Disclaimer

This site contains content of an adult nature, both in written and graphical versions. If you are under the age of consent in your city, state, country, or province, please click here and exit the site.

Site Map

home lotr fanfiction elvish rants inspiration artwork links

Section Links

Canon vs AU/Non-Canon Children and Music The Civil War Debunking Evil!Thranduil Elven Haircolor 101 Elvish Names 101 Elvish Names Continued Elven Population Elven Rebirth Fanon, Part One Free Speech Independence Day Bullshit Musings On The Movie "Supersize Me" The Mysterious Glorfindel Nazi Germany Symbols and Words Voting Rights Act Who Is Gildor Inglorion? Why Gay Christian Is Not An Oxymoron

Essays

voting rights act

They are discussing the Voting Rights Act and what areas are currently up for renewal in 2007. And while I believe Sections 5-9 should be renewed, I don't believe that Section 203 should. For those of you who (like me) are not fluent in the language of this Act, Section 203 of the VRA requires "bilingual voting assistance in jurisdictions where there is a concentration of voters with limited English proficiency".

Maybe I'm being racist here, but it sure seems to me that if you want to live, work, and vote in the US (or any country for that matter), you should learn the primary language of that country.

The example they give is a 38-year-old woman from Columbia who came to Florida when she was 14. This woman has been in this country for 24 years, has native-born children, but are still classified as knowing "limited English". You mean to tell me that in 24 years of total immersion, that this woman hasn't learned English well enough to fill out a ballot or give a simple interview to a reporter?

Now, I recognize that it will be renewed. The largest minority in this country right now are the Hispanics, and any given Congressman is pretty much assured of having a significant number in their particular district. So anyone who votes against this is basically kissing their career goodbye.

You know, I'm all for racial equality. But let's make it equal, eh? I'll make myself even more unpopular and go on to say that I'm against affirmative action. I'm against the NAACP. I'm against the idea of reparations to descendants of former slaves. I'm against any organization or policy that grants a minority special treatment over everyone else. We're either equal or we're not. And right now, like it or not, the most discriminated against group of people in this country are white males. And if you don't believe that, pick up a list of currently available scholarships and grants and see how many of them are specific to women, or single mothers, or GLBT, or African-Americans, or "people of color" -- and then compare that to how many are specific to "white males". You won't find any of the latter, because that would be (gasp) racist and sexist! The hypocrisy is astounding.

Black History Month? Also not a fan of it. History is history, and it depends on a myriad of factors. During February, people scream the praises of Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King, Jr -- but no one says a word about the white legislators that actually passed the reform laws. All these people did was break the laws of the day, incite civil unrest, and otherwise inflame the masses. But without the right people in office at that time, it would have only been so much hot air. So, why don't we teach history as American history instead of trying to segment out this group's achievements versus that group's?

Compare the hype surrounding the Civil Rights Movement to that about the Women's Suffrage Movement 40 years earlier. Those women fought longer and harder -- with no precedence and no honest hope of success -- for so little... just the right to vote. (The black population in 1920, by the way, had been able to vote for 50 years by that point, a right simply handed to them following the Civil War -- and don't get me started on the 'cause' of that war, because if anyone so much as says 'sl--', I'm going to beat them with a history book.)

Small history lesson for everyone. Timeline of the "Civil Rights Movement"...

1954: Brown v. Board of Education rules that all schools must be integrated. (Note that even as late as 1983, there were still colleges that denied enrollment to women.)

1955: Rosa Parks is arrested for breaking the law by not giving her seat to an oncoming white passenger. A boycott ensues and the buses are desegregated a year later due primarily to financial pressure. Parks disappears from our history.

1957: Nine black students enter Central High School in Little Rock after National Guard is called in to intervene.

1960: Black (usually college) students stage sit-ins and protests at segregated establishments.

1963: Writing from prison, Martin Luther King states that people have the right/duty to break laws that they feel are morally unjust. Later that year, four young girls are killed in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church. (Roger's driven me past this spot, incidentally.)

1964: The 24th amendment makes poll taxes illegal. The Civil Rights Act prevents discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin and gives the federal government authority to enforce this.

1965: March: The march from Selma to Montgomery is prevented twice, but finally allowed to proceed. August: The Voting Rights Act passes, removing restrictions that were preventing some blacks from registering to vote. September: Johnson issues Executive Order 11246, which enforced affirmative action for the first time.

I'll stop here, since this is what's currently in the news. It's the 40th anniversary of the Selma March. What I want to point out is to what extent voting rights had already been extended to the blacks by this time. They were given the right to vote in 1870. Equality of facility was guaranteed to them in 1896 (even though those facilities could legally be separate). They were given their pick of schools in 1954. The poll tax was made illegal in 1964, so even lower-income citizens could vote. By 1965, any African-American with a basic education could register and vote.

But that wasn't good enough, apparently. What the Voting Rights Act really did was remove things like literacy tests and language ability from voter registration requirements. It said, "you don't have to know how to read or even speak the English language -- we will force our voting precincts to cater to your needs." And it had nothing to do with people with disabilities -- the language of the Act makes it very clear that it is geared toward that segment of the population without basic education. And that level of education is free! (And mandatory, last time I checked.)

Personally? I am in favor of literacy tests before voter registration! We make people take a test to prove their driving competence before registering them to drive, so why not make people prove their competence in understanding issues before letting them decide them? I think that the US panders to the most ignorant among us far too much. And there needs to be some level of reform, because all this does is encourage the stupidity.

The whole point of this rant, truly, is that I do not believe that the passing of an act that did nothing to engender progress, but only fostered stupidity and ignorance, should not be worthy of some enormous anniversary. "Separate but equal" still exists in this country, only now it's "together but different" -- and we call it "affirmative" action. Our government has said that everyone can go to any school they want regardless of race; however, this black student is not expected to perform to the same level as this white student, so we must put in additional provisions so that he doesn't have to perform to that level.

And I don't have any fear of saying that because I know there are thousands of well-educated black people who fought for everything that they have who think the exact same way -- that affirmative action is nothing more than governmentally-sanctioned racism.


	Disclaimer This site contains content of an adult nature, both in written and graphical versions. If you are under the age of consent in your city, state, country, or province, please click here and exit the site. Site Map home lotr fanfiction elvish rants inspiration artwork links Section Links Canon vs AU/Non-Canon Children and Music The Civil War Debunking Evil!Thranduil Elven Haircolor 101 Elvish Names 101 Elvish Names Continued Elven Population Elven Rebirth Fanon, Part One Free Speech Independence Day Bullshit Musings On The Movie "Supersize Me" The Mysterious Glorfindel Nazi Germany Symbols and Words Voting Rights Act Who Is Gildor Inglorion? Why Gay Christian Is Not An Oxymoron		Essays voting rights act They are discussing the Voting Rights Act and what areas are currently up for renewal in 2007. And while I believe Sections 5-9 should be renewed, I don't believe that Section 203 should. For those of you who (like me) are not fluent in the language of this Act, Section 203 of the VRA requires "bilingual voting assistance in jurisdictions where there is a concentration of voters with limited English proficiency". Maybe I'm being racist here, but it sure seems to me that if you want to live, work, and vote in the US (or any country for that matter), you should learn the primary language of that country. The example they give is a 38-year-old woman from Columbia who came to Florida when she was 14. This woman has been in this country for 24 years, has native-born children, but are still classified as knowing "limited English". You mean to tell me that in 24 years of total immersion, that this woman hasn't learned English well enough to fill out a ballot or give a simple interview to a reporter? Now, I recognize that it will be renewed. The largest minority in this country right now are the Hispanics, and any given Congressman is pretty much assured of having a significant number in their particular district. So anyone who votes against this is basically kissing their career goodbye. You know, I'm all for racial equality. But let's make it equal, eh? I'll make myself even more unpopular and go on to say that I'm against affirmative action. I'm against the NAACP. I'm against the idea of reparations to descendants of former slaves. I'm against any organization or policy that grants a minority special treatment over everyone else. We're either equal or we're not. And right now, like it or not, the most discriminated against group of people in this country are white males. And if you don't believe that, pick up a list of currently available scholarships and grants and see how many of them are specific to women, or single mothers, or GLBT, or African-Americans, or "people of color" -- and then compare that to how many are specific to "white males". You won't find any of the latter, because that would be (gasp) racist and sexist! The hypocrisy is astounding. Black History Month? Also not a fan of it. History is history, and it depends on a myriad of factors. During February, people scream the praises of Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King, Jr -- but no one says a word about the white legislators that actually passed the reform laws. All these people did was break the laws of the day, incite civil unrest, and otherwise inflame the masses. But without the right people in office at that time, it would have only been so much hot air. So, why don't we teach history as American history instead of trying to segment out this group's achievements versus that group's? Compare the hype surrounding the Civil Rights Movement to that about the Women's Suffrage Movement 40 years earlier. Those women fought longer and harder -- with no precedence and no honest hope of success -- for so little... just the right to vote. (The black population in 1920, by the way, had been able to vote for 50 years by that point, a right simply handed to them following the Civil War -- and don't get me started on the 'cause' of that war, because if anyone so much as says 'sl--', I'm going to beat them with a history book.) Small history lesson for everyone. Timeline of the "Civil Rights Movement"... 1954: Brown v. Board of Education rules that all schools must be integrated. (Note that even as late as 1983, there were still colleges that denied enrollment to women.) 1955: Rosa Parks is arrested for breaking the law by not giving her seat to an oncoming white passenger. A boycott ensues and the buses are desegregated a year later due primarily to financial pressure. Parks disappears from our history. 1957: Nine black students enter Central High School in Little Rock after National Guard is called in to intervene. 1960: Black (usually college) students stage sit-ins and protests at segregated establishments. 1963: Writing from prison, Martin Luther King states that people have the right/duty to break laws that they feel are morally unjust. Later that year, four young girls are killed in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church. (Roger's driven me past this spot, incidentally.) 1964: The 24th amendment makes poll taxes illegal. The Civil Rights Act prevents discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin and gives the federal government authority to enforce this. 1965: March: The march from Selma to Montgomery is prevented twice, but finally allowed to proceed. August: The Voting Rights Act passes, removing restrictions that were preventing some blacks from registering to vote. September: Johnson issues Executive Order 11246, which enforced affirmative action for the first time. I'll stop here, since this is what's currently in the news. It's the 40th anniversary of the Selma March. What I want to point out is to what extent voting rights had already been extended to the blacks by this time. They were given the right to vote in 1870. Equality of facility was guaranteed to them in 1896 (even though those facilities could legally be separate). They were given their pick of schools in 1954. The poll tax was made illegal in 1964, so even lower-income citizens could vote. By 1965, any African-American with a basic education could register and vote. But that wasn't good enough, apparently. What the Voting Rights Act really did was remove things like literacy tests and language ability from voter registration requirements. It said, "you don't have to know how to read or even speak the English language -- we will force our voting precincts to cater to your needs." And it had nothing to do with people with disabilities -- the language of the Act makes it very clear that it is geared toward that segment of the population without basic education. And that level of education is free! (And mandatory, last time I checked.) Personally? I am in favor of literacy tests before voter registration! We make people take a test to prove their driving competence before registering them to drive, so why not make people prove their competence in understanding issues before letting them decide them? I think that the US panders to the most ignorant among us far too much. And there needs to be some level of reform, because all this does is encourage the stupidity. The whole point of this rant, truly, is that I do not believe that the passing of an act that did nothing to engender progress, but only fostered stupidity and ignorance, should not be worthy of some enormous anniversary. "Separate but equal" still exists in this country, only now it's "together but different" -- and we call it "affirmative" action. Our government has said that everyone can go to any school they want regardless of race; however, this black student is not expected to perform to the same level as this white student, so we must put in additional provisions so that he doesn't have to perform to that level. And I don't have any fear of saying that because I know there are thousands of well-educated black people who fought for everything that they have who think the exact same way -- that affirmative action is nothing more than governmentally-sanctioned racism.