No non-indians allowed though....
The Cherokee Nation is looking for employees at its casinos — but only Indians need apply.
The tribe will host a job fair next month at the Cherokee Casino Resort looking to fill about 1,000 casino jobs.
A tribal enrollment card or certified degree of Indian blood card will be needed to apply.
Mike Miller, spokesman for the Cherokee Nation, said the tribe isn't offering preference based on race but on tribal citizenship.
What's your point?
Tribes are able to do this per the agreement they've made.
lol, didn't they kick all other races out of the tribe 6 months ago? Wait, that wasn't race based either. Can I get citizenship to the tribe as a German-American?
No? Really. So tribal citizenship is race based. Hiring is citizenship based. But it isn't race based.
Did you know Native Americans were not U.S. Citizens until the early 1900's? They were not killed, abused, forcibly removed and disparaged because they were Native American. It wasn't a race thing. It was because they were Cherokee citizens. See, not racist at all!
Mike Miller needs to get a pair and say we are a Federal Chartered Indian Nation Tribe with a tribal owned business arm who's mission is to further the interest of tribal members. Providing jobs is a key way of doing so. If you think that means we are being racist, so be it.
Don't feed me a BS line about citizenship unless the criteria for citizenship is something other than race. I wouldn't like the straight forward answer, but I'd respect it a lot more than the line of crap he tried to give us.
/proudly not a member of any club that requires proof or declaration of "blood" to be a member. I am not a member of any club or group that looks out for one particular race. And I can honestly say that I have never hired, fired, or otherwise made an informed decision based on the color of someones skin, their religious beliefs (or lack thereof), sexual orientation, or who their parents are (aka "blood").
I buy the distinction between race and tribe because the Constitution creates it. Congress has the power "[t]o regulate Commerce . . . with the Indian tribes." The tribes don't have to be equal opportunity employers because that power was deferred to them.
Are there a lot of things that stink to high heaven about Indian gaming? Without a doubt. I think the more valid complaints are with the various government entities and the process that took place to allow for gaming. It doesn't appear to be sustainable long term.
I don't buy it Gold. Tribal citizenship is based solely on race. Cherokee Citizen = Cherokee Blood. If you are not racially Cherokee, you can not be a tribal member. Ergo, saying it is citizenship based is restricting the hiring to a particular race.
The Constitution (and interpretation thereof) creates plenty of distinctions that don't really exist. Or legally exist but in the real world they are a fallacy to allow the law operate (black people were never 3/5ths of a person). Not too mention when drafted a white person could be adopted into many of the tribes AND policy of the Indian tribes included wiping them out in their entirety... I'd say relying on that document wholesale to set policy on Indian relations is a bit dubious.
I would never advocate this and it would be highly illegal... but if the Internet Workers Union were to only admit German-Americans, and Microsoft announced it would only hire Union members - would it not *really* be making the decision based on race? To be a citizen of the United States you must not have any Indian blood. Citizens can vote. But I'm not denying you the right to vote because you are Indian... it's because you are not a citizen.
The underlying criteria is race based, ergo the entire decision is race based. Even more clearly than a poll tax or other criteria (tests, etc.) to keep people from voting. They could say whatever they wanted, *really* the intent was to to stop black people from voting in the South. Here, the intent is to hire people that are racially Cherokee.
You can disagree about the merits of tribal hiring and tribal rights if you want, but clearly hiring only people from a certain group, when membership to that group is based exclusively on race, is a race based criteria.
With Tulsa's low unemployment rate- they will have a hard time finding 1,000 employees period. The policy for Indian's only will make that task even harder. They will have to increase the wages to draw in Casino employees with Indian blood from other jobs where those people currently work. Tulsa has one of the nations lowest unemployments rates and Tulsa is turning out to be a recession proof city according to news reports I heard on KFAQ 1170 radio.[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
according to news reports I heard on KFAQ 1170 radio.
Spit, hack hack hack...dammit dude, made my cruller go down the wrong pipe.
Very interesting. Co-incidentally, I recently enacted a policy of only transacting business with citizens of the United States. Specifically no dual citizenship persons will be accepted for business.
I won't buy or sell merchandise, eat fry bread, buy Native American art, visit a casino or anything else with a Cherokee or even a Creek for that matter. Goes for employment as well. Too bad, but at this time my interest is only in promoting American business.
Of course if a reciprocal trade agreement has been offered I would consider it.
Well I am sure that most of these jobs will be paying the bills so they can just go and gamble anything they have left over right back in the casino...if they think they are going to hire indian only IT people they might be hard up come hiring time..perhaps this is PR...perhaps not..who knows but its still BS
Hard to tell your kids racism is wrong when the government says that some racism is OK.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Very interesting. Co-incidentally, I recently enacted a policy of only transacting business with citizens of the United States. Specifically no dual citizenship persons will be accepted for business.
I won't buy or sell merchandise, eat fry bread, buy Native American art, visit a casino or anything else with a Cherokee or even a Creek for that matter. Goes for employment as well. Too bad, but at this time my interest is only in promoting American business.
Of course if a reciprocal trade agreement has been offered I would consider it.
Israel and the U.S. have a dual citizenship agreement. But I don't think that's what you are talking about.
Most immigrants (maybe all) have de facto dual citizenship since their are not required to denounce their former citizenship to obtain U.S. citizenship.
But you are talking about something else.
My German step in laws all hung out at the Lutheran Church and that German Society (name escapes me) where they all found other Germans to marry. Kind of creepy given Germany's shameful history.
I know this isnt' affirmative action where we address past inequities but certainly there have been past inequities with hiring Native Americans. I'm glad to see these people enjoy an advantage -- finally.
The problem with racial quotas at this point in time in the U.S. is that Poor Whites aren't on any bean counter's list. Poor Whites are perhaps the only ethnic group in the U.S. without advocates. They get lumped in with middle and upper class Whites and are described as privileged when they clearly are not.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I won't buy or sell merchandise, eat fry bread, buy Native American art, visit a casino or anything else with a Cherokee or even a Creek for that matter. Goes for employment as well.
No tacos then.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I know this isnt' affirmative action where we address past inequities but certainly there have been past inequities with hiring Native Americans. I'm glad to see these people enjoy an advantage -- finally.
To "advantage" one group you have to disadvantage another. By definition favoring one group over another is discriminating against some other group. My ancestors were not in this country when Native Americans suffered the worst (we were busy being discriminated against in Bavaria).
What did I do do deserve this discrimination against me (clearly I don't care about this instance, it's the principle of it and some people in my same situation do care)? My ancestors never owned slaves.
The answer to the past discrimination is to discriminate again. I do believe two wrongs make a right and sons are supposed to be held responsible for the sins of their fathers. Wait, I got that wrong...
At what point are all people, no matter what blood they have or what color their skin is, going to be treated equally?
Well Canon Since you are a White man with a higher education degree and you are not low income, I would say that here in the U.S. you enjoy some degree of advantage every day.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Well Canon Since you are a White man with a higher education degree and you are not low income, I would say that here in the U.S. you enjoy some degree of advantage every day.
Not to long ago I was a white man with very low income and a high school education. 8 years of college and $100,000 in loans later I have more education and am working on the income part. My now wife and I both worked and both went to school opposite shifts and traded our son off between us to get where we are. I'm confident I have spent more of my adult years under the poverty line than over it. So the silver spoon argument doesn't really work, I missed my "white man" gratuity check apparently.
While I do not doubt levels of discrimination exist; I do not believe I have ever been offered a job, raise, or advancement because of the color of my skin. Likewise, I have not been admitted, awarded a scholarship, or earned a grade based on the color of my skin. I did not pass the bar exam based on my skin color (I am not alleging others have received grades or bar passages on skin color nor that minorities per se are unqualified for anything).
If you want to be honest a minority is far more likely to be, if not automatically awarded a scholarship, receives bonus points on admission, and can get preference in job hunting. I'm not making any excuses for my performance (or indicating it was lacking) nor complaining. Simply telling it how it is. Colleges around the country court minority students. High profile firms, major corporations, and even federal small business loans and contracts favor minorities.
Any advantage I enjoy I do so because of my own volition. Not because of what racial identity my parents may, or may not have passed to me. I am not disparaging anyone who has received such advantages, merely pointing out that my race has not been an integral part of any success I may have enjoyed.
Why is the concept of attempting to only judge qualifications instead of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. so complicated? Am I think hiring, admission, aid, contracting, and other decisions should be color blind?
What a strange world.
*to be perfectly clear - I am not implying any race, citizen group, or person succeeds merely because of the color of their skin, nor that any such group is less qualified per se than any other. Similarly, I am not implying that racists for and against many groups are not still in existence. Am I saying that racial discrimination for or against any group is illogical.
I would say you have benefited because of your race even though you may not be aware of it.
Hard to believe that the life you are living is privileged isn't it? I feel the same way.
I couldn't believe it when I discovered our household was considered upper income. But that was before we moved back to Tulsa. I'm not sure where we stand now. Feeling kind of disadvantaged now that I've been back on Tulsa wages for a couple of years.
You would probably have more generosity in your heart if it wasn't so hard to make ends meet.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I don't buy it Gold. Tribal citizenship is based solely on race. Cherokee Citizen = Cherokee Blood. If you are not racially Cherokee, you can not be a tribal member. Ergo, saying it is citizenship based is restricting the hiring to a particular race.
The Constitution (and interpretation thereof) creates plenty of distinctions that don't really exist. Or legally exist but in the real world they are a fallacy to allow the law operate (black people were never 3/5ths of a person). Not too mention when drafted a white person could be adopted into many of the tribes AND policy of the Indian tribes included wiping them out in their entirety... I'd say relying on that document wholesale to set policy on Indian relations is a bit dubious.
I would never advocate this and it would be highly illegal... but if the Internet Workers Union were to only admit German-Americans, and Microsoft announced it would only hire Union members - would it not *really* be making the decision based on race? To be a citizen of the United States you must not have any Indian blood. Citizens can vote. But I'm not denying you the right to vote because you are Indian... it's because you are not a citizen.
The underlying criteria is race based, ergo the entire decision is race based. Even more clearly than a poll tax or other criteria (tests, etc.) to keep people from voting. They could say whatever they wanted, *really* the intent was to to stop black people from voting in the South. Here, the intent is to hire people that are racially Cherokee.
You can disagree about the merits of tribal hiring and tribal rights if you want, but clearly hiring only people from a certain group, when membership to that group is based exclusively on race, is a race based criteria.
I'm not arguing the normative aspects of this; it's just how they interpret the law. I totally understand your point. But, after spending two semesters learning way more Indian law than I ever thought I would, that's pretty much the distinction that they use. If you try to change it, you risk turning this massive mess of law on its head.
Is that a bad thing? Maybe, maybe not. It's not like the federal government hasn't changed its mind on these issues several different ways back and forth. Ultimately, if you want to discuss the policy ramifications of what the courts and legislatures have created, I'll agree that it's a total mess with some potentially very negative ramifications. (I tend to think there is a good reason why gambling was outlawed for so long.) Further, you make some fair points about the affirmative action issues. But that's the world we live in.
If you undo the tribe/race distinction, there are some negative side effects. What happens to something like ICWA, that while flawed, ultimately serves a pretty meaningful purpose? (Preserving tribal communities.) I tend to think that the tribes deserve some special protections. A lot of the problems come from our government's great success in failing to find a long term policy that will work.
I don't think I've ever gambled in an Indian Casino. I had some drinks and listened to a band one night. It's rare that I ever gamble in any casino for that matter. I stayed at the Mirage in Vegas a couple of years ago and didn't so much as plug a quarter in a machine. I have an issue that I'd like to either have something tangible to show for where my $500 went or one hell of a hang over. To me, gambling just has never tripped my trigger.
A friend of mine loves to say:
"Cherokee Nation Industries, getting even with whitey one degenerate gambler at at time."
Gold - to clarify Cherokee Nation enterprises does a ton of good for their tribal members who are/were disadvantaged. While I agree the merits of casinos can be debated along with the other issues. It is the principle of pretending citizenship does not equal race, and that race is not a factor that bothers me.
I also understand the Federal Law ramifications are ugly (albeit from a more elementary perspective). Just stating my case.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I don't think I've ever gambled in an Indian Casino. I had some drinks and listened to a band one night. It's rare that I ever gamble in any casino for that matter. I stayed at the Mirage in Vegas a couple of years ago and didn't so much as plug a quarter in a machine. I have an issue that I'd like to either have something tangible to show for where my $500 went or one hell of a hang over. To me, gambling just has never tripped my trigger.
A friend of mine loves to say:
"Cherokee Nation Industries, getting even with whitey one degenerate gambler at at time."
I'm not much of a gambler. I have gone to Las Vegas alot back in the 1980's on vacations, but I wound up spending my money on the Ladies. Gamabling can be fun if you know your limit and stick to it. The use of tokens makes it feel like your not really playing with real money. Some of the Vegas casinos have very good looking female dealers, I lost a few bucks at Bob Stubaks Vegas World at a BlackJack table with a attractive Female dealer and went over my limit. I don't know if that place is still there (thats the one with the roller-coaster atop a 1,000 foot tower). I was never in a Indian casino. There is a big Indian Casino in Kansas Just north of Topeka on highway 75. It really looks high class and fancy and full of colorful lights at night.. [B)]
I just dislike preferential treatment by race. I don't practice it. Not because its the law but because it's just not right. To see it flaunted in the news is bad pr and I think less of them for practicing discrimination.
Disclosure: My great grandmother was 1/2 Cherokee, maybe more. She wouldn't enroll though because she feared mistreatment. So I identify but still...
Second disclosure, I have applied at each of the casinos many times over the years and even though I'm a college grad with business experience I can't even get an interview. Since I owned a refurbished commuter bus I tried to make an agreement to lease it to them or provide shuttle service. But you see, I'm not one of the tribe.
I'm not Jewish, Catholic, Evangelical, Native American, Hispanic, German, Black, or Republican even though I have a little of each. Hard to live here unless you're part of some group.[;)] Just plain poor and white like HT says. We all meet at the Warehouse Market over on Union at I-44!
I work for a large local law firm with various offices. In our large office we have 1 Black employee and 1 Native American employee. Everyone else is English, Irish, German, Slavic or Scandinavian. This would have been unheard of in the Bay Area. You would lose business.
The topic of this thread is not about Affirmative Action but because it has become part of the discussion I'll point out that in the Bay Area, the underpinnings of Affirmative Action are really strained because generally Chinese Americans have more money and their children test much higher than any other ethnicity in California.
I would like to see Affirmative Action redrawn along economic lines that include low income people from all ethnicities including poor Whites. I'm not sure how to address continuing racial obstacles though because returning to Tulsa has made it clear to me that racism is still prevalent.
You have to remember that as recently as one generation ago, our policy was to remove Indian children from their families, remove them from their cultures and forbid them to speak their native tongue. Ethnic cleansing that was a big part of our story here in Tulsa.
You have an Armenian in your office too. That would seem like a super minority. But I guess they are basically White, so they don't count? What's more important in deciding who gets preferential treatment: race, religion, or skin color?
I went to law school here in Tulsa. We had a good number of black students, hispanic students, Indians, and Native Americans in my class. Tulsa went out of their way to court (pun intended) minority students. Every minority I can think of but one took a job outside of Tulsa for more money than they were offered in Tulsa.
Your notion that a large firm should go out and find someone to hire to match a color pallet is what disturbs me. Essentially, because of the color of their skin they should be more sought after. Preference on race is racism. Show me that the firm refuses to hire black/native and I'll be offended, why shouldn't I be offended that they aren't looking to hire white people because their office doesn't match your color pallet?
And redrawing Affirmative Action along economic lines is equally troubling. If my parents had money, I should be handicapped in my job search? Not sure I get that, my dad has never given a reference nor gotten me a job. His financial situation doesn't seem relevant to my employment in any way.
You are so clever. I'm flattered.
Don't let me find you tromping around my property.
I used to live next door to the Armenian National Cathedral in New York. You know Armenians are one of the wealthiest groups in the United States.
The idea of affirmative action (signed into law by Richard Nixon) was to give a hand up to the folks that need it. Now, I'll be the first to agree the results might be a bit skewed when you have middle class White folks arbitrating who is disadvantaged and who is not. But the intent is good and there are still folks out there who deserve a hand up.
I've spent the last 23 years working for some of the finest law firms in the United States and having a diverse team has been a priority in all of those firms until my return here.
I worry about Tulsans being able to function beyond our state borders because the Diversity Train has left the station and we aren't on board. And that's not to say that Tulsa isn't much more diverse than it was when I was growing up here. In fact, I'd say we have the core of a voting majority.
quote:
Originally posted by zstyles
No non-indians allowed though....
The Cherokee Nation is looking for employees at its casinos — but only Indians need apply.
The tribe will host a job fair next month at the Cherokee Casino Resort looking to fill about 1,000 casino jobs.
A tribal enrollment card or certified degree of Indian blood card will be needed to apply.
Does this include freedmen?
Or does an already-discriminatory policy get even more discriminatory?
A**holes.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
You are so clever. I'm flattered.
Don't let me find you tromping around my property.
I used to live next door to the Armenian National Cathedral in New York. You know Armenians are one of the wealthiest groups in the United States.
The idea of affirmative action (signed into law by Richard Nixon) was to give a hand up to the folks that need it. Now, I'll be the first to agree the results might be a bit skewed when you have middle class White folks arbitrating who is disadvantaged and who is not. But the intent is good and there are still folks out there who deserve a hand up.
I've spent the last 23 years working for some of the finest law firms in the United States and having a diverse team has been a priority in all of those firms until my return here.
I worry about Tulsans being able to function beyond our state borders because the Diversity Train has left the station and we aren't on board. And that's not to say that Tulsa isn't much more diverse than it was when I was growing up here. In fact, I'd say we have the core of a voting majority.
If the black person in your firm is a clerk in his early '40's and knows a lot of broadway show tunes (and ostensibly he's straight [;)] ), he's an old high school friend of mine.
Affirmative Action is another of the well-meaning laws which has resulted in discrimination against the best-qualified candidate getting a job. It's worked to intimidate employers into settling for less than their ideal when shopping for candidates.
I can understand the culture at the time this concept and law came out of, those were much different times and we were not very far out of segregation. However, anyone born after about 1970 or so doesn't really have a concept of discimination against blacks or other minorities other than what they have read or heard, it's not been much of a reality. That is until they get passed over by a less qualified candiate for a college admission, job, or job promotion.
Cannon is right, you can't have anti-discrimination benefitting one group w/o discriminating against another group(s).
I don't think you'd have a lot of agreement from minorities with your assessment.
quote:
Originally posted by zstyles
No non-indians allowed though....
The Cherokee Nation is looking for employees at its casinos — but only Indians need apply.
The tribe will host a job fair next month at the Cherokee Casino Resort looking to fill about 1,000 casino jobs.
A tribal enrollment card or certified degree of Indian blood card will be needed to apply.
Mike Miller, spokesman for the Cherokee Nation, said the tribe isn't offering preference based on race but on tribal citizenship.
What if they don't need 1,000 indians, maybe they only need a REALLY BIG one.
(http://www.otmfan.com/graphics/lyric/apachief.jpg)
Apache chief inuk-chuk!
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I don't think you'd have a lot of agreement from minorities with your assessment.
Naturally, the people who BENEFIT from a bias like affirmative action would disagree with me.
People who have been screwed by it would disagree with you.
I can tell you for certain, we've gotten some pretty crappy civil service hires in all levels of gov't due to AA.
Believe me I've seen a few lousy AA hires myself.
But you want to get everyone vested in the system so that they will keep it going when you and I are drawing social security. Enjoying our golden years -- huh Conan?
Not to mention it's the right thing to do.
I'm a bit old fashioned, but IMO I think government needs to get out of the business of telling companies who they can- and can't hire, and this also goes for telling land lords who they can and can't rent to. If a landlord does not want to rent to a gay couple (or whoever) because it's against his/her faith they should have that right it's their building. A company should have a right to hire anyone they want to as long as the person is a legal resident. I don't like government involved in matters that don't concern them. If I own a business and needed people to hire I should have the right in a free country to hire anyone I want, after all I'm the one who is paying them..But that's just me. I don't like government in my personal life. The governments main job is to defend the shores and deliver the mail. Not get involved in private companies hiring.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
I'm a bit old fashioned, but IMO I think government needs to get out of the business of telling companies who they can- and can't hire, and this also goes for telling land lords who they can and can't rent to. If a landlord does not want to rent to a gay couple (or whoever) because it's against his/her faith they should have that right it's their building. A company should have a right to hire anyone they want to as long as the person is a legal resident. I don't like government involved in matters that don't concern them. If I own a business and needed people to hire I should have the right in a free country to hire anyone I want, after all I'm the one who is paying them..But that's just me. I don't like government in my personal life. The governments main job is to defend the shores and deliver the mail. Not get involved in private companies hiring.
So then you are in favor of the Cherokee Nation hiring as employees whomever they see fit, even if that means there is a native preference in their hiring practice?
According to you, government should not interfere with who they want to hire.
If some of you think this is bad, just wait until Obama gets into office.
quote:
Originally posted by Porky
If some of you think this is bad, just wait until Obama gets into office.
this is what we have to look forward to:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/13/obama-plumber-plan-spread-wealth/
"Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around'"
somehow, I don't see spreading the wealth around as very appealing to the rooftop voters.
The Cherokee Nation does not observe MLK day.....
sauerkraut:
At a certain point it isn't about government being involved with personal choices - it is about guaranteeing constitutional rights. Property is a right, as are the necessities of life (food, housing, etc.). If you allow one person to deny someone these services based on a classification you are, in theory, allowing everyone to. Thus, you would legally be allowing the denial of constitutionally protected rights to an entire class.
Currently you can say "sorry fag, I'm not renting to you" and uncle Sam and certainly Oklahoma wouldn't care. You can not say that to a particular sex, race, religion, or ethnic group unless other factors exist (a Catholic church can rent it's rectory to just priests, an Indian reservation can subsidize Indian housing). You are not required as a landlord to rent to a particular group, you simply can't exclude them on the basis given above.
With housing and hiring it becomes a bit of a quandary. Does HT's firm not have enough black people because they are racist, or because they have not had enough qualified black candidates? Knowing his firm I'd would venture to say it is not racism, it is either networking or a lack of applicants.
My take is - then fine. So long as you are not intentionally excluding a protected class then hire whomever you please. If the Cherokee Nation felt being a citizen made you more qualified without per se excluding everyone else, I would not be concerned. However, their current criteria is a thin veil to decide based on race.
quote:
Hometown
Not to mention it's the right thing to do.
Hiring based on race, it's the right thing to do!
That doesn't seem gutturally wrong to you?
Canon,
You have violated the spirit if not the terms of this forum by investigating my identity and where I work. You have taken two opportunities in this thread to parade your knowledge of my identity.
I imagine you will now attempt to hold this over me for your advantage.
You are a step or two away from blackmail and extortion.
I am a gay man and I can remember a time when gay folks were closeted and neighbors or co-workers would discover their sexuality and hold it over them and commit blackmail. You fit this pattern.
If you go any further with what you once described as cyberstalking I will take appropriate action.
You are not going to blackmail me or hold the expression of my opinion over my head.
You are offensive. And you need to get a life.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Canon,
You have violated the spirit if not the terms of this forum by investigating my identity and where I work. You have taken two opportunities in this thread to parade your knowledge of my identity.
I imagine you will now attempt to hold this over me for your advantage.
You are a step or two away from blackmail and extortion.
I am a gay man and I can remember a time when gay folks were closeted and neighbors or co-workers would discover their sexuality and hold it over them and commit blackmail. You fit this pattern.
If you go any further with what you once described as cyberstalking I will take appropriate action.
You are not going to blackmail me or hold the expression of my opinion over my head.
You are offensive. And you need to get a life.
You do a fine job of that your-self...
One thing which trumps all is that the Cherokee Nation is sovereign, therefore they are no more obligated to observe U.S. employment law than Great Britain is.
That said, I don't find their hiring practices very community-spirted, but they are free to follow their own employment laws.
We wind up doing some contracting with various tribes, but only after they've run the traps on any Indian-owned enterprizes first.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Canon,
You have violated the spirit if not the terms of this forum by investigating my identity and where I work. You have taken two opportunities in this thread to parade your knowledge of my identity.
I imagine you will now attempt to hold this over me for your advantage.
You are a step or two away from blackmail and extortion.
I am a gay man and I can remember a time when gay folks were closeted and neighbors or co-workers would discover their sexuality and hold it over them and commit blackmail. You fit this pattern.
If you go any further with what you once described as cyberstalking I will take appropriate action.
You are not going to blackmail me or hold the expression of my opinion over my head.
You are offensive. And you need to get a life.
How do you know he's not a former employee at the firm you work for and something you said registered with him? He might have put it together from something you said. Maybe he's just making a hypothetical statement about where you work.
You've got loose lips. You might think more carefully about things you say on-line about yourself, where you live, what you do, campaigns you've contributed to, etc. if you don't want your real identity figured out.
The internets are a scary neighborhood.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Canon,
You have violated the spirit if not the terms of this forum by investigating my identity and where I work. You have taken two opportunities in this thread to parade your knowledge of my identity.
I imagine you will now attempt to hold this over me for your advantage.
You are a step or two away from blackmail and extortion.
I am a gay man and I can remember a time when gay folks were closeted and neighbors or co-workers would discover their sexuality and hold it over them and commit blackmail. You fit this pattern.
If you go any further with what you once described as cyberstalking I will take appropriate action.
You are not going to blackmail me or hold the expression of my opinion over my head.
You are offensive. And you need to get a life.
I have done nothing other than read your posts. I have not spent one moment of my life trying to ascertain the identity of anyone on this board. Based on the information you have posted - your identity became apparent, at least as far as I know (I could be totally wrong). I am sorry if this upsets you but it was not intentionally action on my part. For that matter, I don't even remember your name (names are NOT my strong suit I'm afraid so do not take that as a reflection of you).
Rest assured, I am in no way stalking you nor do I have any plans of divulging any information. I do not remember your name and have no knowledge of where you live, phone or anything like that. The screen name Hometown is the identity I am concerned with, not the person behind it.
Nor was it my intent to "flaunt" my knowledge over you. You brought up your place of work in the context of this discussion and I responded in kind. Likewise I used the office in my example as it is the only employer specifically mentioned in this discussion. I gave no more information than you had already provided, nor will I.
Substantively, I did not say I agree with the law allowing discrimination based on sexual orientation, I merely pointed out what it was in graphic terms. Homosexuals are certainly an unprotected class and probably among the most discriminated against today. I would have to be considered among the most liberal people on this board when it comes to gay rights, I'm not sure how to further respond.
I am sorry you are offended, but rest assured my point was to discuss the topic of Native Employment, which lead to affirmative action and then the topic of protected classes. The screen name "Hometown" was the focus of such discussion as you were most vocal in opposition to my view.
- - -
I have PM'd you in this regard.
I would, of course, be happy to remove any posts which you feel contain improper information.
I accept your apology. And I will take you at your word. Thank you for your PM which I have read. And thank you for respecting my privacy. I do not know who you are but folks in the legal business tend to be a cut above and that is what I want to believe about you. Apparently I was mistaken when I compared to you to the past blackmailers of gay people. I look forward to debating with you.
NP Hometown. I understand your reaction if you thought I was trying to be a jerk. Feel free to come out to a lunch sometime and see if you remember me (and if I'm right on who you are). My offer to delete any comment that any poster thinks divulges personal information remains open to you and all others (Conan71 and I think RM have requested redactions before). I generally free-flow type so whatever is in my brain ends up on the page/screen.
Not to fault you for it, but the timing of your allegation of homophobia was humorous as a gay couple is flying in tomorrow to stay at my house to go to the Ansel Adams exhibit, Rocky Horror, and Oktoberfest (yearly event) and then my son is staying with a different gay couple the night we actually go out to Oktoberfest. I hope this doesn't sound like I'm playing the "I have plenty of gay friends!" type of card, just the timing amused me as I got a call to confirm their flight while I was responding.
Rest assured, while there are plenty of topics we disagree about, most issues around sexual preference will not be among them. But if you have any tips on blackmailing gay people they could always come in handy. [;)]
So... how about them 1000 Indian jobs. [8D]
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
I'm a bit old fashioned, but IMO I think government needs to get out of the business of telling companies who they can- and can't hire, and this also goes for telling land lords who they can and can't rent to. If a landlord does not want to rent to a gay couple (or whoever) because it's against his/her faith they should have that right it's their building. A company should have a right to hire anyone they want to as long as the person is a legal resident. I don't like government involved in matters that don't concern them. If I own a business and needed people to hire I should have the right in a free country to hire anyone I want, after all I'm the one who is paying them..But that's just me. I don't like government in my personal life. The governments main job is to defend the shores and deliver the mail. Not get involved in private companies hiring.
So then you are in favor of the Cherokee Nation hiring as employees whomever they see fit, even if that means there is a native preference in their hiring practice?
According to you, government should not interfere with who they want to hire.
Yes- But I favor letting all business hire who they want. It's a private business and they pay the workers so If some business wants to hire all green people from Mars more power to them. The government Telling a business they need to hire so many people of one race or so many people of this or that culture or risk legal action is wrong. I also believe Landlords should have the power to rent to who they want without getting sued for discrimation. We are supposed to be a free country. School testing for colleges should be the highest scores on the test make the grade and get accepted. What can be more fair than that? The students who study the hardest get the good grades, giving test points for skin color is wrong. The government needs to get out of people's business. If the Casino wants to hire 1,000 Indians I feel they should be allowed to it's their money and The free market. In Tulsa with low unemployment and a strong economy it will be tuff for the Casino to find 1,000 workers peroid of any race or culture, so they will have to really up the wages. The only thing unfair about this subject is that other companies are not allowed to hire who they want.
Well Sauerkraut that is the case in Mexico. You often see Help Wanted signs that specify "Under Age 30" or "Male or Female" though I understand it is very difficult to fire an employee in Mexico.
I think one of the arguments for diverse campuses is that it provides a more well rounded experience for all students to be exposed to various cultures. We live in a world where today's student will need to relate to people of various cultures in transacting business.
Maybe that's why diversity has not been as much of an issue for Tulsa's businesses. Perhaps Tulsa's clientele is mostly local and not as diverse as one would find in an international city. You know a Chinese businessman would relate well to a Chinese-American employee of an American business. Might make the difference in whether or not the business got the contract or not.
And I have frequently seen law firms use an attorney of the same race as the plaintiff or defendant that opposes them. I imagine it provides them with some advantage.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
I'm a bit old fashioned, but IMO I think government needs to get out of the business of telling companies who they can- and can't hire, and this also goes for telling land lords who they can and can't rent to. If a landlord does not want to rent to a gay couple (or whoever) because it's against his/her faith they should have that right it's their building. A company should have a right to hire anyone they want to as long as the person is a legal resident. I don't like government involved in matters that don't concern them. If I own a business and needed people to hire I should have the right in a free country to hire anyone I want, after all I'm the one who is paying them..But that's just me. I don't like government in my personal life. The governments main job is to defend the shores and deliver the mail. Not get involved in private companies hiring.
So then you are in favor of the Cherokee Nation hiring as employees whomever they see fit, even if that means there is a native preference in their hiring practice?
According to you, government should not interfere with who they want to hire.
Yes- But I favor letting all business hire who they want. It's a private business and they pay the workers so If some business wants to hire all green people from Mars more power to them. The government Telling a business they need to hire so many people of one race or so many people of this or that culture or risk legal action is wrong. I also believe Landlords should have the power to rent to who they want without getting sued for discrimation. We are supposed to be a free country. School testing for colleges should be the highest scores on the test make the grade and get accepted. What can be more fair than that? The students who study the hardest get the good grades, giving test points for skin color is wrong. The government needs to get out of people's business. If the Casino wants to hire 1,000 Indians I feel they should be allowed to it's their money and The free market. In Tulsa with low unemployment and a strong economy it will be tuff for the Casino to find 1,000 workers peroid of any race or culture, so they will have to really up the wages. The only thing unfair about this subject is that other companies are not allowed to hire who they want.
Ok, then Kraut, let's go back to the good 'ol days when you can say I don't hire black people because I don't like them. Let's not promote women because I prefer men, even those less qualified. Let's say it'd ok to not hire Indian because they are all drunks. And why should the government tell me I can't hire children and pay them what ever I think I can get away with. After all, it's my business isn't it?
"It's a private business and they pay the workers so If some business wants to hire all green people from Mars more power to them"
-Since there are no Green Mars men, you could translate that to be White Anglo Saxon Protestant middle class males, now couldn't you?
"The students who study the hardest get the good grades"
-Awful hard to study if you were born to poor innner city parents who have no education and you have to deal with shootings, burglaries, hunger, and drug dealers outside your house everyday. And when you get to school, most of your classmates are more interested in selling rocks than studying science. It's not that those kids aren't able to study and do well, it's just that the tables are slanted against them compared to the average Owasso or BA P.S. student. It takes more than average tenacity to succeed in that environment. Those kids need real help, not tests.
The point: Government regulation has done some great things for this country. And the public supports them. Nobody wants to go back to 1919 labor policies. Do you?
\
That's beside the whole Cherokee thing, they are sovereign and can do what they want.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I don't buy it Gold. Tribal citizenship is based solely on race. Cherokee Citizen = Cherokee Blood. If you are not racially Cherokee, you can not be a tribal member.
Sorta. You have to have an ancestor listed on the Dawes Rolls or other similar rolls to be allowed into the tribe. You can be 100% Cherokee and not be in because your ancestor didn't register, but a 1/128 Cherokee gets full membership. That is not fair. Why don't they accept DNA proof of ethnicity? If it's good enough to lock somebody in prison for life or to execute them, then why isn't it good enough for acceptance into a tribe?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I know this isnt' affirmative action where we address past inequities but certainly there have been past inequities with hiring Native Americans. I'm glad to see these people enjoy an advantage -- finally.
To "advantage" one group you have to disadvantage another. By definition favoring one group over another is discriminating against some other group. My ancestors were not in this country when Native Americans suffered the worst (we were busy being discriminated against in Bavaria).
What did I do do deserve this discrimination against me (clearly I don't care about this instance, it's the principle of it and some people in my same situation do care)? My ancestors never owned slaves.
The answer to the past discrimination is to discriminate again. I do believe two wrongs make a right and sons are supposed to be held responsible for the sins of their fathers. Wait, I got that wrong...
At what point are all people, no matter what blood they have or what color their skin is, going to be treated equally?
What about those who are part Native American and part white? Do they have to flog themselves?