Diversity's Oppressions

[Lanya]

   

     It is within living memory that Indian children would be practicly kidnapped from their parents and raised in dorms where they would be forbidden to learn their languages , Languages like Navaho and Cherokee survive inspite of intolerance because there was a hard kernel of resistance that carryed through the worst part of the supression.

      I think we get along better than we used to , nobody is joining the "Know Nothing " party anymore and it is harder to kidnap a child from an Indian family.

     

------------------------------------------

I remember this.  Children were very badly treated in those places, I heard.  I remember news stories about frozen bodies of children who tried to walk home, miles and miles, they didn't care, through the snow.   

[Universe Prince]

If you think we are not a free society, I would very much like to see your reasoning as to why

I didn't say that.

Didn't you? I said to Plane, "We are a society of freedom, right?" You said no, and that "We are a society based on the rule of law." So I asked, "Is it your assertion then that our society, American society, is not free? America is not the land of the free but the land of the rule of law?" Which you answered with "Yep." It sure looks to me like you said we are not a free society.

I simply said we are a nation of laws. And those laws limit absolute freedom, thus we are not a "society of freedom", which i believe was your original claim.

Uh, yeah, a society of freedom, not a society of "absolute freedom", which I am left to guess means some sort of lawless society with unhindered murderers and pedophiles running rampant through the streets because no one is held responsible for anything they do.  I didn't say "absolute freedom". I didn't say we don't have laws or that we don't need laws. I am not sure why I have to qualify my comments to say that I don't mean "absolute freedom" since clearly our society is not in that situation and since I did not say "absolute freedom". And since I have never, in this conversation or any other, advocated any sort of lawless "absolute freedom" I have no idea why you would have thought I might have meant it.

So, um, thanks for pointing out that we have laws in America. I'll be sure to, uh, not forget that. Yeah.

[Universe Prince]

I am not sure why I have to qualify my comments to say that I don't mean "absolute freedom" since clearly our society is not in that situation and since I did not say "absolute freedom". And since I have never, in this conversation or any other, advocated any sort of lawless "absolute freedom" I have no idea why you would have thought I might have meant it.

That reminded me of something Dave Barry said in an interview. Luckily, the interview is online.

Reason: One of your editors said, "Well, Dave's a libertarian, that's true. But he's not an irresponsible libertarian." Doesn't that kind of take the fun out of it? Barry:: I'm not sure what they mean by that. If you tell most people what libertarians think, they immediately assume that you cannot mean it all the way, that you're really just taking a position for argument's sake. When you say you don't think we should have public schools, they can't believe you mean that. You must mean that they should be smaller. But you can't really mean no public schools. Therefore, if I don't argue too much, they probably think I'm responsible. I don't think I'm particularly responsible. I resent that! Reason: Last fall you wrote a piece in the Tropic and explicitly acknowledged being a libertarian. . . Barry:: John Dorschner, one of our staff writers here at Tropic magazine at The Miami Herald, who is a good friend of mine and an excellent journalist, but a raving liberal, wrote a story about a group that periodically pops up saying that they're going to start their own country or start their own planet or go back to their original planet, or whatever. They were going to "create a libertarian society" on a floating platform in the Caribbean somewhere. You know and I know there' s never going to be a country on a floating anything, but if they want to talk about it, that's great. John wrote about it and he got into the usual thing where he immediately got to the question of whether or not you can have sex with dogs. The argument was that if it wasn't illegal to have sex with dogs, naturally people would have sex with dogs. That argument always sets my teeth right on edge. And I always want to retort with, "You want a horrible system, because you think the people should be able to vote for laws they want, and if more than half of them voted for some law, everyone would have to do what they said. Then they could pass a law so that you had to have sex with dogs." I was ranting and raving about this here in the office. So my editor, Tom Shroder, said "Why don't you write a counterpoint to it?" So I wrote about why I didn't think libertarians are really doing this kind of thing so that they can have sex with dogs. I discussed some of the reasons that a person might want to live out of the control of our federal, state, local, and every other form of government. Actually, I don't think I even called myself a libertarian in the article. I think Tom Shroder identified me as one. Reason: Did that give you pause, coming out of the closet on this? Barry:: I guess libertarianism is always considered so weird and fringe that people assume that you're in the closet if you don't go around talking about it. Usually in interviews we're talking about humor writing and they don't bring it up. Because I don't write an overly political column, people just assume I'm not. I guess nobody assumes anybody is a libertarian. It's a more complex political discussion than most people are used to, to explain why you think the way you do about public education or drug laws, and why it's not as simple as being for or against something. Reason: Did you get any mail about being a libertarian after that article? Barry:: I got a few letters, mostly pretty nice. One or two letters saying, "Here's why it wouldn't work to be a libertarian, because people will have sex with dogs." Arguments like, "Nobody would educate the kids." People say, "Of course you have to have public education because otherwise nobody would send their kids to school." And you'd have to say, "Would you not send your kids to school? Would you not educate them?" "Well, no. I would. But all those other people would be having sex with dogs."

The whole interview, which is a decade or so old and also includes comments on parenting, can be found at the other end of this link.

[Plane]

It may well be that most people in America know how to handle the Liberty that we enjoy , the prisons we keep filling hold the minority that cannot be trusted to run around exerciseing freedom without hurting anybody.

But I would like to investigate whether we are locking up a few or many that we do not really need to.


Is there a way to experiment and learn whether some of these laws and penaltys might could be done away with without causeing too much harm?


To be specific , I would like to repeal the laws that restrict Marijuanna use and replace them with more reasonable regulation that is designed to make the stuff safe to use responsibly rather than the law as it is which seems to be designed to punish a user or provider without reguard to the safety and responsibility of the use.



I think that the whole thing could stand a redo , and that if the result of carefull study , debate and new law was a better situation it would be worth the effort.


[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
The rights that belong to a Human Being by natural right should always be a matter of discusson between citizens.



"Why?"

Because we are not born agreeing on what is good and needful, nor do we die at great age haveing learned all.

[BT]

So, um, thanks for pointing out that we have laws in America. I'll be sure to, uh, not forget that. Yeah.

Good. Try to keep in mind that those same laws trump freedom, absolute or otherwise. The concepts of freedom and rule of law are not in conflict. But the ideal is far from the reality. And that is what really needs to be kept in mind.

[_JS]

One last time, it's not against diversity in how diversity does enhance American culture.  It's against diversity simply for the sake of advocating diversity at the expense of American culture.  I don't know how many other ways I can say the same thing, and in what I read out of Sowell's piece

This is simple Sirs. So very simple. Show me, in the article where the author makes that assertion. You posted the article and you are defending it. So let's see it. This isn't a game of poker, I've got no cards up my sleeves or anything like that. You claim to have read the article several times, so show us how you logically come to that conclusion.

[_JS]

We are a society based on the rule of law.

Bt, if we were a society of the rule of law, would we not have followed the laws of the Crown? I'd say that the rule of law has never exactly been the strongpoint of American society.

[BT]

We did follow the rules of the crown until the laws were changed.

Then we follow the new laws until those get changed. Law isn't static. It changes and evolves according to the customs of the time. Though the law trumps freedom, you are free to choose to disobey the law if you are willing to accept the consequences and possibly lose your freedom.

[sirs]

Show me, in the article where the author makes that assertion. You posted the article and you are defending it. So let's see it.

The assertion is based on reading the article, in its totality.  The assertion is based on the mountrain of articles he's written over the years, that has never once been racist.  It's based on an assessmenf of the forest vs looking at some twig on some particular tree.   It's not based on a sentence within the article that states "My article criticises diversity simply for the sake of diversity....it attacks embracing one's own culture over that of America's."  The only sentence that comes close is his "Despite much gushing about how we should "celebrate diversity," America's great achievement has not been in having diversity but in taming its dangers that have run amok in many other countries"  And again, those "dangers" are in how immigrants view their new country.  Is it simply 4 walls and a roof, on a strip of land, along with sticking your hands out for entitlements, or is it their new country, that they are pledging to support in whatever forms they're up to supporting it in. 

Again, unless you've read Sowell numerous times, you just won't get it.  And if you have, and still claim this is racist fodder, then it simply demonstrates one's ignorant partisan predisoistion of Sowell

[_JS]

In other words Sirs, you cannot defend the article's view of diversity based on the text of the article itself?

[sirs]

In other words Sirs, you cannot defend the article's view of diversity based on the text of the article itself?

Based on the small snipit Sowell applied to diversity, and the sentence I used, is still obviously not enough for you, is it?  I can only hope you've rarely read Sowell's other stuff

[_JS]

Then we follow the new laws until those get changed. Law isn't static. It changes and evolves according to the customs of the time. Though the law trumps freedom, you are free to choose to disobey the law if you are willing to accept the consequences and possibly lose your freedom.

That doesn't really show me that we are a society based upon the rule of law at all. In fact, it puts me in mind of the amendment that ushered in prohibition. Many people along the coast would drive their boats out to the international water line and purchase liquor there. Then they would have to avoid the Coast Guard on the return trip. There was a man in New York who made vessels for the liquor runners and the Coast Guard. He wasn't following the rule of law at all!

NASCAR was born from bootleggers running liquor like Junior Johnson over in Wilkes County. Ask people there if they think Junior was a poor example or a hero, you know what the answer is. (By the way, Junior is an absolutely cool individual if you ever get the chance to hear him speak about the old days of running liquor). The President drank liquor during prohibition.

You know as well as I do that there is a different justice system for the extremely wealthy than the poor. There is a different legal system for the establishment than there is for the disenfranchised. If Rush Limbaugh were a poor African-American, would he have gotten off so lightly for violating his parole? Honestly? If the kids at Kent State had been kids at Yale and one of them were named Bush or Kennedy, do you think there wouldn't have been hell to pay?

And you expect me to believe we are a "society based on the rule of law?" Perhaps in a theory written on a piece of paper, but in reality? No, I don't think so.

[_JS]

In other words Sirs, you cannot defend the article's view of diversity based on the text of the article itself?

Based on the small snipit Sowell applied to diversity, and the sentence I used, is still obviously not enough for you, is it?  I can only hope you've rarely read Sowell's other stuff

I never heard of the guy until you posted this article. I made that clear earlier.

I take it that the answer to my question is: "no" ?

[sirs]

I never heard of the guy until you posted this article. I made that clear earlier.  I take it that the answer to my question is: "no" ?

Well, that's a relief then.  And the answer to your question is "not to your satisifaction"

[_JS]

Well, that's a relief then.  And the answer to your question is "not to your satisifaction"

The answer is clearly "no." There isn't a single contextual sentence that shows how the author has a positive view of diversity.

I'll note also that you have failed to answer most other questions brought up in the conversation. It is obvious you don't even understand the piece as it is written. You mention America almost exclusively when most of the piece references other parts of the world. Your lack of understanding of the historical context of diversity in general is understandable, but you ignore it even as your beloved author attempts to explain it.

I have seen politicians, on all sides, bend over backwards and twist in a pretzel to avoid saying they were wrong. Yet, I've never seen someone ignore the black & white text staring them right in the face as you've done here.

Remarkable. Truly remarkable.