Could the rise of Jim Crow have been prevented?

Status
Not open for further replies.

RousseauX

Donor
No one doubts that, but events taking place at the same time historians are working affect their interpretations. Using my civil rights example historians sought looking at "the bad south" narrative around the time the civil rights movement prevailed. Society and current events affect historians that it my point.
But then I can flip this around just as easily and point out the prevalence of the lost cause mythos/explicit racism against blacks in the late 19th century/early 20th taint historical research of the period much more so than any bias the civil rights movement introduced. And that the closer you are to an event, the more biased you get because of your personal experience and involvement in said events taints any attempt at objective judgement.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Had the civil rights movement failed or history in the US followed a wildly different path than OTL you can bet your life the interpretations of past events including the civil war would look different.
Yes, but only because then the commonly accepted view would be that blacks were racially inferior which is objectively wrong and so would the resulting analysis
 

Yun-shuno

Banned
But then I can flip this around just as easily and point out the prevalence of the lost cause mythos/explicit racism against blacks in the late 19th century/early 20th taint historical research of the period much more so than any bias the civil rights movement introduced. And that the closer you are to an event, the more biased you get because of your personal experience and involvement in said events taints any attempt at objective judgement.
That's a fair response. Also I can turn it around say how about in 2050 or 2100do you think interpreting of WW2 or the 20th century will be the same as today? History is always "tainted". Unless of course you are a god or alien observing without having any stake.
 

RousseauX

Donor
That's a fair response. Also I can turn it around say how about in 2050 or 2100do you think interpreting of WW2 or the 20th century will be the same as today? History is always "tainted". Unless of course you are a god or alien observing without having any stake.
Yes, and I think there is a very good chance (prob 95%+) that a 23rd century analysis of WW2 is gonna be a lot more accurate than a 2016 interpretation of it
 

Yun-shuno

Banned
Yes, but only because then the commonly accepted view would be that blacks were racially inferior which is objectively wrong and so would the resulting analysis
Blacks being inferior is a morally inferior position to hold not an objective one. 2 + 2 equals five is objectively wrong. If the Nazis prevailed or a nuclear holocaust occurred or a communist revolution happened the interpretation of history would have been wildly both qualitatively and quantitatively different
 

RousseauX

Donor
Blacks being inferior is a morally inferior position to hold not an objective one.
When I say "racial inferior" I mean the sort of person who says something like the genetics of black people make them less intelligence (this was once a mainstream view), not where they stand morally
 

Yun-shuno

Banned
Yes, and I think there is a very good chance (prob 95%+) that a 23rd century analysis of WW2 is gonna be a lot more accurate than a 2016 interpretation of it
Interpretation by definition is subjective. They might emphasize different things, neglect others, and focus on different aspects of these events it wouldn't be the same as 2+2=4 versus 2+2=5.
 

Yun-shuno

Banned
When I say "racial inferior" I mean the sort of person who says something like the genetics of black people make them less intelligence (this was once a mainstream view), not where they stand morally
Your saying that holding such a view is objectively wrong no it isn't it's morally wrong yes. But it is a subjective interpretation. The same as me saying that painting describes this and you say no it describes that.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Interpretation by definition is subjective. They might emphasize different things, neglect others, and focus on different aspects of these events it wouldn't be the same as 2+2=4 versus 2+2=5.
You are confusing interpretations with value judgement

The historical interpretation of China as less developed because Chinese people are genetically inferior relative to whites is for instance objectively wrong
 

Yun-shuno

Banned
You are confusing interpretations with value judgement

The historical interpretation of China as less developed because Chinese people are genetically inferior relative to whites is for instance objectively wrong
The zeitgeist of imperialism and modern racialism affected historical interpretation. Here it's an unfortunate mixture the value judgement "those yellow Devils are less evolved" supported the interpretation why didn't they invent cars and trains.

Objectivity is a panacea and a dream it's not something that can be achieved at least now by us mere mortals.
 

RousseauX

Donor
The zeitgeist of imperialism and modern racialism affected historical interpretation. Here it's an unfortunate mixture the value judgement "those yellow Devils are less evolved" supported the interpretation why didn't they invent cars and trains.

Objectivity is a panacea and a dream it's not something that can be achieved at least now by us mere mortals.
Obviously nobody is ever gonna hit 100% objectivity

At the same time not all historical narratives are at the same level of objectivity, it's possible for one history book to be written with a far more objective viewpoint than another

See for instance classical Marx against something like Ian Morris' Why the West Rules, both of them are biased, but one is a hell lot more biased than another
 

Yun-shuno

Banned
Obviously nobody is ever gonna hit 100% objectivity

At the same time not all historical narratives are at the same level of objectivity, it's possible for one history book to be written with a far more objective viewpoint than another

See for instance classical Marx against something like Ian Morris' Why the West Rules, both of them are biased, but one is a hell lot more biased than another
Unless you want to develop a non-ideological science of history(I have heard of such a thing) cliometrics maybe...? Than everything is subjective period.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Unless you want to develop a non-ideological science of history(I have heard of such a thing) cliometrics maybe...? Than everything is subjective period.
There is no such thing as 100% subjectivity or 100% objectivity, it's a sliding scale btwn the two with any historical work. It's just some are at 10/90 while others are at 90/10 mix.

One of the sad things about current political discourse especially in the US is for people to simply throw out academic experts with the accusation of bias, if you want a non-historical example of this: look at climate change which has overwhelming scientific consensus but is denied by one of the two major parties under the guise that the experts only reached that consensus due to a conspiracy of ulterior motives.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
So? It was a violent time and unfortunately the KKK had support mostly because of carpetbaggers and the Feds.

I guess you've never lived under military occupation.
Really? Apologizing for the KKK because it was a violent time?

This is your third kick, and seventh action overall in about nine weeks of membership. That is close to a record. Not a record you want to have.

Consider this a last chance. I already had the Ban button selected for this little jewel of a post before I talked myself out of it. Next time you go off-side is the last time.
 
The Federal Regulars march into every southern capital that dares to pass such abortions of justice, as they should have done in reality. My two cents, this.


What Federal troops?

By 1876 the US Army had shrunk to about 27,000 men, of whom only about 3,000 were available for duty in the South. That's less than 300 per State.

Anyway, what laws would they be objecting to? Legally enforced discrimination mostly came in after Reconstruction was over. Previously it was mainly extra-legal. A Black rash enough to vote would just be found a few days later in a ditch, with several bullet holes in his back. So unless you can raise enough troops to guard every country road in the South - - -
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top