It's Time to Boycott Arizona

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Kobi

[FONT="Century Gothic"][SIZE="3"][COLOR="Navy"]Dread,

You can quote Brown vs the Board of Education, the Black codes, Pluessy vs Ferguson, the entire litany of racism in America. But, judge it by whose standards, under what conditions, and by whom?

Well, let's see--by what standard? Let's start here. Black people in the 19th century were not considered fully human enough to be citizens. Now either black people WERE human enough to be considered citizens but weren't, in which case an injustice was done or we were not, in which case, Jim Crow was no worse than we deserved. I would argue that it was the former and that there was an injustice. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

Your own leaders have said stop relying on the white race to solve racism for you.

Kobi, I'm going to say this once and hopefully I'll never have to say this to you again because the next time I have to say it I won't be anywhere near as polite. It is an extraordinarily bad idea to attempt to plug me into the slot labeled "angry black woman who tries to blame white people for all the conditions of her life". I'm not that woman. No one who has ever read anything I've posted on the Internet can justifiably put me in that slot. You haven't read a lot of my posts so perhaps you don't realize this but I hold only myself responsible for the conditions of my life and, as my local friends and my wife will tell you, I push myself extraordinarily hard. One of the things I use to do so is the following: "to be a successful black person in America you have to strive to be the smartest person in the room--every room, every time. Not pretend to be, not puff yourself up to be, but to ACTUALLY be. You show up early, you stay late. If the average for your field is a bachelor's get a masters. If a master's get a doctorate. If you do ALL of that and still don't get the goodies--then and only then can you call it racism". If you are going to try to put me in the category of 'angry black woman who blames white people for the conditions of her life' you are going to look quite the fool and so take this as a friendly warning against such a doom-ridden path. I don't take insult at much that is said on these boards, the sentence I quoted from you above I take as an insult.

Being brutally honest about the history of race in America isn't espousing racism. Pointing out racial injustice isn't espousing racism. If it is then that list of black men you just pulled out of the hat to try to bolster a point that is flailing about ALL espoused racism. If battling injustice or pointing it out is espousing racism, then MLK also espoused racism. You don't get to have it both ways and invoke black people you've never read in depth to try to prop up a point while simultaneously claim that other blacks (or other non-whites) are 'playing the race card' when those blacks you invoke would ALSO be playing that same card. Secondly, just because a black person brings up the history of race in America does not mean that she is 'relying on the white race to solve racism'. I do not now, nor have I ever, posted anything on this or any other message board that could be read as blaming white people for the condition of my life in even the most wild-eyed interpretation. You will never read anything from me along those lines because it is not how I think. However, I am not going to do you or any other white person the favor of developing convenient historical amnesia and pretend that Jim Crow wasn't profoundly unjust nor am I going to do you the favor of pretending that perhaps there was a point to Jim Crow and maybe it wasn't a bad thing.

I KNOW it was a bad thing, Kobi because black people are human and human beings should not be treated in the way blacks were under segregation. By whose standards? By ANY standard that recognizes that all people are human beings and deserving of some baseline amount of justice, equality and respect. You may not hold to that standard, you may want to play games and say "who is to say if it was wrong to say black people aren't fully human and by what standard" but I'm not in the least bit obliged to go along with it. Until such time as you can demonstrate that I and the people I am genetically related to are not exactly members of Homo sapiens sapiens then segregation was wrong--by any standard that recognizes human beings as human beings and deserving to those things we hold to be self-evidently true.

Booker Washington. W.E. B. DuBois, Marcus Garvey, Malcom X. Louis Farrakhan all espoused a different philosophy of empowering yourself by taking the control of your own lives. Here is the reference for those who need it for words to have any relevance

At any rate does this have to do with ANYTHING? I was using race as an example of an idea because you claimed that the diversity of ideas--without qualification--is what makes America strong. I was asking--and you have avoided answering--what about racist ideas made America stronger such that now that those ideas are (or were) in attenuation the nation is less strong than when racist ideas were widespread and socially acceptable? So are you saying that my using the history of race in America to demonstrate how intellectually bankrupt the idea that any idea is something that should be accepted no matter how sound it is or isn't, I am somehow saying that white people are responsible for the conditions of my life?

I'm curious, have you actually read either Washington or DuBois? Farrakhan is a clown and a charlatan at best.

Did Obama become President because he espoused racism? He got an education, he has ideas people were ready for, he was willing to listen, he knew he had to compromise. You dont succeed by beating people over the head because they disagree with you.

Kobi, not to put too fine a point on the matter but I have forgotten more about what it takes for a black person to be successful in America than you will ever realize that there is to learn. If you were to live as long as Methuselah you would still never know half of what I know about what it takes to be successful in America if you are black.

Now back to immigration and the Arizona law.....everyone wants to brand me a a racist because I dont "critically think as they do". So be it. I look at the larger picture of immigration and how policy affects the quality of life in America. A solid immigration policy based on economics served us well when we were a growing industrialized nation. And immigrants made tremendous contributions to what this country has become. Immigrants who circumvent the system cause problems for all of us. I wont even bother to go into the ways this a problematical cuz none of you even bother to listen.

You know what's really interesting to me? When we were a growing industrial economy CERTAIN immigrants were okay but certain other ones were not. The Irish weren't okay--when we were a growing industrial economy and then they became okay. The Italians weren't okay when we were a growing industrial economy--and then they became okay. Then it was the Chinese and the Japanese and it took a tad bit longer for them to become okay. And the Jews, of course, had their turn of not being okay. This isn't the first time America has had one of these paroxysms of anti-immigration hysteria and the language has always been precisely the same and in a couple of generations everyone will once again be claiming how immigration makes America stronger and pretending that 20 years earlier, they weren't screaming at the top of their lungs about the latest group to come over the border.

Do I like the idea of American citizens being subjected to having to prove they are citizens? About as much as I like being humiliated at an airport as a potential terror threat because I use liquid soap. Is it a good idea or a bad idea and by whose standards?

So, Kobi, do you like the idea of American citizens being subjected to humiliation because they happen to share a phenotypic trait with someone who was born in Mexico and is here picking strawberries? Are you okay with that?

When we were rounding up all the Japanese in this country and putting them in camps when Pearl Harbor was attacked...no one thought twice about it. Was it a good idea? Maybe at the time, who knows.

Actually, people did think twice about it. They thought twice about it so much that eventually the United States government apologized for violating the civil rights of US citizens. And if you read ANYTHING about the period, you realize that, in fact, it wasn't necessary.

And immigration issues do NOT just affect persons of color or ethnicity.

When I hear about Seamus who overstayed his visa being stopped for driving while Irish I'll give that some credence. However, here in the real world the people who need to be careful to have their ID on them--including a birth certificate--when they are out walking the dog are all brown-skinned. Like I said, when I hear about it happening to a white person who some cop thinks looks like he or she overstayed their visa from Ireland, I'll change my tune.

Here in Mass. if you want the state mandatory health insurance or a driver license, you had damn well have proof of citizenship. It affects all groups, all colors, all nationalities, all socio-economic groups. Arizona is just more blatant about it. Amazes me that the feds or the aclu havent sought an injunction pending review and makes me wonder why.

The ACLU HAS sought in injunction and it is working its way through the courts (it's amazing what happens when you pay attention to these things) and the Feds have *also* said that they will challenge the law (again, fascinating what you learn when you actually look into an issue).

What annoys me most on these forums is when one has a different point of view, others feel it is their right to belittle them, to call them names, and be generally rude. They would not like it if I went around doing the same to them but it is ok for them to do it to me and others under the guise of racism.

I'm sorry but I don't see folks who are arguing against a racist law as being racist.

Aj

[Kobi]

dread,

I have always respected you for the way you communicate ideas and provide history. I did not in any way intend to say anything about you being an angry black person. I apologize for anything that could have been interpreted this way.

We are back to standards... and can you go back in time and apply todays standards to yesterdays reality. Kind of difficult to do. What people believe changes over time thru experiences and new thoughts. What is appropriate today wasnt seen as totally acceptable at the time of the civil war. Can we apply todays standards and judge people for having adhered to the prevailing thought? It is counterproductive.


[At any rate does this have to do with ANYTHING? I was using race as an example of an idea because you claimed that the diversity of ideas--without qualification--is what makes America strong. I was asking--and you have avoided answering--what about racist ideas made America stronger such that now that those ideas are (or were) in attenuation the nation is less strong than when racist ideas were widespread and socially acceptable? So are you saying that my using the history of race in America to demonstrate how intellectually bankrupt the idea that any idea is something that should be accepted no matter how sound it is or isn't, I am somehow saying that white people are responsible for the conditions of my life? ]

I will answer you tho I am not sure what you are truly asking here. And let me finish before you jump on me cuz what I am saying and what you might think I am saying are two different things. Hatred of any kind does make us stronger people. Why? Because it gives us room to grow and develop and see things differently. If we were all purple and all thought the same and did the same and had the same, we would be a pretty boring species. But we are different. And as times change, thoughts and behaviors and beliefs change as well. What we believed 10 years ago is not what we believe today nor is today what we will believe tomorrow. This is a philosophical discussion best suited elsewhere...suffice to say that conflict leads to new thoughts and ways of being.....how can the potential for growth and development be a bad thing?

I might be misreading you but I hear you saying I think immigration is a bad thing. I dont. My family was immigrated here and we Italians in Providence were not allowed to walk on the sidewalks or the Irish would kick our asses.

Controlled immigration is done for a reason...the least of which is to allow in numbers which can be absorbed into a society, an economic system, a socal structure, the fabric of American life. Uncontrolled immigration poses many problems...you know that. If it didnt, all countries would throw open their borders and say come one, come all. They dont, and they dont for reasons.
How many times have we heard of American towns not cities towns having their population double almost overnight from legal immigration? And how they struggled to deal with it to the point of asking this particular group of peoples to stagger their arrivals because they didnt have the jobs, housing or other services to accomodate them? It is not a simple issue.

I still find it hard to believe that the aclu and the feds require months and months to get an injunction. Maybe I am naive but it seems there might be another reason for the delay.

[I'm sorry but I don't see folks who are arguing against a racist law as being racist.] dread, again, who is saying it is a racist law? A legislature passed it, a governor signed it. Who's perspective makes it racist? Yours? Mine? Without judgement, it is just a law. With judgement applied by differing groups of people, it is a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective. Does this make you right and me wrong or me right or you wrong? Or does it mean we just are looking at something given our respective experiences and coming to somewhat different conclusions?

Isnt that what this country is about? We, as a people, cannot even agree on "all men are created equal" means. When it was written it meant alll white men. Then it meant white and other men. People can fall back on that tidbit and say constitution says nothing about women so what are women?

Absolutes are problematical in anything because knowledge and values and beliefs change. All I ask for is to not be belittled or called names because I state a reality different from someone elses reality.

I dont think it is too much to ask.



[/FONT]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Well, let's see--by what standard? Let's start here. Black people in the 19th century were not considered fully human enough to be citizens. Now either black people WERE human enough to be considered citizens but weren't, in which case an injustice was done or we were not, in which case, Jim Crow was no worse than we deserved. I would argue that it was the former and that there was an injustice. Your mileage, of course, may vary.



Kobi, I'm going to say this once and hopefully I'll never have to say this to you again because the next time I have to say it I won't be anywhere near as polite. It is an extraordinarily bad idea to attempt to plug me into the slot labeled "angry black woman who tries to blame white people for all the conditions of her life". I'm not that woman. No one who has ever read anything I've posted on the Internet can justifiably put me in that slot. You haven't read a lot of my posts so perhaps you don't realize this but I hold only myself responsible for the conditions of my life and, as my local friends and my wife will tell you, I push myself extraordinarily hard. One of the things I use to do so is the following: "to be a successful black person in America you have to strive to be the smartest person in the room--every room, every time. Not pretend to be, not puff yourself up to be, but to ACTUALLY be. You show up early, you stay late. If the average for your field is a bachelor's get a masters. If a master's get a doctorate. If you do ALL of that and still don't get the goodies--then and only then can you call it racism". If you are going to try to put me in the category of 'angry black woman who blames white people for the conditions of her life' you are going to look quite the fool and so take this as a friendly warning against such a doom-ridden path. I don't take insult at much that is said on these boards, the sentence I quoted from you above I take as an insult.

Being brutally honest about the history of race in America isn't espousing racism. Pointing out racial injustice isn't espousing racism. If it is then that list of black men you just pulled out of the hat to try to bolster a point that is flailing about ALL espoused racism. If battling injustice or pointing it out is espousing racism, then MLK also espoused racism. You don't get to have it both ways and invoke black people you've never read in depth to try to prop up a point while simultaneously claim that other blacks (or other non-whites) are 'playing the race card' when those blacks you invoke would ALSO be playing that same card. Secondly, just because a black person brings up the history of race in America does not mean that she is 'relying on the white race to solve racism'. I do not now, nor have I ever, posted anything on this or any other message board that could be read as blaming white people for the condition of my life in even the most wild-eyed interpretation. You will never read anything from me along those lines because it is not how I think. However, I am not going to do you or any other white person the favor of developing convenient historical amnesia and pretend that Jim Crow wasn't profoundly unjust nor am I going to do you the favor of pretending that perhaps there was a point to Jim Crow and maybe it wasn't a bad thing.

I KNOW it was a bad thing, Kobi because black people are human and human beings should not be treated in the way blacks were under segregation. By whose standards? By ANY standard that recognizes that all people are human beings and deserving of some baseline amount of justice, equality and respect. You may not hold to that standard, you may want to play games and say "who is to say if it was wrong to say black people aren't fully human and by what standard" but I'm not in the least bit obliged to go along with it. Until such time as you can demonstrate that I and the people I am genetically related to are not exactly members of Homo sapiens sapiens then segregation was wrong--by any standard that recognizes human beings as human beings and deserving to those things we hold to be self-evidently true.



At any rate does this have to do with ANYTHING? I was using race as an example of an idea because you claimed that the diversity of ideas--without qualification--is what makes America strong. I was asking--and you have avoided answering--what about racist ideas made America stronger such that now that those ideas are (or were) in attenuation the nation is less strong than when racist ideas were widespread and socially acceptable? So are you saying that my using the history of race in America to demonstrate how intellectually bankrupt the idea that any idea is something that should be accepted no matter how sound it is or isn't, I am somehow saying that white people are responsible for the conditions of my life?

I'm curious, have you actually read either Washington or DuBois? Farrakhan is a clown and a charlatan at best.



Kobi, not to put too fine a point on the matter but I have forgotten more about what it takes for a black person to be successful in America than you will ever realize that there is to learn. If you were to live as long as Methuselah you would still never know half of what I know about what it takes to be successful in America if you are black.



You know what's really interesting to me? When we were a growing industrial economy CERTAIN immigrants were okay but certain other ones were not. The Irish weren't okay--when we were a growing industrial economy and then they became okay. The Italians weren't okay when we were a growing industrial economy--and then they became okay. Then it was the Chinese and the Japanese and it took a tad bit longer for them to become okay. And the Jews, of course, had their turn of not being okay. This isn't the first time America has had one of these paroxysms of anti-immigration hysteria and the language has always been precisely the same and in a couple of generations everyone will once again be claiming how immigration makes America stronger and pretending that 20 years earlier, they weren't screaming at the top of their lungs about the latest group to come over the border.



So, Kobi, do you like the idea of American citizens being subjected to humiliation because they happen to share a phenotypic trait with someone who was born in Mexico and is here picking strawberries? Are you okay with that?



Actually, people did think twice about it. They thought twice about it so much that eventually the United States government apologized for violating the civil rights of US citizens. And if you read ANYTHING about the period, you realize that, in fact, it wasn't necessary.



When I hear about Seamus who overstayed his visa being stopped for driving while Irish I'll give that some credence. However, here in the real world the people who need to be careful to have their ID on them--including a birth certificate--when they are out walking the dog are all brown-skinned. Like I said, when I hear about it happening to a white person who some cop thinks looks like he or she overstayed their visa from Ireland, I'll change my tune.



The ACLU HAS sought in injunction and it is working its way through the courts (it's amazing what happens when you pay attention to these things) and the Feds have *also* said that they will challenge the law (again, fascinating what you learn when you actually look into an issue).



I'm sorry but I don't see folks who are arguing against a racist law as being racist.

Aj

[The_Lady_Snow]

Originally Posted by Kobi

. And let me finish before you jump on me cuz . If



[I'm sorry but I don't see folks who are arguing against a racist law as being racist.] dread, again, who is saying it is a racist law? A legislature passed it, a governor signed it. Who's perspective makes it racist? Yours? Mine? Without judgement, it is just a law. With judgement applied by differing groups of people, it is a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective. Does this make you right and me wrong or me right or you wrong? Or does it mean we just are looking at something given our respective experiences and coming to somewhat different conclusions?




[/FONT]

Once again, this law is targeting a specific group of people by HOW THEY LOOK AND THEIR SKIN COLOR....

How you can not see this is beyond my comprehension.

American citizens HAVE been affected and detained BECAUSE of this law.

It's a sneaky way to target a group of people...

It's not really that hard to see.

Well unless you don't want to and are comfy with anything other than white being tagged with a bullet on your back.

Just sayin

[SuperFemme]

If the AZ law is not racist? Then how do the police come to a reasonable suspicion that a person is here without permission? The only way is by skin color. Perhaps accent?

What about HB 2281?

While HB 2281 includes an exemption for the Holocaust, it makes it illegal to promote class resentment of any race or class of people. So how are teachers supposed to instruct African-American students about slavery? Or Asian-American students about the internment camps? Many great authors, including Dickens, Wharton, and Dostoyevsky, delve deeply into themes of class resentment. Does teaching them add up to “promoting race resentment?” Are their books to be stricken from curriculums in the Grand Canyon State?

I also question Governor Brewer’s motives. According to the National Education Association, Arizona ranks 50th in expenditure per pupil in grades K-12.

Ethnic studies courses are important because mainstream curriculums often overlook the contributions of minorities. They help put the salad bowl that is the United States into perspective.



Ideally, all students would learn about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and César Chávez along with other great Americans. But until that day comes, niche classes fill the void. On top of that, researchers have found that minority kids are more likely to succeed academically as a result of a multicultural course of study.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Kobi

dread,

I have always respected you for the way you communicate ideas and provide history. I did not in any way intend to say anything about you being an angry black person. I apologize for anything that could have been interpreted this way.

Thank you. Apology accepted.

We are back to standards... and can you go back in time and apply todays standards to yesterdays reality. Kind of difficult to do. What people believe changes over time thru experiences and new thoughts. What is appropriate today wasnt seen as totally acceptable at the time of the civil war. Can we apply todays standards and judge people for having adhered to the prevailing thought? It is counterproductive.

I think that there are times we can. If, for instance, someone asked me if I thought that the Nazi take on Jews was at all correct, had any basis in fact, I would say no it didn't and that what happened in Germany between 1932 and 1945 was immoral. In the same vein, I would say that the idea that, say, my grandmother (born in 1903) wasn't really a full human being such that she was capable of the full range of thought and ability and that therefore, her constrained choices were no worse than she deserved was wrong. I understand that you do not think that we can say that it was wrong and therefore cannot say that what happened to her was unjust but I disagree. So, okay--to you segregation wasn't an injustice but my family experienced it as an injustice and we were fully human back in 1903 and in 1922 and in 1963 and in 1967. I get it that you think that maybe those folks in those years who said we weren't might have had a point, again I disagree. I didn't become human because the mores changed, the mores changed because enough people finally started to internalize the idea that blacks were human.
I understand that, to you, expressing absolutes--even the absolute that I am a human being--is problematic but I disagree.

[At any rate does this have to do with ANYTHING? I was using race as an example of an idea because you claimed that the diversity of ideas--without qualification--is what makes America strong. I was asking--and you have avoided answering--what about racist ideas made America stronger such that now that those ideas are (or were) in attenuation the nation is less strong than when racist ideas were widespread and socially acceptable? So are you saying that my using the history of race in America to demonstrate how intellectually bankrupt the idea that any idea is something that should be accepted no matter how sound it is or isn't, I am somehow saying that white people are responsible for the conditions of my life?

I will answer you tho I am not sure what you are truly asking here. And let me finish before you jump on me cuz what I am saying and what you might think I am saying are two different things. Hatred of any kind does make us stronger people. Why? Because it gives us room to grow and develop and see things differently. If we were all purple and all thought the same and did the same and had the same, we would be a pretty boring species. But we are different.

I'm going to tell you something about my family. My father grew up without a father because some white folks decided to hang his father from a tree. My mother lost one of her brothers because some *other* white folks decided to hang him from a tree. My father's brother wasn't able to go to college because he couldn’t serve in WW II because some white man ran him down and his leg never fully recovered and he never was able to walk right again. Now I want you to keep this in mind as I tell you what I am reading here.

Translated what you are saying is that the lynching of my grandfather and uncle and the wounding of another uncle, as well as my parents being beaten with sticks, having dogs set upon them and being sprayed with fire hoses is all just so many broken eggs necessary so that we can all sit back now and be smug. Pardon me for not wanting you or anyone else to be able to feel quite so smug because we overcame it but I would just as soon have met my grandfather and my uncle thank you very much. To you, perhaps this was worth it, the unfortunate cost of doing business. To me, if the benefit was that we could be stronger, I think we could have done with a little less strength and a little more justice.

Now, you had no way of knowing that relatives in my family had been lynched and I do not blame you for not knowing. However, when I read what I quoted above it appears, to me, that you are saying that all the horrors that were visited upon black people were justified or at least made okay by the fact that we were able to grow. Well, not my uncle and not my grandfather. They weren't able to grow because they were dead. Death has a way of reducing ones reproductive fitness and learning ability to zero.

I might be misreading you but I hear you saying I think immigration is a bad thing. I dont. My family was immigrated here and we Italians in Providence were not allowed to walk on the sidewalks or the Irish would kick our asses.

You are misreading me. You said that immigration was what made us strong as a growing industrial society. I was saying to you that true as that was, when the Irish got here they were discriminated against--and then they became okay. When the Italians got here they were discriminated against--and then they became okay. What I was saying is that America has been down this road before, the rhetoric being used today could be lifted straight out of the 19th century and applied to the Irish or the Italians when they got here. The justifications could be lifted right from the 19th century anti-immigration paroxysms. This is nothing new.

I still find it hard to believe that the aclu and the feds require months and months to get an injunction. Maybe I am naive but it seems there might be another reason for the delay.

Okay, but that doesn't mean the ACLU hasn't filed for one and it doesn't mean that the Justice department isn't figuring out the best way to attack the problem. I suspect that what Justice is waiting for is for the inevitable test case to go before the SCOTUS (it's what I would do) and then they will file an amicus brief. Citizens are going to be stopped and they are going to sue on 4th and 14th Amendment grounds because this law really DOES make US citizens strangers to the laws of their homeland.

[I'm sorry but I don't see folks who are arguing against a racist law as being racist.]

dread, again, who is saying it is a racist law? A legislature passed it, a governor signed it.

So? The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott decision said this:

A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.

Now, I would say that those two passages are pretty unambiguously racist. I recognize that you do not. I recognize that you think that, perhaps, blacks had no rights to which a white man was at all obliged to respect. That does not change the fact that it is racist.

Who's perspective makes it racist? Yours? Mine? Without judgement, it is just a law. With judgement applied by differing groups of people, it is a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective. Does this make you right and me wrong or me right or you wrong? Or does it mean we just are looking at something given our respective experiences and coming to somewhat different conclusions?

I am starting here--all human beings are human beings. Whether or not the majority thinks they are human beings at any given locus in history is *entirely* irrelevant to the question of their humanity. Where there is a conflict between the claims of humanness by one group and the disavowal of that claim by another group, I will ALWAYS fall on the side of the group claiming humanness. The group disavowing the humanity of another group is always wrong. Always. This law is racist because it targets a group of people based on ethnicity. This law is taking place in a context where OTHER events are occurring that also target this same group. It is racist because it takes a group of people, separates them out from the community and then says that they will be treated differently because they look different. From the logic you are deploying here, George Wallace might have been right when he said "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" and Martin Luther King, Jr. was wrong. I reject that premise on its face.

Isnt that what this country is about? We, as a people, cannot even agree on "all men are created equal" means. When it was written it meant alll white men. Then it meant white and other men. People can fall back on that tidbit and say constitution says nothing about women so what are women?

Deploying your logic, women are only as human as the society says that they are in any given historical period and, as such, only have a legitimate claim to justice AFTER the society has decided that they are human enough to be deserve justice. I disagree. And, in fact, all men are created equal seems pretty straightforward to me. Again, I understand, that to you it isn't and who has a claim on equality depends upon when we are talking about. I reject that idea as well because--not to be insulting--I don't EVER want it to be left to someone with your ideas as you have expressed them here to have to decide whether or not I am human enough to be deserving of justice. Given what you have said in this discussion and your utter unwillingness to call a moral evil by what it is, I think that you could very well happily support the idea that I am not human enough to be covered by justice. Am I calling you a racist? Not at all. I am saying that I don't trust your moral compass as you have expressed it here because I am unconvinced that you would say that my grandmother was fully a human being in the year of her birth (1903) simply because in 1903 the prevailing zeitgeist in America was that she wasn't.

Absolutes are problematical in anything because knowledge and values and beliefs change. All I ask for is to not be belittled or called names because I state a reality different from someone elses reality.

I'm not going to call you names and I'm not going to belittle you. But I am going to say that I think you are wrong. However, you prove a point that I have been making here and on the dash-site for going on five years now. That point has to do with this 'who is to say what is right or wrong'. I have maintained that this view is wrong because, taken to its logical conclusion, it renders us UTTERLY mute on the subject of justice. Given your stated beliefs I'm not sure you can even say *TODAY* whether or not I am a human being simply because there are people (Nazi's for instance) who deny my humanity and therefore it might be possible that they are right and I am wrong. Any ideology, philosophy or worldview that cannot look at, say, the Holocaust and given the facts *inevitably* arrive at the conclusion that it was unambiguously evil is not one I will trust at all.

I dont think it is too much to ask.

It's not too much to ask.


[/FONT][/QUOTE]