Would you prefer Republican opposition to banning the practice at a federal level or the times in which local Republicans have either supported police engaged in what courts found to be racial profiling or passed bills that would give police more leeway to engage in the practice? Or perhaps when the CIA under a Republican President and NYPD under Republican Mayors set up the "Demographics Unit?"
And yet, a lot of Republicans use the term as a generalized racial term for Hispanics, many of which aren't from Mexico. See, for example: Trump's 'Mexican' label against judge brings up word's history
I find it hard to believe any police force had a policy that treated people solely by race. I don't have any problem with them using race as an identifying factor which, in some areas, would lead to more stops of a specific race.
What do you mean 'generalized racial term'? It's not a race. I suppose YOU can call it a race if you want but it's not a race.
Well, then there is your answer to the question that you asked: Can you name a single republican/conservative policy that treats people by race?
Some people substitute the term for an ethnicity (Hispanic). They aren't using it as a nationality. The judge in the link I provided to you was born in the US. That makes him not Mexican as a nationality. And yet, Trump referred to him as a "Mexican." The comment was racial, not a comment on his nationality.
I think you should use 'disrespectful' rather than 'racial'. 'Racial' means related to race and, as we've covered, Mexican is not a race.
So the 'muslim ban' wasn't 'racist,' just targeted discrimination based on religious/national identity? Is this kinda like how slavery is ok as long as they are in prison? Forced/coerced labor is just 'disrespectful' if you are in prison.
That's correct. A 'muslim ban' wouldn't be racist. Are you the one that keeps mentioning slavery and prison? What's up with that? You think prisoners are slaves? That's a pretty unique point of view.
Republicans do not hurt minorities by policies (at least not since the 1960's), so much as protect racists within their ranks by NOT having policies to address racism. In other words, to a republican lawmaker, all people should be free to commit racist, discriminatory acts against other people of different color, religion, or beliefs. They can deny them loans, keep them out of their neighborhoods, and avoid hiring them just because of their skin color. Therefore, they create no legislation that addresses this problem, and racism continues unabated. Democrats (and I'm not one--I'm a registered republican) do a far better job (although not perfect) of addressing and preventing racism in this country. Republicans know that racism is wrong--they've always known. But they want to feel superior to people who look different from them, and that causes them to look the other way when things like racial profiling occur. If there was one single policy that hurts minorities (possibly more than any other policy) it is school funding by counties. It causes people in poor counties (who are often more likely to be members of minority groups) to get an inferior education based on what is spent on that education. I don't know to what extent republicans support this versus democrats, but it is a clear example of unequal access to quality education based on income and yes, race. Funding education on a state level or, better yet, on a national level, would level the playing field for minorities vs. whites by quite a bit.
No, with all due respect (and I know we all hate when this phrase is used), this is not true. They were fighting because their elected officials and the southern aristocracy planter class voted to rebel against the United States of America to preserve the system of chattel African slavery ( my ancestors). They cannot escape this reality and their ancestors, like you, need to stop making excuses. I’m sure they were not evil people, but the system and way of life their decision-makers (all rich slaveholders, including Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, Robert E. Lee) chose to go to war over is objectively evil and they share some responsibility. I understand that the vast majority of wars throughout history have been poor men dying for the benefit of kings or other rich men and as much as we try to hide from it (and Trump is excited to allow you to hide) that’s what poor white soldiers did for the rich slaver class and the preservation of the hierarchy of the white race. But they still must take responsibility. They were not merely fighting to defend their homes. Southern leaders had a much bigger (and well-documented) agenda and these soldiers, your ancestors, were well aware. I have no animosity in my heart against Confederate soldiers. I’m sure it was a tumultuous time and a difficult decision for some. But they are in no way heroes. And they cannot be canonized as such.
They get additional education and motivation at home, and the parents make whatever sacrifices are necessary to get their kids into a good school. If they have to spend a fortune on private education or tutors, they do it. Minorities should not have to spend a fortune on private education when there is enough money available in public education to teach wealthy kids and non-wealthy kids, white kids and minority kids. If teaching kids is a public responsibility, then it should be done as equally for all kids as possible. Poor classrooms can't afford pencils and paper, much less Chrome Books and other amenities.
So people don't suffer in school because they're a minority. They suffer because they are poor and/or have no focus on education.
So if Trump gets us into a war to take Canada.we are all complicit in it. Your fallacy assumes that the average working man had some real say in the decision. That's just not a reality. I suppose they should have let the marauders rape their wives and slaughter their cattle and burn their homes?
