Talk:Jim Crow laws

A Gorilla

Why is there a gorrila on this page?

African American Flag??

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.116.126 (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC) 

I do not agree with having an invalid and offensive altered U.S. flag on this page. There is no such flag. As an American, I am offended. Africa and the US are COUNTRIES. Someone from Africa who is not a U.S. citizen but lives here would be a literal African-American. Even a white person. Someone who lives in the USA and is Black, is not an African-American, he is an AMERICAN. Virtually every race that makes up America is offended by being termed a sub-species of an American. This term is very divisive and although "politically" correct, is not correct. The Jim Crow article is otherwise a good one, although it does not cite some sources.-Jf 10:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually Africa is a continent not a counrty. - Sigurd

African-American is more of an ethnic identifier, separating the people of African or partially African descent living in America from the people in Africa. Their nationality is American, their ethnicity is African-American.

First of all, it's African colors superimposed over the outline of the US. Secondly, even if it were the African colors superimposed over a US flag... WHO DO YOU THINK IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUPERIMPOSITION?!? Give you a hint: it ain't the Africans who were dragged to this country in chains. Groupthink 04:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where anyone would see "flag" in the image on the top of the page. The only similarities I can see are the fact that the image uses stripes and has three colors, both very common characteristics of flags that didn't start with the United States. Natalie 04:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Redeeemers

I am curious about who the "redeemers" were and whether this is the most appropriate name for them. --Daniel C. Boyer

---

This is so interesting! -<3Carson L. Easter<3-

The redeemers were southerners that took control of the state governments after the end of the Civil War. redeemers are what they called themselves and what other people called them.

---

I have no time to edit the 20th century section, but I think it's important that the movers and shakers responsible for the overturning of Jim Crow have some mention here. The methodical, concerted strategy of the NAACP in tackling higher education, then elementary education, then public accommodations and the actors in those legal battles deserve mention. No account of Jim Crow can be complete without the names of Thurgood Marshall, Robert Carter and James Nabrit, et al., who meticulously went constructing a series of cases challenging segregation in public education. Important among these was a case initiated by a young high school student, Barbara Johns, in Prince Edward County, Maryland, who initiated a school walk-out and prevailed upon the NAACP to take on the PEC school system. After defying numerous court orders to desegregate its schools, PEC officials simply shut down, countywide, ALL public schools for a period of five years.

Further, there is no mention of the fact that, despite the striking down of de jure segregation, de facto segregation persists in this nation -- most notably in public education. One glaring example remains the Prince Edward County public education system.deeceevoice 07:53, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Intro needed

The article needs a clear concise introductary paragraph defining what exactly a Jim Crow law is, when they were enacted, and where the term comes from. Currently the reader needs to scan the text and find this info buried in the middle. johnsemlak 09:00 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! I look forward to reading the new intro. skywriter 13:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the intro. doesn't go its job of first defining the item. It also has WAY too much detail, as if what is now the intro. used to be the whole she-bang. I'll remedy the first problem at least. Sfahey 02:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The intro now represents history. For starters, I will remove this sentence: "The United States Congress and Supreme Court gradually whittled away at this discriminatory legislation" because it does not begin to explain the history, making it sound as though there was some sort of continuum where the court and Congress were "whittling" at discriminatory legislation. That's not what happened. People marched and sat in and were sprayed with water hoses and some Civil Rights workers were murdered before the government gave in. skywriter 04:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

1723?

Where did this date of 1723 as the first Jim Crow law come from? Is nobody else confused by the fact that this date is over one hundred years before the Civil War as well as 54 years before the American independence from Britain? My investigations have shown the earliest possible date for a "Jim Crow" law to be 1877. Furthermore, investigations of the date 1723 in relation to the state of Virginia show that it was a) not a state and b) enacting only one of a history of statutes biased against slaves.

Since Jim Crow laws explicitly apply to freed blacks being kept in continual social and political oppression (but not sanctioned slavery) through exclusitory lawmaking, I cannot find any logic in the facts attached to this 1723 date. The fact it has spread to other articles and across the Internet through the hordes of Wikilazyripoffs and people might actually be taking this date at face value is mildly unsettling.

I am modifying this information. If anyone happens to have factual knowledge that proves my stance inaccurate, I will gladly concede the point and approve of any reversals of my actions.

21st Century?

To follow up with deeceevoice above, I have a question. There is still a measure in the Florida Constitution that denies the right of convicted felons to vote, even after they have paid their debt; unless brought before the State Governor. This law was codified into the State Constitution in 1868, long before the 1890 post-Reconstruction date cited by the article for the beginning of Jim Crow laws. However, since this law was enacted to create difficulty for freed-slaves to access the ballots, would this not be considered a "Jim Crow law"? If not, and considering it is yet a post-Civil War legacy, where should this sort of information be included? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bastique (talk • contribs) 09:16, 28 April 2005 (UTC)

Since 1776 most states have laws against convicted felons voting--it is explictly allowed by the 14th amendment. The point is that only good citizens should be allowed to vote. Rjensen 02:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The following two paragraphs were written by reporter Fox Butterfield in the New York Times, December 29, 2002

The disenfranchisement laws do that in 13 states, where a felony conviction can result in a lifetime ban on voting. Since the 2000 election, several states, including New Mexico, Delaware and Maryland, have abandoned or modified disenfranchisement laws.

Florida, which has not changed its laws, has the largest number of disenfranchised voters, estimated at more than 600,000 banned for life, according to a lawsuit by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. The lawsuit maintains that the ban disproportionately affects Florida's African-American population, prohibiting about one quarter of the state's black men from voting.

Skywriter 13:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering that almost 95% of african-americans vote democrat, it could be sayd that its a low key Jim Crow law. Then again its debatable, since it is more of a political move more than anything else. [written by unknown contributor)

I have some material on this and will try to add it. By the way, if you press the tilde key four times, your signature (user name, the date and time will follow your comment) The tilde is the squiggly key reached by pressing the shift key and the key that is perhaps, but not always adjacent to the number 1 key. On my keyboard, the tilde, which looks like this ~ is to the left of the number 1 key. skywriter 03:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We need to rely on what sources say, not on our own conclusions. -Will Beback 02:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

@skywriter...sure, I know that now. But I wrote that back a long time ago! ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 04:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

jim crow laws

Can you give me some examples of Jim Crow Laws?--24.178.103.148 23:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I added a section with some general examples and some that are state-specific. This is a really big subject and this article touches only the tip of it. skywriter 05:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

what does this sentence mean?

This is in the current version of this article and it is unclear on many levels and imprecise:

The Supreme Court of the United States invalidated most of the laws with the Civil Rights Act of 1875, a law passed by Congress to protect African Americans from private acts of discrimination.

Does anyone understand the intent of the above sentence or what is its intent? Tx skywriter 00:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not positive this section is correct, or it may be factual but only with the barest of bonest. In any case, it is now consistent with the Wikipedia link to the 1875 Civil Rights law. skywriter 03:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That means (to me) that anyone can publically discriminate against a black person. Private means in the privacy of one's home or of the likes. Personally the Jim Crow laws were a load of crap and I give two barrels about them. The Jim Crow laws also spawned the Nuremburg Laws in Germany, where Hitler used them to determine who was jewish if they had German in them. Should he have been offed as well? I mean he had more Jewish looks than he did German. 147.153.251.188Babsi147.153.251.188 16.15 Uhr 23.August 2006

Private act of discrimination - what about econmic discrimination. That is totally American.

... and this one too

"... provided some civil rights protection for African-Americans, who were formerly enslaved by white plantation owners, as well as smaller white farm owners." Were the "smaller white farm owners" the enslavers or the protected? Although confused by this opening sentence, I think I did correctly interpret "smaller" to refer to the farms, and not the farmers. Sfahey 06:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

does this help at all?

John Hope Franklin: "One must always remember that there were more small farms where there were slaves than large plantations, although always the majority of the slaves were on large plantations." http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/interviews/frame.htm

(The above is found deep in the conversation among historians about the TJ legacy. skywriter 06:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it because it clears up the preponderance of slave ownership issue. skywriter 06:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent change in Intro

You can't ignore Brown v Board and JOhnson's Civil Rights Act in getting the racist laws off the books. The last paragraph is also overly detailed for an Intro, but would go quite well in the text.Sfahey 23:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is pressure came from below. What the Warren court did in Brown and related cases in the mid-1950s, and what Congress did in 1965 came after black soldiers returning from WWII stirred against segregation at home. There was tremendous activity in African American and allied communities in the late 1940s and early 1950s pushing for equal justice under the law. It took until 1954 for the Brown v. school board case to wind its way through the courts but the lawsuits and demonstrations began much earlier. And, it took the deaths of too many in the Civil Rights movement before LBJ hopped on the bandwagon to push through the C.R. law of 1965. At all times, it was the groundswell from below that made it happen. Certainly the role of the Warren Court and LBJ is part of the story, but it wasn't like the government led the parade. Quite the contrary, especially RFK during JFK presidency. skywriter 00:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 20:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Jim Crow law → Jim Crow laws : More than one law involved; article uses plural.

Voting and discussion

Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "~~~~"

• Support as proposer. David Kernow 15:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support proposal for reasons stated by User:David Kernow. There were many Jim Crow laws, not just one. skywriter 17:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Ground Zero | t 17:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - though I note that "Jim Crow" would also suffice without bending the naming guideline. -Will Beback 22:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - yes there were many laws; probably most readers would not catch the subtley that 'Jim Crow law' would refer to the collective body of all Jim Crow laws.
• Comment - Wikipedia naming conventions strongly prefer singular nouns. There are, of course, exceptions. Whether or not this is one, I don't know -Jesuschex 04:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

addition

can anyone add more about the effect of these laws on latinos and asians for example ?

Should there be some mention of the "Jim Crow" character from Disney's Dumbo?

As I understood it, the laws and customs varied from place to place, but, generally speaking, Asians and Hispanics were expected to use white facilities such as restrooms and drinking fountains, and were expected to sit in front on public conveyances, but were barred from many places of public accommodation. The principal exceptions were Florida, Louisiana, and Texas, which had strong and influential Hispanic communities, often dating back to before Anglo colonization, and, as such, Hispanics had a good deal more access. However, Japanese-Americans stationed in the south during WWII encountered pervasive discrimination, and the issue flared up again. This is how it was related to me by people whom I trust and respect, but they are now dead. If anyone can suggest a good source to corroborate or dispute this, I'd be grateful.Carlaclaws 22:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect

I've recommended the article be semi-protected, as there have been so many vandal attacks on it recently. --Tim4christ17 16:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 07:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

• Jim Crow laws → Jim Crow … Rationale: the laws were only one aspect of the period known as Jim Crow … Please share your opinion at Talk:Jim Crow laws. Ewlyahoocom 00:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Oppose unless proposed title indicates more than a person's name; not all folk (especially outside U.S.) will realise article is about a period of U.S. history/sociology rather than a particular person. David Kernow 11:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I could support moving it to something like Jim Crow era, though based on my own admittedly limted perspective, the term I most commonly associate with "Jim Crow" is "laws". older ≠ wiser 15:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The article name was just changed to what it is and explains what the article is about. If one wants to pull all the Jim Crow era into one place, a category would work. Thanks Hmains 15:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per David--Aldux 16:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

"Jim Crow" is a bit too informal, I suggest. Better I think to have an "Age of Segregation" title, which can cover more topics, like disfranchisement. Rjensen 00:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citations needed in the text

This article is better than some on related issues in that it has some sources directly in the text and therefore that content is verifiable. However, the basic problem remains with much of this article: it violates central tenets of Wikipedia: verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.

Bibliography does not substitute for sourcing within the article.

Wikipedia has standards. They are not being enforced here. This is not a whim. It is policy. This page will be flagged for the absence of specific citations. Citing sources will be a service to readers, especially student readers who will know that we enforce policy against sloppy research techniques. Skywriter 02:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Gerrymandering

Small edit- Just adding to "The legacy of Jim Crow" that the manipulation of voting districts is called gerrymandering. Animarxivist 16:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how this applies. Gerrymandering, in fact today, is politically, not racially motivated. And it helps one party in some states, while it helps other parties in other states. Bastique▼^parler _{voir 02:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)}

Actually, a lot of gerrymandering is racially motivated, but that's irrelevent because all I added was that that's what the process was called. Animarxivist 05:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

Does anyone know where the term "Jim Crow" laws actually originates? Was Jim Crow an actual individual, was it a derogatory term for African-Americans, etc. Walton monarchist89 09:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering the same. It seems to have been a general word black people. Which in turn came from the song Jump Jim Crow. It says so in that article. Someone please incorporate it into this article somehow. --Apoc2400 09:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I will. Walton monarchist89 10:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Examples of Jim Crow laws in various states

Would be nice if all the laws had dates, like the ones under Florida. Date of enactment as well as date of repeal would be especially useful... --Bookgrrl 19:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Glitch in first line of article!

"in force between 1876 and..." When?

Could someone who knows the answer put it in? Many thanks Notreallydavid 20:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (really in Britain)

Requested move

• Jim Crow laws → Jim Crow Era … Rationale: The laws lasted for a certain time period, and aren't active today. The title makes it sound like a current law. … Please share your opinion of my request below 72.92.84.100 14:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Medium Support--I can see why that is a good title, but I'm debating wheather or not to agree.... (Will be decided later) RyGuy 14:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Support-- Ok, I think it's a good move. RyGuy 12:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

"This era was very important in the United States at this time."

I don't know what this sentence is supposed to mean. Could someone clarify this, or could it just be removed? Abimelech 22:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have been removed. (SEWilco 07:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Hindsight

With 20/20 hindsight:

If I were to ask an audience today whether or not you think the Jim Crow laws were morally right, most people would answer no. However, if I posed this question 50 years ago, they would say yes. Once upon a time, Martin Luther was a common criminal. The police were enforcing the law they swore to uphold. So, do you side with a common criminal or law enforcement? The Germans said they were just following orders. To this day, people say the same thing although publicly acknowledging that the Jim Crow laws were morally wrong. What gives? Are people just trying to save face? Brad C. January 13, 2007

Disfranchisement after the Civil War

Disfranchisement issues were scattered among several articles so their relationship was not apparent. The topic is being woven together in Disfranchisement after the Civil War. Please examine that article, as the few mentions of election issues in Jim Crow laws should be moved when the other article is ready, unless there are "separate but equal" situations in election related situations. I'm only aware of the separate registration lists in Louisiana, and should that be considered a Jim Crow law? (SEWilco 07:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Vandalism

I have very little exp. on the edit side of wikis, so I don't know how to revert when an article is protected, but the edits by user loyaltothecorn are vandalism. Also, see his talk page. I'll leave it to one of the experts to handle, just wanted to point it out.Rocketbiff 05:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

In the following sentence, I recommend changing the first "were" to "be."

"Although it was required that the facilities provided were equal they were not."

D021317c 12:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Name

It would be nice if the article explained how these laws came to be named after the character of Jim Crow, described in the Thomas D. Rice article. -- Beland 18:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Back to the 21^st Century?

The entry on "Jim Crow Laws" at the end of summary just above "Origins" currently states as a fact the following:

"In the 21st Century, Jim Crow Laws are being looked at in a new light. Whereas, in the past, they were looked upon as examples of discrimination, they now are held up as examples of proper civil coexistence between the races. Also, the argument that illegal Mexicans are to be accepted for their work that Americans will not do did not exist in those times. Congress is actively seeking to restore several of these laws for the public welfare."

I would like to see some evidence of the claim that Jim Crow laws are "now held up as examples of proper civil coexistence between the races." That's news to me!
Also, who in Congress is "actively seeking to restore several of these laws?" DickHnl 02:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC) --DickHnl 02:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)