Posted on 09/09/2001 11:01:30 PM PDT by StoneColdGOP
Edited on 04/12/2004 5:31:23 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Call me naive, but I was hoping that this month might mark the beginning of the end of ethnic-identity politics in California. It looks like I was wrong, again.
The Legislature's task of drawing new district boundaries, a once-a-decade job triggered by the 2000 census, has prompted howls from Hispanic activists, who contend the new lines will deprive their community of full representation in state government and Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Now if only his Democrat buddies in the Capitol would take heed.
Perhaps another alternative is that the liberals like to say that they are for equal opportunity, but as long as they hold the power they will see to it that "minorities" do not have an equal playing field.
Ummm... because we (non-Hispanics) don't care about a candidate's race, as long as they themselves don't make an issue of it?
Because we aren't afraid the Republican Latinos are waging a holy war against white people in California (which La Raza is doing)?
If we (non-Hispanics) have nothing to fear from a certain candidate, why shouldn't we vote for him/her?
The issue is not that whites don't want to vote for Hispanic candidates, it's that most of us don't want to vote for candidates who will represent only Hispanics.
Minority Republicans can get elected almost anywhere, because to us (conservatives) everyone is an "individual," not just a member of a certain ethnic group, as long as THEY THEMSELVES believe that. If you believe you are a Hispanic first and an American second, I will believe you to be a Hispanic first and an American second. If you believe yourself to be an American first, I will think the same of you.
When I see Hispanic candidates running Hispanic-centered campaigns, they are in effect telling everyone else in their district to go f--- themselves, and I don't like that. I don't like when Black politicians do it in their enclaves, and I don't like when whites do it (although they rarely do, for fear of being branded "racists," a term that is not applied enough to certain minorities).
Please don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that minorities running for office should have to pretend to be white in order to not offend the white masses, what I mean is that if you engage in racial politics, don't be surprised if people of other races are alienated from you.
hehehehe
Perhaps the answer isn't all that complicated. Those candidates won because they had the background, experience and positions on the issues that the voters were looking for.
The only puzzle is why the overwhelming majority of racists are Democrats. It was that way in the early 1960's too. The minority of Republicans who voted against civil rights laws did it for philosophical reasons like not legislating morality or infringing on the rights of owners of public accomodations to be racists if they so chose. The Democrats who voted against it, with few exceptions, did it either because they were racists or because racism was popular among their constituents.
They are hyper-conscious of race, that's why they act like racists.
Rather than viewing people as individuals, they put people in all sorts of groups. Everything is looked at from the point of view of the "big picture," so they end up missing the trees for the forest. This is a classical aspect of Marxism, they focus on "society" and not the people in it.
They want education reform on a grand scale, but are incapable of seeing what really works/doesn't work in the classroom. They want everoyne to have housing/healthcare/etc., so they decide the best way to get there is to have the government give it to everyone. I could go on and on, like I did in my last post, but I'll spare you =)
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.