On Sunday, January 5, 2003, at 01:26 PM, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>>> "Seperate but equal," the Supreme Court called it
>> in
>>> Plessy v. Ferguson (1897) [correction, 1896).
> What's neo about that?
>>
>> That was a bullshit cover for a hierarchal concept
>> of race. This is a
>> diffferent animal.
>>
>> Doug
>>
>>
>
> The Court put it like this, referring, indeed to
> "physical difference," but putting more weight on the
> idea that race is a social relationship:
justin: what do you make of that reference to "racial instincts"?
it seems to me that the distinction between "civilly and politically," on the one hand, and "socially," on the other, is a bogus distinction, conveniently supportive of conviction (about racial instincts and physical difference).
j
<snip>
> Legislation is
> powerless to eradicate racial instincts, or to abolish
> distinctions based upon physical differences, and the
> attempt to do so can only result in accentuating the
> difficulties of the present situation. If the civil
> and political rights of both races be equal, one
> cannot be inferior to the other civilly *552 or
> politically. If one race be inferior to the other
> socially, the constitution of the United States cannot
> put them upon the same plane.
>
>
> Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 551 (1896)
>
>
-- http://www.brainmortgage.com/ "Something's not in orbit in the capital of this galaxy." - Alphaville