some people today are still going along with the jim crow laws because they were brought up to think that way, but do you think that the Jim Crow law was right, (seperate but equal), but really how can you be separate and still equal. and was Jim Crow a person or just a law named that.?
3 Answers | Add Yours
Ironically, Malcolm X at one time wanted a separate nation for blacks. But, such arrangements are not really feasible. In the history of the human race, equality does not exist among races as post #3 states since no one race really wants to be equal to another. There has, instead, always been the conflict between the weak and the strong. Whoever is in charge, makes the rules and names them whatever euphemism sounds good.
And remember that separate in terms of the Jim Crow South of the 1950s was never equal or anything close. Schools were not equally funded, blacks did not receive equal representation before the law, and politically were not represented at all. So the point is academic, whether separate but equal is a principle anyone can defend or believe in doesn't matter since it was never, in fact, practiced.
Jim Crow was a stock character in minstrel shows -- sort of a caricature of black people in general.
As for how can you be separate but equal, think about men and women going to different schools and having different bathrooms. Is that unequal? Or what about all-black fraternities? Is that unequal?
So just because things are separate don't mean they're unequal. It is why they are separate that matters. If they are separate because one side looks down on the other (and has the power to oppress that other side) it is bad and it is fundamentally unequal. If it is a voluntary thing, it is not so bad.
We’ve answered 317,722 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question