Arizona ending ethnic studies programs so brown folks won't resent the white man
Dog forbid that people learn about their cultural heritage. I know we are all Americans, but some people like to know and be proud of where they came from. If it creates any resentment towards white people, doesn't that mean that we need to step back and look at our history?
Xpltvdeleted, I consider your phrasing to be deliberately antagonistic. Do you want rational discussion and informative debate or are you just seeking a soapbox?
There's a difference between teaching someone to be proud of their cultural heritage (something I'm all for) and telling kids that Arizona and California were stolen from Mexico (manipulative half-history I find annoying). THAT'S what that program teaches: Mexico isn't impoverished because of political corruption, poor education, and other rational factors, noooo... It's all about American Imperialism.
If you look more deeply into this issue, you may see that it's less "black and white" that some present it.
Arizona ending ethnic studies programs so brown folks won't resent the white man
Dog forbid that people learn about their cultural heritage. I know we are all Americans, but some people like to know and be proud of where they came from. If it creates any resentment towards white people, doesn't that mean that we need to step back and look at our history?
They aren't necessarily ending the enthic studies programs. As the principle in an article said, they felt that the studies already meet the new requirements.
|
Horne, a Republican running for attorney general, said the program promotes "ethnic chauvinism" and racial resentment toward whites while segregating students by race. He's been trying to restrict it ever since he learned that Hispanic civil rights activist Dolores Huerta told students in 2006 that "Republicans hate Latinos."
It seems like a purely political move to me. Also, let's face it, how can you teach history without teaching oppression? Ever since the colonists first arrived, there has been some degree of oppression. The british oppressed the colonists, the colonists oppressed the natives, then later the blacks, then many other minorities (chinese railway workers, various immigrants a little later, etc.). If you remove oppression from history, you have little to no history. What they need to be teaching is critical thinking skills so the kids can differentiate between what happened then and current events.
I personally think that this bill is a correlary to the "let me see your papers" bill. Remove oppression from the history books and you remove the fact that, in reality, this country was founded on and by illegal immigration.
|
Arizona ending ethnic studies programs so brown folks won't resent the white man
G~D forbid that people learn about their cultural heritage. I know we are all Americans, but some people like to know and be proud of where they came from. If it creates any resentment towards white people, doesn't that mean that we need to step back and look at our history?
I have to agree. This amongst other things should be taught in school. If we are ashamed of our past let us make sure we do not repeat it.
|
|
I have to agree. This amongst other things should be taught in school. If we are ashamed of our past let us make sure we do not repeat it.Arizona ending ethnic studies programs so brown folks won't resent the white man
G~D forbid that people learn about their cultural heritage. I know we are all Americans, but some people like to know and be proud of where they came from. If it creates any resentment towards white people, doesn't that mean that we need to step back and look at our history?
You think that this shut down of foreign/ethnic studies is a shift to a US centric version of History? You would be wrong. I've examined what they teach in US schools. US History is now Biblical level Spin-doctoring followed by a hundred years of something blacked-out with a marker pen ending with Modern US History consisting entirely of Press releases and Leaks.
|
|
You think that this shut down of foreign/ethnic studies is a shift to a US centric version of History? You would be wrong. I've examined what they teach in US schools. US History is now Biblical level Spin-doctoring followed by a hundred years of something blacked-out with a marker pen ending with Modern US History consisting entirely of Press releases and Leaks.I have to agree. This amongst other things should be taught in school. If we are ashamed of our past let us make sure we do not repeat it.Arizona ending ethnic studies programs so brown folks won't resent the white man
G~D forbid that people learn about their cultural heritage. I know we are all Americans, but some people like to know and be proud of where they came from. If it creates any resentment towards white people, doesn't that mean that we need to step back and look at our history?
Yes, however the old spin is now spun so far the other way as to be a new spin entirely.
Also, let's face it, how can you teach history without teaching oppression?
There is quite a large difference between teaching oppression and teaching about oppression.
The law seeks to make illegal teaching oppression, that is, that one is actively being oppressed by another group. For a rediculous example, it would outlaw curriculum that instructs students that Canadians are forcing them to eat backbacon and wear toques and do not have the interests of non-Canadian students in mind.
However, as a part of history or social studies or civics (or even other courses), it would be perfectly acceptable to discuss (again, rediculous example) the Great Porcine Butchery of 1889 and its subsequent effects on First Nations peoples, etc. etc.
In any event, these courses would not be restricted (where I feel they belong) in college. At risk of going off-topic, perhaps schools should concentrate only teaching language, math and reasoning skills... so the populace at large can become more informed and make better decisions on their own... even if that does not directly adn specifically benifit politicians, school boards, teachers' unions and more. [/mini-rant]
|
|
Also, let's face it, how can you teach history without teaching oppression?There is quite a large difference between teaching oppression and teaching about oppression.
The law seeks to make illegal teaching oppression, that is, that one is actively being oppressed by another group. For a rediculous example, it would outlaw curriculum that instructs students that Canadians are forcing them to eat backbacon and wear toques and do not have the interests of non-Canadian students in mind.
However, as a part of history or social studies or civics (or even other courses), it would be perfectly acceptable to discuss (again, rediculous example) the Great Porcine Butchery of 1889 and its subsequent effects on First Nations peoples, etc. etc.
In any event, these courses would not be restricted (where I feel they belong) in college. At risk of going off-topic, perhaps schools should concentrate only teaching language, math and reasoning skills... so the populace at large can become more informed and make better decisions on their own... even if that does not directly adn specifically benifit politicians, school boards, teachers' unions and more. [/mini-rant]
I meant teaching about oppression, which is what this bill will stop. As to them not being restricted in colleges, that's all well and good, but high school is made to prep students for college. What is going to happen to those students who got the "white people never did anything wrong" version of history in HS, then a completely different version in college? It is giving them conflicting information and setting them up to fail.
I meant teaching about oppression, which is what this bill will stop. As to them not being restricted in colleges, that's all well and good, but high school is made to prep students for college. What is going to happen to those students who got the "white people never did anything wrong" version of history in HS, then a completely different version in college? It is giving them conflicting information and setting them up to fail.
Perhaps you should read the bill: AZ HB2281
I find some objectionable content in the Provisions, but the single sentence content is hardly an endorsement of White Power that some claim. I think too much emotional opinion is being read into the content of, well, pretty much everything.
Arizona just needs more water.
Interestingly, we're actually coming out of a drought. It's cooler than usual this year too.
Interestingly, we're actually coming out of a drought. It's cooler than usual this year too.
That's because of the REAL illegal aliens - the ones from Planet X. They're going to turn the Earth upside down, so that all the cold places become hot, all the hot places become cold, and Arizona becomes their new ski resort.
|
|
Huh. Jackson's about forty minutes away from my hometown.A relevant story,
Jackson, New York has just signed into law a requirement that all town buisness meetings are to be conducted in English.
Looks like the People of Jackson are going to have to learn to speak English without that American Accent - just to do business.
|
I do have a question that pertains to the original post. This is for everyone opposed to the Arizona police being given the right to enforce immigration policy, specifically by the method of requiring proof of citizenship from what will almost certainly be mostly people of hispanic descent.
I would really like to know what the big deal is about having to prove your citizenship to a police officer. It may be that I am just more comfortable with this than most.
As an example, if the police in the town where I reside were searching for a serial rapist of white women and they wanted to get a DNA swab from the entire adult white male population I would happily head on down to the station. I might even bring my own swab. I can understand why someone who is afraid of the swab somehow implicating them in the crime in question or another crime would not want to submit themselves to the DNA testing. But I don't understand why a law abiding citizen would have such a problem.
Another example that seems appropriate to me is of cops and radar guns. If the police are trying to keep instances of speeding(illegal immigrants) down they use radar guns(their eyes) to monitor speed(citizenship documentation). When they do this, putting the speed trap on a low traffic road without a history of car accidents due to speeding(the basic white population of arizona) isn't nearly as effective as setting it up on the freeway(the hispanic population of arizona) or more heavily used roadway with a history of speeding related accidents. I don't take offense when a cop parks on side of the road and uses radar to monitor my speed when I am going by. It doesn't bother me that that cop has lumped my car with every other vehicle on the road with regard to our likelyhood of speeding. I also don't waste a moment wondering why the same cop is not using his radar gun to monitor the speed of bicyclists and is only targeting cars. Now then, if I was speeding or otherwise breaking the law I would definately be much more likely to vilify the cop and his actions.
I really just don't understand the issue that a law abiding citizen would have with this. If I were in downtown Little Rock, and a cop asked for my indentification I would happily provide the information and be on my way. The same applies if the cop were at my apartment door.
I can see why illegal aliens would have a problem with this. I can even understand why their friends and family would as well. By what does it matter to your average law abiding hispanic american citizen?
Tam
Tambryn
You've summed it up pretty well. The only ones that have a problem with the law are the law breakers that it is designed to catch.
I get lumpped into the "angry white guy" group because I support what the govenor of arizona is doing. My understanding is she is following the will of the majority of her CITIZENS!! IE doing the job she was elected to do.
As far as california it's rather telling that while they may susspend some of their dealings with AZ they arn't backing out of things that would really hurt them such as trash or water.
My only question is if colorado followed arizonas lead would california stop takeing so much freaking water from them.
|
|
Tambryn
You've summed it up pretty well. The only ones that have a problem with the law are the law breakers that it is designed to catch.
Hmmm...last time I checked I'm a white male who was born here, does this mean that i don't really have a problem with the law? Am I imagining my opposition?
I get lumpped into the "angry white guy" group because I support what the govenor of arizona is doing. My understanding is she is following the will of the majority of her CITIZENS!! IE doing the job she was elected to do.
IIRC, you are a gay man. Given that a majority of the citizens of the USA are opposed to equal rights for gays, does that mean that congress should make laws to prevent equal rights?
We do not have a true democracy because at some point, the majority must be stopped from trampling on the minorities. If the will of the people was always followed we would still have jim crow laws in the south and interracial marriage would be illegal. There are times when the majority doesn't know what's best and it's the responsibility of elected leaders to do the right thing, even if it's unpopular.
|
small town, with no tourism.. is understandable such short sighted ideas.
WOW. That was such an insulting statement I don't know how to respond.
The fact is, it should be federal law in the USA every government document should always be only in the english language.
It is common sense, as is Arizonas new law allowing their law enforcement officers to enforce existing law.
If you plan to come to this country the law says there is a legal way to do it. Follow the law. Whether it's for a vacation or to immigrate.
It's really simple.
|
|
small town, with no tourism.. is understandable such short sighted ideas.WOW. That was such an insulting statement I don't know how to respond.
The fact is, it should be federal law in the USA every government document should always be only in the english language.
It is common sense, as is Arizonas new law allowing their law enforcement officers to enforce existing law.
If you plan to come to this country the law says there is a legal way to do it. Follow the law. Whether it's for a vacation or to immigrate.
It's really simple.
America is a melting pot of many different cultures and ethnicities. Many people belonging to these groups are struggling to keep their cultural heritage alive as it is. Typically by 2nd-3rd generation, people don't even speak their parents language (if it was something other than english) and that's sad. Policies like this are discriminatory and, let's face it, single out one group of minorities more than any other.
|
|
There are times when the majority doesn't know what's best and it's the responsibility of elected leaders to do the right thing, even if it's unpopular.
No. It is the responsibility of an elected official to represent the wishes of his constituents. Those elected to public office work for those that elected them.
They serve the people. The people do not serve elected officials as you state.
It is, however, the responsiblity of the Supreme Court to review the laws passed by the elected officials and ensure they are in keeping with our constitution. Note: not in line with their personal views, but in line with the constitution.
|
|
There are times when the majority doesn't know what's best and it's the responsibility of elected leaders to do the right thing, even if it's unpopular.No. It is the responsibility of an elected official to represent the wishes of his constituents. Those elected to public office work for those that elected them.
They serve the people. The people do not serve elected officials as you state.
It is, however, the responsiblity of the Supreme Court to review the laws passed by the elected officials and ensure they are in keeping with our constitution. Note: not in line with their personal views, but in line with the constitution.
No, no, no. We have a representative republic to prevent the will of the people from doing what is wrong. If elected representatives simply polled their citizens before every vote, we would still be in the same position regarding the examples I presented (jim crow, interracial marriage, etc.). Do you really think civil rights are so trivial a thing that they need to wait the years that it will take to have them granted after the supreme court strikes down a discriminatory law?
Stop and think about it from someone else's shoes. If a law came up that would take away some of your rights and a majority of the people in your congressman's district wanted it passed would you want your representative to vote with the people or would you want them to do what is right and vote against the law?
There are times when the majority doesn't know what's best and it's the responsibility of elected leaders to do the right thing, even if it's unpopular.No. It is the responsibility of an elected official to represent the wishes of his constituents. Those elected to public office work for those that elected them.
They serve the people. The people do not serve elected officials as you state.
It is, however, the responsiblity of the Supreme Court to review the laws passed by the elected officials and ensure they are in keeping with our constitution. Note: not in line with their personal views, but in line with the constitution.
This, this, this.
We do NOT elect people for the purpose of deciding what is best for us, we elect them to vote as we tell them to vote.
The funniest part is that the entire legislative branch is an outdated and completely unnecessary institution that could be wholly replaced by already-existing technology in under a years time that would allow all individual citizens their right and proper input into the process.
Of course this will not be allowed to happen, for there is too much money/power/control at stake.
|
|
There are times when the majority doesn't know what's best and it's the responsibility of elected leaders to do the right thing, even if it's unpopular.No. It is the responsibility of an elected official to represent the wishes of his constituents. Those elected to public office work for those that elected them.
They serve the people. The people do not serve elected officials as you state.
It is, however, the responsiblity of the Supreme Court to review the laws passed by the elected officials and ensure they are in keeping with our constitution. Note: not in line with their personal views, but in line with the constitution.
This, this, this.
We do NOT elect people for the purpose of deciding what is best for us, we elect them to vote as we tell them to vote.
The funniest part is that the entire legislative branch is an outdated and completely unnecessary institution that could be wholly replaced by already-existing technology in under a years time that would allow all individual citizens their right and proper input into the process.
Of course this will not be allowed to happen, for there is too much money/power/control at stake.
See my response to TC's post. What happens when the majority votes or wants their representatives to limit the rights of a minority group? Should a representative still vote for it and then wait for the supreme court to reverse it years later?
The only ones that have a problem with the law are the law breakers that it is designed to catch.
This attitude is always what allows destructive and over-broad laws to pass -- because the category of "can be applied to" is almost always a LOT larger than the category of "is designed to catch."
I'm not saying the one in question is or isn't, but what are the provisions of "proof?" If I forget my ID at home, to I get deported or sent to prison, or Guantanamo Bay? What?
BILL 437XQ - "Protection of Children Law"
Sec 3, Subsection 4 - Adults exposing minors to, or allowing minors to have access to, any materials listed in Sec 5, Subsection 10 shall be held liable under Section 20.
This part is intended to prevent kids from being given pornographic materials, which no one should have a problem with. However, the bill is 4,790 pages long in its entirety. Sec 5-10 lists all kinds of materials in different sub-sub paragraphs, one of which deals with pornography; the others of which include books and electronic media. Notice that 3-4 doesn't specify a sub-sub-paragraph in 5-10. So, by law, essentially all parents, teachers, and record store owners are held liable under the Protection of Children Law. Section 20 might prescribe a minimum 10 year prison sentence.
"THAT'S RIDICULOUS!" you say, and well you should... but laws like this are passed all the time, and people get prosecuted under clauses that were never intended to be used for what they're being used for.
When you say "only lawbreakers have to worry," you need to understand that every single person in the U.S., no matter how careful and no matter how squeaky-clean, is in violation of at least some clause of some law, probably without knowing it. And since a "lawbreaker" is someone in violation of a law, by definition that means we ALL have to worry. Maybe the clauses you're violating aren't ones that people normally get prosecuted under, but that doesn't mean they can't.
As a check, before replying telling me I'm totally deluded, read the Patriot Act with an eye not towards "terrorists," but towards YOU. See if any of the provisions could be applied to you or one of your friends or relatives, if someone in the State Department wanted to push it. We all know it's supposed to be against terrorists, right? The question is, if it's written so that it could be applied to the rest of us as well, do we just trust the government not to use it?
|
|
America is a melting pot of many different cultures and ethnicities. Many people belonging to these groups are struggling to keep their cultural heritage alive as it is. Typically by 2nd-3rd generation, people don't even speak their parents language (if it was something other than english) and that's sad. Policies like this are discriminatory and, let's face it, single out one group of minorities more than any other.If you plan to come to this country the law says there is a legal way to do it. Follow the law. Whether it's for a vacation or to immigrate.
It's really simple.
Yes America is a melting pot as you called it. All the ingredients blend together to create a stew.
If one flavor overwhelms the others, the recipe is ruined.
My great grand parents came from Ireland and Hungary. My mother has gone back through the government records and found the ledgers they signed when they came through Ellis Island. Legal Imigration
Guess what? They assimilated to the culture they found here in the United States. They embraced the culture here. They did not try to change it. They did not demand special treatment. They took what work was available, worked hard and raised their children not as citizens of another nation but as Americans.
Am I aware of my heritage? Yes.
But I am an American. No hyphens here, thank you
There are times when the majority doesn't know what's best and it's the responsibility of elected leaders to do the right thing, even if it's unpopular.No. It is the responsibility of an elected official to represent the wishes of his constituents. Those elected to public office work for those that elected them.
They serve the people. The people do not serve elected officials as you state.
It is, however, the responsiblity of the Supreme Court to review the laws passed by the elected officials and ensure they are in keeping with our constitution. Note: not in line with their personal views, but in line with the constitution.
No, no, no. We have a representative republic to prevent the will of the people from doing what is wrong. If elected representatives simply polled their citizens before every vote, we would still be in the same position regarding the examples I presented (jim crow, interracial marriage, etc.). Do you really think civil rights are so trivial a thing that they need to wait the years that it will take to have them granted after the supreme court strikes down a discriminatory law?
Stop and think about it from someone else's shoes. If a law came up that would take away some of your rights and a majority of the people in your congressman's district wanted it passed would you want your representative to vote with the people or would you want them to do what is right and vote against the law?
No, no, no, we have a representative republic because at the time the system was created, it was the most feasible form allowable. The legislative branch is most assuredly supposed to directly translate into majority rule by intent of design. The other two branches are specifically supposed to carry out the duty of looking out for the interests of the minority.
It's a damned shame that this isn't how it actually works out.
Lotsa stuff
The main problem here is that it could be argued your viewpoint is too simplistic- it implies that there is no such thing as white, (black, asian, indian, pacific islander) people living in the country illegally. The secondary and perhaps more troubling problem is the perspective it takes with cooperation with law enforcement; implying that anyone who refuses to participate in something regarding the law or even simply questions the method by which it is done is automatically suspect and probably guilty.
See my response to TC's post. What happens when the majority votes or wants their representatives to limit the rights of a minority group? Should a representative still vote for it and then wait for the supreme court to reverse it years later?There are times when the majority doesn't know what's best and it's the responsibility of elected leaders to do the right thing, even if it's unpopular.No. It is the responsibility of an elected official to represent the wishes of his constituents. Those elected to public office work for those that elected them.
They serve the people. The people do not serve elected officials as you state.
It is, however, the responsiblity of the Supreme Court to review the laws passed by the elected officials and ensure they are in keeping with our constitution. Note: not in line with their personal views, but in line with the constitution.
This, this, this.
We do NOT elect people for the purpose of deciding what is best for us, we elect them to vote as we tell them to vote.
The funniest part is that the entire legislative branch is an outdated and completely unnecessary institution that could be wholly replaced by already-existing technology in under a years time that would allow all individual citizens their right and proper input into the process.
Of course this will not be allowed to happen, for there is too much money/power/control at stake.
Heh, no. In the case of flagrant infringements on the rights of the minority, it doesn't take years. Most of the time it simply takes a veto. And yes, representatives should be forced to vote as their constituents dictate, or be punished under the law.
You would actually find a LOT FEWER laws on the books in general if the process were followed as it were originally intended. If you look very closely, you will find that our founding fathers were so brilliant that they actually designed a system of government in which said government was actually not supposed to get a lot done.
|
|
There are times when the majority doesn't know what's best and it's the responsibility of elected leaders to do the right thing, even if it's unpopular.No. It is the responsibility of an elected official to represent the wishes of his constituents. Those elected to public office work for those that elected them.
They serve the people. The people do not serve elected officials as you state.
It is, however, the responsiblity of the Supreme Court to review the laws passed by the elected officials and ensure they are in keeping with our constitution. Note: not in line with their personal views, but in line with the constitution.
No, no, no. We have a representative republic to prevent the will of the people from doing what is wrong. If elected representatives simply polled their citizens before every vote, we would still be in the same position regarding the examples I presented (jim crow, interracial marriage, etc.). Do you really think civil rights are so trivial a thing that they need to wait the years that it will take to have them granted after the supreme court strikes down a discriminatory law?
Stop and think about it from someone else's shoes. If a law came up that would take away some of your rights and a majority of the people in your congressman's district wanted it passed would you want your representative to vote with the people or would you want them to do what is right and vote against the law?
No, no, no, we have a representative republic because at the time the system was created, it was the most feasible form allowable. The legislative branch is most assuredly supposed to directly translate into majority rule by intent of design. The other two branches are specifically supposed to carry out the duty of looking out for the interests of the minority.
It's a damned shame that this isn't how it actually works out.
Well let me know if your tune changes because you have had some of your rights taken away because the majority thought it was a good idea and you have to wait for the SCOTUS to give them back. This attitude is what is wrong with the country, not congress...as long as it doesn't affect you it's ok, right?
America is a melting pot of many different cultures and ethnicities. Many people belonging to these groups are struggling to keep their cultural heritage alive as it is. Typically by 2nd-3rd generation, people don't even speak their parents language (if it was something other than english) and that's sad. Policies like this are discriminatory and, let's face it, single out one group of minorities more than any other.If you plan to come to this country the law says there is a legal way to do it. Follow the law. Whether it's for a vacation or to immigrate.
It's really simple.
Yes America is a melting pot as you called it. All the ingredients blend together to create a stew.
If one flavor overwhelms the others, the recipe is ruined.
My great grand parents came from Ireland and Hungary. My mother has gone back through the government records and found the ledgers they signed when they came through Ellis Island. Legal Imigration
Guess what? They assimilated to the culture they found here in the United States. They embraced the culture here. They did not try to change it. They did not demand special treatment. They took what work was available, worked hard and raised their children not as citizens of another nation but as Americans.
Am I aware of my heritage? Yes.
But I am an American. No hyphens here, thank you
Your thoughts on the overwhelming discrimination experienced by Irish citizens in this country(Irish need not apply statues for businesses, being pressed into military service upon arrival)?
|
|
Heh, no. In the case of flagrant infringements on the rights of the minority, it doesn't take years. Most of the time it simply takes a veto. And yes, representatives should be forced to vote as their constituents dictate, or be punished under the law.
You would actually find a LOT FEWER laws on the books in general if the process were followed as it were originally intended. If you look very closely, you will find that our founding fathers were so brilliant...
But why the hell should a law like that get passed in the first place? It's ridiculous. I'm really trying to understand your reasoning behind this, and maybe I'm letting my emotions get the better of my logic, but it sounds like you think the majority should be able to whatever they want regardless of who it impacts. We would still have slavery and woment wouldn't be allowed to vote if that was the case.
But why the hell should a law like that get passed in the first place? It's ridiculous. I'm really trying to understand your reasoning behind this, and maybe I'm letting my emotions get the better of my logic, but it sounds like you think the majority should be able to whatever they want regardless of who it impacts. We would still have slavery and woment wouldn't be allowed to vote if that was the case.Heh, no. In the case of flagrant infringements on the rights of the minority, it doesn't take years. Most of the time it simply takes a veto. And yes, representatives should be forced to vote as their constituents dictate, or be punished under the law.
You would actually find a LOT FEWER laws on the books in general if the process were followed as it were originally intended. If you look very closely, you will find that our founding fathers were so brilliant...
You always allow your emotions to lead you in these discussions. Slavery and the woman's right to vote would both most assuredly have passed.
I'm not saying that the majority should be able to do what it wants. I'm saying that legislators should vote as they are told to vote by a majority of their constituents. There is a very large difference.
|
|
Your thoughts on the overwhelming discrimination experienced by Irish citizens in this country(Irish need not apply statues for businesses, being pressed into military service upon arrival)?
To be blunt, it was no different than what most every other minority group that has immigrated to the United States has had to deal with. The Irish had the double whammy of being (for the most part) Catholic as well.
My great grandfather worked on the railroad. When he died the family moved to Paterson and worked in the textile mills. From their they dispersed across the US and Canada. They never had it easy. But they had opportunity to make a better life.
Was the discrimination right? No. But at least they had the legal opportunity to come here and work hard and assimilate and become Americans.
Thats the same legal opportunity the Mexicans crossing the border illegally in Arizona have, by the way, but choose to not excersise.
Your thoughts on the overwhelming discrimination experienced by Irish citizens in this country(Irish need not apply statues for businesses, being pressed into military service upon arrival)?To be blunt, it was no different than what most every other minority group that has immigrated to the United States has had to deal with. The Irish had the double whammy of being (for the most part) Catholic as well.
My great grandfather worked on the railroad. When he died the family moved to Paterson and worked in the textile mills. From their they dispersed across the US and Canada. They never had it easy. But they had opportunity to make a better life.
Was the discrimination right? No. But at least they had the legal opportunity to come here and work hard and assimilate and become Americans.
Thats the same legal opportunity the Mexicans crossing the border illegally in Arizona have, by the way, but choose to not excersise.
You leave out a part of your original post above that states that your ancestors embraced the culture here and did not attempt to change it, nor ask for special treatment. Is this to say that they meekly accepted the prejudice they encountered?
But why the hell should a law like that get passed in the first place? It's ridiculous. I'm really trying to understand your reasoning behind this, and maybe I'm letting my emotions get the better of my logic, but it sounds like you think the majority should be able to whatever they want regardless of who it impacts. We would still have slavery and woment wouldn't be allowed to vote if that was the case.Heh, no. In the case of flagrant infringements on the rights of the minority, it doesn't take years. Most of the time it simply takes a veto. And yes, representatives should be forced to vote as their constituents dictate, or be punished under the law.
You would actually find a LOT FEWER laws on the books in general if the process were followed as it were originally intended. If you look very closely, you will find that our founding fathers were so brilliant...
I'd like to respond to the "majority shopuld be able to do whatever they want" statement.
First our constitution and the bill of rights make sure that the system of Majority rules, monority rights will always be the law of the land.Second from my observations and from study I am of the mindset that true profound change takes time. If you'll look slavery as an economic system was on it's way out anyway given another 30-50yrs it wouldn't have made sense to own a slave anymore, kindda like we don't ride horses as a means of travel anymore, something better came along. The womens right to vote was slowly being changed by progressive states like california where they said "all" land owners could vote so alot of women were deeded like an inch of land to get around the law. In otherwords it was only a matter of time before the will of the people was manifest into the law of the land.
Next point why was the law needed? For too long the CITIZENS! of arizona have suffered from illegal immagrants destroying property and other crimes too numerous to mention with little to no recourse because the federal government simply didn't care. Now the president of mexico is going whining his %^&&%&J*() self to OUR congress saying "please make the mean woman stop" who the heck is this guy to tell anyone in the U.S. that is an elected offical to do anything. If he could control his people we wouldn't have to.
As to your earlier posts bringing up the fact that I am in a minority group as a homosexual american I refuse to wear my sexuality on my sleeve. You think I don't know that just a few decades ago I would have been considered mentally ill and suffered in a mental hospitol with NO recourse, all my rights stripped from me. If you have never been denied housing because the landlady didn't want your perversion around inoccent children or have someone pray for you to cast out the"demon" of lust that's inhabiting you then you havn't been discriminated against in the way I have been. Now however through brave souls standing up for what is right the laws are changing for the better.
The same can be said in arizona in the fact that after suffering basically abandoned by the feds the people of arizona have had enough.
|
|
But why the hell should a law like that get passed in the first place? It's ridiculous. I'm really trying to understand your reasoning behind this, and maybe I'm letting my emotions get the better of my logic, but it sounds like you think the majority should be able to whatever they want regardless of who it impacts. We would still have slavery and woment wouldn't be allowed to vote if that was the case.Heh, no. In the case of flagrant infringements on the rights of the minority, it doesn't take years. Most of the time it simply takes a veto. And yes, representatives should be forced to vote as their constituents dictate, or be punished under the law.
You would actually find a LOT FEWER laws on the books in general if the process were followed as it were originally intended. If you look very closely, you will find that our founding fathers were so brilliant...
You always allow your emotions to lead you in these discussions. Slavery and the woman's right to vote would both most assuredly have passed.
I'm not saying that the majority should be able to do what it wants. I'm saying that legislators should vote as they are told to vote by a majority of their constituents. There is a very large difference.
Abolition of slavery might have passed, but women's right to vote? I doubt it, especially considering they wouldn't have been able to vote for themselves.
Abolition of slavery might have passed, but women's right to vote? I doubt it, especially considering they wouldn't have been able to vote for themselves.But why the hell should a law like that get passed in the first place? It's ridiculous. I'm really trying to understand your reasoning behind this, and maybe I'm letting my emotions get the better of my logic, but it sounds like you think the majority should be able to whatever they want regardless of who it impacts. We would still have slavery and woment wouldn't be allowed to vote if that was the case.Heh, no. In the case of flagrant infringements on the rights of the minority, it doesn't take years. Most of the time it simply takes a veto. And yes, representatives should be forced to vote as their constituents dictate, or be punished under the law.
You would actually find a LOT FEWER laws on the books in general if the process were followed as it were originally intended. If you look very closely, you will find that our founding fathers were so brilliant...
You always allow your emotions to lead you in these discussions. Slavery and the woman's right to vote would both most assuredly have passed.
I'm not saying that the majority should be able to do what it wants. I'm saying that legislators should vote as they are told to vote by a majority of their constituents. There is a very large difference.
I find your pessimism with regards to trust in your fellow man disheartening. It is also probably at the very root of your "put people in charge to tell us what is best for us" stance.
Trust in the righteousness of the powerful few is trust misplaced, imo. Better to trust in the deadlocked opinions of the masses.
|
|
Steve, without offense that what you are talking is persecution of a minority...
Welcome to the other side of the coin.
Besides... already many cities of Arizona don't want such a law... incluthing Phonix... how then it was the majority clamoring for the gobernor for such policy?
decisions taken in the congress most of the time is decided in the congress without really caring for their citizens.. that is here and that is there...
otherwise we all be having a better lifes with fairer laws and with the needed reforms that politics stops ebcause it doesn't benefit to their inteerst.
Still... its part of a citizen to stand against an unfair law...
and no I can't alk for it i am Mexican and don't go that often to US so only the lwas that affect my coutnry directly make me a grievous stand (like how our waters woudl be sson polited by the msitake of a company, destroying a lot of animals and ecoosystems both needed for the world and my country economy) but we are not b*##~ing about that...
and by the way.. yeah I know that our politicians complaing would be called whinign.. but yours are called demanding? that goes with the position you know? discuss about policies that affect mutual interests... and if i remember well Obama already condemend the law... so Calderon is not telling him anything new or that he won't be expected...
and we will be falming him alie if he dien't go a whine like you say...
but isn't your country whining about Iran having nuclear research? it doesn't affect you, right?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
The fact is, it should be federal law in the USA every government document should always be only in the english language.
That's not a fact. It's an opinion.
Now, what about government documents explaining language rights, or encouraging newcomers with limited English proficiency to attend language classes, or government documents intended for international use, etc.?
I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than I could think of dozens of instances where a law such as you've described would severely limit the ability of the government to accomplish its goals.
|
|
I'd like to respond to the "majority shopuld be able to do whatever they want" statement.
First our constitution and the bill of rights make sure that the system of Majority rules, monority rights will always be the law of the land.Second from my observations and from study I am of the mindset that true profound change takes time. If you'll look slavery as an economic system was on it's way out anyway given another 30-50yrs it wouldn't have made sense to own a slave anymore, kindda like we don't ride horses as a means of travel anymore, something better came along. The womens right to vote was slowly being changed by progressive states like california where they said "all" land owners could vote so alot of women were deeded like an inch of land to get around the law. In otherwords it was only a matter of time before the will of the people was manifest into the law of the land.
Next point why was the law needed? For too long the CITIZENS! of arizona have suffered from illegal immagrants destroying property and other crimes too numerous to mention with little to no recourse because the federal government simply didn't care. Now the president of mexico is going whining his %^&&%&J*() self to OUR congress saying "please make the mean woman stop" who the heck is this guy to tell anyone in the U.S. that is an elected offical to do anything. If he could control his people we wouldn't have to.
As to your earlier posts bringing up the fact that I am in a minority group as a homosexual american I refuse to wear my sexuality on my sleeve. You think I don't know that just a few decades ago I would have been considered mentally ill and suffered in a mental hospitol with NO recourse, all my rights stripped from me. If you have never been denied housing because the landlady didn't want your perversion around inoccent children or have someone pray for you to cast out the"demon" of lust that's inhabiting you then you havn't been discriminated against in the way I have been. Now however through brave souls standing up for what is right the laws are changing for the better.
The same can be said in arizona in the fact that after suffering basically abandoned by the feds the people of arizona have had enough.
Why should people have to wait decades to get rights that were promised to them in the declaration of independance and the constitution?
And I haven't had to endure the discrimination that you have, and I want to ensure that noone has to endure that type of discrimination. I mean, around the same time that you would have been considered mentally ill, I would not have been able to marry my wife. This type of situation has improved considerably...to the point where there are only prejudices, not actual laws. Why should gay marriage be any different--people don't have to like it, but it should be legal.
These are different examples from the AZ statues, but it's the whole slippery slope thing. People are focusing on one ethnic group by creating laws that specifically target and encourage harassment of a specific group of people. The law should never have been enacted.
|
|
I find your pessimism with regards to trust in your fellow man disheartening. It is also probably at the very root of your "put people in charge to tell us what is best for us" stance.
Trust in the righteousness of the powerful few is trust misplaced, imo. Better to trust in the deadlocked opinions of the masses.
I tend to think of myself as a realist more than a pessimest, and I'm not saying that people in charge should be telling us what is best for us, but until we change our form of government and our thinking as a country, that is what we have.
A true democracy might work on a state-by-state level, but for federal government, I feel that there still needs to be that oversight.