|
Quote:
Except people keep bending over backwards to make it clear that they aren't saying that the people HERE believe the law to be just. Now, I am curious if a boycott and/or mass exodus of Hispanics is NOT the answer, what is? Let's grant, for the moment, that a boycott isn't the way to deal with this? What then? Obviously we know how this turns out at the ballot box--the backers, proponent and apologists for this law win. So if money continues to pour into Arizona then there is no economic consequence to be paid for this law. So politicians who backed the law pay no political price and the state, as a whole, pays no economic price. At that point what is there to discourage Arizona from passing an even more draconian law? That pretty much leaves the mass exodus of Hispanics which I still hold would probably be the *most* effective form of protest. At first, one might witness the spectacle of Arizonans singing "na na na, na na na, hey hey hey, good-bye" and that would probably go through the wave. After that, well, it starts to have an economic effect. Suddenly there are a lot fewer people doing everything from washing dishes to teaching classes. As I said yesterday, when they leave their dollars go with them. Tax revenues decline. The tourism and hospitality sectors of the economy will be hit particularly hard as they lose cheap labor. I get it that the Arizonans don't want any of these things to happen to their state. I fully understand that. However, it makes no sense to suggest that those either targeted by this law or horrified by it simply shrug our collective shoulders in order to avoid hurting someone's feelings. Quote:
"In 1940, America was a fundamentally racist country." Now, according to the logic being deployed here, I have just claimed that every single American living in the borders of this country in December 1940 was a racist. I have insulted--personally--every single American living at that time. Except I haven't. My parents were alive in 1940, both of them turned 18 that year. They were the *targets* of racism but they were not, themselves, racism. Does that mean that America wasn't a fundamentally racist country? No, the statement still stands because the *laws* of America mandated segregation in public accommodation, the military, etc. One can make the observation that America was a racist nation in 1940 and *still* not be saying something that any given person alive in 1940 was a racist. Likewise, one can say that Arizona has passed a law that is an invitation to racial profiling without saying that any given Arizonan is in favor of racial profiling. Quote:
However, I'm all ears. If a boycott isn't the answer and a mass exodus of Hispanics isn't the answer, what is? Quote:
Cheers Aj |
my expert opinion:
i lived there, i still own a house there and i still think boycotting the beautiful state of arizona is a great idea. though, moving away is probably safest if you present 'brown' in any way. |
Quote:
Blacks didn't migrate to Europe as you suggest, we stayed in the United States and, in fact, it DID have an effect on the economy of the South. Was it the nail in the coffin? No. However, labor became a bit more expensive because blacks *were* the cheap labor and as some of that labor left, it had a deleterious effect on the economy of those Southern states. It is instructive to note that we could get there without ALL blacks having left the South (which I'm sure you would try to suggest my argument requires). A similar pressure would be at play with a mass exodus of Hispanics out of Arizona. Again--because you, popcorn, have a tendency to read what you want to read and not what is written--the economic impact of an exodus does NOT require the people leaving the country and we've already run the real-world experiment. So unless you are going to try to argue that somehow, while blacks were able to find work and build lives in other states but Hispanics will not, your argument *completely* collapses under its own weight. Cheers Aj |
-
"I get it that the Arizonans don't want any of these things to happen to their state. I fully understand that. However, it makes no sense to suggest that those either targeted by this law or horrified by it simply shrug our collective shoulders in order to avoid hurting someone's feelings."
So am I to assume that since you are so horrified by it and any other person who is horrified by it that does NOT live in Arizona are going to leave the comfy confines of their homes where this isn't an issue, move to Arizona and start a grass roots movement to get Brewer and her cronies tossed from office in the next election? We can all raise our collective voices and scream at the injustice of it from whatever state we live in, does it do any good? NO, because the people in Arizona were elected by the majority and they will be in office until they are ousted on their rear ends by the said same collective majority! And no, the comments here have not been "bend over backwards" to ensure that the posters from Arizona have not made to feel like they are being targeted by these posts. Cody stated he didn't vote for Brewer, some took exception to some of his terminology, Cody even stated he was half Native-American with blue eyes. Another poster implied with their post that he was lying about it. Did I see you as a moderator take that person to task, did another moderator step in and say, whoa wait a minute, that was a little unjust and unfair? NO that was not done, what was done was more criticism was hurled his way because of wording that he used even after he stated time and again that he wasn't a supporter of this policy, so much so to the point that he just disengaged altogether. What if he was a supporter, the amount of criticism heaped upon him lost him from the discussion when something could have been said to persuade him to change his vote at the poll in the next election was lost. That is never a good thing. He mentioned "the look" and was taken to task for using those words, forgive me but isn't racial profiling all about "a look". If they look to be Hispanic, black, purple, yellow, green whathave you what racial profiling is all about? It was completely unnecessary as far as I'm concerned. People seem to forget that during these economic hard times that some people cannot afford television, radios, newspapers, or treks into a nearby larger city where one may learn of political activism and what is going on in their own back yard. Not all people are as educated as you, as I, as the person to your left or to your right, that does not give us the right to take an air of superiority over any one when there is a discussion going on. And yes, that is the road this discussion is taking, making some feel less than when there is no need for that when they have stated they did NOT vote for these idiots and they refuse to have their feet held to the fire with the majority who did. Please, keep the topic to the current situation, I'm fully aware of past atrocities of people before my time and your time. It just muddles, confuses and blurs the lines of the current situation. So if those that are so indignant and horrified about the situation perhaps as I said you should pack up the comfy confines of your current home, move to Arizona and start a grass roots effort to oust the current political regime, however you should be prepared to move to the other 22 states who are NOW also considering adopting legislation similiar to Arizona's to deal with the influx of illegal immigrants. I don't know what the answer is and I'm pretty sure you don't either, no one does, otherwise the situation would have already been corrected. I do know that bankrupting a state is not the answer, it only creates a whole host of other issues. I've had my say about when now, all I did was happen upon the thread and was kinda taken aback by some of the commentary directed towards other members of this site and misinterpretation of a post. :byebye: |
wtf, mexicans didn't bankrupt the state.
and that was pretty much me blowing my entire load--i don't really have a lot of energy/extra time to argue over blatant racism (which you know, as i write that statement--sounds pretty fucking privileged of me to 'opt out' and i am owning that, this conversation makes me tired.) |
There are NO green, purple, or pink people targeted by this heinous law.
I as a traveler in Az had to lie (left my purse in SD) about my status in this country. I used my tricks and made myself look white. I get offend with good right when white folk describe POC with terms such as "that look" If you are deflecting for Cody by saying he can't afford the TV he clearly haz interwebs! He could of read ALL THE FACTS posted in this thread How one can live in denial I can't understand, wait I can. White skin gives one privileges I'll never get;) True story |
Did you know that other states are looking at SB1070 as a template for enacting this racist law? No? Well the state I live in is and so is Texas and New Jersey. It has nothing to do with the boarder being secure, it is racism pure and simple. So I will rail against it in AZ in PA in TX in NJ and any other state that even thinks this is a good idea. It isn't it is RACISM.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Arizona has passed SB 1070 and is about to put into effect rules that will make teaching any kind of positive history of Mexican-Americans just this side of impossible. Oklahoma has passed a law (blocked by the courts, the last, best friend of minorities in this nation) that is a 'pre-emptive strike' against Sharia law being made legal in that state. Arizona is ALSO considering a law that would require any teachers in the statewide system to not have 'thick' accents. We've seen this movie before--each law, in itself, seems pretty innocuous particularly if one isn't on the receiving end of its effects. Have to have your birth certificate or other proof of citizenship on you at all times (absent a national ID card)? Sure, why not? Nothing to fear if you're in the country legally, right? Can't teach any subject matter that would create racial animosity or feed a sense of racial grievance? Again, not a big deal right? I mean, who CARES how California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas came to be part of the U.S.? We're all Americans now, right? Can't teach if you have a 'heavy' accent? Well, math is a difficult enough subject without having to deal with the teacher's accent. Can't implement sharia law? What's the big deal? This is America, we already have laws! (the fact that the Constitution prevents ANY religious law being applied by the government is conveniently lost). Taken in isolation none of those seem too horrible. Taken in concert, however, they start to look more and more like the first of the Nuremberg laws. Each one--particularly the first set of them--don't hint at what was coming down the track toward Germany but with the benefit of hindsight it becomes clear that they were the beginning of the horror. |
Quote:
AJ does an excellent job in spelling it out succiently, IMO. Are we willing to give up some of our artificially low cost services and goods here in the USA? Most of you know I am a Mexican American and I have lived in California since the age of two. This entire immigratrion thing is complex and much of it grounded in preconceived racist notions. On the other side of the coin is Mexico's long history of ignoring the basic needs of it's people. Of course this does not include their wealthy. (Actually, the States is becoming more and more like this. Huge economic disparity between the working folks and the very rich.) Back to California. Right now the State of California has an incoming Democratic Gov, Assembly and State Democrat majority, all state constitutional officers Democractic and two Democratic Federal Senators. I really do not hold out for much even with this. I think as the world moves forward we are creating a new paradigm. I just hope globally, nationally and locally, more will choose the high road as oppossed to greed and short sightedness. |
These are the 22 states considering or drafting legislation similar to Arizona's.
Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Utah. Let me amend this as I was not deflecting for Cody but responding to numerous comments made about "ignorant voters": People seem to forget that during these economic hard times that some people cannot afford television, radios, newspapers, INTERNET ACCESS, COMPUTERS, or treks into a nearby larger city where one may learn of political activism and what is going on in their own back yard. |
Quote:
In this instance, Ed Gruberman is the Republican party of California and the boot to the head is the results of the midterm elections. Because the President and the Congress are Democratic the Republicans should have done well--it's what typically happens and despite all the breathless crowing about tidal waves and never before has any sitting President lost seats in a midterm, the fact is that what happened earlier this month was pretty much in line with what has generally happened--the party of the President loses seats. Except in California. Governor? Went to a Dem. Senatorial race? Went to the Dem. Attorney General? Went to the Dem. House races? Largely won by Dems. Hell, the Democratic party picked up seats in the California Senate! Why? Because of the Hispanic vote. Hispanics turned out in droves and voted their self-interest. They did the math, realized where the GOP wanted to go, and voted for the Dem. Same thing happened in Nevada. Harry Reid should have lost and yes, Angle was a spectacularly bad candidate but he *still* should have lost. But she ran an anti-immigrant campaign and paid the price. The GOP seems bound and determined to make themselves a rump party. It may not happen in 2012, it could certainly happen in 2016 and by 2020 if the GOP doesn't get it that racism doesn't pay they will learn it then. Cheers Aj |
Canada is looking better and better all the time! Seriously!!
My brain is mush and I have a huge paper looming...love and hugs, all :) |
Quote:
It's BEYOND silly to refuse to look at the parallels, here. |
It's a pretty hot topic, even without alll those things, convos happen. Public libraries were my education for YEARS. I did not own a computer till 2000, television 2002.
Public libraries, standing around listening to peers if one hears something THIS alarming I would think people would research it or shrug it off. One is easier than the other. Unless of course it affects you or your people directly. |
Public libraries is a good resource if you have one. They closed down over half the public libraries in the Char-Meck system this year due to lack of funding and it's happening everywhere, just not in Char-Meck.
Perhaps those people that were being called ignorant did listen to "peers" who were just as uninformed and hence the idiots being re-elected. And why is Canada any better? I just read an article where blacks are 3 times more prone to being pulled over as a result of racial profiling as the aborgines are. There is NO country that is immune to racial profiling. Here is the part that pertained to Canada: Canada Accusations of racial profiling of visible minorities who accuse police of targeting them due to their ethnic background is a growing concern in Canada. In 2005, the Kingston Police Service released the first study ever in Canada which pertains to racial profiling. The study focused on in the city of Kingston, a small city where most of the inhabitants are white. The study showed that black skinned people were 3.7 times more likely to be pulled over by police than white skinned people, while Asian people were less likely to be pulled over than whites or blacks.[13] Several police organizations condemned this study and suggested more studies like this would make them hesitant to pull over visible minorities. Although aboriginal persons make up 3.6% of Canada's population, they account for 20% of Canada's prison population. This may show how racial profiling increases effectiveness of police, or be a result of racial profiling, as they are watched more intensely than others.[14] In 2003, Professional Boxer Kirk Johnson launched a Human Rights Inquiry against the Halifax Regional Police based on Racial Profiling. During the inquiry Johnson claimed that he had his car stopped 28 times over five years while in Halifax[citation needed]. The police service was ordered to create a scholarship in Johnson's name. In February 2010, an investigation of the Toronto Star daily newspaper found that black people across Toronto were three times more likely to be stopped and documented by police than white people. To a lesser extent, the same seemed true for people described by police as having "brown" skin. This was the result of an analysis of 1.7 million contact cards filled out by Toronto police officers in the period 2003 - 2008.[15]" Just because studies were only begun in 2005 as to racial profiling doesn't mean it didn't exist before then. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
NC, my experience of Canada, BC and Ontario really is not based on surveys but on time spent in Canada. When I spent time in Canada, for me as a POC I did not feel, experience the same level of racism. Racism is just not as intitutionalized as here in the States. I could throw out reasons as to why this may be true, but that could be something for you and others to research. As my mother would forever remind me when I was growing up and into my adulthood, "Two wrongs do not make a right." |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:29 PM. |
ButchFemmePlanet.com
All information copyright of BFP 2018