View Single Post
Old 11-30-2010, 12:45 PM   #1
dreadgeek
Power Femme

How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme
Preferred Pronoun?:
She
Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl
 
dreadgeek's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,844 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852
dreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputation
Member Photo Albums
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DomnNC View Post
The point is that the people who reside in Arizona who posted in this thread have said, more than once, they voted and they DID NOT vote for her or her policies and they feel like they are still being slammed and grouped in with those who DID vote for her by all the "blanket" statements being made about people who reside in Arizona as a whole.


Except people keep bending over backwards to make it clear that they aren't saying that the people HERE believe the law to be just. Now, I am curious if a boycott and/or mass exodus of Hispanics is NOT the answer, what is? Let's grant, for the moment, that a boycott isn't the way to deal with this? What then? Obviously we know how this turns out at the ballot box--the backers, proponent and apologists for this law win. So if money continues to pour into Arizona then there is no economic consequence to be paid for this law. So politicians who backed the law pay no political price and the state, as a whole, pays no economic price. At that point what is there to discourage Arizona from passing an even more draconian law?

That pretty much leaves the mass exodus of Hispanics which I still hold would probably be the *most* effective form of protest. At first, one might witness the spectacle of Arizonans singing "na na na, na na na, hey hey hey, good-bye" and that would probably go through the wave. After that, well, it starts to have an economic effect. Suddenly there are a lot fewer people doing everything from washing dishes to teaching classes. As I said yesterday, when they leave their dollars go with them. Tax revenues decline. The tourism and hospitality sectors of the economy will be hit particularly hard as they lose cheap labor.

I get it that the Arizonans don't want any of these things to happen to their state. I fully understand that. However, it makes no sense to suggest that those either targeted by this law or horrified by it simply shrug our collective shoulders in order to avoid hurting someone's feelings.

Quote:
They registered their protest with their vote as you just said but are still being held accountable for every other Arizonians vote.
No, they are not. They are choosing to take a very justified critique of this law and the Arizonan politics that birthed it in a personal fashion. I'll try--again--to explain the distinction.

"In 1940, America was a fundamentally racist country."

Now, according to the logic being deployed here, I have just claimed that every single American living in the borders of this country in December 1940 was a racist. I have insulted--personally--every single American living at that time. Except I haven't. My parents were alive in 1940, both of them turned 18 that year. They were the *targets* of racism but they were not, themselves, racism. Does that mean that America wasn't a fundamentally racist country? No, the statement still stands because the *laws* of America mandated segregation in public accommodation, the military, etc. One can make the observation that America was a racist nation in 1940 and *still* not be saying something that any given person alive in 1940 was a racist. Likewise, one can say that Arizona has passed a law that is an invitation to racial profiling without saying that any given Arizonan is in favor of racial profiling.

Quote:
Just because they believe that a boycott is not the answer for their state does not make them bad people or complicit in what has happened by other peoples votes.
I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that the good people of the Birmingham Bus Company did not think that the Birmingham Bus Boycott was the answer for the problem of blacks sitting in the back of the bus. I'm going to also suggest that the good people of the Woolworth's company didn't think that a boycott of the Woolworth's lunch counter was the right way to deal with that manifestation of segregation. The targets of a boycott NEVER think that it's a good idea--that's kind of the whole point of a boycott is to motivate people to change the conditions that precipitate the boycott.

However, I'm all ears. If a boycott isn't the answer and a mass exodus of Hispanics isn't the answer, what is?

Quote:
Btw, I am a registered voter and I do vote in every election. You can't take a gun to other complacent voters heads and make them go to the polls. I agree that a lot of voters need a swift kick in the ass to get to the polls. There could have been a different outcome in Arizona if every registered voter did go to the polls but it is not our place to heap condemnation and group blame upon those that in fact did go vote and vote against the current administration there thereby registering their protest.
So at what point--if any--are people responsible for what happens in their locality? To use another (fairly) recent example; there used to be a country called Yugoslavia. When the Soviet empire dissolved, Yugoslavia broke up. What followed was, by even the most strict definition, a genocide of Bosnian Muslims and Croats by Serbs. I'll spare the gory details but suffice to say that in just one city, Sarajevo, which was under siege for over a year, atrocities took place daily. Serbs who were NOT involved, who wore no uniform, knew of the atrocities and did nothing to stop them. Using current American zeitgeist logic, the only people who should feel even the most trivial pang of guilt are those who pulled the trigger.

Cheers
Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community.

"People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett)
dreadgeek is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to dreadgeek For This Useful Post: