Crusader,Apr 19 2006, 03:24 AM Wrote:Apartheid making it's return, this time in the US? I think it's a very bad move indeed. It caused a disaster in south africa (former Dutch colony). Apartheid actually became so famous it's one of the few typical dutch words that made it's way in the english dictionary. Now it's over it's causing a lot of tensions down there (poor black farmers demanding the land from their rich white 'overlords'. The principal of apartheid was to completely seperate the black and white population. That's exactly what is happening ehre again. it's pure discrimination and I don't understand how amerca can still get away with seperating people based on skin color.[right][snapback]107709[/snapback][/right]
Crusader:
You now join Doc in leaping to conclusions. Maybe you should go jump in a lake.
Logic 101 lesson: Apartheid is a form of segregation, not all segregation is Apartheid.
Got it?
This is not a federally mandated policy, so it cannot be Apartheid. Your "how can America blah blah" is out to lunch. This is Nebraska. Ever heard of "the States reserve the rights?" If not, go read the US Constitution before you open your cake hole via a generalization about "how can America" do this or that. First off, we have yet to see a challenge in State Supreme Court, nor in a Federal Court. This is not a
fait accompli, yet, and, this legislative move is also reversible, via the same Constitutionally valid process that it grew from.
Don't misuse terms like that, please. Apartheid was a dictat.
This strange turn of events appears to be a voluntary social balkanization, ground up. That appearance may mask something a bit slimier, per my opening remarks in this thread.
That this split is being formalized by the citizens and their representatives, is a testament, in my opinion, to a decades long culture of playing the race card by a variety of groups for multiple purposes. The fault line is falling along municipal geographic and economic lines.
What I wonder is when someone will have the wit to compare this to an appropriate analogue, the infamous "Separate but equal" doctrine.
Take your cookie cutter model and park it where it belongs: with a host of other intellectually sloppy, and semantically dishonest crocks of buffalo chips.
You also need to be educated. Public schools are funded, in many states, by local property taxes, not nationally. This has an immense impact on the disparity betwen school districts, and the local political process. The up side is that it allegedly affords the citizens a modicum of control over their local school boards.
There is a huge catch: in areas where most citizens rent, but don't own their dwellings (many cities) the above concept often breaks down in practice. Texas is currently undergoing an immense bun fight over the so called "Robin Hood" legislation, which attempts to do for our school districts what the salary tax in Hockey and Basketball do: tax the rich districts by skimming off a bit of their property tax to help raise the funding levels of poorer, in Texas this tends to be rural, districts.
Occhi
