ongoing racist bullshit in arizona thread

http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-news/2012/01/17/tucson-district-denies-ban-of-mexican-american-books/

kids, walk the fuck out of those classrooms right now

they'd probably be shot on the spot, and the cases their parents brought wouldn't even be heard by the supreme court, if it got that far

In a statement Tuesday, TUSD spokeswoman Cara Rene wrote that the books were not banned. They are still available to students through their school libraries, she wrote.

“The books… have been moved to the district storage facility because the classes have been suspended as per the ruling by Arizona Superintendent (of) Public Instruction John Huppenthal,” Rene wrote.

"you can still have them! In that storage room! The locked one, guarded by a leopard and the guy with the AK-47! Cmon!"

this is n/l even for arizona imo

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/02/04/418027/arizona-gop-lawmaker-wants-a-state-holiday-to-celebrate-white-people/?mobile=nc

i posted that after only reading the headline, rescind n/l

still n/l

“Good idea,” said one woman. “Like they have Cinco de Mayo for Mexicans. We need something for whites.”

http://www.thinkhero.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/2012-poster.jpg

"Good idea,” said one woman. “Like they have Cinco de Mayo for Mexicans. We need something for whites.”

― Frobisher (Viceroy), Monday, February 6, 2012 12:43 AM (47 minutes ago)

amazing

(it's called st. patrick's day, fwiw)

lol the picture on that article

(it's called st. patrick's day, fwiw)

― tebow gotti (k3vin k.), Sunday, February 5, 2012 10:31 PM Bookmark

ha otm

To paraphrase my mother answering my complaints about their being a Mother's Day and a Father's Day but no Children's Day: "EVERY day is White Man's Day!"

ARIZONA SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS BAR ON SPANISH-SPEAKING CANDIDATE | Arizona’s Supreme Court has upheld a lower court’s decision that prevents a Latina woman from running for office because she does not speak English proficiently, Fox News reports. State law requires elected officials to speak English but does not define “proficiency,” argued attorneys for Alejandra Cabrera, who had filed to run for San Luis, Arizona’s city council. While Cabrera admits that she speaks “little English,” 98.7 percent of San Luis’ population is of Hispanic origin. “My English is fine for San Luis,” she said in January. Cabrera’s attorney is exploring ways to appeal her case to the United States Supreme Court.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/08/421167/arizona-supreme-court-upholds-bar-on-spanish-speaking-candidate/

that law may be vague and in need of amending but i don't think its racist nor is the motivation to uphold it

Citizenship shouldn't devolve into something less than full and complete citizenship, based on what languages you speak. True, there are practical problems that arise when communication is difficult among different groups in a country, but lots of countries have to deal with this. There are better ways.

there are def practical reasons why you would want everyone who is voting on a bill to understand the technical language in the bill, otoh this is not a major problem in america at all and is only being made into one because people hate mexicans

gee, I wonder who brought this lawsuit against Cabrera and what their motivations could possibly be

that law may be vague and in need of amending but i don't think its racist nor is the motivation to uphold it

― ⚓ (gr8080), Friday, February 10, 2012 2:15 PM (13 minutes ago)

no, it is. why doesn't the same apply to voters? there's a language exam for people who write laws, but not for people who vote these people in? what would have been her constituency probably overwhelmingly speaks spanish

i agree she'll prob serve her constituency better than a native english speaker but i dunno man i mean her job is going to involve going in and dealing w/ complex issues she needs to make a call on, all being discussed in english

and its not crazy to take that as a serious, non-racist concern

but agree w/ iatee and shakey that there are shitty racist scumbags beneath it

if someone can be democratically elected and, as you said, is a person who would well represent her constituency, the burden shouldn't be on that person to adjust to the democratic process, the democratic process should be flexible enough to adjust for her. ie get her a translator.

it's like if she had a wheelchair and cityhall didn't have wheelchair-access.

Yes, but state law doesn't require her to be able-bodied. It does require her to speak English.

right, which is just as stupid

yeah that was the point jon

xposts yeah that's apples and oranges.

i don't know enough about this to continue arguing and I'm willing to bet there's a case to be made for amending the current law, but its not crazy to assert that there are all sorts of nuanced ideas that are important parts of the job that cant be trusted/expected to be filtered through a translator

tho the UN does it so i dunno

gee, I wonder who brought this lawsuit against Cabrera and what their motivations could possibly be

The mayor that Cabrera tried to get recalled.

dont mind me i'm just on some "only *I* get to make fun of AZ for being racist" steez i guess

yeah the UN vs. San Luis, Arizona city council

there are like 1m poorer and smaller countries that manage to have governments that work in more than one language, no reason we cant do it even on the state level, except if we want to discriminate against people who dont speak english

she's running for city council, not president.

98.7 percent of San Luis’ population is of Hispanic origin.

but the person who represents them must speak english

agree w iatee & k3vin & aimless here. the law is shitty and racist to begin with, both on the surface and beneath, in intent. if a person can be elected by the majority of voting citizens, then they are, by definition, capable of representing those citizens in the manner that those citizens think best. that's the essence of democracy.

i mean, do we really think that elected officials should have to pass tests to determine their competency, given all we know about how tests can skew or be skewed against various groups?

otm

there are like 1m poorer and smaller countries that manage to have governments that work in more than one language,

^^^this

law is fucking stupid and racist, translating things is simple (especially in this day and age), and English is not the official language of the country

WILL WILL BE HEARING FROM THE SAN LUIS AUDUBON SOCIETY TODAY AT THREE OR AT FOUR? DON'T WAIT FOR THE TRANSLATION!!!!

agree w iatee & k3vin & aimless here. the law is shitty and racist to begin with, both on the surface and beneath, in intent. if a person can be elected by the majority of voting citizens, then they are, by definition, capable of representing those citizens in the manner that those citizens think best. that's the essence of democracy

Not necessarily defending the law but she's elected to represent all the citizens, not just the majority who voted for her. Working with a translator should be a reasonable compromise though.

curious what the rationale behind the recall attempt was. Given the make-up of the town I can only assume the sitting mayor is also a spanish-speaker and that this was just some shenanigans to keep his political opponent sidelined

Not necessarily defending the law but she's elected to represent all the citizens, not just the majority who voted for her.

yeah, but my point is that anyone who wins a democratic election by definition has "the will of the people" behind them, and it's up to the people to determine who's best capable of representing their interests. the language barrier thing is, as you say, a non-issue given that translators are available, and it's a red herring in the first place, as it's not like she's completely incapable of understanding or speaking english. an arbitrary and racist standard has been imposed to bar her candidacy. i mean, what's the standard for linguistic "proficiency" and who gets to decide?

WILL WILL BE HEARING FROM THE SAN LUIS AUDUBON SOCIETY TODAY AT THREE OR AT FOUR? DON'T WAIT FOR THE TRANSLATION!!!!

haha I know I should be thinking Kruschev but all I hear is General Chang from Star Trek

eh stevenson, nevermind

there are def practical reasons why you would want everyone who is voting on a bill to understand the technical language in the bill, otoh this is not a major problem in america at all and is only being made into one because people hate mexicans

― iatee, Friday, February 10, 2012 11:26 AM Bookmark

otm

federalism is a smoke-screen for racist policy, basically

― horseshoe, Sunday, 15 January 2012 21:35 (3 weeks ago

this is ridiculous btw

Eh, if not racism exclusively, it's generally a smokescreen for some other anti-social "does not play well with others" policy.

xps "The will of the people" is always a questionable concept, for me. As long as translators are provided where required, essentially putting English-speakers on the same footing as Spanish-speakers elsewhere, that should be fine. It's important that those accommodations would be made though.

Proficiency is a meaningless term without a scale to measure it against. Using the standard European scale she'd probably be looking at operational proficiency, which is the same kind of capacity to use a language you'd need to, for example, understand a degree course. It doesn't sound like that benchmark is formally in place, though - which raises the question of how would she know she'd failed the test?

Federalism has def been used as a means to evade legal norms by creating local islands of difference within the USA, and Jim Crow was clearly the biggest and worst crime that was shielded by "state's rights", but it has legitimate uses, too.

saying that the actual political structure of the united states is "just a smokescreen for racism" strikes me as beyond ludicrous.

As practiced, not on paper. (And even somewhat on paper.)

Racism was woven deeply into the fabric of the USA even before there was a USA. So, racism was going to be woven deeply into the politics of the USA from the start, by default. We've been struggling with it ever since.

saying that the actual political structure of the united states is "just a smokescreen for racism" strikes me as beyond ludicrous.

well, if you really do want to say that the united states itself is and always has been "a smokescreen for racism", then it's not so ludicrous. i mean, i think that's a rather absurdly reductive argument, but it's not totally without merit, inasmuch as the US was founded as much on slavery as on the high moral principles encoded into the constitution and bill of rights.