English-Only Advocates Whine and Moan Under Misspelled Banner

[calpoon]

Maybe she was a "parrot" scholar, and needed to actually express things in proper English...and she was unable to do so having been totally immersed in her "Latina" world. Not a good background for someone who would need to make fair judgments as a judge for all peoples, not just minorities and females.

But I digress... you make some serious accusations...can you point out a specific racist platform or declaration by the GOP?

The NAACP is a racist org, the Black Caucus in the Senate is a racist group, it's odd that you only mention White Cultural groups as "racist" bad, but leave out La Raza and other Racist groups ('cause Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, maybe?).

Well not exactly a GOP platform, but I would say the notion that being a Latina woman means she is incapable of making fair judgments to be a border-line racist comment. By that logic only someone who was in a multi-lingual multi-racial environment would be capable of making it... which I can agree with, and which is not the GOP platform. Since they are mostly Caucasian males, once again, by your logic they are not capable of making fair judgment about any other group of people.

And speaking of that, I would say making a judgment that favored that ethnic group (white people) by establishing English only and banning any other language that is fluent by other races/ethnic groups could be considered racist. Let me put it this way, if Barack Obama wanted to make Hip Hop the official national music and ban Country Western, would you consider that to be racist?

and again keeping in mind that the GOP is predominantly Caucasians and that same group makes up the majority of their constituency they would be considered just as racist as the NAACP and all of the groups you mentioned.

 

[calpoon]

ya know, it got me to thinking... this whole "English only" thing, they already tried it before.

LaRee Bates says the forced education program was “absolutely devastating” for the children and their families. “They were literally kidnapped, loaded on wagons or trains, and all of them thought at any moment they were going to die. When the children arrived at the schools, it was the first time they’ve been away from home.” Many former boarding-school students, she says, including her own aunts and a grandmother, found their memories too painful to discuss.

Hundreds of Indian boarding schools dotted the United States from the 1880s through the 1960s. The program was spearheaded by a zealous Army officer named Richard H. Pratt... Pratt believed that removing Indian children from their culture and subjecting them to strict discipline and hard work would force their assimilation into mainstream society...
The government hoped to save millions of dollars, “because it cost anywhere from six to ten thousand [dollars] for the Army to kill an Indian,” Bates says. “But if Indian children were put in schools and forced to change into ‘Americans,’ it would only cost a couple of hundred dollars per child.”
Pratt’s famous dictum was straightforward: “Kill the Indian and save the man.” School officials prohibited children from speaking native languages, and punished transgressors. “Every school had a disciplinary jail cell,” Bates says. Some even offered bounties for returned children.

http://web.txwes.edu/milakovic/Indian boarding schools.htm

 

[Member2019]

Re: And yet ...

I thought you were a Libertarian. Why would you care what people think about the Republican party and defend it?

It's just unbelievable how much we only hear half of the story. That last one was just more proof positive.

People on left-leaning boards complain about me "defending" Republicans, and then just accuse me of being one.
People on right-leaning boards complain about me "defending" Democrats, and then just accuse me of being one.

Again, I think this last example more than proves, once again, how much we get only "half" of the story here.
And that's why nothing ever changes, because people only expose what they want to.

 

[bodie54]

Re: And yet ...

And yet, it was the Republicans in Congress that got it passed!
That's what you guys love to "conveniently omit."
Is there any end to the one-sided bullshit around here?
Seriously, this more than proves it yet again!

Both parties in Congress "got it passed". The percentage voting "against" was higher among democrats because at that moment of decision there was a much higher % of conservative southern democrats in Congress than there would be subsequently, when most Dixiecrats, feeling embittered and disaffected by Johnson's (and the majoritys) "liberal" agenda, fled to the (on balance more appealing) Republican party, which welcomed them with open arms.

This issue isn't about one-sided bullshit at all. It's about a very real dynamic that significantly changed the face and nature of our two major political parties. Obviously a preponderance of institutionalized discrimination existed among those of a certain philosophy in a particuar section of the nation. The voting rights act targeted states with a history of and ongoing participation in discriminatory voting practices - which almost exclusively meant the south, which has long been a bastion of conservatism.

 

[Philbert]

Well not exactly a GOP platform, but I would say the notion that being a Latina woman means she is incapable of making fair judgments to be a border-line racist comment. By that logic only someone who was in a multi-lingual multi-racial environment would be capable of making it... which I can agree with, and which is not the GOP platform. Since they are mostly Caucasian males, once again, by your logic they are not capable of making fair judgment about any other group of people.

And speaking of that, I would say making a judgment that favored that ethnic group (white people) by establishing English only and banning any other language that is fluent by other races/ethnic groups could be considered racist. Let me put it this way, if Barack Obama wanted to make Hip Hop the official national music and ban Country Western, would you consider that to be racist?

and again keeping in mind that the GOP is predominantly Caucasians and that same group makes up the majority of their constituency they would be considered just as racist as the NAACP and all of the groups you mentioned.

:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2:

 

[Legzman]

2. If you're going to have a conference where attendees are likely to be endorsing "official language" (English) and English-only policies, #1 above is at least twice as important if you wish to avoid looking like a complete dumb-ass.
And if Pat Buchanan is at your conference, you can be pretty sure both of those topics will come up (in addition to a bunch of other racist shit).

Explain why the official language should be english and english only policies are racist?

 

[Facial_King]

Explain why the official language should be english and english only policies are racist?

I don't understand why you're asking me the first question (why the official language should be English) - I'm not promoting that idea. You should ask someone who's endorsing that idea. Or...did you mean to write "shouldn't"??

As for the 2nd question (why English-only policies are racist), well, they aren't, necessarily, racist, and I'm sorry that I might have implied that in my earlier post ("other racist shit") - I should have said "a bunch of other shit that's blatantly racist".

 

[ChefChiTown]

This is pretty hilarious. A few points:

1. If you're going to pay for a professionally printed banner, you should spell-check both your input and the finished product (whether you do it yourself or have someone else do it).

2. If you're going to have a conference where attendees are likely to be endorsing "official language" (English) and English-only policies, #1 above is at least twice as important if you wish to avoid looking like a complete dumb-ass.
And if Pat Buchanan is at your conference, you can be pretty sure both of those topics will come up (in addition to a bunch of other racist shit).

3. If the error had been spotted, even at the last minute, a nice blue felt marker would have been better than nothing, I think - again, especially considering the context.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/22/misspelled-english-buchanan/

That is HI-LAR-I-OUS!!! :rofl:

I'd give you rep for making me laugh with that article, but I still have to "spread it around" like herpes before I can.

 

[Legzman]

I don't understand why you're asking me the first question (why the official language should be English) - I'm not promoting that idea. You should ask someone who's endorsing that idea. Or...did you mean to write "shouldn't"??

As for the 2nd question (why English-only policies are racist), well, they aren't, necessarily, racist, and I'm sorry that I might have implied that in my earlier post ("other racist shit") - I should have said "a bunch of other shit that's blatantly racist".

no I meant to say should. It did sound like you meant those 2 policies were racist policies. I'm all for english should be the official language. Though it seems to be that spanish is. Anyway, thats a debate for another thread. As you were.

 

[calpoon]

:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2:

as usual you can't put your money where your mouth is. I did what you asked and told you how people could construe those things as racism. If you disagree feel free to tell me how I am incorrect in my assumption.

For those of you that might have a comprehension problem allow me to reiterate my point. Policies (such as English only) that favor one ethnic group over another can be considered to be racist.

So where are all these "constitutionalists" now to defend the right to free speech and free expression?

 

[Member2019]

Re: And yet ...

Both parties in Congress "got it passed". The percentage voting "against" was higher among democrats because at that moment of decision there was a much higher % of conservative southern democrats in Congress

Are you sure? Yes, no southerner voted for it, but check your numbers again on the north.
In all honesty, this continues to be utter one-sided bullshit.

Another example ...

On leftist boards, Clinton is praised for the positives in the mid-to-late '90s while the Republican Congress is blamed for all of the negatives in the mid-to-late '90s.
On rightist boards, the Republican Congress is praised for the positives in the mid-to-late '90s while the Clinton administration is blamed for all of the negatives in the mid-to-late '90s.

Housing and financing reform and related, alleged "deregulation," NAFTA and H1B explosion, the War on Terror and expansion of FBI powers, .COM boom (and bust), Enron's cooked books (among others), etc... all started in '95-99. Who's the blame? I guess whatever party you're affiliated with, eh?