JimF-LowBari Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Horn Teacher made me google again.... Plessy vs Ferguson (1896) upheld states segregation laws. Plessy was of mixed race and was considered "black" even thou he only had IIRC 1/16 Afro-American ancestry. So at least according to LA law at the time... 1/16 was legally black... That 1/16 stuck in my mind.so had to check.... Jimmys History Minute is over again...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornTeacher Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Horn Teacher made me google again.... Plessy vs Ferguson (1896) upheld states segregation laws. Plessy was of mixed race and was considered "black" even thou he only had IIRC 1/16 Afro-American ancestry. So at least according to LA law at the time... 1/16 was legally black... That 1/16 stuck in my mind.so had to check.... Jimmys History Minute is over again...... Thank you for the researched back-up, Jim. I am appreciative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I have not shortened the above response by jjeffeory in order to ignore anything else he had to say. I have merely done so since this section is the section which I find interest (and somewhat legitimacy) in responding. In my 35 years as a genealogist, I have encountered the information that in times past in our country, anyone possessing as little as 1/16ths African-American bloodline was legally considered to be "black"...even if the remaining 15/16ths of the individual's bloodlines were proven to be Caucasian. What occurred to my mind rather early on in my experience was the question "If a person was proven to be 15/16th's African-American, but possessed 1/16th's Caucasian bloodline, would that then render them as being "Caucasian?" Repeated questioning to several genealogical professionals resulted in the simple answer of "No...if one had as little as 1/16ths African-American blood, then that is what their classification became." So much for equality...1/16ths marks one as "the OTHER kind" in one case...but not the opposite. Please...don't give me any "well-meaning" bull...this was nothing other than discriminatory to the extreme. Not arguing with you, jj...but in fact, I think I'm supporting the idea which you are opening up. I took it as that when I read your post. Very true what you said about the mixtures... That's so very American... The One Drop Rule. There's a comedian, Steve Byrne ( Half-Korean, Half-Irish) who uses ethnic/racial identity as comedic fodder in acts. He basically jokes that you are "whatever ruins the white"... I think I've used that quote here before in the past several years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornTeacher Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) I took it as that when I read your post. Very true what you said about the mixtures... That's so very American... The One Drop Rule. There's a comedian, Steve Byrne ( Half-Korean, Half-Irish) who uses ethnic/racial identity as comedic fodder in acts. He basically jokes that you are "whatever ruins the white"... I think I've used that quote here before in the past several years... I've missed your past references to this, Jeff...but I'll plead "calendrial ignorance," since I've only been a DCP member since August of 2013... But your point is clear...and valid. I, myself, am of 15/16th English bloodline, and 1/16ths Irish (my 2nd great-grandmother, Mary Sullivan of Killarney...bless her holy soul). Whenever I'm celebrating St. Patrick's Day...or cheering on the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame (funny...a school established by a group of French Clerics becoming known as the "Fighting Irish"...thank goodness for some of the "Four Horsemen"), I'm continually reminded by my Irish friends, "But remember, laddie,,,you're not TRUE Irish." Funny how the world operates at times... Edited April 1, 2015 by HornTeacher 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Well there you go. I disagree completely with this and have made a pretty much airtight case of why it's not quite the same at all. There is no need to tie the two together yet for some reason people actually want to do this for drama or to add significance? I have stated my opnion on this and why they are not the same even though both are bad. We all discriminate on a daily basis, because that word does not mean what you think it's means 24/7 (but that is another intellectual battle). It would be great to live in a world where there was no such thing. Personally, I think this fight is one that is being won daily and in time it will be nothing but a footnote in history. Look at womens suffrage women have had the right to vote in this country for less than 100 years. This is my last post on this matter. Hopefully saner minds and hearts will prevail. I do NOT think this law will stop DCI nor kill the activity. I disagree with you on this one, but I respect your opinion. I agree they're not the same, but they're both examples of discrimination. I also agree with you that the word discrimination gets a bad reputation; in this context discrimination is denying a group based upon certain characteristics which are legally protected or socially unacceptable. The general definition of the word is neither good nor bad, it is just an action... Picking one thing over another... I agree with the rest of your ideas in this post and I didn't think you were out there, just fyi... I agree this issue isn't going to kill DCI nor the activity. I don't think DCI needs to do anything at the moment, as other, more capable and influential businesses and organizations are likely to be taking up this issue with their money and resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I've missed your past references to this, Jeff...but I'll plead "calendrial ignorance," since I've only been a DCP member since August of 2013... But your point is clear...and valid. I, myself, am of 15/16th English bloodline, and 1/16ths Irish (my 2nd great-grandmother, Mary Sullivan of Killarney...bless her holy soul). Whenever I'm celebrating St. Patrick's Day...or cheering on the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame (funny...a school established by a group of French Clerics becoming known as the "Fighting Irish"...thank goodness for some of the "Four Horsemen"), I'm continually reminded by my Irish friends, "But remember, laddie,,,you're not TRUE Irish." Funny how the world operates at times... DUDE, I'm trying to stay on topic! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornTeacher Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) DUDE, I'm trying to stay on topic! lol And doing a heck of a lot better job of it than I am!!! (I think I should just shut up and read from here on out...) Edited April 1, 2015 by HornTeacher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 And doing a heck of a lot better job of it than I am!!! (I think I should just shut up and read from here on out...) Well, I'm sure there are plenty here that want me to do that too, but they've been kind enough not to ask me ( or tell me). I want to just lurk; sometimes there's a post that just pushes my buttons. I'll try to lurk now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) I also agree with you that the word discrimination gets a bad reputation; in this context discrimination is denying a group based upon certain characteristics which are legally protected or socially unacceptable. The general definition of the word is neither good nor bad, it is just an action... Picking one thing over another... In that vein, I think Indiana might seek to restore its reputation by adding a slogan to its signs at the state line: ______________________________ | | | Welcome to Indiana! | | | We're really not that discriminating |______________________________| || || || || || || . Edited April 1, 2015 by skevinp 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2muchcoffeeman Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) Amid all the noise and rancor that seems to dominate everything online, it is possible to find quiet corners where reasoned discussion occurs. For those who hunger for a sober, respectful and meaningful discussion on the ground where civil liberties of gays bump up against the religious liberties of believers, I recommend this debate between two legal minds. No matter what side you claim on this debate, you will be both affirmed and challenged. You will come away with greater insight to your way of thinking, while you also will gain greater appreciation for the views of those on the other side of the table. The legal lens through which these two lawyers examine the issue is not exactly the same as the RFRA, but the same principles are in play. It is familiar territory to those who have engaged in this national debate for the past few days. It takes 10-15 minutes to read through. If nothing else, it is evidence that the Internet can provide something besides flame wars, trolls and cats. Edited April 1, 2015 by 2muchcoffeeman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts