• missingno@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I’ve never heard anyone say the Civil Rights movement was about enforcement of existing laws and rights. Segregation was the existing law that needed to be changed, not enforced.

    • Mordikan@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I mean I think Ruby Bridges would probably disagree on that, but ok.

      EDIT: Actually, lets just go with the entire US post-Brown v. Board of Education. Yeah, that qualifies as “demand enforcement of existing laws and rights”. Hell, lets go before that even. Little Rock Nine.

      It’s unsettling that people can’t do basic fucking research before commenting with their feelings.

        • Mordikan@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          That’s a straw man argument and assumes I think Civil Rights was just Ruby Bridges. It has no bearing on whether or not the civil rights movement was a good example of demanding enforcement of existing laws and rights.

          You need to do a lot better than that.

          • ampersandrew@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            When existing legislation didn’t suffice, the movement was for further legislation, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that postdated Ruby Bridges’ attendance of an integrated school. And now we can bring that back to SKG requesting additional legislation because the existing legislation doesn’t suffice.