Tuesday, March 7, 2017
My Thoughts on Racism
I think that it is quite obvious for most people to realize why racism is not correct. It is wrongly judging an entire group of people without knowing all of them. I think there are a lot of people who are so afraid of seeing racism that they really take it too far. Stating that someone is of a certain race is a fact, and jokes concerning races are okay as long as they are not serious, light-hearted, and the "victim" is okay with it. I would also like to say that many feminists are actually racist themselves. Many claim white males have all this privilege that other people don't. When in reality there are a lot of white males that are struggling in this world. In some scenarios it almost seems like feminists think that you need to become transgender, or kill yourself if your a white male, because your very existence is contributing to the problem.(Did anyone hear about the "Hugh Mungus" incident a while back?) In some ways minorities get privileges, because they hardly get accused of any racism. While I am not racist the issue goes farther than whether or not racism is correct.
Private companies
It is illegal for businesses to not hire anyone based on their race. While it does seem like this is a good law there is the question of the right of the business owner. If I own a private company that is completely separate from any government funding should I not be able to choose who works for me no matter the reason?
Private property
If I own a private piece of property I can dictate what occurs on this property right? Is it not within my power to exclude people based on any reason no matter how illogical it is? Say I own a restaurant, and the piece of property it is on. Can I make a rule that all blacks have to pay more, and they have to collect their food at the back door, and they are not allowed to enter the restaurant at any time?
Education
Okay, here's a scenario. The federal congress of the United States of America amends the constitution, so that this part of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution is changed to "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States unless it concerns the public education of the state",and then alabama says that no black people shall be a part of the public education system, but that they can home school at any moment with no requirements, or forms to fill out. Is within the rights of the state? Many of you argued defiantly against common core in class, because of either the content of the curriculum, or the fact that it is too involved in public education, because that power should be up to the states. If you argue, because of the latter, then where does the states power end, and begin with education?
Again I would just like to say that I'm not racist as it is highly illogical, and immoral to be so.These are just some things to think about, but do feel free to respond, and like Avonleas I realize this is extremely controversial, but please be polite, Thx ;).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would just like to say sorry about the highlighted part, and the small print. I copy and pasted a piece of the constitution, and I thought I fixed the problem, but I guess not.
ReplyDeleteThis is the part that ended up highlighted
ReplyDelete"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States unless it concerns the public education of the state",and then alabama says that no black people shall be a part of the public education system, but that they can home school at any moment with no requirements, or forms to fill out. Is within the rights of the state? Many of you argued defiantly against common core in class, because of either the content of the curriculum, or the fact that it is too involved in public education, because that power should be up to the states. If you argue, because of the latter, then where does the states power end, and begin with education?
Again I would just like to say that I'm not racist as it is highly illogical, and immoral to be so.These are just some things to think about, but do feel free to respond, and like Avonleas I realize this is extremely controversial, but please be polite, Thx ;).
You've brought up some tough issues that we like to think are all resolved, but which, in reality, are still with us. For example, there are small businesses that are being sued because they refused to bake a cake or take pictures at a gay wedding. Okay, we want everyone to be kind to everyone else, even if they're gay, but should't those business owners be allowed to follow their own religious beliefs? Now what if I were a small business owner who didn't believe that inter-racial marriage was ok, so I didn't want to bake a cake for a wedding between people of different races? Do I have the right to deny that service? If I have that right, what if I don't think black people should get married at all? Can I refuse to bake a cake for a wedding because both participants are black? It's actually very difficult to define the line where one person's right to live their conscience crosses over to a type of discrimination we don't want to legally allow anymore.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in response to your question about the Constitutionality of state law in terms of education, generally, states must make sure any and all laws in the state fall within the Constitution, so it's not necessarily inconsistent to expect a state to treat all races the same in education but not want the federal government to be involved in the actual curriculum decisions. Next year when we study American government and history, we'll go a little more in depth into the process the US went through to actually make the Constitution (including amendments) binding on the states, why that was necessary, and how it came to include the idea that states could not educate different races differently.
This is a really good post, and it really gets the gears turning. Here's what I believe when it comes to your question that states "If you argue, because of the latter, then where does the states power end, and begin with education?" I believe that the state government should have very little power due to federalism that says that the smallest unit of government capable to do a duty should. In this case it is the family. But the family can delegate the power of education to the state government, like in the case of public schooling.
ReplyDeleteBut the family should still carefully watch how the government educates their children as their education is still the duty of the parents.
DeleteSorry, I forgot to put this part on my first post.