Origins are not useful when there is a clear modern context. It benefits no-one to discourse on swastika v. hakenkreuz when someone who is clearly not a hindu but instead an SS-larper shows up with jackboots. Similarly, etymological quibbles are not useful except as rhetorical smokescreens when there is a clear sociological phenomenon under discussion.
Origins are absolutely important when there is a bill under discussion proposed by Todd Kaminski -D to ban a significant religious symbol revered by a billion people.
Do you need to be Black in order to have an opinion on Black-related issues? How exactly is that relevant to the discussion? Please explain. What one is or isn't matters not one jot to a person passionate about objective standards. I would hope that I am compassionate enough to care equally about Christian crosses, Muslim customs, Jewish holidays, etc.
Anyone who cares about our Constitution and Constitutional Rights should care!
Your specific assumption (quite unwarranted, I might add) about people caring about a religious sign implying that they had to therefore be a devout practitioner of that faith is what derailed the conversation here. By your logic, one has to be Black to care about Black issues then! Isn't that terribly illogical?
As Americans, we should ALL care when discrimination or reverse discrimination happens in our nation, no matter who it is.
Origins are not useful when there is a clear modern context. It benefits no-one to discourse on swastika v. hakenkreuz when someone who is clearly not a hindu but instead an SS-larper shows up with jackboots. Similarly, etymological quibbles are not useful except as rhetorical smokescreens when there is a clear sociological phenomenon under discussion.
Origins are absolutely important when there is a bill under discussion proposed by Todd Kaminski -D to ban a significant religious symbol revered by a billion people.
Yes, I'm sure the reason you care about swastikas is because you're a devout hindu.
Do you need to be Black in order to have an opinion on Black-related issues? How exactly is that relevant to the discussion? Please explain. What one is or isn't matters not one jot to a person passionate about objective standards. I would hope that I am compassionate enough to care equally about Christian crosses, Muslim customs, Jewish holidays, etc.
Anyone who cares about our Constitution and Constitutional Rights should care!
Bruh, the discussion is about whether the "black experience" in the U.S. is unique. You've really derailed things here and I'm done with it.
Your specific assumption (quite unwarranted, I might add) about people caring about a religious sign implying that they had to therefore be a devout practitioner of that faith is what derailed the conversation here. By your logic, one has to be Black to care about Black issues then! Isn't that terribly illogical?
As Americans, we should ALL care when discrimination or reverse discrimination happens in our nation, no matter who it is.