au1929 wrote:After 50 years of privileged treatment of minorities it is time for the minorities to stand on their own feet and not on other peoples backs.
Holy Crap, Au. I’ve not bothered with this thread because there comes a point where you realize that no amount of rational will open people’s eyes to the truth of the matter. But your post forces me back (maybe congratulations are in order?)
Your comment has to be one of the most ignorant things I’ve ever read. Your thinking that minorities are receiving “privileged” treatment is WAY off the mark. If that’s how you see the treatment of minorities in the past 50 years, I’d suggest you go back and read the news. The countless articles on housing discrimination, employment discrimination, hate crimes, etc will show you that “privileged” is hardly how minorities have been treated as a whole. And of course, there are instances of the reverse happening, but those numbers pale in comparison.
Also, your bitching about 50 years? How convenient that you forget the HUNDREDS of years that minorities have not just been treated unfairly, but OWNED AS PROPERTY (blacks AND women). Not to mention the way that sexist/racist behavior and social policy have become ingrained into not just our system, but society as a whole. Come on, man. Take off the “woe is me” goggles and come to terms with the truth. The system is remarkably f*cked up, and AA is a small, but needed step in the right direction.
Justin, I agree with your understanding of discrimination, but disagree with the need for AA. What we "really" need is to make sure all children have the best and equal education and opportunities.
JustanObserver
Don't give me the crap about what happened 150 years ago or the discrimination of the past. For the last 50 years AA has been in effect and those privileges were afforded to the "minorities." It is high time for the "selected" minorities join the rest of us and make it on merit. The opportunities are their they just have to make the best of them. I should make one more thing clear. The only impediment to learning in our schools systems are the students themselves.
As for hate crimes look around they are not the only ones subjected to hate crimes, bias or discrimination Nor are they immune from committing them.
au1929 wrote:JustanObserver
Don't give me the crap about what happened 150 years ago or the discrimination of the past. For the last 50 years AA has been in effect and those privileges were afforded to the "minorities." It is high time for the "selected" minorities join the rest of us and make it on merit. The opportunities are their they just have to make the best of them. I should make one more thing clear. The only impediment to learning in our schools systems are the students themselves.
As for hate crimes look around they are not the only ones subjected to hate crimes, bias or discrimination Nor are they immune from committing them.
Your beyond hope. It was a waste of time to try to clear you up on this, so have a good day. Your incapable of seeing the big picture.
Justin, It's no use trying to explain things to either the left or the right. My wife explained it best this morning when she said, "it's genetically implanted in our brains."
JustanObserver
If anyone needs more clarity regarding AA I would suggest it is you. What was a necessary evil 50 years ago has now become an evil? It has outlived it's usefulness. Of course those who profit from it are reluctant to see it go. Equal opportunity should mean equal opportunity for all.
The thing about AA is, it was meant to give back to the blacks and minorities who had been wronged in the past. The thing is, nobody who is going to college has experienced those wrongs and the whites alive now never owned slaves and whatnot, so AA needs to be abolished immediately.
A bit of trivia.
Talking about slavery. This is a fact that is not often spoken about in polite society. However, did you know that there were many freed slaves who were slave owners in the South. These slave owners were very much in favor of the continuation of slavery and fought with the South to preserve it.
CarbonSystem wrote:The thing about AA is, it was meant to give back to the blacks and minorities who had been wronged in the past. The thing is, nobody who is going to college has experienced those wrongs and the whites alive now never owned slaves and whatnot, so AA needs to be abolished immediately.
Many people in the US hold predetermined beliefs based on skin color about individuals to this day. Prejudices are still present, and affirmative action is a way to try to adjust for many preceptions that people have. Many people going to college these days experience prejudiced individuals often, whether or not they know that they are being prejudice. But, Carbon, you are ignoring this entire aspect of AA when you dismiss it so quickly without thinking about all the characterisitics. Of course, there is much more to say about reasons why affirmative action is potentially useful, but I'm sure those have been addressed elsewhere, so I will stop now.
Also, might I add that it is a daunting task to try to introduce, summarize, and discount entirely one of the most frequently debated subjects in current American politics in two sentences.
(I support affirmative action policies, as you can see from my post, but I also think that a system based on socioeconomic factors would be beneficial, although I still maintain that American society is not moving past negatively viewing certain people for their race.)
CarbonSystem wrote:it was meant to give back to the blacks and minorities who had been wronged in the past.
It seems that your implying that its supposed to help only the blacks and minorities that actually experienced slavery/ownership/civil rights violations directly. If so, you are incorrect. The pervasiveness of inequality has permiated society to a degree that minorities/blacks experience it as a whole to this day.
CarbonSystem wrote: What was a necessary evil 50 years ago
The fact that you consider it an evil at all explains a lot. Like I said, your incapable of seeing the big picture, and I'm not going to waste more time trying to cram knowledge into your closed mind.
CarbonSystem wrote:A bit of trivia.
You should have titled that "A bit of pointless, irrelevant, attempt to confuse and misdirect the issue trivia". Thats all that is. Your insertion of that also speaks volumes of who you are and what your trying to do. Yet another reason to just walk away from you.
Cicerone_Imposter was right.
JustanObserver
You can walk away from a discussion my self righteous friend but you cannot walk away from the truth.
< prejudice always been with us. Whether it be race,nationality,social standing AA will not cure it nor did it. In fact in all to many instances it reinforced prejudice.
< The criteria for who should be the beneficiaries of AA was IMO overly broad. Why should any one with a Hispanic surname be included? When were they enslaved in the US?
<Why should Blacks who came to the US and continue to do so on their own volition be included.
< Why should deserving young white people be punished for acts that they had no part in? And in fact their ancestors may have fought and died to correct.
< And last but certainly not least it is merely replacing one form of racism for another.
Setanta wrote:In that case, there must be no private clubs of any kind, because there is a substantial material (as in financial) discrimination in access to power through private and personal connection. There can be no fraternal organizations, because these are also avenues to transact business to the potential detriment of everyone not eligible. Absolutely all public business would have to be subject to the most rigorous "sunshine laws" and meetings such as Scalia on Cheney's fishing expedition would be totally unacceptable.
Much of what affirmative action seeks to remedy is the accumulation of the special advantages conferred by personal connection. It isn't simply that women are raising a stink about private men's clubs because they are "strident," or trying simply to make a point. Such venues assure that business can be transacted by a sequestered, privileged group. School meal programs seek to redress the disadvantages of poor nutrition; ADC, Medicaid and Food Stamps are intended to provide for the same and similar wants. Simply to be born into a white middle class town or neighborhood, and to never question that one will attend university, puts many children at a distinct advantage. "Standard English" will not be a study, but a natural acquisition; "manners" and social decorum are likely to be inculcated in the home; personal contacts of great value lie all around, and participation in many types of organizations common to white middle class life confer advantages as well.
In his speech, Al Sharpton made a point about a poor kid from a broken home in a slum rising so far as to have contended for the nomination for President. This is a signal accomplishment--for someone from his background. With the right background, however, and the right connections, such a result is far less remarkable. Affirmative Action is predicated not simply on how the candidates stack up when they hit the door of the Admissions office, or the Human Resources department--and they about more than rectifying the effects of generations or even centuries of marginalization or oppression. They are also about addressing the inequities inherent in the special access which members of the white middle class enjoy simply by birth.
Talking about a "level playing field" is much like talking about a "free market economy." Neither has ever existed. The playing field of the white middle class may be described as level, but it's up at least one, and in many cases, several flights from the playing fields of the poor.
So, in summary, you assert that you can fix government discrimination by more government discrimination. My stance would be to try to end the initial discrimination "Tax cuts for the rich" (yes, some tax cuts make the rich exempt from taxes and I oppose this) by way of better regulating campaign donations and suchlike. Also, most mid-level rich in this country have to pay a much higher percentage of their dough, so I fully support them paying less (because I fully support a flat tax rate).
Now, you've noticed that the poor are disadvantaged. Why not use poverty as an indicator for help -instead- of race? It's a more accurate predictor of future success and much easier to interpret.
No i don't assert that. Nor am i surprised by your inability to distinguish sarcasm and irony. My response was to note, as i've already told you (but you don't listen) that a claim that discrimination should be eliminated is hopelessly naive or disingenuous, and to point out the origin of the concept of affirmative action, within the civil rights movement, and absent organized politics. Save your strawmen for those who will fall for the ploy.
Justanobserver, Cicerone and Setanta, why bother. You've made your points and I'm sure you have realized that they can't affect the obviously emotion-laden anti-AAism of the opposition. Ulitmately--and unfortunately-- it's a matter of political power, not philosophical persuasion.
Setanta wrote:No i don't assert that. Nor am i surprised by your inability to distinguish sarcasm and irony. My response was to note, as i've already told you (but you don't listen) that a claim that discrimination should be eliminated is hopelessly naive or disingenuous, and to point out the origin of the concept of affirmative action, within the civil rights movement, and absent organized politics. Save your strawmen for those who will fall for the ploy.
I am disappointed by some civil rights leaders support of affirmative action. (MLK, Malcolm X.) However, I can understand why they support it. That doesn't make it morally or politically correct.
Of course discrimination can't be eliminated. But I simply don't want the government discriminating, especially not overtly. Is it wrong to have high standards even though they probably won't come true?
What we want to happen is almost always very different from what does happen. But that doesn't mean we can't have informed opinions on the matter, and part of having informed opinions is discussing them with other people (as on the forums.)
Portal Star wrote:Of course discrimination can't be eliminated. But I simply don't want the government discriminating, especially not overtly. Is it wrong to have high standards even though they probably won't come true?
So one can assume you object to unbid contracts, such as Halliburton was awarded? One can assume then, that you opposed the subsidies the government pays to United States steamship companies? Are you then opposed to the Soil Bank and other agricultural subsidies? Are you aware that whenever tax code is written, members of Congress insert amendments which specifically target corporate entities which has supported their campaigns? Are you opposed to that? Are you opposed to the tax abatement which state and local governments hand out to attract industry? My point in that post is that we live in a society in which discrimination is a norm, and hardly an exception.
Quote:What we want to happen is almost always very different from what does happen. But that doesn't mean we can't have informed opinions on the matter, and part of having informed opinions is discussing them with other people (as on the forums.)
What constitutes informed may be a matter for debate, as well.
Setanta wrote:Portal Star wrote:Of course discrimination can't be eliminated. But I simply don't want the government discriminating, especially not overtly. Is it wrong to have high standards even though they probably won't come true?
So one can assume you object to unbid contracts, such as Halliburton was awarded? One can assume then, that you opposed the subsidies the government pays to United States steamship companies? Are you then opposed to the Soil Bank and other agricultural subsidies? Are you aware that whenever tax code is written, members of Congress insert amendments which specifically target corporate entities which has supported their campaigns? Are you opposed to that? Are you opposed to the tax abatement which state and local governments hand out to attract industry? My point in that post is that we live in a society in which discrimination is a norm, and hardly an exception.
Yes... Sort of. I do disagree with the government applying the law differently to any -person.- Part of the difficulty with current laws is treating businesses as if they are the same entity as a person. I am undecided about how I want the government to regulate business, but I do know that I don't want the federal government doing it. If any government intervention is going on in business, it should be at the state level - and even then sparse and only if necessary. Much business-legislation concerns federal finance more than the rights of individuals.
Setana gets it.
And since some people are going to argue that angle, I suppose we'll have to get rid of "legacy" admissions in colleges as well, eh?
(I'm sure Bush's father and grandfather being Yale graduates in no way influenced his acceptance into that college, right?)
Hard truthsÂ
Go into any inner-city neighborhood, Barack Obama said in his keynote address to the Democratic National Convention, "and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white." In a speech filled with rousing applause lines, it was a line that many black Democratic delegates found especially galvanizing. Not just because they agreed, but because it was a home truth they'd seldom heard a politician say out loud..
Why has it been so difficult for American black leaders to say such things in public, without being pilloried for "blaming the victim"? Why the huge flap over Bill Cosby's insistence that black teenagers do their homework, stay in school, master standard English and stop having babies? Any black person who frequents a barbershop or beauty parlor in the inner city knows that Cosby was only echoing sentiments widely shared in the black community..
"If our people studied calculus like we studied basketball," my father, age 91, once remarked, "we'd be running MIT." When my brother and I were growing up in the 1950s, our parents convinced us that the "blackest" thing that we could be was a doctor or a lawyer..
Yet in too many black neighborhoods today, academic achievement has actually come to be stigmatized. "We are worse off than we were before Brown v. Board," says Dr. James Comer, a child psychiatrist at Yale. "And a large part of the reason for this is that we have abandoned our own black traditional core values, values that sustained us through slavery and Jim Crow segregation.".
Making it, as Obama told me, "requires diligent effort and deferred gratification. Everybody sitting around their kitchen table knows that.".
"Americans suffer from anti-intellectualism, starting in the White House," Obama went on. "Our people can least afford to be anti-intellectual." Too many of our children have come to believe that it's easier to become a black professional athlete than a doctor or lawyer..
Reality check: According to the 2000 census, there were more than 31,000 black physicians and surgeons, 33,000 black lawyers and 5,000 black dentists. Guess how many black athletes are playing professional basketball, football and baseball combined. About 1,400..
"We talk about leaving no child behind," says Dena Wallerson, a sociologist at Connecticut College. "The reality is that we are allowing our own children to be left behind." Nearly a third of black children are born into poverty. The question is: why?.
Scholars like my Harvard colleague William Julius Wilson say that the causes of black poverty are both structural and behavioral. Think of structural causes as "the devil made me do it," and behavioral causes as "the devil is in me." Structural causes are faceless systemic forces, like the disappearance of jobs. Behavioral causes are self-destructive life choices and personal habits. To break the conspiracy of silence, we have to address both of these factors..
It's important to talk about life chances - about the constricted set of opportunities that poverty brings. But to treat black people as if they're helpless rag dolls swept up and buffeted by vast social trends - as if they had no say in the shaping of their lives - is a supreme act of condescension. Only 50 percent of all black Americans graduate from high school; an estimated 64 percent of black teenage girls will become pregnant..
Are white racists forcing black teenagers to drop out of school or to have babies?.
Cosby got a lot of flak for complaining about children who couldn't speak standard English. Yet it isn't a derogation of the black vernacular - a marvelously rich and inventive tongue - to point out that there's a language of the marketplace, too, and learning to speak that language has generally been a precondition for economic success, whoever you are. When we let black youth become monolingual, we've limited their imaginative and economic possibilities..
These issues can be ticklish, no question, but they're badly served by silence or squeamishness. We can't talk about the choices people have without talking about the choices people make..
Henry Louis Gates Jr. is chairman of the department of African and African-American Studies at Harvard.
JustanObserver wrote:Setana gets it.
And since some people are going to argue that angle, I suppose we'll have to get rid of "legacy" admissions in colleges as well, eh?
(I'm sure Bush's father and grandfather being Yale graduates in no way influenced his acceptance into that college, right?)
I am opposed to it but I am unsure if I would go so far as making it illegal. For a long time "legacy" was just an under-the table way of not admitting non-white protestant students. I certainly wouldn't allow it in publicly funded schools as it very weakly (if at all) pertains to ability.
