Affirmative Action

Actually, scrat, you're not far from what I thought of the way slavery was abolished. I do think there were ways the change could have been softened. I do believe throwing blacks out into the streets with nothing but the clothes on their backs is in large part why we are still addressing slavery issues today.

I think the government might have offered financial assistance to slave owners so they could--offer blacks pay for their work, they would have become paid employees, if they chose--the blacks would retain a place to live, if they chose, and be fed--while saving up to get out on their own--the blacks would have been offered educations locally--the plantation owner would have been weaned from free labor to paid labor with gov assistance.

The first thing we think of is the cruel slave owner, who had mistreated slaves. It wouldn't work in this situation--but in the many homes, where relationships were as kind as they could be under slavery, a program like this could've given many blacks a much better chance than having nothing and nowhere to live. And, it would have given repentant slave owners an opportunity to give to the people they had bought as objects. A transition like that would have offered the willing a chance to make amends. I wonder if something like that had been done, if we would still be wrangling over the issue. If there would still, in 2003, be such a thing as AA.

How many Hispanics were slaves in the US. Why the special treatment? In addition how many blacks are recent immigrants to the US why the special treatment for them? Granted there may be justification for AA given to descendants of American slaves. But I can see none for those who arrived in the US by there own devices and free will. AA has been and is too encompassing. Color and or a Spanish surname is not reason enough for the receipt of the benefits of AA. The USCC should have considered that in their deliberations.

Sofia - I think your heart is in the right place on this, but I could not condone the notion of a government program designed to perpetuate slavery, no matter how well-intentioned.

Why wouldn't private institutions not accept the top five percent of students? c.i.

I think it is safe to assume that they are already doing whatever they see as being in their interests to do. So either what you want is already happening, or you would have the government force them to take students they would not choose of their own accord.

Scrat, You seem to be missing my point entirely: Why wouldn't any institution of learning accept the top five percent? Don't apply that circular thinking of government forcing anything. c.i.

My pie in the sky end of slavery wouldn't have extended slavery. The freed slaves could choose whether or not to take advantage of the program. Many of them did stay on and work, because they had no where to go and no resources. But, too few plantation owners had the resources post-war, or the heart to pay their formers slaves. A gov program of assistance would've enabled many more to get a better head start on independance.

c.i.--I was thinking the top 10% of all schools. You are right. This would set up a good mix. This is part of Bush's proposal.

I apologize if this has already been mentioned but I haven't read the entire thread. You might be surprised to know that in California that race baced admissions policies are illegal, as voted by the populace:

http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/209.htm

In order to maintain diversity, universities such as UC Berkeley instead look at income figures and select students from lower income brackets.

Flame me if you will - I'm just posting facts here, not commentary.

cjh, That's another good criteria to use. I'm all for it. c.i.

Sofia
Hindsight if it could only be turned to foresight. You are looking at a historical event of almost 150 years ago with today's eyes and morality.
The song goes if I knew than what I know now---

I know, au. I've just always been sort of burned that the US gov didn't have a better post-freedom plan.

It's out of my system, now. :wink:

Hell, that is understandable. What is not is why we didn't have one for Afghanistan and Iraq. But I digress.

The similarity had not escaped me.

Might I make a point relevant to a number of posts over the last couple of pages....

first, I find myself fully in agreement with sofia (for the first time in a while) as regards what AA sought to achieve and DID achieve and also as to her understanding that the playing field is still not level.

second, to au's post earlier related to the historical difference between blacks (slavery) and latinos. The problem is that both are non-white, and that fact alone still disadvantages individuals. One really only need look at what has been occuring in the Congo, how little press it receives, how little interest there is in the citizenry, and how little attention from the US government it ahieves. If these events were occuring in a mainly white country, it would be thought a true disaster, and attention would be riveted.

3 million dead and the count still rising.

blatham

I am not asking about the Congo. If the people in the Congo want to kill each other that is a tragedy but not the issue. I have asked this question before and never gotten a response. Yours is the first of any kind. However, it does in no way address the question. I should note thatr all hispanics are not people of color.

CI - I'm not trying to be argumentative, but you are missing my point. IF these institutions wished to simply accept anyone from among the top five percent, they would already be doing so. That they are not seems to me a good indication that they do not wish to. So, how would you have them do that which they do not choose to do of their own accord if not by forcing them to?

Have you considered that this would have effectively propped up failing businesses that were failing precisely because they chose to operate through the use of slavery? What would you have the government tell all the competitors to these farms who were not going to be getting tax dollars with which to pay their workers?

au

... "in no way answers the question"...

It doesn't if one presumes racism done up and disappeared from white folks' hearts and hiring policies, or if one presumes that all those black people and brown people just have a weakness for drugs and crime and otherwise doing the lazybones thing.

But one can always ask the counter-intuitive question...eg...Could Clarence Thomas be right? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/25/opinion/25DOWD.html

Scat, Evidently they are "not" doing so. If they give points for being black or Hispanic, that gives preference by color. c.i.