"Chicano!" PBS series/website
nopa...@yahoo.com
I should have checked before wondering online if this site still existed.
Happily, it does:
It's a great site that was designed to accompany the very informative
documentary on the organized Chicano movement(s) in the USA, especially in the
'60's/'70's.
This relates to Robert Seward's reference in thread "migrant parties." At
least I think this is what he was referring to...
Check it out if you haven't already.
-Dean
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Michael Higby
> "According to VCT, The Ford Foundation was the financial muscle behind...
A very reliable source!
Don't worry Raton, I'm sure Ken Burns will get around to doing a "White
Trash" series on PBS. And I'll make sure he interviews both you and
Glenn Spencer.
Especially for the trailer park in the tornado scene.
--
Michael - mhi...@pacbell.net
---------------------------------------
"There is nothing so stupid as an
educated man, if you get off the thing
that he was educated in."
-Will Rogers
---------------------------------------
wait for Rat to make a crack about North Hollywood
Ruben Taco Campana
(-=BajaRat=- ) wrote:
>Say, Nappy..... it looks like this "Chicano" series is pretty much the
>same old shit in a different package:
I agree with you, little babosito: The program is a bit sanitized and
just a little too "anglo friendly".
The program did accomplish its goal though, that of persuading little
bigots like you that the Chicano civil rights movement was a just
another passing fad examined by a PBS documentary, said documentary
that is only trotted out for Hispanic fundraising month..
--
To the extent Neil Bush lost his ethical bearings in the free-wheeling
investment climate of the mid-1980s, he may be saddled with a portion
of that blame. His dealings when a director of Silverado Banking,
Savings and Loan Association in Colorado were symptomatic of the
times. The 1,000 pages of investigative documents released by the
Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) last week indicate poor judgment
and probable conflict of interest on Bush's part in not fully
disclosing business ties to Silverado borrowers.[The Christian Science
Monitor, 7/18/90]
WillWork4food
Jafo wrote:
> As viewed from alt.california on Wed, 15 Jul 1998 23:13:28 GMT,
> FGSilva wrote:
>
> >Oye Raton, I just read the good news today about PBS new series on the
> >Mexican-American war which is scheduled to be broadcast this fall.
> >
> >I understand from the news article that certain unpublished historical
> >aspects of the war, (some of which scare revisionists like Klong),
> >will finally be brought to light.
>
> So what? Were you there? That was a hundred and forty years ago,
> Frank, well before the lifetimes of even the great-grandparents of
> anyone living today, on either side of the issue. Historically
> speaking, if fairness was the only legitimate factor, there'd be no
> European-descended people in the Americas today (a description that
> includes yourself); they'd all be pure Indians of various tribes.
> Anywhere you look on this planet, virtually any piece of ground
> belongs to those whose ancestors were the last to take it. Whether
> morally right or wrong, it's a done thing; that's why they call it
> history. So grow up and stop sniveling.
>
> --
> ~ Jafo http://bounce.to/jafo
I am assuming that, by uttering those words-"virtually any piece of ground
belongs to those whose ancestors were the last to take it. Whether
morally right or wrong, it's a done thing;"- you and your long-tailed
brethren will soon come to accept the Mexican/Latino invasion of California
and the rest of the Southwest.
You will of course squeal a bit, but lacking balls, you wont have any
medals from the conflict. Only scribbles on the park bathroom walls. The
"ancestors" are here now, taking (back) the land. So this will be a
bilingual culture again, if they let English be taught. Better learn to
order something more than tacos.
nopa...@yahoo.com
tu...@buey.com wrote:
>The program is a bit sanitized and
> just a little too "anglo friendly".
Amigo, I can understand your complaint, and am not trying to refute it in
general, however, imagine PBS hosting a "gringo hostile" series on the
Chicano movement. How many minds and hearts might that entice? If the series
were designed to appeal *only* to those who already share the convictions of
the Chicano movement, and who already know a good deal about its history,
what sort of truly educational/social value might it have? Preaching to the
converted is good for empowerment, but not always the best approach for
winning friends and influencing people.
Although I've been a gringo friend to Chicanos all my life, I learned a hell
of a lot from that series that I didn't already know. It expanded my
understanding, awareness, and "sympaticismo," if you will. Again, I think I
understand your criticism; I just wanted to offer that the show, while
perhaps not presented in a way that would have been more acceptable to you
and others, nevertheless had very positive value for some of us who were a
little more ignorant prior to watching it.
> The program did accomplish its goal though, that of persuading little
> bigots like you that the Chicano civil rights movement was a just
> another passing fad examined by a PBS documentary, said documentary
> that is only trotted out for Hispanic fundraising month.
(Sr. Campana was speaking to someone else here, but I'll be obnoxious and
respond anyway.)
Hmmm. I think you're right about the "passing fad" bit, but do you really
think the goal was to discredit the ongoing validity of the movement? The
show did make it seem like the movement was a thing of the past. Good point.
As I perceive, the movement is very different now, and has difused a great
deal, but still, they could have made those points and brought it all
up-to-date more earnestly. As regards trotting the show out during the
"Hispanic month," well, right again. But they compartmentalize everyone that
way, be it African-Americans, Asian-Americans, or gays. PBS is imperfect as
we all know, but I'd argue that on the whole, they at least provide a
tremendous volume of intelligence-raising, culture-celebrating,
humanity-affirming shows that appeal to the viewer's intelligence in contrast
to the vast wasteland of the more commercial networks.
Ok, my dos centavos.
Nathaniel Pierce
FGSilva wrote:
> I understand from the news article that certain unpublished historical
> aspects of the war, (some of which scare revisionists like Klong),
> will finally be brought to light.
>
> Here's an excerpt;
> "John Eisenhower, one of the program's commentators, said President
> James K. Polk calculatingly initiated the conflict by sending Gen.
> Zachary Taylor and a small American Army to occupy disputed territory
> along the Rio Grande. When the Mexican army attacked, Polk "screamed
> that American blood had been shed on American soil," Mr. Eisenhower
> said. "So there was a facade of a moral crusade to start with."
>
> Read the entire article at
> http://www.dallasnews.com/arts-nf/over2-084.htm
Unfortunately, it appears to be a hack piece. Try reading Eisenhower's "So far
from God" and you'll see Eisenhower's full opinion is actually pro, not against
as a reader would get from this acticle where he is quoted out of context.
Eisenhower points out that Mexico had claim to the northern lands for maybe all
of nine months after its overthrow of Spain, and it spent most of that time
pulling out its armies and shutting down the missions, leaving a huge power
vaccuum. It was just a matter of time before someone jumped on the territory in
its wake. As it was, the US beat Canada in taking over Monterey by only two days.
Yes, California nearly became Candadian! France later came in and cut off even
more chunks of the weak country.
Eisenhower also covers why Scott rejected annexing all of Mexico as US territory:
Scott believed a country with two different languages and cultures could not
exist long without revolution. So instead he limited the US claims to only the
largely unpopulated Northern territories, with the main goal being a US rail
passage south of the mountains for a link to the Pacific.
The truth is that Spain and France did not agree over the border between their
territories. When the US bought the Louisana purchase, the French weren't even
willing to state where the western border of the land bought was, or how far
south. This disputed land question was then handed down to Mexico and the US, the
question of which was finally settled by the Mexican-American war.
pomp...@hotmail.com
WillWork4food <work...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> I am assuming that, by uttering those words-"virtually any piece of ground
> belongs to those whose ancestors were the last to take it. Whether
> morally right or wrong, it's a done thing;"- you and your long-tailed
> brethren will soon come to accept the Mexican/Latino invasion of California
> and the rest of the Southwest.
You know, the paranoid schizofrenic yabba-dabba-doos are always going on and
on about the Mexican plans to take over the southwest...kind of like the
Protocols of the Elders of Zion bit, you know...maybe we OUGHT to draw up
such plans if we are going to be accused regardless! We need someone to
write a book called "Mi Lucha, Vato" and outline every step towards the
takeover...any vato here been refused entry into the vienna school of art
lately?
(pomponio stands on a podium giving a fascist salute as a procession of
panzer lowriders parade)
Today, San Benito, tommorrow, das welt!
> You will of course squeal a bit, but lacking balls, you wont have any
> medals from the conflict. Only scribbles on the park bathroom walls. The
> "ancestors" are here now, taking (back) the land. So this will be a
> bilingual culture again, if they let English be taught. Better learn to
> order something more than tacos.
Yo quiero mi taco bell! prrrrrrffffff!!!
BTW, I just went to Reynosa, at the La Mansion restaurant....built in
imitation of a castillian hostel...nice joint...had the queso fundido with
chorizo, champiņones, and rajas...then followed with a sopa de
tortilla...watered it down with a Bohemia beer...side plate of
guacamole....my Hillary was pigging out also, that gringa must have a
solitaria in her gut..I followed with a pulpo a la albaņil....bit of an
acquired taste, i must warn you....not good if you read HP Lovecraft...seems
like you are eating Cthulhu...while my gringa had the carne asada a la
tampiqueņa...I popped a couple of buttons on the shirt, but heroically
decided to have dessert...she had the house cheese cake and I had the pastel
de tres leches....now, what did Caesar use to say?...."yon cassius has a lean
and hungry look..." that certainly does not apply to me...burp! (sorry)
Remember the Alamo. We won.
Pomponio Magnus
Gobernador Constitucional del Estado Libre y Soberano de Tejas de Santa Anna
"per lucro canis oscila" -- "con dinero baila el perro" -- state motto
Ruben Rodriguez
>In article <35ad4658...@news.swbell.net>,
> tu...@buey.com wrote:
>>The program is a bit sanitized and
>> just a little too "anglo friendly".
>Amigo, I can understand your complaint, and am not trying to refute it in
>general, however, imagine PBS hosting a "gringo hostile" series on the
>Chicano movement.
Not a complaint, just an observation made with the benefit of the
passage of time.
By "anglo friendly", I mean that it didn't really seem to connect with
everyday life and it didn't seem to be a "legitimate" documentary,
meaning in the traditional PBS history series sense.
By connecting to everyday life, I mean in the sense that it didn't
make me want to get up and sue un hijue su, so to speak.
I haven't seen the series in a long time, so I'm speaking from memory.
>How many minds and hearts might that entice?
Enticing minds and hearts isn't my objective: I was a part of those
marches and other attempts to persuade, and frankly, I believe
persuasion as a tool to be a complete waste of time.
While some would say that a lot has changed for the better, my
experience is that the xenophobia and bigotry has just gone
underground.
Well, in eyeball to eyeball contact, anyway.
> If the series
>were designed to appeal *only* to those who already share the convictions of
>the Chicano movement, and who already know a good deal about its history,
>what sort of truly educational/social value might it have?
The history books in school don't mention the braceros and border
crossing Mexicans who had kerosene poured on their hair by the pelados
"just in case" they carried lice.
Nor do they ever mention the mass deportations of Mexican Americans
during economic hard times in order to protect white people's "special
right" to a job.
> Preaching to the
>converted is good for empowerment, but not always the best approach for
>winning friends and influencing people.
The Constitution says I *don't* have to depend on the good graces of
friends or influential people for my rights.
As a matter of fact, I have a duty to secure my own liberty and
rights..
>Although I've been a gringo friend to Chicanos all my life, I learned a hell
>of a lot from that series that I didn't already know. It expanded my
>understanding, awareness, and "sympaticismo," if you will. Again, I think I
>understand your criticism; I just wanted to offer that the show, while
>perhaps not presented in a way that would have been more acceptable to you
>and others, nevertheless had very positive value for some of us who were a
>little more ignorant prior to watching it.
Well, I certainly have no objections to you voicing your opinion, but
I will continue to maintain that the series was sugar-coated precisely
to spare the sensibilities of certain people who may have had
financial control over other parts of PBS.
>> The program did accomplish its goal though, that of persuading little
>> bigots like you that the Chicano civil rights movement was a just
>> another passing fad examined by a PBS documentary, said documentary
>> that is only trotted out for Hispanic fundraising month.
>
>(Sr. Campana was speaking to someone else here, but I'll be obnoxious and
>respond anyway.)
That was directed at one of the little mice who scamper around from
newsgroup to newsgroup, mice sent by the packet gods to keep us
amused.
Little Babosito is worried sick that there is a long term plan to take
back Azt..., I mean occupied Mexico.
>Hmmm. I think you're right about the "passing fad" bit, but do you really
>think the goal was to discredit the ongoing validity of the movement?
No, not at all.
> The
>show did make it seem like the movement was a thing of the past. Good point.
>As I perceive, the movement is very different now, and has difused a great
>deal, but still, they could have made those points and brought it all
>up-to-date more earnestly.
Diffused into the system we were banging on the door of.
> As regards trotting the show out during the
>"Hispanic month," well, right again. But they compartmentalize everyone that
>way, be it African-Americans, Asian-Americans, or gays.
But not whites.
> PBS is imperfect as
>we all know, but I'd argue that on the whole, they at least provide a
>tremendous volume of intelligence-raising, culture-celebrating,
>humanity-affirming shows that appeal to the viewer's intelligence in contrast
>to the vast wasteland of the more commercial networks.
PBS doesn't allow the underwriting of programs by unions, apparently
at the request of their corporate sponsors.
>Ok, my dos centavos.
>
>-Dean
>
>
--
"You build homes, and my dad jumps out of airplanes"
--George W. Bush (to Jimmy Carter)--
Houston Chronicle 6/15/98
===================================================================
View the route over which Maine and Vermont's nuclear waste will be
transported to Texas for storage:
http://www.compassionate.org/sbldf/html/nuke_route.html
WillWork4food
Jafo wrote:
> As viewed from alt.california on Thu, 16 Jul 1998 06:28:03 -0700,
> WillSuck4food wrote:
another of your homoerotic mumblings...however, I'm way too old for you and
yours....
>
>
> >I am assuming that, by uttering those words-"virtually any piece of ground
> >belongs to those whose ancestors were the last to take it. Whether
> >morally right or wrong, it's a done thing;"- you and your long-tailed
> >brethren will soon come to accept the Mexican/Latino invasion of California
> >and the rest of the Southwest.
> >You will of course squeal a bit, but lacking balls, you wont have any
> >medals from the conflict. Only scribbles on the park bathroom walls. The
> >"ancestors" are here now, taking (back) the land. So this will be a
> >bilingual culture again, if they let English be taught. Better learn to
> >order something more than tacos.
>
> Swell. So how long before it all begins to look like the place they
> come from? At which point the whole joint won't be worth five cents
> on the dollar.
>
> --
> ~ Jafo http://bounce.to/jafo
well, I guess it will all be a point of view thing. To them, it will be like
coming home. But remember, the geography wont change, only language (hehehe).
And the politics.But you really wont have to worry about that. I'm sure you and
yours will be in a cave in Idaho or somewhere like that.
nopa...@yahoo.com
confused; I didn't realize you were the man who posted the comments I
responded to. Am I confusing attributions? I thought that "tu...@buey.com," a
man with nickname "Taco" was the original poster...?
> While some would say that a lot has changed for the better, my
> experience is that the xenophobia and bigotry has just gone
> underground.
To a large extent this is so true, but the opposite is sadly true, too, as is
so obvious here in USENET-land. Lots of gringos, feeling either
disenfranchised and/or threatened by the rapidly growing Latino population of
the USA, are openly talking about culture war, citizen militias along the
border, and are overtly slamming Mexican culture (as if it's all one, united
and tangible force) with all manner of perjoratives and mis(dis?)information.
> The history books in school don't mention the braceros and border
> crossing Mexicans who had kerosene poured on their hair by the pelados
> "just in case" they carried lice.
They sure didn't! But in my primary/high school education (California, late
1960s - early 1980s,) not much of anything about the dark side of USA history
was discussed. It was all Washington's honesty, Franklin and Jefferson's
genius, and Lincoln's compassion. I remember the huge feeling of relief I and
some classmates had when, during an intense summer school course in history,
the unusually-good teacher slammed Nixon for what he was and talked about our
"willful ignorance" as regards the slaughter of the native peoples, amongst
other untold verities. Isn't it ironic that finally getting around to these
subjects was a relief for us? I guess we weren't as stupid as some educators
would have preferred to keep us.
> Nor do they ever mention the mass deportations of Mexican Americans
> during economic hard times in order to protect white people's "special
> right" to a job.
I confess that is a subject I need to know more about. Could you be kind
enough to let me know what years this occurred during? I'll do my own
homework and find out more.
> Well, I certainly have no objections to you voicing your opinion, but
> I will continue to maintain that the series was sugar-coated precisely
> to spare the sensibilities of certain people who may have had
> financial control over other parts of PBS.
I have no problem with your opinion at all, either. In fact, I'm really glad
I'm receiving it! I made my case that the show taught me a lot simply because
it did. It's good for a person like myself to understand your criticism. It's
caused me to re-think my enthusiasm for the show and consider your points.
After all, I am not Chicano myself. Now I know a little more. Much of what I
read on this group helps me understand Chicano perspectives, much more so
than any telling of the history of the movement would do. That's one of the
main reasons I lurk about and participate. I know of other gringos who feel
the same way. It's not *just* that we really like Mexican and Mex-Am people
and cultures; it's also sort of, "well, with the changes occurring and
coming, we need to expand our awareness and not be lazy entitled gringos."
Nothin' uglier than the ugly American!
> Little Babosito is worried sick that there is a long term plan to take
> back Azt..., I mean occupied Mexico.
I don't happen to know which raton l'il Babosito is, but I'm VERY well aware
of this sort of fear, having gotten a rather rude eye-opening on it all from
another l'il raton who has since been nailed into his mouse hole because of
his abusive nature. Although the human in me :) can understand the fears to
an extent, the brain in the human knows it's SO pretentious and unrealistic
for whites to imagine that the Southwest and California are "anglo country"
or whatever. I mean, even if the USA was an island, who are these yahoos to
pretend that there's no blacks or browns or Asians here? Do they know nothing
of the actual history of the land grab from Mexico? It's just so stupid.
People get all kinds of upset over the concept of diversity, forgetting that
the USA has *always* been "diverse." Someone commented recently that the
backlash to the Aztlan concept/movement is very similar to the insistence in
some quarters that there is a ZOG or Jewish conspiracy to rule the world.
They make their worst and most unrealistic fears tangible to themselves, and
keep reprinting long-since defrauded hoaxes like "The Protocals of the Elders
of Zion" as if they're proof of their false constructs. I agree; the
Mexi-bashers are a lot like the ZOG payasos. (A cursory glance at the
websites for anti-immigrant groups FAIR and VCT or hatemongers like BajaRat
illustrates this perfectly. Racist conspiracy theorists.) Now, this is not to
deny that what's happening in the SW and Califas, er, CA is really happening,
but the xenophobia is so exaggerated and overstated and racism-rife and
inhumane. There is some aggressive amnesia out there!
Back to the Chicano! series, I'd written:
> > The
> >show did make it seem like the movement was a thing of the past. Good point.
> >As I perceive, the movement is very different now, and has difused a great
> >deal, but still, they could have made those points and brought it all
> >up-to-date more earnestly.
Ruben responds:
> Diffused into the system we were banging on the door of.
Good point. "Into the system we're banging on the door of." Very well-said. I
read this as "We're already here, but you're not letting us in." So true, as
I see here in CA. I read a few days ago that Latinos already outnumber
African-Americans in the USA; this happened sooner than some analysts
expected. Those who criticize the dearth of Latinos in mainstream
entertainment and the notable black/white axis of the "dialogue on race" are
right on target. I for one am grateful that I haven't witnessed much
resentment from African-Americans directed at Latinos. But then, they know
all about bigotry; even if their circumstances are very different, there's
some degree of common footing.
Musing on PBS' seasonal bundling-together of groups, I'd written:
> > As regards trotting the show out during the
> >"Hispanic month," well, right again. But they compartmentalize everyone that
> >way, be it African-Americans, Asian-Americans, or gays.
Ruben:
> But not whites.
A Chicano man recently wrote to me that he advocated thinking of whites as
ethnic groups, not a group lacking ethnicity. A very valid and interesting
point. The fact that PBS treats European and white American-generated culture
(be it Opera, "Riverdance," Gershwin, or whatever) as the MAIN streams of
cultural tributaries, for year-round presentation as opposed to the (x)-Month
specials should really be addressed aggressively, IMO.
Thanks!
-Dean
JB
> On Thu, 16 Jul 1998 15:14:13 GMT, nopa...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >In article <35ad4658...@news.swbell.net>,
> > tu...@buey.com wrote:
> >> just a little too "anglo friendly".
Hopefully, the PBS program will prompt other stations to
put forth something (something is better than none at all).
> >Amigo, I can understand your complaint, and am not trying to refute it in
> >general, however, imagine PBS hosting a "gringo hostile" series on the
> >Chicano movement.
> Not a complaint, just an observation made with the benefit of the
> passage of time.
> By "anglo friendly", I mean that it didn't really seem to connect with
> everyday life and it didn't seem to be a "legitimate" documentary,
> meaning in the traditional PBS history series sense.
> While some would say that a lot has changed for the better, my
> experience is that the xenophobia and bigotry has just gone
> underground.
> > If the series
> >were designed to appeal *only* to those who already share the convictions of
> >the Chicano movement, and who already know a good deal about its history,
> >what sort of truly educational/social value might it have?
> The history books in school don't mention the braceros and border
> crossing Mexicans who had kerosene poured on their hair by the pelados
> "just in case" they carried lice.
> Nor do they ever mention the mass deportations of Mexican Americans
> during economic hard times in order to protect white people's "special
> right" to a job.
Nor do history books mention the mineros who were machine
gunned in Colorado by the U.S. National Guard. Of the dead were
eight Chicano children.
Possibly Univision, or any of the English speaking stations
could run this information weekly, or even monthly.
The PBS series is worth seeing, because so far, it's all
we have to represent this part of U.S. history.
Ruben Tai Po
>Thanks for the elaborations and clarifications, Ruben, but I'm apparently
>confused; I didn't realize you were the man who posted the comments I
>responded to. Am I confusing attributions? I thought that "tu...@buey.com," a
>man with nickname "Taco" was the original poster...?
My posts are usually more than just what you see in the text box or
your news reader.
It isn't a good idea to use one's real name and personal information
when posting to Usenet and so I use the name as part of my post.
>> While some would say that a lot has changed for the better, my
>> experience is that the xenophobia and bigotry has just gone
>> underground.
>To a large extent this is so true, but the opposite is sadly true, too, as is
>so obvious here in USENET-land.
If you think of Usenet as a pressure relief valve, the situation you
describe is a "good" thing.
>> Little Babosito is worried sick that there is a long term plan to take
>> back Azt..., I mean occupied Mexico.
>I don't happen to know which raton l'il Babosito is,
Baja Rat.
but I'm VERY well aware
>of this sort of fear, having gotten a rather rude eye-opening on it all from
>another l'il raton who has since been nailed into his mouse hole because of
>his abusive nature.
Limiting someone's first amendment rights limits one's own.
> Although the human in me :) can understand the fears to
>an extent, the brain in the human knows it's SO pretentious and unrealistic
>for whites to imagine that the Southwest and California are "anglo country"
>or whatever.
They can imagine whatever they want. My objections are to the
Republican Congressmen who validate that viewpoint through official
actions or taxpayer funded speeches.
>
>-Dean
--
"Some organizations take our lists and use them for direct-mailing
purpose for their own individual benefit. And that is unfair to me,"
Bush said. "I'm trying to protect my invest - my contributors from
unscrupulous practices." --George W. Bush--
[Houston Chronicle 7/18/98]
=========================================================
View the route over which Maine and Vermont's
and possibily the rest of the country's),
nopa...@yahoo.com
ryxsa...@swbell.net (Ruben Tai Po) wrote:
> Limiting someone's first amendment rights limits one's own.
Agreed. I like USENET because of the wide variety of opinions posted here,
including those I find odious. After all, someone else will find mine to be
objectionable, even if I haven't found them yet (just kidding.) I'm not a
censor, and I'm not even the person who "reported" the abuser, whose initials
were DKL. Mr. "L" was misusing his employer's electronic services according
to *their* TOS, which explicitly forbid promulgating ethnically-bigoted views
using their resources. His employer was a state university, their internet
services partially underwritten by public funds. They found the content of
his volumnious postings to be a violation of their TOS, so they pulled the
plug. The person who reported him did not request that action at all. I
believe I referred to him (DKL) being punished for his abusive nature. I'm
not sure that's specifically how the man's employer would characterize the
violation, although it's true that he had no online friends or supporters
besides BajaRat. DKL was an extremely abusive person, the kind I call a
cypersociopath. He would stalk his perceived enemies online for the sole
purpose of degrading them; he would post inflammatory lies about people, and
refuse to be reasoned with in an adult fashion. When his lies were exposed as
such, he'd simply go on repeating them. If he WAS punished in part for this
sort of behavior, I, as one of his favored victims, have no problem with that
judgement. It goes beyond free speech into unreasonable abuse, IMO. He didn't
simply say "screw you" (or whatever,) he'd say "you said...x" when one never
said "x," and keep repeating it.
I had written:
> > Although the human in me :) can understand the fears to
> >an extent, the brain in the human knows it's SO pretentious and unrealistic
> >for whites to imagine that the Southwest and California are "anglo country"
> >or whatever.
Ruben responds:
> They can imagine whatever they want. My objections are to the
> Republican Congressmen who validate that viewpoint through official
> actions or taxpayer funded speeches.
Hear, hear! They try to institutionalize their rhetoric as reality, which is
beneath contempt. Politics as usual...
designated player
What a difference in opinion.
DLK put together some great posts.
Are you sure this is what happened??
Des
nopa...@yahoo.com wrote in message <6p0i1r$89$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> > Although the human in me :) can understand the fears to
>> >an extent, the brain in the human knows it's SO pretentious and
unrealistic
>> >for whites to imagine that the Southwest and California are "anglo
country"
>> >or whatever.
>
>Ruben responds:
>> They can imagine whatever they want. My objections are to the
>> Republican Congressmen who validate that viewpoint through official
>> actions or taxpayer funded speeches.
>
>Hear, hear! They try to institutionalize their rhetoric as reality, which
is
>beneath contempt. Politics as usual...
>