THEY’RE OBSESSED


A few days ago I posted a piece (CELEBRATION, ANYONE?) that featured the following paragraph:

“Black History Month reminds me of that portion of an application form that asks for the race of the applicant; race is not supposed to matter but everyone knows that it does—especially to Liberal policy-makers and administrators. Despite the Civil War, a civil rights movement, several acts of congress, amendments to the constitution and ongoing preferential treatment Liberals are still convinced that new and institutionalized racism is the cure for past racism. They must believe that new injuries cure old injuries.”

The Census Bureau provides for us another example of the “Liberal policy-makers and administrators” that I wrote about in that paragraph. Question #8 of the 2010 census form asks: “Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?” If the answer is ‘yes’ there are several boxes for you choose from that identify the specific type of “Hispanic” that you are. Among the selections are “Mexican”, “Mexican Am.”, “Chicano” (Does anyone know which country “Chicanos” come from?), “Puerto Rican” and “Cuban”. By the way, can someone explain to me what the difference is between a “Mexican” and a “Mexican Am.”?

If you answer ‘no’ to question #8 question #9 then, allows you to declare what race you are. A few of the options include “White”, “Black”, “African Am.”, “Negro”, “American Indian”, “Chinese”, “Japanese”, “Filipino”, “Vietnamese” etc. Apparently none of these groups was special enough to merit a whole question just about them—they had to be lumped in with the “White” people. Let the healing begin!

The concept of being judged not be the color your skin but by the content of your character was a fundamental component of the Civil Rights movement that I once supported but, it is not a component of modern Liberal philosophy. Liberals are obsessed with race and skin color. I wouldn’t mind their obsession if they quietly kept it to themselves but, they keep forcing it on the rest of us. They’re not interested in simple equal protection of the law for all people. Instead, they want to engage in social engineering by redistributing wealth and bestowing rewards and preferences on some groups based upon their victim status and voting value to Liberal politicians.

If Liberals were really ‘liberal’ in the true meaning of the word they’d quit asking the rest of us intrusive and insulting questions that keep the nation racially divided. Leave us alone!


Comments

  1. In response to one of your questions, a Mexican-American is usually someone of Mexican ancestry born in the US. It can also mean a Mexican who has become a naturalized US citizen. A Mexican is a Mexican citizen. However, the terms are not always used with rigor just as I may (incorrectly) call myself a Swede even though I am Swedish-American (plus a lot of other hyphenates to lessor degrees).

    I also find the (various) categories imprecise, usually unhelpful for any practical purpose, and more useful for dividing than for uniting.

  2. Labels labels labels says:

    Coming from a Hispanic/Mexican-American/American-Mexican/Chicano family, I have seen every one of these terms used to describe a single person. It has to do with people getting offended by one term or another because of ‘historical or political implications’. My grandparents (American born in the 20s) go by Hispanic because that was the term used at the time. My parents go by Mexican-American. My uber-liberal cousins in California go by Chicano because ‘they are indigenous people’ which is bull.
    I go by American because to be completely honest we have been in Arizona since before it was part of the United States and labeling yourself with allegiance to a country you neither know nor love is silly.
    Chicano has ties to the movements in the 70s and is really only used seriously in California.

    The government asking for labels for people like this makes me nervous, because any use of it will be for race based policies. We all know how well that has worked in the past. *rolls eyes*

  3. I thought illegal immigration had nothing to do with race. Why the ‘illegal immigration’ tag?

  4. ………………..
    hey now Says:
    March 12th, 2010 at 11:33 pm
    I thought illegal immigration had nothing to do with race. Why the ‘illegal immigration’ tag?
    ……………

    It’s more of a geographical bias. Those who have to fly or boat in have less political advantage than those who can walk in.

  5. Stephen Kohut says:

    To enumerate means to count. The purpose of rgw census is to reallocation representatiion in the House based on population and I didn’t realize that Chicno’s count more or less to that end than Mexican Americans. Liberals are masters are counting and playing groups off against one another.

  6. That’s exactly right.

    The census has a defined purpose. To twist or alter that brings us right back to the oppressive degradations of counting “Blacks” as 2/3rds or any percentage less than “Whites.”

    THe American People ended that. Why is it creeping back under another guise? It proves the point that it’s not about race or gender or anything else, it’s all about POWER for the encumbants.

  7. So why does the census equal liberal? Here are the questions from the 1930 census carried out by the conservative Hoover administration.

    ——————————
    Place of abode
    Street, avenue, road, etc.
    House number
    Number of dwelling house in order of visitation
    Number of family in order of visitation

    Name
    Name of each person whose place of abode on April 1, 1930, was in this family. Enter surname first, then the given name, and middle initial, if any. Include every person living on April 1, 1930. Omit children born since April 1, 1930.

    Relation
    Relationship of this person to the head of the family

    Home Data
    Home owned or rented
    Value of home, if owned, or monthly rental, if rented
    Radio set
    Does this family own a farm?

    Personal description
    Sex
    Color or race
    Age at last birthday
    Marital condition
    Age at first marriage

    Education
    Attended school or college any time since Sept. 1, 1929
    Whether able to read or write

    Place of birth. Place of birth of each person enumerated and of his or her parents. If born in the United States, give State or Territory. If of foreign birth, give country in which birthplace is now situated. Distinguish Canada-French from Canada-English, and Irish Free State from Northern Ireland.
    Place of birth__person
    Place of birth__father
    Place of birth__mother

    Mother tongue (or native language) of foreign born
    Language spoken in home before coming to the United States

    Citizenship, etc
    Year of immigration into the United States
    Naturalization
    Whether able to speak English

    Occupation & industry
    Trade, profession, or particular kind of work done
    Industry or business
    Class of worker

    Employment. Whether actually at work yesterday (or the last regular working day) Yes or no
    If not, line number on Unemployment schedule [These schedules no longer exist]

    Veterans. Whether a veteran of U.S. Military or naval forces Yes or no
    What war or expedition?
    Farm schedule
    Number of farm schedule [These schedules no longer exist]

    ———

    Yes, clearly the modern census with all its questions beyond simple enumeration is a product of only liberals.

  8. Stephen Kohut says:

    Being wrong in 1930 does not make it any more right today.

  9. Stephen Kohut,
    Point isn’t about the right or wrong in the questions but rather the ahistorical attitude by Skylark.

  10. “Liberals are obsessed with race and skin color.”

    You know what’s also obsessed with race and skin color? Diseases like sickle-cell anemia and Tay-Sachs (also, high blood pressure, stroke, heart attacks, diabetes, etc). Part of the reason why the government asks this information is so they can better plan public-health strategies.

  11. Rosco P Coltrane says:

    You are not obligated to answer anything on the census except for how many people are living at your house.

    Filling out a census form incorrectly on purpose is a serious crime, but not filling out any of their big brother fishing expedition answers is a maximum $100 fine.

    Do not answer any of the census questions besides how many people live there.

  12. Rosco P Coltrane says:

    By the way, here’s a hilarious SNL video showing how Christopher Walken answered the census:

    http://www.hulu.com/watch/4165/saturday-night-live-census-taker

  13. Stephen Kohut says:

    Klute,

    It is possible you actually believe the drivel you blog? I know there are some truly looney lefties out there but you are proving to be quite special.

  14. Stephen,

    So, you don’t think the government uses census data to track health problems?

    For instance:

    http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/AIAN_brochure.pdf

    Like for instance, since diabetes is a major concern in Native American community (which, yeah, I know, you don’t give a **** about that), if Maricopa County has a X percentage of Native population, the federal government can help fund programs that can help them (by say, for instance, improving the dialysis clinc on the rez).

    See, Stephen, I deal in actualities, not conspiracies cooked up by crazy people.

    Whatever you deal in I’m not sure, but I’m sure it’s some primo ****.

  15. Rosco P Coltrane,
    The very first census had the following questions:

    Name of Head of Household (First / Last)
    Number of Free White Males of Sixteen Years and upwards
    Number of Free White Males under Sixteen Years
    Number of Free White Females
    Number of all other Free persons
    Number of Slaves
    Town or district of residence (sometimes recorded)
    —–

    Seems to have asked more questions then you claim one is obligated to answer, or are you suggestion the first census was unconstitutional?

  16. ……………………
    “Like for instance, since diabetes is a major concern in Native American community (which, yeah, I know, you don’t give a **** about that), ”
    …………………

    Projecting bigoted stereotypes AGAIN?

  17. “, the federal government can help fund programs that can help them (by say, for instance, improving the dialysis clinc on the rez).”
    ……………….

    Which the government then turns OFF when they run out of funds half way thru the year. One can get sick on the reservation January to June, but not after that. Tooo bad. SO sorry. No money. Scram.
    A private health care plan would have been very useful, but the government prefers dependency on the reservation.

  18. “Projecting bigoted stereotypes AGAIN?”

    From the American Diabetes Association:

    http://www.diabetes.org/community-events/programs/native-american-programs/

    “At nearly 17 percent, American Indians and Alaska Natives have the highest age-adjusted prevalence of diabetes among all U.S. racial and ethnic groups.”

    To quote Rush Limbaugh, when wanumba calls you a racist, it means he’s losing the argument.

  19. Stephen Kohut says:

    Klute,

    What the government uses census data for, is it good or bad, do they sell it is not the issue. The Constitution only authorizes an enumeration, a count, that’s it. They can shove it on the rest.

  20. Stephen,

    Article 1, Section 2: Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, ***in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.***

    Pay attention to that last part. And then read this:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode13/usc_sup_01_13.html

    In fact, in 1790, the people who actually wrote the Constitution, in Statute 2 directed the US Marshalls

    “cause the number of the inhabitants within their respective districts to be taken; omitting in such enumeration Indians not taxed, and distinguishing free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, from all others; distinguishing also the sexes and colours of free persons, and the free males of sixteen years and upwards from those under that age.”

    So – back in 1790 – the ACTUAL people who wrote the ACTUAL constitution used the LAW as they defined it allowed the to ask further questions.

    Now, perhaps you have a time machine and you’ve spoken with the Founders and you’ve determined that the part I highlighted is a typo or notorious prankster Charles Pickney inserted it as a joke.

    Barring that, I suggest you actually read the Constitution that you claim to venerate.

    And fill out your Census.

  21. Missed the point again or dodged it.

    ……………..
    The Klute
    Like for instance, since diabetes is a major concern in Native American community (which, yeah, I know, you don’t give a **** about that),
    …………..

    From where did you google the statistics for the basis of that statement of your opinion against Stephen Kohut of “you don’t give a *** about that” referring to the Native Indian population suffering from diabetes?

    From where did you come up with a gratuitous side-swipe that Stephen Kohut doesn’t care? That’s nothing but projecting your uninformed opinion onto someone you know nothing about – but you’re SURE he MUST be like that based on your own unfounded assumptions.

    The correct term for that is “bigotry.” AGAIN.

  22. wanumba,

    It’s called “an educated guess”.

    Also, the term you’re looking for is “prejudice” – it means “preconceived judgement or notion”.

    Might want to brush up on your English… oh, and “newspeak”, since you don’t understand that either. That offer to send you a copy of “1984″ still stands.

  23. “Prejudice” works.

    So, you live on a reservation?

  24. Stephen Kohut says:

    wanumba,

    The liberal lefties, like Klute, are very good at cherry picking and rewriting history to suit their desires. “Newspeak” fits them very well.

    The follow on after “newspeak” and the strive for a liberal equal outcome paradise is their true reality of becoming the “some animals” in all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

    What is also facinating is that the more politically correct people are, AKA liberal, the less tolerant they are of anyone or anything that does not fit their narrowly definition of what is acceptable. They are the first to scream about their first amendment rights and the first to trash anyone uses their first amendment right to disagrees with them.

  25. Yup!

Speak Your Mind

*