For heaven’s sake, try doing a little critical race theory of your own. I will give you an example, and you take it from there. You tell us how this legal decision, is, or is not, racist and the reasons it is still cited in courts today. If you use Harvard’s case law project tools, it will take you a few, short minutes to follow this law in action.
Between 1854 and 2015 The People versus Hall has been cited in other court decisions 22 times. 11 times before the 1965 passage of the Civil Rights Act and 11 times after (including 4 times since 2000 alone).
The People versus Hall revolves around eyewitness testimony that resulted in Hall’s murder conviction. The defendant, Hall, appealed his conviction on the basis that the eyewitness was Chinese. A couple excerpts from the Supreme Court (ca) decision, offers insight into the judges thinking. I quote:
“The 394th section of the Act Concerning Civil Cases, provides that no Indian or Negro shall be allowed to testify as a witness in any action or proceeding in which a White person is a party.
The 14th section of the Act of April 16th, 1850, regulating Criminal Proceedings, provides that “No Black or Mulatto person, or Indian, shall be allowed to give evidence in favor of, or against a white man.”
The true point at which we are anxious to arrive is, the legal signification of the words, “Black, Mulatto, Indian and White person,” and whether the Legislature adopted them as generic terms, or intended to limit their application to specific types of the human species.”
The decision goes on to discuss race from Columbus in 1492 onward (and I strongly recommend people read it for themselves). The Supreme Court judges continue, writing:
“We are of the opinion that the words “white,” “negro,” “mullatto,” “Indian,” and “black person,” wherever they occur in our Constitution and laws, must be taken in their generic sense, and that, even admitting the Indian of this continent is not of the Mongolian type, that the words “black person,” in the 14th section, must be taken as contradistinguished from white, and necessarily excludes all races other than the Caucasian.
The same rule which would admit them to testify, would admit them to all the equal rights of citizenship, and we might soon see them at the polls, in the jury box, upon the bench, and in our legislative halls.
This is not a speculation which exists in the excited and over-heated imagination of the patriot and statesman, but it is an actual and present danger.”
Having established a clear precedent, the court overturns Hall’s conviction and a white murderer is set free.
Link to decision in The People v Hall
https://cite.case.law/cal/4/399/
Link to 22 cases citing The People v Hall between 1854 to 2015
https://cite.case.law/citations/?q=4216544
Since that last link takes you to Harvard’s case law tools, do some more reading. Try this one, for example:
https://cite.case.law/f-supp/547/550/
In Ortiz versus Bank of America, the judge’s breadth of knowledge regarding the history of racism in our justice system emerged from the practice of Critical Theory.
Clearly, Hannah-Jones does her homework. The 1691 Project is factually correct. Try limiting yourself to historical fact, and see what you come up with.
