[quote=“Kimstu, post:73, topic:955930”]
“Democracy” in the sense of actually having equal rights under the law for everybody irrespective of race? Yes, that’s a reasonable statement.
Are you really unaware that during nearly the first two hundred years of the United States’ existence its society was only very incompletely democratic, due to the disenfranchisement of Black people via slavery and legal segregation? (And a bunch of other white-supremacist discriminatory laws too, of course.)[/quote]
Segregation didn’t disenfranchise Blacks it was Jim Crow Laws. And there are plenty still on the books today.
We could also pick 1971 when 18 yo could finally vote.
Or- never, since that is when babies are allowed to vote. No one sane defines a democracy" as somewhere where everyone, regardless or age, prison status, immigration status, etc gets to vote. That definition means democracy never occurs.
Yes, America did, after the Civil war. There have always been attempts at voter suppression, it is alive and well today.
Yes, because the statement was blatantly false. No one was saying there there was not- and still is to an extent- legally-implemented white supremacism . What we are saying is that does not define the word “democracy”. That definition is blatantly false.
Racial discrimination is a fact, although certainly better now than the late 1800’s early 1900’s. But that is not how you define “democracy”. Ever since 1868 Blacks could legally vote. Except by extra-legal shit the racist South did voter suppression- which they are still doing.
So is a Monarchy a democracy then since the King or Queen gets to vote? Does more than one person need to be able to have a vote, or is it just that as long as one person gets to call the shots it counts? What percentage of the population being able to participate grants a society the right to call itself a democracy?
No he is not. He wasn’t discussing racism at all. He was discussing the definition of Democracy, which does not depend upon whether or not racism exists- because it does now, and likely will forever.
You know, you do this ALL THE TIME. You reply to posts that you consider off-topic, then follow up with “Can we get back to the OP?” If you want to get back to the OP, start replying to the OP and not what you consider hijacks.
“Here’s my (authoritative) opinion on this hijack, but no one else is allowed to discuss it anymore!”
I do. But I at least responded to their points, which I consider polite. I am saying I do not s to continue this hijack. You are perfectly welcome to start a new thread about this issue, that would be good, I would be happy to respond there.