quote:I voted for Alan Keyes in the last Republican Primary.
Me too. I knew Bush was going to win (this is Utah, you know), and even though I didn't know much about Keyes, he really impressed me, so I figured he deserved another vote.
Posts: 586 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fallow, remember that the U.S. Constitution stipulates that the president must be native-born; he cannot be an immigrant, no matter how "Americanized." He could be the son (or she could be the daughter) of an immigrant, as long as the candidate is a U.S. citizen by birth.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dkw, I live in the northern Detroit suburbs. There is a large Spanish community in Detroit. I do not know of anyone who considers them to be blacks, unless a few of them are black Cubans. Mexicans and Puerto Ricans are usually not black, and many Cubans are not black either. So if they are not black, they must be white. I imagine such perceptions may differ, depending upon the part of the country.
I remember back in the 1950's when segregation was still in blight in the South, there was the strongest stigma attached to marriage between whites and blacks even here in Michigan. But I do not remember any comparable stigma attached even then to a marriage between a white (Caucasian) and a Hispanic.
You see, white Americans are almost all of European descent, and Spain is a European country.
[ July 14, 2004, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Weird. I've never heard that before. It seems to me that if anything, it's usually "whites" and "everybody else." No one in Arizona or Utah would consider a Mexican to be white.
Posts: 586 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Snarky, sometimes prejudices are stronger nearer to a large community of a minority. This seems to be true concerning Native Americans. Around the reservations or Indian nations, there is still a fair amount of prejudice among European-derived Americans against the Indians. But in most other parts of the country, if we have some trace of Indian blood in our ancestry, we brag about it.
An exception to this does seem to be the Hispanic community in Detroit. Even close around them, I don't think there is any appreciable prejudice against them, unless it is on the part of blacks. Blacks regard them as whites, for the most part.
Hispanic people are derived from Spain, although in the case of Mexicans, they are a mixture of Spanish and Central or South American Indian. But none of their ancestors ever came from Africa.
[ July 14, 2004, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I’ve never known anyone who considered Hispanics black. But I also don’t know anyone who thinks black and white are the only two options. In fact, there are few or no black people where I live. The options are white and “mexican” with mexican covering every vaguely Hispanic-looking person whether they come from Mexico or not.
And believe me, there is prejudice. Last fall when I was returning a call I dialed the wrong number. I asked for "Fernando" and got yelled at for thinking that "some mexican" lived at the house I called. The language and tone used made me want to wash my ear out with soap.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, There have been mentions in the Arnold camp that they would support an amendment that allows someone who was not born here to run. I think what was suggested was making someone be a citizen for 30 years. Of course he has not said that he would run if it was passed, just that it sounds like a good amendment. I guess being governer has gotten him interested in going further.
Personally, I don't see the amendment going through, but you never know. Though, even if the amendment goes through, he would not have a prayer in the republican primary. He is to liberal for republicans anywhere other than Cali.
posted
Why does it matter why? My mother taught me it's rude not to call people what they want to be called. This applies to everyone, at all times, and no matter how often they change. Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I expect an African-American man will be president before a woman of any descent. However, it really depends on the individuals. If we got someone Thatcheresque, we might get a sister in the white house.
My niece plans to be president. What will we call her husband? The First Gentleman?
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Find one person who prefers to be called Oriental. I thought there was a general consensus on this.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote: I was always under the impression that pretty much all Latinos were of mixed Spanish/Native American descent. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
My understanding is that there is a range. At one extreme are those who have pure (or close to) Native American ancestry; at the other are those who can trace back most of their lineage to the conquistadores. And in many parts of Central and South America, the latter discriminate against the former.
Members of each group (and all the shades in between) may self-identify as Latino, or emphatically not do so. It can get pretty heated, even among those who have been in the U.S. for two or three generations. (The bickering back-and-forth between some of the writers at UCLA's La Raza was very educational. )
posted
Maybe the older generation likes it because they are use to it but the I am pretty confident all the Asians at my school prefer to be called Asian. The only people that I know who refer to Asians as Orientals are the elderly and those that are not around Asians very much. I have never been called Oriental in my life and of course, would not be offended at all if someone called me as such- but I definitely prefer to be called Asian.
Why? It's loosely like why African-Americans are so opposed to the "N" word. Years ago the N-word was just a label (like African American) but because often times, it was uttered in a slanderous way, it became a offending word. When I think Orientals, I think of "those damn Orientals" and of a period in the past where Asians were looked down upon. It's also rather dated.
Here's what I found at dictionary.com
quote:n.
often Oriental Often Offensive. An Asian.
ori·ental·ly adv.
Usage Note: Asian is now strongly preferred in place of Oriental for persons native to Asia or descended from an Asian people. The usual objection to Orientalmeaning “eastern”is that it identifies Asian countries and peoples in terms of their location relative to Europe. However, this objection is not generally made of other Eurocentric terms such as Near and Middle Eastern. The real problem with Oriental is more likely its connotations stemming from an earlier era when Europeans viewed the regions east of the Mediterranean as exotic lands full of romance and intrigue, the home of despotic empires and inscrutable customs. At the least these associations can give Oriental a dated feel, and as a noun in contemporary contexts (as in the first Oriental to be elected from the district) it is now widely taken to be offensive. However, Oriental should not be thought of as an ethnic slur to be avoided in all situations. As with Asiatic, its use other than as an ethnonym, in phrases such as Oriental cuisine or Oriental medicine, is not usually considered objectionable.
posted
fallow, yes I do. I think that women's struggle to be afforded equal rights and equal standing with men is several decades behind African-American's struggle to be afforded equal standing with people of European descent. There are a lot of things people say about women routinely in our society that would never be said in any analogous way about people of color.
Douglas Hofstadter had a great essay he wrote in that vein that illustrated that. I wonder if I can find it on Google? It was purportedly by a writer called "William Satire". Ah, yes, here it is.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
fallow, read the piece I linked to in my previous post. That should illustrate what I mean.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that piece illustrates it exactly. Women are routinely still subject to discrimination that would clearly be unacceptable to utter in public did it apply to blacks. I think society is still in the mode of thinking that's how it should be, a natural fact of being, rather than a convention of society which is contrary to reality.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
more to the point. why would you choose an invectious satire written by a man to defend your point? doesn't that undermine your... beliefs, opinions, fancies... whatever you call those ramblings around in that silly cute little head of yours?
posted
Ah, maybe because his writings are the first I ever read by a man who actually understands totally the whole thing. Maybe just because it's an excellent illustration of what I mean, and it doesn't matter which sex the person who has a good idea is.
Fault? Meh. I don't think it's anyone's fault, really. People are naturally reluctant to give up any position of privilege. People are reluctant to give up ideas that they have always had, even when they conflict with reality. They'd rather try to force reality into line with their dearly held ideas. That's just human nature. People whose ideas do accurately reflect reality gain an advantage thereby, and that advantage can gradually, by fits and starts, encourage the idea to gain ground. There's no going back.
Societies who fully utilize the talents and abilities of their entire population outperform hands down those who subjugate large percentages of their members and relegate them to positions in which there are no opportunities beyond manual labor. The biggest shortage in the world is always and forever for intelligence. Failing to fully employ the intelligence and contributions of a large section of society is a no-win strategy.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was at one time a rational reason born of psychological necessity for men to regard women as second-class people, much less important than men. Go back in time three hundred years, and you will find that one out of five women died in childbirth. This means that virtually every man was touched by the death of a woman he knew--mother, aunt, sister, wife--who died because a man had sex with her. Men had to diminish the psychological impact of this, otherwise it would have been hard to continue propagating the species. If a man really thinks to himself that when he is having sex with a woman he is likely killing her, he must either trivialize the life that is being put at risk, or else be unable to perform, out of sheer horror and guilt.
It is no accident that the increase in women's rights and the general cause of the equality of women has only come after medical science has made death in childbirth a relatively rare thing, and women's equality only is seen today in cultures for which this is true. Third World nations which are less advantaged medically tend still to regard women as chattel, something lower and less important than men.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What sort of evidence do you have to support such a theory? I find it to be utter rubbish. Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what I think about it, but it *seems* reasonable to me, at least on the surface. Would you mind elaborating on why you find it "utter rubbish", ak?
That ascribes a certain tragic defense for male objectifying women.
I thought it was because women were responsible for the continued survival of the group, they were left to "safe" chores while the expendable men went out and did dangerous stuff like hunting.
Over time, men began to view women as property when there was a surplus and could thus be bartered to other tribes for useful resources or wagered like other goods as they were obviously inferior to men in all respects except for birthing ability and could even be recreational from time to time.
Just my rather cynical interpretation of history's funny quirks.
-Trevor
Edit: As women tend not to be as inherently physically powerful as men, they lost contests of strength that frequently determined who gave the orders. Which in turn made them lower than the weakest man.
quote: There was at one time a rational reason born of psychological necessity for men to regard women as second-class people, much less important than men. Go back in time three hundred years, and you will find that one out of five women died in childbirth. This means that virtually every man was touched by the death of a woman he knew--mother, aunt, sister, wife--who died because a man had sex with her. Men had to diminish the psychological impact of this, otherwise it would have been hard to continue propagating the species. If a man really thinks to himself that when he is having sex with a woman he is likely killing her, he must either trivialize the life that is being put at risk, or else be unable to perform, out of sheer horror and guilt.
Interesting theory. I have never heard or even conceived of such an idea before. But was death from childbirth really common enough to have this effect? What about all the men who died from their dangerous occupations or in wars? Seems to me that probably more men died then women. That seems to contradict the theory.
I think it had a lot more to do with how hard life was without modern conveniences and how separated the roles of men and women were. Men always had the advantage of strength in a brutal world.
Women bore and raised children and that in so many ways separated them from what men considered "the real world". Women required support and protection to be wives and mothers, therefore society molded them to be naive and dependent. They were seen much as children to be cherished or coddled, upbraided and punished--condescended to. No one took them seriously just as no one took a child seriously. That seems to make a lot more sense to me.
Again, the parallel with increasing equality and increasing modern conveniences.
I am glad that things have equalled out as they have. I feel that God blessed me with a good intellect, and I fear that would have been wasted in a previous age or that I would have lived a life of terrible frustration. I can't stand someone not taking me seriously because I am female.
Though I must admit, if women today acted like the women in the movies made in the 50's, 60's, or even the 70's, I would probably not take them seriously either. But is there any way to know if women of a past generation really acted like that or if that was just Hollywood?
posted
Yes, I know women of those generations, and I read their writings. There were no higher percentages of silly women in those days than now. Society did reward women who pretended or deliberately depicted themselves in a less than intelligent light, then as now. However, read Jane Austen or really almost any good writer through the ages to see that there were intelligent, wise, strong women in all times.
[ July 18, 2004, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, if that is truly the case, ak, I'm pretty ticked off at Hollywood's unflattering portrayal of women. I remember watching a movie for my film class (can't remember what it was now) where some guy kills a girl's brother. Naturally, she is furious with him! Then he starts kissing her and she melts into his arms. All is forgotten because he is ravishing me! Oh, oh, do that some more! Grrrrrrrr.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So if they are not black, they must be white.
Yes, it's entirely impossible that people could be discriminated against because their skin is a colour other than black. Here in Australia we have racism towards Asian and Aboriginal peoples. And now against Middle Eastern people as well. Of course, we could lump them all together as "blacks" but that'd fail to recognise cultural and ethnic differences. We could call all the Asian people "Orientals" too - after all, if it was good enough for 16th century explorers then it's good enough for citizens in 21st century multi-racial societies.
My apologies for the sarcasm but I just don't particularly like the labelling that has occurred at times in this thread. I'm sure those responsible don't see what they are saying as being offensive so don't think I'm attacking you guys. Stereotypes and labels are important because they inscribe the terms within which identity is formed and through which minority groups (or even majority groups such as black South Africans under apartheid or Amerindians in Bolivia today) are marginalised.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beverly, you should be irritated at the portrayal. THere have been strong, smart, practical women in all ages, and there have been women who got a great deal of attention for playing/being dumb then just as there is now.
In fifty years, what if women of today are assumed to have been like Jessica Simpson? That's even a "reality" show!
---
So, men demeaned and triviliazed women because they were just so gosh darn sensitive they couldn't have sex with them if they didn't? How sweet of them! How very sensitive! How caring! So THAT'S why they conferred second-class status!
posted
Unfortunately, a reality show I have not seen. I don't know anything about her, so I can't get the jist of the example.
Though from what I do know of reality shows in general, I can imagine I wouldn't be an admirable example.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*grin* I'm all right, EG. Had a great weekend and a good day today, so the world's okay. How are things for you?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Your theory is kind of lame. (I'll try to explain why if you like).
ak,
quote: Ah, maybe because his writings are the first I ever read by a man who actually understands totally the whole thing
I'm not sure it was THAT good, but that's a helluva endorsement.
quote: Societies who fully utilize the talents and abilities of their entire population outperform hands down those who subjugate large percentages of their members and relegate them to positions in which there are no opportunities beyond manual labor.
Nothing more curious than a woman who assume's the guise and mantle of masculine competition right down to 'splaining the best strategy for the home team.
posted
Not too bad, Kat. I have a chapter of my thesis due today so it was a weekend of staring at a computer screen. Otherwise - pretty peachy.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Here in Australia we have racism towards Asian and Aboriginal peoples. And now against Middle Eastern people as well. Of course, we could lump them all together as "blacks" but that'd fail to recognise cultural and ethnic differences. We could call all the Asian people "Orientals" too - after all, if it was good enough for 16th century explorers then it's good enough for citizens in 21st century multi-racial societies. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Unfortunately, a reality show I have not seen. I don't know anything about her, so I can't get the jist of the example. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Otherwise - pretty peachy.
