←back to thread

319 points rcarmo | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.401s | source
Show context
inreverse ◴[] No.41911288[source]
Leaving aside the topics of authenticity and the questions' historical context, it's interesting that the article claims that "most" of the questions are impossible, while >80% have a single clear interpretation. For example, "draw a line under the last word in this line."
replies(7): >>41911324 #>>41911327 #>>41912775 #>>41913752 #>>41914252 #>>41914295 #>>41918347 #
1. Bluestrike2 ◴[] No.41918347[source]
Perhaps a better explanation might be that they're all capable of being considered ambiguous whenever and however the clerk administering the test desires them to be? In that sense, they were impossible because a clerk could reject any answers to that particular question for all sorts of absurd reasons: the line wasn't perfectly parallel to word, it was too far--or too close--to the word itself, the start and endpoints didn't align perfectly with the word, your line curled upwards at the end as you lifted your pen from the paper, etc.

Quite frankly, I doubt they even bothered with even that token effort to find excuses for failing people. They didn't need them. Everyone knew the game; if you were black under Jim Crow, you pretty much failed the moment they forced you to take it, regardless of your answers.

Literacy tests were only meant to give the threadbare illusion of objectivity to their disenfranchisement efforts and make that effort more efficient in the process. It's unlikely any state or county ever bothered to assemble a common "official" literacy test, or that officials ever put much effort into crafting a perfectly ambiguous question no one could every answer correctly. There was no need, and to the extent any did, it would likely have been just to make taking the tests as painful and humiliating as possible to punish the test-taker for not accepting that the fix was in, and to further discourage anyone else from bothering them.

Truthfully, the humiliating aspects of the various disenfranchisement mechanisms were almost certainly quite intentional. Fury over the perceived humiliation of the loss of the Civil War, and the changes wrought by Reconstruction, was the constant underlying theme of Redeemer[1] messaging. Simply regaining political power wasn't enough to slake that anger.

0. https://jimcrowmuseum.ferris.edu/question/2013/july.htm

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redeemers