What's The Difference Between These Two Signs?

What's the difference between these two signs??? Aren't they both saying the same thing, different races, but the same thing????

 

No...next question....

 

[/thread]

 

signs are not the same from all perspectives.....

 

One's bigger than the other...

 

word

 

Isn't the latter on an Indian reservation?? In that case, they own the land.

 

Well, as Midnight Oil said...."It belongs to them. Let's give it back...."

 

the white people have a nicer sign. the indians have a piece of plastic nailed to a tree.

also, the whites are more politically correct, putting 3 languages on their sign.

 

Whats the difference between a white sign and an Indian sign?

1 of them can afford sand.

 

the second one actually doesn't specify race ..

 

At the bottom of the picture it says Quinnalt Tribal Members only!

Which isn't necessarily a race but in my books its an ethnic background which most would call race. :clown:

 

[SIZE=medium]I’m going to try an experiment to see whether the signs would be inter-changeable if you switched the races. Sign number 1:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Under section 37 of the Durban Beach by-laws this bathing area is reserved for sole use of members of the Quinault Indian nation[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Yep, that one works. Let's try the second sign:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Beach closed effective Immediately[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]members of the white race has closed all white beaches[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Beach access is granted to members of the white race only[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Yep, that one works as well[/SIZE]

 

Do you have a point?

 

Maybe racists could use the same signs and save money and help the environment at the same time???

 

I wouldn't know...

 

the beach on the Indian reservation is technically private property owned by the tribe. They can open or close it to anyone. The first picture is referring to public property which by definition has to be open to everyone.

 

The difference is a significant one.

The City of Durban sign opens the beach up to the general public. By virtue of being a city in a state that's in a country, and not an autonomous entity, it should be accessible to all citizens of that state and country. A city is not private property, and in the few instances where usage of certain city facilities (schoolgrounds, etc.) can be limited, the only limitation is usually residence in that city or more specifically, affiliation with an institution such as a public school, for example. So long as these sorts of qualifications aren't in place (which they aren't, in this instance), public property is public property, usable by all, no qualification needed. It's obvious that all people of the "white race" do not collectively own the beach (it's clearly not the collective private property of whites as a race), so no such claim to exclusive privileges due to race can be made. There's no legitimate claim these people can make that this beach, opened to the general "white" public, is private property. The City of Durban is discriminating, on an entirely arbitrary basis, which taxpaying citizens can use property that is open to the general public. The problem here should be readily apparent, and it kind of scares me that this even has to be dissected like this.

The Quinault Indian Nation, on the other hand, OWNS the beach. The beach is the property of a government (the tribe) that is federally recognized as having sovreignty. The sign nowhere implies that the beach is open to the general public, but only to members of the tribe that owns it. Thus, they own the beach and can restrict the usage of the beach to those who own it (the QIN).

So we have two different messages being sent.

"This is public property to all people, regardless of ownership or residence in our town, so long as the users are white"
AND
"People who own this property can use it"

Is that really so hard to understand?