I was lucky enough to be born in the early 1980s and thought I avoided all of this. I never for a second thought I would ever see this.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091016/ap_on_re_us/us_interracial_rebuff (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091016/ap_on_re_us/us_interracial_rebuff)
You don't go to Louisiana often...
I wonder if the policy only applies to white/black mixes. What about white/native american, black/asian....?
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 15, 2009, 09:28:16 PM
I wonder if the policy only applies to white/black mixes. What about white/native american, black/asian....?
He may never have seen an asian or native american, other than on TV.
"Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."
I wonder if this dingleberry realizes that the President of the United States is bi-racial and was overwhelmingly recieved in the black community and and white communities? Contrary to what liberal talking heads, bloggers, and their disciples are claiming, it's a very small percentage of white pinheads who have a problem with President Obama due to his race.
However, I do wonder how this couple just happened to pick this Justice of the Peace out of all others in the area, plus it's interesting if you read what the woman intends to study in college. Anyone read "The Appeal" by John Grisham? Sounds somewhat like a plant by the ACLU. I agree the practice of this JOP is totally donkey-backwards, but this sounds an awful lot like a set-up.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 15, 2009, 10:34:28 PM
"Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."
I wonder if this dingleberry realizes that the President of the United States is bi-racial and was overwhelmingly recieved in the black community and and white communities? Contrary to what liberal talking heads, bloggers, and their disciples are claiming, it's a very small percentage of white pinheads who have a problem with President Obama due to his race.
However, I do wonder how this couple just happened to pick this Justice of the Peace out of all others in the area, plus it's interesting if you read what the woman intends to study in college. Anyone read "The Appeal" by John Grisham? Sounds somewhat like a plant by the ACLU. I agree the practice of this JOP is totally donkey-backwards, but this sounds an awful lot like a set-up.
So they "picked" the guy who won't do bi-racial marriages and purposely tried to get married?
Still doesn't change anything. Unless the guy is lying just to get on the news.
Trog, I'm simply impressed with people's creativity for enrichening themselves. I think I'll pass on crashing into a rock quarry to make a few million, but suing a Justice Of The Peace for not marrying me...hmmm, good one. Sure sounds like a lawsuit is in the making, and plenty of publicity for the ACLU and their coffers.
Whatever the reasoning, as long as the Justice wasn't involved. I seriously don't think you should have to make decision to go to the other justice of the peace that will marry interracial couples.
It's dumb as smile. He has more melanin in his body than she does...that's it.
My wife tans faster than me...same reason.
Quote from: Townsend on October 16, 2009, 09:53:52 AM
It's dumb as smile. He has more melanin in his body than she does...that's it.
My wife tans faster than me...same reason.
Ohh, the horror!! You guys aren't planning on having children are you? You know they won't be completely accepted by people who are melanin-challenged nor those with an abundance of it.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 16, 2009, 10:09:13 AM
Ohh, the horror!! You guys aren't planning on having children are you? You know they won't be completely accepted by people who are melanin-challenged nor those with an abundance of it.
I'm looking into designer genetics for checkerboard offspring. Only when it's sunny of course.
That way if they go on vacation on the islands they'll think of me...and they can castle on themselves.
melanin-challenged
Outstanding
A Federal Judge is reviewing California's prop 8 law. The argument in favor of prop 8 is it protects the State's Interest in having procreating citizens (it restricts behavior of a class of people, so they have to defend it as being in the State's interest). The Judge asked how allowing two gay guys to get married effects that interest adversely . . . the answer was "I don't know."
State to gay guy: You can't get married to a man!
Gay guy: Then I'll have sex with women!
Brilliant!
/it was kinda on topic, per the heading anyway
Has anyone noted the similarity in arguments used by pharmacy workers to not be involved with selling contraceptives or morning after pills? Legality, racism and common sense aside, if he personally thinks it is something he does not want to be a part of, he should receive no more castigation than the pharmacist who uses his religious precepts for the same action.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 16, 2009, 09:40:07 AM
Trog, I'm simply impressed with people's creativity for enrichening themselves. I think I'll pass on crashing into a rock quarry to make a few million, but suing a Justice Of The Peace for not marrying me...hmmm, good one. Sure sounds like a lawsuit is in the making, and plenty of publicity for the ACLU and their coffers.
If by a set-up, you mean they specifically chose this JOP so that they could shine a light on his ignorance, and hopefully shame him into retirement, or at least discourage his reappointment/reelection or solicit some disciplinary action, then you probably right.
If you think they somehow plan to sue & recover monetary damages, highly unlikely. Judicial immunity is one of the broadest forms of immunity. As long as he was acting in his "judicial capacity", they won't recover a dime from him.
Quote from: pmcalk on October 17, 2009, 03:18:30 PM
If by a set-up, you mean they specifically chose this JOP so that they could shine a light on his ignorance, and hopefully shame him into retirement, or at least discourage his reappointment/reelection or solicit some disciplinary action, then you probably right.
If you think they somehow plan to sue & recover monetary damages, highly unlikely. Judicial immunity is one of the broadest forms of immunity. As long as he was acting in his "judicial capacity", they won't recover a dime from him.
This is about all I could find on La. law when googling liability for JOP's in La.
"Limitations on liability for damages
Any act or issue done in conformity to a written order or judgment of any judge of court shall not be liable against the clerk or court or deputy of such officer in either his individual or official capacity to any person, firm, or corporation. This exemption from liability shall extend to any surety or liability insurance carrier of such officer. (LA RS 13:760) "
Here's an interesting piece of cocktail party trivia:
Leased musical instrument not subject to seizure for rent
No landlord, lessee, owner of any tenement house(s), or agent of such may seize for rent any piano, organ, or other musical instrument in the property that is not the personal property of the inmates or sub-lessee. (LA RS 13:3878)
^^I was thinking more of federal (such as a 1983 claim), which definitely provide judicial immunity. I'm not sure what sort of claim you were thinking, but Louisiana grants pretty extensive immunity to judges/JOP as well:
QuoteIn Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 108 S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d
555 (1988), the United States Supreme Court recognized the long
history of judicial immunity and its importance in protecting judges
from vexatious actions prosecuted by disgruntled litigants. The judge
is entitled to absolute immunity where he performs "judicial" acts.
Moore v. Taylor, 541 So.2d 378 (La.App. 2d Cir.1989). A judge, of
whatever status in the judicial hierarchy, is immune from suit for
damages resulting from any act performed in the judicial role. Judges
are absolutely immune from 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 liability for all acts
performed within their subject matter jurisdiction, even if the acts are
malicious. This immunity extends to justices of the peace as well as
those that sit on the supreme court and shields judges unless they act
either in "the clear absence of all jurisdiction over subject matter" or in
a nonjudicial capacity. Moore v. Taylor, supra.
The Louisiana jurisprudence on judicial immunity mirrors the
federal doctrine. A judge may not be cast for damages for his errors
unless he has acted outside of his judicial capacity. Moore v. Taylor,
supra. Even where the judge has technically acted outside his
jurisdiction and contrary to law, he will remain protected, unless his
actions were based on malice or corruption. Moore v. Taylor, supra.
Therefore, to state a cause of action against Judge Moore, the
plaintiff must allege facts showing not only malice and corruption, but
that Judge Moore acted beyond his jurisdiction or outside his judicial
capacity.
http://www.la3circuit.org/opinions/2005/04/042705/04-1199opi.pdf (Interesting case in which the judge presided over a divorce involving a women with whom he was having an affair. Thank goodness they are so concerned with the sanctity of marriage in Louisiana).
Quote from: pmcalk on October 17, 2009, 03:18:30 PM
If by a set-up, you mean they specifically chose this JOP so that they could shine a light on his ignorance, and hopefully shame him into retirement, or at least discourage his reappointment/reelection or solicit some disciplinary action, then you probably right.
An interesting thought. But anyone who has views like that in the first place is probably immune to the concept of shame.
He resigned today.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33609707/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33609707/ns/us_news-race_and_ethnicity)
QuoteBATON ROUGE, La. - A Louisiana justice of the peace who refused to marry a couple because the bride was white and groom was black resigned Tuesday.
In a related topic:
Maine voted 53% in favor of stripping the right to marry away from gay couples.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/04/maine-same-sex-vote-no-election
Take that homosexuals! Now they'll all go out and marry people of the opposite sex and procreate. Which is, of course, the purpose of a real marriage. /sarcasm
Quote from: cannon_fodder on November 04, 2009, 09:04:59 AM
In a related topic:
Maine voted 53% in favor of stripping the right to marry away from gay couples.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/04/maine-same-sex-vote-no-election
Take that homosexuals! Now they'll all go out and marry people of the opposite sex and procreate. Which is, of course, the purpose of a real marriage. /sarcasm
Swell, now they'll get their gay all over the breeders.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on November 04, 2009, 09:04:59 AM
In a related topic:
Maine voted 53% in favor of stripping the right to marry away from gay couples.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/04/maine-same-sex-vote-no-election
Take that homosexuals! Now they'll all go out and marry people of the opposite sex and procreate. Which is, of course, the purpose of a real marriage. /sarcasm
To me that development was one of the most significant election return from last night (the other of course being New Jersey). Olbermann will obviously have a special comment tonight arguing how "horrible" this is and how gay marriage is not about politics but rather about "the human heart". Oh, and I have no objection to gay couples marrying.
UPDATED: Or should I be rethinking this non-objection in light of this dooshbag:
In a defiant speech to several hundred lingering supporters, No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly pledged that his side "will not quit until we know where every single one of these votes lives."
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/128048.html
California redux.
Quote from: guido911 on November 04, 2009, 09:57:19 AM
To me that development was one of the most significant election return from last night (the other of course being New Jersey). Olbermann will obviously have a special comment tonight arguing how "horrible" this is and how gay marriage is not about politics but rather about "the human heart". Oh, and I have no objection to gay couples marrying.
UPDATED: Or should I be rethinking this non-objection in light of this dooshbag:
In a defiant speech to several hundred lingering supporters, No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly pledged that his side "will not quit until we know where every single one of these votes lives."
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/128048.html
California redux.
How can that be any different than the Minnesota Senatorial race from last year? Does that make Norm Coleman a 'dooshbag' also?
I can't find the actual video to post at work, but Jesse Venture had a nice sum-up during CNN's coverage last night:
"You can't put a civil rights issue on the ballot and let the people decide. You have to have elected officials who have courage to make the right decision. If you left it up to the people, we'd have slavery, depending on how you worded it."
Quote from: we vs us on November 04, 2009, 02:47:57 PM
I can't find the actual video to post at work, but Jesse Venture had a nice sum-up during CNN's coverage last night:
"You can't put a civil rights issue on the ballot and let the people decide. You have to have elected officials who have courage to make the right decision. If you left it up to the people, we'd have slavery, depending on how you worded it."
Wait a second here.
This guy:
(http://sloblogs.thetribunenews.com/sidetracked/files/2009/05/jesse-ventura1.jpg)
Thinks only a select few should decide civil rights issues...bullshit.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 04, 2009, 03:34:08 PM
Wait a second here.
This guy:
(http://sloblogs.thetribunenews.com/sidetracked/files/2009/05/jesse-ventura1.jpg)
Thinks only a select few should decide civil rights issues...bullshit.
Come on, politicians are way better than the average, knuckle dragging member of the electorate at standing up for civil rights. Interesting that the pro-gay marriage folks in both Cali and Maine, doing their best Sore-Loserman impersonations, actively seek out those behind the anti-gay marriage to destroy them personally or, in the case of donors who are business owners, destroy them financially. In Maine, the pro-gay marriage people want to know where the anti folks live I guess to get even for their exercising their civil right to vote.
Civil rights issues appearing on ballots is the only true way for the majority to be heard, not a small minority of our citizens in the form of corrupt politicians.
Just FYI- I don't have a horse in this race. If gay people want the punishment of marriage, more power to them. Personally, I don't think the government has a place in sanctioning marriage regardless of gender.
I like that whole "attack the fruity messenger" thing. Awesome.
Ventura's a smart guy. We know the majority isn't always correct in everything. That's why we have so many constitutionally sanctioned ways to thwart it. It's that whole tyranny of the majority thing.
I'm not sure why we wouldn't want politicians making the occasional decision on their own. Since, you know, that's why we elect them. To represent us.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 04, 2009, 06:19:24 PM
Civil rights issues appearing on ballots is the only true way for the majority to be heard, not a small minority of our citizens in the form of corrupt politicians.
Just FYI- I don't have a horse in this race. If gay people want the punishment of marriage, more power to them. Personally, I don't think the government has a place in sanctioning marriage regardless of gender.
And my thought is that the government has NO place sanctioning morals of ANY type. For me, that includes sanctioning ANY religion over another, sanctioning a 10 commandments tablet or the like.
The job of the government is to govern, not to preach.
Quote from: we vs us on November 04, 2009, 08:34:43 PM
I like that whole "attack the fruity messenger" thing. Awesome.
Ventura's a smart guy. We know the majority isn't always correct in everything. That's why we have so many constitutionally sanctioned ways to thwart it. It's that whole tyranny of the majority thing.
I'm not sure why we wouldn't want politicians making the occasional decision on their own. Since, you know, that's why we elect them. To represent us.
Sorry Wevus, I can't put that much trust in people who have ZERO altruism in their hearts and who vote for the interests of the highest bidder and their own subjective beliefs.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 04, 2009, 06:19:24 PM
Civil rights issues appearing on ballots is the only true way for the majority to be heard, not a small minority of our citizens in the form of corrupt politicians.
I couldn't disagree more. When you're dealing with rights of the minority, doing things by popular vote is a terrible way of doing things. When you're talking about rights, sometimes the government or courts have to intervene to protect or enforce those rights.
Remember, the United States is a republic, not a democracy, for a reason. Our politicians have sworn to uphold the Constitution, not simply follow the will of the majority.
If you did everything by majority rules, you'd still have blacks in the Deep South who still would be second-class citizens until about the 1990s. You'd still have miscegenation laws until maybe a decade or so ago and there would still be a few states that would have them on the books. On a more recent note, you'd still have sodomy laws on the books that would criminalize private behavior between consenting adults.
Sometimes, for basic decency, you have to have courts or the government step it up to thwart a tyranny of the majority.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on November 04, 2009, 09:43:23 PM
I couldn't disagree more. When you're dealing with rights of the minority, doing things by popular vote is a terrible way of doing things. When you're talking about rights, sometimes the government or courts have to intervene to protect or enforce those rights.
I assume that you would have no problem with a Republican-controlled government in place when these civil rights decisions are being made.
Quote from: guido911 on November 05, 2009, 09:44:52 AM
I assume that you would have no problem with a Republican-controlled government in place when these civil rights decisions are being made.
Are they going to be expanding the rights of minorities? Like protecting people regardless of race, color, creed, sexuality, religion (and protecting Christians from the imaginary War on Christmas doesn't count). If those are the kinds of protections that a GOP government is going to fight for then I'm all for it.
But then, there's not a real strong Republican track record of sticking up for minority rights, is there?
Quote from: we vs us on November 05, 2009, 10:21:10 AM
But then, there's not a real strong Republican track record of sticking up for minority rights, is there?
You mean, other than that whole fighting the civil war thing, Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Quote from: guido911 on November 05, 2009, 10:35:39 AM
You mean, other than that whole civil war thing, Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
That doesn't count, those people would all be Democrats today. ::)
Quote from: Conan71 on November 05, 2009, 10:38:25 AM
That doesn't count, those people would all be Democrats today. ::)
Also, Reagan nominated the first woman and the elder Bush nominated the second African-American to the Supreme Court. Both were confirmed. Obviously these two would be democrats by today's standards.
Quote from: guido911 on November 05, 2009, 10:35:39 AM
You mean, other than that whole fighting the civil war thing, Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
You know, if the GOP of 45 years ago was representin' today, I might have a difficult time deciding how to vote.
Of course, this is the GOP of today, and my votes couldn't be more clear cut.
Quote from: we vs us on November 05, 2009, 11:07:27 AM
You know, if the GOP of 45 years ago was representin' today, I might have a difficult time deciding how to vote.
Of course, this is the GOP of today, and my votes couldn't be more clear cut.
Back-peddling fast enough? You wrote this mindlessness:
"But then, there's not a real strong Republican track record of sticking up for minority rights, is there?"
I smashed that idiocy and you are in full retreat mode. Weak.
Quote from: guido911 on November 05, 2009, 11:15:39 AM
Back-peddling fast enough? You wrote this mindlessness:
"But then, there's not a real strong Republican track record of sticking up for minority rights, is there?"
I smashed that idiocy and you are in full retreat mode. Weak.
Uh, no. You pretty much just made that up.
Quote from: we vs us on November 05, 2009, 11:28:48 AM
Uh, no. You pretty much just made that up.
Does that surprise you about Counselor Gweed? 'Legend in his own mind' comes to mind.
Quote from: guido911 on November 05, 2009, 10:59:38 AM
Also, Reagan nominated the first woman and the elder Bush nominated the second African-American to the Supreme Court. Both were confirmed. Obviously these two would be democrats by today's standards.
That was just patronizing window dressing, remember? Thomas is a misogynist anyhow so that doesn't count.
"If Bush I had been President way back then, Thurgood Marshall would never have even got into law school." (loosely paraphrasing, can't remember the originator, but I'm guessing it's Je$$e Jack$on or Al $harpton).
Quote from: guido911 on November 05, 2009, 09:44:52 AM
I assume that you would have no problem with a Republican-controlled government in place when these civil rights decisions are being made.
No, I wouldn't, if such action were supported by the U.S. Supreme Court (i.e. the Constitution) and/or court precedent. Those checks and balances need to be a part of the equation. That's good government.
For example, I would have been in full support of Eisenhower taking steps to allow those black kids in Little Rock to attend school.
The problem is that the Republican Party since the 1980s has embraced a platform that's not terribly supportive to minorities. The Democrats confronted the longtime racist wing of their party and essentially said it's not welcome anymore -- to their detriment. LBJ was terrible with his policy to the Vietnam War, but his stance to civil rights was beyond reproach, despite opposition from his own party.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on November 05, 2009, 12:59:46 PM
but his stance to civil rights was beyond reproach, despite opposition from his own party.
And many will tell you LBJ was a populist and went with what was politically expedient, if you've done much reading on his political career.
Specifically, what parts of the Republican platform have not been supportive of minorities, RW?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 05, 2009, 02:05:22 PM
And many will tell you LBJ was a populist and went with what was politically expedient, if you've done much reading on his political career.
Specifically, what parts of the Republican platform have not been supportive of minorities, RW?
I hardly think the Civil Rights Act was expedient. There was a lot of heavy lifting and arm-twisting to get that one through, and he knew there would be long-term political fallout for the Democrats. Expediency hardly comes to mind with that law.
As for the GOP not supporting minorities, they actively oppose gay marriage, for one thing. Also, they weren't happy about the repeal of sodomy laws, which targeted the homosexual community.
Since when does one race endorsing a policy (or party) make it right? I've never considered which politician or which party would be best for my race. Never come into the equation. That fact that it does primarily for members of certain races (which is a euphemism for black people) seems to indicate the racial issues are primarily located therein. Politicians focused on political gain for black people are OK: Jackson, Sharpton, etc. Religious leaders with an emphasis on being black are fine too.
But oddly (and rightfully) enough, similar groups concentrated on "the white man" are universally deemed idiots. They are seen for what they are: racists. Advocating for special treatment for one race above another. Racism/homophobia or other prejudices based on perceived differences will always exist, but luckily out culture has decided that this should be unacceptable and ostracized them to the fringes. But for some reason you can still play the race card so long as your grandfather couldn't.
Has anyone asked what Obama has done for white people? Of course not, but that was a fair question to ask of GW.
Has anyone asked what XY or Z did to help the poor inner city white people? Nope, if we focus on one race it will be "minorities" (generally a euphemism for black people again).
Do any colleges get special treatment for being overly white? Special job incentives? Scholarships? Grants? Bidding incentives for government contracts? Preference in application processes? Institutionally it's still sanctioned as OK to grant privileges or advantages to certain people based on the color of their skin. Not because a disproportional number of minorities live in poverty (in which case set the criteria as poverty) or because the system does not allow certain people to succeed (see: black president): but because of a terrible history we can't move past.
I've never understood the hangup with being a particular race or sexual orientation. I understand how it effects ones personality and other factors - but "being white" or "acting straight" are not among things I consider. Neither is lobbying for legislation to benefit my race above others or to be a leader of my race, or anything else.
A persons a person. Rights are rights. Black, white, gay, straight. The hangup on these details when we are talking about legal rights seems absurd in this day and age.
/tangent
Quote from: rwarn17588 on November 05, 2009, 02:18:01 PM
I hardly think the Civil Rights Act was expedient. There was a lot of heavy lifting and arm-twisting to get that one through, and he knew there would be long-term political fallout for the Democrats. Expediency hardly comes to mind with that law.
As for the GOP not supporting minorities, they actively oppose gay marriage, for one thing. Also, they weren't happy about the repeal of sodomy laws, which targeted the homosexual community.
You apparently have not read much about LBJ's record on CR laws during his HOR and Senate careers.
Well, as long as we're "protecting" marriage, we better get busy and outlaw Facebook.
Yep, it's now easier than ever to hook up with that old lost love from high school. Online social networking sites like Facebook do, apparantly, make it easier to find that special someone from the past... making them a gateway to (gasp!) affairs and d-i-v-o-r-c-e.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sticky-bonds/200909/extramarital-affairs-in-the-new-millennium (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sticky-bonds/200909/extramarital-affairs-in-the-new-millennium)
Just because PonderInc is my tallest girlfriend don't mean I don't love my shortest wife.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on November 05, 2009, 02:29:55 PM
Since when does one race endorsing a policy (or party) make it right? I've never considered which politician or which party would be best for my race. Never come into the equation. That fact that it does primarily for members of certain races (which is a euphemism for black people) seems to indicate the racial issues are primarily located therein. Politicians focused on political gain for black people are OK: Jackson, Sharpton, etc. Religious leaders with an emphasis on being black are fine too.
But oddly (and rightfully) enough, similar groups concentrated on "the white man" are universally deemed idiots. They are seen for what they are: racists. Advocating for special treatment for one race above another. Racism/homophobia or other prejudices based on perceived differences will always exist, but luckily out culture has decided that this should be unacceptable and ostracized them to the fringes. But for some reason you can still play the race card so long as your grandfather couldn't.
Has anyone asked what Obama has done for white people? Of course not, but that was a fair question to ask of GW.
Has anyone asked what XY or Z did to help the poor inner city white people? Nope, if we focus on one race it will be "minorities" (generally a euphemism for black people again).
Do any colleges get special treatment for being overly white? Special job incentives? Scholarships? Grants? Bidding incentives for government contracts? Preference in application processes? Institutionally it's still sanctioned as OK to grant privileges or advantages to certain people based on the color of their skin. Not because a disproportional number of minorities live in poverty (in which case set the criteria as poverty) or because the system does not allow certain people to succeed (see: black president): but because of a terrible history we can't move past.
I've never understood the hangup with being a particular race or sexual orientation. I understand how it effects ones personality and other factors - but "being white" or "acting straight" are not among things I consider. Neither is lobbying for legislation to benefit my race above others or to be a leader of my race, or anything else.
A persons a person. Rights are rights. Black, white, gay, straight. The hangup on these details when we are talking about legal rights seems absurd in this day and age.
/tangent
Substitute "Native American" into your arguments and see if they still hold water. Your views are admirable, and I'm happy you're a well adjusted, self-respecting individual, but your comments lack the insights gained from a lifetime of minority status and discrimination that they have under their belts. Status as poor or rich are not the same. Either of those can be transcended. But, if you are the 6'5" black man walking into a public place with sunglasses and a hoodie, watch as the crowd reacts. Anywhere. Whitey doesn't get that. It comes from a lifetime of television news and popular media. It may, or may not, be deserved, but there it is.
Quote from: waterboy on November 05, 2009, 03:22:44 PM
Substitute "Native American" into your arguments and see if they still hold water. Your views are admirable, and I'm happy you're a well adjusted, self-respecting individual, but your comments lack the insights gained from a lifetime of minority status and discrimination that they have under their belts. Status as poor or rich are not the same. Either of those can be transcended. But, if you are the 6'5" black man walking into a public place with sunglasses and a hoodie, watch as the crowd reacts. Anywhere. Whitey doesn't get that. It comes from a lifetime of television news and popular media. It may, or may not, be deserved, but there it is.
That is one of the biggest load of crocks I've ever seen. To begin with, the Native Americans are, as I have experianced, more racist, in general, then any other race. At least the Cherokees. I can't say much as to the status on this as far as the other groups, but it seems that the smaller tribes act less in this regards then other, in my experiance. And as far as a 6'5" guy walking in with a hoodie (assuming the hood is up) and sunglasses on, your going to get pretty much the same reaction across the board. You can try and say that you won't, but you will.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 05, 2009, 10:38:25 AM
That doesn't count, those people would all be Democrats today. ::)
And a large part of Oklahoma "Yellow Dog Democrats" would be Republicans on the east or west coasts.
Quote from: custosnox on November 05, 2009, 03:41:07 PM
That is one of the biggest load of crocks I've ever seen. To begin with, the Native Americans are, as I have experianced, more racist, in general, then any other race. At least the Cherokees. I can't say much as to the status on this as far as the other groups, but it seems that the smaller tribes act less in this regards then other, in my experiance. And as far as a 6'5" guy walking in with a hoodie (assuming the hood is up) and sunglasses on, your going to get pretty much the same reaction across the board. You can try and say that you won't, but you will.
That's what I find infuriating about this forum, or any forum for that matter. People speak, blurt, without much thought.
I agree with you. My point was that Native Americans are by practice, quite racist. They get that from a lifetime of resentment that they weren't able to unite and protect their land and culture from the invading Europeans. The activists among them will never give up their racism and instead embrace it as justifiable. So do many blacks. If he had substituted their race in his remarks, it would indeed have been a crock.
And as far as your last remark? I'm not trying to say it, I am saying it. You won't. One of my African American co-workers told me today that even he feels threatened when someone of that description walks into the store. He feels bemused by it because he knows it comes from the same place we all get it, popular media.
Were those guys who kicked in your door black?
edit: responded too quickly I guess or my 101 temp is messing with me...
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 05, 2009, 03:44:58 PM
And a large part of Oklahoma "Yellow Dog Democrats" would be Republicans on the east or west coasts.
You do realize my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek when I said that, right? That's an old mantra that's been spewed on here for a long time by some of the more ardent libs, it's usually accompanied by something about Willie Horton too.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 05, 2009, 03:55:11 PM
You do realize my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek when I said that, right? That's an old mantra that's been spewed on here for a long time by some of the more ardent libs, it's usually accompanied by something about Willie Horton too.
Yep. I just wanted to remind some of the folks here that think they are left wing that elsewhere in this country they would not. Local elections here frequently go to the D orientation due to historic party loyalty. "My great great grand daddy was a D, ..... my daddy was a D and so am I". (Applies to unions too.) When it comes to the National level, Oklahoma becomes a Red state because the rest of the country has fallen off the edge of the world in the Pacific.
Waterboy, Custosnox:
I agree. A portion of the Native American tribal members share racist traits as well as race based benefits. However, on a national stage their voice is not nearly as loud as the African American caucus. Two additional notions distinguish Native Americans from African Americans: 1) most card carrying Native American could check the "white" box on a census form and no one would know the difference. The distinction is more one of "blood lines" than of actual race. In fact, a person looking the part and having the genetic markers indicating a high degree of native blood will be denied benefits while a blue eyed blond haired person who can prove 1/16th will receive them. The idea of an "Indian" having "red" skin, long black hair, or otherwise being racially distinguishable is generally false. And 2) Native Americans enjoy a "sovereign" status and treaty rights with the U.S. government which complicates the matter.
Hence, to avoid more complexity I choose to ignore the sub-issue of other races and greatly generalized the matter. But I readily admit the problem is not limited to African Americans. There are white people obsessed with race. Native Americans motivated by race ("Got Sovereignty?"), Hispanics who still insist they should own Texas/NM/etc., and probably a group of Asians who are still pissed they got lied to and paid next to nothing to build the railroads. I was merely pointing out the most obvious as an example.
Dang, you're good. :) I've noticed that a lot of racism and discrimination falls into the background during better economic times.
Quote from: waterboy on November 05, 2009, 03:52:36 PM
That's what I find infuriating about this forum, or any forum for that matter. People speak, blurt, without much thought.
I agree with you. My point was that Native Americans are by practice, quite racist. They get that from a lifetime of resentment that they weren't able to unite and protect their land and culture from the invading Europeans. The activists among them will never give up their racism and instead embrace it as justifiable. So do many blacks. If he had substituted their race in his remarks, it would indeed have been a crock.
And as far as your last remark? I'm not trying to say it, I am saying it. You won't. One of my African American co-workers told me today that even he feels threatened when someone of that description walks into the store. He feels bemused by it because he knows it comes from the same place we all get it, popular media.
Were those guys who kicked in your door black?
edit: responded too quickly I guess or my 101 temp is messing with me...
I stand corrected. I appologise for jumping like that, I took your post the wrong way. I just get so tired of the "it's because I'm black" line. And when you brought in the Native Americans, it struck a chord. I've been subject of racism from this group.
And yes, they were black, and I understand the "statistical profiling" and find myself falling to it often. I quickly kick myself in my own but and recheck the situation based on what is there.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on November 05, 2009, 04:45:56 PM
Waterboy, Custosnox:
I agree. A portion of the Native American tribal members share racist traits as well as race based benefits. However, on a national stage their voice is not nearly as loud as the African American caucus. Two additional notions distinguish Native Americans from African Americans: 1) most card carrying Native American could check the "white" box on a census form and no one would know the difference. The distinction is more one of "blood lines" than of actual race. In fact, a person looking the part and having the genetic markers indicating a high degree of native blood will be denied benefits while a blue eyed blond haired person who can prove 1/16th will receive them. The idea of an "Indian" having "red" skin, long black hair, or otherwise being racially distinguishable is generally false. And 2) Native Americans enjoy a "sovereign" status and treaty rights with the U.S. government which complicates the matter.
Hence, to avoid more complexity I choose to ignore the sub-issue of other races and greatly generalized the matter. But I readily admit the problem is not limited to African Americans. There are white people obsessed with race. Native Americans motivated by race ("Got Sovereignty?"), Hispanics who still insist they should own Texas/NM/etc., and probably a group of Asians who are still pissed they got lied to and paid next to nothing to build the railroads. I was merely pointing out the most obvious as an example.
Point in case, if I did the research and got the paperwork, i too can be a car carrying indian (cherokee no less). I refuse to as a point.
Quote from: custosnox on November 05, 2009, 06:09:07 PM
I stand corrected. I appologise for jumping like that, I took your post the wrong way. I just get so tired of the "it's because I'm black" line. And when you brought in the Native Americans, it struck a chord. I've been subject of racism from this group.
And yes, they were black, and I understand the "statistical profiling" and find myself falling to it often. I quickly kick myself in my own but and recheck the situation based on what is there.
No big deal. I've been on both sides. I also have enough Cherokee to get a card but my grandmother refused to sign the rolls as she worried that the white man might come get her. A valid concern at the time. Ironically, I felt the sting of prejudice years later from another tribe.
I will always remember one day in college as I stood on a street corner waiting for the light to change. I was a typical college student at the time wearing a tye dye shirt, long hair and scruffy beard. A station wagon drove by and a little child yelled out the window, "Look Mom! Another damn hippie!!" as his dad reached back to grab him, I turned to look just where the hippie might be. Then it dawned on me who they were pointing at...ask not for whom the bell tolls.... ;).
As a dude who only recently came to work with the tribes, it's pretty obvious that there's an enormous amount of tension between them all. I'm sure there's racism (tribism?) at work there, but also a lot of political jockeying for limited resources, as well as lots of cultural pride/shame stuff going on, too. I mean, picture choosing a couple hundred thousand members of each nation in europe and forcibly resettling them all into Latvia. And then try to treat them all as one political and cultural unit. See how that turns out. In a nutshell, that's the tribal dynamic in Oklahoma.
Quote from: waterboy on November 05, 2009, 08:39:06 PM
I also have enough Cherokee to get a card but my grandmother refused....
I think you would be shortchanged. Custosnox could get a car. You could only get a card.
Wevsus has a point. Most Caucasians have a tendency to group all Indian/Native Americans as one. Perhaps racially they are similar but they were distinct nations and cultures before white guys lumped them all together as one race - one culture. Native Americans were fighting each other before Europeans got here the same as Europeans were fighting each other for centuries.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 05, 2009, 10:48:37 PM
I think you would be shortchanged. Custosnox could get a car. You could only get a card.
Wevsus has a point. Most Caucasians have a tendency to group all Indian/Native Americans as one. Perhaps racially they are similar but they were distinct nations and cultures before white guys lumped them all together as one race - one culture. Native Americans were fighting each other before Europeans got here the same as Europeans were fighting each other for centuries.
Heh, you would think by now I would remember that this wireless keyboard gets interferance from time to time and would check to make sure all my letters were there before hitting post. Then again, I didn't check for all of my typos back in the day of wired (and still don't), so I guess my own lazyness is to blame.
And using Caucasian is along the same lines. As is African-American, since there are manym many tribes that many of the blacks came from (and still do).
Quote from: custosnox on November 05, 2009, 11:35:26 PM
Heh, you would think by now I would remember that this wireless keyboard gets interferance from time to time and would check to make sure all my letters were there before hitting post. Then again, I didn't check for all of my typos back in the day of wired (and still don't), so I guess my own lazyness is to blame.
And using Caucasian is along the same lines. As is African-American, since there are manym many tribes that many of the blacks came from (and still do).
I was just teasing for an obvious typo. :D
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 05, 2009, 11:46:25 PM
I was just teasing for an obvious typo. :D
and I had to do a facepalm in return lol
5 pages on a states issue....is there a local election coming? The GOP sux. Ignore them. Pay attention to your community that is being ransacked by permanent bureaucrats and the chamber.