Minorities will get the short end of the stick, as long as politicians exist

Ok, throghout history this has always been the case.

Because politicians are historically driven by one thing only, power, they are only interested in keeping their power. The only way to keep power in a representative government is to get more people to vote for you then the next guy. What does this mean? It means you can ignore problems that affect minorities. It means you can try to please the majority, knowing that it will increase your chances of winning. I think the Republican party in America abuses the fact that America still has whites and Christians as overwhelming majorities. Not that Democrats are that great or antyhing, since even the ones that truly want good for others tend not to have much sucess. Look at the "Under God" ruling and its reactions from politics. It's clearly the correct ruling if you know the history behind its insertion and have an understanding of the Constitution, there is no doubt in my mind they made the right call. But which politician is going to stand up and say, "I agree with this ruling!" and potentially piss off over 90% of its voters who believe in God.


Is there a solution to this?

Temporarily:
We need more minorities in politics! People need to stop letting others represent them, of course, its not that easy since politics is controlled by money and power, and that is passed down family lines that have existed for a while, ahem, Bush, Kennedy, etc.

Permanently:
A more democratic system of government in which politicians play a bigger role. A society where politics is not about power or money. Can either of these be achieved?

 

You aren't a sock by chance, are you?

 

A more democratic system of government in which politicians play a bigger role. A society where politics is not about power or money. Can either of these be achieved?

No. Its against human nature.

Sounds also more like communisim in a way.

 

A republican system where certain inherent liberties are protected from majority rule seems sensible.

 

There are two options when it comes to government: majority rule, and minority rule. Minority rule = dictatorship.

 

Majority rule = dictatorship.

The majority is as capable of as great restrictions of freedom as minority rule.

Hey...

Communism is Socialism with dictatorship of the proletariat...

The proletariat is the majority...

Communism = Socialist Democracy!

 

The only "minority" in this counrty that we need more of in politics are Indians. Or "Native Americans" if you want to insult them further.

Not blacks, not whites, not Mexicans, Asians, etc.

Give the people this land was stolen from a say in what goes on here.

 

Majority rule = dictatorship.

By definition, "majority rule" implies democracy.

The majority is as capable of as great restrictions of freedom as minority rule.

This is theoretically true, but the question is not which system is perfect, because there is none. The question is which system is preferable.

Hey...

Communism is Socialism with dictatorship of the proletariat...

The proletariat is the majority...

Communism = Socialist Democracy!

In theory Communism is compatible with democracy. In practice, it is not. The absolute power of the government required to
impose the economic dictates of the system ensures that those who oversee that system have absolute power over the people.

 

Minorities, whether it be race or ideology, will always get the short end of the stick in a system governed by the votes of the many as opposed to the few.

 

Good thing the US is a democratic republic, where laws govern and not men. Eh?

I say 'eh?'

I think someone's going to disagree soon ...

 

I disagree. Minorities do not always get the short end of the stick, and sometimes they get more than their fair share.

Alex De Tourqueville (How I am supposed to know how to spell a 200 year old dead french guy's name?) Studied the US system and the biggest complaint he had about it was the "dictatorship of the majority."
However, I do not think that the minority is helpless. In fact, the system we have is built so that a minority can stop the majority. You say that Bush and the Republicans are a example of the majority ruling, but the Democrats are voted into office by minorities. A Democrat must bend to the will of blacks, otherwise they wouldn't get 90% of the black vote.

And why should American Indians have any more political power? They are a very small minority that already has a somewhat seperate area where they can do what they want. I am sure as a liberal you would like them ruling the country, but what happens when they 'reclaim' your house? I am just kidding, of course, but I see little need to debate that anymore.
BTW: They aren't native americans either, they just got here thousands of years before us.

 

It's a simple question- which is better, a system where a few people's wishes are overridden by the many, or one where the many are oppressed by the few?

The answer is clear, except to those who wish to be the "few" in the latter scenario, and those are the individuals who must be opposed at all costs.

 

We do need more minorities in office. I'm sick of Bush's all white cabinet and advisors.

 

What in TEH heck are you talking about?
Have you not seen Condalisa Rice and Collin Powell? Rice is the first black women to hold that important position, yet you do not see the liberal media talking about racial divercity in the Bush White House. I can't remember if he has had more minorities than Clinton, but I know these aren't the only two minorities there, but they are incredibly powerful. Oh wait, they aren't "real" blacks are they? You have to be a Democrat or you "turned white."

 

I'd guess there's a little sarcasm in that post, but don't hold me to it.

 

Yep all of Bush's cabinet is White

End sarcasm here.

While it may not be as diverse as some PC people may like to see please make an informed post before spouting off.

BTW the most powerful Cabinet member is held by Powell.

 

BTW the most powerful Cabinet member is held by Powell.

Boy, that can be read the wrong way!



BTW, how is it that the term "Native Americans" is more insulting? What is the PC term, anyway? In the strictest sense, one shouldn't use the term "Indian" since they were incorrectly named that years ago.

 

Who cares about being PC in the Senate? This is all about finding the truth, not walking on eggshells.

As of right now, everyone is equal in the voting booth.

To give minorities a greater voice, should we make their votes 'worth more?'
That would be 'fair', right?

Wrong.

America is based upon the idea that everyone is equal. The founding fathers decided to bear the consequences of majority ruling, so that everyone could have the same equal vote!

If you don't like the way you are being represented, it is your duty to do something about it. Stage rallies, go on television, write letters to the editor, whatever.

I just want to know how african americans are getting 'the short end of the stick' right now anyway...

Oh, and by the way, I'm a Christian white conservative male! GASP! Does that give me more power than any of you?

No, actually, I have less- I'm not old enough to vote!

 

I do agree that minorties can be abbused by the majority, but I do not believe that they should get any special treatment, just not be harmed. As long as they are not being harmed for the majorities benifite, I have no problem in this case.

And what about how everyone says things like "people should be color blind." Race should not be an issue, but despite people on both sides spouting that off, other people keep making it an issue. Going to college, it is stupid how many scholorships say "To promote euqality we are giving money only to blacks, women, hispanics...ect."

For some reason, some people want race to still be an issue, they still want minorities to exist. Arg, I am just confused.

 

What really eerks me is when people say "minorities need to vote in a block". There is so much wrong with that statement. Of course it comes from democrats who enjoy the majority of minorities voting in that block to further their own political desires, while tossing some AA "bone" to their "minority block". I wonder what feelings people would have if I said "white people need to vote in a block, so that we can make sure that the things that our important to us get done."

Sounds like a bad idea to me. Sounds like someones telling me to forget my opinions and vote my race and not what I believe is right.

As many people pointed out democracy is never the friend of any minority group on any issue, because the needs of the majority are the primary concern. When the minority of any issue (not race) is allowed to dictate what is acceptable that is a dictatorship. But to say or imply that, for instance, Hispanics all think alike and have the same issues important to them is racist and ignorant. In that respect some are always in the minority and some are always in the majority. So democracy is no respector of any race, just the majority on an issue. So unless you think all racial minorities think alike and have the same issues important to them, your argument is flawed and racist.

 

Enforcer, some people want minorities and racism to exist so that they can milk it for power. It goes both ways on this one.

If a white politician can get a bunch of people not to vote for a black candidate because he's black, then he has more power.

And what black person who needs money for college is going to say that a 'black person scholarship' is prejidice?

Also, some politicians want racism to still exist so that they can try to get 'block voting' so they can 'help stop racism'! Politics are ironic like this.

I have never oppressed an African-American, but there are some free African-Americans that say I have!

 

I'm sorry but I am a Christian white male in the upper middle class. Personally, I am wondering when I will see all the fringe benefits and special treatment you talk about.

In fact, more than once being a white male has screwed me over. Scholarships is the worst thing for a white male looking for money for college. A scholarship only for women is okay. A scholarship for blacks is okay. A scholarship for white males is racist. Someone mind explaining the racial and sexual equality in that?

Or what about the all black colleges? If there was ever even talk about an all white male college Jesse Jackson would raise all hell and have the school shut down. However, if anybody were to speak out about the inequality of an all black college they would be deemed racist.

The scholarships out there always have a line about being especially interested in minorities and those with disabilities. Why is that even an issue? When deciding on scholarships or hiring for a job the candidate should be chosen by merit alone. I think it is degrading to choose someone to create a balanced demographic.

I can't count how many scholarships I've seen that I would consider racist. I remember one in particular. It was for "African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Italians, and women." Why didn't they just save ink on the flyers and say "White males need not apply," their point was quite clear. Looking through scholarship books and binders I saw that I was immediately inelligible for many scholarships on the basis of the color of my skin.

Now I am not trying to turn the tables to say that white males have it so bad. But we don't have it as great as many people think, either. America does have a problem with racism, but we are working on it and trying to fix it. Singling out certain races and sexes with scholarships is not the way to remedy the problem.

The reference to the pledge ruling made me very angry. If you know anything about the founders of America then you know them to be religious men. The pledge was written in the same spirit as the founders had when writing the Constitution. Would you push for the Declaration of Independence to be unconstitutional? It does claim that men have "certain inalienable rights endowed to them by their Creator." If that isn't a reference to God then I don't know what is and we better get a group of atheists to have the Declaration of Independence banned from public schools. It would be a great shame if kids thought they had rights garaunteed to them by some higher being.

BTW, while we're at it, we better make the Star Spangled Banner unconstitutional. "Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that has made and presrv'd us a nation
And conquer we must when our cause is just
And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'" That is taken from the fourth verse of the song. I think all this fighting over the pledge is only hurting our country. This is not what the founders meant when they created a seperation of church and state. A reference to God, Allah, Buddha, or any other deity should not be cause for banning something in the United States.

In any case... that is just my opinion.

 

Hmm. A few points.

A society where politics is not about power or money. Can either of these be achieved?

No, because there is one thing we will have a lot of trouble changing; MOTIVES. You're talking about changing the motives of men and women, and the fact remains; we can change the outside, but NOT the inside. As a Christian, I do believe there IS someone who can change the inside of course...

Re: minorities, now.
I come from a town in the UK where we have racial tension to a large degree. In point of fact, if you go through my part of the UK, you'll see it was the place where ethnic riots occurred last year. We were marked as a potential trouble-spot.

Here's the punchline; THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM WAS TOO MUCH ATTENTION BEING PAID TO MINORITIES. The ethnic majorities felt threatened by the fact that local Council was catering to the minorities and not to them. Meanwhile, a separatism formed between ethnic groups; things like Muslim girls-schools didn't help, they simply meant that many white ppl never got to know a Muslim girl. As a result, tension was building for a long time - and the fault was because of the opposite of what you state.

Now, what is needed is BALANCE.

 

A reference to God, Allah, Buddha, or any other deity should not be cause for banning something in the United States.

So why not include all deities in the pledge? After all, exclusive preference of religion is what the Establishment Clause seeks to prevent... in which case the easiest way to avoid preference to religion is to avoid introducing religion into state matters at all.

What is so harmful about being responsible for your faith on your terms? Let's put it this way... how would you feel about your religious freedoms if you lived in Saudi Arabia? Sure, everyone's welcome there, but try being overtly Christian and see what happens.

We like our minority colors, religions, beliefs and lifestyles as long as they're kept in the closet and don't get "in the face of" the white Christian majority? Is that it? Why isn't the right to not be bombarded by Christianity afforded to all non-Christians, then? Where is the equal distribution of freedoms and rights?

If you lived in an Islamic nation and tried to preach Christianity, or your wife went out in public without a Burqua, or you did not pray to Mecca five times a day, or you had any complaints whatsoever about the overt exposure to Islamic symbology... what would you do?

I'll tell you... Christian parents are up in arms about a California school that is supposedly preaching Islam in their discussion on world religions. This school has a discussion course on the history of religions, and they do cover other religions as well, and spent a great deal more time on Christianity, but are the Christians complaining about the Christian role-playing? Of course not... it's the exposure to Islam that threatens their fragile sense of faith.

If your sense of faith is so easily disturbed and shaken by not seeing In God We Trust on every single coin, or forcing everyone's kids to regurgitate a pledge the meaning and value of which they do not understand, or hearing an Islamic prayer or two every now and then... what does that say about how certain you are about faith in the first place?

It's bigotry, sometimes bordering on racism and anti-culturalism. Funny how many Congressmen and women couldn't seem to remember half the words when they recited it during their Joint Session supporting the pledge.

 

Minorities do get the short end of the stick when dealing with politics. However, politicians use them to promote platforms. Like for college funding or improvement in health care. In fact, to the public people in general go so far to try to prevent discrminating against minority groups that they discriminate against whites. The type of government stickyfingaz wants is really the first stage of socialism.

Socalism--->communism

The final stage of Socialism is Communism