Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2020 Census to have Citzenship Question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • craven
    replied
    Originally posted by Jose50 View Post
    Yeah. Every ten years a bunch of people get to be government employees. Good for the economy.
    actually had a friend who did that job. Not great pay and lots of headaches

    Leave a comment:


  • Jose50
    replied
    ...'ey kid, ya wanna job?

    Originally posted by craven View Post
    you must be a liberal making everyone do more paper work
    Yeah. Every ten years a bunch of people get to be government employees. Good for the economy.

    Leave a comment:


  • craven
    replied
    Originally posted by Jose50 View Post
    Make it simple. EVERYONE uses the long form of census now. The 'are you a citizen?' question is already there. Done.
    you must be a liberal making everyone do more paper work

    Leave a comment:


  • Jose50
    replied
    ...just answer the friggin' question...

    Make it simple. EVERYONE uses the long form of census now. The 'are you a citizen?' question is already there. Done.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    The definition of "colonist" is different from that of "explorer" or "missionary". If you bothered reading my original post rather than trying to find something to disagree with you would have noticed that.

    I don't make up the definitions so forgive me for using them accurately.
    The fact that they may have been given land does not change their purpose for coming to the Americas.
    LaSalle "explored". He wrote of his explorations. He didn't come here to settle in one spot or farm.
    Marquette came as a missionary. He didn't come to farm either.
    Being given land did not change their motivations or their perspective.
    If I were given farm land that would not make me a farmer. It would merely mean I had been given farm land.

    Nations that acquire lands by war or conquest do so at the expense of the natives of those lands, hence denying them "sovereignty rights" of the indigenous peoples. My point was responsive to yours.
    Bold mine...

    My argument is not about definitions. it is about practical consequences. Columbus satisfies the bolded observations in your quote since he was an explorer and not a farmer, but it is obvious that his objective was not simply to explore and leave the native Americans alone to rule their land. Explorers (and priests) served the European plans of colonization. They were funded by kings or governors or presidents (Luis and Clark), and explored areas mainly because they wanted to find opportunities not ncessarily for themselves but for their masters or governments. And this (in connection to the original question asked by karri) make these people and their sources biased. These realities cannot be hidden behind a lexicon's definitions and a game of semantics...
    Last edited by pamak; 04 Apr 18, 07:23.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    Bold mine

    Please do me the favor to treat my argument fairly by accurately replicating them in your post. I did not say that it was the sense of superiority that made the newcomers "colonists." It was the belief that indigenous people did not have sovereignty rights. THIS part of their culture is what made them colonists. Today we still have Catholic Missionaries in many parts of the world and explorers (more accurately researchers) in remote areas. And I am pretty sure that Catholics (like everybody else) believe that their version of religion is superior to all others. But none of them disputes the sovereignty rights of the indigenous people.

    The definition of "colonist" is different from that of "explorer" or "missionary". If you bothered reading my original post rather than trying to find something to disagree with you would have noticed that.

    I don't make up the definitions so forgive me for using them accurately.
    The fact that they may have been given land does not change their purpose for coming to the Americas.
    LaSalle "explored". He wrote of his explorations. He didn't come here to settle in one spot or farm. Marquette came as a missionary. He didn't come to farm either.
    Being given land did not change their motivations or their perspective.
    If I were given farm land that would not make me a farmer. It would merely mean I had been given farm land.

    Nations that acquire lands by war or conquest do so at the expense of the natives of those lands, hence denying them "sovereignty rights" of the indigenous peoples. My point was responsive to yours.

    Leave a comment:


  • craven
    replied
    Thought this article might be on of some interest and on topic

    After the 1940 presidential election, however, Austin was forced to retire. He was replaced by J.C. Capt, who backed efforts to remove confidentiality provisions. Capt’s efforts helped clear the way for other agencies to access the information on Japanese Americans.
    In 2000, Anderson and Seltzer found documents that showed officials with the Census Bureau had provided block-level information of where those of Japanese ancestry were living in California, Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Idaho and Arkansas.
    The revelations prompted Kenneth Prewitt, then director of the U.S. Census Bureau, to issue a public apology. Prewitt wrote: “The historical record is clear that senior Census Bureau staff proactively cooperated with the internment, and that census tabulations were directly implicated in the denial of civil rights to citizens of the United States who happened also to be of Japanese ancestry.”


    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/se...cid=spartandhp

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Which means that under the Constitution we have both the right and the duty to replace all of them and institute a government responsive to our needs, and for that we need to be an armed citizenry.

    Clever guys, those Founding Fathers.
    More clever than the Communists, that's for certain!

    What they built has lasted three times as long as the longest-running Communist regime, including the ones that had to switch to Capitalism to keep their economies afloat!

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
    Well, apparently, everyone that isn't related to some ancient Mongolian that walked across from Siberia 15,000 years ago is just as illegal as a drug-mule that crossed over by dodging the Cops yesterday... according to the lunatic fringes of society.

    That does seem to be the point of the far-Left in all of this.

    You just have to ignore those crack-pots, no matter how much air time they get on CNN.
    And when they get power in the Govt, you know that Govt is insane.
    Which means that under the Constitution we have both the right and the duty to replace all of them and institute a government responsive to our needs, and for that we need to be an armed citizenry.

    Clever guys, those Founding Fathers.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    What "immigrants"? are you talking about? The question of citizenship goes directly to illegal criminals who sneaked into our country - nothing to do with legal immigrants.
    Well, apparently, everyone that isn't related to some ancient Mongolian that walked across from Siberia 15,000 years ago is just as illegal as a drug-mule that crossed over by dodging the Cops yesterday... according to the lunatic fringes of society.

    That does seem to be the point of the far-Left in all of this.

    You just have to ignore those crack-pots, no matter how much air time they get on CNN.
    And when they get power in the Govt, you know that Govt is insane.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    So they don't really have to be a "colonist" for you to consider them a "colonist".

    Please identify that culture that did not assume it was superior to all other cultures.
    The Indian tribes looked down on the whites by the way. They would have happily dominated (or destroyed) the white settlers if they could have. They tried repeatedly. That makes them just like all other humans.


    It may interest you to know that the indian tribes also treated each other as not being worthy of their own sovereignty.
    The Iroquois didn't dominate the other indian tribes because they were compassionate and loving, they dominated the surrounding tribes by being brutal and strong.

    I doubt that there is a single nation in existence that didn't have its borders determined by war and conquest.
    Bold mine

    Please do me the favor to treat my argument fairly by accurately replicating them in your post. I did not say that it was the sense of superiority that made the newcomers "colonists." It was the belief that indigenous people did not have sovereignty rights. THIS part of their culture is what made them colonists. Today we still have Catholic Missionaries in many parts of the world and explorers (more accurately researchers) in remote areas. And I am pretty sure that Catholics (like everybody else) believe that their version of religion is superior to all others. But none of them disputes the sovereignty rights of the indigenous people.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    I think you make a reasonable point. The Europeans were not supportive of indian culture or rights.
    You are right about the victors writing history in this instance because the indians pretty much didn't keep such records.

    I used LaSalle and MarQuette though because their purpose was different than the colonists so their perspective would have been different.
    My overall point has been that the native americans were no different than the invading europeans. The Europeans were just more successful in taking the land. For a variety of reasons not worth discussing here.
    Different?

    http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/cavel...robert_1E.html

    Thanks to his powerful protector, the discoverer managed, during a voyage to France in 1674–75, to secure for himself the grant of Fort Cataracoui (now Kingston), which he renamed Frontenac, and he even acquired letters of nobility for himself and his descendants. La Salle, who had ambitions of empire, knew well how he could profit from a post on Lake Ontario, which, according to Talon, might be “the first opening towards an overland route to Florida.”
    As for the Jesuits of the frontier, they were getting orders and served the same institution that Jesuits in well established missions served. The fact that one who was assigned in the frontier had to compromise is beyond dispute. But this does not change the fact that he was part of an organization which served the European colonization and did not see native Americans as being worthy of self-determination.
    Last edited by pamak; 30 Mar 18, 14:43.

    Leave a comment:


  • Karri
    replied
    What the hell does your meme have to do with anything?

    In Asia and Africa the colonial powers didn't replace the natives. In North and South America they did. In the South actually to a lesser degree. The only notable difference I can tell is that diseases spread and destroyed the american cultures, whereas in other "colonial areas" the population and power structures weren't destroyed by the diseases(since they were already familiar with them).

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Karri View Post
    That's not what happened in Africa or Asia though.



    I think the story is so different in North and South America because disease basically wiped out the established populations and power structures. With both population and power vacuum the story was over for the natives.[/QUOTE]



    Spanish colonization was radically different from British and French colonization in North America.

    Leave a comment:


  • phil74501
    replied
    Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post
    I saw that same poll and voted twice.
    You can only vote once...unless you changed your IP or changed browsers/cookies.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X