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?