Why Do Jim Crow Laws Really Mean Equality?

Next, equality does not always actually mean equality. What that means is that even when we say equality, that does not always mean that things are fair and equal. Think Jim Crow laws, separate but equal, laws that were, at one time, supported by the U.S. government which legalized segregation on the condition that so long as the facilities such as medical care, housing accommodations, education, employment, services, and transportation provided to each race were equal, local governments could legally segregate them; it also provided "equal protection" under the law to all citizens. As most people know or will find, Jim Crow laws did not actually work this way, in that the facilities that were offered were anything but equal, with people of color, especially black people, receiving services that were completely inadequate and left them with little opportunity of upward mobility and facilities that hardly worked. Despite being promised the equality of their white peers, “blacks were largely denied their rightful share of political power and economic opportunity” (Bloom

And while it is possible to see some positive results from these movements, in due time they usually reveal their limitations. The Civil Rights movement is a prime example of this as even though black people won rights and privileges such as desegregation and voting, rights, over fifty years later we see black people today being treated as second class citizens. “Throughout the early 1960s, in campaign after campaign, the civil rights movement successfully tore down the Jim Crow system of legal segregation…But by the summer of 1964, the limits of civil rights political practice were becoming clear…” (Bloom and Martin 23). Even during the struggle for civil rights it was easy to see the limitations that a struggle for equality, opposed to liberation, puts on a movement, a victory, and a