Pants-of-dog wrote:Theoretically, they could vote. All they had to do was pass the test or pay the tax or have property.
Much like modern BIPOC people can simply get the ID.
Literacy was a hard requirement to fulfill when Black students could not attend good enough schools and their parents were illiterate. The poll taxes were, as far as I'm aware, prohibitively expensive. Ditto for property. Neither had a business justification that need to be taken into account like ID requirements have (namely, controlling people vote once and that you cast the vote yourself), which is why they are used in several countries.
Now, of course, you may actually not argue against voter ID laws in general but only some particular ones. If so, make your case. I can actually imagine some could in fact lack business justification, because of some requirements they may impose. For instance, I just learned that at least one state has a law that not just requires the voter to bring an ID (reasonable) but that the one they use (e.g. the driver's license or their SS card) should exactly match the voter's voter registration form - which is unnecessary if the registration form includes the driver's license number and the SSN, and if it does not then it's contingent on the state to explain why it doesn't. I ignore if this law has been challenged in court to force the state to explain itself here. Certainly, an inability to provide a cogent explanation for this requirement would amount to a disparate impact situation since it seems to affect African Americans more. The state I'm thinking about actually does ask for the driver's license/SSN in its voter registration form, by the way, which makes its law hard to justify from an election integrity perspective unless I'm missing something here - and precisely because I can
be missing something here is why I think it should be challenged in court, so there can be clarity on this matter relying on expert witness testimony from people who know about something as specific as proper election procedure. Thankfully, the prevailing Federal law does allow courts to revise these state laws to detect and subsequently correct possible disparate impacts.
Pants-of-dog wrote:So black people were slowly improving their lot. Okay.
I can tell you are trying to draw a false equivalence with the improvements they are seeing nowadays. But you are wrong here: Even those legal challenges did not overturn things such as mandated segregation, which would only be overturned when elites jumped into this too.
Pants-of-dog wrote:That explains why grandfather clauses are racist, It does not explain why voter ID laws are not racist.
Yes it does: IDs are something people can get through their actions, grandfather clauses were not dependent on your own behavior and were impossible to fulfill if you were Black.
Pants-of-dog wrote:I have no idea what differences in registration rates to which you are referring.
It seems like you are confused.
Or if you want, the differences in the probability to get an ID may also reflect an underlying difference in the preference for voting. Maybe some people can get an ID but they don't, because they don't see the purpose - including purposes like voting.
Pants-of-dog wrote:If the sole point of this tangent is that one can infer intent in other situations, then sure. Please note that this does not mean that intent is a necessary component of systemic racism.
It is, you can show a counterexample if you want. The definitions thus far don't really say an institution can be "unconsciously racist"
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is not applicable to CRT.
Weird, I thought gender and race oppression were linked, as intersectionality theory would lead us to believe.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please rewrite this in some form other than a loaded question.
I don't see how it's loaded.
Pants-of-dog wrote:How does this disprove my point?
The fact that there was no movement brewing against slavery in the colonies doesn't add up with Hannah-Jones' narrative at all. Even worse, it seems that coverage of the Somerset case was fairly neutral, when it was covered at all.
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is not only vague, but as you show, it directly conflicts with required curriculum subjects.
Or maybe it has to be interpreted in a way that respects prevailing law. That means that talking about systemic racism in the context of the Jim Crow era would be permissible.