Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Gordon Parks' Never-Before-Seen Photos Of 1950s Segregation [View all]ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)17. it's the title of the thread, yes. so i guess one can be forgiven for expecting photos showing
segregation. the title would express the point of the thread, I'd think.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
86 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I think the poster meant that none of the ones you posted in the OP showed any obvious segregation.
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#10
it's the title of the thread, yes. so i guess one can be forgiven for expecting photos showing
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#17
You obviously wish to be offended and insulting so I'll leave you to your pleasure after showing
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#20
"IT HAPPENED." You've taking what I said as some denial that segregation happened?
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#41
Expecting to see certain photos is one thing. Unrec ing the thread (all caps, no less) is another.
merrily
Jan 2015
#56
I didn't unrec the thread, let alone in all caps. That was another poster. Here, let me give you
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#57
My reply to you did not say you had unrec'd the thread. It went directly to your comments.
merrily
Jan 2015
#60
NP. "I don't see segregation going on, so it must not be happening in those pictures."
Rex
Jan 2015
#21
You know nothing about me or my experiences. I leave you with one of the photos from the
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#23
Why anyone would supposedly unrec a thread full of great photos is a mystery, no
merrily
Jan 2015
#69
REC- All the people shown here were living in times and places where life was segregated.
NBachers
Jan 2015
#5
Ah yes, if the Gordon Parks Exhibit will be there until September.. an early B-day present wouldn't
Cha
Jan 2015
#81
not from the page you linked. but thanks for the gratuitous insults. so effective at winning
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#28
It wouldn't matter what I told you about segregation. You'd keep insulting me regardless, because
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#31
I don't admit any such thing. Having lived through that era, I imagine I know just as much about it
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#33
Yes. I was born in the early 50s. But of course, you don't believe that either, because you made
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#38
"Coloreds Only" signs aren't the only indicator of segregation. Racist micro aggression existed back
uponit7771
Jan 2015
#35
i don't know what 'diet racism' is, and i don't know what the relation is to something billed as
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#36
This is a denial that it exist because it's not overt, where do you think blacks on the train would
uponit7771
Jan 2015
#46
Maybe that's the difference. You were "taught" about it. I lived it. And the holier than thou
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#49
Ok, you may be right about that but neither does the outright denial of it...
uponit7771
Jan 2015
#53
The first pic is a pic of segregation, to think that the rule at the time was that the theatres were
uponit7771
Jan 2015
#43
according to that theory, any picture taken in the 50s is a picture of segregation.
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#44
The train pic!? You're kidding me right?! Where do you think blacks SAT at that time?!
uponit7771
Jan 2015
#47
Like I said, according to that theory, any and all photos taken in the 50s (or before) are pictures
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#48
Yes. I add: Segregation did not merely exist then, but was REQUIRED by Jim Crow laws.
merrily
Jan 2015
#58
Where I live MLK is no longer taught in schools, it may be a thing of the past because
uponit7771
Jan 2015
#54