Neeum Zawan wrote:
> being passed, I was curious as to what laws targeting African Americans 
> would be considered OK if their behavior was bad enough. (Part of the 
> unnecessary pre-emptive strike referred to above).

See "Black Panthers, History."  :-)

>     Reading it all again, it's clear you were just thinking aloud/asking 
> questions. Still - it's a public forum, and just because it's a reply to 
> you doesn't mean all of it has to be for your eyes. I can throw out 
> ideas as well.<G>

Certainly.

>> I'm equating it with every other bit of politicized prejudice.
>     I must admit I don't understand.

Almost every other form of prejudice actually brought into existence and 
legitimized by politics that I can think of wound up making those you were 
to hate "subhuman" as the reason for the hatred. Black slavery in America, 
gassing Jews in Germany, killing Gooks in 'Nam, women getting stoned for 
going outside without an escort or being too hysterical to vote, etc.

When it's not prejudice but merely differentiation (i.e., when you can 
actually move out of the group people are prejudiced against), people in the 
"out" group might get treated badly, but it doesn't seem the same. Such as 
keeping non-land-owners from voting - those without land were discriminated 
against but not particularly treated as inherently worth less, methinks.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message