Hilary to vote no on Roberts.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
This quote from Hillary says it all. A lot of the Dems don't care about competence or qualifications, they just want a judge that will uphold the policies they believe in.

At that would make the Dems different from Republicans...how?

Who appointed Clarence Thomas?

[Barnabas]

I like gore!

I aprove!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
California legislated racial catagories. You were either white, yellow or black. Mexicans were yellow and Indians were black, by law. After the U.S. took over California, the Hispanic majority was disenfranchised by force and systematically robbed without recourse to the law. Remember the Zuit Suit riots? Most of the Indians that survived Spanish colonialism were exterminated by American settlers, not the Feds. The Asian Exclusion Act, while a Federal law, was enacted at the behest of California.

California has a very racist history. Just cuz you didn't have Jim Crow doesn't mean you weren't among the very worst.

First off the Zoit Suit Riots were in the 1930's and 1940's when the US government instuited a new policy to deport illegal aliens by force. The feds decided that with 1/3 of the American population out of work it was a good idea to make the foreigners go back home which of course illegal aliens didn't like thus the riots. Again, a federal policy. In the 1840's the territorial government and then in the 1850's the state government pushed having everyone who owned land register it with the state and pay property taxes on it back to 1848 when the Mexican-American war ended and the US took control of the territory. Many Mexican families did exactly what the early American colonialists did meaning they just settled on land without legal title to it. Later the law was changed so that people could keep the land they squated on if they could prove continious occupation and pay all back taxes. Most people couldn't pay 10 years of taxes all at once even if they could prove continous occupation.

The ones who could were the Mexican upper classes, however, they were more concerned with their class identity then their ethnic identity so most of them ended up marrying into rich anglo families. Lastly the natives in this state had most of their land taken away by the Spanish or the Mexicans not the Americans. Most of the surviving native population lived in collectivized missions or were already confined to undesirable reservations by the Spanish or Mexican governments. It's really unfair to blame the state government for things which occured before the state government existed.

[Dinner]

BTW the 1910 gentlemens' agreement to restrict Japanese immigration (and the one which outlawed most Chinese immigration 15 years before) wasn't just a California thing. There is no way California in 1895 or 1910 could ram through something like that and instead it was a general federal policy against the immigration of nonwhites. Hell, the Feds made it hard even for white Catholics or white slavsso it isn't surprising the Feds tried to block nonchristian Asians.

[Dinner]

Also there was an anti-prostitution law passed in 1870 which basically claimed every Chinese woman had to prove she wasn't a prostitute. Again this was a federal immigration law and it was racist. In 1879 some people in the state assembly tried to ammend the state constitution to make it illegal for Chinese to work for state or local governments and would have legally required all Chinese to live in seperate Chinese towns but this law never came into effect because the courts struck it down. In the 1880's the city of San Francisco passed a law attempting to making it illegal for Chinese to attend public schools but once again the state court throw that out.

All in all that is pretty par for the 19th century course and a damn sight better then places like the south which had segregation into the 1960's.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Oerdin]I see that as being factual and not willfully blind.[/q]

[q=che]California legislated racial catagories. You were either white, yellow or black. Mexicans were yellow and Indians were black, by law. After the U.S. took over California, the Hispanic majority was disenfranchised by force and systematically robbed without recourse to the law. Remember the Zuit Suit riots? Most of the Indians that survived Spanish colonialism were exterminated by American settlers, not the Feds. The Asian Exclusion Act, while a Federal law, was enacted at the behest of California.

California has a very racist history. Just cuz you didn't have Jim Crow doesn't mean you weren't among the very worst.[/q]

You were saying, Oerdin (che said it better than I could have).

Blaming all of the rascism on the Feds is just incredibly blinkered.

--

Oh, and on the transplants to the South. Most of the transplants I've seen in Atlanta are decidedly more liberal than their new neighbors (except those from the inner city and south of the city).

[Kaak]

gee...turning poor people away at gun point? what could they have been afraid of? looting? nah, there wasn't any of that going on

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hey Oerdin, explain the Alien Land Law... ie, passed BY THE STATE.

Read Fujii Sei v. State of California for a further discussion of how California systematically discriminated against Asians with respect to land ownership (ie, they couldn't own any)

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You were saying, Oerdin (che said it better than I could have).

Link?

Funny how it just isn't mentioned here.

http://web.mit.edu/21h.153j/www/chrono.html

Or in wikipedia though the internment of Japanese citizens is mentioned. It does suck the Feds made it virtually impossible for Asians to become citizens but the state doesn't control Federal immigration laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation

Here's a link to Asian American history which again doesn't mention any wide spread segregation in California.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/immigration1.html

Sure, racism existed but it was no where near codified on the state level like it was in the south. The few attempts to create segregation (such as San Franciscos Oriental schools in the 1880's) got shot down by the courts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Link?

The California had different racial catagories? How about People v. Hall?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Hall

The People of the State of California v. George W. Hall or People v. Hall was an appealed murder case in the 1850s in which the California Supreme Court established that Chinese Americans and Chinese immigrants had no rights to testify against white citizens. The opinion was delivered in 1854 by Justice Charles J. Murray with the concurrance of Justice J. Heydenfeldt.

The ruling effectively freed Hall, a white man, who had been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Ling Sing, a Chinese miner in Nevada County. Three Chinese witnesses had testified to the killing.

The ruling was an odd extension of California Criminal Procedure's existing (1850) exclusion, "No black or mulatto person, or Indian, shall be allowed to give evidence in favor of, or against a white man." It was held that either "Indian" denoted anyone of the Mongoloid race or that "black" applied to anyone not white.

The ruling effectively made white violence against Chinese Americans unprosecutable, arguably leading to more intense white on Chinese race riots, such as the 1877 San Francisco riot.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hey Oerdin, explain the Alien Land Law... ie, passed BY THE STATE.

Read Fujii Sei v. State of California for a further discussion of how California systematically discriminated against Asians with respect to land ownership (ie, they couldn't own any)

That Alien land law barred noncitizens from owning land. Same law Mexico has today as do many other countries. It was a nativist reaction to immigration and it most certainly had racial over tones since most of the noncitizens were either Mexicans or Asians. Why was it they were no citizens though? The Feds make up the immigration laws and you know it.

Fujii Sei v. State of California was standard WW2 anti-Japanese scullduggery by corrupt local officials. Basically, the man in question was interned by the federal government and so couldn't attend court cases when local officials in LA attempted to claim the family tried to get around the Alien Land Law. Basically this was dirty local officials in trying to **** Japanese citizens who were interned by the Feds.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


This isn't the Republican Party. Dems have no problems with women.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That Alien land law barred noncitizens from owning land. Same law Mexico has today as do many other countries. It was a nativist reaction to immigration and it most certainly had racial over tones since most of the noncitizens were either Mexicans or Asians. Why was it they were no citizens though? The Feds make up the immigration laws and you know it.

And California banked on that federal immigration law. Therefore noncitizens being banned from owning land meant that no Asian could own land. See how that works? The primary focus of the law was Asians and I fail to see how that can be denied.

If I was saying the Feds were not racist at all, you may have a point with that statement, but I wasn't, so you don't. To think that California's **** didn't stink and it was mostly the fed's fault is incredibly naive.

[Dinner]

OK, that is interesting. I never knew that in the 1850's nonwhites couldn't testify against whites. That sucks but it isn't racial segregation which was claimed earlier. I am interested in learning when that law was changed.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Link?

The California had different racial catagories? How about People v. Hall?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Hall

The People of the State of California v. George W. Hall or People v. Hall was an appealed murder case in the 1850s in which the California Supreme Court established that Chinese Americans and Chinese immigrants had no rights to testify against white citizens. The opinion was delivered in 1854 by Justice Charles J. Murray with the concurrance of Justice J. Heydenfeldt.

The ruling effectively freed Hall, a white man, who had been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Ling Sing, a Chinese miner in Nevada County. Three Chinese witnesses had testified to the killing.

The ruling was an odd extension of California Criminal Procedure's existing (1850) exclusion, "No black or mulatto person, or Indian, shall be allowed to give evidence in favor of, or against a white man." It was held that either "Indian" denoted anyone of the Mongoloid race or that "black" applied to anyone not white.

The ruling effectively made white violence against Chinese Americans unprosecutable, arguably leading to more intense white on Chinese race riots, such as the 1877 San Francisco riot.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Segregation was your term... no one else mentioned it.