Geniasis wrote:Vetalia wrote:Geniasis wrote:Does that make it pointless to fight bigotry? It ended segregation in the south, and I'd say that was a pretty heavy victory.
No, but ultimately you have to change the culture in order to eliminate bigotry and government can't do that. Segregation was abolished by law but it was by no means eliminated in practice...it took a lot longer for that to happen, and even now I'd say it's still prevalent in more than a few places, even if it's not official or obvious.
Would the culture have changed if the law hadn't abolished it?
The relation between the culture and the law is complicated. The culture had to change some before it was even possible to change the law. There is no such thing as a law that has no basis in culture. The law changed because there was a shift in people's attitude toward racism -- more people started to gravitate toward tolerance, equal rights, etc., and eventually they got enough people to have the law changed. Even in a dictatorship, you have to have a culture that is willing to submit to the dictator. If the law doesn't reflect the culture, it will generate political unrest, and even revolution if the law and the culture get far enough apart.
On the other hand, a change in the law can add momentum to a movement. For example, the gay rights movement in the U.S. has been around for years, but it has become much more visible since Massachusetts legalized gay marriage. Changing the law is a confidence booster for people who are shy about being rabble-rousers or are embarrassed about having unpopular opinions.