A few random cards
Mon Sep 3 23:20:35 CDT 2001
Hiya everyone. In the splendid spirit of cooperation that other members of
this list have shown with the truly excellent cards they've posted recently,
I'd like to contribute something. I hope you find the following useful.
P.S. For those of you who wouldn't normally touch it with a 10-foot pole,
I'd recommend checking the back issues of the National Review for cards on
this topic. They write some fantastic neg evidence.
Roger Clegg (general counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity), writing in
National Review Online 3/10/01
[The federal government helpfully sets out the kinds of documentation that
might be appropriate. "A driver's license or a birth certificate may be
adequate types of proof of ethnicity," it says. "However, in cases where the
required proof does not indicate specific races, such as Hispanic or Native
American," then some other "single piece of evidence may be required."
Examples include "naturalization papers, Indian tribal roll, tribal voter
registration certificate, a letter from a community group, educational
institution, religious leader, or government agency stating that the
individual is a member of the claimed group, or a letter from the individual
setting forth specific reasons for believing himself/herself to be a member
of the designated group."
This is an excellent start. But, as a Supreme Court justice pointed out some
years ago, "If the National Government is to make a serious effort to define
racial classes by criteria that can be administered objectively, it must
study precedents such as the First Regulation to the Reichs Citizenship Law
of November 14, 1935," which set out just who should and should not be
considered a Jew. ]
Thernstrom, Stephan National Review 4/17/2000
[The problem, then, is not with the gathering of social and economic facts.
The problem is what might be termed the "the privileging of race." The idea
that mankind is divided into a very few, physically and culturally
distinctive, racial groups is a thoroughly outmoded and discredited
19th-century notion. In setting out the officially recognized racial
categories, the Office of Management and Budget cautions that "these
classifications should not be interpreted as being scientific or
anthropological in nature." That's for sure-but this admission only makes
OMB's decision to use them more dubious. If these categories are not
"scientific" or "anthropological," what are they? Why should the U.S.
government distinguish some citizens from others on a basis that is not
"scientific" or even "anthropological" (whatever that means) and use these
distinctions in allocating public resources? "Race" is a bad idea whose time
has come and gone. It does not belong in statistics that appear with the
stamp of approval of the government of the United States.]
Miller, John National Review 10/9/2000
[That's because American Indians occupy a unique moral high ground in the
public imagination. Their systematic extermination and relocation is one of
the most brutal acts in U.S. history. Most Americans know this intuitively,
but they'd rather not think about it-so instead they choose simply to feel
sorry for the Indians living today. This aura of victimhood has won Indians
a whole series of special rights involving everything from building casinos
to going on whale hunts.
Yet the past is not a simple morality play, and a new round of scholarship
questions the popular image of Indians as innocent children of nature.
There's a major battle going on over the ownership of history, and it pits
academics against activists who insist that Indians be seen only in certain
More information about the Mailman