This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
"Separate but equal"
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Ok, so I get that the concept of 'separate but equal' is deemed to be unconstitutional in the US.
Can I get a few clarifications as to why precisely this is, and what part of the US constitution that this concept happens to contravene? I'm starting to wonder if it's really warranted at all, in the context of the fact that pretty much every other developed nation doesn't care about the idea.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Jubilee
I don't think any other country has had to deal with the huge problems of segregation that America has.
Post by
127599
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
It stemmed from the times when you'd have two of just about anything, one labeled 'white' and one labeled 'colored.' I'm not sure what part of the constitution specifically was used in the ruling, but the Supreme Court decided that it didn't fly. I think the ruling was made largely because any case where the phrase 'separate but equal' was used was a case where de facto racism was present. Similarly forcing homosexuals to use a different title for their unions (the thread which sparked you to make this one) is a de facto kind of homophobia, when viewed through a modern American lens. "You can't use our word for our thing" sounds extremely prejudicial to over-sensitive Americans who are still guilty about the whole slavery thing.
It might not seem like a huge deal outside of our cultural lens, but the quote from South Park I paraphrased in the other thread might help to highlight why 'separate but equal' language always makes Americans uncomfortable:
You'll still be married, you'll just be called butt-buddies. So while straight people will be 'married' you'll be 'butt-buddies.'
Post by
Squishalot
"You can't use our word for our thing" sounds extremely prejudicial to over-sensitive Americans who are still guilty about the whole slavery thing.
That's not exactly a constitutional argument, nor even a moral argument. That's saying "we've always done it this way, so why change it?" - which is just as hypocritical as the guys who are saying "marriage has always been this way, so why change it?"
I know that xaratherus has linked some things before, so I'm hoping that some of that can be revisited.
You'll still be married, you'll just be called legends. So while straight people will be 'married' you'll be 'legends.'
Context of it being uncomfortable comes from the fact that homophobic America considers 'butt buddies' to be a derogatory description of someone.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Jubilee
Oh this is about marriage? I thought it was about segregation =/ And I thought I finally found an interesting thread here that wasn't over my head.
Post by
Squishalot
It is about segregation, homosexual marriage being one type of that.
And no, the US doesn't have any more or less segregation issues than any other multicultural country in the world.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Jubilee
Now maybe not, but we not only fought a four year war over racial rights but we it took another hundred years after that for the government to stop discriminating against African-Americans. And it's that time period from which the phrase you used came to meaning in American politics. But I don't have anything to add about marriage. Modern politics bores me. History's where it's all at.
Post by
322702
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
wildx22
@Jubilee: Might want to brush up on your knowledge about other countries' history before you say that.
Post by
Jubilee
Can you name one other country where the State and/or local governments of half the country spent over a hundred years trying to weasel their way out of Federal laws by twisting interpreting them however they chose? As far as I'm aware America is the only country to have that problem because we're one of the only countries with our special brand of State/Federal relationship which was primarily built on by issue of race.
I'm not saying there is no segregation in other countries. I'm saying that no one has had the specific issues of segregation that America has.
Post by
Squishalot
I'm saying that no one has had the
specific issues
of segregation that America has.
True.
I don't think any other country has had to deal with the
huge problems
of segregation that America has.
False.
one of the only countries with our special brand of State/Federal relationship
Without straying too far away from the original question, what precisely makes the US State/Federal relationship different from any other country's State/Federal relationship? To compare, for example, to Australia?
Post by
Pwntiff
The American Civil War wasn't waged over racial rights, but states' rights, and there wasn't really any attempts to circumvent laws regarding equal rights, because until the Civil Rights Act, there weren't any.
I don't think any other country has had to deal with the
huge problems
of segregation that America has.
False. The Apartheid is just one example.
Post by
Tartonga
What are the specific issues of segregation that U.S. has?
Post by
wildx22
Why does it need to be the exact same form of segregation that America has experienced. Hello, the Holocaust?
Can you name one other country where the State and/or local governments of half the country spent over a hundred years trying to weasel their way out of Federal laws by twisting interpreting them however they chose?
Yeah. New Zealand. The British signed a treaty with the Maori in 1840, they still refuse to recognise the Maori text of the treaty. Recent cases? After the Maori won a particular court case, the government passed a new statute in 2004 that retrospectively cancelled out the effect of the court case. This year they passed another similar statute. Twisted interpretations? Hell yeah.
Post by
Pwntiff
What are the specific issues of segregation that U.S. has?
Not so much as "has" but "had" and
Jim Crow laws
answer that question.
Post by
Jubilee
I can see how you could read that as false if that's what you bold in my sentence, but my point was more focused on the
that America has
part. The problems that America has faced with regards to segregation are unique.
And I don't know much about Australia. But as far as America is concerned, the civil war and the subsequent problems with the southern states gave the Federal government the opportunity to grab more and more power than they had earlier on, and this involved a complete reinterpretation and leaving behind of the Constitution. This leads to modern problems like that of marijuana and your issue of marriage, which aren't actually problems if all that mattered was the Constitution.
But it also lead to the problem you mentioned int he first post which I was initially replying to: "separate but equal." The Fourteenth amendment stated that the states had to treat everyone equal under the law. The southern states (though not exclusively) began passing segregation laws to get around that. Now instead of necessarily denying things to African-Americans, they separated them from everyone else and gave them their own buses, drinking fountains, etc. It was then that the Federal Supreme Court had to step in and say that "separate but equal" is an unconstitutional approach for states to take when making laws.
And yes, South Africa has segregation. But the context, application, and consequences of that segregation is different than in America. The first poster was asking why America is different, and I'm trying to show why: our problems of segregation we different, because it was mostly done on the states' part.
Post by
Pwntiff
The South African Apartheid
was almost exactly the US Jim Crow laws.
Post by
gnomerdon
I support "separate but equal."
I am defensively racist. I won't promote violence, hate, or speeches on the outside or say anything that will offend any race, but I will take a few true stereotypes to heart and be alert.
Post by
pezz
You'll still be married, you'll just be called legends. So while straight people will be 'married' you'll be 'legends.'
Context of it being uncomfortable comes from the fact that homophobic America considers 'butt buddies' to be a derogatory description of someone.
My point wasn't that the language used in the specific instance was itself derogatory, my point was that language used in that context
always
sounds derogatory in modern American thought on prejudice.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.