> >
> > 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"?
The Court is adverting to the common idea at thetime that members of different races had an instinctual aversion to each other.
The Court's reasoning contains elements of the idea prevalent at the time that there were some sort of biological, natural "physical" differences among the races, but it does not rest its justification for seperate but equal (upholding Jim Crow laws) on that basis. It proceeds, rather, from the idea that whatever the source of racial aversions, whether thy are social or rooted in biology, instincts, and the like, legislation cannot force integration on races if their members do not want to be socially integrated.
>
> 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).
Ia gree, byt the contrast between political and social
is a term of art that goes back to the debates around
the 14th AMendment. That Amendment was understood by
many of its framers to guarantee blacks "political and
civil" equality -- the right to make contracts, own
property, serve on a jury, and not to be ignored by
the police when crimes were committed against one;
with the passage of the 15th Amendment, the right to
vote -- but not "social" equality, that is, not the
right to interact as equals with whites, to marry
their sisters, attend their schools, and the like. You
may doubt the coherence of the distinction, but
consider the way working class people are treated as
political and civil "equals" to the rich, but their
social inferiors. This may have been the distinction
the Court had in mind. It was rejected for race in
Brown v. Board of Education (1955). How long till it
is rejected for class?
> 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
>
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com