Plessy v Fergusson Lives!

[Gospel]

People who used the vague and arguably nonexistent “colorblind” argument to gut the Voting Rights Act were never interested in empathy, reconciliation, or understanding the historical reasons those protections existed in the first place. The moment they get the opportunity, niggers will be hanging from trees again.

Using Bob Ross for a “painting with a broad brush” joke while defending “colorblindness” is kind of ironic considering Bob Ross literally taught people to notice and work with different shades and colors instead of pretending they don’t exist.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

People who used the vague and arguably nonexistent “colorblind” argument to gut the Voting Rights Act were never interested in empathy, reconciliation, or understanding the historical reasons those protections existed in the first place. The moment they get the opportunity, niggers will be hanging from trees again.

Using Bob Ross for a “painting with a broad brush” joke while defending “colorblindness” is kind of ironic considering Bob Ross literally taught people to notice and work with different shades and colors instead of pretending they don’t exist.

I think Derec's point has merit. Just because someone is apathetic (or flat out in denial) regarding racial inequality, doesn't mean they would support violence against them.

 

[Derec]

Using Bob Ross for a “painting with a broad brush” joke while defending “colorblindness” is kind of ironic considering Bob Ross literally taught people to notice and work with different shades and colors instead of pretending they don’t exist.

Noticing shades and colors is different than thinking that some should have a special legal status.
When people talk about "colorblindness" it should not be taken literally. We just mean that race should not matter regarding e.g. government and other institutional policies. For example Kamala Harris pledging forgivable loans for blacks only was a racist proposal, and it should have been part of that infamous autopsy of her ill-fated 2024 campaign.

And my point about "painting with a broad brush" was you jumping from disagreements about how districting should be done straight to lynching.

I notice you have not bothered to reply to post #91. In it I offer some nuance about the whole thing, but that does not fit the broad brush painting and moral panic invoking.

 

[Gospel]

I am not arguing that there wasn't a problem that needed to be addressed. That does not change the fact that it was addressed in a very flawed way. It would be one thing if it was understood as a temporary band aid, but in the decades since it has calcified into a permanent "solution". So much so that it is seen as the only way those issues CAN be addressed, and that any attempts at reform are inherently "racist". See all the hyperbole over "Jim Crow 2.0" and similar.

But that still sidesteps the issue: the Voting Rights Act only became necessary because “race-neutral” systems were repeatedly used in very non-neutral ways. Literacy tests, poll taxes, selective enforcement, racial gerrymandering, strategically closing polling places, etc., were all defended with supposedly neutral language too.

So when I hear "modern colorblind” arguments, I'm skeptical because history shows that neutrality on paper does not always translate to neutrality in practice. That doesn’t automatically make every reform racist, but it does explain why I'm cautious when protections created in response to very real abuses are weakened be an obviously bullshit argument.

America is certainly much different than it was in the 1960s. So much so that Obama won presidency twice, in a country that is only ~14% black. He also managed to secure the nomination because he did well in early states of Iowa and New Hampshire that are whiter than the country as a whole.
Today, there are five black US Senators, and the Governor of Maryland is also black, even though no US state in majority black. That works against the argument that a mandatory quota of black majority districts is somehow necessary for black representation.
In fact, by cultivating black candidates who appeal to a more diverse electorate on the level of House of Representatives (and even state legislature) level, we will get more politicians like Wes Moore and Barack Obama. What's wrong with that?

But that argument only proves America became less racist than it was in the 1960s, not that race stopped mattering altogether or that the protections became unnecessary by default.

Obama winning twice doesn’t erase the historical reasons the Voting Rights Act existed any more than having successful Black athletes erased segregation. It just shows progress happened. The real question is whether the conditions that created the need for oversight completely disappeared, and I don’t think that’s as self-evident as you’re presenting it.

And honestly, using a handful of highly exceptional examples like Obama or Wes Moore can cut both ways. I could also argue their success partly demonstrates what happens when barriers are reduced and broader participation is protected in the first place.

Now unless I’m mistaken, districts already take demographics, geography, and communities into account in all kinds of ways. Pretending race can never be considered at all ignores how district maps actually function in practice.

Different communities often have different historical experiences, voting patterns, priorities, and concerns. Recognizing that reality is not the same thing as claiming one group is “better” or fundamentally separate from another, nor does it mean race is automatically the deciding factor. In many cases, these are simply communities made up largely of Black, Asian, or Latino residents with shared interests and concerns.

It’s really just an acknowledgment that representation and community interests are legitimate factors in how districts are drawn.

As for majority-Black districts, I don’t think the argument was ever “Black people are incapable of winning without quotas.” The concern was that without protections, map drawing and voting structures could be manipulated in ways that consistently dilute minority voting power while still appearing “neutral” on paper. History shows that absolutely happened before. Entire communities were effectively invisible during elections.

And if you haven’t noticed, after key parts of the Voting Rights Act were weakened by the Supreme Court, several states immediately (even during a fucking election) began redrawing maps in ways that removed majority-Black districts. That’s precisely why I remain skeptical of purely “colorblind” approaches to voting law.

Do you really not find it odd that mapmakers are intentionally avoiding the creation of Black districts while simultaneously claiming race is not being used as a decisive factor?

 

[Gospel]

People who used the vague and arguably nonexistent “colorblind” argument to gut the Voting Rights Act were never interested in empathy, reconciliation, or understanding the historical reasons those protections existed in the first place. The moment they get the opportunity, niggers will be hanging from trees again.

Using Bob Ross for a “painting with a broad brush” joke while defending “colorblindness” is kind of ironic considering Bob Ross literally taught people to notice and work with different shades and colors instead of pretending they don’t exist.

I think Derec's point has merit. Just because someone is apathetic (or flat out in denial) regarding racial inequality, doesn't mean they would support violence against them.

Apathy toward racial inequality contributes to harmful outcomes and empowers people willing to commit abuses. If you knowingly remove safeguards against abuse, you can’t completely separate yourself from the consequences when people predictably abuse the system.

 

[Gospel]

I notice you have not bothered to reply to post #91. In it I offer some nuance about the whole thing, but that does not fit the broad brush painting and moral panic invoking.

Oh please. People have lives.

 

[Derec]

But that still sidesteps the issue: the Voting Rights Act only became necessary because “race-neutral” systems were repeatedly used in very non-neutral ways.

No, it addresses it head-on. The way to deal with systems being applied in non-neutral ways was to fix them, not with bandaids that apply another race-based system on top of it. Because that never dealt with underlying issues of racial discrimination. Same goes for the system of racial preferences in college/grad/professional school admissions and hiring that goes under the somewhat misleading name of "affirmative action". It dealt with some real problems of that era by imposing its own system of racial, ethnic and gender hierarchies on top of the flawed edifice. But two wrongs don't make a right, and the whole edifice soon started to show cracks that haunt us to this day.

Literacy tests, poll taxes,

I would be fine with test as long as they were consistently applied. Better than mere literacy would be civics. Give everyone a selection of questions from the citizenship test before voting for example.
I do not think outright poll taxes should come back, but it is getting ridiculous when people think that expecting any effort to vote is tantamount to a "poll tax".

selective enforcement, racial gerrymandering, strategically closing polling places, etc., were all defended with supposedly neutral language too.

Those three are not defensible of course. But I still maintain that the solution to racial gerrymandering is not to write a federal law that mandates racial gerrymandering.

So when I hear "modern colorblind” arguments, I'm skeptical because history shows that neutrality on paper does not always translate to neutrality in practice.

But there is no good alternative to having public policy be colorblind. Because if you advocate for racially based policies in favor of your race, then what exactly is wrong with racially based policies in favor of the other races? The result is perpetual racial conflict.

That doesn’t automatically make every reform racist, but it does explain why I'm cautious when protections created in response to very real abuses are weakened be an obviously bullshit argument.

The abuses were real, but that does not mean that the supposed solution of driving the Devil out with Beelzebub was not a good one. And it's not a bad thing to realize that.

But that argument only proves America became less racist than it was in the 1960s, not that race stopped mattering altogether or that the protections became unnecessary by default.

I think it's the opposite though. The reason race still matters as much as it does (but less so) is because of misguided policies from 1960s/70s. If we are to advance, we need to update our thinking and not be forever stuck in those paradigms.

Obama winning twice doesn’t erase the historical reasons the Voting Rights Act existed any more than having successful Black athletes erased segregation. It just shows progress happened. The real question is whether the conditions that created the need for oversight completely disappeared, and I don’t think that’s as self-evident as you’re presenting it.

Obama winning twice, as well as black politicians winning in majority-white jurisdictions, is evidence that white people will vote for some black candidates. That is an argument against having to artificially create a certain number of majority-black districts like LA6.

And honestly, using a handful of highly exceptional examples like Obama or Wes Moore can cut both ways. I could also argue their success partly demonstrates what happens when barriers are reduced and broader participation is protected in the first place.

I have no problem with reducing barriers and having a broader participation. But I don't think racially segregating districts is conducive to that, especially in today's day and age.

Now unless I’m mistaken, districts already take demographics, geography, and communities into account in all kinds of ways. Pretending race can never be considered at all ignores how district maps actually function in practice.

Well, as I wrote before, there are problems with the concept of districts to begin with.
Second, of course many things are taken into account. The issue is a law that mandates racial gerrymander to get a particular number of majority black districts. That means that race is weighed far more heavily than other considerations.

It’s really just an acknowledgment that representation and community interests are legitimate factors in how districts are drawn.

That is not the same as federal law mandating districts like Backslashistan.

As for majority-Black districts, I don’t think the argument was ever “Black people are incapable of winning without quotas.” The concern was that without protections, map drawing and voting structures could be manipulated in ways that consistently dilute minority voting power while still appearing “neutral” on paper. History shows that absolutely happened before. Entire communities were effectively invisible during elections.

But there are many different communities in any state, and most of them will be diluted within districts. What makes race so special?

Do you really not find it odd that mapmakers are intentionally avoiding the creation of Black districts while simultaneously claiming race is not being used as a decisive factor?

If there is a law that privileges or mandates creation of majority-black districts, I would absolutely expect the number of majority black districts to go down if that law is struck down or weakened by the courts. Just like I would expect the racial makeup of the incoming freshman class to change when racial discrimination in college admissions is outlawed.