"Objectively" sounds like good way to avoid talking about many things that were an issue at the time, with no real objective backing. Even the first sentence is a bit of an issue: "Jim Crow was over" is a bit misleading to say, even today.
What metric do you think needs to be hit such that it wouldn't be misleading to say "Jim Crow is over."?
When all U.S. citizens can vote without artificial obstacles, perhaps. Felons. People for whom IDs are out of reach. People who have to work Election Day. Single parents who can’t easily take hours out of their day to stand in line at the polls.
No clue, but nor would I make a claim that I know. By most accounts racial disparity still exists, if not in the US, certainly in other countries. Taking a metric-centric approach as a starting point is probably an issue in and of itself, though.
What approach are you measuring racial disparity, if not a metric-centric approach?
When there aren't 4+ generation deep African American families who 1st were denied the right to vote by slavery, then by Jim Crow, and now by mass incarceration. Making it so that regardless of what term the United States uses for the management of the black labor population in the end it is functionally identical
In the 80s and the 90s, the USDA systematically discriminated against Black farmers (and farmers of other races), leading to some of the largest civil rights settlements in U.S. history [0]. One metric to hit that could suggest that “Jim Crow is over” is for settlements like these to cease to exist or at least become as common a settlements for racial discrimination by white plaintiffs.
African-Americans having the same average income as the rest of population. Would have to deal with poverty, education inequality, incarceration, and employment discrimination to get there. I saw article that says that getting blacks into high-income careers would be enough to fix the average income.
Objectively better if you were a rich white straight American dude. Much like the the eighties and seventies. And only entirely oblivious people didn't care about the environment back then. And unaware of global events because, well the whole global instability caused by the fall of the iron curtain. Also only if you weren't having sex, like the author claims for himself, because, you know, AIDS.
So "objectively better for less than 1% of the world population", got it.