Talk:Jim Crow laws

World War II era Typo

The second sentence of the second paragraph is: "In its pivotal 1954 decision, the Court unanimously overturned the 1896 Plessy ruling. decision." (bold added). I imagine only one of those ("ruling" [which I would go for] or "decision") was really intended to be there. Just thought I would give you a heads up, for the same reason as the William Gibbs McAdoo contributor.

Y Done Abby Kelleyite (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Jim Crow nomenclature

Hi, I don't mean to sound like an idiot, but I was wondering if some more learned folk on this issue could expand on wtf 'jim crow' is and means. I mean, the article says it refers to something called 'jump jim crow'? I'm not American, so I don't quite understand the import of it. Was it a perjorative term for American's of African descent at the time? Would it be considered insensitive by the periods moral value set? For example, would it be the equivilent of say 'nigger laws' or something offensive of that nature? Or was it an Americanism that was thought to be less offensive?

From the outside looking in it seems patently obsurd that something as objective as LAWS would be named after some fictional thing called Jump Jim Crow. That'd be like a female sexual predator or pedophillia act being called brought in and called Beiber Laws, while to us, right now, that makes sense and we'll have a little chuckle, was that what this Jim Crow nonsense was? The obscurity of the fact it's based on a character in a play by a dude just leaves me wanting expansion on that section and frustrated and confused. :(

It's really hard to understand the scope of the naming of these laws, and it's always been something that's driven me friggen nuts every time I've heard it mentioned in books or on TV because I can't fathom how such a bizarre-o name could possibly pass through a parliament house without all present (racism aside, period aside, everything aside) not telling the petitioner to fuck off and come back when he takes democracy seriously. Although that being said, there'd be a lot of irony in that (for those slower than even I, which is pretty slow, I mean for non-democratic bills subjugating a people by ethnicity being a bad example of democracy for a reason ASIDE from the fact it's subjugating a people by ethnicity).

So please, please, PLEASE can we have some clarity on this weird name and what it's meant to be exactly? 58.165.131.151 (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

58.165.131.151 has a good point. It's not clear from the article that the name is not the official name but the vernacular reference to range of state and local legislation enacted over many years and in many locations. I'm not sure I'm the one to fix this but I make take a crack at it if no one else does. Jojalozzo 15:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"Blacks and poor whites" - really?

There are four unsupported statements in the text of the second, third, and fourth paragraphs under "Origin of Jim Crow laws":

"participation by most blacks and many poor whites began to decrease."

"effectively disfranchised most blacks and tens of thousands of poor whites"

"Denied the ability to vote, blacks and poor whites could neither serve on juries nor in local office. They could not influence the state legislatures, and their interests were overlooked."

"In some cases, progressive measures to reduce election fraud acted against black and poor white voters who were illiterate."

In each case, blacks are lumped together with "poor whites." This is not my understanding of the effect of the Jim Crow laws, and in any case, I find this difficult to believe. The origin of the Jim Crow laws was to be against blacks.

In point of fact, the article then goes on to refute these very points:

"While poll taxes and literacy requirements banned many Americans from voting, these stipulations frequently had loopholes that exempted white Americans from meeting the requirements." The article then goes on to give a documented example of such loopholes in Oklahoma.

If there is no verification/support for the information cited against "poor whites", I believe it should be removed. (Jgroub (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Cites have been added, and a reference to the main article on Disfranchisement after Reconstruction era for more details. In Alabama, particularly, and some other states, poor whites were disfranchised along with blacks, who were indeed the main target - through literacy tests, poll taxes, extended residency requirements and other means. Virtually all blacks were disfranchise, even when educated and literate. Yes, grandfather clauses helped some whites escape literacy tests - there were many variables state to state. Such effects are not well known; that's why they are covered here. There has been considerable research on this topic.Parkwells (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the cites. Jgroub (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Akarisamax3, 19 August 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I would like to edit the "black Americans" name change to African-Americans. Though I'm not African-American, I find that the link is "black American" and not it's proper name. Thank you.

Akarisamax3 (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think your point is that the African American title was chosen over "Black American" for a reason and rather than argue that all over again we can just point to that decision and apply it here, right? In fact, there is a whole section in African American on the term "African American".

However, in the lead paragraph, the phrase "black Americans" appears to be used as a contrast with the subsequent phrase "white Americans." This is a stylistic choice that I think works well. (A more historically accurate term would be "'colored' Americans". I'm not sure how well that would work.)

African Americans are often referred in this article and in African American as "blacks." Are you proposing we change them all? Jojalozzo 03:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

N Not done No consensus, no ref  Chzz  ►  05:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Jim Crow is not just Law

Why is there no article in Wikipedia about Jim Crow itself? We only have an article about Jim Crow laws. But Jim Crow was much more than the laws; Jim Crow refers to the entire system of apartheid that was established to keep blacks in apartheid conditions. This included some laws, yes, but it also included the myriad voluntary decisions of whites to refuse blacks access to civil society and full rights: the refusal of banks to give blacks loans; the refusal of realtors to sell blacks property except in black ghettors; the refusal of private schools to take black students; the refusal of businesses to provide jobs or services to blacks, except within the framework of Jim Crow.

This is a serious gap in Wikipedia. An article about Jim Crow -- not Jim Crow Laws -- is badly needed. 24.180.162.13 (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You may be right. But for any long-term law to exist, there supposedly exists and underlying support for it in a democratic society. This could be discussed in this article, perhaps? And a redirect from "Jim Crow" if it doesn't exist already? Student7 (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)