The Dred Scott decision notoriously decided that African-Americans in general
had never been and could never be citizens of this nation.
Nowadays, since the constitution mandates equal protection of the laws,
everybody who is in fact being denied that equality, by ANY state, can
legitimately claim that that state is treating him/her as less than an American.
Victims of state-sponsored discrimination can claim that they are being
treated as "second-class" citizens. For any AMERICAN citizen, however, to be
"second-class" is, or at least ought to be, A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS, precisely
BECAUSE America's own constitution REQUIRES America (and its constitutent states)
to grant all the citizens equal protection, as opposed to granting some of them
less (and thereby putting them in a second class).
The question, therefore, is how to react to "Americans" who are overt about WANTING
to put some people into second classes. How AMERICAN is it to state explicitly
that we'd be better off granting less than equal protection (and more than equal
pressure to get back or get out) to some of our residents?
Well, obviously, one reaction is to insist that in terms of the values and ideals to which America has always aspired, politically overt bigotry is no LONGER "American" AT ALL. In other words, one reaction is to attack the
patriotism or "Americanness" of bigots. Bigotry has HISTORICALLY been as American as
apple pie, but the times they ARE a'changin'. The current generation of young white American voters is more concerned about the persistence of racial disparities
generally than it is about whether attempts to fix them will "unfairly" limit young
white workers' opportunities -- this is A CHANGE from the generation that came of age in the Reagan campaign 24 years ago.
Given that America's founding documents HAVE ALWAYS stressed the importance of equality, there is a lot to be said for the position that AGREEING with that (with all men (and women) being created equal, with all of us deserving equal protection of the laws, with all of us having the right not only to pursue happiness, but to actually GET a little OCCASIONALLY) is a lot more American than bigoted advocacy of second-
class citizenship (or no citizenship at all: some "Americans" really are attacking birthright citizenship in America).
But you CAN'T just SAY that, NOT HERE, anyway:
Donut. (9+ / 1-)
Recommended by:
taylormattd, Rimjob, Ahianne, boadicea, mcfly, Catte Nappe, wiscmass, trashablanca, Black Leather Rain
Hidden by:
ge0rge
Since when does geOrge get to decide who is an American and who is not.
I never tried to decide any such thing, but the person who lies and says I did gets 9 recs?? This is just so ridiculously backwards that all
9 of these people should simply be ashamed of themselves.
THE ACTUAL question, since Texas has the blackest death row in the nation and homophobic law enforcement in general, is why does TEXAS get to decide that all of the people that IT is discriminating against are not as FULLY American as the rich conservative white people that its power structure favors?
We need to be VERY clear about this:
I was attacking conservative Texans
for being bigoted enough to deny the
civil rights of American citizens.
THEY are the ones deciding "who is an American and who is not",
NOT ME.
But somebody comes along and lies and says that I am the one
deciding "who is an American and who is not"?
The only thing more ridiculous than that somebody would get it
that backwards is that he would get 9 recs for doing so.
Meanwhile, most of what I posted in the way of actual ARGUMENT
supporting A POSITION gets hidden in VIOLATION of the guidelines --
with DOZENS of illegitimate HRs -- and nobody who participated in
THOSE loses ANYthing.
*
It's not me, IT'S THE CONSTITUTION, dumbass (1+ / 5-)
Recommended by:
Marcion
Hidden by:
Olds88, Spathiphyllum, ThatSinger, NogodsnomastersMary, Andhakari
We were talking about Texas.
Since when does Texas get to decide who is
an American and who is not? Before the civil war,
they had decide that I was not.
YOU DAMN WELL BETTER GET YOUR RACIST HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS around the question of who is calling whom less than an American. Texas is still in segregationstan and it will a long time before THEY legalize gay marriage.
Wherefore you should next ask me whether I'm saying that people who oppose gay marriage "aren't Americans".
What I am saying is that their view is fundamentally opposed to founding bedrock principles of the national identity, of the meaning of what it is to be AMERICAN.
LIKE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.
The road to hell has not YET been paved with Republicans, but it SHOULD be -- Corrected BumperSticker
by ge0rge on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:38:42 PM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to This ]
o
HR from my iPhone... nt (8+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
taylormattd, Ahianne, wiscmass, trashablanca, gchaucer2, martydd, NogodsnomastersMary, Black Leather Rain
Unfortunately for us all, I was not the only liberal North Carolinian getting accused of going too far this week. UNC shouted down an attempted appearance by former congressman and presidential candidate Tom Tancredo, apparently because his anti-immigrant advocacy was viewed by many as extreme enough to be racist enough to be in violation of this:
Article 30.
* Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
This is the FINAL article of the UN's
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It is one that the ACLU and the chancellor of UNC (not to mention the
thousands of alumni who called him to support the bigot) have unfortunately not yet internalized.
IT IS NOT A LEGITIMATE USE OF ANYbody's free speech to advocate the viewing and treating of other people as so SUB-human or SUB-citizen
that they DON'T deserve free speech OR ANY OF THE OTHER 29 rights "universally" declared by the UN. And that is exactly what Tom Tancredo
is doing by opposing all paths to citizenship for "illegal" immigrants.
Under the fugitive slave law, escaped slaves used to be illegal immigrants to Massachusetts.