Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
Wynder wrote:
Jim Crow laws were squarely in the category of "discrimination backed by violence". As you stated in yuor post, African-Americans weren't allowed to own stores (not sure if that's accurate, but let's assume it is). Who didn't allow them to own stores? The lawmakers, and those lawmakers were backed up by men with badges and guns. The threat of violence is explicit and clear.
There is a difference between a storeowner who doesn't want to do business with you because of your skin and a government law that forces him not to do business because of your skin. The former is merely a racist a--hole who cannot legally use force against you, the latter is a threat to the liberty of all citizens that presumes a monopoly of the use of force.
Wynder wrote:
To play devil's advocate, take this back 50 years or so when no one would serve African Americans and they weren't allowed to own stores. When you have a super-majority, couldn't an entire class of people can outed of a service?Exactly. The only time discrimination really hurts anybody is when it is backed by violence.
While your statement is pretty true to form in these times, I'd gamble to say that, in the times these laws started to come to form, it wasn't.
Jim Crow laws were squarely in the category of "discrimination backed by violence". As you stated in yuor post, African-Americans weren't allowed to own stores (not sure if that's accurate, but let's assume it is). Who didn't allow them to own stores? The lawmakers, and those lawmakers were backed up by men with badges and guns. The threat of violence is explicit and clear.
There is a difference between a storeowner who doesn't want to do business with you because of your skin and a government law that forces him not to do business because of your skin. The former is merely a racist a--hole who cannot legally use force against you, the latter is a threat to the liberty of all citizens that presumes a monopoly of the use of force.