Posted on 07/27/2010 7:18:45 AM PDT by mattstat
Is the Arizona law racist? Not only no, but obviously no. And for the simple logical reason that a law cannot be racist, only people can.
For example, suppose our betters in Congress passed a law stating that self-identified whites shall be granted twenty bonus points on each SAT test. So-called race-norming laws, rules, or mandates like this are quite common.
By which is meant, awarding advantages to individuals because their self-reported race matches certain categories are often institutionalized as lawful. Interestingly, it is still, at least here in the States, “self-identified” and not externally measured race.
But it is the people who created the law, and those that follow or implement it, who are racist, if by racist we mean people with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others, or a person who discriminates based on race (dictionary definitions).
Those who created the bonus-point law must either have believed that non-whites are, for whatever reason, superior to whites in SAT test scores, or they just felt like discriminating against non-whites for reasons of race, or they shared both attitudes.
Two things are of especial note here. First, you cannot have a positive without a negative, for just the same reason you cannot have a one-sided coin. Our race-norming law positively discriminates for whites, and simultaneously negatively discriminates against non-whites. Thus, whether the law is “good” discrimination or “bad” depends on your perspective.
Second, the people who created this law are racist while the people who create another law which awards points to specific whites who suffer identifiable (or provable) specific acts directed against them are not. That’s confusing, so here’s an example.
A white person, while taking the SAT, ...
(Excerpt) Read more at wmbriggs.com ...
You seem not to undertand that I completely support the Arizona law. I disagree that “a law cannot be racist”. A law can be racist, but the the ARizona law is not.
P;ease learn to read.
P;ease learn to read”
No in reference your dribble Post #2 It is you who does not understand!!! nothing in Germany was Illegal or racist in those days and using 50+ year old analogy's is off the mark JUST a bit! Now in regards to your reading comment; was your Proctologist able to save your pet hamster ? Read that OK???
I never said illegal.
No example, no matter how old, could be off the mark. If your these is: “a law cannot be racist” and there was ever in histroy a law that was racist, then your thesis is proved wrong. There is no statute of limitations on facts.
The Nuremberg laws were the very definition of racist:
The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 codified German citizenship as the product of German blood, as defined by German anthropologists, biologists, and doctors. They also outlawed sexual intercourse between “pure” Germans and German Jews, and the employment of women under forty-five by Jews. In the Nazi mind and model, as in the eugenic one, procreation was the locus of racial protection. These laws affected German and foreigner alike. In fact, the list of racial threats expanded with the German Third Reich: Pole, Czech, and Slav all became racial threats as Germany entered Poland, Bohemia, southeastern Europe, and Russia. Suspect populations also lived among people who otherwise saw themselves as German. Political deviants, in particular, were seen as threats to the race and many ultimately followed paths to the concentration camp and gas chamber along with the Nazis’ Jewish victims. Socialists, communists, homosexuals, and Jehovah’s Witnesses all came to represent biological threats to the pure Aryan, and their removal from society was justified along racial lines.
Re the hamster, I have no idea what you are referrig to.
“I never said illegal.
No example, no matter how old, could be off the mark. If your these is: “a law cannot be racist” and there was ever in histroy a law that was racist, then your thesis is proved wrong. There is no statute of limitations on facts.
The Nuremberg laws were the very definition of racist:
The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 codified German citizenship as the product of German blood, as defined by German anthropologists, biologists, and doctors. They also outlawed sexual intercourse between “pure” Germans and German Jews, and the employment of women under forty-five by Jews. In the Nazi mind and model, as in the eugenic one, procreation was the locus of racial protection. These laws affected German and foreigner alike. In fact, the list of racial threats expanded with the German Third Reich: Pole, Czech, and Slav all became racial threats as Germany entered Poland, Bohemia, southeastern Europe, and Russia. Suspect populations also lived among people who otherwise saw themselves as German. Political deviants, in particular, were seen as threats to the race and many ultimately followed paths to the concentration camp and gas chamber along with the Nazis’ Jewish victims. Socialists, communists, homosexuals, and Jehovah’s Witnesses all came to represent biological threats to the pure Aryan, and their removal from society was justified along racial lines.
Re the hamster, I have no idea what you are referrig to.”
Dude did you have some severe head trauma at some point in your life?
What I said was in so many words: NOTHING Hitler did was Illegal in WW11 Germany Got it??
Race - Funny how powerful and prevalent it is for something that supposedly doesn’t exist.
Are you mentally retarded? How is it leftist to oppose Jim Crow laws or Nazism?!?
Racist and racism the only thing that matters in today’s world. Deferring to charges of either has become the pinnacle of our existence & government. How bizarre and completely disemboweled this nation has become.
But I never said anything about legality versus illegality. I commented only on whether a law could be racist. The Nuremeberg laws prove that a law can be racist. Period.
“Are you mentally retarded? How is it leftist to oppose Jim Crow laws or Nazism?!?”
How in the hell do you twist this into your mental state???
ONE TIME :THEY have NOTHING to do with ARIZONA!!!!!
WRONG!!!! They are meaningless.
Duh. Nobody said they do. Kabumpo was replying to claims in the article.
“ONE TIME :THEY have NOTHING to do with ARIZONA!!!!!
Duh. Nobody said they do. Kabumpo was replying to claims in the article.”
Kab must have got hit with a falling Coconut and missed the VERY first sentence:”Is the Arizona law racist? Not only no, but obviously no. And for the simple logical reason that a law cannot be racist, only people can.”
After that Fair Game, Got it?????
Racism, Inc., is big business, Je$$e has been shaking down corporations for decades. As long as there is money to be made, we will always have race baiters.
Thank you for writing. I appreciate it.
Few things are more disheartening than having abuse hurled at one by people with whom essentially agrees — Law in Arizona is good, law in Arizona is not racist — but contrary to the thesis of the original article posted, yes it is possible that A LAW at one time has been or could be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.