The Voices of 820
« The People v. Hall »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Dec 26, 2009, 4:02pm

[Home] [Help] [Search] [Login] [Register]



The Voices of 820 :: Chinese Resistance (Don't forget to add links to more information) :: The People v. Hall :: The People v. Hall
   [Search This Thread][Reply] [Send Topic To Friend] [Print]
AuthorTopic: The People v. Hall (Read 87 times)
AshleyZ
New Member
*
member is offline





Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 19
The People v. Hall
« Thread Started on Nov 4, 2003, 9:48am »		[Quote]
:-/ :'( ::) This was in 1854 and it ws about when the California Supreme Court decided that they won't have a trial for the Chinese if they did a crime or did something that was illegal. So if someone said that you killed a guy than that means you did. You weren't allow to get a trial to fight for it. That meant that you weren't able to get evidence or to prove that you are guilt or not. But this only appeals to the Chinese.
This relates to out big question because the Chinese was being discriminated because of who they were. It was only for the Chinese that was not allow or able to get a trial for their crime. This isn't being fair to them that this law was only aimed at the Chineses immigrants and not the whites or the Californians.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
canDyl
New Member
*
member is offline





Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 18
Re: The People v. Hall
« Reply #1 on Nov 4, 2003, 11:53am »		[Quote]
The people v. Hall in 1854 is related to the big question because Chinese couldn't get a trial if they did a crime or illegal things like selling drugs. Onve the Chinese was convicted of a crime that they weren't even allowed to have a trial. When they are convicted BOOM sent to jail or deported out of the country. The Chinese were discriminated because of their history that has been showen. The different language they speak, and their color of skin.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
kevinY
New Member
*
member is offline

[avatar]

[aim]

Joined: Oct 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 30
Location: New York
Re: The People v. Hall
« Reply #2 on Nov 4, 2003, 5:31pm »		[Quote]
In 1854, the Californian Supreme Court decided that if a Chinese man witnessed a crime or a murder committed by a white man, they couldn’t accuse the white man in court since the Supreme Court just acted like it didn’t really matter. To the Supreme Court, the Chinese were an inferior race so they didn’t even care about their point of view. It would have just been as bad if a Chinese person littered and they were sent to 10 years in jail but a piece of litter, is not worth 10 years in jail. They would be treated as if they killed somebody.
It relates to the big question because the Supreme Court of California were being racist to the Chinese in the court trials, so then the Chinese couldn’t really do anything about it so they had to stand back and take the crime that you may have not committed. It shows how people’s minds were different back then, with different points of view coming from people in that time. It shows America doesn’t have the reputation that it has now in the past.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
susiem
New Member
*
member is offline



[aim]

Joined: Oct 2003
Gender: Female
Posts: 16
Location: Brooklyn
Re: The People v. Hall
« Reply #3 on Nov 4, 2003, 5:48pm »		[Quote]
This has to do with the big question because it was discrimination towards the Chinese. This law was racist because if the Chinese people were found commiting a crime or accused of doing a crime they were not even given a chance to be proven innocent. They couldn't hold a trial. They weren't given a chance to hold a trial. They had to go to jail or get deported back to China.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
susiem
New Member
*
member is offline



[aim]

Joined: Oct 2003
Gender: Female
Posts: 16
Location: Brooklyn
Re: The People v. Hall
« Reply #4 on Nov 4, 2003, 6:03pm »		[Quote]
This has to do with the big question because it was discrimination towards the Chinese. This law was racist because if the Chinese people were found commiting a crime or accused of doing a crime they were not even given a chance to be proven innocent. They weren't even given a chance to hold a trial. They had to go to jail or get deported back to China. I think that that is wrong because I bet that the white people weren't given the same treatment. They were given a chance to be proven inocent. Why did the Chinese had a better chance of being a criminal? It's totally unfair.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
julieK
New Member
*
member is offline





Joined: Oct 2003
Gender: Female
Posts: 20
Re: The People v. Hall
« Reply #5 on Nov 4, 2003, 6:46pm »		[Quote]
In this group, they didn't allow the Chinese or any other race to testify against the whites. So if you were black, Indian, or Caucasian race then you weren’t allowed to testify against the whites. You weren’t also allowed to prove evidence against the whites. They weren’t also allowed to be a witness if a white is in the party. This is related to our big question because the blacks, Indians, and Caucasian races weren’t allowed to testify against the whites. But the whites could testify against them. They are being racist against them. It’s only the whites who have much freedom, not any other race. They are discriminating the other races and they think that the whites have most of the power. It seems like they only want the other races to go to jail not the whites. And it doesn’t seem like the other races are fighting back against the whites. :(
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
Kevinl
New Member
*
member is offline





Joined: Oct 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 22
Location: NEW YORK
Re: The People v. Hall
« Reply #6 on Nov 4, 2003, 6:52pm »		[Quote]
Mr. J. Hydenfeldt says that a white man born in this state was convicted of killing a person. There was a witness but it was a Chinese. Chinese people can’t oppose white people in court so Mr. J. Hydenfeldt used other evidences like the laws’ white people made against immigrants who came. Africans and Indians besides the whites can’t stand up for themselves in court. They can’t be the witnesses and stand up in court to oppose. The 394th section if the Act Concerning Civil Cases law prohibits the opposition to any whites if you were Indian or African.
This is related to the Big Question because this is racism. The whites don’t allow other races to oppose someone of wrong doing. The Big Question asks what groups were discriminated and treated badly. This might lead to intolerance because the whites won’t allow them to testify.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
PeterM
New Member
*
member is offline



[yim] [msn] [aim]

Joined: Oct 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 16
Re: The People v. Hall
« Reply #7 on Nov 4, 2003, 11:26pm »		[Quote]
This related to out big questions because Chinese Immigrants were discriminated because who they are. The Californian Suprem Court said that if the whites said you did a crim then you did it. You can't argue back so the Chinese Immigrants had to take it and send to jail or leave the country. So the Supreme Court was racist they pick on Chinese because most of the Chinese don't know the language so they can't fight back.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
   [Search This Thread][Reply] [Send Topic To Friend] [Print]

Click Here To Make This Board Ad-Free


This Board Hosted For FREE By ProBoards
Get Your Own Free Message Boards & Free Forums!