I found a twitter thread discussing how California will run its race classification system if #Prop16 passes and it part of it listed North African/Middle Eastern people under the category of "White/Caucasian" for whatever dumb reason. And i found two black females on the thread saying that the reason they did that is because White people will be a minority soon so in order to stay the majority they decided to boost up their numbers by including Middle Easterners/North African people as "White/Caucasian"
.....what? wtf.... i can't... How can people be this stupid to think this??
So a policy created to intentional discriminate against whites is a tool of white power and black people being happy that whites are becoming a minority is somehow not racist?
"It's OK when we do it!"
Racialism is fucking stupid. California is running into all of the exact same problems that it did in 1870, same with Mississippii.
People forget why Plessy v. Furgueson took place. Homer Plessy was a Civil Rights activist. He'd actually been part of an effort to force the federal courts to address the total innanity of southern Racialist laws.
First, for California, Asians were considered colored, and there way major efforts at discrimination against Asians in California. Some Asians fled to other parts of the US. One specific incident took place when a Chinese immigrant family left from California to move to Mississippii sometime after the Civil War. They purchased land, had a small self-sufficient family farm, and the husband had some sort of a trade, and thus ran a business. I think one of their children was going to marry a white woman. This caused fucking chaos in Mississippi due to their racialst laws and the government really didn't know how to deal with this, and it generated a massive legal dispute that went to the State Supreme Court. The Chinese family argued that while they weren't European, they should be considered white due to their behavior of successfully contributing and integrating into their community, which had no objections to them or the marriage. Somehow, this argument succeeded, in a "one drop" rule state...
However, Homer Plessy, whom you would all identify as an obvious white man, would be considered colored. He was an "Octoon", meaning he was "1/8th" black, because he had a maternal grandmother who was black. He was also a Civil Rights Activist. He was chosen by his organization to try and push the Supreme Court to make some semblance of the insane racialist laws that each state had. Homer Plessy was considered colored in Mississippi, but white in Alabama, and white in most other states. He took a train ride and sat in the the white section in a state in which he was considered white. When the train passed into Mississippi, he announced that he was 1/8th white to a private investigator (that the Civil Rights group had arranged for this case), and he was taken to court for being in the wrong part of the train, despite having been white moments before.
Plessy's argument is, honestly, fucking sound. His genetic lineage never changed, not that anyone could even tell in the first place. Yet somehow, he could bounce back and forth from being white to non-white depending on which state he happened to reside in at a given time. Even different localities might consider him a different race. Because of the arbitrary nature of these racialist laws, white people were being actively discriminated against almost entirely based on their location alone... which was the exact opposite of what all the laws claimed to do.
Unfortunately, SCOTUS was filled with Slaveocratic, Democrat, state-sponsored terrorism protecting, proto-national-socialist progressives that believed in "equality" so long as it could be "separate". They basically made all the same arguments that today's progressives make when it comes to race, particularly that each race needs Libensraum in order to give it sufficient space to grow and develop without the interference of other races that would disturb their natural racial orderings.
And so Jim Crow was firmly established, and Reconstruction was murdered. Homer Plessy still tried to improve race relations and racialism to the best that he could, and while some progress would be made in the north by the 1890, all the actually success in the south would be utterly destroyed.
Homer Plessy, however, was right. Racialism doesn't make any damned sense. Yes, Asians will be merged with whites. So will Jews, and likely Indians (listed under Asians). You should not be surprised that North Africans are going to be declared white because this unrelenting arbitrary stupidity is what racialists HAVE ALWAYS done. Racialism is never meant to benefit any race. It exists to benefit the arbiters and regulators of race. Nothing more.
Very good point. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
It disturbs me greatly to read The United States of Lyncherdom, and see Mark Twain be proven right. He nailed down lynchings for what they truly were. It was never anything about hate. They weren't even angry. It was one giant virtue signal preformed by cowards.
People who were 'to afraid not to be seen' at the lynching.
Part of me thinks that the west coast elite is dead set on secession and it's only the election results that they're waiting on to see if they'll have to start talking about going through with it or not. They will try, the whole west coast will go into freefall, everyone with sense will leave, hopeless commies and sjws will flock to it, and they'll wonder why their utopia of high taxes and micro managing who belongs in what categories based on skin color and toilet parts ended up as a 1040 mile long mental asylum.
Yes, but will the East be so hell bent on keeping it this time, like the North insisted the South couldn't leave the Union?
I noticed that about nation-building and unions. Except for Brexit, they tend to act like Hotel California. Meanwhile, size + diversity = division.
Only the large cities are smurf blue on the west coast.
There are so many red rural areas in California and Oregon. I am not too sure of Washington. Those areas won't secede even if their clown governors demand it.
If they tried to secede it would be the biggest mistake these arrogant elites would ever make in their depraved lives.
I'm actually expecting something like this. This is literally why West Virginia exists.
The rural folk don't agree with the city folk, and when the city folk say, "That's it, come on guys, we're not putting up with this." The resounding response from the mountain people are: "No. Fuck you."
Federal Secession won't happen. But State Secession might, if the Left keep pushing as hard as they are.
Please give Southern Illinois a precedent.
Given the current political climate in the state, nothing would make me happier than for everything below I-80 to say "fuck this, we're out" and split away from Chicago and the collar communities. Considering most of Chicago thinks that anything below that line doesn't exist it wouldn't be much of a change for them, anyway. Let Madigan the lich, fatboy Pritzker, and all their cronies try and survive on playing politics without 3/4ths of the state to leech off of.
West Virginia is the precedent. Federal Secession is unconstitutional. State Secession is constitutional, but it needs congressional approval.
Congressional Approval will never happen unless imminent militaristic action (anti-city revolt) is underway, and millions of lives are at stake. And that would probably never happen until a state attempts federal secession.
Well... they need congressional approval now...
Sometimes these things change during the moment.
Yeah, but when have communists concerned themselves with the welfare of Kulaks?
This is a group that wants CA to determine the trajectory of your country. You think they'll even blink at bringing the rural counties to heel under the auspices of the metropolitan areas?
Militarily and historically speaking, the city-state civilizations have great difficulty against "the mountain people" without colonization efforts and genocide. If they don't do that, they're looking at a long, drawn out, war with little success, and less to gain.
I'm not sure a group that includes - and lauds - people that shoot people for wearing the wrong hat would need much convincing to work themselves up to a genocide or two - all in a good cause, of course.
It never does, the issue is that the mountain folk are quite hard to kill off.
they'll learn real quick who actually runs the show when the sieges start.
Trump got 32% of the vote in CA in 2016.
Considering the demographics of CA gun ownership (PDF warning) combined with the demographics of GOP voting and military membership, I'd say Conservatives are perfectly safe from any kind attempts at secession in CA.
Bear in mind that they unthinkingly depend on appropriating resources from others, (CA receives more federal funding than the taxes it pays) it may be even sooner than that.
This occurred to me after I posted. They'll open borders and end up getting bred out. They'll try to expand "dreamer" welfare benefits as it happens, go broke, and the state will look like it did in that lousy movie Elysium but without the jobs or power armor. The ruling class will be sure to carve out a nice swanky bit of countryside with a very high hedge row around it.
"they" as in white people, or the "people" making this proposition 16?
The two black females think that White people and the ones making the proposition 16 are the same people. Hence why they are trying to rationalize it as "White people are trying to categorize Middle eastern as White so as to boost up their own numbers"
That is what i am finding so incredibly dumb that people can think something like this.
To me it seems more like "How can we increase white crime stats?"
This is exactly it. Hispanics are considered "White" pretty much only when it comes to crime stats. Otherwise, they're their own category.
Dont assume stupidity where malice takes place.
Why not both? You can be malicious and stupid.
I think it just means for mixed race people, how you are identified by the UC is determined by the left most column you identify with. For instance, if you were 1/3 Cuban, 1/3 Qatari, and 1/3 Somali, you would be considered Hispanic/Latino by the UC.
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/sites/default/files/Race-Eth%20Data%20Collection.pdf
My guess is that putting MENAs under "white" rounds out the crime stats a little so they'll be less glaring, same with Hispanics
Thats accurate. Middle eastern people are caucasian. The dump retards responding are retarded though. They will stop at nothing to start another race war.