ashe

I didn’t take your post as an aggressive argument, but rather as an interesting point that I had not considered. And I felt it necessary to add some additional data that might be more relevant to jrscott’s assertion.

I think that old Harbie just needs to have the last word. I'm guessing that he doesn't have a wife....

I wasn’t disputing or agreeing with you or Jr. just pointing out due to Louisiana history it could be an invalid comparison. For the record many western states were born under Spanish law and have the same issue.

You may have a point about Louisiana, but like I said “the list goes on.”

In 1806 New York passed the Medical Practices Act which required credentialing for doctors. Between 1806 and the Civil War, several states (and the Republic of Texas) created similar licensing systems. Most of these laws, however, were overturned within a few years after passage due to the emotional public debate over who should be allowed to practice medicine; in the early 19th century modern medical science (germ theory for instance) lacked the authority and evidentiary support it would eventually develop, and up until these early credentialing efforts (in the US anyway) anyone could legally claim to be a doctor regardless of where their medical “knowledge” came from. Actual science was in competition with traditional medical systems that dated back at least to ancient Greece as well as modern nonsense such as homeopathy. Along with an obvious economic incentive, it was the desire to screen out charlatans and fools that lead to the idea of medical licensing in the US.

The American Medical Association was founded in 1847, and while the AMA did not license doctors, it did, from its inception, promote the idea that licensing should be required. The AMA’s lobbying was a significant factor in states establishing more or less permanent systems of credentialing in the latter half of 1800s.

Of course, the example of medical licensing is narrow compared to what jrscott suggested in the following post:

Professional licensing has its roots in the Reconstruction and Jim Crow eras, they were used as a way to exclude certain groups from practicing certain professions by making the requirements such that certain groups could never meet them.

I continue to ask jrscott to prove the above statement, a statement that I see as an attempt to recast history in political rather than objective terms.

Louisiana is based on French law and French traditions. They aren’t exactly the best example to use

Scott…

Please offer some proof for your assertion that licensing started for racist reasons during Reconstruction.

You can start by explaining the following:

The city of New Orleans began licensing doctors around 1808 and the state of Louisiana followed suit around 1816. This is well before Reconstruction. In North Carolina, the general assembly created the North Carolina State Board of Medical Examiners (the predecessor of the current licensing board) in 1859, also before the Civil War and Reconstruction.And the board that credentials lawyers, the North Carolina Bar (not to be confused with the NC Bar Association) was founded in 1933, years after Reconstruction. The list goes on...

Anyone in any profession can kill someone.

Professional licensing has its roots in the Reconstruction and Jim Crow eras, they were used as a way to exclude certain groups from practicing certain professions by making the requirements such that certain groups could never meet them.

Jr is right, why the heck would a nurse need a degree at all? It’s not like they could kill somebody.

Jr, what the **** do you think a nurse does?

Teachers are no where in the same time zone as nurses. Lets compare a little. Nurses have to work in the snow, no water, no power, twice the hours, holidays, weekends, nights, and stressful conditions. Poor little whining teachers.

Then I fail to see what was the point of your comment about a degree. How does a degree justify whining?

No Fins, that is not what I said and you know it. You are just being a common troll now.

So you are saying because a job doesn’t need a degree, the work is any less important? That’s pretty judgemental of you. And the only reason teachers need a degree is it’s the law. It’s sure not based on any skill set.

You know what else are crucial jobs? Roofers, farmers, and garbage collectors. Without roofers everyone would be living caves. All three are jobs that are much harder and many times more dangerous than nursing or teaching. But I’ve never heard any of them whining about how hard the job is or that they should be paid more. See, like teachers and nurses, no one forced them to take the job. They also had the opportunity to find out how hard the job is and what it paid before taking it. Just like teachers that heard their own teachers complain for years about work load and pay.

Tell your roofer that you appreciate him keeping you warm, dry, and healthy.

Pointman, when you say "It appears we can now add nurses to the list of whiners. Teachers still head the list," it would appear you have neither respect nor understanding of those professions. Don't you think that those who educate and care for others deserve equality and consideration? Both professions are crucial to the wellbeing of society. Both professions require kindness, tolerance, and professionalism. Both professions are primarily dominated by women. And, both professions are largely ignored and marginalized by authoritarian, plutocratic misogynists who don't consider Nursing or teaching professions at all. Where do you fit in to that equation?

Stupid, if my memory serves correctly, I’m pretty sure that unless you’ve ever been in a jungle living in a tent and seen people shooting at you, Pointman can beat you for worst jobs held.

Ahhhhh and the pointmans post is right on Point. However I will give the ER nurses extra credit and I would bet the farm not one of them would be on this site.