Personally, i don't have much of an opinion on cities boycotting each other, but I also do think there is a case to be made for asking whether racism is in any way a motivation in Arizona. Its important to note that while the immigration bill has been getting the most press and started a lot of this debate that there are other issues here. But, I'll start with the immigration bill itself. That bill was introduced by Arizona state senator Russell Pearce, who likes to get photo ops with openly Neo-Nazi people and who once fowarded an email from a white supremacist/seperatist group to his supporters that said things like
( ... )
I think that that question is unfair as it implies that only the actual language of the bill is important and that the intentions of those who wrote/ introduced the bill as well as its inevitable actual implementation and enforcement cannot be a basis for judging whether a bill is racist. Of course the actual language of the bill isn't going to outright endorse the singling out of a specific racial/ ethnic group but that doesn't mean that everyone behind that bill didn't know well that this would come down to 'people suspected of being illegal immigrants' = dark skinned people with accents (which reinforces the racist, nativist notion that only white skinned, English speaking people are truly legitimate, unquestioned inhabitants of this country and that everyone else is fair game for suspicion).
But it is still my question. You tried to deflect it by redirecting it towards other possibly related items.
Using your argument then any law that ever comes out of any government institution can be proven racist because at any time it can be used in that manner to discriminate against a race of people. Because you said it was based on those that put forth the bill and/or the intent into which it was used.
My question is not unfair. You just don't like giving me the answer you don't want to give. You basically just admitted to that.
I don't see it that way at all. If anything I could accuse you of pretty much disregarding everything I've said without any real consideration of any point I made. My points were not made in regard to any theoretical law but this specific law. I find the notion that the history and motivations of those introducing or writing this legislation as well as the probable ethnic profiling that will ensue cannot factor into an assessment of whether or not it is racist to be incredibly shortsighted. Also, the other examples of policy and legislation were not just 'possibly related items', they show a trend in the government of the state of Arizona towards racism by singling out certain ethnic groups. This is not just my opinion this is the view of many people in this country and it is a view that should be taken seriously and not ignored as inconvient by those who don't care to see ways that racism still exists
( ... )
No I am not cutting off the possibility of fair and reasonable discussion. You have been making your points. I haven't deleted the post. You are entitled to say what you want to say because that is how you have to say it
( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Using your argument then any law that ever comes out of any government institution can be proven racist because at any time it can be used in that manner to discriminate against a race of people. Because you said it was based on those that put forth the bill and/or the intent into which it was used.
My question is not unfair. You just don't like giving me the answer you don't want to give. You basically just admitted to that.
Reply
Reply
Reply
The laws themselves cannot be racist until applied in a racist format.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment