DebateGate

The Indians were fucked over universally -  - Canada, USA, Latin America, East, West, North and South.  I suggest we leave them out of the equation altogether because they are a common substratum that links all of the Western Hemisphere allowing no differentiation between any of its regions.

But you would agree that it was racism, including the horrible schools they were purposefully sent to?

I'd suggest that the Native Americans are used to being left out of the conversation.

Why is informal racism better than formal racism? I'm not here to defend the South and I've lived here for quite some time and know it well. And yes, racism still exists here. There are still communities where families are "run off" for being non-white. I won't defend that for anything. I'm just curious as to why non-statutory racism is somehow better.

Simple question, Js.  When were the Palestinians legal citizens of Israel, with loyalties to the Israeli way of life and its existance, & for Israel to then revoke said citizenship?

There are thousands of Palestinians who have legal citizenship in Israel Sirs, as well as thousands who once had legal citizenship and were arbitrarily assigned to the West Bank - some of whom had never lived there. The case in point, for which I used as a reference for your scenario Sirs was that of Said Rhateb who is considered an illegal alien in the home in which he was born and grew up in. He has to pay extra property taxes to Jerusalem's city council for a house that technically does not belong to him. His children were removed from a quality school in Jerusalem to an underfunded school in the West Bank - all because the Israeli Government "reclassified" him.

The situation is very similar to South Africa during the apartheid era. In fact, it is so similar that Henrik Verwoerd, the architect of apartheid in South Africa once commented that, "Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state." There are even Jews from South Africa who have lived in both societies, even fought for Israel and against apartheid, who are ashamed of the similarity.

So I ask again. Is Israel a fair democratic nation? Why do you go through such great lengths to defend it? Would you defend South Africa with equal vigor?

Am I American or am I Mexican?

You are an American, or you were. Ethnically you are mixed.

So, I must be either Mexican or an illegal alien, correct?

Well, legally you were a citizen of the Untied States. Then they removed your citizenship and decided that based on your mixed ethnicity you would now be a citizen of a new "country" that you'd never been to.

So you are an illegal alien now, but only because your citizenship was removed.

If I'm not an American or a legal resident, I can see why

So it would not bother you that you were once a legal citizen of the United States, but now are arbitrarily made a citizen of a dubiously invented nation that you've never been to? And now they take your property that has always belonged to your family? That makes sense to you?

And FYI, you do realize that most of the surrounding Arab countries won't allow Palestinians to become citizens of their country either, right?

Yes. Did I not already say that they were not democratic nations?

That's not what America is

So democratic principles can be tossed aside in order to preserve white protestant norms. Would you agree with that statement?

Which Israel is

Now, that minority would largely part of that particular country, not of another completely foreign culture, and simply absorbed.  Giving the ability for the Palestinians to become part of the Israeli governning process would undeniably wipe out the State of israel from within, as they would immediately become the majority.  And as I said earlier, Israel can be argued to be even more Democratic than us, give the amount of parties that do work & make decisions for its people within the Governing process.

Thank you.

No let's take this a little further.

For the sake of argument let's say that you Sirs were born in Southern California and lived in the same home of your birth for your entire life. In fact, you live right next to San Diego and consider yourself a part of San Diego's culture. You work there. Your family all lives there or nearby. You speak the local dialect. You've never even been to Mexico and you've got no desire to go there and live at all.

Yet, the United States has made an arrangement to where you are no longer a citizen of the United States. The house you were born in and lived your entire life in will remain a part of the United States, but you are now officially a resident of a new independent homeland called The United States Territorial Possession of Mexico (USTPM). It is shown to you on a map and you've never even been there.

Because you are no longer a United States citizen, you must pay a substantially increased amount of property taxes for your home. Residents of USTPM are required to pay more for their property, but you are not allowed to live there. Absolutely not. Every once in a while you are arrested for taking up residence illegally outside of the USTPM designated areas.

Your children once went to very good schools in San Diego, but they were immediately expelled. They are no longer citizens of the United States and must attend USTPM deisgnated schools which are generally run-down dives with decades old textbooks. Tough break for them.

The United States then sends you papers telling you that your house and land are essentially not yours. Yes, you grew up there and still live there, but by law you are absentee landholders. You are also illegal immigrants. If the United States deems the land necessary for a US citizen to develop or live there, then it will be removed from you.

Now having read this scenario, would you consider the United States in this scenario a democratic government? Would you like to live in such a state?



This very thing happens in Israel. Why is it right for them to have such discriminatory policies?

It may be that the old generation will be the last whole generation, outside of separate individuals, to be considered as traditionally American.

What a load of sentimental horse feces.

And yes, it is racist. It is speculation of a correlation with no evidence of cause and effect, just pure racial speculation. It is in fact the very definition of racism.

Mexican water isn't fit to drink in many areas because of poor water and wastewater treatment. It is not due to poor hygeine. 

I used the n-word once. I learned it from my grandmother. My dad politely came into my room and told me that he'd kick my ass if he ever heard me use it again (he was a drill instructor for the Army at the time). It didn't take me long to appreciate the reasons not to use it for more than just fear of having my ass kicked. It helps of course that I've always gone to schools that were very mixed ethnically, so it was never a foreign concept to me.

It amazes me to see so much racism today. There are still parents who scramble to get their kids into schools with no black children. There are towns and subdivisions that have groups of people who make a concerted effort to run out black or Hispanic families. I'm not talking about the distant past either, this is now.

As for Virginia, this really doesn't surprise me. I agree with Pooch. I'm tired of politicians that whimper away from questions, be they Democrats, Republicans, Independents, or what have you. I'm not surprised someone dug some similar dirt on the Democratic candidate either. The sad news is that there are parts of Virginia where this will probably win votes (*cough* Lee County *cough*).

Not really many of us know a Sufi from a Shia much less do we have familiarity with the philosophy , politics and habits that differentiate the sects of Islam

Well said Plane. I think that is a huge problem. We shouldn't even be at the stage where we are comparing this to World War II and the Fascist political philosophy when most people have no understanding of the people, cultures, and religion involved in the first place. That is what shows through in these articles. As an example, look at the usage of "sharia law" and the negative connotation Americans and especially those on the right give it. Most have no clue at all what it means.

You use words like "aggression" and "violence" while the National Review uses "lying." That isn't fascism. That could be a myriad of many beliefs, or just the most base of the human condition - but it doesn't make it fascism, which was a political philosophy. I wonder if the right-wing is afraid of a right-wing political philosophy?

since the posts extensively articulating the accuracy of the term has been made

Where?

In this article for example I've seen touchy-feely attributes that fascists lie or take advantage of those who are recently fallen but now ascendant...

That isn't evidence. I've yet to see a post that really shows a comparison between the political philosophy of Fascism and the Islamists. That is what I'd like to see and I would be impressed. This past article even used the Imperial Japanese as evidence and no scholar considers them to be a fascist state.

Islamist was at least a somewhat vetted term by French scholars in the 1970's. Where's the academics behind this term Sirs? Plane? This touchy-feely thing about fascists lying and Imperial Japan wasn't nice to us is not going to cut it.

I don't mean to sound harsh Sirs, but there's no scholarship here. Plane provided some, but we haven't settled much of the problems with even labelling them as Ur-fascists, certainly no moreso than the right wing here in the United States.