News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:John W. Campbell, a chief architect of science fiction's ... by snowwrestler on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @10:34AM (#18494528)
This is ignorant and wrong. Integrated communities date to before the founding of the United States. Frederick Douglas was a prominent and internationally recognized voice for equality and integration 100 years before the 1960s. We fought a civil war over it. Immediately following that civil war, there were strong legal protections created for the rights black Americans to own property, run businesses, vote etc. in an equal and integrated way. These protections were then chipped away down to Jim Crow levels through the sustained and vigorous efforts of racists who wished they had won the civil war and perpetuated slavery.

To be even more specific, you have authors who worked directly with Campbell during that time saying that they knew that he was racist and that it was wrong.

This idea that racism was normal and not remarkable in 1960s is a pernicious fiction that is promulgated by racists and their apologists. If you feel that this is an unfair inference about you, I would recommend you spend some time with history and get caught up.

Re:John W. Campbell, a chief architect of science fiction's ... by imglorp on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @10:50AM (#18494696)
Thank you for the education about the earlier protections. I agree that the culture was intentionally pushed backwards.

It almost seems like we are witnessing another backwards swing currently.

Re:John W. Campbell, a chief architect of science fiction's ... by snowwrestler on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @11:26AM (#18495050)
Thanks for a graceful reply to my comment, which was probably more strongly worded than it needed to be to get the point across.

I think we are currently seeing an attempt to swing things backward, which is why I think it's important to speak up against that.

Re:John W. Campbell, a chief architect of science fiction's ... by eesmith on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @02:20PM (#18496796)
I think your response was well-worded and appropriate given a comment which argued that we need to look at historical context - after some of that context was already given - then proceeded to give an invalid context.