You can rest assured, I wasn’t wondering. I am well aware of dialects, just as those in England don’t speak the same English that we in America speak. Nevertheless, the Spanish that is spoken by Mexican citizens originates from the Spanish language that was brought to this continent by the Spainards. That is how European geography entered into this issue.
Oh, and I would never entertain the thought of calling someone from Spain a Mexican, anymore than I would call someone from England an American.
So what? Bill Clinton never won the Presidency with even 50% of the vote. And furthermore, the ramifications of “Citizenship USA” were quite evident in Florida in the 2000 election, coupled with Gore’s allies in the media calling the State of Florida for Gore before the poles had closed in the predominately conservative panhandle of the state.
Being that I have delt with “Citizenship USA” in my reply to Dooku, all I will just add one note concerning Dornan’s defeat.
Bob Dornan was defeated by Loretta Sanchez. Funny thing about Loretta Sanchez, before running for congress, she was known as Loretta Brixey. She reverted to her maiden name for the purpose of garnering the “Hispanic” vote.
Now, I ask you, is it not equally rascist to vote for a candidate based solely on that candidates race as it is to vote against a candidate because of his or her race?
Certainly atrocities did occur, but they have been exagerated for the purpose of instilling guilt. From Harriet Beecher Stowe’s “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” to all of those church burnings that President Clinton “recalled” of his youth.
See, Americans have been systematically brainwashed. That’s right… brainwashed.
Mention the term “Hate Crime”, and the average individual will, as a reflex, have the mental image of a white presecuting a “minority”. But FBI crime statistics reveal that “minorities” are several more times likely to commit what could be classified as a “hate crime” against a white.
Herein, again, the media is responsible. While the dragging death of James Byrd received extensive nationwide coverage for months on end, the brutal murders committed by the Carr brothers against a group of whites, which consisted of sexual abuse, torture and ultimately execution, every bit as atrocious as what happened to James Byrd, was supressed by the media.
To have given that “hate crime” the same extensive coverage as the James Byrd murder would have been contradictory to the agenda.
As far as counting the millions of Africans, it was those of the North that didn’t want to count them because it would have lessened their legislative representation. So, you can file that under liberal hypocrisy too.
All we are doing concerning Jay’s quote is buttin’ heads. Certainly there were others here that were not from Europe and others who were not Christian, but those who founded the Thirteen Colonies could accruately be described as European and Christian. This is reiterated by Jay’s mention of those who undertook the Revolution “.
*”… and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general liberty and independence." *
For the most part, they were European and Christian.
An accurate “cite” for welfare abuse would be difficult being that those who abuse the system tend to conceal their actions. As far as numbers, whites use welfare more than minorities. As a percentage, minorities use welfare more that whites.
Certainly the government has a responsibility to construct a “safety net” for those with a “need”. The problem I have with the liberalization of welfare is that it has become too easy and too comfortable, to the point of not being worthwhile to wean oneself from it.
Yes, but I question whether or not our country is better than it was in 1950. Now, before you start jumpin’ up and down (like others on this board so quickly have done) over racism and the Civil Rights Act, I hold no regards for racism and do not begrudge the Civil Rights Act. However, I do begrudge the liberal ideology for using the issue of racism to drive a wedge into society for the purpose of advancing the socialization of America.
No, I wish none of those things, but the government did not just ban segregation, it forced integration. Remember forced “school busing”? The government forced children to attend schools outside of their own neighborhoods to achieve government mandated integration? Government mandated integration is every bit as evil as government mandated segregation.
Are you denying that people tend to segregate themselves to their own kind? All one has to do is observe what is happening on the campuses of many major universities in America. After all the effort to ban the evils of segregation and open the doors of state universities to minorities, now we have seperate dorms for blacks and seperate departments within the universities for blacks, where such fairy-tales as ancient blacks built the Pyramids and had mastered the art of flight are taught. There are even seperate graduation ceremonies for blacks. And it’s not just blacks, the same applies for so-called “Hispanics” that attend certain universities.
Alright, let’s see if I can address this issue without getting into too much trouble.
As society changes with the passage of time, certain institutions, that were once acceptable, become passe.
Take slavery, for instance. Even during the mid-1800s, slavery was a dying institution. Many slaves had been freed even prior to the War Between the States. George Washington freed his slaves, although he is still reviled as a former slave owner by those with an agenda. It may be hard for you to accept, but some slaves were kept on the plantation for the sole reason that it would have been cruel to just set them free with no place to go. Unlike the caricature of evil that some like to paint slave-owners, antebellum society ostracized those that abused their slaves. The institution of slavery would have eventually died out without the War Between the States.
Like slavery, segregation would have eventually died out. With each passing generation, the youth of each race would have forgotten the ways of their forbearers and grown accustomed to interacting with each other. But, it would have been a two-way street. Blacks would have the responsibility of assimilating into so-called white society.
Rather that going to a job interview in “hip-hop” garb, with a ballcap turned sideways, underwear hangin’ out and speaking in ebonics with an “attitude”, a little conformity would be required.
Here’s a lesson to ya… in each and every case, it ain’t racism that caused “the man” to hire the white kid.
There are so many issues in this thread its hard to know where to start.
To begin with a specific issue, Ive lived in the southwest most of my life, minus a few years either in the Pac Northwest or New England or the Midwest. The contention that hispanics are more or less ‘liberal’ than anyone else is something I completely disagree with. Much like non-hispanic americans, the white collar hispanics tend to be liberal while the blue collar tend to be overwhelmingly conservative on most issues.
But that issue is rather petty and singular. In the larger sense, this thread seems to be conservative vs liberal. And proponents of one or the other point to past legislation or statements to make their point.
Yet modern conservatism and modern liberalism are both different than they were in the past. If there is one recurring thread in US history, it is individualism, which niether modern conservatism nor modern liberalism represent.
I think legislating bi-lingual education is wrong for the same reasons that legislating english-only is wrong. As soon as something as insubstantial as a social attitude is legislated, individual freedom suffers.
The civil rights act rightly made it illegal to legislate the primarily social attitude of segregation.
If segregation occurs now, thats fine; as long as its the individual choice of disparate individuals.
I find it ironic that the original poster complains about immigrants not wanting to assimilate and then goes on to say that segregation would have ended naturally.
Myself, when it comes to human behavior, define ‘natural’ to be the aggregate choices of disparate individuals; non-coerced and non-centrally determined. So the segregation laws in the south couldnt have ended ‘naturally’ simply because they were imposed un-naturally.
Indeed, social legislation whether liberal or conservative does nothing but inhibit the progress of social attitudes and ideas. Its very much like economic protectionism, but instead its social protectionism.
To me, the issue here isnt which social attitudes should be legislated (liberal or conservative); the issue is that social attitudes shouldnt be legislated at all.
Alright, Razorsharp, it looks like we’ve come to an impasse on a lot of issues. Instead of getting to a “yes it is” “no it isn’t” debate, I guess we can just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
However, there are a number of ssues that you raised in your last post that I’d like to explore with you.
[quote] Originally posted by Razorsharp
**Yes, but I question whether or not our country is better than it was in 1950. Now, before you start jumpin’ up and down (like others on this board so quickly have done) over racism and the Civil Rights Act, I hold no regards for racism and do not begrudge the Civil Rights Act. However, I do begrudge the liberal ideology for using the issue of racism to drive a wedge into society for the purpose of advancing the socialization of America.**You don’t begrudge the Civil Rights Act? Haven’t you spent the entire thread saying that segregation isn’t necessarily a bad thing and that slavery would have ended naturally anyway? Sounds like you do begrudge the Civil Rights Act. Also, let’s get some perspective here. For the purposes of arguement, I’ll accept that forced school bussing is a negative thing. But, when compared to segregated, unqequal education, lynchings, and Jim Crow Laws, don’t you think the good outweighs the evil here?
Really? One brings people together (see assimilation) the other keeps people seperated and legally unequal. I’d think that even a person with your views, who values freedom and assimilation, would favor policies that forces integration. With greater exposure, one could expect greater assimilation.
Of course, from my point of view, forced integration is a good thing. There is no reason to have seperate educational facilities, Jim Crow laws, and incredible levels of law enforcement corruption. If the government had been willing to allow lynchings, Jim Crow laws, and the willfull cooperation of local law enforcement to continue, then they would be burying their heads in the sand and not fullfilling their obligation to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty …”
You’re confusing segregation and cultural expression. There is a tendency to recognize one’s cultural roots and promote events that highlight those roots. However, there is a HUGE difference between promoting African-American or Hispanic events on campuses and forcibly sending minority children to sub-par schools, intimidating minorities who attempt to vote, or allowing law enforcement officials to participate in lynchings and other forms of oppression. If you can’t see the difference, then there’s no way for us to debate issues here.
Addressing your points on the eventual disintegration (pun not intended) of slavery and segregation.
It’s shocking that you actually believe that segregation or slavery would have naturally faded into history.
On Slavery:
Is that why states broke away from the Union? Because slavery was fading away? I know the main issue was state’s rights, but state’s rights to what? To regulate their own commerce (i.e. slavery). You claim that people who abused their slaves were frowned upon, and that many held on to their slaves becuase they had no where else to go. Are you honestly arguing that there were just slave owners? How can slavery, even with a master who doesn’t systematically beat and rape his slaves, be just? Isn’t the very fact that they treat a human being like property, that they would force them to labor without pay, inherently unjust? In any form? What kind of government would we have it if it just put its head in the sand and hope that problems go away?
On Segregation:
Segregation was going away? Is that why Governor Wallace shouted “Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!”? Becuase segregation was going away? Again, what kind of government would we have that ignores problems in the hope they go away?
It seems to me that you would rather have had the government ignore an issue and hope it goes away rather than attempt to fix it. In 1950, Southern society was very unjust. By pointing out this fact, and attempting to solve it, government was not creating a problem. Rather, they were exposing a problem that already existed. Big difference.
You were so strong and bold and sure in your initial pronouncements re “diversity” that led to me to ask this question, and yet this vague, hesitant little sociological soft shoe, shuffling tap dance is the best answer you have? “I reckon that slavery would have eventually become passé because well, umm… things change”?
I’m disappointed in you Razorsharp. You answer was a rhetorically lazy, arm waving response to a specific question about racial integration and a subject on which you seem to have sharply defined opinions.
I am the descendant of slave owners and the child of middle and upper middle class southern parents. I daresay I am somewhat better acquainted with the real world facts of current multi-generational white southern attitudes toward blacks than you are, and I am here to tell you that without the Civil Rights Act the current status of blacks in many of the southern states would be hardly better than 30-40 years ago.
You need to separate out your disdain for hip hop culture (which many blacks share with you) and your assumption that the codified and economically advantageous enslavement of a group of people would have simply faded away somehow without extremely forceful intervention. I was impressed with how vigorously you previously argued legal issues in other threads but the lazy, undergraduate nature of your current arguments does not impress
I am not talking about media reports or history books. I am talking about personal experience. Are you saying that I am exaggerating to myself?
I agree with astro. If you haven’t grown up struggling with it, you will have a hard time understanding it. Notice I didn’t say “can’t” understand it.
You mention that each generation will “forget” the ways of their forbears and drift away from it. Understand that both black and white were indoctrinated fiercely by their parents to mistrust and oppose the other race. I don’t have a lot of faith that that style of teaching would “go away” all by itself.
So all those good ole Confederate soldiers were fighting to free the slaves?
Cite? And I’d just like to say that for every George Washington, there was a Thomas Jefferson.
Ever heard of the expression, “If you love somebody, set them free”? Your statement seems more appropriate for lame kitty cats than for human beings. For this descendent of slaves, it makes me laugh.
This is rich. Eventually? How long were the slaves supposed to wait for their freedom? They had been waiting for almost three hundred years. There was no reason for anyone to believe it wouldn’t last for another three hundred.
So if this is true, why are you bitching and moaning? Based on this logic, if we wait a generation or two, those immigrants you detest will have blended into the greater population. In other
words, we become less diverse with time.
But we are the products of our parents’ teachings. We still practice ancient religions because the ideology has been passed down from generation to generation. Nationalism and racism can also be passed down. The racists of the 1950s were just as virulently racist as their ancestors in the 1850s. I think racism is not as rampant as it was just a generations ago only because of integration and increased diversity.
I think this is funny. Black people have always tried to “assimilate”, but assimilation come with a price. It’s hard to assimilate when no one wants your black ass at their school or neighborhood. And even despite those hardships–and the glaring fact that black people were brought over here unwillingly–they have managed to assimilate. We’re so much apart of this so-called “white” society that we’ve got the white kids trying to be like us! It’s a trend that first started–not so coincidentally–in the 1960s.
Every group has a subculture that stands out and doesn’t want to conform. Guess what? Even white folks have subcultures! Do you demand that stringy-haired, pot-smoking, surfer-dude speakin’, white guys need to “assimilate”? How about the goths and the punks? Perhaps you think only white people can afford to be non-conformist.
LOL! I heard this stupid label my whole life (from mississippi) and I think its hi-larious to have someone use it while trying to describe how slavery and unequal treatment would have died out. I’ve lived here all of my life, and I don’t know what would have happened, and I probably know southerners as well as anyone does.
look, just call it the Civil War if you don’t want people to think that you hate Lincoln and wish the CSA were around today.
Anyway though, I have several thoughts on this point. I do agree somewhat with your comments. The problem of today isn’t race, but culture. If you took a black baby from the Mississippi Delta and had him grow up with a wealthy affluent family, he would certainly be accepted in society, I believe. But then again, there are racists who actually do exist and they would descriminate soley based on color instead of culture.
As far as Mexicans talking about American culture being European? I don’t understand that at all. I highly doubt a Mexican would describe America being European.
Furthermore, I would say that every state that once was home to Spanish culture has every right to be as multi-cultural as they wish. I mean, parts of texas, florida, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, plus others had people of Spanish language and culture living there when we “created a state there.”
Thirdly, I have no problem with Mexicans or of other Spanish decent living in their own culture. You should spend some time in Mexico, then you wouldn’t feel so threatened. Their culture is very rich too. I learned Spanish in Spain, but when I am around Mexican, it is cool that I can understand them now, and it makes want to welcome them all.
Finally, I know too many racist whites. Don’t even begin to explain how the south would actually integrate itself. If anything we need more integration. I agree that we have a cultural problem, but that’ll never change, so just get used to it.
The kinds of right-wing ideas never are popular enough to make any changes until time of war. And hitler never even got that much of the vote. His rise to power was accomplished with no more than 40% and that was during the great depression?
Where does this sort of rhetoric lead us? What should be done to get these “thugs” in line with white culture? Honestly, it can’t be changed, except over time, so just forget it.
Europe faces this type of problems too with all of the North African and other colonial immigrants. I’m sure the fact that they are Mexican and not Muslim will make you feel better.
No, I made the contention that it was the recent Spanish-speaking immigrants that tend to vote liberal. Forty years ago, the indigeneous Spanish-speaking citizens tended to be conservative.
Thank you for seeing what so many others have missed, but I need to address one point.
Have you noticed that it is only fine as long as it is minorities who wish to remain segregated. Whites who wish to live among their own kind are always labeled as either racist, seperatist or supremacist.
Remember Randy Weaver of the Ruby Ridge debacle? Every, and I mean EVERY time his name was mentioned in the media, it was accompanied with the label of “white seperatist”, as if it made a difference. Of course it did make a difference to those in the media. See, that label served a purpose. It was to instill a sense of “he deserved it” into the viewing audience. It was used as a means to justify a government agency’s murder of a woman and a child.
Oh my, there’s that word again. FORCED. People just naturally resist being forced to do anything.
I’m with you all the way. Lynchings are murder and should be prosecuted. Jim Crow laws are evil and violate the Constitutional tenet of “equal protection”.
No, it goes a little further than “promoting African-American or Hispanic events on campuses”, it has become the establishment of a completely seperate insitution within an institution to accomodate specific minorities. In other words, segregation by choice.
Somewhat of a myth. As I mentioned earlier, prior to Brown v Board of Education, the literacy rate for high achool graduates, both black and white, was higher that it is today. What happened? What I am getting to here is that there must be a hidden force, if you will, that is diliberately dumbing-down today’s youth.
Come on, I see the difference and condone none of those things.
Well, why not? Slavery faded away everywhere else.
That is, with the exception of Africa. (How ironic)
I have never defended the institution of slavery nor segregation. I have only written on them as a way of life that previously existed. The only defense of slave owners that I have offered up is a defense of the caricature of a “Simon LeGree” that liberalism has promoted for the purpose of fomenting animosity between the races.
So, let me ask you, since the government “fixed” the problem, how has that worked out? From what I’ve seen, it appears that all that was accomplished was to move most of the African Americans into urban ghettos, reward them to pro-create outside the institution of marriage, thus destroying their family units and turn them into reliable voting blocs. Sorry, I don’t find much benevolence in that.
Well, is that really such a bad answer? As I previously posted:
Well, why not? Slavery faded away everywhere else.
That is, with the exception of Africa. (How ironic)
You asked a “specific question”? Good God, man, you asked a hypothetical. I knew I was stepping into it by attempting to give an answer, so I am not suprised by your response. So, in response to you, I can only surmise that you think that were it not for the War Between the States, that slavery would still exist today in America. Somehow, I don’t really think that you believe that.
Oh, I don’t know. In my adult life alone, I have resided in Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
And I am here to tell you that the current status of many blacks is still not any better than it was 30 - 40 years ago. That is unless you find the inner-city ghettos some sort of Shangri-La. How many times do I have to say that I don’t begrudge the Civil Rights Act? What I do begrudge is the fact that such a large percentage of blacks have irresponsibly refused to take advantage of the Civil Rights Act and liberalism’s attempt to put the onus on me.
My disdain for hip hop culture and foreseeing the demise of slavery have no mutual connection. My envisioning slavery’s demise was based on existing evidence. Your contention that slavery would still be in existence were it not for the “War of Northern Aggression”, is contradictory to existing evidence.
In a sense, you are exaggerating when you do not acknowledge that minorities have perpetrated atrocious acts of violence against whites as well. See, your statement was designed to illustrate that minorities were always the victims of whites.
Actually, I considered using “The War of Northern Aggression” but I realized that using that terminology would likely have sent several of you into an absolute coniption fit.
I don’t hate Lincoln, but neither do I hold him in high esteem as he is portrayed. I consider Lincoln to be somewhat akin to a promoter of “one-world government”. The states had every right to secede. Lincoln used slavery as a justification for the “war”. The “Emancipation Proclaimation” was delivered to circumvent England’s support for the Southern States. Being that slavery had already been abolished in England, Lincoln’s disingenious use of the slavery issue prevented England from lending support to the South.
I never made a reference to “Mexicans talking about American culture being European”. What I did say was, the new breed of Spanish speaking immigrants resist any attempt to declare the English language the official language for doing state business on the grounds that it would be an imposition of European culture on them. I find this odd being that they speak Spanish.
You, and don’t feel that I an singling you out, for there are many others doing the same, are having a knee-jerk reaction to the OP. I have reiterated several times throughout this discussion that I hold no animosity towards those of different cultures or different races. What I do have a problem with is those of the left that are using a distorted issue of Multi-culturalism as a technique to advance their agenda. If they really cared about different cultures, as they so claim, then they wouldn’t be so upset with the practice of female genital mutilation that the liberalization of America’s immigration policy has imposed on society.
How about any racist minorities? Know any of them? See, the whole liberal ideology of racism, multiculturalism and political correctness, for some strange reason, is only to be applied to conservative whites. Bear with me while I go to the John Rocker analogy again.
Remember when Atlanta Brave’s pitcher, John Rocker publicly expressed his personal opinion on the cultural climate of New York City? Every liberal, talking head pundit went into an absolute conniption fit over Rocker’s candidness. This selective display of moral outrage was a lesson for all to understand the objective of “political correctness”.
About ten years earlier, Basketball Hall of Famer, Isaiah Thomas, of the Detroit Pistons made the remark, “If Boston Celtics forward Larry Byrd, another Hall of Famer, were black, he would be considered just an average basketball player.”
Isaiah Thomas, an American of African descent, in his commentary on Larry Byrd, publicly insinuated that even the best white athletes have just the average ability of black athletes.
Why was it that no one demanded that Isaiah Thomas be fined and undergo psychological counseling, or re-education?
Please forgive the rhetorical question.
The answer is that the scourge known as “Political Correctness” that currently infects America, once known as the land of “freedom of speech”, is nothing less than institutionalized “thought control” designed specifically to be applied to conservative Americans, who still embrace the traditional American values of individualism, freedom and liberty. Its purpose is to silence their protests of the socialization and globalization of the last genuinely free country that remains in the world today.
Of course not, your mind is made up.
Well, first of all, I have never used the term “thugs” in this discussion. Now, to address your question, probably the best thing that could happen would be if minorities would stop criticizing those of their race for “acting white” for no other reason than conforming to society in a manner conducive to success.
Another example of countries being multicultrualized for the purpose of acclimating them into the “New World Order”. Funny thing, all of those countries that have recently been multicultrualized have experienced a coinciding rise in crime.
Think there just may be a connection to the deliberate multiculuralization of a country and a rise in crime? No, of course you don’t.
No, that would be as absurd as saying that they were fighting to keep slaves.
Yes, and your expression seems more appropriate for greeting-card sentiments.
So, as a descendant of slaves, do you think that you are owed reparations or can you appreciate the fact that were it not for the institution of slavery, you would not exist today?
Let’s say that the War of Northern Aggression was fought to free the slaves, as so many like to portray it, then it becomes obvious that the blacks of today do not appreciate it that so many whites fought and died just for your freedom. So, if slavery was the reason for the War, a case could be made that today’s blacks owe a debt of gratitude to the country rather than the demanding of reparations.
Look, for the ump-teenth time I am not defending slavery. Never have, never will. But I have grown tired of the guilt-trip.
Well, you can blame that on your racial kinsmen that sold and led your ancestors in chains on to the boat.
Now, that is funny.
But it has only really caught on in the age of MTV. More evidence of brainwashing.
Damn right I do, I wouldn’t hire one of them either.
I seem to remember 1950. My mother worked at my father’s business all day and worked late into the evening on doing housework. Like most husbands, Dad took to the easy chair and listened to the radio.
In 1960 I took the Air Force Entrance Exam and scored higher than anyone in my class. But twin brothers, both well-deserving, were appointed. I didn’t think twice about it. Girls didn’t go to the military academies. (Of course, women weren’t admitted to West Point or the Naval Academy in 1950 either.) Those free educations pay for by the taxpayers were not for us.
Harvard and Yale law schools? Men only.
Classified ads listed jobs under “Male” and “Female.”
In college in 1950, the women were literally imprisoned in the dorm after approximtely eight o’clock. The men could come and go from their dorms as they pleased.
In 1950, girls took home economics in high school and boys took shop. No choice was permitted.
Pregnant women were not allowed to continue to teach. Pregnant students could not attend high school.
I could go on and on with examples. The 1950’s weren’t better for women and that’s over half the population. Everyone knows that things weren’t good for non-whites in America. That takes out another 10% (?) – considering that non-white females were already eliminated from the list of 1950’s happy campers. So things may have been better for 30% to 40% of the population, but I doubt even that. There were fair-minded male whites then who knew that things were not good for everyone and looked beyond themselves to be concerned about others.
BTW, the first permanent European settlement in the territory now known as the U.S. was Spanish. The English speaking Europeans didn’t assimilate, I guess.
In my own neighborhood the number of Hispanics has increased from approximately 100 to 25,000 in the last ten years or so. So I can easily understand why the percentage of Hispanic voters has increased so much. Good for them! We are also a community of large groups of Laotians, African Americans, Cambodians, Kurds, Indians, Native Americans and whites. It is one cool neighborhood!
So, Razor, have you been tutoring any Spanish-speaking people lately?
