Thread by @magi_jay

When we talk about Jim Crow, do we feel compelled to act as if those advancing the laws might have had a point worth considering or do we think we can evaluate the provisions on their own merits, beyond any political affiliation?

What makes these current laws any different?

https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/status/1375495274408386564

Journalists are interested in truth, I assume. What constitutes "truth" is not always clear, but, in some cases, it is. What makes journalists confident that they can clearly call Jim Crow "wrong"--morally or constitutionally--but must hedge when it comes to Jim Crow's legacy?

Is it the time that's elapsed? This must be the fallback, but I don't think it's a logical one. Time does not necessarily reveal anything as more moral or legal. & I wonder: if time is the variable here, how many years must pass before we feel we can identify racism as "racism?"

We know Jim Crow was racist. What do we think of those who viewed it as just a point of view at the time? really, how long do Black people's rights need to be specifically abused before we think that the neutral, objective position is:"Black people's rights should not be abused?"

I want to know. What makes the practitioners of neutrality feel so confident in denouncing Jim Crow as racist while also feeling so comfortable in presenting modern voter suppression as a difference of opinion. Is it time?

If so, how much time has to lapse before Black people's rights are viewed as the objective criteria that should be presented as inalienably absolute? How much time needs to pass before we say, "Hey, that's a violation of human rights & also our constitution." 10 years? 60 years?

I think journalists who report on voting rights should ask themselves, "Where would you have been during Jim Crow? Would you have defaulted to racism as part of 'neutrality?' Would you have portrayed segregationists as worth considering?"

Then ask why it's so different now.