It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul: "I Would Not Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act"

page: 13
18
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
I have watched the video several times, and I was unable to find the quoted headline.

RP clearly says that any objection to the Civil Rights Amendment was in support of property rights not in objecting to the repealing of Jim Crow laws (5:26). RP goes on to say that "Jim Crow laws were illegal and we got rid of them". He also says that it was government that legalized the institution of slavery and enacted Jim Crow laws. Had law makers followed the Constitution, those laws would never have been enacted in the first place. As is so often the case, government first creates the problem, them takes credit for undoing their own mistakes.


Its misleading to equate property rights with racism, which is what the Chris Matthew types are trying to do. We should have the right to decide who comes into our homes. We should also have the right to decide whom we can do business with. And yes there are racist people who will abuse these rights but that does not mean that someone who supports property rights by default supports discrimination, which is the implication here. Very intellectually dishonest.

Trying to portray RP as a racist is a tactic that will unquestionably backfire.

Watch any of the hundreds of RP speeches or interviews and decide for yourself. I see absolutely nothing that would lead me to believe that RP is the least bit racist.




posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


Let the 2012 Ron Paul bashing begin. Someone, who can create new threads, should make one titled "Consolidated: Ron Paul bashing thread" where we post and address the most common Ron Paul bashing tactics. This way we can refer the freedom haters to that thread rather than starting 600 new threads on the same subject.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
I am assuming here..

Maybe he wouldnt do this because it is the government invading on the property owners rights to say this is how it is..

It should be if people dont want something in thier store then they shouldnt...

its the same bs no shoes no shirt no service.. No smoking, bla bla bla.. its all the same thing just masked as something else..

Its not cause he is racist, it isnt the governments job to tell people who they can and cant have in thier store.. I can say in my store no short people or no fat people or no skinny people.. does that make me racist no.. it makes me an idiot.. if someone say no blacks or mexicans does that make them an idiot.. maybe, but it also makes them a moron..

If someone wants to turn someone else away because of whatever reason it is thier right to.. because it is thier property to do with however they want.. so therefor it dont matter if we are a culture who like this person and that person.. when you come into my store you abide by my rules... its simple as that...

THat is why he said what he said... if this makes me racist then fine so be it but I would rather have free domain to put that you can come into my store if your hair isnt at least 48 in tall than not be able to because someone in the government told me i cant.



I don’t think i have read a more ignorant un-thought out argument in my life. And lots of stars to back it up??? What wrong with you people???

So if your pregnant wife goes into a store, to buy a bottle of water on a hot summers day, and the store owner shouts "Get out of my store, we don’t serve your kind in here" You will just shrug it off and think "oh well, he is just an idiot expressing his right"

Really?!?! Is that what you would do?? Protect the freedoms of the ignorant bigoted store owner who has the "right" to not serve whoever he wants, over that of your pregnant wife's right to buy a bottle of water on a hot summers day????

Pathetic!!



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   
You don't need to believe in God or Jesus Christ, to gain the basic wisdom that the Bible offers.

Passage Romans 2:14: For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves.

History has proven to us that there will always be people born into our world that are incapable or unwilling to govern themselves in a way that nurtures and benefits everyone in society. Therefore, laws and the enforcement of laws will always be a necessity to protect good and decent people.

The majority of Americans never were and are not now a law unto themselves. There are some people who don't steal, but will molsest and rape people. Others don't rape people, but would sell an unsafe product in order to make money. Since there are so many permutations of the kinds and degrees of lawlessness that each person considers suitable, it makes all the laws collectively necessary to addresss each scenario.

If Americans self governed themselves better, there would be no justification for all the laws that we currently have.

When a mother can not enter a store or restuarant to buy food for her hungry child because of her race, then society has proven istelf unworthy to govern itself and a law becomes justified.

If you think that skin color and not wearing appropriate clothing are comprable reasons for denying someone service, then it proves your thought process is subhuman and requires as much governing as possible.


edit on 15-5-2011 by MaryStillToe because: grammar




posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Ron Paul is our last great hope if we ever hope to live with any semblance of sanity . He's right you know, if anyone today were to put a "whites only" sign in their shop window they would simply go bankrupt. It's just not an issue in this age whether or not he supports an antiquated law that has in my personal opinion done more damage to minorities than people realize. What I don't understand is why people can't seem to connect the dots. Libertarianism works because it allows us the freedom to decide for ourselves. If a company has a history of bad business practices and you were given a choice whether or not to patronize them, would you? If they had that "whites only" sign in their window would you even bother looking past it? Why would you continue supporting a government that's guilty of the same on so many levels it's nearly beyond belief? I mean doesn't it already occur to you in this "left/right" paradigm that your choices are only about personality and not performance? Do you think yourself stupid, unable to choose for yourself? TPTB think you are. They've robbed you so completely of everything even your children will suffer the loss. And yet you fawn over them like they're demigods while they spit on you and sell you for pennies. It's not anarchy it's sanity.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by D1Useek
Knee jerk reaction of you. No demoncrat voted for the civil rights bill and the minorities have kept them in power for over half a century. How bout Bird? Died in office head of clan.


Distort much???

How about no CONSERVATIVE voted for the civil rights bill.

Back then..."democrats" were mostly southern conservatives....and now those southern conservatives are REPUBLICANS.

Nice try...but it isn't gonna fly.
edit on 14-5-2011 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)


Which ones?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by MaryStillToe
 


Absolutely spot on and well explained... I just hope people can see the very clear logic in what you just said.


Star for you



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by MaryStillToe
 


That mother could very simply shop at another store, we do not live in the 60's anymore. So much passion yet so little common sense in what you believe. In your convoluted world of laws that man who rapes but doesn't steal gets paroled to do it again, just before the murderer, and right after the thief.
edit on 15-5-2011 by kooloperator because: spelling...



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Runaway1977

Originally posted by Butterbone
And to be accurate and not just painting with some gibberish partisan brush, he stated his belief that property owners should be allowed to put up signs that say "No Blacks", or "Whites Only". And the people who live in that community will judge that property owner and take their own steps to let that owner know how they feel about it.


Just like they did in the 1960's.
It really does sound wonderful. I love reruns of Andy Taylor.


If you hadn't noticed, it is no longer the 1960's. Peoples attitudes as a whole, have changed a great deal. That was another point that he made. At one point government intervention was needed in order to force a balance on a system that was purposefully weighted in one direction. As is evident, that intervention was useful and in context successful.
Belittling the harm that is caused when you force people to keep their beliefs secret and allow that secrecy to actually increase the potential of their beliefs spreading, is like putting an iron cast on a broken bone.

A person with a broken bone needs a cast. For as long as it takes for that bone to heal enough that the cast can be removed.

How long do you think people will need Equal Opportunity "auto-balance"???

If you maintain a cast indefinitely, the skin and tissue beneath it will get infected, rot, and cause a greater harm to the whole overall. Healing the bone will have been a futile exercise if you rot away the whole limb and cause blood poisoning.

You have to stop looking at the civil rights act as a cast that is required to repair the damage done by a serious break in the bone that happened during and immediately after the civil war.

If you want the US to keep harboring a secret society of racists then just keep things how they are.

If you want the US to crumble the ideas that are behind racism as a concept, then you let people be free to express it, and believe it and let them suffer the social stigma that will plague them for expressing it.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by ThichHeaded
 


That isn't right.

If Bob the Racist runs a store that bans blacks and Arabs, then who will frequent it? His fellow racists. His business will not disappear. It will continue to operate in virtual segregation, forever. Without government intervention, desegregation simply WOULD NOT have happened in many places, and it would have taken DECADES longer, perhaps GENERATIONS before it melted away in others. Notice that, even today, we still have discrimination in every corner!

And it was the government's job to desegregate in the first place, because it was the government that ESTABLISHED segregation. Jim Crow laws intervened in private business to CREATE a culture of segregation and racial prejudice that might not have been as bad if the market really was "free."

Why is it that people love Ron Paul and this stupid "Civil Rights intervened unfairly in my business boo hoo" bologna? Because the ONLY thing that desegregation tread upon, that was not already tread upon by Jim Crow, was STATES' RIGHTS. You are banging the same tired old drum that led to the Civil War.

edit: beaten on the business argument.

It is entertaining to see Paul supporters leap to their favourite's defense, though. It's easy to see that these arguments aren't being made for the sake of the principle of the freedom to discriminate (why else would his defenders be so upset by being labelled racist for defending racism?) Just standard-issue political rhetoric, no different from the supporters of any politics-jerk: Say whatever it takes to make my guy look less terrible.
edit on 14-5-2011 by SmedleyBurlap because: (no reason given)



THANK YOU!
second line.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stuship
reply to post by The Sword
 


Ron Paul was saying you wouldn't need a civil rights act if Government wasn't supporting the initial racist behavior in the first place.


That is a very succinct way of stating it. Thank you for writing that sentence. Maybe that can cut through some of the "smoke" that constantly gets blown at these racial and social justice issues.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Runaway1977

Originally posted by deesul69
No, he's saying that property rights should not be regulated by the federal government. And yes, it is no longer relevant in the way it was back then. We no longer need the federal government to step in where an entire local or county legal system has all the police, judges and politicians as members of the KKK, as we did in the 60s. The government has no right to tell somebody who can come on their property. If they want to lose money by being racist, (which is really stupid) that's their right. People do not have to frequent that business. Murder and rape are violent crimes with victims. Not really related to this subject at all.
edit on 14-5-2011 by deesul69 because: (no reason given)


So you are just repeating what I said. You also believe that the CRA is not needed because it has succeeded. I must not understand English the way I thought if that is supposed to make any sense. That might explain why you would then go on to pretend racism has no victims or violence involved. James Byrd sure sounds like the name of a victim of violent racism to me. You are saying we do not need laws against such things because they do not happen. Yet, there he is. A real dead black man, dragged to death by racist whites. So either laws against racism and murder are pointless because no one would do these things or they are pointless because people do these things anyway.


James Byrds death had nothing to do with property rights or his ability to buy a big mac in a store.

It was murder. And please explain to us how the CRA should have stopped his murder, considering it happened 34 years after the CRA was passed???

If he hadn't been murdered because he was black, then a native american, a woman, a homsexual, a jew, a hindu, a mexican, or some other individual from a minority group would have suffered his fate at the hands of the group of people who were already willing, and waiting to murder "someone".

You can't paint the civil rights act as a protective blanket for individual racism. Because it isn't. And the CRA1964 hasn't stopped any individual acts of racism, and has ONLY punished people who are proven to be involved in acts of institutional racism. Which is exactly what was needed to express and force the understanding that racism cannot be ingrained in government institutions because those institutions represent ALL of the public. It also extends to businesses who work within the structure of proper business licenses. Public businesses that offer services, had to be included so that the framework of institutionalized racism didn't get a second chair to sit in immediately.

And you know what, for the most part, commercial racism is dead. The minorities are less minorities than they were and businesses cannot ignore them anymore. If business owners want to try to exclude people discriminitorily then that is their personal choice and they should have the freedom to do so. Just as we all would have the freedom to discriminate against that business by shopping elsewhere and putting them out of business, or at least marginalizing them to the degree that no real measure of success could be had that would help promote their ideals.

What we have now are people who become successful in normal business practices who are secret racists and through their success, covertly continue to spread and expand racism out of the idea that it is the literal "secret" to their success.
That's what the CRA still promotes. Forcing an ideological standard on a personal choice that the secret racists use to their advantage. In their underground culture, fighting the CRA makes them folk heroes'.
If we take that mystique away from them, and drown in the light of reality and truth, they won't be able to defend it, and it will, begin to crumble an die off.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by kooloperator
reply to post by MaryStillToe
 


That mother could very simply shop at another store, we do not live in the 60's anymore. So much passion yet so little common sense in what you believe. In your convoluted world of laws that man who rapes but doesn't steal gets paroled to do it again, just before the murderer, and right after the thief.
edit on 15-5-2011 by kooloperator because: spelling...


It appears that you are quick to speak and slow to think.

The societal attitudes and behaviors that defined the 1960's are not incapable of becoming widespread again. The law remains today as a reminder that this behavior is unacceptable. It's the same reason why the rapist will be tried under the same law IF he chooses to commit that same crime again.

If you use some critical thinking skills, the example does not only apply to a store for food. It also applies to buying medicine in a pharmacy or receiving an emergency life saving procedure at a private hospital when there are no other hospitals around for miles and you will die. Try to think a little more.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaryStillToe

Originally posted by kooloperator
reply to post by MaryStillToe
 


That mother could very simply shop at another store, we do not live in the 60's anymore. So much passion yet so little common sense in what you believe. In your convoluted world of laws that man who rapes but doesn't steal gets paroled to do it again, just before the murderer, and right after the thief.
edit on 15-5-2011 by kooloperator because: spelling...


It appears that you are quick to speak and slow to think.

The societal attitudes and behaviors that defined the 1960's are not incapable of becoming widespread again. The law remains today as a reminder that this behavior is unacceptable. It's the same reason why the rapist will be tried under the same law IF he chooses to commit that same crime again.

If you use some critical thinking skills, the example does not only apply to a store for food. It also applies to buying medicine in a pharmacy or receiving an emergency life saving procedure at a private hospital when there are no other hospitals around for miles and you will die. Try to think a little more.


Please Mary don't jump so high and mighty. You jump over your own point. Critical services like medicine and emergency care are already covered under law as something that you cannot deny a person because of their race, or religious beliefs and so on.

That isn't in the CRA1964. It isn't even in the Interstate commercial equality amendment. It is illegal for a practitioner of medicine (even pharmacology) to deny treatment to anyone in need under any conditions, they are required to stabilize the person and ensure their immediate life saving treatments. They are then allowed to have that person transported to another accepting hospital at the cost of the new admitting hospital or the individual even if the individual is a "doe" or unknown person.

Removing the CRA currently would not involve making Racism "normal" or good. It would simply give back a state of freedom that a person is entitled to. You cannot legislate away racism. When you attempt it you get what we have now. Underground racism that is even more pervasive because it's secretive and resistant stance adds and attractiveness based on the idea that these people are fighting an injustice of attempted mind control.

When you make it illegal, you add to it's myth and people who want to prove something will create justifications and paint themselves as heroes who resist the totalitarian controls placed on them.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Lol, Um they already have the right to chose not to hire anyone. As it is now people are being hired that are not as qualified but simply are getting the jobs based on their race. lol How is that not racism? I have personally experienced it more than once.

Maybe there was a time when this was necessary because of a racist society. However when a Black man gets elected to the position of the President of the United States their race card officially has expired and the ones now being discriminated against have become white males.I'm sorry if you don't agree. If you don't though. You just refuse to admit it or simply under educated. if you would like proof. Call an attorney, tell them you want to sue your employer for discrimination. Their first question will be are you a minority or a woman. If you say no. They will bluntly tell you that have no case no matter what you went through. When will we evolve past that BS? It's no less evil. And it weakens our country.

With that being said Ron Paul is an idiot and if our choices are him or the current unqualified President with his crazy dysfunctional cabinet I will then write in Snoopy or another more qualified candidate than those two. No president in our history has spent more money or printed more US dollars in the time Obama has been office. That makes everything much much more expensive.

Ron Paul said he wouldn't have sent that seal team to get OBL. The second I heard that, to me he became the obvious person not to vote for as that is the only thing Obama has done right. He deserves credit when he earns it and he most certainly earned credit for making that call.

If we don't find a strong foreign policy President in 2012 we are doomed. Our policy's for our economy with China is completely one sided in their favor. By design it weakens us and makes them stronger. We are the only reason they grow at the rate they do. We buy all their junk built with inferior materials and slave labor. While they simply refuse us access to their markets WTF?

For the ones that want to call me racist because I'm not a fan of the current president. Well your a clown. I wouldn't hesitate to vote for someone no matter male or female. And no matter the color. We certainly don't need to be taxed more. We simply need to spend smart. There is no way a company like GE rakes in 16 Billion in profit and not have to pay takes. Now they actually stepped up and paid their taxes. There are 5000 or more companies that are in the same boat. There is something screwed up when all of us American's reading this have most likely have paid more in taxes than companies that have cleared Billions in profits. If your wondering I vote as an independent.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muckster
I don’t think i have read a more ignorant un-thought out argument in my life. And lots of stars to back it up??? What wrong with you people???

So if your pregnant wife goes into a store, to buy a bottle of water on a hot summers day, and the store owner shouts "Get out of my store, we don’t serve your kind in here" You will just shrug it off and think "oh well, he is just an idiot expressing his right"

Really?!?! Is that what you would do?? Protect the freedoms of the ignorant bigoted store owner who has the "right" to not serve whoever he wants, over that of your pregnant wife's right to buy a bottle of water on a hot summers day????

Pathetic!!


I'd be angry and disgusted. And I'd show him a thing or two...by going next door and buying my water from someone else. Then telling my friends about him, and they tell their friends and so on. And before someone starts with the "what ifs", we all know not every single business owner in the area would be stupid enough to have the same attitude of that guy. Someone would sell my pregnant wife some water.

/TOA



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Wow. This is a textbook example of how our masters maintain a stranglehold over a collectively stronger and overpowering mob.


What would happen is that, being America is a white dominated country, whites would shop in white only shops, blacks in black only, hispanic in hispanic only, etc.


Do you really think that would happen? In 2012, Ron Paul is elected president and all of the sudden business begin banning races from their establishments? It wouldn't happen, my friend. Why not? Well, businesses don't see black, white, yellow, purple, etc. They see GREEN. In the occasional backwater town somewhere in the hills where there are actual real racists, I am SPECULATING they don't really need to put up a sign. Why am I speculating? Because I have only seen true racism on TV, and most of the stuff on television is about as realistic as your concept of "WHITE FOLKS ONLY" signs on business.

Americans spend a lot of time complaining about dishonest politicians, but Ron Paul provides good insight into WHY our politicians are dishonest scumbags. Telling the truth is political suicide. This, in no small part, is due to how incredibly easy it is for the power elite to divide, manipulate, and distract us with complete and utter BS.

Fabricate a little racial tension to turn "Should we have more personal responsibility and less governmental interference in privately owned businesses?" into "Does Ron Paul support racism and slavery?". Well done. "Should informed adults be prosecuted for making personal decisions regarding their own body, health, and well being?" into "Does Ron Paul want your children to do heroin and become prostitutes?".

Someone mentioned how Dr. Paul wants to get rid of medicare and just let people die if they cant afford treatment. I find this stance ironic for a man who during his medical practice, delivered over 4,000 babies for FREE, refusing Medicare payment.

It is my personal opinion that Capitalism inevitably destroys itself, and is inherently evil because in the end, greed wins. If we all WILLINGLY helped our fellow human beings, while being personally responsible like Dr. Paul preaches over and over again, we would be living in a comparatively vibrant Utopian paradise. So, all being said, I do not think his policies would work in the real world because they count on the rest of us having the same honesty and integrity that he has shown himself to have time and time again. Of course, the failure of all these other guys is a definitive historical fact. Ron Paul is offering the only solution that's not a mistake we have already freaking made so many times that if we go with the same crap again, we deserve everything we get. If his philosophy actually worked it would not only save our country, but prove we are collectively capable of sustainable prosperity in defiance of greed, as opposed to the unsustainable and self destructive way that greed currently controls every aspect of our society.

To sum up this rant.... If you are against Ron Paul, let it be for a logical reason like the collective failure of our society to respect each other and be responsible human beings. Or.... just continue to call each other racists. Whatever.

Sincerely, a 27 year old green dollar sign collecting interest in somebody elses retirement fund

edit on 15-5-2011 by dontshoot because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


You are being dishonest because Ron Paul never said "I would have never voted for the 1964 civil rights act". As Ron Paul has said several times about people who say that "You are putting words in his mouth.". Therefore I couldn't vote for you as president, because unlike Ron Paul you are dishonest.

We all know why honest positions don't get elected. People like you really do refuse to vote for an honest politician and I'll tell you why. Anyone who is both intelligent and honest has a lot of quirky positions that show up. Therefore, I absolutely promise there is no politician you would vote for who is both intelligent and honest as you'd always be able to say "I can't vote for this guy because he would do ridiculously unlikely X in impossibly unlikely scenario Y".

Its such insanity that issues that don't matter today any bit whatsoever could be the primary basis for your voting decisions. Hey, here is an idea, you could vote for a president based on the relevant issues of today.

The war in Iraq.

The war on drugs.

The bank system failure.

The excessive police state.

The blow-out crushing government debt.


These are the top issues. But you'd rather vote for someone with a terrible position on the top relevant issues because Ron Paul chooses to be honest and tell you about some obscure quirky position he has rather than avoiding the issue like a politician. Perhaps instead of worrying about obscure issues that nobody cares about and are not relevant, you should vote based on the important issues relevant today, right now.

If you think what Ron Paul says is bad, then whatever the other guys said if they were actually honest about their answers would be TEN TIMES WORSE!

Lets look at what some of the other candidates in the field would say if they were brutally honest:
Obama: Well honestly, I kind of hate rich white guys, and I totally would love to see them suffer.

Huckabee: Nobody would listen to me as a pastor. God didn't work out for me. But as governor, those little buggers were forced to pay me some respect and finally listen... and if they didn't they could say no in PRISON!

Here is a question I have for you:
Would you refuse to vote for someone who voted yes to the patriot act? I can tell you I wouldn't.

I demand you remove the quotes from your title because you are shoving words in Paul's mouth that he never said. This belongs in the [hoax] bin until then.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Have you ever gone into a store and everything is written in spanish/chinese? Would you consider that discrimination? I myself don't have a problem with it. I just won't go into that store. If they wanted me in thier business they would offer english. Ever hear someone called a honky? No big deal right. God forbid I say the n word. What about my rights. Do I count. Oh no thats right I am white.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Denco

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by Denco
Is anyone responding to this NOT white? Or experienced hate based (not ignorance based) racism first hand?


You have to be non-white to experience hate-based racism?


That's why I said OR



There is a lot of generalization going on right now from both sides. What ifs, straw man, anecdotal arguments, etc..It's hard for people to swallow that racism happens everywhere and isn't dictated by governmental intervention and instances of racism in 2011 have more to do with misdirected economic and education issues than they do actual racism.

I would like to chime in with a personal story that I find relevant if any of you have the time to read it.

I am a young caucasian male. I am a non-union trade worker and during a lay off I work for a drug therapy wilderness program for youth.

I happened to be passing through New Mexico on my way back home, as I had been working for about two years straight away from it. If anybody has traveled directly west of Texas, you'll understand there is a lot of Native American owned businesses all through-out New Mexico and Arizona, up into the southwest corner of Colorado. These businesses being mostly Navajo, with small variations here and there, which I understand carries it's own tensions(the government should really step in and do something about that, right?).

I was on empty and due to moving around the southwest because of my trade so much, I had long distance traveling down to a science and knew I had about 30 miles left before I was walking my sorry ass to a gas station on foot in Navajo country, which didn't bother me more so than people not familiar with the culture. I had worked closely with a lot of res and non-res Dine in a 9 month project in Nevada. I knew all the bad words in the language and feel like I could relate and BS on their level if things became uncomfortable.

No worries, a few gas stations coming up just outside of Shiprock, New Mexico on the old I-666. I've been through this junction 4 or 5 times in my travels and usually go to a newer travel center near the heart of the junction, but gunning for time and bladder constraints I hit the first gas station I came across. I walked in, of course the only white person in the store, I approach the Navajo woman running the register.

"Hey, I'm going to buy gas and some other things, you mind if I get the key for the bathroom?"
- "Employees only."
"I won't be a mess, I'm clocked in just under 400 miles out there holding it the last 100 miles or so. I would really appreciate it..."
- "Sorry" she smirked.

I can respect that. Standards are standards. I get a few teas, chikosticks, bag of almonds, jug of water and buy 35 dollars in gas (remember when it was only $3.00/gal?)

The woman by this time is now talking on the phone as I put my stuff up, I'm in no real rush, still have 800 miles to go, people have their own # going on, I'm just glad to be headed home for a much needed rest. She makes eye contact with me, smirks, and starts talking in Navajo. I don't know much, but I know what "Beligana" means, and that's "white person" or "white boy" she goes on in words I don't know, and my ears perk to "Jshoshee" which means "pu**y." I'm thinking to myself, "I can't wait to call her out" as another customer (Dine), comes out of the bathroom with the bathroom key, lays it on the counter and walks out like it's business as usual, not even a thank you.

I'm at a loss. I have little time for any sort of racism, but this is the first significant time in my life where I have been object (not victim) of racism. She turns around and acts like it's nothing and puts the bathroom key on a hanger and finishes up her phone call and turns to me. She's scanning all the items with attitude, as if I'm doing something wrong by supporting a business she works for or may even own. As if I'm wasting her time.

I quietly wait until she's done and give her the money. I am even handed my change with attitude, the quarters being more thrown in my hand than set.

I say to her as soon as the transaction is done and say my thanks. After I say thank you, I make sure I have her full attention and eye contact.

I say, "Jshoshee means pu**y and beligana means white boy."

She looks stunned. Hand in the cookie jar stunned.

"You know how I know that? My Dine friends. Same friends that gave me the wallet that was holding the money I just gave you. Have a good one."

Was the government there to enforce justice?

No. Not at all. I wouldn't want them to be.

Would I have stopped at a "Dine Only" station? No. I wonder how long one would last in a tourist driven, interstate servicing junction like that. Not long, I imagine. Dictated by that scary old invisible hand of the market all the government interventionalists are so afraid of.

Beyond all that, there was an exchange among peoples that may or may not have seeded an intrinsic alteration of a persons opinion that in no way could the government mandate. Two human beings were going through the paces of interaction based on their prejudice or lack of prejudice which cannot also be regulated by federal government law.


What does it say about a society in which a minimum amount of personal interaction is required by federal mandate? The same government who made standardized racism law beforehand?


Individuals of all color and creed united collectively to march peacefully against racism. The government didn't recruit a white person for every five black to take part in civil disobedience during the civil rights movement. Just as they didn't mandate a one to one white/black ratio later on in some places. They came together naturally in solidarity against a social standard that for a long time was allowed by governmental law to establish the foundation for modern day racial equality.

The same principles behind the beliefs of Dr. Ron Paul. You recognize the individual and his/her beliefs regardless and let people come together as they see fit. In a day and age where the majority, close to 60 million voters and countless nonvoting supporters elect a black man into presidency is proof of a new age.

We're America, damn it. We don't need the government training wheels anymore, and we don't need overly sensitive pansies demanding our society be the way they see fit via federal intervention.

If it doesn't happen intrinsically, it's not going to develop into a culture. Simple as that.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join