Okay, then why did you change your name from Nimarata to Nikki?
Such a good burn. Haley the randhawa punjabi. I wonder how many of her supporters even know she’s of Indian decent.
See that’s the thing, Republicans won’t care about it until they really will. They can conveniently forget they hate minorites as long as the minority person is being as racist if not more racist and hateful than them. How do you think Thomas stays the token black friend of the GOP? How do you think the prick with a last name Cruz still stays in power in Texas no less? Same story has played out hundreds of times but people never learn that the “in” group always shrinks away from them
I don’t know what you’re implying. Also, you’re racist for asking the question. Over here in GOP-land, we don’t see color.
/s
Colbert made that joke for a decade and never once did conservatives realize it was pointed at them.
It’s actually racist to call someone racist
words are violence and this is just self defense
My Canadian uncle changed the spelling of his name to Luke from Luc to avoid having to explain the differences between English and French. Also my uncle is a douche.
Sigh…as much as I really, really hate this dumbass, self-hating, pathetic excuse for a Asian, she didn’t change her name, Nikki is her given middle name.
She’s just a good ol’ fashioned white-passing minority that hates her own ethnicity and will sell out her heritage for a buck.
To be fair, Nimarata sounds like Nimrod which, thanks to Bugs Bunny, now means a stupid person. I’d probably have changed it, too.
Do you really think that’s why she changed it?
Of course not, but it’s why I’d change it
Nimrod was a mighty hunter. Bugs Bunny called Elmer fudd that because that was the opposite of what he was. Nimrod doesn’t mean stupid. Elmer fudd just was.
Haley: “The libs called it ‘slavery’, but I like to call it ‘job placement’.”
The prisoners with jobs…
The constitution is quite racist. Has she never looked at the constitution? Oh right yeah, republican, she hasn’t. Hey Nimarata, they later famously had to add a whole amendment to add equal protection under the law regardless of race, after you know, that whole civil war thing.
It was hard to get dumber after her civil war comments, but she found a way. This is even more mental gymnastics than all that lost cause BS. Like holy crap, you can’t glance at any time period of American history without racism or its effects rearing its ugly head.
Race and color weren’t referred to in the constitution until the 15th amendment, which granted equal protection. You can argue parts talk about slavery in the abstract but could refer to any non-free person (prisoners for example).
Racism was institutionalized in many, many other ways but to say the constitution specifically is quite racist isn’t really correct, it’s more than race was left out.
Now the confederate constitution, that’s an example of won’t shut up about race.
I mean, Article 1 Section 2? The Three Fifths Compromise seems like it’s pretty race based to me. I suppose it probably doesn’t explicitly outline that it’s based on race, just enslavement status of the person, but that’s splitting hairs a bit, no?
Three fifths compromise was an attempt to determine how to count the population in terms of representation. Free men of any race were counted as a whole person.
Leads to the question, was it racist because a slave should be counted as whole person and thus give slave owning populations more power in government despite the fact that the slave would not have their representatives advocate for them? Or should they not be counted as a person at all and thus be reduced to property with no representatives accounting for their population? Is being in the middle any worse than the extremes?
There is no morally right answer on the subject (because slavery itself makes any decision on the matter inherently immoral), however it needed to be addressed in terms of how representatives are distributed to the states.
Do you really think they had white people in mind when they made the 3/5ths compromise?
I’m aware it managed to avoid the specific word “race.” It still enshrined chattel slavery thanks to the fugitive slave clause, even though they deliberately avoided using the word slave. I’m also aware the 3/5ths clause is often misconstrued (was pushed for by the northern states not southern), but it’s a huge indication that it was generally understood that the rights enshrined by the constitution did not apply to people of other races and slaves and they were to be treated differently. Not until the 14th amendment were the benefits of the constitution and the law in general theoretically available to people of all races, though on a state by state basis sometimes people of other races got some rights prior to this. It ultimately is a compromise document between pro and anti slavery framers with varying levels of racist thoughts and opinions, as was common at the time.
Nikki Haley of course also ignoring the vast multitude of even more explicitly racist laws throughout all of the colonies. Heck even though Pennsylvania law didn’t mention race in regard to voting, black people there lost the right to vote in 1838 because of course when we say men in the state constitution we just meant white men not black (they didn’t get the right back until the 1870s). A document can still be racist without explicitly using the words race or slave, if that’s how everyone understands it.
And then there’s Jim Crow and that whole era, not to even get into more insidious manifestations where race isn’t explicitly mentioned but racist effects result (but that brings up critical race theory, the ultimate conservative boogeyman).
And yes the confederate constitution definitely dials it up to 11, agreed.
I know the constitution isn’t the perfect example, but I bring it up because it shows that racism was a part of the country from the beginning. Overall point is just that saying we’ve never been a racist country is a ridiculous statement no matter how you frame it.
3/5ths?
As a counterpoint, have you seen gestures broadly?
Republicans are mentally defective.
Which would be fine, if they would keep that to themselves. Unfortunately, they want to rule over the rest of us.
They have to be their party functions on cognitive dissonance. You can’t be a hardcore republican and face reality on its own terms.
The genocide essential to America’s foundation would disagree, you dumb ugly cunt.
Also the whole ‘black people are 3/5 of a human’ thing in our founding document.
That one is a lot more nuanced. It distinguishes based on freedom not race. Obviously the US itself was extraordinarily racist and the practice of chattel slavery abhorrent. But that isn’t what that clause says.
I always liked Frederick Douglass’s take on the clause:
But giving the provisions the very worse construction, what does it amount to? I answer—It is a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding States; one which deprives those States of two-fifths of their natural basis of representation. A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the Constitution. Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of “two-fifths” of political power to free over slave States. So much for the three-fifths clause; taking it at its worst, it still leans to freedom, not slavery; for, be it remembered that the Constitution nowhere forbids a coloured man to vote.
I’m not sure how quoting a man saying ‘A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State,’ proves that the 3/5ths compromise is not racist.
Because it’s not the clause that invokes racism, it’s the practice of slavery. The clause, as Douglass points out, promotes freedom.
He also points out it’s about black people. Why are you ignoring that part when you quoted it?
I’m not. I’m objecting to your saying the clause was racist when its very purpose was anti-slavery. Slavery is the thing that is racist.
I think a Civil War era leader on abolitionism and civil rights would know what he’s talking about when he describes the clause as supporting his cause.
You are, because Douglass is literally calling it racist.
Sartre quote time https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7870768-never-believe-that-anti-semites-are-completely-unaware-of-the-absurdity
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
They’re just saying stuff. They may or may not believe it but that’s irrelevant.
Yes, of course. All those “independent contractors” that we imported from Africa were free to go whenever they wanted to. And who can forget the indigenous peoples who we “peacefully repopulated” into tax-free reservations. What, me racist? Surely you jest! /s
Racists don’t consider them people
Well, 3/5 of a person.
3/5 of a vote. They are only people when it adds political power.
What about the time we enslaved people who weren’t white for over a century and then almost split in half over it?
Then after that the segregation, lynching, shootings, fetishization, housing bans, zoning laws…
Really racist every step of the way.
I’d add the movement against reparations as well. So many studies have shown how various types of Jim Crow laws devastated black generational wealth in ways that won’t be fixed for a very long time. And still people think reparations are not owed since they weren’t recently enough a slave.
I’ll also add that slavery never stopped. It’s still alive and well and baked into your constitution.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Really interesting when you look at the dates of those “it’s illegal to ride a horse on Sunday” laws…
and then almost split in half over it?
She already said that wasn’t about slavery. She’s fucking nuts.
Nope, didn’t happen.
I will explain: Faux News never reported on it, thus it did not happen.
I only wish I could add a /s here, but instead all I can add is according to a certain POV. :-(
Here’s the intro from Mississippi’s declarations of causes for seceding from the US:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
—-
If you want to see what the other states said as their primary reasons for trying to leave the United States, just read the first couple sentences under every state’s name. Spoiler alert, the south was super into African slaves.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#mississippi
Barbara Fields’ full interview about the civil war clears up a lot of this “it’s about slavery” nonsense. Some of the stories and correspondence she reads from former slaves are incredibly powerful, I shared my favorite below. The central point she makes throughout the interview:
“it was the battle for emancipation and the people who pushed it forward… it was they who ennobled what otherwise would have been meaningless carnage into something higher. When a black solder in New Orleans said “liberty must take the day nothing shorter” he said in effect that when we count out those who have died and survey the carnage is must be for something higher than Union and free navigation of the Mississippi River”
Spotswood Rice, a former slave, writes to Kittey Diggs, 1864:
I received a letter from Cariline telling me that you say I tried to steal, to plunder, my child away from you. Not I want you to understand that Mary is my Child and she is a God-given rite of my own. And you may hold on to her as long as you can. But I want you to remember this one thing, that the longer you keep my Child from me the longer you will have to burn in hell and the quicker you’ll get there. For we are now making up about one thousand black troops to come up through, and want to come through, Glasgow. And when we come woe be to Copperhood rebels and to the Slaveholding rebels. For we don’t expect to leave them there. Root nor branch. But we think however that we (that have children in the hands of you devils), we will try you the day that we enter Glasgow. I want you to understand Kittey Diggs that where ever you and I meet we are enemies to each other. I offered once to pay you forty dollars for my own Child but I am glad now that you did not accept it. Just hold on now as long as you can and the worse it will be for you. You never in your life before I came down here did you give children anything, not anything whatever, not even a dollars worth of expenses. Now you call my children your property. Not so with me. My children is my own and I expect to get them. And when I get ready to come after Mary I will have both a power and authority to bring her away and to exact vengeance on them that holds my Child. You will then know how to talk to me. I will assure that. And you will know how to talk right too. I want you now to just hold on; to hear if you want to. If your conscience tells that’s the road, go that road and what it will bring you to Kittey Diggs. I have no fears about getting Mary out of your hands. This whole Government gives cheer to me and you cannot help yourself.
(It’s not known if Spotswood had a showdown with Kittey but there are property records indicating he lived with Mary and his wife after the war.)
The civil war was about states rights.
What a cow.
Keep in mind that Republicans live in an entirely different universe. For them, sentences like that may actually make sense, how would people from good old earth know? And who knows, maybe their next big thing is “Unicorns are real”.
Once again, she knows where her racist bread is buttered with white supremacist margarine.
Her self hating ass has always been willing to sell out minorities for money.
deleted by creator
Didn’t she say she was bullied for being brown?
*Yes according to the TLDR bot. Boy the mental gymnastics.
