Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There are a lot of excuses being made to dispute the fact that this country literally has slavery built into its founding documents and let Jim Crow laws stand in a part of the country for almost a century later.

There was no “expiration date” in the constitution.

“Plessy vs Ferguson” was decided by the US Supreme Court after the Civil War which enshrined Jim Crow and “Separate but Equal”.

It wasn’t until 1967 that the Supreme Court outlawed bans on interracial marriage.

In 1985 there were still sundown towns (https://www.reddit.com/r/Georgia/comments/1f4hzlt/oprah_visi...).

This country was built on racism and it was enshrined into law up to 6 years before I was born

In all fairness, my family had a house built here in 2016 and the only reason we sold in 2024 was to move to Florida. While my (stepson) was one of only 5 Black students in his high school, he never had any issues.





>There was no “expiration date” in the constitution.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution (often called the Slave Trade Clause) prevented Congress from prohibiting the importation of slaves prior to January 1, 1808. This effectively allowed the international slave trade to continue until that date, after which Congress could (and did) ban it.

Seems I need to reword my take, as this demands a bit more specificity, but the overall take remains unchanged. Had the 3/5 provision not been made, the South would have further prevented the North from enforcing a ban on slavery and inequality, which was already in place in the North, and in place federally with the "created equal" component in the Declaration, as was argued by founders in court cases.

We can't just ignore court documents and the Constitution itself, along with the Declaration. Not to mention the first draft of the Constitution which had a lot more provisions against slavery before the English forced then to take allies with the South or die. They had no choice but to agree to the South's terms and allow for the South's slaves, temporarily. A stark difference from the previous Constitution of the first Congress.

You can try to frame it however you like, but you can't hide the fact that the founders wrote that slavery is bad, and they don't want it in this country even before it was a country. And they subsequently fought to eliminate it as soon as the wars were over. Those documents remain, right in the face of your argument.

Sundown towns existing doesn't change that. There was no sundown country, just as this isn't a sex cult country, despite there being some law breaking Nexium participants setting up shop and torturing people. It happens, that doesn't mean we as a country yearn to have more racists walking around. In fact, I think if you read why Republicans voted Trump, it's because they perceive immigrants to be racist and they want to reduce the inflow of racist ideology and rape culture into the country. That's exactly the scare tactic that their advertising relies on. They believe they are the ones who aren't racist, just like Democrats.

(I hate both political parties equally by the way. I'm not sure if that's clear from my commentary. But I reject the South's view of history because I can read the damn court cases and see that it's a total fabrication. And I know that Democrats like to spread that version as justification for why black people need help, and I think they know full well that it's bullshit, but it convinces juries on rare occasion so they continue to use it.)


If you can’t ignore court documents, how can you ignore that the Supreme Court specifically condoned “separate but equal” in 1896

Lincoln also didn’t really care about the slaves early on

https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/abraham-lincoln-q...

Again, this country has always been built on racism and inequality and was enshrined into the law in some shape or form until the 60s.

This is in no shape form or fashion a “I couldn’t get ahead because of my race” conversation.

I’ve had every door opened to me - private school, academic college scholarship, worked at startups, lifestyle companies, boring enterprise companies and BigTech less than 3 years ago and turned down another one because I refuse to ever go into an office or work for BigTech again.


I don't deny that the Supreme Court hasn't ruled to my liking in all cases.

I never opposed that fact, but I apologize if I gave that impression.

I think that overall, when you look at the trend over time and the majority of cases, overwhelmingly the legislature and the courts have sided with anti slavery, equality (not equity), and presented an image of freedom and justice.

Maybe you disagree, but to say that it was always the opposite, I just don't see that. There are just a handful of cases supporting that argument against a mountain of wins in the other direction.

All that is true so long as you don't zero in and focus only on the South which, as I said, isn't this country. It's a rightfully defeated one. I'm thankful for that, and I'd rather avoid acknowledging the false rhetoric of that evil empire that fell. I certainly don't identify with it, and I'm offended at the notion that this country is required to. Why should we be? We won.

(Not "we," really. I'm an immigrant.)


These were the states that supported some form of stare sponsored segregation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_law_examples_...

And saying that the “Supreme Court didn’t always rule the way you like” is minimizing an entire race of people - including my still living parents having to grow up in schools that were underfunded but supposedly “separate but equal”, people getting hung if you looked at a White woman the wrong way and didn’t “know your place” or even marrying outside of your race was illegal until 1969. Not to mention colleges that ny parents weren’t allowed to go to, having to drink from “colored water fountains” - again the US Supreme Court said this was legal

So if you ignore half of the country that had segregation and the US Supreme Court that condoned it, everything is fine?


>"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.


If 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...

The GI bill run by the federal government was discriminatory

https://heller.brandeis.edu/news/items/releases/2023/impact-...


You 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?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: