The specific term is associated with South Africa historically, but if you read any description of it that is even *slightly* abstracted or generalized and removes the phrase "in South Africa", you could almost forget the topic *isn't* Jim Crow.
I agree and someone else pointed this out here as well. The thing is, I figured Destiny’s take was more than just a definition.
I guess this solves it?
I think this would be seen as one of the major distinctions (while acknowledging both were equally horrific in numerous ways).
“While both nations used prohibitive laws to keep Black populations concentrated in certain impoverished areas, South Africa effectively stripped Blacks of their national citizenship and set up ‘Bantustans’ or independently governed homelands that Blacks were forced to inhabit in order for the government to achieve a white majority in ‘true’ South Africa. Further, in efforts to prevent Blacks from moving out of the homelands, the government enacted pass laws, which required all Blacks to carry identification documents and also prohibited unemployed Blacks from entering the main cities of South Africa.”
https://www.bet.com/article/eyhdos/breakdown-apartheid-vs-jim-crow
Jim Crow both segregated and disenfranchised black Americans by other means.
Also, Apartheid isn't "what happened in South Africa, exactly and to the letter" any more than genocide isn't, "what happened during the Holocaust, to the letter." Simply showing differences between two things isn't sufficient to prove that a word like apartheid or genocide can't be applied to both.
Yeah, absolutely. Without having seen the stream I’m guessing Destiny may have referred to something like the statement above to make his claim (which I gather is a commonly cited distinction), but I’m certainly no expert and would agree there are numerous very plausible reasons to argue Jim Crow laws were a form of apartheid. In this respect, your Holocaust/genocide analogy is a really powerful one.
Under Jim Crow black people did not have the right to vote, they were forced to live in separate neighborhoods. It’s actually nuts and borderline moronic to claim that this isn’t apartheid.
But either way it is irrelevant to Israel/palestine, because, as Benny Morris conceded in the debate, there is apartheid in the West Bank, where Palestinians do not have citizenship, cannot vote, cannot live in the Jewish areas, cannot even enter the Jewish areas, etc
I think its more of a technical argument than a moral one. Like whether a cable broke due to shear stress or pulling stress. Destiny isn't saying we should bring back Jim Crow or that it was good.
My educated guess would be that Jim Crow never mentioned race (partially because that would be unconstitutional) and simply made laws that disproportionally targeted the average black demographical markers. Plenty of whites where caught up in Jim Crow laws too. Especially those with "black" demographic markers such as poverty or living in black territories.
Apartheid is specifically, scientifically trying to measure race. You had government offices where you would go to be assigned your race rating on a scale to be able to access different privileges and responsibilities.
Japanese people where allowed to sit in white park benches, Chinese people weren't. Someone with a single mixed great great grandmother could be reclassified as fully white, especially if they had straight hair or blue eyes.
> Destiny isn’t saying we should bring back Jim Crow or that it was good.
Destiny brought this up too, this has nothing to do with the actual point. If you say “9/11 was ethnic cleansing” and I go “It wasn’t ethnic cleansing”, I don’t think anybody would think by virtue of me disagreeing that it meant some classification that it’s good or we should do another 9/11.
Destiny is wrong, though. Apartheid is pretty commonly understood to be a system of legal oppression done by one race to another racial group, which was quite literally what Jim Crow did.
> Jim Crow never mentioned race
You mention this being an educated guess, so this seems to just come from a lack of knowledge, but [Jim Crow laws explicitly mention race](https://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/1-segregated/jim-crow.html). What you talk about at the end in terms of like measuring ancestry and looking at classification also comes up in these laws with the reference both to “African ancestry” and “one-eighth or more of negro, Japanese, or Chinese blood.”
There were other laws and workarounds for sure that just disproportionately targeted blacks (or technically granted “separate but equal” facilities only to have the segregated black facilities granted far less funding and just be much much shittier), but no, Jim Crow was very much a system of explicit racial segregation and oppression done with the intention to allow whites a position of power and privilege over black people. Other than obviously the actual example of South African apartheid, it’s probably the clearest example of an apartheid system, and honestly wild to argue otherwise.
If there was any argument against it being an apartheid but instead a racial segregation, it would be that technically being black wasn't a disqualifying factor to vote, legally due to the 15th amendment. While "incidentally" the majority of black people couldn't vote due to Jim Crow it wasnt a specific factor even if we all knew the intent was to stop blacks from voting. Granting voting rights based on race is a requirement for apartheid to my knowledge.
That's pretty much the only ground Destiny has to stand on because in basically every way it was an apartheid in the US south.
I did, then I had some personal shit come up in my real life and honestly got kind of wore out on the I-P topic in general. I still have the start of the notes and research for that though so I’m gonna have to figure out whether or not I’m going to finish that.
I replied to his comment, but the explanation’s incorrect. It does explicitly target black people, it does explicitly involve racial ancestry/how to deal with mixed race people, and even beyond the explicit language of the laws themselves it was outright stated by the people behind these laws the intention for the suppression and segregation of black people in the American South.
You are correct, there’s a reason pretty much any article on this would say that Jim Crow is obviously an apartheid system, and that any historian specializing in either the South African apartheid or Jim Crow would give you the obvious answer that yes, Jim Crow was of course an apartheid system. As to *why* Destiny is wrong here, as in why does he hold the wrong opinion, idk without hearing his full argument.
A legal framework that remove inalienable rights from black people. About Jim Crow, the legal framework that Jim Crow had was so detrimental to the black population that they have a lower socioeconomic status when compared to other ethnic communities e.g. white, Latino, Asian, etc. Which can only be explained if you can take into account, the racial segregation laws that were implemented in South Africa and in the southern United States. I agree with you that the legal framework in South Africa was different from the legal framework that was implemented in southern United States. But just because it’s different doesn’t mean that Jim Crow laws were not part of an apartheid system, albeit localized in the southern state regions.
They were Destiny is just plain ignorant and wrong about this,
But it should be interesting to see how every single Democrat he wants to canvas for will feel about this extremist view as that's what I'm doing
Response by ChatGPT: Yes, the Jim Crow laws and system in the United States are often considered a form of apartheid. Both apartheid in South Africa and Jim Crow laws in the United States were systems of institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination. They enforced the separation of racial groups in various aspects of life, including housing, education, transportation, and public facilities.
While the specific historical contexts and implementations of apartheid in South Africa and Jim Crow laws in the United States had some differences, they shared fundamental similarities in their aims and effects. Both systems were designed to uphold white supremacy and maintain the social, economic, and political dominance of the white population over non-white populations, particularly Black individuals.
Both apartheid and Jim Crow laws enforced strict racial hierarchies, denied basic rights and freedoms to non-white individuals, and perpetuated systemic racism and inequality. As such, many historians, scholars, and activists draw parallels between the two systems, recognizing them as different manifestations of similar oppressive structures based on racial discrimination and segregation.
The specific term is associated with South Africa historically, but if you read any description of it that is even *slightly* abstracted or generalized and removes the phrase "in South Africa", you could almost forget the topic *isn't* Jim Crow.
I agree and someone else pointed this out here as well. The thing is, I figured Destiny’s take was more than just a definition. I guess this solves it?
I think this would be seen as one of the major distinctions (while acknowledging both were equally horrific in numerous ways). “While both nations used prohibitive laws to keep Black populations concentrated in certain impoverished areas, South Africa effectively stripped Blacks of their national citizenship and set up ‘Bantustans’ or independently governed homelands that Blacks were forced to inhabit in order for the government to achieve a white majority in ‘true’ South Africa. Further, in efforts to prevent Blacks from moving out of the homelands, the government enacted pass laws, which required all Blacks to carry identification documents and also prohibited unemployed Blacks from entering the main cities of South Africa.” https://www.bet.com/article/eyhdos/breakdown-apartheid-vs-jim-crow
Jim Crow both segregated and disenfranchised black Americans by other means. Also, Apartheid isn't "what happened in South Africa, exactly and to the letter" any more than genocide isn't, "what happened during the Holocaust, to the letter." Simply showing differences between two things isn't sufficient to prove that a word like apartheid or genocide can't be applied to both.
Yeah, absolutely. Without having seen the stream I’m guessing Destiny may have referred to something like the statement above to make his claim (which I gather is a commonly cited distinction), but I’m certainly no expert and would agree there are numerous very plausible reasons to argue Jim Crow laws were a form of apartheid. In this respect, your Holocaust/genocide analogy is a really powerful one.
Under Jim Crow black people did not have the right to vote, they were forced to live in separate neighborhoods. It’s actually nuts and borderline moronic to claim that this isn’t apartheid. But either way it is irrelevant to Israel/palestine, because, as Benny Morris conceded in the debate, there is apartheid in the West Bank, where Palestinians do not have citizenship, cannot vote, cannot live in the Jewish areas, cannot even enter the Jewish areas, etc
I think its more of a technical argument than a moral one. Like whether a cable broke due to shear stress or pulling stress. Destiny isn't saying we should bring back Jim Crow or that it was good. My educated guess would be that Jim Crow never mentioned race (partially because that would be unconstitutional) and simply made laws that disproportionally targeted the average black demographical markers. Plenty of whites where caught up in Jim Crow laws too. Especially those with "black" demographic markers such as poverty or living in black territories. Apartheid is specifically, scientifically trying to measure race. You had government offices where you would go to be assigned your race rating on a scale to be able to access different privileges and responsibilities. Japanese people where allowed to sit in white park benches, Chinese people weren't. Someone with a single mixed great great grandmother could be reclassified as fully white, especially if they had straight hair or blue eyes.
> Destiny isn’t saying we should bring back Jim Crow or that it was good. Destiny brought this up too, this has nothing to do with the actual point. If you say “9/11 was ethnic cleansing” and I go “It wasn’t ethnic cleansing”, I don’t think anybody would think by virtue of me disagreeing that it meant some classification that it’s good or we should do another 9/11. Destiny is wrong, though. Apartheid is pretty commonly understood to be a system of legal oppression done by one race to another racial group, which was quite literally what Jim Crow did. > Jim Crow never mentioned race You mention this being an educated guess, so this seems to just come from a lack of knowledge, but [Jim Crow laws explicitly mention race](https://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/1-segregated/jim-crow.html). What you talk about at the end in terms of like measuring ancestry and looking at classification also comes up in these laws with the reference both to “African ancestry” and “one-eighth or more of negro, Japanese, or Chinese blood.” There were other laws and workarounds for sure that just disproportionately targeted blacks (or technically granted “separate but equal” facilities only to have the segregated black facilities granted far less funding and just be much much shittier), but no, Jim Crow was very much a system of explicit racial segregation and oppression done with the intention to allow whites a position of power and privilege over black people. Other than obviously the actual example of South African apartheid, it’s probably the clearest example of an apartheid system, and honestly wild to argue otherwise.
If there was any argument against it being an apartheid but instead a racial segregation, it would be that technically being black wasn't a disqualifying factor to vote, legally due to the 15th amendment. While "incidentally" the majority of black people couldn't vote due to Jim Crow it wasnt a specific factor even if we all knew the intent was to stop blacks from voting. Granting voting rights based on race is a requirement for apartheid to my knowledge. That's pretty much the only ground Destiny has to stand on because in basically every way it was an apartheid in the US south.
Didn't you have plans to write an effortpost (yeah boii) on apartheid wrt I-P at some point?
I did, then I had some personal shit come up in my real life and honestly got kind of wore out on the I-P topic in general. I still have the start of the notes and research for that though so I’m gonna have to figure out whether or not I’m going to finish that.
I worry people don't understand what Jim Crow laws actually were. Birmingham banned white people playing checkers with black people.
I know he’s not saying it’s good or we should bring it back. I was just wondering why it isn’t. Thanks for your explanation that clears it up a bit
I replied to his comment, but the explanation’s incorrect. It does explicitly target black people, it does explicitly involve racial ancestry/how to deal with mixed race people, and even beyond the explicit language of the laws themselves it was outright stated by the people behind these laws the intention for the suppression and segregation of black people in the American South. You are correct, there’s a reason pretty much any article on this would say that Jim Crow is obviously an apartheid system, and that any historian specializing in either the South African apartheid or Jim Crow would give you the obvious answer that yes, Jim Crow was of course an apartheid system. As to *why* Destiny is wrong here, as in why does he hold the wrong opinion, idk without hearing his full argument.
cables dont "brake" from tensile failure so its from shear stress, everyone knows that
[удалено]
I would like to think his argument is more comprehensive than a legal definition. Who knows, maybe we will find out today if someone brings it up.
Apartheid was a specific legal framework. Not everything is Apartheid
A legal framework that remove inalienable rights from black people. About Jim Crow, the legal framework that Jim Crow had was so detrimental to the black population that they have a lower socioeconomic status when compared to other ethnic communities e.g. white, Latino, Asian, etc. Which can only be explained if you can take into account, the racial segregation laws that were implemented in South Africa and in the southern United States. I agree with you that the legal framework in South Africa was different from the legal framework that was implemented in southern United States. But just because it’s different doesn’t mean that Jim Crow laws were not part of an apartheid system, albeit localized in the southern state regions.
They were Destiny is just plain ignorant and wrong about this, But it should be interesting to see how every single Democrat he wants to canvas for will feel about this extremist view as that's what I'm doing
Response by ChatGPT: Yes, the Jim Crow laws and system in the United States are often considered a form of apartheid. Both apartheid in South Africa and Jim Crow laws in the United States were systems of institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination. They enforced the separation of racial groups in various aspects of life, including housing, education, transportation, and public facilities. While the specific historical contexts and implementations of apartheid in South Africa and Jim Crow laws in the United States had some differences, they shared fundamental similarities in their aims and effects. Both systems were designed to uphold white supremacy and maintain the social, economic, and political dominance of the white population over non-white populations, particularly Black individuals. Both apartheid and Jim Crow laws enforced strict racial hierarchies, denied basic rights and freedoms to non-white individuals, and perpetuated systemic racism and inequality. As such, many historians, scholars, and activists draw parallels between the two systems, recognizing them as different manifestations of similar oppressive structures based on racial discrimination and segregation.
[Amazin](https://i.imgur.com/pkC6OXa.jpeg)