrants receive.

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    you cannot remove human nature with legislation. Jim Crow has been gone for nearly 60 years yet:

    >blacks still have highest poverty and worst QoL index of any major demographic
    >most blacks are effectively wards of the state via welfare or being hired through affirmative action quotas
    >blacks are the largest victim of black crime
    >blacks comprise 60% of the prison population in the United States
    >police are much less likely to take action on behalf of black crime victims
    >neighborhoods and schools in most places are de facto if not de jure segregated
    >black schools remain extremely underfunded and more than 75% of students do not graduate

    • 2 years ago
      Afro-Saxon

      All you did was admit Whites were part of that human error moreso than Blacks.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        I can say that one race is the problem here and it's not whites. But you already knew that, LBJgay. Now kindly toodle off and make another butthurt thread about the Tulsa riots.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >I can say that one race is the problem here and it's not whites.
          How do you look at that and conclude it's the blacks' fault? Real question.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      All you did was admit Whites were part of that human error moreso than Blacks.

      I think he's arguing the same point as you here.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Well yeah it takes years to reverse such long running policies.

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Saying the average black politician is getting paid or paying for moronic to riot isn't exactly right.

    I never said that either. I'm saying minorities are always used as a token form of moral blackmail by certain subsets of the elite because of their naturally inequitable position in society. A minority group that lives in a state with a majority ethnicity, almost always comes out worse statistically even when the inequity is minor, which means the minority can always be used as a moral bludgeoning tool to change a policy by someone within the elite.

    There's also a compounding issue these days in that we are overeducating a horde of people in liberal arts subjects that the power hierarchies of the bureaucracy and markets can't absorb; these people become radicals who torch literal cities as a threat in order to get a job and the status they think they deserve; QED Black Lives Matter.

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >You can call it abuse as much as you like, but client-patronage networks is the backbone of the US political system.
    It sounds like we're in agreement.

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Minorities are dumb because they're being exploited by the prevalent power structures
    >Because they're essentially losing to the same power that has a de facto grip on the rest of the planet
    >Dumb

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Yes, it takes a fairly self aware population to not get grifted into burning down cities every few years.
    Anon, well over half of the participants were white or some sort of white-variant, and the entire point was that the government hijacked an ethnic protest to make it a pressure-release mechanism for their economic troubles. The majority of blacks were not involved.
    >Minorities are not self aware, largely. And that has a lot to do with their inherent low intelligence
    I'm actually amazed at the power of cognitive dissonance, that it can produce this. Dialogue truly is a meme.

  16. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Not him, but political terrorism isn't on par with street crime.

  17. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    It's not a strawman. It's the logical conclusion of the graph: that the impact of people on the economy is just a matter of subtracting "welfare" expenditures from income tax revenue. Apparently the economy didn't exist until 1913, and income tax revenue represents your role in the economy.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      If you wanted to see crime statistics and their burden on the economy instead, you could have just asked.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        In America? On the national scale I doubt it does much. Can make or break municipalities though.

  18. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Go ahead and provide evidence that street crime is racially motivated then.

  19. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    the point of jim crow was to give white immigrants and former white slaves rights while taking the right of the ruling black class it was the direct result of reconstruction

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *