Posted on 06/29/2013 6:30:34 PM PDT by Wellington VII
I’m asking how you know this?
Were you there in real time experiencing it or did someone teach you?
How old are you and where were you raised
I’m 55 and raised in Mississippi during that time.
I am prepared to relate to you a first hand observance of those events having been there and raised in a moderate political family..
Your assumptions are partially correct but skewed
So stop accusing me of arguments I did not put forth and answer me or remain uninformed...its your choice.
Just because a body of socially liberal democrats and Republicans passed all manner of black rights and redress in the mid 60s does not mean it was all good or that their intentions were noble or their grounds ALL honest and sound
But if you are young and ignorant or simply the latter then that may be all you’ve ever been told
Consider me a helping hand with personal knowledge
I actually met or knew as a boy....Charlie Evers....Vernon Dahmer....Pat Derian.....Hodding Carter...Jr.....Aaron Henry......James Eastland.....John Stennis and Sonny Montgomery amongst others
That era in the South is not something I just read about
You can look up those names if need be
You lose. We wanted you to write the word “backwards” in the normal forwards direction.
No I don’t. I win. I was answering post 37.
No, you didn’t. I wanted you to write “backwards” forwards.
Don’t you get it yet?
The question is so poorly worded that you can claim either answer as being wrong.
That’s what is wrong with the test.
Say “sdrawfor” is what it means to write forwards, backwards and you are wrong.
Say “backwards” is what it means to write forwards, backwards and you are wrong.
No mater what you answer, you are wrong. Cause your skin is the wrong color.
Back in the day all voting was done with paper ballots. I remember as a kid, seeing white poll workers telling illiterate blacks
“You don’t want to vote for this guy so we will put an X by his name and cross him off the list”.
In doing so they were actually voting for the person.
You said write forwards, backwards, and I did. If you are trying to point out that you, as grader, can call my answer wrong no matter what I respond, I do get it, but I was still correct and should get a cookie.
I can’t make it any clearer. Sorry.
If you meant anything other than what I wrote, your grammar was incorrect.
As was posted earlier (and beat me to the punch!), Rachel Jeantel wouldn’t be able to answer a single question on the linked test. And the South can’t even be blamed for it...much to the chagrin of a few, I imagine.
I grew up in the segregated south and the big difference I can see today — as regards who controls the process — is that 50 years ago, the polls were controlled by old white guys. Today, most all county offices that I have personally seen are run by old black gals.
So, from my perspective, Slate’s is ignorantly concerned that old black gals will renew segregationist/jim-crow policies against other black folks. This piece screams just how ill-informed, knee-jerk and asinine Slate’s writers are.
If anything, Slate should be concerned that the old black gals currently manning the voter registration office would renew jim-crow policies discriminately against whites, since that’s more plausible than the flawed, ill-informed opinion and agenda that Slate seems to be pushing.
You’ll have to excuse me if I flat-out *refuse* to understand Slate’s concerns.
Opinions and experiences at other locales may vary...
I think Slate’s point is, the fact that they tested blacks in LA this way fifty years ago means that every black person should be given two votes now, to compensate.I wouldn't doubt it - And instead of just coming out and advocating for what they actually want, they have to cloak it in P.C. double-speak. These jim-crow policies have been gone for decades and no-one could bring them back and get away with it in this day and age.
My main point is that I'm not a jim-crow advocate; Neither do I know anyone (or any city/county/state) who advocates jim-crow policies; Neither was I ever a slave-owner and I don't know anyone who ever was a slave. I don't owe black folks anything other than the same common decency and respect that we all owe each other.
The VRA special requirements for the southern states was needed at the time. Nowadays? Not so much. Sort of like Unions.
Second, I didn't give you an example. You asked where it said in the Constitution such acts were valid. I pointed it out chapter and verse. No "example" was involved. Just the plain words and meaning of the Constitution.
Third, the pertinent language in the Constitution has been overridden by the Voting Rights Act. This was made possible by the Fourteenth Amendment, which qualifies that such literacy tests may not be constructed in such a way as to deny the Equal Protection of the law. So, clearly such tests were no longer Constitutional after July 9th 1868, IF they had an impact in their application which denied a particular identifiable group of Americans the Equal Protection of Law. Once again, you've asked a silly question, and once again you are answered. I highly advise you to read the Constitution, so you aren't angered by your own ignorance of it next time.
Finally, the Slate article is an example of liberal hysteria, and of course you fell right into it.
Nobody is talking about bringing literacy tests back in order to qualify electors, and that is NOT what the VRA decision by the Supreme Court will do.[That section of the VRA is not even affected by the decision.] The US DOJ has brought cases against numerous Southern States, denying them the right to require voter ID: under ONE section of the VRA Southern States cannot change their voting laws without prior Federal approval. This meant that Republicans in Southern States would continue to have their votes diluted by fraudulent Democrat practices, and there was nothing they could do about it, because the DOJ would simply deny those states the ability to correct these abuses. In effect, the US Department of "Justice" was using the VRA to deny southerners the Equal Protection of law by way of the Voting Rights Act. This is EXACTLY the opposite of what the VRA was intended to accomplish, and what the SCOTUS has struck down. Good riddance.
When someone insults me with a typo and interpretations of the Constitution while not understanding that two brilliant people can interpret the document in different ways, no matter how many words they type will not impress me all that much.
Given that you didn’t know that the States set the rules for voting, I wasn’t writing for your benefit; I just assumed — correctly it turns out — that you’re ineducable. But other people might be interested in the thread. Especially if they think your original “gauntlet” question makes sense, which it did not.
Pomposity is always fun to marvel at from a distance. In person it is a most unimpressive quality. It is always accompanied by an inflated sense of self-worth that not even the possessor believes in.
They are usually, and sadly, frightened little boys. The movie, The Ref, had some of the most accurate and funny lines on the topic.
Psychological diagnosis via a Hollywood treatment. Thanks for confirming my opinion of you to the point of parody.
YES!!!
I thought FReepers would pick up on this faster - can't believe I had to wade through almost 200 posts before I found anyone raising suspicions.
As soon as I saw this very alleged 1964 "literacy" test, the font and spacing immediately caught my eye.
Question: Did Slate's original article, as posted on FR, contain this so-called "update" that was inserted by the time I read it?
"Update: This test—a word-processed transcript of an original—was linked to by Jeff Schwartz, who worked with the Congress of Racial Equality in Iberville and Tangipahoa Parishes in the summer of 1964. Schwartz wrote about his encounters with the test in this blog post."
So Slate seems to have posted this "update" for CYA purposes. But that's not good enough. IF this test actually existed, why didn't Slate demand of Mr. Schwartz (the apparent purveyor of this obviously word-processed "1964" document) a scanned version of the original ? Or if Slate did receive such proof, why didn't they post it?
None of the claims made about this "test" should be taken seriously, unless Slate makes the original available to objective document experts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.