Posted: Sat 17 May 2008 05:52 Post subject: Common-Carrier Segregation in the Jim Crow South
Brigitte Gabriel has a phenotype that would have gotten her forced to sit in the back of the bus if she lived in the South during Jim Crow even though she is Lebanese. No way would she have been able to pass for White.
Brigitte Gabriel has a phenotype that would have gotten her forced to sit in the back of the bus if she lived in the South during Jim Crow even though she is Lebanese. No way would she have been able to pass for White.
Not necessarily. When common carriers in the Jim Crow South misidentified someone in that way, they were often sued successfully for large sums by the individuals. That is why bus and train companies hated such laws--they were always getting caught between a rock (sued by a "black-looking non-Black") and a hard place (prosecuted by the authorities for failing to uphold the law). In practice, they ordered their staff to err on the side of caution by giving such individuals the benefit of the doubt.
For example, in order to file his test-case lawsuit, Homer Plessy had to threaten to charge the train conductor with breaking the law by not ejecting him, when the man refused to do so because Plessy "looked White." Only then did the conductor agree to demand that he move, and Plessy sued.
As another example, James Weldon Johnson often sat in Whites-only sections of trains or movie theaters when it suited him. When challenged, he simply adopted a fake Spanish accent and was allowed to remain.
Like racialist laws enforced in the U.S. today (Batson hearings, EEOC discrimination), their focus was on members of the A-A ethnic group, not on genetics (although appearance was the first-approximation rule of thumb used). The most famous such case was a very dark woman of Russian Jewish ethnicity who sued. The carrier defended themselves by arguing that the law explicitly said that "only Whites" were allowed in the White cars, and that Jews are not White. The appeals court found for the plaintiff and ordered the company to pay serious damages. The justices ruled that the law was aimed only at African Americans, no matter how it was worded, and Russian Jews, while not White, are not African Americans.
So are you telling me that as long as you could speak a language other than English, you were excluded from being labeled as Black in Jim Crow South even if it's extremely obvious that you have SSA ancestry ?
So if this Haitian woman for example lived in Jim Crow South she would have had the legal right to sit in White only sections of trains and movie theaters if she all of a sudden bust out speaking French or Creole ? Since you said racial segregation laws were only applied to African Americans. If so than the overwhelming majority of the world's population that is eyeballed as Black looking would not even have legally been considered Black By Jim Crow standards, since AAs do not make up the majority of people in the world who are eyeballed as looking Black.
So are you telling me that as long as you could speak a language other than English, you were excluded from being labeled as Black in Jim Crow South
No. The issue was not ability to speak another language. The issue was an ambiguous-looking person being seen as Hispanic under common-carrier segregation laws. Under those laws, Hispanics were usually defined as a third "race" and exempt from common-carrier segregation.
Bischoff wrote:
even if it's extremely obvious that you have SSA ancestry?
No. You posted a photo of an ambiguous-looking woman and claimed (erroneously) that she would have been subjected to common-carrier segregation in the Jim Crow South. I pointed out your error. You suggested that the laws segregated on the basis of slight African appearance. This is inaccurate. The laws were based on membership in the A-A entho-political group, and ambiguous-looking people were explicity exempted by law if they were not of that group. It is true that some over-zealous bus attendants or train conductors might mis-classify someone in this way. But, when they did, their employers were successfully sued for large sums of money. Hence, each over-zealous employee got only one shot at such a mistake.
Bischoff wrote:
So if this Haitian woman for example lived in Jim Crow South she would have had the legal right to sit in White only sections of trains and movie theaters if she all of a sudden bust out speaking French or Creole.
No. That is not an ambiguous-looking person. You originally posted a photo of an ambiguous-looking woman. Are you now asking about the status of people of unambiguous sub-saharan phenotype under the laws of common carrier segregation?
It depended. The laws regarding people of unambiguous sub-saharan phenotype, as in the photo you posted, hinged on burden of proof. Someone of unambiguous sub-saharan phenotype would have had to shoulder the burden of proof that they were not African-Americans. In several cases this was done by the indivduals showing that they were members of foreign embassies or consulates. To answer your question, Hatian diplomats of unambiguous sub-saharan phenotype were not subjected to common-carrier segregation--not because they spoke French but because they were not African-Americans. I cannot say whether Haitian tourists of unambiguous sub-saharan phenotype would have been subjected to common-carrier segregation because, to my knowledge, no such case was ever argued in court.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
