I Have a Question I would love folks here to participate in and answer, if you would be so kind to.
It has been stated in Congressional meetings, that to have Equal Citizenship, and folks willing to participate in and want to be Citizens, we should gaurantee some rights exclussive to Minorities.
Question: Do you agree that equality requires special protections for minority cultures?
Remember; there is a difference between Social Justice and Constitutional Justice.
If you are seeking equality you can not possibly achieve this by treating one segment of society differently than the rest. Square peg, round hole problem. To achieve equality the laws need to be in place to protect the minorities from abuses by the majority but, this is no way special treatment.
Suppose we are In America where everyone is supposed to be equal and have the same rights. Now the majority seeks to punish a minority for thinking differently and seeks to violate and deny them equal rights. Should there be laws in place to protect the minority? If you answered yes, do you also support the rights of gays who seek to be married? In America legal marriage does not require a church or a religious ceremony to be valid. Church weddings are optional even among religious people. Many are married in civil ceremonies each day. What gives the christian community the right to deny the homosexual community the right to marry in a civil ceremony. They legaly can not have nothing to do with a marriage unless those being married ask them to participate. To them the fact that those seeking to be married are gay, gives christians the right to serve up a big steaming pile of in-equality and abuse and some times death. But everyone is equal in America, honest.
I don’t believe people are equal so if that is what the government is trying to achieve they will fail. I also don’t believe you can change the past. The best we can hope for is to not repeat the same mistakes and that can only happen if es study the past. That said we are a nation of laws and all of us should be treated equally.
It begs the question of who is the minority. I think that men are a minority when compared to the population of women. A black man walking in a predominantly white neighborhood is a minority, likewise a white man walking in a predominantly black neighborhood is a minority. Minority figures change also. Everyone is a minority in comparison to the population of China.
Everyone is equal in the classroom (under the authoritative direction of a teacher, forcing equakity) but it isn't until everyone is out on the playground, settling their differences is true equality achieved.
No I don't agree that it requires special protections.
America is now (and has been for a long time) the land of equality. When slavery was ended and then blacks obtained total equality during the civil rights movement, it fixed the wrongs that were done and adhered to the Constitution as it should've. Everyone has the same rights. Or had, until liberalism for the last couple of years has tilted the balance toward undue and unnecessary and very socially-harmful tangents.
Minorities must absolutely have protections. That's the basis of a constitutional democracy: so that even a large majority cannot subject everyone else to the tyranny of the mob.
But do you mean should there be special set-asides for people of non-majority races and cultures? That's a problematical question, especially when we consider that white folks (like me) benefit form a culture in which we get special treatment by default.
If it were possible merely to remove the special advantages that we white folks get, I'd say go with that.
Agreed. However neuro science has proven...people see skin color and BAM we loose our minds....some more than others of course. That being said, it's impossible.
As long as the majority is not oppressing the minority, the majority rules. That means the minority doesn't have to like it. It just can't be oppressive. Who ultimately decides? I'm guessing the majority? It's a "problematic" question as you said..
Dutchman, that's an oxymoron that comes from Animal Farm. We are all equal but some are more equal than others.
As far as I can tell, your question is about immigrants. I guarantee you, they were not minorities in the country they left. To exetend priviliges to immigrants based on their skin color is an exercise of racisim. I find it hard to accept that the sufferings and sacrifices of brave Americans of the past are being used to accomodate the desire of modern immigrants who want to come to America and cash in, now that civil rights struggle has been settled.
Yes, the sufferings and sacrifices of the brave Americans who exterminated the natives and brought slaves here to work the land. Wouldn't want anyone cashing in on their brave exploitation of two continents, now would we?
Are you making an argument against American sovereignty?
I'm making an argument against American citizens being somehow entitled to more than people in the rest of the world by virtue of some mythical past.
The American people are entitled to what they earn for themselves. Americans owe the rest of the world NOTHING. Americans would do themselves a HUGE favor if they would mind their own business.
Well then we better get started on reparations for the descendants of slaves, then, right?
I'm so sick of hearing that bologna! Americans don’t think they're entitled,well unless they're liberals that is. Americans got what they earned and what we deserved! Many before us did the same exact things the difference is they didn't last as long because they didn't value individual freedom the way we do and didn't limit the power of their governments like we do or used to! That's why America is exceptional and the greatest country ever and if we canget rid of the libs we'll continue to be!!!
I totally agree.
Progressives are baaaaaaaaaad.
"now that civil rights struggle has been settled."
Yes, white people and people of color are on a perfectly equal economic, social, and legal footing. Yep. By the way, I have some beachfront property in Oklahoma that you might be interested in...
Co-incidentally this arises in two completely different Chinese documents I am re-editing. China has laws at the highest levels to protect minorities within China, including relaxation of the one-child policy to two and even more in the smaller minorities. Every contract that deals with public issues contains required clauses that forbid allowing any kind of abuse or inciting unrest between minorities.
Most certainly if you’re talking about minorities being or having been denied the same freedoms and rights as the general population.
There are so many ways to keep minorities from moving ahead in life that it’s not even funny, take job promotions for example, “I’m afraid you’re just going to have keep waiting for that next promotion since you were the last hired their about 80 other candidates before you.”
No, I do not agree. All that is required is equal opportunity and equal protection under the law.
Thats funny, the equal protection clause dealt specifically with race.
Not anything else.
And it's "principle" has been applied through the courts. Your point?
My point is obvious.
Sorry you don't get it.
I already said it.
Are you afraid to read it?
Laws were passed to assure implementation of the 14th Amendment which had been ignored wrt voting rights, public accommodations, employment discrimination, etc. Moreover, even after the laws were passed, lawsuits and court decisions were required to bring about change and provide for equal treatment.
EXACTLY! The work has been done. I guess it's hard to understand how social norms and political ideology can be so different. The words the founders used were in NO way supportive of slavery. However it existed at the time of the countries inception and thrived for over a hundred years. Why/How? The founders set the bar high. Each generation pushes farther into the great experiment. Utopia is not the destination, it doesn't exist.
If I remember correctly, our system was devised so that minorities would be protected from the tyranny of a majority...
Minority populations, whether grouped based off gender, ethnicity, immigration status, religious affiliation, or political ideation do deserve protections.
Yes, that was the reasoning behind a republic democracy versus a pure democracy. In fact Madison's arguments were based on "property rights" issues. Rights that are often trampled upon in a pure democracy. I believe Jefferson said it best:
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
Is it ironic that many of the leaders, forefathers of freedom and justice for America..Owned slaves.
Most of the concern at the time was related to religous freedom, property rights and taxation. So one could say that it was the founders very statements that led to the Civil Rights Movement. What can we learn from this? Social norms change. The principles of our government don't.
From fools, idiots or people who just don't understand rights and wrong I could tolerate this kind of behavior but from learned men and women who should know better I can find no excuse.
to what end does your logic flow? What are you saying? That because the founders were moraly flawed ,so are their ideas that contributed to the founding of our nation? That our country has NO moral right to exist?
"Because the funders were morally flawed, so are their ideas" in many ways you are correct. A court room judge can not say I standard for fair and equal treatment under the law except when it comes to Blacks, women, hispanics. Let's not forget that law of the land supported slavery and while those around these Black America received the beneficts of being Americans in a free land suffered and died not only civil rights but human rights long after the Constitution was signed.
You can't continue to punish the current generation for the errors of the past. It's like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer because it feels good when you stop!
May be you are correct about not punishing the people of today for issues in the past. The position now is has racism been eliminated in American Society? Now if equality is to exist in a free society then we need to eliminate that which we have never eliminated, bias, racism, bigotry, prejudice, and all the rest that keeps one race down while another race continues to prosper, then and only then can we say there is no reason to play the race card.
I personally do not know what reference material you are talking about or referring to regarding equality and equal rights. Below are the definition I have found online which clearly indicate that equality at equal rights are the same.
e·qual·i·ty Show Spelled
[ih-kwol-i-tee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability
The Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923 to affirm that women and men have equal rights under the law, is still not part of the U.S. Constitution.
Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
by The British Way4 years ago
In today's world, this question will be treated with anger and hostility, accusations of xenophobia and white supremacist will come my way I'm sure. But that's not my arguement. Its simply one of, we, as a society, are...
by KK Trainor5 years ago
Why vote for the party that wants to keep you dependent on the government?I am not saying that I believe all minorities vote Democrat, nor that all of them are dependent on government assistance in its many forms. I...
by Dave Mathews5 years ago
I am a sixth generation, Canadian Born Canadian, which means that my (great great great grandfather) migrated here from Ireland along time ago. And just incase someone might think me intollerant of other nationalities...
by Laurel Rogers6 years ago
Thank God for civil rights!NPR BREAKING NEWS:Reports: California's Ban On Same-Sex Marriages Ruled UnconstitutionalA federal judge in San Francisco has overturned Proposition 8 in a landmark case that could eventually...
by mrpopo11 months ago
Privilege is defined as “a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most.” White privilege means that there are rights, immunities or benefits enjoyed only by whites because...
by Dr Anupma Srivastava5 years ago
There are so many countries where this discrimination does not exist, but there are some societies where it still exist, I need you suggestions how it can be removed from those societies.
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.