Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Don't say the "C" Word in Denver ...

By Titec in Culture
Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 03:30:26 AM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

[editor's note, by rusty] The title's mine. I couldn't resist. Now, Titec writes...

In Denver, CO, USA the Italian Americans wanted to hold a Columbus Day / Italian Pride Parade on Oct. 7, Columbus Day. To do this they had to go to the city of Denver to get a permit. When brought before the board, some American Indian and Latino groups, who denounce Columbus as a slave trader who engaged in genocide, opposed the Italians. This resulted in a gag order by the city, saying that in order to get the parade permit the Italians cannot say, write, or have images of Columbus during the parade. Now anytime anyone is told they cannot speak, my attention perks up, but this one grabbed me as I am 50% Italian.


Denver has, in the past, granted permits for St. Patrick's Day parades, Martin Luther King Day parades, and Gay Pride parades. Anyone who wants to publicly and peacefully protest these events has also been given a permit to do so; this includes the Ku Klux Klan who received a permit to push their raciest views on Martin Luther King Day. In my mind this is a clear violation of the Italian group's constitutional rights of peaceful assembly and free speech.

Whether or not Columbus was a slave trader and an Indian killer is not the point. Neither is whether or not the Latinos and Indians have been mistreated in this country. What is being debated here is whether a group of people has the right to celebrate a culture that they have adopted. A person might ask, isn't celebrating Columbus endorsing what he did to the Native Americans? If that is true then we should stop showing football on television and stop writing about it in the papers because some of the players have been found to use drugs and have violent social tendencies, i.e. beat their wives. If football isn't your thing than think of your favorite thing. There is something bad associated with it and therefore under this reasoning all evidence of it should be removed.

Currently this is a Denver, CO issue, but what is to stop your government from doing the same? Make sure you are watching those in charge. I see this kind of thing as the beginning of the Brave New World society, a society with predetermined thoughts, stations, and life. This is not a society I would wish upon my worst enemy.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Also by Titec


Display: Sort:
Don't say the "C" Word in Denver ... | 100 comments (97 topical, 3 editorial, 0 hidden)
Couldn't this be appealed? / other random musings (3.07 / 13) (#2)
by tokage on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 02:11:53 AM EST

With the various minorities protesting over everything, this just strikes me as odd. It -is- unconstitutional for these people to not be able to gather peacefully etc, if they could prove that the reason they're being denied their parade for purely racist reasons(which is difficult to do, no doubt). There always has been and probably always will be favoritism within panels of official types, as well as racism. I find it odd also that anti-Columbus feelings would be the sole reason they were denied their parade, especially on the very day Columbus is being supposed to be venerated. Is there any proof that this is the reason they were denied? Parades are also different than a normal assembley of people. If there is already a parade going on and they just want entry into it, I can understand them being upset, but creating your own parade is a different matter. I believe that would be controlled by the county/state law or whatever, not sure.

Anyway, my musing/rant is this. How can groups which advocate hate and violence openly, like the KKK, be allowed to gather? I understand they're covered by the constitution, freedom of speech etc, but all they do is create violence and harbor hate. Aren't there laws against hate mongering? I guess that's something for another debate, anyway. The world we've created for ourselves is a pretty fucked up place.

I always play / Russian roulette in my head / It's 17 black, or 29 red

Re: Couldn't this be appealed? / other random musi (3.80 / 10) (#3)
by Louis_Wu on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 02:55:25 AM EST

In criminal cases, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, meaning that the state has to prove that a crime was commited by Bob, and do it beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, the burden of proof lies on the person bringing the suit (the relatives of OJ's dead wife, for example), and the proof need only be reasonable (I don't remember the technical word for it). In tax cases, the burden of proof lies on the accused, not the accuser, and the accused must provide darn good evidence of her innocence.

The question seems to be, What sort of 'case' do we have here? I don't think that it is tax related (But they did get Capone that way!), so that leaves civil and criminal. Let's look at what you said:

It -is- unconstitutional for these people to not be able to gather peacefully etc, if they could prove that the reason they're being denied their parade for purely racist reasons(which is difficult to do, no doubt).
I presume that a parade and its constitutionality would be covered under civil law, which means that if the Italians wanted to sue, they would have to provide evidence of discrimination. The crime would seem to be allowing some citizens to congregate, but not allowing others, which would be a selective application of the First Amendment.

The case looks prima facie to me. (Oops, my slang use of a legal term, it means 'on the face'. I'm using it to mean 'open & shut'.) Go to a judge and say 'They let them have a parade, but not us.' If the judge doesn't have an axe to grind, I think that he'll find in your favor.

But so many judges seem to think that they are legislators, that they can make the law, not just determine guilt under the law. That is one of my axes, which I grind frequently.

BTW, IANAL, I just like the stuff.

Louis_Wu
"The power to tax is the power to destroy."
John Marshal, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
[ Parent ]

Re: Couldn't this be appealed? / other random musi (2.37 / 8) (#8)
by hypatia on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 03:38:40 AM EST

and the proof need only be reasonable (I don't remember the technical word for it).

"On the balance of probability" - I think...

[ Parent ]

Re: Couldn't this be appealed? / other random musi (2.72 / 11) (#4)
by duxup on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 03:03:51 AM EST

From the story it's not clear that this actually was a court ruling. It sounds like it just as easily could have been a decision handed down by the city council or something like that. In that case it indeed can be challenged in court.

[ Parent ]
Re: Couldn't this be appealed? / other random musi (1.70 / 10) (#6)
by tokage on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 03:13:40 AM EST

I'm not really crystal clear on laws/which suit goes to which court on my best day:) I was just trying to figure out what the situation actually was, it's kind of unclear in the article.

I always play / Russian roulette in my head / It's 17 black, or 29 red
[ Parent ]

Re: Couldn't this be appealed? / other random musi (4.00 / 4) (#24)
by Alarmist on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 10:22:53 AM EST

Anyway, my musing/rant is this. How can groups which advocate hate and violence openly, like the KKK, be allowed to gather? I understand they're covered by the constitution, freedom of speech etc, but all they do is create violence and harbor hate.

The Founding Fathers realized (based on long experience) that it is important for a society to allow diverse points of view to remain healthy. Eliminating the expression of those views enforces a sort of homogeniety that stifles creativity and social progress. (They probably also remembered the example of the Pilgrims, who fled Europe to escape religious oppression and started oppressing people once they got here).

Yes, the KKK preaches racial intolerance. Many other groups do as well; the point that the FFs were trying to make is that any point of view, no matter how odious, deserves to be made known. They knew that the best way to defeat a bad idea is with a better idea, and that the easiest (and, IMO, best) way to get better ideas is to talk about the bad ones publicly.

Fight the Power.


[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 2) (#48)
by tokage on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 02:22:13 PM EST

Yeah, you're right. I understand the necessity for the various groups, no matter how extreme, to be allowed to express their viewpoints, as long as they act within accordance to the law. My gripe was more related to the fact hate groups like the KKK are -not- diminishing in size, but rather increasing, which speaks of our culture and society. I was alluding to our natures which allow these groups to not only exist, but flourish. The thing about having a better idea is actually convincing people. Most hate-mongering groups' spiels are just so much rhetoric which can be cut through easily by any education person. The fact that people continue to suscribe to it is what upsets me, the fact that people can blind themselves to what the message really is about.

I guess most things people get caught up in that they feel are larger than themselves are like that though, like religion/political views, which are extrodinarily hard to change, or even discuss rationally.

Sorry about the confusion, I wasn't really clear on what I was trying to convey. I guess people have their reasons for hanging out in these societies, lack of direction, feeling like their lives have nothing, etc.

I always play / Russian roulette in my head / It's 17 black, or 29 red
[ Parent ]

Re: (4.00 / 1) (#92)
by Alarmist on Mon Oct 02, 2000 at 10:25:20 AM EST

Most hate-mongering groups' spiels are just so much rhetoric which can be cut through easily by any education person. The fact that people continue to suscribe to it is what upsets me, the fact that people can blind themselves to what the message really is about.

I agree with you. The problem is that the United States has a dearth of educated people that can actually think for themselves. The public schools are essentially state-run babysitters; education is secondary to keeping kids off the street. Grammar school and high school teach kids how to be consumers and how to accept without questioning. Some colleges teach the value of an inquisitive mind, and a very few (like the one I graduated from) have a faculty that actually encourages discourse and diverse points of view. But those are mostly the private schools. Many public schools have all they can do trying to teach 300 freshmen a class at once.

This is very frightening, and something needs to be done about it. We have been creating generations of pliable, easily-manipulated numbskulls who are trained to work themselves to death in jobs that they hate and come home so tired from work that all they want to do is turn their minds off. We are trained, practically from birth, to be consumers, to spend more than we have and put ourselves into debt slavery to faceless institutions that only want our money. This has to stop if this nation is to survive.

Fight the Power.


[ Parent ]

Re: (3.00 / 1) (#97)
by beergut on Mon Oct 02, 2000 at 01:42:15 PM EST

> We have been creating generations of pliable, easily-
> manipulated numbskulls who are trained to work
> themselves to death in jobs that they hate and come
> home so tired from work that all they want to do is
> turn their minds off. We are trained, practically from
> birth, to be consumers, to spend more than we have and
> put ourselves into debt slavery to faceless
> institutions that only want our money. This has to stop
> if this nation is to survive.

"Oh, I do so love new clothes..."

Shades of Huxley's "Brave New World". It's really frightening to me that even people who have read such dystopian works, including Ayn Rand's "Anthem", cannot make a connection between real life and the events in such books.

It has long been a saying of mine that, "Whatever the Human mind can conceive, it can achieve."

The more I look about, the more I believe this to be true - especially in a dystopian sense. Although some aspects of, i.e. "Brave New World" appeal to me, the ones that I see coming true around me are not those.


i don't see any nanorobots or jet engines or laser holography or orbiting death satellites.
i just see some orangutan throwing code-feces at a computer screen.

-- indubitable
[ Parent ]

!@ yes (none / 0) (#102)
by tokage on Tue Oct 03, 2000 at 03:32:38 AM EST

Comments like yours remind me why I enjoy reading k5. Schools teach us from when we are young to conform, to live by a schedule and follow rules unquestioningly. There is this whole scheme which people really do believe is the 'natural' course of life, school, into college, into a few relationships until marriage, the house, the 9-5. We lock ourselves into situations which are miserable, then continue to live in them until our passion for life diminishes, and our thoughts change. It's like when we're young and dream of being whatever it is, then as we get older the choices we make bring us down and we accept whatever ends up happening because its expected and just considered 'maturing'. Another thing that disturbs me is the lack of desire to actually learn, not so much go to school. I think rejection of school in its current incarnation is healthy to a point. Perhaps the kids sense the hypocrisy in our society and stop caring or looking for answers. More than likely though, they're force fed drivel so often they can't tell the difference between that and meaningful things, sucked up into the morass of MTV and cellphone conversations with friends about fashion and the newest N Sync concert. I try to be hopeful, but realistically I don't see this changing, just progressing to the point of us being an entire nation of polite, politically correct empty minded morons who accept most everything we're told blindly, then rush out to the nearest mall to buy things we don't need, but the desire for which is imprinted by the endless incessant advertising(which i could rant about for hours). I see a pretty bleak future waiting for us, for a long time to come.

I always play / Russian roulette in my head / It's 17 black, or 29 red
[ Parent ]

Hardly a new strategy. (1.66 / 12) (#9)
by Paul Dunne on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 04:03:13 AM EST

Divide et impera.
http://dunne.home.dhs.org/
Can't Say "Columbus" on Columbus Day? (2.78 / 14) (#11)
by RadiantMatrix on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 04:41:21 AM EST

So far no one has said it outright, so I will -- where does a govermental agency (and a puny city one, at that) get off telling a group not to have anything to do with Columbus on Columbus Day?

Seems to me that a city government really shouldn't be, in essence, telling someone not to celebrate a Federal holiday. Hmph. Only in America...
--
I'm not going out with a "meh". I plan to live, dammit. [ZorbaTHut]

Federal holiday? (2.00 / 4) (#15)
by barzok on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 07:51:15 AM EST

Are you sure it's a federal holiday? The stock exchanges are all open, AFAIK (I know NYSE is), and most businesses are open.

[ Parent ]
Apparently so. (2.25 / 4) (#19)
by Anonymous 242 on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 09:48:24 AM EST

United States Office of Personnel Management 2000 Federal Holidays

BTW, the NYSE is a corporation, NOT a governmental agency.

[ Parent ]

Re: Federal holiday? (1.50 / 2) (#40)
by RadiantMatrix on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 12:46:11 PM EST

In the US, there are a lot of Federal holidays, but very few cause shutdowns of government agencies and other businesses.
--
I'm not going out with a "meh". I plan to live, dammit. [ZorbaTHut]

[ Parent ]
Perception (4.40 / 15) (#13)
by erotus on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 05:11:20 AM EST

I feel like answering this question with a question... In other words, I have some mixed feelings about this and want some input and of course, this is a discussion site, so read on.

First of all, I don't believe that these people being Italian had anything to do with this decision. People of Germanic, Anglo, or Greek descent would have been denied the use of Columbus paraphernalia. The decision was based on the Native-American and Latino perception of Columbus. For Native-Americans, Columbus didn't discover America. America's native peoples were here long before Columbus and obviously knew that America existed so how could Columbus have "discovered" it. This discovery is a Eurocentric viewpoint from the natives perspective. The native people saw the evil side of mission work and endured mistreatment which classified them as second-class citizens. On the other hand, people who colonized America revere Columbus as a discover/explorer who found this nation, named it, and set forth the process of colonization.

My arguement here is that our perception of what Columbus means to this nation is very different among different groups. Other examples include the "Rebel" flag of the south. To many white American southerners this symbolizes heritage and tradition, while to many African-Americans this symbolizes slavery, repression, and racism. Even US history is taught from particular perspective if you will. Americans portray Benedict Arnold to be a traitor in US history books while British and Canadian history books view him as a hero. In a way we are at war with history.

The history that is taught to us in schools is tainted with bias and taught from an ethnocentric or majority's viewpoint. I believe it is good to see the other side every now and then as it gives us another slant on issues and clears up many misconceptions. My question is this: When should one group comprimise pride/heritage/history so another can can be free from continual symbolic persecution? (e.g. Columbus pics, "rebel" flags) Are we being insensitive to a group which has always come second in America or is this a new form of vindication for all the historical wrongs done to them?

Re: Perception (3.44 / 9) (#18)
by FlinkDelDinky on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 08:57:50 AM EST

I don't think we (U.S.A.) legally perceive symbolic prosecution. That's a good thing. Various groups dislike Columbus, Rebel Flags, Nazi artifacts, whatever else, they are free to do that. They even have the ability tto assamble in peacful protest.

And vice versa. That's the way it should be. We do and should have freedom of communication. Only under very specific circumstances would I be willing to restrict free communication (things like child pornography come to mind).

[ Parent ]

Re: Perception (3.12 / 8) (#23)
by Snugboy on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 10:15:08 AM EST

The US is one of the few places in the world where being PC and considerate of so many cultural feelings is a probelm.

I have lived in many countries outside of the United States, and in these many countries there are considerably more homogeneous populations, and things like this aren't a real concern. I think that the diversity of the US that we treasure so much is also a curse in some cases. I am not saying that every American should be a mindless flag waving drone or that anyone who isn't in line should be thrown out, but that everyone who lives here is an American and everyone can have their heratage, but when it comes down to it we all live in the same place and we SHOULD be on the same team. It seems that every other person in the US complains that his/her race has been dumped on, or molested by everyone else, and they use this as a basis for laziness or compensation. We have moved from a country that pulled together in times of difficulty to a country of buck-passers that complain when they have to wait in line at the post office that they are being repressed by the man.

People have got to grow up. People get abused everyday. People get discriminated against everyday. People get denied jobs, loans, and have their rights stripped because of who they are EVERYDAY. Deal with the attrocities that occur in today's world, and leave history as just that. Columbus may have been an asshole, and if he were here today trying that shit I would be all for locking his ass up, and in that case the parade should be denied. But American Indians never even saw Columbus. He landed in the Carrebian. And i am pretty sure that none of the original "indians" that were abused by Columbus are still around today.

Deal with racism and social abuses that hurt people today and forget about something that happened hundreds of years ago.

[ Parent ]
Re: Perception (3.75 / 8) (#31)
by Hard_Code on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 11:08:14 AM EST

"but when it comes down to it we all live in the same place and we SHOULD be on the same team."

Well, some Americans are *not* United States citizens, yet are dominated by the United States and its culture. It is arrogant to think that Native Americans *want* to be on our "team". They never asked for Europeans to come and take their land.

"And i am pretty sure that none of the original "indians" that were abused by Columbus are still around today."

The Taino people *are* amazingly around today, although in much reduced numbers. I guess if they weren't around, that would make it ok, right?

"Deal with racism and social abuses that hurt people today and forget about something that happened hundreds of years ago."

Yeah, it's easy to forget if *you* are not the one fighting a dominant society for recognition, dignity, respect of treaties made, and actively try to resist policies of assimilation, and prohibition on practice of culture and religion. I guess it's easier to forget if you are not a logo on a Braves banner.

The real Columbus: http://www.halcyon.com/wfrazier/columbus.htm

Jazilla - the pure Java browser
[ Parent ]
Re: Perception (3.40 / 5) (#36)
by Snugboy on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 11:58:54 AM EST

"I guess it's easier to forget if you are not a logo on a Braves banner. "

I am of Irish descent and the Notre Dame Mascot is a leprichaun-ish irish icon that is not really that flattering to my people, but somehow my life goes on.....

All I am trying to say is that try to fight people's bigotry now and try not to waste so much energy on something that happened so long ago.

[ Parent ]
Not quite.... (4.81 / 16) (#14)
by puppet10 on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 06:38:38 AM EST

Here is a link to a story on the topic in the Denver Post. Basically the US Justice department got the people putting on the parade and a group of people planning to protest to come to an agreement where if the people putting on the parade agreed not to mention Columbus the planned protest would be called off.

Apparently the people planning the parade changed their minds (and have said they were pressurred into the agreement in the first place) and are now going to call it a Columbus day parade and mention Columbus on signs etc. during the parade. The problem is the question of what, how much, to whom, and if any pressure was applied by the city to the group planning the parade to enter the agreement not to mention Columbus during the parade.

Finally the city Safty Manager has said he doesn't plan on revoking the parade permit even though the parade organizers are now planning to mention Columbus during the march.

A new variation on Murphy's Law? (1.25 / 4) (#16)
by _cbj on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 07:58:57 AM EST

Bit rich the redskins yelping genocide after what they did to their predecessors. The fact is, though, if you make bureaucratic concessions to a putative whining minority, however well intentioned, that minority will spring into existence and seek you out with a vengeance. When whatever bill was enacted that allowed words to be 'challenged'...er, was... it guaranteed, probabilistically speaking, these ludicrous events.

A parade of prejudice and bad taste... (3.64 / 17) (#17)
by teeheehee on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 08:18:06 AM EST

It was previously mentioned that the parade will go on as planned, and that the name Columbus will be all over it. It also will be protested now by the Native Americans and Latinos who said they wouldn't protest it if the name wasn't mentioned.

Who's right in this? Are the Italians right, in saying that it's their right to free speech which allows them to parade down the streets. Sure is their right, isn't it? We let KKK do the same, why not?

Or are the Native Americans and Latinos right, in trying to show the hypocracy and doublethink so apparent in this to them. Columbus was, to them, quite evil. Perhaps we should parade around the Vatican with upside-down crosses and pentagrams held high, I'm sure they'll see it in much the same light...

It looks like the idea of the parade was supposed to be stifled somewhat with good intentions, trying to keep accord with deals made in 1992. Now those deals will be broken - and look at it from the eyes of the Native Americans especially who will see this as just another broken promise. Let's not kid around here folks, we live on land stolen through death and lies. Here, let's celebrate the one who started the chain rolling! What a great idea! (sic) It's too bad the people sponsoring the parade don't see history through the eyes of the oppressed, or I think they'd be somewhat more understanding in why it isn't exactly as light-hearted an act as they think it is.

Now, I don't really like the manner in which it was presented to the Italians that the name should be completely excluded - I'm taking this with a grain of salt as to how they were approached with it, though. For nearly eight years there has been no Columbus Day parade in Denver, and it was because of deals made previously.

"Whether or not Columbus was a slave trader and an Indian killer is not the point."

I'm sorry, but this is EXACTLY the point. This is where the conflict arises. I am indeed disturbed if this is fully a case of attempted censorship, as I do not believe in censorship. However I do believe in being (discrete, prudent, considerate, understanding, compromising) - and as far as that goes I would, personally, have taken back the idea of a parade in celebration of Columbus, but rather have a parade just for having a parade. There's no need to be the one to bring up such bad memories in an oppressed people, it would be like organizing a Hitler Day Parade, only in Poland. Here, it would be legal, but in such bad taste that even I would protest it.

That being said, I will now also mention that I am 50% Italian. Does this mean anything to me, not too much I'm afraid! I am 100% American. I say give respect where respect is due. If you want to say Columbus, then say Columbus, but just realize why it creates the tension it does. Ignorance really is bliss, even worthy of nation-wide celebration, at that. Some day I hope there's going to be a "Send The White Man Home Day" parade, or "Let's Have Slaves Again" parade, just to ruffle some feathers. Where, I wonder, would everyone stand on that issue? Would you condone those to happen in your home land?
(Discordia) :: Hail Eris!
Everything you've just read was poetry and art - no infringement!

Re: A parade of prejudice and bad taste... (3.66 / 9) (#22)
by Beorn on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 10:06:21 AM EST

Let's not kid around here folks, we live on land stolen through death and lies. Here, let's celebrate the one who started the chain rolling! What a great idea!

There's also another side to this. By opposing celebration of the person who started european colonization of america, you're implying that americans should feel embarassed, or even guilty, about being there at all.

This is somewhat similar to saying that a person who was conceived in a rape shouldn't celebrate his birthday.

- Beorn

[ Threepwood '01 ]
[ Parent ]

Re: A parade of prejudice and bad taste... (3.83 / 6) (#34)
by teeheehee on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 11:11:10 AM EST

"By opposing celebration of the person who started european colonization of america, you're implying that americans should feel embarassed, or even guilty, about being there at all."

It is not that I feel we should be embarassed or feel guilty about being here, this is America, land of the free, home of the brave, but the means by which we acquired it we should feel embarassed about. Guilty, I don't know about, I wasn't here when it happened, I can't feel too guilty about it. I'm not a direct decendant from the original colonists, my family came on a later boat. One of my ancestors had slaves for many years, but I'm against slavery. I'm not in a position to change the past so it looks nicer, but I don't deny it either.

It is true that he spurred the European movement to the new land, and if that didn't happen a lot of us would be stuck in another, probably less free atmosphere. One would try to say the ends justified the means, as now there hope for the underdogs in every country to fight their controlling regimes. That, I feel, had to happen. But it didn't come cleanly.

The truth is we wouldn't be here (with the same chain of events) if it weren't for Columbus (even though he thought this was India), but the whole truth includes pain and suffering for multitudes who were discarded and feel they're being discarded when what they show in their history books isn't shown in our history books.

I would never be one to strike the name of Columbus from the annals of history, yet the fact remains he didn't do any of this to create a new country, he wanted money, power, and glory. Why don't we also celebrate the the persecution of the Puritans in Europe, after all it was one of the main causes for the mass migration of people to the New World as well... it wouldn't be a clean celebration either, but we would rather see it as the "adventure" to the New World and not the "fleeing" to the New World.

"This is somewhat similar to saying that a person who was conceived in a rape shouldn't celebrate his birthday."

I'm glad to be an American. I'd much rather be here than anywhere else - but by today's standards the way in which America was "settled" is not, by my views, worthy of praise so much. Praise the signing of the Constitution, that's a worthy birthday. Don't celebrated Dad's birthday, though, if he raped Mom to conceive Me -- Don't celebrate Columbus' "discovery", though, if he decimated Native Americans and a Country was born eventually.

I can understand the dual-views shown here, but I don't think enough is being done to show a fuller truth, and that is the true cause of all the conflict here. If everyone pushing for the Columbus Parade had learned that their history included Columbus' domination over them, I bet they would be a little hesitant to make a float in his name, too.
(Discordia) :: Hail Eris!
Everything you've just read was poetry and art - no infringement!

[ Parent ]
Re: A parade of prejudice and bad taste... (3.66 / 3) (#50)
by aonifer on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 02:37:41 PM EST

"Whether or not Columbus was a slave trader and an Indian killer is not the point."
I'm sorry, but this is EXACTLY the point.

No it is not. The point is that they should be allowed to celebrate his discovery regardless of what he was. Just like they should be allowed to celebrate Hitler, Stalin, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mother Theresa. The right to expression does not extend only to the innoffensive.

Some day I hope there's going to be a "Send The White Man Home Day" parade, or "Let's Have Slaves Again" parade, just to ruffle some feathers. Where, I wonder, would everyone stand on that issue? Would you condone those to happen in your home land?

Yes I would. Would I protest? Maybe. Would I censor? Never. Never. You do not educate by silencing. Censorship is the reason for the misconceptions about Columbus in the first place. Let them have their parade. I can start my own.

[ Parent ]

People should just get over it and live on... (3.56 / 16) (#20)
by Bloodwine on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 09:55:55 AM EST

To answer any potential flames, yes I am a caucasian male.

I'm tired of seeing blacks, hispanics, women, etc. keep crying about the injustices imposed upon them in the past. So at one time women were treated more-or-less as indentured servants. At one time Africans were imported as slave labour. That is life. At one time the Vikings raped and pillaged civilizations. At one time the Romans destroyed nations.

I am sure at one point in history my ancestors were somehow mistreated by others. I am sure every geneology tree has a few 'broken' branches at the hands of others.

If people would stop and look, they would notice that we are becoming more divided... not coming together. You have minorities having their own award shows and pride parades. You do not see me running around saying "I am not white, I am Caucasian American, thank you.". You know, there is only one kind of American: American. All this Italian American, African American, Asian American nonsense just shows how much more divided we have become. There is nothing wrong with having pride in one's heritage, but it has gone to such a point that people are not tolerable of other people.

Yes there are still oppressors in society, but people only make it worse when they rub their pride in everyone's face. Just let things go and silently people will intermingle and the oppressors will be outcast. Running around and causing trouble (like protesting a National Holiday) only gives more fuel to the oppressors to sway new people to their line of thought.

Re: People should just get over it and live on... (3.14 / 7) (#27)
by baberg on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 10:41:14 AM EST

I share your pain, fellow Caucasian :-)

Seriously, though, I don't want to get off on a rant here, but it seems like Affirmitive Action is simply the next form of discrimination, this one aimed at the majority. Before you flame me, I have no problem with two equally qualified candidates, one white and one not, with the non-white candidate given the job; the key phrase is equally qualified. But when companies declare that they must have at least x% of each minority group, then hiring practices are set up against the majority. Less qualified candidates are being hired merely because they have the correct skin color.

I realize I'm getting offtopic from what the article was saying, so I'll head back now. Lots of people complain when a business censors them. That's fine; corporations are not covered by the First Amendment. However, neither are local governments. Have a look at the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law prohibiting...
And that has been held up. Congress has not declared that they cannot march, thereby the First Amendment has been upheld. Later (either 9th or 10th) the Bill of Rights says that anything not specifically assigned to the federal government is left up to the States to decide.

So, in summary: I think the decision to forbid these people to march is wrong (or to march in whatever way they want). But we have to get our facts straight.

[ Parent ]

Re: People should just get over it and live on... (3.25 / 4) (#30)
by trust_no_one on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 10:58:33 AM EST

State and Local Governments are covered by the 1st Amendment, by way of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Hopefully someone will cite the appropriate Supreme Court cases to buttress this assertion.

The relevant section of the 14th amendment reads
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

------------
I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused
[ Parent ]

Re: People should just get over it and live on... (2.00 / 2) (#38)
by baberg on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 12:30:20 PM EST

Ok, thanks for pointing out my idiocy. I was hoping there was some law similarly prohibiting the States from doing Mean And Nasty Things(tm). This only amplifies my outrage, though. How can a government agency deny people the right to peacably assemble, stating whatever they wish? This ruling makes my blood boil, and I pray to all that is Holy that this decision is struck down.

[ Parent ]
Re: People should just get over it and live on... (4.00 / 2) (#67)
by brennan73 on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 05:50:50 PM EST

baberg said:

"it seems like Affirmitive Action is simply the next form of discrimination, this one aimed at the majority. Before you flame me, I have no problem with two equally qualified candidates, one white and one not, with the non-white candidate given the job; the key phrase is equally qualified. But when companies declare that they must have at least x% of each minority group, then hiring practices are set up against the majority. Less qualified candidates are being hired merely because they have the correct skin color."
Quotas are already illegal (as per Supreme Court decisions - maybe Bakke?). Most affirmative action programs simply allow race to be considered as one factor among many.

"Congress has not declared that they cannot march, thereby the First Amendment has been upheld. Later (either 9th or 10th) the Bill of Rights says that anything not specifically assigned to the federal government is left up to the States to decide...we have to get our facts straight."

The Fourteenth Amendment (as interpreted by binding Supreme Court decisions) applies the First Amendment to the states. So, you're incorrect here as well; the First Amendment is absolutely applicable.

-brennan

[ Parent ]

Re: People should just get over it and live on... (2.66 / 6) (#29)
by Hard_Code on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 10:47:26 AM EST

"I'm tired of seeing blacks, hispanics, women, etc. keep crying about the injustices imposed upon them in the past. So at one time women were treated more-or-less as indentured servants. At one time Africans were imported as slave labour. That is life. At one time the Vikings raped and pillaged civilizations. At one time the Romans destroyed nations."

At ONE time? At ONE time! Eradication of Native culture and religion and assimilation were was the policies of the US government until around the late 60s. Carlisle school anybody?! Forced sterilization of Native peoples in many places was the practice of the United States government (IHS) until the late 1980s. 1980s! We have, cold, hard, *real* documents from the nineteenth and twentieth century of Bureau of Indian Affairs officials lining their pockets with money owed to Native Americans. This is *documented*. We know the numbers. We know the people. We know what the treaties were, and how we broke them. We know what is legal and ethical. But we don't do it. (The same can be said for many black slaves and indentured servants...many of the largest corporations today got wealthy off their labor. We have the records - this is not made up)

"Yes there are still oppressors in society, but people only make it worse when they rub their pride in everyone's face. Just let things go and silently people will intermingle and the oppressors will be outcast. Running around and causing trouble (like protesting a National Holiday) only gives more fuel to the oppressors to sway new people to their line of thought."

The oppressor cannot be outcast when the oppressor is ignorance. All Americans aren't the same. There are *real* Americans that want no part of the US government, don't *want* to be assimilated, but are treated as children-states, refused their homelands that they are legally entitled to.

Sticking our heads in the sand and saying "oh well, you were fucked, too bad", is disgraceful.

Get a clue.
--another caucasian male

Jazilla - the pure Java browser
[ Parent ]
The real Columbus (1.00 / 3) (#33)
by Hard_Code on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 11:09:31 AM EST

The real Columbus: http://www.halcyon.com/wfrazier/columbus.htm

Jazilla - the pure Java browser
[ Parent ]
Re: People should just get over it and live on... (3.00 / 2) (#63)
by Beorn on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 05:22:59 PM EST

Forced sterilization of Native peoples in many places was the practice of the United States government (IHS) until the late 1980s. 1980s!

This and similar atrocities appears to have occured all over the western world until a few decades ago, with the small native/nomadic minority of your choice. The north scandinavian native sami people were of course oppressed for centuries, and all kinds of confirmed and unconfirmed horrors appear to have been inflicted by the norwegian government on the romani (gypsies) until the 70s. Sterilization, forced integration, removal of kids, all in the name of racial hygiene and christian compassion.

Perhaps it would be more educational if western schools spent more time on the recent atrocities of their own government than on Hitler?

- Beorn

[ Threepwood '01 ]
[ Parent ]

Re: People should just get over it and live on... (1.75 / 4) (#47)
by mattc on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 02:15:17 PM EST

One thing that has always annoyed me is that non-whites can have race-organizations but whites cannot. If I decided to form the National Association for the Advancement of White People I'd be labelled everything from Hitler to Satan and probably thrown in jail on some trumped-up charges, however if I form a National Association of Colored People I'd be getting medals and applauded as a community leader. Fucking ridiculous. I think we should just get rid of the whole "Race" idea once and for all -- we are all part of the HUMAN race!

[ Parent ]
Ob: NAACP (2.50 / 2) (#59)
by afc on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 04:42:34 PM EST

Of course, you're whole line of reasoning completely ignores the historical conditions regarding the status quo and living conditions (in some cases sanctioned by the Government) of black people at the time the NAACP was founded.

And yes, there is a NAAWP, yes it has strong racist connotations, but no, nobody's getting in jail because of it. Nobody's getting medals, as well, at least not until David Duke is elected governor.
--

Information wants to be beer, or something.
[ Parent ]

Re: People should just get over it and live on... (1.66 / 3) (#69)
by simmons75 on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 06:00:33 PM EST

Yeah; I'm sure if I look back in my family's history far enough back you get back to the Pagan days of Europe and the first crusades; the first crusades were actually in Europe and the oh-so-God-fearing church killed Europeans just as Europeans killed Native Americans in the Americans.

Do I protest St. Valentine's Day? Do I lead marches during Lent? Do I burn cathedrals? No. It's in the past; doing those things won't change things. Heck, I'd even vote for a Kennedy.
poot!
So there.

[ Parent ]
Re: People should just get over it and live on... (none / 0) (#86)
by camadas on Sat Sep 30, 2000 at 11:41:40 PM EST

Funny, I thought that were the cowboys that killed the indians, or native americans, whatever.

[ Parent ]
Re: People should just get over it and live on... (1.50 / 2) (#71)
by persimmon on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 06:21:00 PM EST

Mm, it seems to me it's easy to say people should get over things you don't experience yourself. There may be only one type of American but that doesn't mean different subgroups aren't more priviledged.

We feel the need to discuss past injustices because they are the roots of the injustices and stereotypes that persist today. Yes, it would be nice to say "We're all equal, let's just forget it all and get on with our lives," but entrenched attitudes do not change that easily. The issue is the way we treat other people today.

We will not achieve equality by silence and compliance. We must discuss and acknowledge the oppression that still exists in order to combat it.
--
It's funny because it's a blancmange!
[ Parent ]
Woo hoo! USA, we have arrived! (2.90 / 10) (#21)
by Bad Mojo on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 10:04:39 AM EST

I think it's rather amusing. Tons of people will, no doubt, see this as a two sided issue and understand one or both sides. Whoop-a-dee-doo! The past is static. Wether we view a person as good or evil doesn't change the past or what has happened. That being said, what harm is being done when group A wants to celebrate a figure that group B hates? Is group A changing the past? Is group A hurting group B or denying group B of their rights? NO! If group A has a parade, is it going to RUIN THE WORLD? Fuck NO!

Now, if I were Native American or Latino, I wouldn't counter this parade with a protest. I would set up a web site or foundation to show Columbus for who he really was. Good and bad. Educate and learn, don't malign and take offense.

Once the human world has learned to appreciate that other people around them have different views, then I think we will be ready to call ourselves civilized.


-Bad Mojo
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure pure reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!"
B. Watterson's Calvin - "Calvin & Hobbes"

Re: Woo hoo! USA, we have arrived! (3.66 / 3) (#25)
by teeheehee on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 10:32:24 AM EST

Why not protest? Is there something wrong with protesting?

Sure, put up a web site that can get cracked or plain old ignored... what's going to change people's views if they don't know to look at it? The point of a protest is to make yourself visible so that people who normally wouldn't see you now see you and have at least half a chance to see what it is your protesting about. That being said I point out this which is exactly what you were talking about (did you ever see this before - I had to do a search for it to find it, who would search for "native american views of columbus" rather than "columbus day" or the like?), this has some other resources based on Native views, if you care to look.

"Once the human world has learned to appreciate that other people around them have different views, then I think we will be ready to call ourselves civilized."

I agree with this so much, but how can you teach that to people who are brought up thinking their(disturbing) views are more right than yours are?

"Who controls the past," ran the Party slogan, "controls the future: who controls the present controls the past."
-- George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

It takes a lot of effort to adapt to new views. It's not a good feeling to know that things you've learned and KNOWN are wrong. The world is not flat, it is not the center of the universe, Columbus didn't discover America.
(Discordia) :: Hail Eris!
Everything you've just read was poetry and art - no infringement!

[ Parent ]
Re: Woo hoo! USA, we have arrived! (none / 0) (#78)
by chaotic42 on Sat Sep 30, 2000 at 02:37:40 AM EST

Out of curiosity, I went to the Whites Only link you referred to. The disclamer states that it's just a joke. Just thought you might like to know.

[ Parent ]
Re: Woo hoo! USA, we have arrived! (none / 0) (#89)
by teeheehee on Sun Oct 01, 2000 at 03:20:58 PM EST

I posted that as a link based on the synopsis that Google search gave, which included racist slurs and remarks abundant. It was the first one in the list of many. If it is a joke, it is in severely bad taste... The point I still feel is valid, though. Thanks for letting me know!
(Discordia) :: Hail Eris!
Everything you've just read was poetry and art - no infringement!

[ Parent ]
They're correct, but shouldn't do this (3.12 / 8) (#26)
by Hard_Code on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 10:33:17 AM EST

Well, the Native Americans and Latino groups are correct. They glaringly omit in our gradeschool textbooks that the conquest of the new world was bloody, cruel, unfair, and literally a genocide, instead planting comfortable images of pilgrims and picknicks and ending it there.

However, censoring Columbus is just as bad as any other censorship. The problem is, Columbus is viewed *favorably* by many Americans who still live in blissfull ignorance about the founding and history of their country. The public and culture need to be made aware of our real history. To do otherwise is wrong and a disservice to all Americans, regardless of nationality. Perhaps this stunt will at least momentarily get Americans thinking about Columbus, the conquests, and anti-Native policies that continued until the eighties, and mentality that continues to this day (for instance Pataki doesn't want to give lands back to Native Americans in New York with whom were made treaties, the law of the land upon which this government is based, and Lazio has been quoted as having the audacity to say "I don't understand why these Indians want our land").

It's a lose-lose situation for Native people - if they don't bring attention to their cause, they continue to be screwed over; if they do bring attention to their cause, they are hated.

Jazilla - the pure Java browser
The real Columbus (1.25 / 4) (#32)
by Hard_Code on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 11:08:51 AM EST

The real Columbus: http://www.halcyon.com/wfrazier/columbus.htm

Jazilla - the pure Java browser
[ Parent ]
This stuff gives me a headache (3.40 / 10) (#28)
by QuantumAbyss on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 10:45:21 AM EST

Columbus did do a lot of really awful things. Literally killing millions of people (during his life, due to his orders, I'm not counting the repurcussions of his actions, which I don't think can really be pinned on him). Why do we have a national holiday for him? Does this seem akin to making a holiday in celebration of Hitler to anyone else? Maybe if it weren't celebrated, but kind of a memorial thing it would be more appropriate.

That said, the Italians certainly do have the right to have a parade which honors him. I consider it to be extremely bad taste (why on earth do you need to pick Columbus? there are so many other, better, Italians to honor...). Also, it IS disrespectful to the Native Americans and Latinos - which means that anyone taking part in that parade needs to understand this. Just as having a parade for Hitler in Israel might get you shot (not that that is right, but some brains are required here, you can't go through life with blinders on).

I don't know the specifics of any past deals that may have been made with respect to this who parade deal. But in either event it also isn't right for Denver to try and stop the parade, in any way. Even if a deal were made, it was certainly not made with the concent of the entire population. Just as we stole most of this land by making deals with drunks or people who thought it was all a joke, Denver can't silence a segment of the populus because another segment decides it is okay. That is the whole point of free speach - even if it is offensive it can be said. So 99.999% of the US population may not like it, but that 0.001% that does can get together and have a huge party for it. Certainly such a thing is not in good taste, but it is the point of freedom.

This brings me around to what I see as the larger issue - free speach. You see, this particular conflict is between two relatively strong groups (together the Native Americans and Latinos do represent a serious political force, and the Italians do as well) - they aren't really the people who we need to be as concerned about. Instead it is the person who is placed in jail, but has his memiors blocked from public view - and others in positions where they really have no power.

All of these arguments that are constantly being waged between this minority group and that minority group and this majority group, etc, etc, are just covering up larger issues. Things like 1 out of 4 black males are incarserated during their life times. Or if a powerful class (such as the middle-class) starts using a drug (pot) the sentance for it suddenly becomes nearly non-existant. See, it isn't really that the Native Americans and Latinos are so pissed off about this particular thing (I mean, it is old news). What they are pissed off about is that there STILL is no equality for them. They still have bad schools, bad land, bad water, bad jobs, bad lives - in a massively higher percentage of cases than the 'white' norm. Since those problems can't be fixed easily, or that is the perception, it is natural to just target whatever can be targeted. The problem is, that by doing so they weaken their own position, and create enemies out of possible friends.

Since we're all giving ethnic backgrounds here, I am Jewish & German Catholic, by birth, not faith.



Science is not the pursuit of truth, it is the quest for better approximations to a perception of reality.
- QA
Re: This stuff gives me a headache (2.00 / 2) (#57)
by afc on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 04:35:01 PM EST

You have to read up on your history again, friend. Columbus never made it to the mainland and is highly unlikey that millions of people lived in the island of Hispaniola at the time he reached it, much less that they perished under his sword. Perhaps you're confusing him with Cortéz or Pizarro? Even then you'd be wrong, because for all the bloodshed they perpetrated, there is plenty of evidence in the physical features of the populations inhabiting the land mass between Mexico and Argentina to prove that the massacre was far from exaustive.

What you really should be asking is why does the US have a national holiday in honour to a chap that had no direct (and very little indirect) participation in the settlement and early colonization of the States. The reason, IMHO, is that the US, since colonial times and more each day, views itself as America, the sovereign and queen of all it surveys in the New World. Arrogance, pure and simple.
--

Information wants to be beer, or something.
[ Parent ]

Re: This stuff gives me a headache (3.00 / 3) (#65)
by QuantumAbyss on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 05:39:29 PM EST

I agree as to why the US has the holiday.

I was refering to Hispaniola. Sorry, aprox 300,000 on the island (I guess my memory exagerated that number), and conditions were so bad that mothers were commiting suicide with their babies in their arms (jumping off cliffs into the sea). The population was decimated, the land was decimated, and that is not cool. Also, if you take into account that he helped to establish parts of the slave trade things get even worse.

But I agree with your main point. The US actions have, by and large, been all for colonialism. We still practice this - Vietnam, numerous south & central american countries, middle eastern countries, most of africa, the list goes on. As a country the US doesn't care what it has to plow over in order to acheive a goal (and we'll do amazing little to help others acheive their goals).

So enough with the ranting. Me being within the country, and therefore invariably tainted, I don't really have a wonderful perspective. What solutions/gripes do people outside of the country/system have to say?



Science is not the pursuit of truth, it is the quest for better approximations to a perception of reality.
- QA
[ Parent ]
Re: This stuff gives me a headache (2.00 / 2) (#66)
by your_desired_username on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 05:41:13 PM EST

        
        
  'the US, since colonial times and more each day, views itself as
    America, the sovereign and queen of all it surveys in the New
    World. '

  But of course. That is our 'Manifest Destiny'.

  It also means that nobody but us has the right to play dictator of
    the month in South American politics.

  *mad laughter*



[ Parent ]
Re: This stuff gives me a headache (none / 0) (#93)
by afc on Mon Oct 02, 2000 at 10:31:04 AM EST

My point exactly.
--

Information wants to be beer, or something.
[ Parent ]

Something else NOT TO DO while you're near denver. (1.00 / 3) (#35)
by BoarderPhreak on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 11:31:35 AM EST

Go to a mud fest and destroy the wetlands cuz the radio DJ said so...

Actually, Columbus didn't do anything to.... (2.87 / 8) (#37)
by dimes on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 11:59:36 AM EST

"Native Americans" and "Latinos". During the time of Columbus' life, from the time he arrived in the "New World", till his death he neither made it to the mainland of what we now call North America, nor was there such a thing as indigenous "Latinos", as the only Latinos there came with him. Now, it should also be noted that the natives that were where he landed we pretty much wiped off the face of the earth by slavery and the diseases brought by him (his fleet) in the form of Small Pox, et al. But since they were pretty much erradicated, I hardly think they can complain about a parade. Now as for "Native Americans", they definitely have a case against those who followed Columbus(just one of their many roles in US history, and it is definitely one of the darkest, saddest stories of mankind). Now, as for Latinos. Lets cover the definition, at least to its reltion to the now known "Americas"(north, central,south). Latinos are the decendants of those who came over with Columbus and those many that followed him, who may be of pure euorpean(spanish, portuguese,italian, etc) blood or may be of mixed decendency of european and native indegenous peoples. So, what does this whole rant mean, well, Columbus made it to a land that wasn't where he was going, called it something it wasn't , and didn't in the end get it named after him, he was an explorer after all that what they do( a reltively mediocre navigator named Vespucci got that honor in the end. He prolly wasn't even the first to these areas(American continents) from the "European Continent", there's pretty good eveidence to support he wasn't. He was in fact one of the first to really open the idea the it was comercialy viable(even though, his own venture was not all that successfull......and yes, the following success' were mostly at the expense of others). Since the beging of time it has pretty much been about the food chain, our only hope is that as we grow more "mature" as a race(human), we will be able to out grow our more basic instincts and think at a more global level. As for the parade, I think people should just get over it, I don't see them complaining that they got columbus day off paid by their work. There is entirely to much PC in this world, when people are offended by parade and the wrong people show up to complain about it. Dimes

Re: Actually, Columbus didn't do anything to.... (2.25 / 4) (#39)
by cypherpunks on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 12:43:23 PM EST

So, what does this whole rant mean, well, Columbus made it to a land that wasn't where he was going, called it something it wasn't , and didn't in the end get it named after him, he was an explorer after all that what they do( a reltively mediocre navigator named Vespucci got that honor in the end. He prolly wasn't even the first to these areas(American continents) from the "European Continent", there's pretty good eveidence to support he wasn't. Yep, 'coz the Vikings got at least as far as Newfoundland, and quite possibly all the way to Maine. And only ~500 years before Columbus and friends.

[ Parent ]
Re: Actually, Columbus didn't do anything to.... (3.00 / 2) (#56)
by afc on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 04:25:17 PM EST

About the only part of your post that is accurate is when you claim Columbus wasn't the first to make it to the New World. Norse navigators made it to Canada before him, and Polynesian navigators (long before them) probably made it to the shores of Peru. None of that matters, of course, because they didn't leave any lasting settlements, or what was left of those settlements was quicly absorbed by the indigenous inhabitants. Of course, in Columbus specific case, it shouldn't matter as well, because all his American ventures amounted to complete failure and he died convinced that he had in fact made it to Asia.

Your definition of "Latino" is moslty sahky as well: what are generally dubbed Latinos or Hispanics, are immigrants (or their descendants) from Central and South America, the vast majority of which are a complex mixture of early Mediterranean (Spanish, Portuguese) settlers, native inhabitants and in some cases, black Africans.

Amerigo Vespuccio was not a navigator, but rather a writer of popular tales about the newfound continent, becoming so much associated with it that eventually, the land was named after him.

I fail to see what the "food chain" has to do anything perpetrated during American colonization.
--

Information wants to be beer, or something.
[ Parent ]

This is inane (4.00 / 13) (#41)
by trhurler on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 01:06:41 PM EST

1) As others have noted, Columbus himself did nothing to either Latinos or natives, except perhaps on a truly individual scale. Yes, disease wiped out lots of natives, but that was hardly intentional; Columbus cannot reasonably be blamed. If you want evidence of the truth of this, consider that his largest voyage could not possibly have carried more than a couple hundred men due to space constraints(ie, there is only so much room on a ship.) There were NO latinos at the time of Columbus' voyage; that ethnic group simply did not exist at all. How is it that he oppressed them(or even ONE of them?!) when they didn't exist? This is crass political pandering, rather than history.

2) Those who are comparing Columbus to Hitler, Stalin, and so on: you aren't just wrong, but you're wrong in a way that diminishes proper appreciation of the horrors these latter men perpetrated. If you don't know what you're talking about or are motivated more by hatred of dead white guys than by truth, why don't you just shut it? It simply is not possible to kill thousands of people, much less millions, when you have only a couple hundred guys of your own, especially with the weapons of Columbus' day, and even more especially when you're in a survival situation, which certainly applied to Columbus and his men.

3) There is NO ground for restricting the parade the story talks about; the judge is clearly out of line, and if the US properly enforced its own principles, he'd spend a year or so in the clink for gratuitously and willfully abusing the rights of citizens.

4) Warning: what follows can easily be misconstrued as racism if you're reacting instead of thinking. However, I apply it equally to everyone, including whites, some of whom are as bad as anyone else. The so-called "race problem" in this country is not caused by any insurmountable difficulty. It is caused by two things: "leaders" such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who profit more by dividing people than by bringing them together, and outright lack of education. Notice that educated blacks, latinos, asians, and so on face few or none of the obstacles that these idiot leaders would say are their inevitable social lot, whereas ignorant members of any race, including whites, DO face them. If more people did the work necessary to better themselves instead of blindly following morons whose only agenda is to amass more power for themselves, we'd all be better off.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

Re: This is inane (3.25 / 4) (#44)
by dimes on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 01:26:43 PM EST

I agree with almost all of this,....'cept that pretty much the Spainairds<sp?> pretty much whacked the entirety of the Aztec Empire with just a few hundred men. Funny what Iron Spears, Bronze Armor, and Hosres can do. As for the Education part, there is the argument that non-whites have a harder time getting access to decent education that whites. Yes, there are successfull people from minority backgrounds, but there are certainly not enough. And yes, there are disadvantaged whites, but there are certainly less of them than others from different backgrounds. Also, yes Sharpton has been know to say some inflamatory things, but Dang it! somebody has too. There is entirely to much complacency in regards to racism in this country, having someone throw a bucket of kerosen on those Lousey Coals of Hate from time to time lets us know we still have work to do. As for Jackson, well, he seems like a good guy, but he's also a politician, and that breed(politicians) are know to do some irregular stuff. Which goes back to us(as a human race) needing to grow up and mature and start thinking globally, not localy. Dimes Dimes

[ Parent ]
Re: This is inane (2.66 / 3) (#45)
by trhurler on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 01:40:19 PM EST

While many people argue, mainly using anecdotes and particular areas that need work, that nonwhites have a harder time getting a good education than do whites, I can say without hesitation that most kids, regardless of race, don't really even try to get an education, and those who do try seem to succeed almost universally. I went to a series of public schools that were generally regarded as among the best in the US, and what I saw was that even there, people slacked off, slept in class, and generally threw away the opportunity given to them. Until they, white, black, hispanic, or whatever, decide to stop doing that and actually care, nothing and nobody can help them. Of course, you can always try to show them this fact, but if they won't grasp it, you can't make them.

By the way, there are more "disadvantaged" whites by almost every measure the US govt keeps stats on than all other groups combined. I don't blame you for not knowing that, though, because the media certainly won't tell you.

And no, throwing a bucket of kerosene on a blaze is not the way to fight it.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Re: This is inane (4.00 / 4) (#51)
by beergut on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 02:45:15 PM EST

> Until they, white, black, hispanic, or whatever, decide
> to stop doing that and actually care, nothing and nobody
> can help them. Of course, you can always try to show
> them this fact, but if they won't grasp it, you can't
> make them.

Not only can you not help them, you cannot even let them know that this is the case. I, personally, had no problem with racism until I moved to a bad neighborhood (possibly one of the best, and at the same time worst, decisions I have yet made). Now, day in and day out, I deal with the race issue. Pointing this out to any of them (and I have tried - trust me) leads to one of two things: either they will see your point and do nothing in their own lives to better themselves, or they will cuss you out and threaten to kill you and burn down your house.

People are taught to be racist, whether by some sort of early indoctrination (ignorant parents tend to bring forth ignorant children), by concerted study and faulty logic (well, look at those African tribes killing each other and keeping their nations in abject poverty - that's what the crips and bloods do here - there must be a genetic link, obviously through the "black" factor, that causes this primitive and destructive behavior), or by constant and irrepressible observation.

I am tinged now by racism at times, but by the latter of these causes. I don't *see* the good black people in my neighborhood (though I know there to be a few). I don't *see* whites in my neighborhood (and, believe it or not, the vast majority of my block *is* white) doing stupid things, selling drugs, playing loud music and waking the neighbors at 2:00 AM, honking horns at all hours of the night, letting their kids run through the streets with no sort of boundaries set on them whatever, using "muhfuh" every other word in an attempt to convey just how fucking ignorant they really are.

What I *do* see, however, is that the good people (white and black) in my 'hood stay indoors, lead private lives, and leave the streets and sidewalks to the stupid. I, and my partner in this venture, am constantly the object of amazement because I *don't* hide in my house. I sit on my stoop with a coke and a book and *watch* these idiots - and they see me doing it and it makes them nervous as hell.

Stereotypes are bad, but they're stereotypes for a reason - because there is usually a grain of truth upon which to build the stereotype. Good-for-nothing white trash trailer-park crackers; dope-dealing, gang-banging, ne'er-do-well niggers; dope-smoking, low-riding, greasy-haired spics; ugly, ugly, ugly - but observable everywhere.

Little effort is made to show upstanding citizens of any race. I work every day with blacks, and count some of them as friends. I know lots of whites for whom race doesn't matter even in the slightest and, on my good days, I am one of these people (it is only when I am feeling hopeless that I let what I observe affect me). The only Mexican I've ever really talked to for more than a couple minutes was a "stereotypical" kinda guy, but helpful and with a good heart, so I count him among the human race.

The bad people, portrayed popularly and in the news, are really the "squeaky wheels", and it is because of them that there is so much enmity between the races.

End of rant...


i don't see any nanorobots or jet engines or laser holography or orbiting death satellites.
i just see some orangutan throwing code-feces at a computer screen.

-- indubitable
[ Parent ]

Re: This is inane (2.00 / 1) (#77)
by adamsc on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 08:53:23 PM EST

I have to strongly agree. One of the high schools I went to had predominently hispanic student body, many of whose parents were migrant farm workers. I also went spent two years at one of the better schools in the state. In both cases, there were students who tried to learn and a large majority who thought it wasn't cool to learn. Unsurprisingly, these are the ones who have McJobs and all that implies.

Yes, many schools are horrible and I quite agree that education in this country needs major changes. However, it would be wrong to blame the situation completely on the school system. I never once saw someone who wanted to get a good education who didn't (although there are some particularly bad schools where that is probably the case). The most disgusting thing I've ever seen are the [generally inner city] students who assume that doing well in school is somehow selling out.

[ Parent ]

Steoel and firearms (was: Re: This is inane) (3.00 / 2) (#64)
by your_desired_username on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 05:28:20 PM EST


  'Funny what Iron Spears, Bronze Armor, and Hosres can do.'

  You missed 2 out of 3.

  The spainards had *steel* weapons and armor, and primitive
    firearms. Steel may be mostly iron, but that little bit of carbon
    makes a huge difference when it comes to weapons.

  The spainards did *not* use bronze armor. They had steel, which is
    lighter, and provides better protection.

  Furthermore, keep in mind that the Aztecs were brutal rulers, and
    widely despised by those they ruled. Cortez found plenty of allies
    amoungst the natives (though they soon found that he did not treat
    them any better than the Aztecs had.)

  Higher technology gave Cortez an enourmous advantage, but I doubt it
    would have been enough without his allies.



[ Parent ]
Columbus isn't Hitler (3.57 / 7) (#42)
by Doscher on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 01:15:38 PM EST

While I think the obvious choice is to let the parade go on, it's simply because we as Americans have the right to peacefully assemble. It's not freedom to assemble over acceptable topics or freedom to assemble because no one disagrees but just to peacfully assemble. Period.

The other issue here are the posters comparing Columbus to Hitler. Hmmm. Did Columbus conduct a campaign to eliminate a race from the earth? Did he instruct staff members to experiment on them medically? Did he imprison and starve them? Nope. These are traits of Hitler, undisputed traits of what actions were performed.

Columbus did treat groups unfairly, and killed many people- but was his motivation the same as Hitler's? No.
Please people, just because you despise them does not take them to the level of Hitler. You can feel however you want to about anyone as a US Citizen, but try to keep things in a reasonable context.

Re: Columbus isn't Hitler (1.50 / 2) (#43)
by trhurler on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 01:25:45 PM EST

While I'm pretty sure that all honest and educated people believe Hitler did the things generally ascribed to him, I do find it ironic that you use the word "undisputed" to describe the support for that assertion in a posting that asks that claims be reasonable; nutcases though they almost certainly are, there ARE Holocaust deniers and such around.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Re: Columbus isn't Hitler (1.50 / 2) (#55)
by Doscher on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 04:19:52 PM EST

I tell you, I enjoey the postings on Kuro5hin for nothing if not the detailed and thoughtful analysis of any poster's semantics.

Point taken.

[ Parent ]
Am I missing something? (3.25 / 4) (#46)
by tokage on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 02:00:11 PM EST

Is it me, or is everyone getting caught up in the debate over Columbus being a good or evil person? As the author stated, "Whether or not Columbus was a slave trader and an Indian killer is not the point. Neither is whether or not the Latinos and Indians have been mistreated in this country. What is being debated here is whether a group of people has the right to celebrate a culture that they have adopted."

It has nothing to do with Columbus being a good or bad person, and everything to do with the opression(or apparent opression) of a group of people who wish to gather peacefully for a parade, to celebrate a historical figure, on the day he's celebrated nationally.

As far as racism etc goes, my view is to belabor it so incessantly fuels the fire. Words that people consider to be 'racist' and 'offensive' are just words, its the intent behind them which can be offensive. I can understand how people who have been treated less than fairly would be wary of letting their guards down, but if someone doesn't let it go it's going to continue to propagate in a circle, with everything people saying being able to be construed as racist by some group somewhere. Maybe I'm an idealist, but when i see a black or hispanic/asian/whatever person, all I think is "there's another person". Judging people on merit of anything except their character and the normal reasons one would like/dislike someone reflects on the person making the judgement poorly, and shows what type of person they are.

I think it's messed up though when I see someone, and feel I have to be really cautious and overly polite to them for fear of offending them, to the point of hardly being able to carry on a real conversation. The people I've gotten past that feeling with have been some of my best friends. Too bad the world isn't like that paragraph from Illuminatus! where the guy is musing about how if everyone's skin color was constantly changing, no one would know who to dislike, and the racial divisions would cease to exist.

Just my somewhat idealist/hopeful view, that people will stop judging others by anything but what type of person they are..who knows though, perhaps most of humanity in general is incapable of seeing past such distinctions, although I hope not, and have met a lot of people with whom it isn't.

I always play / Russian roulette in my head / It's 17 black, or 29 red

Re: Am I missing something? (2.33 / 3) (#49)
by dimes on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 02:24:23 PM EST

Oh.... well....I thought that part common sense. OF course they should be able to get a permit to march. I don't care if they want to put on plaid tu-tu's , smear peanutbutter on themselves and walk down the middle of the street. Just so long as there is nothing that says I have to watch. Its their right to assemble and party.....or something like that. Dimes

[ Parent ]
Some Denver history (3.20 / 5) (#52)
by wozz on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 03:17:39 PM EST

One thing I think no one's mentioned that should be said is that the city's issue with this is event is due to the fact that in the past, it HAS been violent. The last time a Columbus Day parade was held in Denver (1991 i think) there were violent protests, and the following year the parade was cancelled right before starting due to threats of violence. Soo...while a bit heavy-handed, and certainly un-Constitutional, the city's interest in keeping everyone happy with the parade is to avoid violence, as has happenned in the past. w0zz - a denverite
OpenBSD - A Better Solution
Re: Some Denver history (2.00 / 2) (#54)
by trhurler on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 03:40:04 PM EST

That's all well and good, but the solution is to arrest people who commit crimes. Remember that whole "presumption of innocence" thing?

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Columbus was not Italian (2.66 / 6) (#53)
by geremy on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 03:36:55 PM EST

I'm sorry but this is just stupid. Columbus was not
Italian. In fact there is very little evidence to suggest that he was from Italy at all. In fact most scholars believe him to be Catalan (which is a province of Spain, Barcelona being the capitol of Cataluna). It should also be noted that King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella were definately not noted for their support of the Catalan province.

Some Facts:
1) Columbus never wrote in Italian, actually almost all of his personal and public correspondance/logbooks were written in Catalan (the language of Cataluna, substantially different from Castillian [spanish] or Italian).

2) He ALWAYS signed things using his Catalan name (not Columbus, or the Italian form).

3) His chief military officer, chief medical officer, and a signifigant portion of the other officers on his expeditions were Catalan as well. It is well document that one of his best friends and (finance?) officer on at least the first expedition was a Catalan Jew. I believe his second in command was also Catalan but I cannot say for sure.

4) Upon returning to Spain to present his findings to the king and queen he landed in Barcelona, when he could have chosen a numder of other cities signifigantly more convenient for him and the Monarchs, such as Malaga or Valencia.

There are many other facts but you get the idea.
I know this does not really have to do with the censorship topic but I thought I'd bring it up anyway.
-- >>>-Geremy-->
Columbus myths (was Re: Columbus was not Italian) (2.00 / 1) (#61)
by your_desired_username on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 05:08:57 PM EST

<grrr> I have come across this claim in the past, but once   
  again the claimaint has not given any references .
  (Personally, I do not think I have seen good evidence 
  for Colombus being Itailian either.) 

Evidence is especially important here, as myths about 
  Colombus abound.

Please post some links.... 


[ Parent ]
Re: Columbus myths (was Re: Columbus was not Itali (2.00 / 1) (#75)
by Rand Race on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 08:32:54 PM EST

Here's seven links. I can get more if I go past the first ten results that came up in the search. (Three of the returns were for Columbus Ohio)

http://www1.minn.net/~keithp/
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/educate/columbus.htm
http://marauder.millersv.edu/~columbus/data/art/LAUFER02.ART
http://www.millersv.edu/~columbus/columbus.html
http://www.carmensandiego.com/products/time/columbusc10/plans.html
http://members.nbci.com/wolcottj/columbus.htm
http://caribbean-connection.com/christopher-columbus/

Sorry no hypertext, Net+ is being a bitch.


"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear." - Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]

Woops (2.00 / 1) (#76)
by Rand Race on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 08:37:55 PM EST

Slight misunderstanding on my part, these support my position not the original one.

I should have posted links with my original post when I was at work on IE5/Mac which can post anchor tags correctly, but it was quitting time....


"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear." - Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]

Re: Columbus myths (was Re: Columbus was not Itali (none / 0) (#81)
by geremy on Sat Sep 30, 2000 at 03:14:13 AM EST

Well,

I have reviewed the links and the only one's relevent to this thread are the 3rd, 4th, and 6th. The 3rd link even concurs that doubt exists as to whether or not Columbus was Italian, but states the "prevailing theory" was that he was born in Genoa.

The 4th link makes the Genoa Italy claim but makes no statements as to why or how it arrived at that conclusion.

The 6th link thinks that it is reasonable that he was born in spain in 1451, even though scholars do not credit this and even though the first document concerning him is dated 1470.

So I'd say those links are pretty inconclusive.

I mean, I agree POPULAR PERCEPTION thinks he was Italian. I'm just saying that if you look at his own logbooks and correspondence and crewmembers (of which are listed in the first link by the way), the primary evidence points to him originating from Cataluna.
-- >>>-Geremy-->
[ Parent ]
Re: Columbus myths (was Re: Columbus was not Itali (none / 0) (#91)
by Rand Race on Mon Oct 02, 2000 at 10:14:48 AM EST

They all support my contention in one way or another, those that don't address his origin address the launchings and return landings he made. None of them, except for one reference that he may have been born in Spain... or Corsica, support your's. No mention of Catalan in even that one. No mention of him having lived there, sailed from there, landed there, or having anything whatsoever to do with the place.

His subordinate captains are another matter entirely.


"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear." - Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]

Re: Columbus myths (was Re: Columbus was not Itali (none / 0) (#94)
by geremy on Mon Oct 02, 2000 at 12:12:28 PM EST

Please review my reply in the other mini thread.


-- >>>-Geremy-->
[ Parent ]
Re: Columbus was not Italian (2.50 / 2) (#62)
by Rand Race on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 05:12:33 PM EST

There are many other facts but you get the idea.

Yup, facts like: Christopher Columbus was born in Genoa, a city-state in what is now Italy.

Columbus pitched his voyage to the dogge of Florence and the king of Portugal before going to the king of Spain.

I've got a coworker born in Kiev, he writes in english, speaks in english, uses the anglicised form of his name (Fred instead of Schved), and has predominantly american friends. Is he an american? Nope, he still considers himself an Ukrainian.

As for his landings, the first voyage sailed from Palos (Near Huelva... between Gibraltor and Portugal in Andalucia), returned sighting land near Lisbon before returning to his ship's home port of Palos (except the Pinta which had been seperated and sighted land at Bayona before returning to Palos). The second voyage launched from Hierro in the Canary Islands and returned there after sighting land along the coast of Portugal. The third sailed from Sanlucar in southern Spain and returned under a different commander with Columbus in chains due to his misadministration of Santo Domingo. The fourth and last of Columbus' voyages sailed from Cadiz, lost all of it's ships in the carribean, and Columbus returned, after seven months marooned on Jamaica, as a passenger. He died in 1506 in Valladolid in Castilla-Leon.


"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear." - Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]

Re: Columbus was not Italian (none / 0) (#79)
by geremy on Sat Sep 30, 2000 at 02:53:46 AM EST

Hi,

My facts come from the Spanish National Treasury, Spanish Archivos. Sorry I could not find any hyperlinks. They have a good portion of Columbus correspondence/logbooks stored. Where does your fact "Columbus was born in Genoa Italy" originate from?

Furthermore I do not dispute the landing points mentioned. Only the fact that his first 'PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS' to the monarchs were made in Barcelona, Cataluna. He could have of course chosen a more facilitating location for both he and the King and Queen.

Furthermore, I do not dispute the fact that Columbus first attempted to obtain expeditionary funds from places other than spain. Catalans do not share the smae political views as Castillians, or many other Spaniards for that matter.
-- >>>-Geremy-->
[ Parent ]
Re: Columbus was not Italian (none / 0) (#98)
by Rand Race on Mon Oct 02, 2000 at 02:10:54 PM EST

A quick explanation of the sources from this link:

"There exists today a notarized document, drawn up in Genoa in October of 1470, which declares that Christopher Columbus, son of Dominic Columbus, stated before a notary that he was then 19 years of age...."

"... Another old record found in Genoa is a deposition drawn up in August of 1479, which shows that in 1478 Christopher was employed in Portugal by Paul di Negro, a Genoese merchant who had sent a ship to Chios in 1475.... In this document, Christopher describes himself as a citizen of Genoa, age about 27, and preparing to leave Genoa the next day to return to Lisbon."

And this site iterates my basic point:

"Though biographical facts on Columbus vary from author to author, there is general agreement among most scholars that Cristoforo Colombo was born in Genoa between August 25 and October 31, 1451..."

Hell, I don't know where he was born, but the common thought amongst historians is that he was Genoese. Me, I prefer Corsica where he can join Napolean amongst those of dubious national origin. ;)


"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear." - Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]

Re: Columbus was not Italian (none / 0) (#99)
by geremy on Mon Oct 02, 2000 at 04:00:11 PM EST

From what I have heard there is a question about this document in question...(I don't have the source or anything to back me up)

1) The Document states his name (and is signed?) as 'Columbo' or something similar, when in every other piece of correspondance/log he signs 'Colon' (or something similar). This leads to the conclusion that perhaps they are not the same person. More credibility is added to this theory by the fact that (and this is also mentioned in that same link) that he either must have lied a great deal (pathalogical liar type) or he would have had to be much older than 19 in 1470.


Bottom line we could go back in forth forever, but the evidence is inconclusive. I, however, put my trust in his own original documents, as well as his documented actions, which to me seem to show he is Catalan.

Also note that Cataluna at that time extends to most of Sardina, some of Sicily, Majorca, Minorca, etc.

-- Little History Lesson... --

It should also be noted that at one time (though I believe it to be way way before the 1400s) Catalunya and Genoa were the two most powerful nation-states in the Med. region, and Cataluna extended as far as Grecian ports. The Catalan kings once ruled from Sicily even. There were many skirmishes between the Catalans and the Genoese as well. So (and I could be way way wrong with the dates) you would think that if Columbus was Genoese he would not appreciate the Catalans so much out a nationalistic pride type viewpoint. Of course this is all conjecture, but as this is a discussion I just thought I'd throw it in there. Anyway Cataluna was way more powerful than Genoa at first, but then the marital aliance between Cataluna-Arago eventually brought the Castillians to power and Cataluna found it difficult to maintain the territory abroad.

ok so that last part was a little irrelevent. sue me.
-- >>>-Geremy-->
[ Parent ]
Re: Columbus was not Italian (none / 0) (#85)
by camadas on Sat Sep 30, 2000 at 11:28:54 PM EST

Well, not be rude, but there's also authors who defend he was portuguese, not catalan. Sorry, no links, i just remember someone publish at least a book about that. BTW the portuguese already knew that he was wrong, that is, the land was not India but another continent, that's why they renegotiated the world division with the spanish too include at least Brasil.

[ Parent ]
Blame it on poor education (1.75 / 4) (#58)
by adamsc on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 04:42:24 PM EST

One thing I've noticed is that almost none of the vocal minority groups actually care about equality or rights. What they really want is special treatment for people who agree with them.

Government sponsored/run events should be held to a higher standard (e.g. I agree with the decision to remove confederate flags from government property) but the people who filed that gag order need to be reminded that the first ammendment applies to all citizens. Perhaps someone could deliver the appropriate reminder via a civil rights lawsuit against them. (I'd love to see the whining that would cause: "When they insist on their right to disagree with me, they're oppressing me!")

The real problem is that people have gotten used to 1st ammendment violations. There are enough well-meaning but misguided individuals who've tried to pass legislation prohibiting things they don't like that the average voter doesn't tend remember that the point to freedom of speech is to protect unpopular statements. Combine that with an amazingly bad educational system and a media who'll do things like smear anyone who takes a stand against unconstitutional legislation as "pro-kiddy porn" and it's not surpising that things like this happen.

Government FUD? (2.66 / 3) (#60)
by not_again on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 04:45:08 PM EST

Gag order? How about the facts. "Denver Safety Manager Ari Zavaras said he never coerced anyone into signing the agreement. "It was my understanding that this agreement was a mutual accord." And with the parade organizers vowing to make mention of Columbus during the march, Zavaras said he has no intention of revoking the permit and "people have a right to protest peacefully. But the city's mission is clear - to keep the streets of Denver safe."

In the early '90s Denver experienced violence during rallies and parades by incompatible factions. I think the City is simply being responsible by trying to facilitate areements between "waring factions" which may decrease the potential for violence. When the KKK wanted to rally in the same place and time as the Martin Luther King Day parade, they were denided a permit until they chose a different location. Like now, there were cries of "government coercion and denial of constitutional rights". Gag orders?, nah, just responsible government.

In my opinion, the people who make and sign agreements in bad faith, and those who promise violence if they don't get their way are the real problem. I expect my government to take legal, reasonable actions to prevent riots.

Titec asks; "what is to stop your government from doing...". It certainly won't be people who rarely vote, never attend any meetings, and never write or call their elected represenatives. Whining to the Net is not very effective either.

Re: Government FUD? (2.50 / 2) (#68)
by Thaniel on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 05:53:36 PM EST

In the early '90s Denver experienced violence during rallies and parades by incompatible factions. I think the City is simply being responsible by trying to facilitate areements between "waring factions" which may decrease the potential for violence.

As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Freedom of speech and the right to assemble are integral to the constitution and should never be put aside. If the KKK can rally, I don't see why a bunch of Italians can't.

When the KKK wanted to rally in the same place and time as the Martin Luther King Day parade, they were denided a permit until they chose a different location.

That's different though. They aren't asking the Italians not to have their parade in the Native American section of town, they're telling them they can't speak about a certain topic. It's no different than telling the KKK they can meet, but they can't speak about white supremacy. As much as I don't like the KKK, they have the right to talk about whatever they want. As soon as you stop people from talking because someone else is offended by the topic, you start down the slippery slope of all out censorship.

Gag orders?, nah, just responsible government.

There is no "Nah." It is a gag order. And that is unconstitutional.

That is a long way from responsible government. I suppose we should stop the National Organization for Women from speaking about women's rights the next time they have a public meeting, since some people who disagree with them might get violent. Oh, they can still meet, they just can't talk about women's rights.

[ Parent ]
Boo hoo, white guys (2.62 / 8) (#70)
by brennan73 on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 06:12:06 PM EST

Well. The old arguments are out in force. Here are a few rejoinders to comments throughout the thread:

"One thing I've noticed is that almost none of the vocal minority groups actually care about equality or rights. What they really want is special treatment for people who agree with them."

Riiiight. Odd, I've been active in liberal groups for about 6 years, and not one of the people I've met fit that description; they all were outraged by the privileged status of certain groups, and were trying to level the playing field. But, I suppose "they want special treatment!" argument rallies the troops better than "let's maintain privilege!"

"I think it's messed up though when I see someone, and feel I have to be really cautious and overly polite to them for fear of offending them, to the point of hardly being able to carry on a real conversation."

I have no idea who you hang out with, but I don't recall that I've felt this way. The only people I've seen complain of this have generally been biased in one way or another (prone to making derogatory comments about women, for example) and feel oppressed when they get called on it. You may be different.

"I'm tired of seeing blacks, hispanics, women, etc. keep crying about the injustices imposed upon them in the past."

Yeah, segregation was so long ago, how could it possibly have an effect today? I mean, it's been, what, like 35 years since most public facilities were integrated! Practically an eternity! And women? Pah. They got the vote in 1920, didn't they? I mean, they make like 70 cents to the male dollar now; isn't that enough? And they've got like 5 CEOs of Fortune 500 companies and 7 senators. They may as well run the country!

They should all quit whining.

(Note: all the preceding numbers are off the top of my head and may not be 100% accurate. But, they're pretty close)

"Yes there are still oppressors in society, but people only make it worse when they rub their pride in everyone's face."
Okay, </sarcasm>. This is silly. Discrimination demonstrably exists, and the primary beneficiaries are white guys, but those getting the shaft should just shut up because it pisses the white guys off? And if they shut up, discrimination will go away faster?!? Oh man. That's funny. Where do you get your material?

Also, various people complained that there are black organizations (to use an example), but white organizations aren't allowed. Well, first of all, white organizations are allowed; Italian-American, Irish-American, etc. organizations abound in this country, and represent ethnic pride for white people. However, since black folks genrally can't identify their exact heritage (slavery made that kind of tough), they can only say with confidence that they are of African descent. Hence, African-American groups.

From a political standpoint, since blacks have less political power and constitute a numerical minority, they need representatives to specifically advocate for them or they'll often get ignored. Whites don't need such advocacy; they hold most of the power and a numerical majority. I expect that if blacks achieve parity in income, education, representation, etc., organizations like the NAACP will gradually fade away. For now, they serve an excellent and legitimate purpose.

In regards to the original topic, if the parade organizers want the march to specifically honor Columbus, they'll be able to do it. If the city puts up a fight, they're assholes and will absolutely lose in the courts. That said, IMO, if the parade organizers do this, they're not presenting the entire legacy of Columbus, and thus they make themselves look ignorant and/or spiteful towards their detractors. So, I hope they don't do it.

-brennan

Re: Boo hoo, white guys (3.40 / 5) (#72)
by RadiantMatrix on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 07:07:46 PM EST

I consider myself to be "ethnically balanced" -- by which I mean that I could honestly care less what race, background, etc. you come from. I had the advantage of being raised that way by my parents, so I guess it's easy for me.

That being said, many of your comments show that you discriminate in much the same way as those you are speaking against.

For instance, you say ...the primary beneficiaries are white guys..., but in many ways the so-called "white male" is the target of much opression in modern society. Firstly, if we were to erase the classification of "white" or "caucasian" and replace it with more ethnically accurate descriptions, we would have very few minorities in the US. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that separating the "white" people into ethnic groups would result in the "African-American" ethnic group (the most vocal minority in the US) would be the majority class.

While I do realize that there is still a lot of discrimination around, and that minority issues groups do much good, there is also a lot of "parallel discrimination." For example, let's talk about affirmative action (this is where organizations require certian percentages of minority groups to be hired). Firstly, it causes reverse discrimination: white males who apply may be beat out by women, minorities, or a combination of both, who are less qualified in order to meet quotas. Secondly, it directly discriminates against the minorities by assuming that they are unable (i.e. not skilled enough) to get jobs without a policy requiring that they be hired.

Minority groups do ask for, and sometimes get, special treatment. I think that they would do better to spend time on education, and more proactive concerns -- try to change the majority opinion -- than trying to legislate thier equality.

Notes: I am a German-American, I do resent being lumped in as "white." I also consider myself a feminist - I support equal rights for women, and realize that there is discrimination. Some will take my comments as racist - I guess that's their choice - but I have a very ethnically diverse group of friends that knows better.
--
I'm not going out with a "meh". I plan to live, dammit. [ZorbaTHut]

[ Parent ]

Re: Boo hoo, white guys (1.00 / 2) (#80)
by robl on Sat Sep 30, 2000 at 02:54:45 AM EST

I consider myself to be "ethnically balanced" -- by which I mean that I could honestly care less what race, background, etc. you come from. I had the advantage of being raised that way by my parents, so I guess it's easy for me.

That being said, many of your comments show that you discriminate in much the same way as those you are speaking against.

Stop. Before you go any further spewing your "reverse discrimination" doctrine, you strike me as the most dangerous type of racist. The person that IS racist, and doesn't know it, and then claims not to be and makes no further effort at understanding cultural differences. I really, truly hope you're not, but you naivite' seems to suggest otherwise.

And besides, "racially balanced"? Yucko. Try "multiculturally aware." 150 million more people will know exactly what you're talking about.

You may continue spewing.

For instance, you say ...the primary beneficiaries are white guys..., but in many ways the so-called "white male" is the target of much opression in modern society. Firstly, if we were to erase the classification of "white" or "caucasian" and replace it with more ethnically accurate descriptions, we would have very few minorities in the US. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that separating the "white" people into ethnic groups would result in the "African-American" ethnic group (the most vocal minority in the US) would be the majority class.
I think I know where you're going with this. This is a pure guess here, "affirmative action" Am I right?

Seriously though, if you tried to separate the groups with "more ethnically accurate descriptions" we would have more minorities, since you would need to take in all the different colors of skin. Not all blacks are, well... black. Some are lighter, some are darker, and some are albino. Seriously, I have seen an albino african american. ;^) You could also try separating them from countries they come from, but that wouldn't work either. There are blacks that have come from france. So are they considered, "French Americans?" Don't think so.

While I do realize that there is still a lot of discrimination around, and that minority issues groups do much good, there is also a lot of "parallel discrimination." For example, let's talk about affirmative action (this is where organizations require certian percentages of minority groups to be hired). Firstly, it causes reverse discrimination: white males who apply may be beat out by women, minorities, or a combination of both, who are less qualified in order to meet quotas.
I was RIGHT! You did mention it.

This argument has since lost it's umph since some white students were able to get free college tuition at a mostly black college under affirmative action. As 60 minutes noted, in this particular case white students were the minority, not the majority. So it looks like that wherever there is a minority (even if it that minority is white people) they too are covered by affirmitive action. So your parallel/reverse discrimination doesn't hold water, does it?

Secondly, it directly discriminates against the minorities by assuming that they are unable (i.e. not skilled enough) to get jobs without a policy requiring that they be hired.
You know I always thought "discrimination" prevented the advancement of someone, I guess I was wrong.

Minority groups do ask for, and sometimes get, special treatment. I think that they would do better to spend time on education, and more proactive concerns -- try to change the majority opinion -- than trying to legislate thier equality.
It's really hard to unlearn something that you were born and inbred with.
Notes: I am a German-American, I do resent being lumped in as "white." I also consider myself a feminist - I support equal rights for women, and realize that there is discrimination. Some will take my comments as racist - I guess that's their choice - but I have a very ethnically diverse group of friends that knows better.
Personally, I don't give a flying fuck what race you are. You could be black for all I care, and I'd still take you to task with your arguments.

But I will be polite and tell you at least where you're being racist.

Remember up above when you had this hare brained idea of bean-counting different minorities to show that whites were really a minority? You were so kind to yourself to give a country with your heritage, "German-American". That's because you do not want to be lumped in with the rest of the whites.

But when you counted blacks, you used, "African Americans." Africa is a continent not a country. So, did you ever think that maybe "Nigerian Americans" would like their own minority and not be mixed in with the "Ethiopian Americans" and the rest of the "black/African American" class that you were all to eager to put them in?

You may not be racist. But at the very least, you are very, very ignorant.

BTW, did you ever think that maybe your friends do know you're ethnically ignorant, but are just being polite?

[ Parent ]

Re: Boo hoo, white guys (1.00 / 1) (#82)
by ribone on Sat Sep 30, 2000 at 02:53:17 PM EST

But when you counted blacks, you used, "African Americans." Africa is a continent not a country. So, did you ever think that maybe "Nigerian Americans" would like their own minority and not be mixed in with the "Ethiopian Americans" and the rest of the "black/African American" class that you were all to eager to put them in?

I think all he was trying to do with that was operate within the bounds of the argument as specified by the original poster. Calling him racist because he's working within the discussion doesn't really work. As noted by the person who started this thread, most African-Americans have trouble tracing back their exact heritage. Hence, they prefer to be known simply as African-Americans. Conversely, a much higher percentage of white males of european descent can trace their lineage all the way back to their country of origin. Hence, they might prefer to be labeled in a certain way.

I think one problem with this whole question of race is that people get way too emotional about it, especially in this country. Sure, alot of injustice has been handed out by America, inside and outside of its borders; however, the WORST of all of it could very well be over if people would let it. If the rednecks down in SC would sacrifice a little pride and not make such a big deal about the stars and bars, perhaps things would be a little more peaceful down there. By the same token, other groups need to realize that when somebody doesn't take into account every other group's feelings about something, that doesn't automatically make them a racist. Perhaps that just makes them fallible, a very human characteristic.

This is the main reason why cultural perspective for an individual is so important. It allows them to sort out the important from the not-so-important.



[ Parent ]
Re: Boo hoo, white guys (1.00 / 1) (#83)
by robl on Sat Sep 30, 2000 at 03:15:45 PM EST

I think all he was trying to do with that was operate within the bounds of the argument as specified by the original poster. Calling him racist because he's working within the discussion doesn't really work. As noted by the person who started this thread, most African-Americans have trouble tracing back their exact heritage. Hence, they prefer to be known simply as African-Americans. Conversely, a much higher percentage of white males of european descent can trace their lineage all the way back to their country of origin. Hence, they might prefer to be labeled in a certain way.
I stand by my original statement. Nothing you said, has changed it.

You see, when you try to bean count minorities, how are you going to do it? The poster I argued with wanted to take a liberty that she wasn't giving to blacks/Afican Americans. S/he was trying to declare that white people were really a minority. And that's silly.

I think one problem with this whole question of race is that people get way too emotional about it, especially in this country. Sure, alot of injustice has been handed out by America, inside and outside of its borders; however, the WORST of all of it could very well be over if people would let it.
Asking southerners to change their way of life is difficult. Their culture is of rebellion. Like I said, it's hard to change something you're inbred with.

[ Parent ]
Re: Boo hoo, white guys (4.00 / 1) (#96)
by beergut on Mon Oct 02, 2000 at 01:29:51 PM EST

> Asking southerners to change their way of life is
> difficult.

As it is to ask anyone of any walk of life to change their ways. It is only when they see they have something to gain by altering their lifestyle (education, an easier way of life) that they will even consider it.

> Their culture is of rebellion.

Rebellion against what, may I ask? Just curious about your opinions on this topic - since you brought it up.

> Like I said, it's hard to change something you're
> inbred with.

And you don't find the connotation of this statement to be the least bit offensive?

You, sir, are a racist of the worst kind. You may be white, green, black, blue, or pink with purple polka-dots, but that statement still stands. Note that I direct this statement at you, personally, not at any sweeping ethnic group - just you.

HAND.


i don't see any nanorobots or jet engines or laser holography or orbiting death satellites.
i just see some orangutan throwing code-feces at a computer screen.

-- indubitable
[ Parent ]

Re: Boo hoo, white guys (none / 0) (#101)
by genisis on Tue Oct 03, 2000 at 02:06:55 AM EST

S/he was trying to declare that white people were really a minority. And that's silly.

The whole point of this topic is this, why dont you back it up. At my school, an uper-middle class town(irvine, CA) the asian population outnumbers the white. DOes this make the white a minority or the asian? How do you count a minority by state, country, county. If by county then hispanics outnumber the whites in SOCAL so whites are a minority... DO you get where I'm going at?

[ Parent ]

Re: Boo hoo, white guys (1.00 / 1) (#84)
by KindBud on Sat Sep 30, 2000 at 05:08:02 PM EST

I consider myself to be "ethnically balanced" -- by which I mean that I could honestly care less what race, background, etc. you come from.

And besides, "racially balanced"? Yucko. Try "multiculturally aware." 150 million more people will know exactly what you're talking about.

Let him speak his own thoughts in his own words. You knew what he meant, I knew what he meant. Respectful conversation is one thing, but pendantic political correctness drives me up the wall.

There is only one Human Culture, which has many threads running through it, some now dead, some still surviving, even flourishing. They all trace their origins back past the limits of recorded and discovered history. Each thread draws upon and is influenced by the others. No one lives in a vacuum. Certain advocates of Multiculturalism strike me as being not far in spirit from the worst kind of nationalists history has seen.

Not all blacks are, well... black. Some are lighter, some are darker, and some are albino. Seriously, I have seen an albino african american. ;^)

Wonders never cease. You betray your bias even while protesting that you haven't got any. What is so remarkable about an albino of african descent? Her skin color? I find it fascinating that you would choose this example to try and illustrate the point you were making.

There are blacks that have come from france. So are they considered, "French Americans?" Don't think so.

Have you ever paused to wonder, "Why am I compelled to devote all this thought and energy to devising and promoting a way to classify people according to their race?"

It's really hard to unlearn something that you were born and inbred with.

Indeed it is, as your post so amply demonstrates.

--
just roll a fatty

[ Parent ]

Re: Boo hoo, white guys (3.00 / 2) (#88)
by RadiantMatrix on Sun Oct 01, 2000 at 02:12:59 AM EST

Before you go any further spewing your "reverse discrimination" doctrine, you strike me as the most dangerous type of racist. The person that IS racist, and doesn't know it, and then claims not to be and makes no further effort at understanding cultural differences. I really, truly hope you're not, but you naivite' seems to suggest otherwise.
That's a heck of an assumption to make based on one comment... I really am not a racist, as I have been raised from birth to believe that race, background, etc. are simply variety -- and variety is the spice of life. Call it "color-blind" if you will. As for your claim that I don't try to understand cultural differences, that's quite bunk - I may have a lot to learn, but that doesn't mean I'm not on the path.
And besides, "racially balanced"? Yucko. Try "multiculturally aware." 150 million more people will know exactly what you're talking about.
Thank you for the pointer - I don't really debate racism or multicultural heritage often, and hadn't heard that term... *files it away in memory*
Seriously though, if you tried to separate the groups with "more ethnically accurate descriptions" we would have more minorities, since you would need to take in all the different colors of skin. Not all blacks are, well... black. Some are lighter, some are darker, and some are albino. Seriously, I have seen an albino african american. ;^) You could also try separating them from countries they come from, but that wouldn't work either. There are blacks that have come from france. So are they considered, "French Americans?" Don't think so.
Actually, I was using this as a purely demonstrative example - I don't suggest we actually do this, I'm just tired of "minority" dialogue. If the people of this country concentrated on what we have in common and learned to work together (while still maintaining our seperate cultures and heritage - it's simpler than it sounds) instead of fighting, we would all be better off. This goes to my sarcastic ending comments, which I'll get to later...
This argument has since lost it's umph since some white students were able to get free college tuition at a mostly black college under affirmative action. As 60 minutes noted, in this particular case white students were the minority, not the majority. So it looks like that wherever there is a minority (even if it that minority is white people) they too are covered by affirmitive action. So your parallel/reverse discrimination doesn't hold water, does it?
Overcomplexity always gets me in trouble. ;) Let me simplify the statement of my position: affirmative action, regardless of who makes use of it, causes a rift - and that neccessarily sparks prejudice. At the very least, the "majority" will harbor some resentment against the minority.
It's really hard to unlearn something that you were born and inbred with.
As the shirt says: "End Racism: Kill Everyone." You can't change everyone, but through proper education in the public schools, and active campaigns by minority organizations, progress can be made.
Personally, I don't give a flying fuck what race you are. You could be black for all I care, and I'd still take you to task with your arguments.

But I will be polite and tell you at least where you're being racist.

Remember up above when you had this hare brained idea of bean-counting different minorities to show that whites were really a minority? You were so kind to yourself to give a country with your heritage, "German-American". That's because you do not want to be lumped in with the rest of the whites.

As I mentioned above, I used this to illustrate a point. Perhaps I should have used a "sarcasm" identifier here. In all reality, I have a very mixed background which happens to be mostly German. I'm an American, and I am who I am. The reason I don't like being lumped in as "white" in these discussions is that people in general tend to assume that there is a "white, European" culture, and that's grossly untrue.
But when you counted blacks, you used, "African Americans." Africa is a continent not a country. So, did you ever think that maybe "Nigerian Americans" would like their own minority and not be mixed in with the "Ethiopian Americans" and the rest of the "black/African American" class that you were all to eager to put them in?
Actually, I was simply repeating what classification is commonly used, and what is being used in this discussion. As I said, as far as I care, they're green. :) Seriously, I often talk about my friends to others -- when they meet my friends they often say "Wow! I didn't know [s]he was (black/hispanic/latin/etc.)!" as if that was an important piece of information. In reality, that person's cultural background has more to do with their experiences in life than what "race" they are.
You may not be racist. But at the very least, you are very, very ignorant.
You assume too much. You think that I do not understand cultural differences. Well, for the sake of argument, I will bring up my German background - I have been called everything from a "Nazi" to a "Kraut" to "Jew killer" (I kid you not) - simply because I am German of background. I won't get into what other things I've faced, because I don't take it personally or dwell on it. But believe me, one of the reasons that I hate racism is because I know what it feels like - and I realize that what I dealt with was only a fraction of what racial minorities deal with. If you really think I'm ignorant, I'd love to continue this discussion in a private forum - e-mail me.
BTW, did you ever think that maybe your friends do know you're ethnically ignorant, but are just being polite?
Given the fact that most of them (but not all) agree with my views, no. These people aren't my friends transparently, we would trust each other with our lives. Besides, a lot of what I know about cultural differences comes from sharing with them.
--
I'm not going out with a "meh". I plan to live, dammit. [ZorbaTHut]

[ Parent ]
Re: Boo hoo, white guys (none / 0) (#90)
by robl on Mon Oct 02, 2000 at 06:35:41 AM EST

First, I apologize, for what I said earlier, and my veracity with the way I said them (I'll explain this further at the end). You aren't an out-right racist, nor are you ignorant. But you are at the very least naive.

That's a heck of an assumption to make based on one comment..
Go back an read your earlier post. You, yes you, yourself said that "some people may take your comments as racist". You conceeded that fact already!

Don't get me wrong here. I don't go around playing "spot the racist." But when someone opens a door, sometimes I have an urge to walk through it.

Actually, I was simply repeating what classification is commonly used, and what is being used in this discussion. As I said, as far as I care, they're green. :)
Well, then using that same logic would make you white. You don't want to be classified in a majority, but well, yes, you are. Otherwise you're setting a double-standard, and the appearance of racism. And that's how most of the lawsuits are won these days, the mere appearance of racism.

Now, about your arguments on affirmitive action. In most of the cases, the white people who not been hired are the barely qualified ones. They're at the bottom end of the totem pole. Instead of saying, "I guess I need to work harder to be more competetive in the workforce", they're saying "affirmitive action denied me a job," and then they appear on crossfire. And that's why there's a perceived rift.

However, I do believe we are getting closer to the time when we will no longer need it. Corporations today are going out of their way to hire workers of color with or without affirmitive action. I know my corporation keeps track of changes in minority turnover rates at very high levels in the company. And when corporations don't there's bad press and maybe lawsuits, such as Texaco, and Denny's.

As you're well aware by now, racism is never overt these days. It is a subtle thing that requires a high degree of clarity in your writings on the subject. And that's why I should apologize. It is veracious attacks like mine that scare people from taking part in serious discussions about race. And for that I am sorry.

[ Parent ]

Re: Boo hoo, white guys (none / 0) (#95)
by RadiantMatrix on Mon Oct 02, 2000 at 01:18:32 PM EST

Well, then using that same logic would make you white. You don't want to be classified in a majority, but well, yes, you are.
Actualy, my complexion is "olive." :P But seriously, I know that I'm white, especially when I forget to tan... But yes, I know that I am a majority member, and remember that I used the whole "German -American" thing to make a point: everyone faces discrimination. I think the emphasis of any anti-racism action should be anti-discriminiation, not confining itself to race. In all reality, I don't want to be classified at all!
Now, about your arguments on affirmitive action. In most of the cases, the white people who not been hired are the barely qualified ones. They're at the bottom end of the totem pole. Instead of saying, "I guess I need to work harder to be more competetive in the workforce", they're saying "affirmitive action denied me a job," and then they appear on crossfire. And that's why there's a perceived rift.
Actually, I don't pay attention to the popular media much, so it isn't a perception I've gained from watching TV or the like. In fact, I have been at the short end of an affirmative-action hiring. I had more experience, better references, and more education than the person they hired, who happened to be hispanic. Now, I don't begrudge him - he's a friend of mine still - but even he admits that he wouldn't have gotten the job if not for affirmative action. I just think that any system that discriminates (not always negative connotation) among people based on race is inherently flawed. Also, affirmative action was just an example of policy that is inherently discriminatory under the guise of being anti-discrimination... something that I think needs review.
As you're well aware by now, racism is never overt these days. It is a subtle thing that requires a high degree of clarity in your writings on the subject. And that's why I should apologize. It is veracious attacks like mine that scare people from taking part in serious discussions about race. And for that I am sorry.
No apology neccessary, you are obviously passionate about the topic, and I learned long ago to take tone with a large grain of salt.
--
I'm not going out with a "meh". I plan to live, dammit. [ZorbaTHut]

[ Parent ]
Re: Boo hoo, white guys (none / 0) (#100)
by genisis on Tue Oct 03, 2000 at 02:02:06 AM EST

But when you counted blacks, you used, "African Americans." Africa is a continent not a country. So, did you ever think that maybe "Nigerian Americans" would like their own minority and not be mixed in with the "Ethiopian Americans" and the rest of the "black/African American" class that you were all to eager to put them in?

So why are the whites clumped together? If a group is not clumpd together then organization would have no meaning, you have 500 groups.

[ Parent ]

Re: Boo hoo, white guys (4.00 / 3) (#73)
by robl on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 07:36:41 PM EST

From a political standpoint, since blacks have less political power and constitute a numerical minority, they need representatives to specifically advocate for them or they'll often get ignored. Whites don't need such advocacy; they hold most of the power and a numerical majority. I expect that if blacks achieve parity in income, education, representation, etc., organizations like the NAACP will gradually fade away. For now, they serve an excellent and legitimate purpose.
To be nitpicky with you, it's "They are a minority that needs representation," is incorrect. There is an organization that "advances" the Afican-Americans that happens to be the NAACP. No one is disallowing an organization for the "advancement" of White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant-Americans, whether or not the "advancement" of a Caucasion-American could be done.

But the problem for most of the groups like the KKK, CCC, etc, is that the only way to advance "white" people any more now, would be to start discriminating against the minorities. That realization has been something they have been literally slow to comprehend because of their relatively small headspace.

For instance, there are some issues that they could take up without being racist, eg.... White children make up 80% of all children in poverty, but black children get 80% of the media coverage on poverty. Too bad they didn't. Groups like the Red Cross, already beat them to the punch on it.

--R

[ Parent ]

Re: Boo hoo, white guys (3.50 / 2) (#74)
by adamsc on Fri Sep 29, 2000 at 08:30:25 PM EST

"One thing I've noticed is that almost none of the vocal minority groups actually care about equality or rights. What they really want is special treatment for people who agree with them.
Riiiight. Odd, I've been active in liberal groups for about 6 years, and not one of the people I've met fit that description; they all were outraged by the privileged status of certain groups, and were trying to level the playing field. But, I suppose "they want special treatment!" argument rallies the troops better than "let's maintain privilege!"
Do you really consider it reasonable to assume that everyone else has the same experiences you've had? Are you implying that your claim never to have met a holier-than-thou liberal somehow disproves the existence of the ones I've met in various national liberal groups?

You'll also note that while you assumed that I was liberal bashing, I never said anything which would support that claim. Attempts at getting special treatment cover every side of the political spectrum and, being in favor of equal rights, I oppose all of them.

I consider the conservatives who want to censor the internet to be just as misguided as the liberals who try to censor hate speech because censorship is wrong regardless of the motive. I'm disgusted by the republicans who decry individual welfare and then turn around and lobby for various corporate welfare programs.

Whites don't need such advocacy; they hold most of the power and a numerical majority
I'm not attempting to support the post you made this remark in response to, but this statement is critically flawed. The first mistake is assuming that there is a single white power-bloc; the second, and larger, mistake is ignoring the changing racial makeup of this country. The white "majority" in California is under 50% of the population and the same trend is evident in most of the country.

[ Parent ]
Latinos? (none / 0) (#87)
by blp on Sun Oct 01, 2000 at 12:26:54 AM EST

Why would the hispanic population be against Columbus? Didn't Spain sponsor his trip? Or is it just the Latino population that is also of mayan, aztec (or whoever else was native to that area) descent?

I can no longer sit back and allow: Communist Infiltration, Communist Indoctrination, Communist Subversion and the International Communist Conspiracy to sap and inpurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Don't say the "C" Word in Denver ... | 100 comments (97 topical, 3 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!