or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trump is #2 in GOP Field - Page 225

post #3361 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post

Ummm, this seems like the height of specious to me.  Where do you get all those assumptions from? 

From here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalb916 View Post

Here's what the organization itself says:

What does the term “La Raza” mean?
The term “La Raza” has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as “the people” or, according to some scholars, “the Hispanic people of the New World.” The term was coined by Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos to reflect the fact that the people of Latin America are a mixture of many of the world’s races, cultures, and religions. The full term coined by Vasconcelos, “la raza cósmica,” meaning “the cosmic people,” reflects an expansive, inclusive view of the mixture inherent in Hispanics and that Hispanics share a common heritage and destiny with all other people of the world.
http://www.nclr.org/about-us/faqs/

post #3362 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbernine View Post
 

It is hard to imagine that we have come so far from the Civil Rights Act that people have deluded themselves about the depth and breadth of the institutional racism that pervaded the white south under Jim Crow. The Idea that these laws would have passed away, on their own, in any reasonable length of time is ludicrous. The Civil Rights act opened the eyes of many southerners to the inequities of that social order but without it I believe we would see many of those laws still in place today

 

It was federal law that opened the eyes of southerners to inequality?  The Civil Rights Act was passed, and people suddenly slapped themselves on the forehead, and said "Of course!  Let's not judge people on the basis of their skin, and instead, let's treat them equally."

Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post
 

 

Certainly not but it's not a contest.  I agree with all of your points in your second paragraph even as I fail to understand how they support your argument in any way.  Your third paragraph - you make it sound like the government (state government) subverted the will of the people.  Rather it reflected the will of the people.  Generally people expect the laws to be enforced.

 

My point is that 50 years ago the federal government was forcing private companies to discriminate which is long after Plessy.  You keep talking about how it is just some state laws.  The federal government was actively discriminating too and actively forcing companies to discriminate.

post #3363 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

But is this the way the word is used when speaking of the various "La Raza" organizations/movements? Isn't it more shaded to me "the people?" Doesn't it more mean something along the lines of creating a mestizo "race?" I think trying to say it's not about creating an "in group" is fairly specious.

Again it's associated with family, and the whole La Raza thing goes back decades when no wanted to be seen, or associated with beaners, so they had to try involve their own people for community building groups, so they used Raza, because it's a word they been hearing since they were kids. I wouldn't compare those Raza groups to an organization like Mecha for example.

And what is a mestizo? It's a half-breed. Half Native American, and Half White. Most of these Raza organizations just want their poor uneducated people to get out of the barrio, and do something with their lives, and not forget their heritage via art, music, literature... etc. I got no problem with that. Do they use these groups as political arms? Of course, but what large group doesn't?
post #3364 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennglock View Post

It seems like Trump has a fairly legitimate grievance with the la-Raza judge?

This guy is a member of an org that gives scholarships to illegal aliens and has called for a boycott of Trump in writing. That seems like it would be well over the threshold for a conflict of interest in most arenas, I don't know about the judiciary specifically.

I did not know that being part of an organization means you have to agree with 100% of their platform.

 

Also - as noted above

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

 

 

San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association ≠ National Council of La Raza

They are different.

post #3365 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbernine View Post

It is hard to imagine that we have come so far from the Civil Rights Act that people have deluded themselves about the depth and breadth of the institutional racism that pervaded the white south under Jim Crow. The Idea that these laws would have passed away, on their own, in any reasonable length of time is ludicrous. The Civil Rights act opened the eyes of many southerners to the inequities of that social order but without it I believe we would see many of those laws still in place today

No no no you don't understand. If they just had Yelp back then Southern businesses would have integrated voluntarily because of the pressure of bad reviews.
post #3366 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbernine View Post

It is hard to imagine that we have come so far from the Civil Rights Act that people have deluded themselves about the depth and breadth of the institutional racism that pervaded the white south under Jim Crow. The Idea that these laws would have passed away, on their own, in any reasonable length of time is ludicrous. The Civil Rights act opened the eyes of many southerners to the inequities of that social order but without it I believe we would see many of those laws still in place today

So what you're saying is we needed laws against the laws. That's pretty meta.
post #3367 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbernine View Post
 

It is hard to imagine that we have come so far from the Civil Rights Act that people have deluded themselves about the depth and breadth of the institutional racism that pervaded the white south under Jim Crow. The Idea that these laws would have passed away, on their own, in any reasonable length of time is ludicrous. The Civil Rights act opened the eyes of many southerners to the inequities of that social order but without it I believe we would see many of those laws still in place today

 

It was federal law that opened the eyes of southerners to inequality?  The Civil Rights Act was passed, and people suddenly slapped themselves on the forehead, and said "Of course!  Let's not judge people on the basis of their skin, and instead, let's treat them equally."

 

You would be surprised at how accurate your statement is but what would I know I was just a kid growing up in southern Louisiana from 1945 to 1965

post #3368 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbernine View Post

It is hard to imagine that we have come so far from the Civil Rights Act that people have deluded themselves about the depth and breadth of the institutional racism that pervaded the white south under Jim Crow. The Idea that these laws would have passed away, on their own, in any reasonable length of time is ludicrous. The Civil Rights act opened the eyes of many southerners to the inequities of that social order but without it I believe we would see many of those laws still in place today

So what you're saying is we needed laws against the laws. That's pretty meta.


I'm not saying we needed anything but to implying  that the civil rights act did nothing to remove Jim Crow from the south is simple historical ignorance

post #3369 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post
 

 

My point is that 50 years ago the federal government was forcing private companies to discriminate which is long after Plessy.  You keep talking about how it is just some state laws.  The federal government was actively discriminating too and actively forcing companies to discriminate.

 

Are you sure the federal government was forcing private companies to discriminate or was it private companies discriminated no matter what the law said.  Was segregation legal during the time of the Woolworth sit ins of 1960?  

post #3370 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
 
 
So what you're saying is we needed laws against the laws. That's pretty meta.

Isn't that in essence what the SCOTUS does every time they rule any law unconstitutional

post #3371 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbernine View Post
 

You would be surprised at how accurate your statement is but what would I know I was just a kid growing up in southern Louisiana from 1945 to 1965

 

The federal government said it is good, so we should just trust those guys.

post #3372 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbernine View Post

Isn't that in essence what the SCOTUS does every time they rule any law unconstitutional

It's what any court does any time it rules as not just the SCOTUS fulfill this function; the SCOTUS is merely the court of last resorts.

But it's important to note that it is indeed laws against laws. Everyone is always happy when a ruling goes their way but pissed when it doesn't or when a legislative body above a lower one creates legislation against the lower level body. Everyone is always happy when this process happens and the lower body being overturned passed a law they disagree with.

Basically, what's "good" and "just" often means different things to different people and we should probably keep that in mind in these discussions.
post #3373 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbernine View Post
 

You would be surprised at how accurate your statement is but what would I know I was just a kid growing up in southern Louisiana from 1945 to 1965

 

The federal government said it is good, so we should just trust those guys.

The Civil Rights Act was hugely instrumental in removing Jim Crow Laws from the south something that anyone who knows anything about that period knows to be a historical fact. That the removal of these law would have, from all evidence, been drug out for many more years had it been left up to the south to remove these inequities on their own volition is another historical fact. If you want to wallow in ignorance about the historical accuracy of those times just to hang on to some idealogical disdain for the power of these laws ,both pro and anti segregation then be my guest. Not only did live through that period but I have many family members who continue to live in the deep south . They rum the social gamut from construction laborers to government officials so I feel like I have a rudimentary insight into matters of attitude around race relations in that part of the world

post #3374 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

You mean like my ancestors who certainly were?  There were Irish, Germans, and Jews among my ancestors.  Was their treatment as bad as blacks in the South?  Almost certainly not.

You are acting like the Federal government has clean hands when it comes to discrimination.  They locked up more than 100k Japanese Americans on the basis of their national origin.  That was in 1941.  In 1947, the federal government prohibited the Levitt corporation from selling houses to blacks in Levittown.  It wasn't until 1968 when the federal government repealed laws requiring racial segregation for low income housing.

Does it really matter if a law was popular when it passed?  The government is still going to enforce it.

The problem with this argument is that the government is now Constitutionally prohibited from using its power to discriminate in such a fashion. The government retaining its power to prevent persecution of protected classes does not logically extrapolate to a scenario where the government uses power to institute persecution in the future, because of those restrictions. It only really makes sense if you're working backwards from the axiom that government power is bad.

Certainly government power can be used for good or bad purposes. "Not giving the government power" is one option, but putting firm restrictions on those powers is another.

Quote:
It was federal law that opened the eyes of southerners to inequality? The Civil Rights Act was passed, and people suddenly slapped themselves on the forehead, and said "Of course! Let's not judge people on the basis of their skin, and instead, let's treat them equally."

Nobody claimed in happened in a bolt from the heavens. That doesn't mean it wasn't effective overall.

Institutionalized bigotry has self-sustaining power. You grow up with it, you don't question it, and it just becomes the natural state of things. Legally preventing that sort of scenario works, over time, to lessen the prevalence and certainly the impact of bigotry.
post #3375 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbernine View Post
 

The Civil Rights Act was hugely instrumental in removing Jim Crow Laws from the south something that anyone who knows anything about that period knows to be a historical fact. That the removal of these law would have, from all evidence, been drug out for many more years had it been left up to the south to remove these inequities on their own volition is another historical fact. If you want to wallow in ignorance about the historical accuracy of those times just to hang on to some idealogical disdain for the power of these laws ,both pro and anti segregation then be my guest. Not only did live through that period but I have many family members who continue to live in the deep south . They rum the social gamut from construction laborers to government officials so I feel like I have a rudimentary insight into matters of attitude around race relations in that part of the world

 

I'm not arguing that the Civil Rights Act did not help remove Jim Crow Laws.  I have been arguing all along that there are examples, both at the federal and state level, of laws forcing private organizations and individuals to segregate and discriminate.

 

If you codify bigotry into law, it will permeate longer than it otherwise would. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field