User Tag List

First 123412 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 195

  1. #11
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    As for George Bush he wasn't my president ( I am Canadian) And how he got into power , twice!!, Is something only Americans can answer for.
    Two words: tax cuts.

    Umm, how the hell do you have "accentless" English? EVERYONE has an accent. Even I do. And I don't get how that's supposed to really help. Even as someone with a "general American" accent, I'm a very sloppy speaker. In fact, I almost didn't make it through ESL because of that, most Americans chop off "T"s whenever possible and that makes it difficult for some people.

    However if all English classes began being spoken in the RP, maybe more kids would pay attention.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  2. #12
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Yeah, this is pretty overt, as far as appeals to xenophobia go. They're suppose to be more subtle and bury that racism deep in legislative-speak!

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    Well I am pretty sure that there are no classes in AZ or any other US state
    that are all about whites only(which is an ethnicity as well)
    History is history.. Not US White History. So why is there Mexican American History? There is no such thing as the United Caucasian College Fund.
    SO it's two sides to every coin. You can say that getting rid of all classes is promoting disunity. or you can say, that they exist, is what is promoting segregation and continues to single people out based on color,race and ethnicity.
    I am not saying I agree or disagree, remember, I also qualified that might be missing some point,
    The only group that isn't allowed right now to have segregated anything is whites.
    SO either they too are allowed to have segregation or no one is..
    That is what I see this law saying.. The time is now, to stop singling out anyone.
    I am also going to add.. before you say that whites have a racist history.
    The Japanese were Xenophobes for most of their existence and wouldn't even allow foreigners on their soil until the 20th century.
    The Spanish and Portuguese slaughtered the native peoples of their new world nations as well.
    The Chinese and Koreans both have doctrine that suggest they are the superior race on the planet and both believe it is their destiny to one day rule the world.
    Africans have been at war amongst themselves for centuries all based on tribal differences.
    India and Pakistan are pointing Nukes at each other as we speak because of nothing more than religious differences, They are the same nation, the same people the same history.
    Humans are racists.

    As for George Bush he wasn't my president ( I am Canadian) And how he got into power , twice!!, Is something only Americans can answer for.
    There's like 15 things wrong with this post.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    ...

    Other countries have nothing to do with Arizona being racist. Keep the conversation on topic.

    What I mean by white/European history is the view is going to be from one side only. When you take classes on other cultures/countries you may get the chance to understand that very same event from a non-white or minority point of view. This may no longer be the case in Arizona. As for Mexican American history, if you look into it more that's exactly the type of education they want to get rid of.

    It's naive to think American history is objective history. Who writes it and where it comes from has a very big effect on how it is perceived, what bias is included, and how it's distributed. An example, conservatives recently won the vote on textbook standards. They want to change the fact that it was racist to put the Japanese (2/3rds of whom were American citizens) into concentration camps during WWII into a more benign excuse. They also want to change the founding fathers' stance on a secular government.

    The point regarding George Bush is, someone that stupid became president. The bar is set much lower for teachers, and I have no doubt being white will play the most important role regardless of whether they're good teachers or not.

    As for whites not being allowed segregation:

    There are a million ways this comes up, but I’m just going to jump to it – at some point, when talking about racial inequality, white people will bring up the fact that BET, black fraternities and sororities, Asian-American and other “ethnic” clubs and the like are all “okay,” but similar “white-only” organizations, channels, etc. would be deemed “racist.” They ask – how’s that fair?

    And it’s a good question. It really is. Because, if that’s how you see the world and how race plays out (which is the position the questioners are in – whether they be kids or adults), then it really doesn’t seem to add up. It seems like that good old “reverse-racism” people like to talk about.

    Until you broaden the focus.

    So my response to this question has two levels to it: the first addresses only the more surface level of physical characteristics and race alone; the second involving oppression and inequality in general.

    Let’s get to it.

    Level 1 – Race

    If we’re talking only about race, which is usually how this question is addressed and perceived, we must examine the purpose(s) behind the formation of these organizations, as well as how the creation of these organizations affect other groups. I emphasize that this section is about race, and race alone. Any other factors/considerations are put aside until the second section, so please keep that focus throughout your reading of this part.

    So why are these race-focused organizations formed? Put simply, they are places where members of the specified races can come together and form a majority, in order to create a comfort-zone, of sorts. These are places where members of the racial group can be surrounded (in the case of the media, it’s a virtual “surrounding”) by people that represent them, racially. From there, members of that group can talk about issues that pertain to them directly, amongst their peers, and perhaps advocate for change from within that framework.

    These organizations are formed in places where white is the majority (media being no exception, of course). Places where every space is dominated by white faces. Classrooms will be a white majority. Tv shows and channels will display a majority of white faces. Non-white students will not have any unintentionally-formed spaces in which their skin-tone dominates.

    But everybody deserves the right to have the feeling of not standing out in a crowd, racially – white people included. However, over the vast majority of the U.S., white people do not have to consciously create these spaces. Almost everywhere a white person chooses to go in this country (virtually or in the flesh) will be a space in which their color is the majority. And so you do not have to go out of your way to make that happen. That discomfort you feel when visiting an all-PoC space? That’s just everyday life for a person of color.

    So these organizations are built to try to get a taste of that comfort that white people are lucky to get all the time – they’re a racial “home-base.” Probably the one place where participants do not have to be racial minorities. And so these organizations often help members increase their own pride, self-esteem, and sense of safety simply by existing. The same way white folks will feel more comfortable and safe when they’re the majority. A space to relax, recoup, and not feel racial identity as a weight.

    Sounds pretty positive, right? But how do these organizations affect other groups? Do they take away other groups’ rights?

    The fact is, these organizations do not tend to affect other groups directly. When these groups do so, it is usually in the form of protests or other attempts to bring attention to issues that affect the organizations’ racial group. Direct actions are meant to bring more justice and equality to the racial groups’ cause. An attempt to achieve "black power," for example, is simply an attempt to bring the power-base of black folks up to the same level as the power-base of white folks. Therefore, any minority race’s call for "more power" is in relative terms – as their "more power" is still going to be less than white folks’ power, on a whole.

    Of course, in that situation, white folks as a group still stand to be directly affected (“negatively”) by this rise towards equality. Because you have to admit that white people mostly control this country. White people have most of the power. Therefore, if Latino people – for example – get larger representation, it’s most likely going to be white people that then give some of it up. True equality brings the bottom up – but it also entails having the top give up a little bit.

    And that’s scary. Threatening, even. But it is not a situation in which giving up some power then gives another group power over white people – because the white racial group will still hold the advantage. And we need to keep that in mind, if we’re speaking in terms of justice, equality, and "fairness." It’s not taking away rights. It’s just taking away a little bit of privilege. And that’s a very important distinction that will come into play more fully in the second section (one that white readers will be happily surprised by, I believe). An increase in non-white races’ power makes things just a little bit "more equal" even if that feels (understandably) uncomfortable for white people.

    On the flip side – what would a “white-only” organization be trying to obtain? It is not a necessary construct to form a “comfort-zone” for white folks because – as we’re still talking about race alone – that comfort-zone is just everyday life for a white person. Building an entire organization isn’t necessary for white folks to taste being a majority. (*4) There is no need for the existence of a “white-only” organization for white folks to get to put down the weight of race. It also doesn’t make sense as a fight for “white-rights,” because (again – we’re talking race alone) white people are the “standard” in this country. “Equality” in legislation means “getting to be equal with white people.” That’s just how it is. So any attempts for a white-dominated organization to increase "white power" is an attempt to further cripple other races – making things "less equal." And that’s unconstitutional.

    So – if this is the case, then a “white-only” organization would most likely be formed as a response to other racially-focused organizations. Not for the same reasons as them, however, but as a counter-point. Basically an “in-your-face” statement, as well as an attempt to bring folks together to consider the “threat” that these other race-based organizations present. But, again, if the “threat” presented is simple equality, then a group formed to counter-act that is, in its core, built to take away other people’s rights in order to protect their own privilege– which is, of course, not okay.

    Black Frats, Asian-American Student Unions, etc.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    As for people being inherently racist, I don't believe that. Before the invention of race, indentured whites were actually on the side of black slaves, because they had the same position in society. They realized they had more in common with each other, than the rich white men that used them. They started to revolt together. What happened after that? Race was created to divert attention away from class inequalities. To make poor whites think the color of their skin meant they had more in common with wealthy whites, and to have their help keeping the blacks down. Look at Stormfront, it's a great example of this tactic being used today.

    Before you say people of color hate each other too, here's a good rundown on why there are racial tensions between them in America: Black AND Asian (and Jewish?)

    Why do other countries seem to use the same tactic: …jingoism, racism, fear, religious fundamentalism: these are the ways of appealing to people if you’re trying to organize a mass base of support for policies that are really intended to crush them. — Noam Chomsky

  5. #15
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,126

    Default

    :rolli: Arizona is getting more and more idiotic lately....

    Has it occurred to the legislature that spanish speakers have been there longer than english speakers and that there is no national language for the US?!

    It's not like people in different regions of the country really speak standard english anyways... what's REALLY the difference between having someone with a thick Texan accent teaching your kid english and someone with a Guatemalan accent teaching your kid english? Neither speaks "standard english"
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  6. #16
    lab rat extraordinaire CrystalViolet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,170

    Default

    Mrrr...Is this just restricted to Mexican/Spanish accents? I have an accent (admittly it's an Kiwi/ozzie one and I'm a native speaker of english), could I rock on up and teach English in Arizona, provided I have the right permits?
    Overtly xenophobic policy, and aren't they kinda shooting them selves in the foot? Isn't there a teacher shortage or something?
    Currently submerged under an avalanche of books and paper work. I may come back up for air from time to time.
    Real life awaits and she is a demanding mistress.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  7. #17
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    Well I am pretty sure that there are no classes in AZ or any other US state
    that are all about whites only(which is an ethnicity as well)
    That's generally because such classes are presumed unnecessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    History is history.. Not US White History. So why is there Mexican American History? There is no such thing as the United Caucasian College Fund.
    First of all, history is not so objective. There is not a definite history that everyone can trust. In fact, it's generally pretty typical that the dominant demographic tell history in a way that skews toward self-favor, if by no other means than omission of other peoples' perspectives.

    Secondly, again, there's particular disadvantage that calls for a caucasian college fund.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    SO it's two sides to every coin. You can say that getting rid of all classes is promoting disunity. or you can say, that they exist, is what is promoting segregation and continues to single people out based on color,race and ethnicity.
    Now here's the thing, there's an element in here that I can almost agree with. I do wonder how much pluarlism actually guarantees that segregation will always exist. But this is one of those situations where we have to compare the cost of highlighting racial differences to the benefit of giving the disenfranchised aid. I think think the cost-benefit analysis turns out positive.

    Also, I would again state that history as it is currently taught probably isn't very accurate due to its biases, and I'm not fond of supposedly reinforcing unity through false propaganda.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    I am not saying I agree or disagree, remember, I also qualified that might be missing some point,
    The only group that isn't allowed right now to have segregated anything is whites.
    Why envy that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    SO either they too are allowed to have segregation or no one is..
    That is what I see this law saying.. The time is now, to stop singling out anyone.
    I'm going to have to go for LBJ's old analogy about a foot race. If one racer has had a woot put on his leg, and the other is allowed get way ahead for the first segment of the race, then merely taking the weight off of the other guy's leg isn't going to set things right. He's going to have to be assisted in some way in getting back up to where the racer without the weight has. That's the only way to undo the disadvantage.

    There's equality of service, and there's equality of results. The practical thing to aim for is equality of results. If there is already a concrete imbalance, treating both sides exactly the same will do nothing to repair that imbalance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    I am also going to add.. before you say that whites have a racist history.
    The Japanese were Xenophobes for most of their existence and wouldn't even allow foreigners on their soil until the 20th century.
    The Spanish and Portuguese slaughtered the native peoples of their new world nations as well.
    The Chinese and Koreans both have doctrine that suggest they are the superior race on the planet and both believe it is their destiny to one day rule the world.
    Africans have been at war amongst themselves for centuries all based on tribal differences.
    India and Pakistan are pointing Nukes at each other as we speak because of nothing more than religious differences, They are the same nation, the same people the same history.
    Two wrongs make a right? This is an appeal to common practice. This is a fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arclight View Post
    Humans are racists.
    And this may well be the naturalistic fallacy. I disagree that humanity is inherently racist. Even if it were, we have fought natural things before, sometimes to results that we all take for granted now. There's no reason not to fight some more.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  8. #18
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    As for people being inherently racist, I don't believe that. Before the invention of race, indentured whites were actually on the side of black slaves, because they had the same position in society. They realized they had more in common with each other, than the rich white men that used them. They started to revolt together. What happened after that? Race was created to divert attention away from class inequalities. To make poor whites think the color of their skin meant they had more in common with wealthy whites, and to have their help keeping the blacks down. Look at Stormfront, it's a great example of this tactic being used today.
    When was race invented?
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  9. #19
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,126

    Default

    American History and American Pop Culture History cover white dudes quite enough... and isn't the Legacy Program that a lot of upper tier schools use affirmative action for better off (and usually white) people?

    I took several "ethnic studies" classes and didn't find them to be divisive in the least- they were educational, fun and I learned a lot about history and other cultures that I probably wouldn't have learned otherwise- I did NOT feel out of place as a white kid in African American Studies or as a white kid in Chicano Studies, Mexican Studies or Latin American Studies.... the idea that those type of classes aren't for white people and that they DIVIDE people is just silly :rolli: I got enough White Person Studies in my normal core classes

    Plus, the argument is about Arizona School Systems, not college admissions
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  10. #20
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    When was race invented?
    Racism of some sort has perhaps existed throughout civilization (much harder to say about society before civilization). However, what we typically think of as racism today is rather distinctive and a relatively recent phenomenon which mostly can be attributed to The Enlightenment and then the industrial age.

    Like Levi-Strauss said, race is the original sin of anthropology.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

Similar Threads

  1. No Girls Allowed
    By wolfy in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: 11-08-2009, 02:03 AM
  2. No Boys Allowed
    By Soar337 in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 123
    Last Post: 11-07-2009, 04:58 AM
  3. There is no such thing as personality.
    By ygolo in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-12-2009, 10:13 AM
  4. There's no such thing as motivating someone?
    By Xander in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 11-21-2007, 12:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO