Over many years, Californian governments have assiduously built up a reputation for being racist pigs. Prop 187 in 1994 denied education and health care to undocumented workers, Prop 209 in 1996 banned affirmative action, Prop 227 in 1998 scrapped bilingual education.

Now it seems however, the California has finally seen the light. Prop
54 "the Racial Privacy Initiative" or, more accurately, CRECNO(Classification by Race, Ethnicity, Color or National Origin) is on the recall ballot.
It's amazing that the solution to racially differential provision of public was so obvious! Because government officials (excepting law enforcement and prison management) will no longer be able to ask what race people are from, overnight all services that were hitherto provided in a racially discriminatory way will now be provided in a color blind way. Why didn't we all think of that ages ago?

That Ward Connerly guy is a genius! Here was I thinking he must be some kind of racist when he OPPOSED affirmative action, and now it seems that all he wants is to "stop the indignity of classifying people". Yes, lets make all the bad stuff that happens to people of color disappear, or at least be visited upon them as color-neutral Californians.
Although the cops can ask what race you are, they don't have to. This could be really good. Just imagine there's a bunch of cops who spot some colored transit worker getting sassy, and they decide to beat him or her up. If they do it before the legislation passes, it could go down as a racist assault. So they go up to the transit worker and if one of them forgets himself and says "what f...g ethnicity are you?" the bus driver could say "latino" and then when the cops pounded him or her to a pulp that'd be racist.
But after the legislation passes, the latino bus driver could say "hey I don't have to answer that ... I don't want to be classified." And one cop could turn to the other and say "the guy's got a point, ceptin' we're PO-lice officers and we can ask what the hell we like!". "Ok, tell ya what we're gonna do, we'll beat you up as a person of no particular color."
And so, a potential racist assault would be avoided. The hospital could deal with him or her as if they were color neutral (I'm thinking it could be that kind of beige/acun color, with just a splash of claret here and there for effect).
I'm old enough to remember black and white TV but you know, I could tell the white guys from the black or latino guys. I wonder what the best description for these colours would be. I'd hate to think that law enforcement or racists in general might get confused about whom to beat up. "What was he?" "Oh, beige I think ...". It just doesn't sound right.
Berko60
For a world more beige than coloured ...
 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 16
{snipped}
And so, a potential racist assault would be avoided. The hospital could deal with him or her as if they were color neutral (I'm thinking it could be that kind of beige/acun color, with just a splash of claret here and there for effect).

'Acun' what color is that?

john
Over many years, Californian governments have assiduously built up a reputation for being racist pigs. Prop 187 in 1994 denied education and health care to undocumented workers, Prop 209 in 1996 banned affirmative action, Prop 227 in 1998 scrapped bilingual education.

Ballot initiatives are not normally placed on the ballot by "Californian governments", but by special interest groups or other groups of citizens. Ward Connerly is not a member of the government. Prop 187, which I did not support, can't properly be called racist since it did not discriminate on the basis of race, only on the basis of one's immigration status. Those of all races that were in the state legally were not affected by 187. Those that were in the state illegally were affected, regardless of race. It might be better described as classist or elitist, or perhaps just as a bad idea. Of course that's just my opinion, yours may vary.

Regards,
John
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
{snipped}

And so, a potential racist assault would be avoided. The ... just a splash of claret here and there for effect).

'Acun' what color is that?

Isn't it that sort of "off white-cream" color that internal walls are sometimes painted?
Berko
Over many years, Californian governments have assiduously built up a ... banned affirmative action, Prop 227 in 1998 scrapped bilingual education.

Ballot initiatives are not normally placed on the ballot by "Californian governments", but by special interest groups or other groups ... or elitist, or perhaps just as a bad idea. Of course that's just my opinion, yours may vary. Regards, John

That's one definition of racist explicit discrimination on the basis of perceived race, but a policy measure, that, in practice, consistently selects beneficiaries or victims by race can also be deemed racist. Thus, a hypotherical measure that required intending immigrants to a country to pass an English-proficiency test before applying, would privilege the predominantly white applicants of English speaking countries and exclude a disproportionate number of people who were not from English-speaking countries. A public health measure that excluded applications from people from countries with more than a certain proportion of malaria victims per head of population, would privilege European applicants, despite being notionally a public health measure.
In this case, the bulk of undocumented workers were hispanic, and the measure arose in the context of talk of fences across the south of the united states, "light up the border" vigilante mobilisations, cop beatings of desperate immigrants from south of the Rio Grande etc.

And yes, it was also a very bad idea.
Berko
{snipped} 'Acun' what color is that?

Isn't it that sort of "off white-cream" color that internal walls are sometimes painted?

Are you thinking of "ecru"?
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Ballot initiatives are not normally placed on the ballot by ... idea. Of course that's just my opinion, yours may vary.

That's one definition of racist explicit discrimination on the basis of perceived race, but a policy measure, that, in practice, consistently selects beneficiaries or victims by race can also be deemed racist.

How does "immigration status" = "perceived race"? You gloss over the major point of disagreement.
Thus, a hypotherical measure that required intending immigrants to a country to pass an English-proficiency test before applying, would privilege the predominantly white applicants of English speaking countries and exclude a disproportionate number of people who were not from English-speaking countries.

That is a ridiculous argument. Such a requirement would give Liberians an edge over Russians, Kenyans an edge over Swedes.
A public health measure that excluded applications from people from countries with more than a certain proportion of malaria victims ... united states, "light up the border" vigilante mobilisations, cop beatings of desperate immigrants from south of the Rio Grande etc.

You can argue that people who are concerned about illegal immigration are simply racist, but if your object is to persuade them that they are wrong, it is a foolish tack to take. I recommend listening to their concerns and replying substantively. For instance:

If they say:
"I'm worried that the illegal immigrants will underbid me in the labor market."
Do you say:

1.) "You're a racist pig."

or
2.) "That won't happen because the government will be checking up onemployers to ensure they don't hire illegal immigrants."

Inquiringly yours,
-skipka
Isn't it that sort of "off white-cream" color that internal walls are sometimes painted?

Are you thinking of "ecru"?

In the early part of my working life I did some work with a home decorator of Turkish extraction, and although I never saw the word written down, that's what it sounded like, and the supplier he bought from seemed to know what he meant. You could be right though.

Berko
How does "immigration status" = "perceived race"? You gloss over the major point of disagreement.

As long as most immigrants are not white, then any law that discriminates against immigrants discriminates disproportionately against non-whites. It is immoral to simply wave away such results as being of no importance.
Thus, a hypotherical measure that required intending immigrants to a ... disproportionate number of people who were not from English-speaking countries.

That is a ridiculous argument. Such a requirement would give Liberians an edge over Russians, Kenyans an edge over Swedes.

It is not a ridiculous argument, but a correct one. Yes, it would give Liberians an edge over Russians and Kenyans and edge over Swedes, but there is not the slightest doubt that it would, in actual use, on balance favor white people. (We can fully expect that at any point in the future when it started not to do so, racists would begin arguing for a change in the law.)

Think about it for a moment: If such a law in fact did not favor white people, racist whites would be opposed to it. Instead, they are very much in favor of such laws. While they may be irrational, I cannot believe that they are irrational to such a point that they would argue so directly against what they perceive to be their own best interests.
A public health measure that excluded applications from people from ... privilege European applicants, despite being notionally a public health measure.

This too is quite correct.
In this case, the bulk of undocumented workers were hispanic, ... of desperate immigrants from south of the Rio Grande etc.

You can argue that people who are concerned about illegal immigration are simply racist, but if your object is to persuade them that they

It is not necessary to so argue. But to not recognize that a great many of those concerned about illegal immigration are concerned out of racist motives is naive.
are wrong, it is a foolish tack to take. I recommend listening to their concerns and replying substantively. For instance: ... happen because the government will be checking up on employers to ensure they don't hire illegal immigrants." Inquiringly yours, -skipka

We needn't argue "You're are a racist pig." We must argue, "The law, as proposed, will have racist results," if in fact it will. A moral person should then turn against such a law, or argue for it to be modified so that it will not have racist results.
We mustn't let the racists win.

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Show more