Neoteny wrote:God, this is such a classic tzorian response. I have a decision to make as to how to respond. Let me just list my options.
Thank you. I really try my best, but as this place isn't the best location to write entire articles I really don't bother explaining all the details.
Besides, this place wouldn't be as fun if I were perfectly clear and not a source of occasional confusion.
You might want to assume that the racist Democrats were isolated to the south, but it really was never so. Not all racists were slave owners and really even some of the comments of Lincoln himself wouldn't pass muster in a proper society dreamed of by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I should also point out that I hold the abuse and mistreatment of immigrants to the north by Democratic Party machines such as Tammany Hall in as much contempt as I hold their equivalents in the South. But I wasn't even talking about that so ... whatever.
Wikipedia wrote:The one-drop rule was made law, though primarily in the U.S. South, also in other states, in the 20th century—decades after the Civil War, emancipation, and the Reconstruction era. It followed restoration of white supremacy in the South and the passage of Jim Crow racial segregation laws. In the 20th century, it was also associated with the rise of eugenics and ideas of racial purity.
...
Jim Crow laws reached their greatest influence during the decades from 1910 to 1930. Among them were hypodescent laws, defining as black anyone with any black ancestry, or with a very small portion of black ancestry. Tennessee adopted such a "one-drop" statute in 1910, and Louisiana soon followed. Then Texas and Arkansas in 1911, Mississippi in 1917, North Carolina in 1923, Virginia in 1924, Alabama and Georgia in 1927, and Oklahoma in 1931. During this same period, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Utah retained their old "blood fraction" statutes de jure, but amended these fractions (one-sixteenth, one-thirty-second) to be equivalent to one-drop de facto.
Before 1930, individuals of visible mixed European and African ancestry were usually classed as mulatto, or sometimes as black and sometimes as white, depending on appearance. Previously, most states had limited trying to define ancestry before "the fourth degree" (great-great-grandparents). But, in 1930, due to lobbying by southern legislators, the Census Bureau stopped using the classification of mulatto. Documentation of the long social recognition of mixed-race people was lost.
The binary world of the one-drop rule disregarded the self-identification both of people of mostly European ancestry who grew up in white communities, and of people who were of mixed race and identified as American Indian. In addition, Walter Plecker, Registrar of Statistics, ordered application of the 1924 Virginia law in such a way that vital records were changed or destroyed, family members were split on opposite sides of the color line, and there were losses of the documented continuity of people who identified as American Indian, as all people in Virginia had to be classified as white or black. Over the centuries, many Indian tribes in Virginia had absorbed people of other ethnicities through marriage or adoption, but maintained their cultures. Suspecting blacks of trying to "pass" as Indians, Plecker ordered records changed to classify people only as black or white, and ordered offices to reclassify certain family surnames from Indian to black.
Since the late 20th century, Virginia has officially recognized eight American Indian tribes and their members; the tribes are trying to gain federal recognition. They have had difficulty because decades of birth, marriage, and death records were misclassified under Plecker's application of the law. No one was classified as Indian, although many individuals and families identified that way and were preserving their cultures.
The eugenicist Madison Grant of New York wrote in his book, The Passing of the Great Race (1916): "The cross between a white man and an Indian is an Indian; the cross between a white man and a Negro is a Negro; the cross between a white man and a Hindu is a Hindu; and the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew." As noted above, Native American tribes such as the Omaha, which had patrilineal descent and inheritance, used hypodescent to classify the children of white men and Native American women as white.
Note the last quote "
of New York." Yes this is no Southern thing anymore. Then again the whole idea of the "minimum wage" was a way for white northern unions to keep blacks from moving from the south to the jobs in the north where they would gladly work for less money just to be able to work at all. Slaves, Immigrants and Unions were always the legs upon which the Democratic party built its stool.
And back to my point in which I will boringly link the Wikipedia article on the
Nuremberg Laws where being 1/8 Jew still make you a good old fashioned German and being only 1/4 German made you mixed race.
So I'm sure this is already too long;didn't read but since next month is National Novel Writing Month I needed some practice at quickly writing out a ton of boring word count. I'm not going to bother to explain how this attitude of New York Democrats (among all the other Democrats) of the post civil war relates to all the various groups we see today including "Black Lives Matter" (except when they are killed by Black gang members). Segregating people into groups is the key to Alinsky tactics of isolation and personalization.
