Senator Warren (aka Lie-awatha) not running for POTUS

[detbuch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
So it's OK for your people to discriminate?

Originally Posted by spence

I'd think of it as more of a settlement than discrimination. It's legal...

-spence

So, in your opinion, certain degrees of discrimination are acceptable. If it is "more" of something other than discrimination, then the discrimination doesn't count. Notwithstanding that it is usually, in the eyes of the accused discriminator, more of something else, such as religious belief for instance, than discrimination. And yet, for the "good" of society in general, courts keep striking down that "more of something else" in favor of it just being discrimination. But, as it is your people who are discriminating in this case, I can see how you would be good with it.

That "settlement" thing is ominous. Is that in perpetuity? Are your people forever "legally" allowed to discriminate? Is it settled that those with traces of your people's blood will be allowed from now on to legally to discriminate? I can see why it would be "cool," as you put it, to be one of your people.

Concerning your "its legal ...". . . anti-discrimination "laws" are generally discriminatory. They discriminate against the personal proclivities of one party (even if they are "more" of something else) in favor of those of another party. Of course, such laws are, as you say, "more of a settlement than discrimination." They're legal . . .

If their is a problem with this sort of mixed legality, it is that there is no concrete principle behind the "laws." They are more opinion which shifts depending on the "justice" du jour. If your "people" benefit . . . hooray. If not, you should just go away.

Another problem is that as a country we are divided into separate opposing "people" rather than one comprised of unique individuals.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
So it's OK for your people to discriminate?




So, in your opinion, certain degrees of discrimination are acceptable. If it is "more" of something other than discrimination, then the discrimination doesn't count. Notwithstanding that it is usually, in the eyes of the accused discriminator, more of something else, such as religious belief for instance, than discrimination. And yet, for the "good" of society in general, courts keep striking down that "more of something else" in favor of it just being discrimination. But, as it is your people who are discriminating in this case, I can see how you would be good with it.

That "settlement" thing is ominous. Is that in perpetuity? Are your people forever "legally" allowed to discriminate? Is it settled that those with traces of your people's blood will be allowed from now on to legally to discriminate? I can see why it would be "cool," as you put it, to be one of your people.

Concerning your "its legal ...". . . anti-discrimination "laws" are generally discriminatory. They discriminate against the personal proclivities of one party (even if they are "more" of something else) in favor of those of another party. Of course, such laws are, as you say, "more of a settlement than discrimination." They're legal . . .

If their is a problem with this sort of mixed legality, it is that there is no concrete principle behind the "laws." They are more opinion which shifts depending on the "justice" du jour. If your "people" benefit . . . hooray. If not, you should just go away.

Another problem is that as a country we are divided into separate opposing "people" rather than one comprised of unique individuals.

Now you got it. When Spence doesn't sympathize with whomever is on the receiving end, it's discrimination. When Spence does sympathize with whomever is on the receiving end, it's not discrimination, but rather, a "settlement."

Do you have it now, Detbuch? Does it make sense...

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So, in your opinion, certain degrees of discrimination are acceptable. If it is "more" of something other than discrimination, then the discrimination doesn't count. Notwithstanding that it is usually, in the eyes of the accused discriminator, more of something else, such as religious belief for instance, than discrimination. And yet, for the "good" of society in general, courts keep striking down that "more of something else" in favor of it just being discrimination. But, as it is your people who are discriminating in this case, I can see how you would be good with it.

That "settlement" thing is ominous. Is that in perpetuity? Are your people forever "legally" allowed to discriminate? Is it settled that those with traces of your people's blood will be allowed from now on to legally to discriminate? I can see why it would be "cool," as you put it, to be one of your people.

Concerning your "its legal ...". . . anti-discrimination "laws" are generally discriminatory. They discriminate against the personal proclivities of one party (even if they are "more" of something else) in favor of those of another party. Of course, such laws are, as you say, "more of a settlement than discrimination." They're legal . . .

If their is a problem with this sort of mixed legality, it is that there is no concrete principle behind the "laws." They are more opinion which shifts depending on the "justice" du jour. If your "people" benefit . . . hooray. If not, you should just go away.

Another problem is that as a country we are divided into separate opposing "people" rather than one comprised of unique individuals.

Did you forget the part about Native Americans being expelled from their lands and rounded up into reservations to begin with?

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Did you forget the part about Native Americans being expelled from their lands and rounded up into reservations to begin with?

-spence

Today we call it "affordable housing"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Did you forget the part about Native Americans being expelled from their lands and rounded up into reservations to begin with?

-spence

Originally Posted by spence

Did you forget the part about Native Americans being expelled from their lands and rounded up into reservations to begin with?

-spence

No. I did not forget that. One of the most racist, brutal, and illegal acts committed by the U.S. Federal government was Andrew Jackson's refusal to follow the Supreme Court's opinion against the removal of the Indians from their homeland. The "Trail of Tears," as well as many other episodes and actions, We're dark marks in American history.

I have a spiritual harmony with what little I think I know about a small portion of pre-white native American culture. Within that limited spiritual sphere . . . much, I admit, is probably over romanticized . . . within it there is an almost overwhelming sympathy in me for an Indian way of life that was far more in harmony with the land and nature than the way we live today.

I would like a return to some portion of that way. And to infuse it with a return to a constitutional form of government. One, by the way, which may also have a native American contribution through the Iroquois Nation system's influence on the formation of the Constitution.

But that has little to do with discrimination. In my opinion, Indians have every right to discriminate in who they hire, or to whom they sell, or with whom they associate. I think African Americans, Asian Americans, and European Americans, also have those rights. And when government decides with whom and how we associate, and do business with, outside the restriction of anyone denying another those same rights, it is as dictatorial, unconstitutional, unethical, and immoral, as resettlement of Indians from their home to reservations. And it is as destructive to the human spirit in general as it was to the native American spirit. I don't make that as a material comparison, but as a political, philosophical, and ideological one.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No. I did not forget that. One of the most racist, brutal, and illegal acts committed by the U.S. Federal government was Andrew Jackson's refusal to follow the Supreme Court's opinion against the removal of the Indians from their homeland. The "Trail of Tears," as well as many other episodes and actions, We're dark marks in American history.

Agree.

I have a spiritual harmony with what little I think I know about a small portion of pre-white native American culture. Within that limited spiritual sphere . . . much, I admit, is probably over romanticized . . . within it there is an almost overwhelming sympathy in me for an Indian way of life that was far more in harmony with the land and nature than the way we live today.

Yes, and no WI-FI either.

I would like a return to some portion of that way. And to infuse it with a return to a constitutional form of government. One, by the way, which may also have a native American contribution through the Iroquois Nation system's influence on the formation of the Constitution.

It begs the question if sometimes the original "constitutional form of government" hasn't been over romanticized as well. If I remember correctly it didn't last all that long...

But that has little to do with discrimination. In my opinion, Indians have every right to discriminate in who they hire, or to whom they sell, or with whom they associate. I think African Americans, Asian Americans, and European Americans, also have those rights. And when government decides with whom and how we associate, and do business with, outside the restriction of anyone denying another those same rights, it is as dictatorial, unconstitutional, unethical, and immoral, as resettlement of Indians from their home to reservations. And it is as destructive to the human spirit in general as it was to the native American spirit. I don't make that as a material comparison, but as a political, philosophical, and ideological one.

Good you recognized that. In theory piece of paper is the same as a pizza, from a certain perspective...

I think the Native American situation is a bit different in that there's some level of sovereignty still in effect. I have the understanding that tribes have some latitude under Federal law to protect the economic interests of the tribe. At this point I'm not sure how it's discrimination rather than a matter of internal affairs.

-spence