Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kalibah
Being that the vote of Hispanics is more important in the REpublican Party- Would it not be better to have a 'token' hispanic? Well I suppose there will be a Hispanic, but I doubt token ( estrauda is verry smart).
Republicans dont need the black vote. They never have had it, and I never see them getting it... So to me, the idea of a token black seems foolish
|
You mean like this:
Quote:
|
President Bush has nominated White House counsel Alberto Gonzales to be the next attorney general. Gonzales, who would become the nation's first Hispanic attorney general if confirmed by the Senate, would replace John Ashcroft
|
--From the liberal folks at
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138160,00.html
Why is it that only conservatives on this board are refuting the implications of the appointment of minorities to key positions? Even more ridiculous is that they keep posting comments about one's race and/or gender as things that don't matter--yet that's usually the first or only thing out of their mouths about the nominees.
Evidently you need to read up on what a token is or does in some sociology of organization textbooks. It's not as though I made it up, shit, I didn't even
bring it up.
You don't have the 'black vote' but you have the 'hispanic vote'? You just essentialized entire hetergeneous populations into two basic categories based on what you perceive to be phenotypical differences. Then you linked those traits you believe you would be able to distinguish in a crowd to political standpoint.
You are very confused about your own ideological assumptions. I suggest you contemplate that for a bit before responding to me in anger or frustration.
EDIT: fixed tags