Arizona gov. signs bill targeting ethnic studies

Catz Part Deux said:

I wouldn't support teaching a separate class on the Civil War. But, I agree...it should be taught in a much more nuanced and historically accurate way versus "The South Was Evil so The North Kicked Its Ass" which seems to be the norm.

Click to expand...

So you wouldn't also support teaching a seperate class on the vietnam war to focus on latino's taking part in it?

I'm not even saying this as some kind of big advocate for changing how we teach about the south and the civil war in this country. The victors write the history books and while I do think a little bit more nuance at higher grade classes could be good, I think the more generic explanations are fine for our lower grades.

I'm saying it because I know that many of those that seemingly have no issue with a history class that focuses more on a latino view of American history rather than an American view of American history but would fight tooth and nail, grabbing every fallacy and every exaggeration possible in the process, to have a similar class teaching a southern view.

jallman said:

Did I say that? However, US American history really isn't about a bunch of savages crossing the bering strait.

Click to expand...

I swear to god I haven't been able to do this in such a long time:


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1klLTb1rbE"]YouTube- Savages - Pocahontas[/nomedia]

Your lack of pride in your heritage is a little disappointing.

Click to expand...

I can wave my flag and pay my taxes until my arm goes sore, but that does not save me from getting shafted by the United States or by a fellow American.

You don't think this law is a step in that direction?

Click to expand...

I think education and specifically the University system is the last bastion against stringent government regulation. Occasionally the Feds like to poke their nose into courses, because they know that most revolutions and anti-establishment movements start at the University.

I agree to a certain degree with the ideals of the bill, but I don't think it is Arizona's right to force education in such a way.

Zyphlin said:

No, its teaching a class about a specific culture from the mindset of that culture rather than teaching a standard american history class, just like their teaching a class in the mindset of a specific culture rather than teachin a standard american history class.

Click to expand...

Show us all the class where this is being done. Circular reasoning will not do.

Want to know the first sign your arguments weak? When you start playing spelling nazi. Yeah, sorry, don't give a **** enough about arguing with you to sit here and run everything through spell check or read read things a dozen times to see if I didn't accidently hit the s key before I hit the e.

There's nothing "revisionist" about what I typed, its simply a different view point. One contrary to what's typically thought of and viewed by American History classes.

I'll give you a free be here. You may not want to tell posters to get the **** out, its uncivil and its flaming, figure I'd be kind and say it here since you're doing it to a mod so that another doesn't come from behind and act on it.

But fine, since you want to nit pick and continue to dance around the question...fine, take my exact same question and remove your questionable "revisionist" part. Have it simply a southern heritage class that focuses on the other reasons, ALONG with Slavery, that the south went to war (or are you seriously claiming slavery was the first, second, and ONLY reason). Have it still study Jackson and Lee. Have it look at the Southern Culture of that time. Have it look at what Southerns have contributed to the country since then.

Nothing revisionist there, nothing that can even be claimed to be revionist. So again, how about rather than getting on your little soap box because you can't dare to actually admit you're being amazingly biased and hypocritical, grabbing onto one little line and using it as if nothing else within it existed, and now answer the question truthfully and honestly.

Click to expand...

Oh good lord, the mod is going to cry us all a river. If you don't like it and can't take being called out for your intense intellectual dishonesty that's fine - but don't come crying about having your feelings hurt when you're one of the biggest baiters on this forum.

If the class wants to teach about Southern Poverty? No problem at all. If the class teaches the South was decimated during the Civil War? Fine. If the class teaches the destruction of the South lead to incredible amounts of poverty in the South? Fine. When the class veers into the complete intellectual dishonest you're suggesting then no it's not fine. But that's not what we have here is it?

We have you declaring that the class is revising history. On what grounds? Have you seen the books being read in the class? What about the events being discussed? Have you actually sat in any of these classes yourself and could provide any kind of information for us to see other than your word?

No. You're being intellectually dishonest in your comparison. Don't like it? Take your ball home.

Arch Enemy said:

I swear to god I haven't been able to do this in such a long time:


YouTube- Savages - Pocahontas

Click to expand...

You probably could have waited a while longer because that really did nothing for me or for you.

I can wave my flag and pay my taxes until my arm goes sore, but that does not save me from getting shafted by the United States or by a fellow American.

Click to expand...

we are probably at an impasse here if thats all you think pride in your heritage is about waving a flag and paying taxes.

Hatuey said:

I'll explain why I say 'Republican Revisionism'. In the last 40 years, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party have switched voting blocks. While this is for various reasons, the Republican Party has now taken up the role of defending the Republican created myth of 'States Rights'. Disenfranchised poor whites in formerly heavy Democrat areas of the South are now States Rights supporting Republicans of the South.

Click to expand...

Which does zero to address the fact that Lincoln was the Republican in the Civil War.

jallman said:

Which does zero to address the fact that Lincoln was the Republican in the Civil War.

Click to expand...

Actually it does. If MODERN Republicans defended 'states rights' using Lincoln it would be political suicide. The civil war was devastating to the South and many rightfully blamed Lincoln for this. Why would any modern Republican party use that type of damaging information? Why would a modern Republican party which is highly dependent on Southern white men use Lincoln as a spokesperson of any sort? The modern Republican base who is so quick to say that Democrats use to be racist forgets that they weren't always pro-'States rights'. Republican Revisionism indeed.

Hatuey said:

Actually it does.

Click to expand...

Actually, it DOESN'T.

jallman said:

Actually, it DOESN'T.

Click to expand...

Says you pumpkin. :\

Hatuey said:

Says you pumpkin. :\

Click to expand...

Says reality. Lincoln was the Republican. You would like to revise the history of the US and lay every ill at the feet of Republicans without acknowledging the great strides in Civil Rights that Republicans took.

You don't get to do that. That's exactly what's wrong with "ethnic studies" as it is.

Hatuey said:

Show us all the class where this is being done. Circular reasoning will not do.



Oh good lord, the mod is going to cry us all a river. If you don't like it and can't take being called out for your intense intellectual dishonesty that's fine - but don't come crying about having your feelings hurt when you're one of the biggest baiters on this forum.

If the class wants to teach about Southern Poverty? No problem at all. If the class teaches the South was decimated during the Civil War? Fine. If the class teaches the destruction of the South lead to incredible amounts of poverty in the South? Fine. When the class veers into the complete intellectual dishonest you're suggesting then no it's not fine. But that's not what we have here is it?

We have you declaring that the class is revising history. On what grounds? Have you seen the books being read in the class? What about the events being discussed? Have you actually sat in any of these classes yourself and could provide any kind of information for us to see other than your word?

No. You're being intellectually dishonest in your comparison. Don't like it? Take your ball home.

Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:

You need to stop NOW or there will be further consequences.

Hatuey said:

Arizona gov. signs bill targeting ethnic studies - Yahoo! News



Another bill targeting Hispanics and other minorities in Arizona with vague language. Who gets to decide whether a class 'promotes resentment'? If they learn about American support for the dictatorial PRI who killed hundreds of young students days before the Mexico City Olympics, does that promote 'resentment'? Thoughts?

Click to expand...

As if the PRI was some sort of terrorist organization rather than the ruling party in Mexico, a socialist party actually.

Hatuey said:

I think their problem is when these classes start going into the specifics. I remember being in school and I don't remember being taught about American involvement in Latin America at all. I don't remember being taught that the U.S. and the United Fruit Company had central roles in the overthrow of the Arbenz government in Guatemala. I don't remember being taught that thousands of Chileans died as a result of the U.S. backed coup that overthrew Allende.

Do you?

Click to expand...

Well this is the whole problem right here, we get socialist Chomskyite professors who sound exactly like you spreading biased anti-American diatribes and they try to make it seem like Arbenz and Allende were beacons of liberty or something and that once again the evil old U.S. imperialists came jackbooting in to stomp on the freedom parade. Well that's ****ing bull****. Both Arbenz and Allende were Communists attempting to overthrow democratic republics and replace them with Marxist dictatorships.

A) Arbenz was a Communist receiving military aid from the soviets, and the UFC had nothing to do with it:

{I}n the past 18 years, researchers have gathered and analyzed new evidence, refining the interpretations of the Guatemalan revolution. Piero Gleijeses uncovered Guatemalan documents and interviewed prominent actors, most notably María de Arbenz, the widow of the deposed president. His book, Shattered Hope: The United States and the Guatemalan Revolution, 1944–1954, focused on the internal dynamics of the revolution, providing the intellectual counterpart to Immerman’s analysis of the Washington foreign policy apparatus. Gleijeses, an admirer of Arbenz, produced irrefutable evidence of Arbenz’s gravitation toward the Communist Party and ideology, shattering previous portrayals of Arbenz as an economic nationalist or reformer. He also reassigned a portion of responsibility to the Guatemalan military, which ultimately betrayed Arbenz and allowed Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas to march unopposed into Guatemala City. Jim Handy mined the archives of Guatemala’s Agrarian Reform Institute to produce a sophisticated analysis of Arbenz’s agrarian reform. Revolution in the Countryside demonstrates how Arbenz’s agrarian reform triggered conflicts far beyond the United Fruit Company (UFCO) and the United States government. The agrarian reform generated conflict within and between indigenous communities, alienated Guatemala’s landowners, and disturbed the Guatemalan military because it disrupted the order that had long prevailed in the countryside...

...While some of Bitter Fruit’s general conclusions may remain intact, recent research calls into question Schlesinger and Kinzer’s characterization of important events and people. They maintain their original position on Arbenz’s ideology, arguing that Arbenz’s primary ideology was nationalism and that accusations that Arbenz was a communist “dupe” were “farfetched”(pp. 60– 61). Their characterizations of Arbenz’s ideology and his program lose credibility in the wake of Piero Gleijeses. Based on interviews with Arbenz’s widow, José Manuel Fortuny and other Communist leaders, Gleijeses concluded that although Arbenz did not join the Guatemalan Communist Party until 1957, he considered himself a communist during the last two years of his administration.

Arbenz apologists have long felt compelled to deny Arbenz’s communist inclinations to maintain the case against the CIA. Yet Gleijeses, an open admirer of Arbenz and his program, explains how and why Arbenz believed that the triumph of communism in Guatemala and around the world was both inevitable and desirable. To reach that stage, Arbenz and other Latin American communists believed that Guatemala had to pass through a capitalist stage in its inevitable evolution toward socialism. Hence, the agrarian reform was indeed designed to make Guatemala into a modern capitalist state, as Schlesinger and Kinzer argue, but that did not make Arbenz a capitalist. Arbenz’s long-term objective, as his opponents in UFCO and the CIA alleged, was the creation of a communist state.

Schlesinger and Kinzer maintain some positions that are no longer tenable. They argue, for example, that the Czech weaponry carried on board the Alf hem and confiscated by the Guatemalan Army in May 1954 was “intended solely for the Guatemalan Army”(p. 153). However, Arbenz’s closest political associates have confirmed that a portion of the Alfhem weapons were to be used to arm workers’ militias. Schlesinger and Kinzer insist that the Americans trumped up the charges about the workers’ militias in order to prove their case about a communist conspiracy. But the Americans did not lie in this case; at least a portion of the arms were intended for the workers.

None of this justifies the American intervention, but assessing responsibility for the collapse of the Arbenz regime hangs in the balance. In the Bitter Fruit account, the CIA orchestrated the counterrevolutionary movement on behalf of “The Overlord,” or the United Fruit Company. After an inept and bumbling covert campaign, spearheaded by a poorly trained army of only 150 men, Arbenz simply resigned. According to Schlesinger and Kinzer, Arbenz did not fight because “he was never more than he seemed to be—a bourgeois reformer whose ideology did not extend beyond basic precepts of nationalism and the stimulation of domestic industry and agriculture” (p. 198). It is now clear that Arbenz was a communist who did not fight because he did not have an army or workers’ militias to lead into battle. He failed in his gamble to arm the workers’ militias, and the army, even knowing that it would win, refused to fight because the officers did not want a direct military confrontation with the United States...

...Cullather also concluded that the United Fruit Company played a minor role in the decision-making process. He argues that the CIA recognized Guatemala as a serious threat even before Arbenz expropriated the company’s property. According to Cullather, “the threat to American business was a minor part of the larger danger to the United States’ overall security” (p. 37). In Cullather’s account, United Fruit is not the “overlord” of the operation but a tool used by the CIA to remove a perceived security threat. Once the company’s usefulness expired, the Eisenhower administration proceeded with its suspended antitrust action, which ended in 1958 with a consent decree that forced the company to divest of its Guatemalan holdings (p. 118).

Cullather’s account is in line with recent research on the Guatemalan revolution. It is significant that Piero Gleijese wrote the afterword to Secret History, giving the account his approval by praising Cullather’s intellect and integrity. Cullather’s research in the CIA files confirms that the UFCO played a minor role in the Guatemalan tragedy. He prefaces his account with a quote culled from Gleijeses’ interview with José Manuel Fortuny, who concluded: “They would have overthrown us even if we had grown no bananas” (p. 7). For those who want to believe that the CIA overthrew Arbenz simply to protect a banana company, Bitter Fruit is required reading, and a great read at that. For those who want a full account of the complex array of factors involved in the Guatemalan affair, Cullather’s Secret History has now been added to the required reading list.

Dosal, Paul J. (Paul Jaime), 1960-

Bitter Fruit: The Story of the American Coup in Guatemala, and: Secret History: The CIA's Classified Account of its Operations in Guatemala, 1952-1954 (review)

Hispanic American Historical Review - 80:3, August 2000, pp. 633-635

http://proxy.usf.edu:81/cgi-bin/ez_auth.pl?url=http://hahr.dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/80/3/633

Click to expand...

B) There is no evidence what so ever that U.S. supported or directed the coup plotters against Allende.

C) Allende only won a plurality decision of 1%, which is far from a mandate and then went about trying to erect a totalitarian Marxist regime, by his own admission his goal was to destroy the Chilean Democratic Republic:

"The answer is the proletariat. If it wasn't so I wouldn't be here [...] As for the bourgeois state, at the present moment, we are seeking to overcome it. To overthrow it. [...] Our objective is total, scientific, Marxist socialism" — In an interview with French Journalist Regis Debray in 1970.

(Attributed) "I am not the president of all the Chileans. I am not a hypocrite that says so." — At a public rally, quoted by all Chilean newspapers, January 17, 1971. President Allende sent a public letter to El Mercurio newspaper to deny this alleged statement.

After all, Allende himself had confided to Regis Debray “that his differences with apostles of violence like Guevara were only ‘tactical,’ plus his admission that he was observing legality ‘for the time being,’ and his assertion that he had agreed to the Statute of Democratic Guarantees as a ‘tactical necessity’.” (Sigmund, p. 140). And his own Socialist Party, at its Congress in January 1971, had stated that “the special conditions under which Popular Unity came to power oblige it to observe the limits of a bourgeois state for now” and had warned its members to prepare for “the decisive confrontation with the bourgeoisie and imperialism.” (Sigmund, footnote 7/12)

Pinochet was ordered by Chilean Supreme Court and Chilean Chamber of Deputies (the equivalent of the U.S. House of Representatives to oust the tyrant Allende for his numerous usurptations of the Chilean Constitution:

Chilean Chamber of Deputies Resolution Against Allende

Considering:

1. That for the Rule of Law to exist, public authorities must carry out their activities and discharge their duties within the framework of the Constitution and the laws of the land, respecting fully the principle of reciprocal independence to which they are bound, and that all inhabitants of the country must be allowed to enjoy the guarantees and fundamental rights assured them by the Constitution;

2. That the legitimacy of the Chilean State lies with the people who, over the years, have invested in this legitimacy with the underlying consensus of their coexistence, and that an assault on this legitimacy not only destroys the cultural and political heritage of our Nation, but also denies, in practice, all possibility of democratic life;

3. That the values and principles expressed in the Constitution, according to article 2, indicate that sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation, and that authorities may not exercise more powers than those delegated to them by the Nation; and, in article 3, it is deduced that any government that arrogates to itself rights not delegated to it by the people commits sedition;

4. That the current President of the Republic was elected by the full Congress, in accordance with a statute of democratic guarantees incorporated in the Constitution for the very purpose of assuring that the actions of his administration would be subject to the principles and norms of the Rule of Law that he solemnly agreed to respect;

5. That it is a fact that the current government of the Republic, from the beginning, has sought to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the state and, in this manner, fulfilling the goal of establishing a totalitarian system: the absolute opposite of the representative democracy established by the Constitution;

6. That to achieve this end, the administration has committed not isolated violations of the Constitution and the laws of the land, rather it has made such violations a permanent system of conduct, to such an extreme that it systematically ignores and breaches the proper role of the other branches of government, habitually violating the Constitutional guarantees of all citizens of the Republic, and allowing and supporting the creation of illegitimate parallel powers that constitute an extremely grave danger to the Nation, by all of which it has destroyed essential elements of institutional legitimacy and the Rule of Law;

7. That the administration has committed the following assaults on the proper role of the National Congress, seat of legislative power:

a) It has usurped Congress's principle role of legislation through the adoption of various measures of great importance to the country's social and economic life that are unquestionably matters of legislation through special decrees enacted in an abuse of power, or through simple "administrative resolutions" using legal loopholes. It is noteworthy that all of this has been done with the deliberate and confessed purpose of substituting the country's institutional structures, as conceived by current legislation, with absolute executive authority and the total elimination of legislative authority;

b) It has consistently mocked the National Congress's oversight role by effectively removing its power to formally accuse Ministers of State who violate the Constitution or laws of the land, or who commit other offenses specified by the Constitution, and;

c) Lastly, what is most extraordinarily grave, it has utterly swept aside the exalted role of Congress as a duly constituted power by refusing to enact the Constitutional reform of three areas of the economy that were approved in strict compliance with the norms established by the Constitution.

8. That it has committed the following assaults on the judicial branch:

a) With the goal of undermining the authority of the courts and compromising their independence, it has led an infamous campaign of libel and slander against the Supreme Court, and it has sanctioned very serious attacks against judges and their authority;

b) It has made a mockery of justice in cases of delinquents belonging to political parties or groups affiliated with or close to the administration, either through the abusive use of pardons or deliberate noncompliance with detention orders;

c) It has violated express laws and utterly disregarded the principle of separation of powers by not carrying out sentences and judicial resolutions that contravene its objectives and, when so accused by the Supreme Court, the President of the Republic has gone to the unheard of extreme of arrogating to himself a right to judge the merit of judicial sentences and to determine when they are to be complied with;

9. That, as concerns the General Comptroller's Office—an independent institution essential to administrative legitimacy—the administration has systematically violated decrees and activities that point to the illegality of the actions of the Executive Branch or of entities dependent on it;

10. That among the administration's constant assaults on the guarantees and fundamental rights established in the Constitution, the following stand out:

a) It has violated the principle of equality before the law through sectarian and hateful discrimination in the protection authorities are required to give to the life, rights, and property of all inhabitants, through activities related to food and subsistence, as well as numerous other instances. It is to note that the President of the Republic himself has made these discriminations part of the normal course of his government by proclaiming from the beginning that he does not consider himself the president of all Chileans;

b) It has grievously attacked freedom of speech, applying all manner of economic pressure against those media organizations that are not unconditional supporters of the government, illegally closing newspapers and radio networks; imposing illegal shackles on the latter; unconstitutionally jailing opposition journalists; resorting to cunning maneuvers to acquire a monopoly on newsprint; and openly violating the legal mandates to which the National Television Network is subject by handing over the post of executive director to a public official not named by the Senate, as is required by law, and by turning the network into an instrument for partisan propaganda and defamation of political adversaries;

c) It has violated the principle of university autonomy and the constitutionally recognized right of universities to establish and maintain television networks, by encouraging the takeover of the University of Chile's Channel 9, by assaulting that university's new Channel 6 through violence and illegal detentions, and by obstructing the expansion to the provinces of the channel owned by Catholic University of Chile;

d) It has obstructed, impeded, and sometimes violently suppressed citizens who do not favor the regime in the exercise of their right to freedom of association. Meanwhile, it has constantly allowed groups—frequently armed—to gather and take over streets and highways, in disregard of pertinent regulation, in order to intimidate the populace;

e) It has attacked educational freedom by illegally and surreptitiously implementing the so-called Decree of the Democratization of Learning, an educational plan whose goal is Marxist indoctrination;

f) It has systematically violated the constitutional guarantee of property rights by allowing and supporting more than 1,500 illegal "takings" of farms, and by encouraging the "taking" of hundreds of industrial and commercial establishments in order to later seize them or illegally place them in receivership and thereby, through looting, establish state control over the economy; this has been one of the determining causes of the unprecedented decline in production, the scarcity of goods, the black market and suffocating rise in the cost of living, the bankruptcy of the national treasury, and generally of the economic crisis that is sweeping the country and threatening basic household welfare, and very seriously compromising national security;

g) It has made frequent politically motivated and illegal arrests, in addition to those already mentioned of journalists, and it has tolerated the whipping and torture of the victims;

h) It has ignored the rights of workers and their unions, subjecting them, as in the cases of El Teniente [one of the largest copper mines] and the transportation union, to illegal means of repression;

i) It has broken its commitment to make amends to workers who have been unjustly persecuted, such as those from Sumar, Helvetia, Banco Central, El Teniente and Chuquicamata; it has followed an arbitrary policy in the turning over of state-owned farms to peasants, expressly contravening the Agrarian Reform Law; it has denied workers meaningful participation, as guaranteed them by the Constitution; it has given rise to the end to union freedom by setting up parallel political organizations of workers.

j) It has gravely breached the constitutional guarantee to freely leave the country, establishing requirements to do so not covered by any law.

11. That it powerfully contributes to the breakdown of the Rule of Law by providing government protection and encouragement of the creation and maintenance of a number of organizations which are subversive [to the constitutional order] in the exercise of authority granted to them by neither the Constitution nor the laws of the land, in open violation of article 10, number 16 of the Constitution. These include community commandos, peasant councils, vigilance committees, the JAP, etc.; all designed to create a so-called "popular authority" with the goal of replacing legitimately elected authority and establishing the foundation of a totalitarian dictatorship. These facts have been publicly acknowledged by the President of the Republic in his last State of the Nation address and by all government media and strategists;


RESOLUTION CONTINUES BELOW

12. That especially serious is the breakdown of the Rule of Law by means of the creation and development of government-protected armed groups which, in addition to threatening citizens' security and rights as well as domestic peace, are headed towards a confrontation with the Armed Forces. Just as serious is that the police are prevented from carrying out their most important responsibilities when dealing with criminal riots perpetrated by violent groups devoted to the government. Given the extreme gravity, one cannot be silent before the public and notorious attempts to use the Armed and Police Forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks;

13. That the creation of a new ministry, with the participation of high-level officials of the Armed and Police Forces, was characterized by the President of the Republic to be "of national security" and its mandate "the establishment of political order" and "the establishment of economic order," and that such a mandate can only be conceived within the context of full restoration and validation of the legal and constitutional norms that make up the institutional framework of the Republic;

14. That the Armed and Police Forces are and must be, by their very nature, a guarantee for all Chileans and not just for one sector of the Nation or for a political coalition. Consequently, the government cannot use their backing to cover up a specific minority partisan policy. Rather their presence must be directed toward the full restoration of constitutional rule and of the rule of the laws of democratic coexistence, which is indispensable to guaranteeing Chile's institutional stability, civil peace, security, and development;

15. Lastly, exercising the role attributed to it by Article 39 of the Constitution,


The Chamber of Deputies agrees:

First: To present the President of the Republic, Ministers of State, and members of the Armed and Police Forces with the grave breakdown of the legal and constitutional order of the Republic, the facts and circumstances of which are detailed in sections 5 to 12 above;

Second: To likewise point out that by virtue of their responsibilities, their pledge of allegiance to the Constitution and to the laws they have served, and in the case of the ministers, by virtue of the nature of the institutions of which they are high-ranking officials and of Him whose name they invoked upon taking office, it is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law and ensuring the constitutional order of our Nation and the essential underpinnings of democratic coexistence among Chileans;

Third: To declare that if so done, the presence of those ministers in the government would render a valuable service to the Republic. To the contrary, they would gravely compromise the national and professional character of the Armed and Police Forces, openly infringing article 22 of the Constitution and seriously damaging the prestige of their institutions; and

Fourth: To communicate this agreement to His Excellency the President of the Republic, and to the Ministers of Economy, National Defense, Public Works and Transportation, and Land and Colonization.

Chilean Supreme Court Denunciation of Allende:

"This Supreme Court is compelled to represent to Your Excellency for the umpteenth time the unlawful attitude of the administrative authority in its illegal interference in judicial affairs, as well as for placing obstructions upon the execution of orders from a Criminal Court by the uniformed police, which orders, under the laws in force, must be carried out by the said police force without obstacles of any kind; all of which implies an open and willful contempt of judicial decisions, with complete disregard of the alterations that such attitudes or omissions produce in the judicial order; which attitude further implies not only a crisis in the state of law, as was represented to Your Excellency in a previous despatch, but also a peremptory or imminent disruption of the legality of the Nation"
16

Thanks for posting that. Very interesting.

A lot of this is going on right now in this country and I'm a little worried about the direction we're taking. This bill in AZ is well intentioned and well timed. There is no way that you can teach ethnic studies fairly in any public school in this country and include all the ethnic and cultural diversity. Those are subjects for the home front and should be taken up by each individual and family. If you can't differentiate students in the classroom with this drivel they'll start forgetting their differences and see only the similarities.

I for one have no interest in boring anyone else with my Polish heritage, but don't you think Lech Walesa is one brave and unbelievable Polish patriot? Did you know Copurnicus and Madame Curie are Poles? Blah, blah, blah.

Hey, quit with the Pollack jokes!

Hatuey said:

Arizona gov. signs bill targeting ethnic studies - Yahoo! News



Another bill targeting Hispanics and other minorities in Arizona with vague language. Who gets to decide whether a class 'promotes resentment'? If they learn about American support for the dictatorial PRI who killed hundreds of young students days before the Mexico City Olympics, does that promote 'resentment'? Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Sigh. Why do you conclude that only minorities have ethnic classes? And don't pretend you didn't say that exactly since you claim this bill "targets minorities"

The only way for that to be true is if ethnic studies are exclusively non white which we all know is false.

You would do a lot for yourself if you didn't pull the race card out so often and get it so incredibly wrong.

Hatuey said:

I think their problem is when these classes start going into the specifics. I remember being in school and I don't remember being taught about American involvement in Latin America at all. I don't remember being taught that the U.S. and the United Fruit Company had central roles in the overthrow of the Arbenz government in Guatemala. I don't remember being taught that thousands of Chileans died as a result of the U.S. backed coup that overthrew Allende.

Do you?

Click to expand...

I do. For the last two years that kind of stuff has been practically all they've been teaching us in history.

Here's your basic modern day history class in ten seconds: "America is teh EVIL EMPIRE and is racist and idiotic and oppressive to teh poor peoplez around the world and everyone should hate it."

Catz Part Deux said:

Do the school's English classes read books by non-white authors? RARELY.

Click to expand...

They are now making a conscious effort to, the result being that a whole lot of crappy books are forced on us simply for the reason that the author has some non-white shade of skin.

Do the school's history classes talk about much apart from Euro history? RARELY.

Click to expand...

Euro history? We mostly learn about American history. In fact, I've learned even more Middle East history in high school than European history. Actually, even more Latin American history as well.

Dav said:

I do. For the last two years that kind of stuff has been practically all they've been teaching us in history.

Here's your basic modern day history class in ten seconds: "America is teh EVIL EMPIRE and is racist and idiotic and oppressive to teh poor peoplez around the world and everyone should hate it."

Click to expand...

Let me add
"And take money from it."

The Southwest = the new South.

As opposed to the law signed previously forcing policemen to ask illegals for documentation whether they wanted to or not, I am in complete agreement with this new law.

Jim Crow laws made segregation illegal, yet High schools are doing just that with these ethnic studies classes. I think that students should not go to certain classes based on the color of their skin.

I also think that it is very important for all students to learn about the influences of all different ethnicities in US History. And they should learn it together, in as possible a diverse ethnic class as possible. For the majority of US history, the African-American struggle has been a prevalent disagreement, leading to the largest and most costly war that this nation has seen. Hispanics and Asians have also contributed largely to defining this nation and its history. Obviously, Anglo-Saxons are not exempt in defining US History, as they were the most prevalent ethnic group in creating this nation and its most cherished founding principles.

These are things that should be studied and discussed objectively by students of all ethnicities, with the hope of e pluribus unum - creating unity rather than division. That is what this law hopes to accomplish, and I am in full support.

Hatuey said:

Arizona gov. signs bill targeting ethnic studies - Yahoo! News

Another bill targeting Hispanics and other minorities in Arizona with vague language. Who gets to decide whether a class 'promotes resentment'? If they learn about American support for the dictatorial PRI who killed hundreds of young students days before the Mexico City Olympics, does that promote 'resentment'? Thoughts?

Click to expand...

It's a step backwards to be sure. Conservatives will support this kind of interference, even though they would decry a Democrat regulating a school in this manner.

Your country will never learn. It will just keep stepping backward until it reaches oblivion.

Let the witch hunt continue.

Rightarrow said:

As opposed to the law signed previously forcing policemen to ask illegals for documentation whether they wanted to or not, I am in complete agreement with this new law.

Click to expand...

Yeah, if they have reasonable suspicion. It's like telling a cop that he has to run into a house if he hears gun shots there. Giving them a choice is somehow a good thing? I wish my boss would allow me to do that. I don't feel like doing this report, so I'm just not going to do it. I'll stick with simple data entry. I don't think that would go over too well.

Orion said:

It's a step backwards to be sure. Conservatives will support this kind of interference, even though they would decry a Democrat regulating a school in this manner.

Your country will never learn. It will just keep stepping backward until it reaches oblivion.

Let the witch hunt continue.

Click to expand...

Not establishing a national language has really worked out well for Canada hasn't it? I suppose you wouldn't be opposed to some Canadian students being taught that they should overthrow the government? Do they have different history classes for French-Canadian history and English-Canadian history in high schools there?