no the problem is that Hondurans, Guatemalans, El Salvadorans, etc, etc. are all mexicans to us. The more a person groups individuals by race the harder it is for them to pick out a picture of that individual from others. This does not occur just amoung us white breads. Latinos who see blacks as blacks rather than individuals had the same problem picking them out later. It affects everyone. See the face not the race.
Course this has little to do with the problem of poaching.
I'm gathered up some mexican/latinos in my neighborhood. Will be posting pictures shortly. Let me know if any of them was involved. One of them keeps telling me he's doctor but I don't buy it. Good cover up if you ask me.
My thoughts also. As far as "PC" bullshit is concerned, no one's EARNED the right to tell me what to say, or how to say it. People from Mexico are known as Mexicans, people from America are Americans. From France, they're French, but strangely, it's ok to call them Frenchmen, and Scots Scotsmen, but never can you say Chinaman. If you try to stifle a debate by "smokescreening" to direct attention away from the initial dispute, you are attempting to sidestep the issue and put "bad juju" on the person who began the debate rather than honestly engaging the issue. It's a tactic I see waaayy too frequently from the left; witnessed by the vitriol swirling around the health care debate. It flies often around discussion of 2nd Amendment issues, gay issues, etc. All it is, is an attempt to put someone down. So, back to the issue-turn the bastards in, and DEMAND that the courts do their job, and jail them. Now if someone used the word "spics", beaners, gooks, chinks, etc in describing someone, I'd find that offensive. I wouldn't make an attempt to correct his speech, though. Last I checked, we're still living in a country where speech is free. It might be offensive, but it's not illegal. If it's illegal, you can make the attempt to do something about it: until that time, in the Gaelic; "Rach air M'uin Fhein!".
The sad truth of the matter is that poor folks who spend more time stressing about where their next meal comes from (instead of what spey reel to get) have a REALLY HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING the concept of CATCH AND RELEASE. trying to get poor folks from another impoverished country to figure out the whole idea of catch and release is just out of the friggen question.:thumb:
I know a number of police officers and a couple gamey's (the wardens actually pointed out the above fact to me) that turn a blind eye to poachers who actually look like they need the meat; as opposed to the mercedes driving fellow not checking if a salmon's fin is clipped before smuggling it in his back pack. that doesn't mean its righT, it just means some law enforcers are people too and understand that not everything is black and white.
the good news is that you have moved past denial. after ANGER you will have BARGAINING, then DEPRESSION and finally ACCEPTANCE at the fact that extra law enforcement for poachers is just not going to happen anytime soon. then your best bet would be returning back to DENIAL and just forget about all the dirtbags breaking the law and try to have a good time fishing as you do your best to follow the law and report the violators to the best of your abilities anyway.
Ethnicity has nothing to do with it, in my opinion it is a ignorance issue… It is your responsibility to understand the laws of the land, if you don’t understand the language then learn it, ignorance is a personal issue and doesn’t excuse you from the law…Whoever has the most documentation wins...even if it means we all become self anointed fish cops and turn people over to the bureaucrats…Take pictures of the poachers/vehicles or any other evidence and turn it in. A few years ago I notified the local fish cops of a similar issue around RF and it seemed to work…It’s a shame that every time I fish Lenice/Nunnaly I cross my fingers that my window will still be intact when I return….although that is a separate issue I feel the same group of people could be involved...
.....If you try to stifle a debate by "smokescreening" to direct attention away from the initial dispute, you are attempting to sidestep the issue and put "bad juju" on the person who began the debate rather than honestly engaging the issue. It's a tactic I see waaayy too frequently from the left; witnessed by the vitriol swirling around the health care debate. It flies often around discussion of 2nd Amendment issues, gay issues, etc. All it is, is an attempt to put someone down....
By your examples, I must assume you mean the right, as they are the ones that have been playing dirty--witness Joe Wilson last night, the town hall disrupters, the "birthers", "deathers" all more about yelling and less about looking at the facts.
I may be wrong on this, but since black people are now African American, and anyone from the Orient are Asian American, and so on, then People from south of us are either Mexican, Mexican American, or South American as per each individual country IE, Honduran, Chilean, Ecuadorean Etc... Then he straightened it out it by saying
just saying....last fall chuckngear and I saw 2 white dudes handcuffed next to their pimpin' deisel truck with 2-4 quads on the back. in front of their truck was a trophy elk decoy. they got popped by the fish and game. Every race poaches. Im vietnamese and have never poached. lol
Hey - it's straight from "Things White People Like." In this case, it's number 101 "Being Offended"
"To be offended is usually a rather unpleasant experience, one that can expose a person to intolerance, cultural misunderstandings, and even evoke the scars of the past. This is such an unpleasant experience that many people develop a thick skin and try to only be offended in the most egregious and awful situations. In many circumstances, they can allow smaller offenses to slip by as fighting them is a waste of time and energy. But white people, blessed with both time and energy, are not these kind of people. In fact there are few things white people love more than being offended.
Naturally, white people do not get offended by statements directed at white people. In fact, they don’t even have a problem making offensive statements about other white people (ask a white person about “flyover states”). As a rule, white people strongly prefer to get offended on behalf of other people.
It is also valuable to know that white people spend a significant portion of their time preparing for the moment when they will be offended. They read magazines, books, and watch documentaries all in hopes that one day they will encounter a person who will say something offensive. When this happens, they can leap into action with quotes, statistics, and historical examples. Once they have finished lecturing another white person about how it’s wrong to use the term “black” instead of “African-American,” they can sit back and relax in the knowledge that they have made a difference.
White people also get excited at the opportunity to be offended at things that are sexist and/or homophobic. Both cases offering ample opportunities for lectures, complaints, graduate classes, lengthy discussions and workshops. All of which do an excellent job of raising awareness among white people who hope to change their status from “not racist” to “super not racist.”
Another thing worth noting is that the threshold for being offended is a very important tool for judging and ranking white people. Missing an opportunity to be outraged is like missing a reference to Derrida-it’s social death.
If you ever need to make a white person feel indebted to you, wait for them to mention a book, film, or television show that features a character who is the same race as you, then say “the representation of <insert race> was offensive and if you can’t see that, well, you need to do some soul searching.” After they return from their hastily booked trip to land of your ancestors, they will be desperate to make it up to you. At this point, it is acceptable to ask them to help you paint your house."
This forum is too often about how the message is delivered and not the message itself. I think it really reduces the content and number of people willing to post. This was clearly a message about poaching; why can't people see it for what it is and stop using a fly fishing board to manage PC bullshit? This website is like TV people, change the channel if you don't like the message but leave those who are hear to talk about fly fishing to do just that. I don't think a rant about how to identify a particular ethnicity is what we are here for and certainly not what this particular thread was about. The poachers suck no matter what race they are. Can't we just discuss practical ways of dealing with the problem? Maybe this rant could have been handled in a PM instead and not further depreciated WFF threads that could actually provide some benefit to the rest of us. Just my two cents.
Having three friends that are of Mexican descent they would laugh at this thread. One of which graduated from Harvard on his own merit and obtained a prestigious job his junior year of college. All are American's and they all are very proud to be addressed as "Mexicans".
If these three people mentioned in the original post were speaking a Slavic language, they would be characterized as Russian and we wouldn't be having this discussion. But perhaps those labeled "Russian" people were Ukrainian, Belarusian, Kazakhstanian ect.
Recently, I had to give a witness report to a Latino police officer, he asked me what the suspects looked like and to give him an ethnic description. It was somewhat challenging since I had to say, "Well they were Hispanic sir." and his reply was "Like Mexican or what?".
The further we as a country have to sit and ponder what is the most politically correct term used to describe people of every ethnicity, sexual preference ect., the more we delay our evolution in looking past these issues and becoming one America.