NationStates Jolt Archive

That's not a quota. That's an objective.

They are really passionate about their "objectives" then...


"We have fallen behind in that and we are doing everything we can to make certain we abide by the law by the consent decree," said Chief Spears.

The chief admits candidates for the second recruit class were considered for the first class.

Well stated. "Black" is nothing like "Irish" or "Italian".

among american blacks it is. you see, they used to be from a whole pile of different ethnic groups. but then they were ripped from their homes and families, sold as property, forbidden to speak their langauges, forbidden to practice their religions, subjected to several hundred years of horrific legislation that abused them as a single group, etc. all of that history destroyed their earlier ethnic identities and created a new one based on their shared common experience here.

However, if we can offer a scholarship to ALL blacks, ALL latinos, ALL women, why not all whites?

because the group 'whites' exists only as a sadly still functional relic of racism. it's only shared existence derives from the oppression of people of color. since that is all there is to the concept, actions that declare they intend to promote whites as a group stink up the place with their obvious racist overtones.

or to put it another way - talk like a racist, get called as a racist.

among american blacks it is. you see, they used to be from a whole pile of different ethnic groups. but then they were ripped from their homes and families, sold as property, forbidden to speak their langauges, forbidden to practice their religions, subjected to several hundred years of horrific legislation that abused them as a single group, etc. all of that history destroyed their earlier ethnic identities and created a new one based on their shared common experience here.



because the group 'whites' exists only as a sadly still functional relic of racism. it's only shared existence derives from the oppression of people of color. since that is all there is to the concept, actions that declare they intend to promote whites as a group stink up the place with their obvious racist overtones.

or to put it another way - talk like a racist, get called as a racist.


Is that from Stalin's book or something? How to silence opposition?

Edit: Oh and about that torture of blacks(!)...Many Americans thought they were doing a good thing by giving jobs to blacks. Despite being slaves they were at least being fed, unlike their brothers in Africa. Currently, while Africans are dancing around fire or getting killed in civil wars if not starving, they are dieing of aids. Black Americans live much better than they would be if their ancestors werent taken as slaves...

They are really passionate about their "objectives" then...

Good. They ought to be.

Good. They ought to be.

So, you are racist as well...Ok...

Is that from Stalin's book or something? How to silence opposition?Huh? Calling someone who spouts racist points a racist is somehow equivalent to the gulag?

Edit: Oh and about that torture of blacks(!)...Many Americans thought they were doing a good thing by giving jobs to blacks. Despite being slaves they were at least being fed, unlike their brothers in Africa. Currently, while Africans are dancing around fire or getting killed in civil wars if not starving, they are dieing of aids. Black Americans live much better than they would be if their ancestors werent taken as slaves...
So African-Americans should be thankful that their ancestors were slaves and afterward abused and denied their rights as guaranteed under the Constitution because otherwise they'd have been exploited by colonial powers back in Africa? Is that what you're saying? What do you want--a nation full of Uncle Ruckuses?

Lawdy Lawd! Why caint dese nigras be grateful for all de white man has done for dem?

So, you are racist as well...Ok...

Nope. I support diversity and inclusiveness, and see why the need for it is especially compelling in a police force.

Huh? Calling someone who spouts racist points a racist is somehow equivalent to the gulag?


His scope of racism was the problem....And then making silly arguments with that floated scope, mixed with his nick, reminded me of Stalinist propaganda against "capitalist pigs"...


So African-Americans should be thankful that their ancestors were slaves and afterward abused and denied their rights as guaranteed under the Constitution because otherwise they'd have been exploited by colonial powers back in Africa? Is that what you're saying? What do you want--a nation full of Uncle Ruckuses?

Lawdy Lawd! Why caint dese nigras be grateful for all de white man has done for dem?

And if Africa wasnt colonized, it'd be a paradise now? The point is stop whining about past. And it was other Africans who sold some Africans as slaves. Inform yourself....

Nope. I support diversity and inclusiveness, and see why the need for it is especially compelling in a police force.

If you support them to consider racial criteria in their job admissions, you are a racist, by the very dictionary meaning...

If you support them to consider racial criteria in their job admissions, you are a racist, by the very dictionary meaning...

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Which does it fit, and how?

Which does it fit, and how?


racism

• noun 1 the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. 2 discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.


Obviously, if they have racial considerations instead of looking at merit only, they'd be discriminating...

His scope of racism was the problem....And then making silly arguments with that floated scope, mixed with his nick, reminded me of Stalinist propaganda against "capitalist pigs"...



And if Africa wasnt colonized, it'd be a paradise now? The point is stop whining about past. And it was other Africans who sold some Africans as slaves. Inform yourself....Stop whining about the past? As has been pointed out in this thread, the exploitation and subjugation continues to this day. What past? It's happening now.

But go ahead and live in your "whites are the benefactors of all humankind" world. I'm sure it's nice there what with all the flying ponies and unicorns and magic pixie dust. :rolleyes:

Obviously, if they have racial considerations instead of looking at merit only, they'd be discriminating...

Yes, but not in a racist manner. They are "discriminating" to promote diversity and counter past and present discrimination, not because they don't like certain groups.

Stop whining about the past? As has been pointed out in this thread, the exploitation and subjugation continues to this day. What past? It's happening now.

But go ahead and live in your "whites are the benefactors of all humankind" world. I'm sure it's nice there what with all the flying ponies and unicorns and magic pixie dust. :rolleyes:

And you can continue with your "evil white oppressors which chained every non-white on the planet and stopped their development" thinking while flying with your "ethnic" carpet over purple hills....:rolleyes:

Far Easterns are faced with discrimination as well, yet they are usually successful. Why? Maybe because they dont have a gangsta culture which whines about evil whites...

Yes, but not in a racist manner. They are "discriminating" to promote diversity and counter past and present discrimination, not because they don't like certain groups.

Still it's discriminating and even the name of affirmative action in UK is positive discrimination. Hence, by application of dictionary definition, you are a plain racist...

Stop whining about the past? As has been pointed out in this thread, the exploitation and subjugation continues to this day. What past? It's happening now.

But go ahead and live in your "whites are the benefactors of all humankind" world. I'm sure it's nice there what with all the flying ponies and unicorns and magic pixie dust. :rolleyes:

And you play Poker with the Boogie Monster every Thursday huh?
"Exploitation and subjugation"? Of who? Maybe illegal immigrants and third world Asian nations.

And you play Poker with the Boogie Monster every Thursday huh?
"Exploitation and subjugation"? Of who? Maybe illegal immigrants and third world Asian nations.

It's Man. Boogieman.

And you play Poker with the Boogie Monster every Thursday huh?
"Exploitation and subjugation"? Of who? Maybe illegal immigrants and third world Asian nations.Read the studies about hiring discrimination or housing discrimination or the disparities in criminal sentencing for the same violation based on race and then tell me that African-Americans aren't getting shafted to this very day. Look at the African continent and tell me that you don't see the residue of colonial exploitation right now.

And just because I'm pointing this case out doesn't mean I'm denigrating the other bad shit that's happening. Yes, illegal immigrants get shat on, as do laborers in third world countries, and I'd love to do something about that also. But this thread is about Affirmative Action, so the discussion is going to deal primarily with African-Americans.

I wish it weren't the case. I wish we were days away from a colorblind society. But we aren't, and to argue that we are is the worst kind of wishful thinking--it's flying ponies and unicorns.

Still it's discriminating and even the name of affirmative action in UK is positive discrimination.

Every choice we make is "discrimination" in that sense.

When most people use "discrimination" in regard to race, however, they mean racist discrimination - which affirmative action is not.

-snip-

Prove it. Hiring quotas have been gone for years.

-snip-

The students have a right to do what they will with their money. It's not federal money involved--it's private. But just as they have the right to use that money as they wish, others have the right to point out the racism inherent in the act.

RE: Hiring Quotas:

http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2003/09/26.html

http://www.adversity.net/fed_stats/OPM2006/default.htm
(I also went to the OPM home page and it does verify the accuracy of the adversity.net site, I'm sure some of you will probably discredit it and its facts as pure racism.)

Here's an article from Boston...I do admit it's 2 yrs old.....

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/09/17/suit_seeks_end_to_police_hiring_quotas/

also, I do know out of personal experience because some yrs ago my dad went to become a Pennsylvania State Trooper. His test scores, both the written and physical parts, were very high. They ended up hiring the lower scores (both written and physical) of a black man. Now that is discrimination.

Believe it or not, it does happen today. You can also check out the OPM webpage and check their stats of hiring. The sad part is, is it's getting worse. I personally think that people including our government needs to stop being afraid to get sued for bogus civil suits of discrimination and hire those who best qualify.

Actually this whole thread and title is stupid. If someone is only 25% white, s/he isnt white. S/he is either mixed or some other non-white race. I guess the organizers were so afraid of being labelled Nazis by villagers with torches (aka PC police), they couldnt make a % like 100% or 95+%....

I agree.

Read the studies about hiring discrimination or housing discrimination or the disparities in criminal sentencing for the same violation based on race and then tell me that African-Americans aren't getting shafted to this very day.
Discrimination is in no way, shape, or form "exploitation" or "subjugation."

Look at the African continent and tell me that you don't see the residue of colonial exploitation right now.
If I was angling for red herrings, I would have brought my fishing pole. That has nothing to do with black people in America and less to do with their supposed "exploitation and subjugation."

so the discussion is going to deal primarily with African-Americans.
1) Africans in Africa are not African Americans
2) X-American is retarded, unless they can qualify as descendant of that nationality. To qualify as a Native American, I believe it is 1/16. I could better qualify as German American or Italian American better than the majority of black people could qualify as African America.
3) We assume all black people are from Africa straight. I believe there are a number of Caribbean Islands with a black populace.

I wish it weren't the case. I wish we were days away from a colorblind society. But we aren't, and to argue that we are is the worst kind of wishful thinking--it's flying ponies and unicorns.

Now you are just sewing together straw men, I can only assume from red herring skins.

RE: Hiring Quotas:

http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2003/09/26.html

http://www.adversity.net/fed_stats/OPM2006/default.htm
(I also went to the OPM home page and it does verify the accuracy of the adversity.net site, I'm sure some of you will probably discredit it and its facts as pure racism.)

Neither of those are examples of quotas.

Edit: And let's have a look at the actual numbers.

Blacks represented 17.4 percent of the permanent Federal workforce (FW) in 2005, compared to 10.1 percent in the Civilian Labor Force (CLF). Within the FW, Black representation in the General Schedule and Related (GSR) pay plans was 13.8 percent, 1.5 percent in the non-GSR pay plans, 2.0 percent in blue-collar (B-C) pay plans, and 0.1 percent at Senior Pay levels.

Hispanics represented 7.4 percent of the permanent FW in 2005, compared to 12.6 percent of the CLF. The Hispanic representation was 5.8 percent in the GSR pay plans, 0.8 percent in the non-GSR pay plans and in the B-C pay plans, and less than 0.05 percent at Senior Pay levels.

Asian/Pacific Islanders represented 5.0 percent of the FW in 2005, compared to 4.1 percent of the CLF. The Asian/Pacific Islander representation was 3.8 percent in the GSR pay plans, 0.6 percent in the non-GSR pay plans and the B-C pay plans, and less than 0.05 percent at Senior Pay levels.

Native Americans represented 1.9 percent of the FW in 2005, compared to 0.6 percent of the CLF. The Native American representation was 1.5 percent in the GSR pay plans, 0.1 percent in the non-GSR pay plans, 0.3 percent in the B-C pay plans, and less than 0.05 percent at Senior Pay levels.

Women represented 43.9 percent of the FW in 2005, compared to 45.6 percent of the CLF. The representation of women was 38.0 percent in the GSR pay plans, 4.6 percent in the non-GSR pay plans, 1.1 percent in the B-C pay plans, and 0.2 percent at Senior Pay levels.

http://www.opm.gov/feorpreports/2005/feorp2005.pdf

Doesn't sound so extreme to me.

Here's an article from Boston...I do admit it's 2 yrs old.....

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/09/17/suit_seeks_end_to_police_hiring_quotas/


In this case, it seems to stem from a specific pattern of racist discrimination - an exceptional circumstance in which, IIRC, quotas are legal.

also, I do know out of personal experience because some yrs ago my dad went to become a Pennsylvania State Trooper. His test scores, both the written and physical parts, were very high. They ended up hiring the lower scores (both written and physical) of a black man. Now that is discrimination.

Also not an example of a quota.

Yes, but not in a racist manner. They are "discriminating" to promote diversity and counter past and present discrimination, not because they don't like certain groups.

I don't understand how you can say that when they openly are hiring less qualified individuals solely because of their race. That is clearly racial discrimination.

racial discrimination

n : discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race [syn: racism, racialism]

WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

I don't understand how you can say that when they openly are hiring less qualified individuals solely because of their race.

Because they aren't.

They are openly hiring fully-qualified individuals over other fully-qualified individuals so as to promote diversity and reverse racial inequality. They use "race" as an indicator of suitability for the promotion of those non-racist goals - as indeed, it is.

Because they aren't.

They are openly hiring fully-qualified individuals over other fully-qualified individuals so as to promote diversity and reverse racial inequality. They use "race" as an indicator of suitability for the promotion of those non-racist goals - as indeed, it is.


Purposely using inequality to address inequality is like using murder to address sickness.

Nazz: alright you can keep living in your fantasy world of "Blacks are the only ones discriminated against, to hell with the ebil White oppressors"

My examples were prime examples of quotas. The PA state police had to hire a certain percentage of blacks regardless of the test scores.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source quo·ta (kwt) Pronunciation Key
n.
A proportional share, as of goods, assigned to a group or to each member of a group; an allotment.
A production assignment.

A number or percentage, especially of people, constituting or designated as an upper limit: a country with strict annual immigration quotas.
A number or percentage, especially of people, constituting a required or targeted minimum: a system of quotas for hiring minority applicants.

These for sites came from wikipedia.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_discrimination and......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_quota

http://www.adversity.net/fed_stats/HUD/huddocs/1worth_vs._martinez.htm

http://www.adversity.net/contracting/Chicago/default.htm

http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/hs_econo.html

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580666/Affirmative_Action.html

Purposely using inequality to address inequality is like using murder to address sickness.

Right. And that's why the fire department ought to use equal quantities of water on every house, ignoring whether or not the house they target is actually on fire.

After all, we wouldn't want to encourage discrimination, would we?

I would also like to mention how it is so convenient how the government denies racial discrimination against the white male in regards to the Affirmative Action.

Interestingly, it's nice to see how you have always declared our government as liars but so conveniently when it comes down to Affirmative Action you agree with it and the Governments stance on the denial of discrimination towards the white male and also to mention that the government offers companies and agencies very good incentives on hiring of the minority.

Whether you agree or not, at the least it is suspect.

Demonstrating a preference to any race only serves to further perpetuate racism.

Quotas, and regulations on racial diversity serve more as barrier to actual unity then other single obstacle that exists.

A group of goose stepping neo-nazis or white devil hating black militants are easy to spot and equally as easy to dismiss.

But the sly and seductive racism that is wrapped in the "morally rightgeous" ideal is far more difficult to dismiss because it comes with the attachment that if you do you are your self a racist.

I do not want a Doctor to treat me because they needed mroe women or blacks to "diversify" the educational institution with which my physician graduated.

Nor Architect, Nor Legal Advocate, Nor Car Designer, EPA Agent, Pharmacologist....none of it.

I want my experts to have been creatures of success based soley on their merit of acheivment---

I do not care if that means that a Black or White or a Meixcan or whatever will NEVER get another chance to get into the more prestigeous Universities...because that would mean that dont deserve that chance.

Your racial heritage should entitle you to not a damned thing....barring Nation States obligations of reparations to displaced indigenous peoples(More then just the American Indian got fecked).

Race should not be considered for anything...nothing.

EOE laws should be better enforced, this should be limit of racial consideration, it should only be considered when one is investigating disrimnation based on race or gender---no preferences on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or national heritage.

Feck your affirmative and all the crying masses who refuse to allow racism to die its natural death but would rather play victim until the end of time.

The danger is more subtle than I earlier suspected. If you'll pardon a mild bit of panic, I think we're seeing a newer, more sinister form of racism. One that's just as violent, but harder to spot, and worse yet, recognize.

Remember how you just kind of knew who the really racist people were? I mean everyone in the neighborhood knew; either because of what the person said or because of their family history. Either way, we knew who they were and how to spot them.

There's something different about the modern racist; a milder presentation of the same ideology. It's being packaged in far-less offensive----even attractive----trappings.

Blonde-haired, blue eyed beauties who say convincingly that they support your right to be proud of who you are and that you shouldn't let anyone make you feel bad for who you are. And being black is a part of you that you should feel proud of. Just like I'm proud of being white, but I can't always say that. Don't you think it's wrong that you can say you're proud to be black but I can't say I'm proud to be white?

Our political correctness has led us to desire to be supportive of people like this; even apologetic for disagreeing with the "reasons" they give for believing the things they say. We don't call a spade a spade anymore. And neither do the new racists.

The message is simple, the method more complex and coordinated. Whites must be made to be seen as the victims of oppression.

Tell them we just want "equality, that's all", and make sure to smile when you say it. That will justify whatever methods we eventually use to achieve moral superiority.

We've been down this road historically more than once. It always begins with complaints about immigration, and who should and shouldn't be here. Then it proceeds to the dominant class complaining that they feel "belittled" and "like their rights are being violated." It leads to elections resulting in the more outspoken of their kind receiving considerable political and financial power. Discriminatory lending practices deprives the hated groups of the financial means to affect social and political matters. Housing discrimination follows, and results in segregated sections of the relevant communities. Isolation of the hated groups makes control far easier and more manageable.

The government---which the courts serve----becomes less responsive to complaints of illegal treatment made by members of the hated groups. Deprived of financial strength, the eventual loss of legal protection leaves the hated groups completely unprotected from the now-obvious intentions of the empowered racists.

History has taught us that attempted genocide and international slavery is the ultimate result.

The new racists have begun a campaign to change the face of racism. We should have seen this coming with the rise of David Duke in Louisianna, but we missed the true danger of his message:

That appearances CAN be deceiving.

I'm going to start calling this out when I see it in hopes that others will start to wake up and see what's happening in this country. I hope you're in a place where those around you feel as you do about all of us just being people. Stay alert.

Talk soon, my friends. Take care until.

My examples were prime examples of quotas. The PA state police had to hire a certain percentage of blacks regardless of the test scores.

Prove it. And you should expand "regardless of test scores" to "regardless of any indicator of qualification."

http://www.adversity.net/fed_stats/HUD/huddocs/1worth_vs._martinez.htm

That is still not a quota. It does not even meet your own definition of "quota."

Note that the system is being challenged in court - because the Supreme Court ruled that mechanical standards with regard to race are unconstitutional. So if you want to object to affirmative action today, you need to object to affirmative action today - not to the sorts of affirmative action that were declared illegitimate several years ago.

http://www.adversity.net/contracting/Chicago/default.htm

Do stop posting from this website. It does not even make a pretense at objectivity, and I am too lazy to bother to sift through propaganda to see if there is any substance.

http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/hs_econo.html

This article supports my position, not yours.

I would also like to mention how it is so convenient how the government denies racial discrimination against the white male in regards to the Affirmative Action.

Of course it denies it. Fortunately, in this case, the evidence doesn't contradict it.

Interestingly, it's nice to see how you have always declared our government as liars but so conveniently when it comes down to Affirmative Action you agree with it and the Governments stance on the denial of discrimination towards the white male and also to mention that the government offers companies and agencies very good incentives on hiring of the minority.

However strange it may seem to you, some of us are capable of having different positions on different things.

Whether you agree or not, at the least it is suspect.

So?

The danger is more subtle than I earlier suspected. If you'll pardon a mild bit of panic, I think we're seeing a newer, more sinister form of racism. One that's just as violent, but harder to spot, and worse yet, recognize.

Remember how you just kind of knew who the really racist people were? I mean everyone in the neighborhood knew; either because of what the person said or because of their family history. Either way, we knew who they were and how to spot them.

There's something different about the modern racist; a milder presentation of the same ideology. It's being packaged in far-less offensive----even attractive----trappings.

Blonde-haired, blue eyed beauties who say convincingly that they support your right to be proud of who you are and that you shouldn't let anyone make you feel bad for who you are. And being black is a part of you that you should feel proud of. Just like I'm proud of being white, but I can't always say that. Don't you think it's wrong that you can say you're proud to be black but I can't say I'm proud to be white?

Our political correctness has led us to desire to be supportive of people like this; even apologetic for disagreeing with the "reasons" they give for believing the things they say. We don't call a spade a spade anymore. And neither do the new racists.

The message is simple, the method more complex and coordinated. Whites must be made to be seen as the victims of oppression.

Tell them we just want "equality, that's all", and make sure to smile when you say it. That will justify whatever methods we eventually use to achieve moral superiority.

We've been down this road historically more than once. It always begins with complaints about immigration, and who should and shouldn't be here. Then it proceeds to the dominant class complaining that they feel "belittled" and "like their rights are being violated." It leads to elections resulting in the more outspoken of their kind receiving considerable political and financial power. Discriminatory lending practices deprives the hated groups of the financial means to affect social and political matters. Housing discrimination follows, and results in segregated sections of the relevant communities. Isolation of the hated groups makes control far easier and more manageable.

The government---which the courts serve----becomes less responsive to complaints of illegal treatment made by members of the hated groups. Deprived of financial strength, the eventual loss of legal protection leaves the hated groups completely unprotected from the now-obvious intentions of the empowered racists.

History has taught us that attempted genocide and international slavery is the ultimate result.

The new racists have begun a campaign to change the face of racism. We should have seen this coming with the rise of David Duke in Louisianna, but we missed the true danger of his message:

That appearances CAN be deceiving.

I'm going to start calling this out when I see it in hopes that others will start to wake up and see what's happening in this country. I hope you're in a place where those around you feel as you do about all of us just being people. Stay alert.

Talk soon, my friends. Take care until.

This is pure ignorance.
Your statement associates slavery with WHite Oppression of non-whites.
I challenge to name an ethnicity that has not been both slave and master...
Jews, "Whites", "Blacks", Latinos, Indigenous peoples across the globe, all manner of Far East Asian, Pacific Islanders, the list goes on and so do the attrocities.

You mention David Duke--a dullard, but Ignore Sharpton, Elija Mohammed, Luis Farakhan, and the slew of other bigotted hating multitude from Antartica to Santa Klaus's house.

You focus completey Completely on the White, note how the feeble Apologists have created and imposed an Anti-White Racist Mentality in the Common American male.

You are indeed correct I am Proud to Be White--Pride in White, I am proud to be white because I am proud of myself, as a consequence of being white I am proud of it.
You suppose this to wrong, I do not apologize for slavery--as many of my ancestors were slaves as any Black's ancestors---where is my preferential treatment?
I am of poor Irish Stock, we never owned a slave in the United States, never.
I am certain we did 1000years ago in Ireland, when we were taking white slaves, and being taken as slaves by other whites.
No more hand outs or hand ups based on race, it is the voice of people like you who seek to blaze bright the fires inequality and foster resentment for the next 1000years.
The Best First, that is the only solution. Rewarding genuine merit with no imagined handicaps.
Unless you suppose that there is aneed for preferential treatment because the fact one is not a white male qualifies as some type of disability....then I see where there would need the system handicapped in their favor.

Institutional Racism is all but dead, it is only people like you who maintain its existence.

This is pure ignorance.
Your statement associates slavery with WHite Oppression of non-whites.
I challenge to name an ethnicity that has not been both slave and master...
Jews, "Whites", "Blacks", Latinos, Indigenous peoples across the globe, all manner of Far East Asian, Pacific Islanders, the list goes on and so do the attrocities.

You mention David Duke--a dullard, but Ignore Sharpton, Elija Mohammed, Luis Farakhan, and the slew of other bigotted hating multitude from Antartica to Santa Klaus's house.

You focus completey Completely on the White, note how the feeble Apologists have created and imposed an Anti-White Racist Mentality in the Common American male.

You are indeed correct I am Proud to Be White--Pride in White, I am proud to be white because I am proud of myself, as a consequence of being white I am proud of it.
You suppose this to wrong, I do not apologize for slavery--as many of my ancestors were slaves as any Black's ancestors---where is my preferential treatment?
I am of poor Irish Stock, we never owned a slave in the United States, never.
I am certain we did 1000years ago in Ireland, when we were taking white slaves, and being taken as slaves by other whites.
No more hand outs or hand ups based on race, it is the voice of people like you who seek to blaze bright the fires inequality and foster resentment for the next 1000years.
The Best First, that is the only solution. Rewarding genuine merit with no imagined handicaps.
Unless you suppose that there is aneed for preferential treatment because the fact one is not a white male qualifies as some type of disability....then I see where there would need the system handicapped in their favor.

Institutional Racism is all but dead, it is only people like you who maintain its existence.


Quite nicely said.

So, are the BUCR being racist with this? Is it not racist, but not right? Is it the right move?

Obviously they are being racist. They are also doing what College Republicans are best at, which is pretending like they're being "thought-provoking" by oversimplifying complex issues in ways that give them excuses to provide handouts to honky boys. It's just like the "affirmitive action bake sales" thing. They're defiantly standing up for the privileges of privileged white males! They are bravely confronting the hideous armies of brown-skinned gay feminist commies!

Is it the "right" thing to do?

Meh.

I attended BU. I liked BU. A whole lot. I even ran for student government at one point, so you know I was at least sorta paying attention to what was going on at the school. Here's what I can tell you:

The BU College Republicans are college kids. The overwhelming majority of them are white, middle- to upper-class kids. They've got a few of the typical Repbulican tokens thrown in, to be sure, but it's pretty much your standard country club picture. I remember a poster being put up in the GSU (the student union) as a mock advertisement for the CRs: "Boston University Honky Club: Now With More Token!" The picture showed row upon row of white boys, with a single black woman wearing a kippah standing front row center.

Does this mean they are bad people? Fuck no. Does it mean they should feel bad for being born white and privileged? Fuck no. I sure as hell don't. Does it mean they should shut the hell up? Again, a resounding FUCK NO.

What it does mean is that everybody needs to quit pretending that CR's are anything other than COLLEGE KIDS. First and foremost. Before being "conservatives" or Republicans or anything else, they are college students. And what do we know about college students?

Well, most of them are rather young. Most of them have lots of opinions and ideas and thoughts which they are 100% sure are very revolutionary and overlooked by Society. Most of them are just beginning to experience what it's like to really live in the world, and thus are just beginning to work out where they fit in the world.

(And I say this as somebody who is at university right now, so don't think I'm being a geezer about this.)

College kids do a lot of amazing things. Young people are smarter than old people credit. Young people are also more mature than old people remember being. But we're still young. Don't forget that bit, and remember to filter our actions through that lens.

I just wanted to mention that this OP's topic line is misleading or atleast false. The article suggests that you must have atleast 25% white in your bloodline which leaves 75% open to any other race. Therefore it cannot be "ALL White Scholarship". Just my 2 cents.

RE: Hiring Quotas:

http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2003/09/26.html

http://www.adversity.net/fed_stats/OPM2006/default.htm
(I also went to the OPM home page and it does verify the accuracy of the adversity.net site, I'm sure some of you will probably discredit it and its facts as pure racism.)

Here's an article from Boston...I do admit it's 2 yrs old.....

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/09/17/suit_seeks_end_to_police_hiring_quotas/

also, I do know out of personal experience because some yrs ago my dad went to become a Pennsylvania State Trooper. His test scores, both the written and physical parts, were very high. They ended up hiring the lower scores (both written and physical) of a black man. Now that is discrimination.

Believe it or not, it does happen today. You can also check out the OPM webpage and check their stats of hiring. The sad part is, is it's getting worse. I personally think that people including our government needs to stop being afraid to get sued for bogus civil suits of discrimination and hire those who best qualify.

No no, they are actually fighting racism....:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Getting the Numbers Right
To avoid charges of "racism," we disciplined black and white students differently.

BY EDMUND JANKO
Wednesday, October 25, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Not long ago, when a study from the left-leaning Applied Research Center charged a "deep pattern of institutional racism" in the disciplinary practices of public school districts around the country, it brought back some memories.

More than 25 years ago, when I was dean of boys at a high school in northern Queens, we received a letter from a federal agency pointing out that we had suspended black students far out of proportion to their numbers in our student population. Though it carried no explicit or even implicit threats, the letter was enough to set the alarm bells ringing in all the first-floor administrative offices.

When my supervisor, the assistant principal, showed me the letter, she merely shook her head and looked downcast. She said nothing, but her body language told me that it was probably time to mend our errant ways.

And when I passed the news on to our chief security guard that the feds were on our case, he merely chuckled and said, "They're bad"--meaning our rowdy clientele, which I took as confirmation of what I still believe: that until then, I hadn't recommended suspension for anyone who didn't richly deserve it.

There never was a smoking-gun memo, or a special meeting where the word got out, and I never made a conscious decision to change my approach to punishment, but somehow we knew we had to get our numbers "right"--that is, we needed to suspend fewer minorities or haul more white folks into the dean's office for our ultimate punishment.

What this meant in practice was an unarticulated modification of our disciplinary standards. For example, obscenities directed at a teacher would mean, in cases involving minority students, a rebuke from the dean and a notation on the record or a letter home rather than a suspension. For cases in which white students had committed infractions, it meant zero tolerance. Unofficially, we began to enforce dual systems of justice. Inevitably, where the numbers ruled, some kids would wind up punished more severely than others for the same offense.

I remember one case in particular. It was near the end of the day, and the early-session kids were heading toward the exits. I stood in front of my office looking deanlike, establishing the presence of authority to ensure orderly dismissal. It didn't entirely work. The boy was a white kid, tall, with an unruly mop of blond hair. He was within 200 feet of the nearest exit and blessed freedom. But he couldn't wait. The nicotine fit was on him, and he lit a cigarette barely two yards from me. I pounced, and within 20 minutes he was suspended--for endangering himself and others.

Surely we acted within the boundaries of our authority, and, as it emerged during the suspension hearing in the principal's office, the boy was having academic problems that his father was only dimly aware of. So the whole incident might have accomplished something positive in the end.

But, of course, we might have achieved the same result and arranged a parent conference without resorting to suspension. The kid wasn't a chronic troublemaker--indeed, until now he'd been a complete stranger to the dean's office. It was a first offense. And keeping him out of school for a whole week, the maximum that state law allows, was obviously not going to help him with his grades.

During the principal's hearing, as I sat across the table from the boy and his father, I recalled a classic essay that I had often taught my senior English classes. It was by George Orwell, and it recalled an unpleasant incident during his service as a policeman in Burma. Knowing that he was doing wrong, Orwell shot an elephant to save face before a mocking crowd of natives. No one suggested that we had acted incorrectly. Kids in our charge had to learn right from wrong, we told ourselves. But, more than two decades later, I still can't escape the nagging thought that, though we had other choices, better suited for the boy's welfare, at bottom all of us just wanted to get our numbers right.

Mr. Janko taught in the English department of Bayside High School in New York City from 1957 to 1990. This article originally appeared in City Journal.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009145

Yes the practice refers to 25 years ago. But the link is about RECENT claims of "deep pattern of institutional racism" in the disciplinary practices of public school districts around the country....

<snip>
Also not an example of a quota.

However if they consider race to be more important than merit, that's racist.

Because they aren't.

They are openly hiring fully-qualified individuals over other fully-qualified individuals so as to promote diversity and reverse racial inequality. They use "race" as an indicator of suitability for the promotion of those non-racist goals - as indeed, it is.

However they are not promoting racial diversity by hiring same qualified people from different races. Instead they are preferring less qualified black people. Or do you think this is justified because blacks are inherently less qualified?

However if they consider race to be more important than merit, that's racist.

If race is considered at all it is racist.
If one uses race as determining factor they are being racist.
Two men of equal merit with equal qualifications...who gets what is being pursued first?

The Minority? Why?
The White Male? Why?

The answer...the first guy through the door. That is fair.
If the White Guy was the first guy--good for him.
If the Minority good for them.

Best First, First Best.

A few years ago Stanford released an evaluation that said if they allowed entrance based only on academic standards their entire freshmen class for that year would have been Asian....It wasnt.

I dont call that equality, I call that Asians getting fecked for working harder.

I do not beleive in Racial Superiority, there fore anything one man can so to can another, period.

Merit, should be the only consideration---now becuase of poential socio-economic constraints it maybe needed to offer certain scholarships on a scale to who actually needs it, but race should not a factor.
And hate to break this to you slack jawwed apologist who believe only whites are racist.
There are far more Whites living below the poverty line then Minorites.
As far as Homeless and IMpoversihed go Whites are the Majority--so to bottle and your contrived "Priviledged White Male" fallacy---you merely prove once again your true colors. A bigoted feminst.

If race is considered at all it is racist.
If one uses race as determining factor they are being racist.
Two men of equal merit with equal qualifications...who gets what is being pursued first?

The Minority? Why?
The White Male? Why?

The answer...the first guy through the door. That is fair.
If the White Guy was the first guy--good for him.
If the Minority good for them.

Best First, First Best.

A few years ago Stanford released an evaluation that said if they allowed entrance based only on academic standards their entire freshmen class for that year would have been Asian....It wasnt.

I dont call that equality, I call that Asians getting fecked for working harder.

I do not beleive in Racial Superiority, there fore anything one man can so to can another, period.

Merit, should be the only consideration---now becuase of poential socio-economic constraints it maybe needed to offer certain scholarships on a scale to who actually needs it, but race should not a factor.
And hate to break this to you slack jawwed apologist who believe only whites are racist.
There are far more Whites living below the poverty line then Minorites.
As far as Homeless and IMpoversihed go Whites are the Majority--so to bottle and your contrived "Priviledged White Male" fallacy---you merely prove once again your true colors. A bigoted feminst.

And referring to an absolute value rather then a percentage which would reflect how many whites are homeless and impoverished is not letting your bias show either?

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/povrace.html

In the end some minorities are over represented in poverty then their population should lead you to believe

Now there are many theories of WHY, but claiming it does not exist based on absolute values is rather silly.

There are far more Whites living below the poverty line then Minorites.
As far as Homeless and IMpoversihed go Whites are the Majority--so to bottle and your contrived "Priviledged White Male" fallacy---you merely prove once again your true colors. A bigoted feminst.
Wait, what falacy are you refering to?

Are you claiming that white males do not experience priviledge in American society? Or perhaps that the existence of poor white males means that there is no such thing as a priviledged white male? Do you honestly think that the existence of underpriviledged white people means that white people, as a group, do not experience priviledge compared to ethnic minorities?

Yes, there are more American whites living in poverty than any American minorities. I'm guessing this has something to do with there being MORE WHITE PEOPLE in America. And by "guessing" I mean, "relying upon the data that has been collected by every reputable research study on the subject of race and poverty in America."

Honestly, quit howling at the moon. White males are priviledged in our society. Fact. Yes, they have to endure all the nasty hardships of being the class in power, which includes being informed that they are priviledged by uppity women and brown people. Perhaps white boys can take some small comfort in knowing that they hold every branch of the government, every media outlet, and every major industry. Also tenis.

And yes, it's rough being a honky boy these days, because everybody else is playing catch-up and that means that the number of special honkyboy perks is shrinking every day. I understand why that might suck for honky boys. I also understand why it must suck to have so many people pissed off at the perks that you've been enjoying. Everybody's pretty tight-wound of late.

My solution is to chill the fuck out about it. I'm white, and that means I get to enjoy certain perks in my society. I didn't ask for them, I don't intentionally try to keep exclusive hold of them, and I certainly don't think I've "earned" them by virtue of being a honky. But I know I have them, and I admit it, and I try to understand how it must feel to be a person who doesn't get those perks. I'd be pretty fucking pissed if I were one of them, so I try to be understanding of their anger and frustration.

There are far more Whites living below the poverty line then Minorites.
As far as Homeless and IMpoversihed go Whites are the Majority--so to bottle and your contrived "Priviledged White Male" fallacy---you merely prove once again your true colors. A bigoted feminst.

You are correct in that by absolute numbers people considered white number the most impoverished. They also number the most middle class and the most richest simply because they are the majority. When looking at percentage of an ethnic group who are impoverished then blacks come out worst than other groups.

I have to defend bottle here as she said nothing of the like, all she said was that the people who tended to make up the republican group at Boston University were mainly from middle to high income white families.

I see I was late in replying again

I have to defend bottle here as she said nothing of the like, all she said was that the people who tended to make up the republican group at Boston University were mainly from middle to high income white families.
Bottle should also clear something up:

Boston University is an institution that is predominately attended by white middle- to upper-class kids. It would, frankly, be shocking if the BUCRs were NOT predominantly white and middle- to upper-class, considering the demographics of the student body as a whole. I simply made that point because I think it is important to know who the CRs are, demographically, when it comes to topics like this one.

I could make a similar point about most of the "liberal" campus groups. For instance, I attended one of the feminist groups on campus, and they were honky ladies every one. The issues they discussed were feminist, but they were focused on the topics that are of strongest concern to honky feminists. That's okay, and those topics ARE very important, but it's also important to be aware of the inherent biases that we all carry as a result of our backgrounds. As long as you are aware of your limitations and biases, they don't have to be a problem.

honky

What do you mean exactly by honky, is slang for white or is there more to it as I have never come across that word before.

Bottle should also clear something up:

Boston University is an institution that is predominately attended by white middle- to upper-class kids. It would, frankly, be shocking if the BUCRs were NOT predominantly white and middle- to upper-class, considering the demographics of the student body as a whole. I simply made that point because I think it is important to know who the CRs are, demographically, when it comes to topics like this one.

I could make a similar point about most of the "liberal" campus groups. For instance, I attended one of the feminist groups on campus, and they were honky ladies every one. The issues they discussed were feminist, but they were focused on the topics that are of strongest concern to honky feminists. That's okay, and those topics ARE very important, but it's also important to be aware of the inherent biases that we all carry as a result of our backgrounds. As long as you are aware of your limitations and biases, they don't have to be a problem.

Can I ask - what race are you, and why use Honky rather than Caucasion/White?

What do you mean exactly by honky, is slang for white or is there more to it as I have never come across that word before.
It is a derogratry word for White. About equivalent to calling chinese people Chinks.

What do you mean exactly by honky, is slang for white or is there more to it as I have never come across that word before.
Yup, slang for white people. Also I think it sounds funny. :D

Boston University College Republicans (a university sanctioned group) has decided to give a $250 scholarship to only white students (the Caucasian Achievement and Recognition Scholarship).

The groups objective is to call attention to the idea that we give any scholarship based on race instead of achievement. Students applying for this scholarship must be at least 25% caucasian. The money will come from the College Republicans, not the university.



Dean of Students Ken Elmore has spoken against the scholarship, stating that it undermines the goal of the university: to provide an increasingly diverse student population. Boston University has a majority of white students.





I'll start by saying that I support this. BU is a top university. I understand need-based financial aid and academic/sports-based scholarships. Those should clearly be available to all students. What I do not understand is why the university wants to give a certain group of students more money based off of what race they are. A white student whos family makes $40,000 a year needs just as much financial aid as a black student whos family makes $40,000 a year.

There is more to diversity than just race. Does that make some impact? Of course. Will not offering a race-based scholarship stop minorities from coming to the school? No.

What is interesting is that the school does not publish the racial makeup of the university, but does publish the academic makeup (SAT/ACT scores, GPA's, etc).


So, are the BUCR being racist with this? Is it not racist, but not right? Is it the right move?

Personally, I think that yes, it is racist (as are black scholarships et. al.), but it is a good thing. It has opened tons of dialogue, and has gotten the BUCR a chance to talk with the head of African-American studies, as well as Dean Elmore.


The CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/11/22/caucasian.scholarship.reut/index.html)
Boston University Daily Free Press (Freep) article (http://media.www.dailyfreepress.com/media/storage/paper87/news/2006/11/21/News/Bu.Group.Offers.White.Scholarship-2505837.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dailyfreepress.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com)
So, it has now come to this.....
Soon there will be another apartheid. Nothing what is racist is not good for humanity for every man and woman should have same rights to study anywhere if their own intelligence gives them a chance. And, the whole idea of white elite school is crazy; it will only trigger class divining.

<snip>

And yes, it's rough being a honky boy these days, because everybody else is playing catch-up and that means that the number of special honkyboy perks is shrinking every day. I understand why that might suck for honky boys. I also understand why it must suck to have so many people pissed off at the perks that you've been enjoying. Everybody's pretty tight-wound of late.


It was hard 25 years ago as well. Whites were being punished more severely than blacks to get the numbers "right".

See:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12002616&postcount=288

I know you are just a feminazi but even you should agree that it is not just...

Yup, slang for white people. Also I think it sounds funny. :D

Does ****** sounds funny to you as well?

Does ****** sounds funny to you as well?

Sometimes ... though if I remember right bottle is white. Does one not have the right to call themselfs whatever they wish?

I mean calling someone else names can be rude but I never see people all that mad when people call them selfs names

Sometimes ... though if I remember right bottle is white. Does one not have the right to call themselfs whatever they wish?

I mean calling someone else names can be rude but I never see people all that mad when people call them selfs names

So after ranting about white boys, she topped it by calling them honky...

Sometimes ... though if I remember right bottle is white. Does one not have the right to call themselfs whatever they wish?

I mean calling someone else names can be rude but I never see people all that mad when people call them selfs names

bottle did call herself a 'honky female' and she has clarified what she means so your memory is correct.

So after ranting about white boys, she topped it by calling them honky...

Called herself honky too

Can I ask - what race are you, and why use Honky rather than Caucasion/White?

I'm a mutt, but I'm a light-skinned mutt. In my culture I am identified by others as being "white" or "of European decent."

I say "honky" because I honestly think it's more accurate for what I am. I'm not actually white-skinned (not being an albino), and I'm also not Caucasian (not being from the Caucasus region).


It is a derogratry word for White. About equivalent to Chink (for chinese - not white, obviously)
Where I come from, it's most often used in a sort of self-deprecating way. That's how I use it. My ethnicity means bugger-all to me, so I feel comfortable using a term that expresses my feelings on the subject.

Does ****** sounds funny to you as well?
Well...yes. I mean, it's a funny sounding word. The "igg" sound, I should think. A lot of words have horrible meanings or connotations even if they sound silly.

Does that mean that I think it's wise or appropriate for me to go around calling people "niggers"? Nope. Does that mean I think the connotations of "******" are funny? Funny uh-oh, maybe, but not funny ha-ha.

The thing is, I'm not a member of the demographic that is targetted by the word "******." I am, however, a honky. I apply the Golden Rule here, I suppose.

It is a derogratry word for White. About equivalent to calling chinese people Chinks.

Does america have a lot of slang for white people as here in the UK I haven't really heard any. We get more slang for the different classes rather than races.

I'm a mutt, but I'm a light-skinned mutt. In my culture I am identified by others as being "white" or "of European decent."

I say "honky" because I honestly think it's more accurate for what I am. I'm not actually white-skinned (not being an albino), and I'm also not Caucasian (not being from the Caucasus region).

<snip>


Are you a mutt in the sense that you have descended from people of various European nationalities or in the racial sense that you are mixed...

Well...yes. I mean, it's a funny sounding word. The "igg" sound, I should think. A lot of words have horrible meanings or connotations even if they sound silly.

Does that mean that I think it's wise or appropriate for me to go around calling people "niggers"? Nope. Does that mean I think the connotations of "******" are funny? Funny uh-oh, maybe, but not funny ha-ha.

The thing is, I'm not a member of the demographic that is targetted by the word "******." I am, however, a honky. I apply the Golden Rule here, I suppose.

Is the golden rule that if you are part of the group you get to insult the group without recriminations.

It was hard 25 years ago as well. Whites were being punished more severely than blacks to get the numbers "right".

See:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12002616&postcount=288

I know you are just a feminazi but even you should agree that it is not just...
I'm not entirely sure why you think refering to me as a "feminazi" is productive.

I'm a feminist. It's okay, you can say it. It's not a curse word. I'm not ashamed of it. You don't have to slang it up to make it cool.

I'm a mutt, but I'm a light-skinned mutt. In my culture I am identified by others as being "white" or "of European decent."

I say "honky" because I honestly think it's more accurate for what I am. I'm not actually white-skinned (not being an albino), and I'm also not Caucasian (not being from the Caucasus region).


Where I come from, it's most often used in a sort of self-deprecating way. That's how I use it. My ethnicity means bugger-all to me, so I feel comfortable using a term that expresses my feelings on the subject.

I'm also a mostly European mutt :)

Hmmm - in the UK Caucasion is used to refer to White people...

Anyway - I asked as I was not sure if you were using it in a self-referencing way (like (some) black people call themselves niggers) or if you were using it in a racist way. Which I doubted given your posting I have seen, but there are always surprises.

Where I am from it is a pretty derogeratry term - the main time's you'll see it used if if someone is trying to provoke a fight or hurling it out of a car as they go past.

Does america have a lot of slang for white people as here in the UK I haven't really heard any. We get more slang for the different classes rather than races.

I'm in the UK - where I am from in the UK it is a word used more often in rascist abuse than in an ironic self referencing way.

Probably depends on the part of the UK you are in.

Is the golden rule that if you are part of the group you get to insult the group without recriminations.
"Recriminations"?

I think that insulting people quite often pisses them off, and they quite often tell you so. I'm more than prepared to deal with that.

I don't think they've got the right to physically hurt me because I insulted them. I don't think they have the right to imprison me or disenfranchise me or kill me because I insulted them. Frankly, I don't think my opinion is important enough to justify those kinds of responses from them.

Is the golden rule that if you are part of the group you get to insult the group without recriminations.

Generally it is seen that it is OK for members of ethnic (or other) groups to refer to themselves using derogratry words without being seen the be being offensive or abusive.

For example - although sometimes contraversal it is normally seen as OK for Black people to call themselves Niggers. And Chinese to call themselves Chinks, or Italian/Greeks (in Aussie) to call themselves Wogs.

It is not normally OK for other people (even other minorities) to use derorgratry words to refer to other people.

Ahh, of course the open minded Bottle.
All whites are evil, and priviledged. Yes indeed, all whites live the lavish life of wealth properity while the Minorites have a monopoly on suffering.
Perhaps this is your life Bottle, perhaps this is where you come from. It would after explain your veiws on most things, you do certainly speak like someone who has never struggled for anything, but rahter had it handed to them.
A nice Univesity Degree, I imiagine a fairly well of family. A rebellious teenage life where your defiance manifested itself in quasi-social action, and more apologetic nonsense.

Ignoring your Bigotry against males, I bet you were never even raped--or whistled at for that matter. At least then you would some legitemate reason for your hate.

We go to the racial epithets, the pejorative remarks.
Honky, a lovely word.
Typically it is associated with the Slavic or Eastern Europeans, however its modern usage comes from the South, where white males would sit in their cars and "honk" their horns for Black Prostitutes, they coined the term "Honkey". A lovely term.

Cracker, another lovely term, yes indeed I bet you like that one too.
It refers to the Field overseer during the days of American slavery, as in if the slaves were not working hard enough...he would get cracking...the whip.
Which is where term "Get cracking" comes from.

Of course we can count on people like you to keep racism alive an well, and expect white males to forever bear the burden of your apologetic mentality, and your bigotry against males.

As I said no race has not been both Slave and Master.
As well not that a person of priviledge like yourself would know this, but yes more whites are living homeless or below the poverty line then all minorities in this country combined---so go sell your "Great White Evil" bullshit somewhere else.

I'm still wicked far behind in this thread, but mreh...I'll see if I can catch up.

Obviously they are being racist. They are also doing what College Republicans are best at, which is pretending like they're being "thought-provoking" by oversimplifying complex issues in ways that give them excuses to provide handouts to honky boys. It's just like the "affirmitive action bake sales" thing. They're defiantly standing up for the privileges of privileged white males! They are bravely confronting the hideous armies of brown-skinned gay feminist commies!

Is it the "right" thing to do?

Meh.

I attended BU. I liked BU. A whole lot. I even ran for student government at one point, so you know I was at least sorta paying attention to what was going on at the school. Here's what I can tell you:

The BU College Republicans are college kids. The overwhelming majority of them are white, middle- to upper-class kids. They've got a few of the typical Repbulican tokens thrown in, to be sure, but it's pretty much your standard country club picture. I remember a poster being put up in the GSU (the student union) as a mock advertisement for the CRs: "Boston University Honky Club: Now With More Token!" The picture showed row upon row of white boys, with a single black woman wearing a kippah standing front row center.

Does this mean they are bad people? Fuck no. Does it mean they should feel bad for being born white and privileged? Fuck no. I sure as hell don't. Does it mean they should shut the hell up? Again, a resounding FUCK NO.

What it does mean is that everybody needs to quit pretending that CR's are anything other than COLLEGE KIDS. First and foremost. Before being "conservatives" or Republicans or anything else, they are college students. And what do we know about college students?

Well, most of them are rather young. Most of them have lots of opinions and ideas and thoughts which they are 100% sure are very revolutionary and overlooked by Society. Most of them are just beginning to experience what it's like to really live in the world, and thus are just beginning to work out where they fit in the world.

(And I say this as somebody who is at university right now, so don't think I'm being a geezer about this.)

College kids do a lot of amazing things. Young people are smarter than old people credit. Young people are also more mature than old people remember being. But we're still young. Don't forget that bit, and remember to filter our actions through that lens.
I didn't know you went to BU...what years, if you don't mind me asking?
(now in the GSU there is a sign mocking the Jews for Jesus..."Praise the lord and learn financial planning")

And yes...being young and idealistic is part of being a college student...both our strength and our weakness, it would seem.

Ahh, of course the open minded Bottle.
All whites are evil, and priviledged. Yes indeed, all whites live the lavish life of wealth properity while the Minorites have a monopoly on suffering.
Perhaps this is your life Bottle, perhaps this is where you come from. It would after explain your veiws on most things, you do certainly speak like someone who has never struggled for anything, but rahter had it handed to them.
A nice Univesity Degree, I imiagine a fairly well of family. A rebellious teenage life where your defiance manifested itself in quasi-social action, and more apologetic nonsense.

Ignoring your Bigotry against males, I bet you were never even raped--or whistled at for that matter. At least then you would some legitemate reason for your hate.

We go to the racial epithets, the pejorative remarks.
Honky, a lovely word.
Typically it is associated with the Slavic or Eastern Europeans, however its modern usage comes from the South, where white males would sit in their cars and "honk" their horns for Black Prostitutes, they coined the term "Honkey". A lovely term.

Cracker, another lovely term, yes indeed I bet you like that one too.
It refers to the Field overseer during the days of American slavery, as in if the slaves were not working hard enough...he would get cracking...the whip.
Which is where term "Get cracking" comes from.

Of course we can count on people like you to keep racism alive an well, and expect white males to forever bear the burden of your apologetic mentality, and your bigotry against males.

As I said no race has not been both Slave and Master.
As well not that a person of priviledge like yourself would know this, but yes more whites are living homeless or below the poverty line then all minorities in this country combined---so go sell your "Great White Evil" bullshit somewhere else.

Wow what personal hate ... you beat that straw man all you want we know better

Specially when you just bring up the stupid absolute stats again ... you are letting your true colors show.

Its like saying *oh noes there are more Chinese people in jail in China then any other group combined*
Duh

As been brought up there are also more whites in the middle and upper class to? absolute value that is ... does that then show whites are both over and under privileged at the same time?

Ahh, of course the open minded Bottle.
All whites are evil, and priviledged.

Being priviledged doesn't automatically make somebody evil. A lot of people who are born into priviledge carry around guilt issues about this, and they often become prickly when people point out their priviledge. I know I did (and still do, sometimes) because I don't like being reminded of some of the undeserved advantages I enjoy.


Yes indeed, all whites live the lavish life of wealth properity while the Minorites have a monopoly on suffering.
Perhaps this is your life Bottle, perhaps this is where you come from. It would after explain your veiws on most things, you do certainly speak like someone who has never struggled for anything, but rahter had it handed to them.
A nice Univesity Degree, I imiagine a fairly well of family. A rebellious teenage life where your defiance manifested itself in quasi-social action, and more apologetic nonsense.

And Freshman psych rears its ugly head yet again.

Honestly, don't worry so much about psychoanalyzing me. I'll answer most questions you pose me, so if there's something you're curious about you can just ask (instead of guessing).


Ignoring your Bigotry against males, I bet you were never even raped--or whistled at for that matter. At least then you would some legitemate reason for your hate.

It's all fading into an alarmist honkyboy drone, at this point. Take a deep breath.


We go to the racial epithets, the pejorative remarks.
Honky, a lovely word.
Typically it is associated with the Slavic or Eastern Europeans, however its modern usage comes from the South, where white males would sit in their cars and "honk" their horns for Black Prostitutes, they coined the term "Honkey". A lovely term.

And "rule of thumb" references old domestic abuse statutes. Yes, we've all played this game before.


Cracker, another lovely term, yes indeed I bet you like that one too.

Not as much, since it doesn't sound as funny and has been over-used in recent years. Kind of like how "wicked" became an over-used slang word, which necessitated my return to the use of "groovy."


It refers to the Field overseer during the days of American slavery, as in if the slaves were not working hard enough...he would get cracking...the whip.
Which is where term "Get cracking" comes from.

And which is why anybody who says "get cracking" is a filthy racist!


Of course we can count on people like you to keep racism alive an well, and expect white males to forever bear the burden of your apologetic mentality, and your bigotry against males.

White males will have their burdens to bear, just as the rest of us will. They've been doing fine so far, and I have every reason to believe white males will be able to endure and thrive just as the rest of us will. Sometimes we clash with one another, but our history suggests that we are gradually (fitfully, sometimes uncomfortably) progressing toward more harmonious solutions to our troubles.


As I said no race has not been both Slave and Master.
As well not that a person of priviledge like yourself would know this, but yes more whites are living homeless or below the poverty line then all minorities in this country combined---so go sell your "Great White Evil" bullshit somewhere else.
Oooh, let me put on the Freshman Psych hat this time!

This is what is known as "projection." Bottle does not actually express any hatred of males or of white people, but is accused of doing so by individuals who show oh-so-subtle signs of hostility toward females and non-males.

Does america have a lot of slang for white people as here in the UK I haven't really heard any. We get more slang for the different classes rather than races.

Yes there is quite a few derogatory words for White people:

Honky, White Trash, Hick, Cracker, White ****** or just ******, Redneck, Trailer Trash, Coal Burner (typically called of white females who dates black males), Yankee, White Boy, White Bread

It depends on how the word is used or how it is directed. Also who it may come from in use. Such as it's common for Blacks to call each other "******" but is considered to be extremely rascist coming from a white person. Also, common for whites to call each other white boy, Redneck, Hick, Trailer Trash but to come from a different race is considered to be racist. Just depends on who says what and to who and how the word is actually used.

"Recriminations"?

I think that insulting people quite often pisses them off, and they quite often tell you so. I'm more than prepared to deal with that.

I don't think they've got the right to physically hurt me because I insulted them. I don't think they have the right to imprison me or disenfranchise me or kill me because I insulted them. Frankly, I don't think my opinion is important enough to justify those kinds of responses from them.

I was not implying any of the above in your second paragraph.

Yes there is quite a few derogatory words for White people:

Honky, White Trash, Hick, Cracker, White ****** or just ******, Redneck, Trailer Trash, Coal Burner (typically called of white females who dates black males), Yankee, White Boy, White Bread

It depends on how the word is used or how it is directed. Also who it may come from in use. Such as it's common for Blacks to call each other "******" but is considered to be extremely rascist coming from a white person. Also, common for whites to call each other white boy, Redneck, Hick, Trailer Trash but to come from a different race is considered to be racist. Just depends on who says what and to who and how the word is actually used.
Well said
Though in the end it makes sense (as much as I dont like it)

Self depreciation is always more socially acceptable then depreciation by someone else (well usually anyways)

Personally I think intent is more important then word choice ... but thats me

I didn't know you went to BU...what years, if you don't mind me asking?
(now in the GSU there is a sign mocking the Jews for Jesus..."Praise the lord and learn financial planning")

I was at BU in time for the Pats' Superbowls, but didn't stay long enough for the Sox to win the Series.

And sweet holy Jeebus do I miss the food at that school. I'm not lying, folks, the dining halls are AWESOME. Once every semester there would be a lobster dinner, no fooling. If anybody is considering going to undergrad at BU, my stomach heartily endorses that choice.


And yes...being young and idealistic is part of being a college student...both our strength and our weakness, it would seem.
That was really my point in my original post. I'm sorry to see that I ended up hijacking the snot out of the thread by using the word "honky," because it seems that using that word blinded a lot of people to my entire point. The whole rant about how I hate white people really shows that they skipped that sentence where I say, "Does that make them bad people? Fuck no."

My whole point was that the BUCRs aren't malicious racist assholes. They're also not oppressed or empoverished suffering Everymen. They're college students, very much like college students all over the US. Their college-studentness is really what's important to remember in this case. I think they really do mean well, just like most college students do. Sometimes ideals and enthusiasm lead to...hasty...choices. But that's no reason to get all hot and bothered. Deep breaths all around, I say.

I was at BU in time for the Pats' Superbowl, but didn't stay long enough for the Sox to win the Series. ahh...okay. I wasn't up here for the Pats, but was for the Sox.

And sweet holy Jeebus do I miss the food at that school. I'm not lying, folks, the dining halls are AWESOME. Once every semester there would be a lobster dinner, no fooling. If anybody is considering going to undergrad at BU, my stomach heartily endorses that choice.A lot of chicken, but the visiting chef nights are always great...last one was Legal Sea Food...mmmm....


That was really my point in my original post. I'm sorry to see that I ended up hijacking the snot out of the thread by using the word "honky," because it seems that using that word blinded a lot of people to my entire point. The whole rant about how I hate white people really shows that they skipped that sentence where I say, "Does that make them bad people? Fuck no."

My whole point was that the BUCRs aren't malicious racist assholes. They're also not oppressed or empoverished suffering Everymen. They're college students, very much like college students all over the US. Their college-studentness is really what's important to remember in this case. I think they really do mean well, just like most college students do. Sometimes ideals and enthusiasm lead to...hasty...choices. But that's no reason to get all hot and bothered. Deep breaths all around, I say.hear, hear.

Well Bottle for someone who bears no hostility towards White Maes you are fond of using pejoratives towards them. As for the for the Freshmen Psych Hat,
I geussed correctly by your own admission and actions. How well did you geuss?
My wife would say you are wrong as she gets my check every friday, I entrust her to decide for the house on almost every matter, and am often bothered when she seeks to consult me as if she needs permission. My two daughters would be shocked to learn of my hatred for women as you suppose as I have encouraged them to fight by any means to be treated on merit, no matter the consequence.
On bieng Eurocentric, sorry again.
My sister is Half-Black, I have more Mexican Family then white, and most people here know me to be the one who attacks...bigots and xenophobes--how appropriate I am speaking to you.
I was raised in housing project in Detroit Michigan, I have unlike you earned my position in life and I didnt get it with hand outs, or hand ups. As well as earing my position I have earned my opinion, you are a spoiled whte girl who has no knowledge whatso ever of poverty or the impoverished. You exercise your guilt about your cake eating life and your cake eating family by attacking the rest of society.

You have no right to comment on family, because you have none where you are not merely the spoiled child--you have never had to bear any reasponsibility, even for yourself.

As far as being an alrmist honkyboy...whatever that is, I decline comment for clearification.

I dont need to ask you questions, I already know who I am talking to quite well.

The prattle of your fan club is amusing though.

Yes there is quite a few derogatory words for White people:

Honky, White Trash, Hick, Cracker, White ****** or just ******, Redneck, Trailer Trash, Coal Burner (typically called of white females who dates black males), Yankee, White Boy, White Bread

It depends on how the word is used or how it is directed. Also who it may come from in use. Such as it's common for Blacks to call each other "******" but is considered to be extremely rascist coming from a white person. Also, common for whites to call each other white boy, Redneck, Hick, Trailer Trash but to come from a different race is considered to be racist. Just depends on who says what and to who and how the word is actually used.

I have bolded the ones I have heard before. Are you sure that ****** is used to insult whites, I can only see that working on people who are racist (calling them the thing they hate). I thought Yankee was refering to americans in general, not just white americans :confused: .

Well Bottle for someone who bears no hostility towards White Maes you are fond of using pejoratives towards them. As for the for the Freshmen Psych Hat,
I geussed correctly by your own admission and actions. How well did you geuss?
My wife would say you are wrong as she gets my check every friday, I entrust her to decide for the house on almost every matter, and am often bothered when she seeks to consult me as if she needs permission. My two daughters would be shocked to learn of my hatred for women as you suppose as I have encouraged them to fight by any means to be treated on merit, no matter the consequence.
On bieng Eurocentric, sorry again.
My sister is Half-Black, I have more Mexican Family then white, and most people here know me to be the one who attacks...bigots and xenophobes--how appropriate I am speaking to you.
I was raised in housing project in Detroit Michigan, I have unlike you earned my position in life and I didnt get it with hand outs, or hand ups. As well as earing my position I have earned my opinion, you are a spoiled whte girl who has no knowledge whatso ever of poverty or the impoverished. You exercise your guilt about your cake eating life and your cake eating family by attacking the rest of society.

You have no right to comment on family, because you have none where you are not merely the spoiled child--you have never had to bear any reasponsibility, even for yourself.

As far as being an alrmist honkyboy...whatever that is, I decline comment for clearification.

The prattle of your fan club is amusing though.

No less amusing then the crazy barely literate arguments you seem to be putting up.

Its hard to take you seriously when you don't put forth any sort of substantial argument, and only attack another poster in almost every post you make rather then arguing the topic

Being priviledged doesn't automatically make somebody evil. A lot of people who are born into priviledge carry around guilt issues about this, and they often become prickly when people point out their priviledge. I know I did (and still do, sometimes) because I don't like being reminded of some of the undeserved advantages I enjoy.
You really shouldn't carry that guilt.

I say that as someone who grew up in an underprivalaged background (within my country).

I am amazed that people feel guilty for things that are/were beyond their control. Your logic that you should feel guilty for being born into a privalaged background is about as sound as me saying I should feel guilty for having an alcoholic abusive father. It is total nonsense.

It also comes across as patronising to people from underprivalaged backgrounds.

I also find it stupid that it is supposedly OK for someone to make it into wealth, while there is something somehow wrong with inheriting wealth - I got my intelligence from my parents in a similar way that you gained your financial privalages (and obviously intelligence - you don't come across as stupid by any means) - it was not my fault, and I ahve no responsibity for it. You should feel guilty for the privalages you enjoy in the same way I should feel guilty for using my abilities (the potential for which was inherited) to make a way for myself.



It's all fading into an alarmist honkyboy drone, at this point. Take a deep breath.

As obnoxious as he was/is - your 'honkeyboy' and 'honkey boys' does overstep the 'Golden Rule' a little - as you are not a 'honkey boy'.

In the context you are using it it really does come across as a derogoratry term - particulary when couples with boy/boys

You really shouldn't carry that guilt.

I say that as someone who grew up in an underprivalaged background (within my country).

I am amazed that people feel guilty for things that are/were beyond their control. Your logic that you should feel guilty for being born into a privalaged background is about as sound as me saying I should feel guilty for having an alcoholic abusive father. It is total nonsense.

It also comes across as patronising to people from underprivalaged backgrounds.

I also find it stupid that it is supposedly OK for someone to make it into wealth, while there is something somehow wrong with inheriting wealth - I got my intelligence from my parents in a similar way that you gained your financial privalages (and obviously intelligence - you don't come across as stupid by any means) - it was not my fault, and I ahve no responsibity for it. You should feel guilty for the privalages you enjoy in the same way I should feel guilty for using my abilities (the potential for which was inherited) to make a way for myself.


As obnoxious as he was/is - your 'honkeyboy' and 'honkey boys' does overstep the 'Golden Rule' a little - as you are not a 'honkey boy'.

In the context you are using it it really does come across as a derogoratry term - particulary when couples with boy/boys

The bolded part could be why Skibereen is so hostile towards bottle, plus her use of 'honky boy' as you say is not helping.

Honky, White Trash, Hick, Cracker, White ****** or just ******, Redneck, Trailer Trash, Coal Burner (typically called of white females who dates black males), Yankee, White Boy, White Bread
Um...Yankee isn't an offensive term at all...it refers to someone from New England.

I have bolded the ones I have heard before. Are you sure that ****** is used to insult whites, I can only see that working on people who are racist (calling them the thing they hate). I thought Yankee was refering to americans in general, not just white americans :confused: .

Yes ****** can and is to insult the white people however it is more common of those of black color. I personally believe that their is a difference between black and "******, I also believe their is a difference between white people and white niggers. As for Yankee, southerner's can be very offended by the term, myself included. We'd much rather be called Honky, Cracker, Hick, etc... than Yankee. I believe your confusion is due to being in Europe where they do by far refer to all Americans as Yankees but here in the states it depends on where you're from.

Um...Yankee isn't an offensive term at all...it refers to someone from New England.

Then refer to a full blooded southerner a Yankee and see what they say. Not all but some are offended by being called a Yankee especially if they had relatives fighting for the Confederacy.

Bottom Line: Calling a southerner in general a "Yankee" is offensive to some especially those with strong history ties, ones that may still believe in the Confederacy and it does NOT matter who is the one calling them a Yankee. They will find it offensive and derogatory by ALL.

I thought Yankee was refering to americans in general, not just white americans :confused: .

"To foreigners, a Yankee is an American.
To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner.
To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander.
To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter.
And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast."
-E.B. White

It originally refered to those of English decent in the northern American colonies (Connecticut, Massachusets, New York, Vermont, etc) prior to 1700

"To foreigners, a Yankee is an American.
To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner.
To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander.
To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter.
And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast."
-E.B. White

It originally refered to those of English decent in the northern American colonies (Connecticut, Massachusets, New York, Vermont, etc) prior to 1700

To be expected I suppose, its crudely the same when people from abroad refer to the britsh as english. Not the best way to start when speaking to someone from scotland, wales or NI.

Um...Yankee isn't an offensive term at all...it refers to someone from New England.

I don't think you read my entire post so I copied the last paragraph which is imparative to my post........

It depends on how the word is used or how it is directed. Also who it may come from in use. Such as it's common for Blacks to call each other "******" but is considered to be extremely rascist coming from a white person. Also, common for whites to call each other white boy, Redneck, Hick, Trailer Trash but to come from a different race is considered to be racist. Just depends on who says what and to who and how the word is actually used.

I don't think you read my entire post so I copied the last paragraph which is imparative to my post........

It depends on how the word is used or how it is directed. Also who it may come from in use. Such as it's common for Blacks to call each other "******" but is considered to be extremely rascist coming from a white person. Also, common for whites to call each other white boy, Redneck, Hick, Trailer Trash but to come from a different race is considered to be racist. Just depends on who says what and to who and how the word is actually used.

No, I read the entire post. I've just never heard the term used even mildly offensively. But then again, I'm from CT and go to school in Boston...I AM a Yankee (at least in its modern usage)

ok, to try and get the thread back on track. To the people who have been posting recently, does this scholarship make a valid point about using race as one of the criteria for scholarship funds. They may be college students first (as bottle put it) but is their point still valid.

Earlier on in the thread people were calling them racist for setting up the fund, if the fund is not serious about the funding itself but more about the point they are trying to make does that make them racist?

Knowing my luck this won't kick start the thread, it will probably now wither and die instead.

ok, to try and get the thread back on track. To the people who have been posting recently, does this scholarship make a valid point about using race as one of the criteria for scholarship funds. They may be college students first (as bottle put it) but is their point still valid.

Earlier on in the thread people were calling them racist for setting up the fund, if the fund is not serious about the funding itself but more about the point they are trying to make does that make them racist?

Knowing my luck this won't kick start the thread, it will probably now wither and die instead.

I still stand my ground as my earlier posts is No it does NOT make them racist and by having that 25% whiteness to apply is just that. To me it is more diversified than that of the Black scholarships that are strictly for only those of color. To me that is way more racist than these students are.

ok, to try and get the thread back on track. To the people who have been posting recently, does this scholarship make a valid point about using race as one of the criteria for scholarship funds. They may be college students first (as bottle put it) but is their point still valid.

Earlier on in the thread people were calling them racist for setting up the fund, if the fund is not serious about the funding itself but more about the point they are trying to make does that make them racist?

Knowing my luck this won't kick start the thread, it will probably now wither and die instead.

Yes, if race is a consideration it is racist by definition.

If it is justified racism or not should be the real argument.

25% Caucasian ? Thats so odd to me. How is this established or verified and by who?

And by the time the facts are determined, its already cost more than the measly $250.00 prize.

Is there some big award ceremony? They'll be wanting to bring as much attention to this as possible.

Its more like they're testing the waters to see how many people scream if they are going to offer real money down the road.

Yes, if race is a consideration it is racist by definition.

If it is justified racism or not should be the real argument.

I don't think you can justify racism in education.

Though I heard in the news a year or two back that people from different races respond differently to some medince that was being trialed. I did a quick google and came up with the link below, not quite what I was looking for but still an interesting read. If it is found to be true then I would say this is an example of justified racism where it is considered as part of the clinical decision in getting the right treatment. The article also brings up that african american women in general have a much higher chance of getting breast cancer which also tends to be more aggressive.

http://www.policyreview.org/DEC01/satel_print.html

25% Caucasian ? Thats so odd to me. How is this established or verified and by who?

And by the time the facts are determined, its already cost more than the measly $250.00 prize.

Is there some big award ceremony? They'll be wanting to bring as much attention to this as possible.

Its more like they're testing the waters to see how many people scream if they are going to offer real money down the road.

I think it was mainly to see how many people scream as I don't think the group offerring the scholarship have the money to offer a substantial one.

I don't think you can justify racism in education.

Though I heard in the news a year or two back that people from different races respond differently to some medince that was being trialed. I did a quick google and came up with the link below, not quite what I was looking for but still an interesting read. If it is found to be true then I would say this is an example of justified racism where it is considered as part of the clinical decision in getting the right treatment. The article also brings up that african american women in general have a much higher chance of getting breast cancer which also tends to be more aggressive.

http://www.policyreview.org/DEC01/satel_print.html

Brought up in season 1 of House MD if I remember right as well :p

I was not saying if it was justified or not just that, it is clearly racism but is it harmful or helpful

I think it was mainly to see how many people scream as I don't think the group offerring the scholarship have the money to offer a substantial one.

hmmm.......I never thought of that, even though I should have. Makes sense to do it to see how much attention they get. Seems to have worked.

this is such a weird topic about race based scholarships.
As I understand it the logic behind black/latino scholarships is that they are a poor minority and need help? bit simple i know but is that correct?

If that is the case, and as poverty applies to all races, etc... to different levels, why not have a scholarship for the POOR! If there are more poor black/latinos then they will still benefit, no?

this is such a weird topic about race based scholarships.
As I understand it the logic behind black/latino scholarships is that they are a poor minority and need help? bit simple i know but is that correct?

Some are, as I understand it, but some have additional motivations as well.

Some people believe that (for example) dark-skinned Americans face disadvantages compared to light-skinned Americans when it comes to things like going to college. Some of this is due to disproportionate poverty rates, but some of it is due to lingering racial issues in our country. Some people feel that a good way to address this problem is to offer scholarships that are specifically targetted at dark-skinned individuals.


If that is the case, and as poverty applies to all races, etc... to different levels, why not have a scholarship for the POOR! If there are more poor black/latinos then they will still benefit, no?
Personally, I have never been very comfortable with scholarships offered based on race. I do believe that minorities face a bunch of really rotten disadvantages in life, but I don't know that offering race-exclusive scholarships is a good way to deal with the situation.

And, before somebody gets shrill at me for being a man-hater, let me just be perfectly clear: I feel the same way about scholarships that are awarded based on gender. I certainly don't object to letting people sponsor whatever scholarship programs they please, since I figure everybody gets to decide who they want to give their money to, but I wouldn't accept a girls-only scholarship myself.

I know it's corny, but I consider myself a member of the human race. If I am in competition with other people, then I compete with all those who step up, not just the folks with pale skin or ovaries.

Brought up in season 1 of House MD if I remember right as well :p

I was not saying if it was justified or not just that, it is clearly racism but is it harmful or helpful

Damn, I like House but I keep seeing only the odd episodes.

I found a journal abstract that concludes that the differences in cancer are more to do with varying quality of treatment rather than there being a racial bias. I can't get the whole text though.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/16/2106

In terms of the education funding I think it is harmful if a person of lower merit (and potential, though much harder to gauge) is funded because of their race. I don't think it is as harmful if both people are of equal merit and one is chosen because of their race. On principle I do not like and it can cause resentment to the person who did not get in just because of their race and so cause further racial tensions.

As I said earlier in the thread (can't remember if it was this one or the one on affirmitive action), I believe the decision should be made on merit. If two people have equal levels of merit then they should still both get an equal chance of the prize by using a coin toss. Then whoever loses will have resentment against the coin but they can't say they lost because of their race or gender or something else. This would then, hopefully, reduce the resentment between people.

Of course this is based on the determination of their level of merit not being influenced by race. An example using gender, It has been found previously in academia that people of both genders would subconsiously undervalue the work of women. When the work was assessed without any identifiers on gender then the discrepency would disappear. I can'nt find a link for it yet, I read it in a printed article about reasons why women are underpresented in physics at every level, one reason was found that both genders undervalued womens work.

this is such a weird topic about race based scholarships.
As I understand it the logic behind black/latino scholarships is that they are a poor minority and need help? bit simple i know but is that correct?

If that is the case, and as poverty applies to all races, etc... to different levels, why not have a scholarship for the POOR! If there are more poor black/latinos then they will still benefit, no?

I have the same view, though some will argue that due to the racist bias of assesors whites will get a disproportionate amount if done that way.

Damn, I like House but I keep seeing only the odd episodes.

I found a journal abstract that concludes that the differences in cancer are more to do with varying quality of treatment rather than there being a racial bias. I can't get the whole text though.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/16/2106

In terms of the education funding I think it is harmful if a person of lower merit (and potential, though much harder to gauge) is funded because of their race. I don't think it is as harmful if both people are of equal merit and one is chosen because of their race. On principle I do not like and it can cause resentment to the person who did not get in just because of their race and so cause further racial tensions.

As I said earlier in the thread (can't remember if it was this one or the one on affirmitive action), I believe the decision should be made on merit. If two people have equal levels of merit then they should still both get an equal chance of the prize by using a coin toss. Then whoever loses will have resentment against the coin but they can't say they lost because of their race or gender or something else. This would then, hopefully, reduce the resentment between people.

Of course this is based on the determination of their level of merit not being influenced by race. An example using gender, It has been found previously in academia that people of both genders would subconsiously undervalue the work of women. When the work was assessed without any identifiers on gender then the discrepency would disappear. I can'nt find a link for it yet, I read it in a printed article about reasons why women are underpresented in physics at every level, one reason was found that both genders undervalued womens work.

The House show had to do with proscribing a medication with higher nitrates in it because as an African American the patient had low nitrates which is a more chronic condition in that population.

I have the same view, though some will argue that due to the racist bias of assesors whites will get a disproportionate amount if done that way.

And they may have an argument ... Why are womens wages statistically lower for doing the same jobs?

These guys have balls. I like it.

I'd give my right arm to see what Jackson and Sharpton have to say about it.

And they may have an argument ... Why are womens wages statistically lower for doing the same jobs?

This lists some of the possible reasons for scientists having differing wages.

http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15721/

For applications if the process was blind, each applicant gets a number and the assessors don't meet the person or know any personal information until after a decision (importent as any bias will gradually disappear unless they are truely bigotted) should remove that problem. Assessing wage levels are more difficult to tackle.

Of course you might get assessors being numberist (picking their favourite number) :p

If two people have equal levels of merit then they should still both get an equal chance of the prize by using a coin toss. Then whoever loses will have resentment against the coin but they can't say they lost because of their race or gender or something else. This would then, hopefully, reduce the resentment between people.

You underestimate the average human's ability to create and rationalize scapegoats. For further proof, see "the Holocaust."

25% Caucasian ? Thats so odd to me. How is this established or verified and by who?Same way the "black" scholarships determine how "black" someone is, or how "hispanic" a person applying for a "hispanic" scholarship is.

And by the time the facts are determined, its already cost more than the measly $250.00 prize.It isn't like this is some huge process. White kid writes an essay about why he is considered white, and one about being white in America. The students of the BUCR read it, and pick one.

Is there some big award ceremony? They'll be wanting to bring as much attention to this as possible.They've got enough attention. The award ceremony would go unnoticed.

Its more like they're testing the waters to see how many people scream if they are going to offer real money down the road.Or that they are trying to point out what they consider hypocrisy in the race-based scholarships. It is a friggin student group...it isn't like they have unlimited funds.


I know it's corny, but I consider myself a member of the human race. If I am in competition with other people, then I compete with all those who step up, not just the folks with pale skin or ovaries.
That sums up my argument perfectly. Thank you.

Is there higher poverty among certain minority groups? Yes. So, if scholarships are given based off need, it logically follows that those scholarships would go mostly to the more impoverished minority. But at least all low-ses students would be considered, instead of just the minorities.

Is there higher poverty among certain minority groups? Yes. So, if scholarships are given based off need, it logically follows that those scholarships would go mostly to the more impoverished minority. But at least all low-ses students would be considered, instead of just the minorities.

I think the argument that is being made by people supporting minority-only scholarships is that white people have intangible advantages granted just by being white in the US, I assume by racists in power who they think will pick whites over non-whites unless motivated otherwise. And the best way to offset these intangibles is to even the playing field with money.

Just like so many arguments I've come across in my little time on NS, this is being mainly motivated by principle and emotion, not facts on the ground.

Given the figure of 2% of all scholarships having race as selection criteria is accurate, this is a very small piece of the pie to be arguing over. It seems to follow there is quite a bit more needs-based money out there than anything racially targeted.

However, since this is mainly a principle argument, I'll throw my principles in there and say that this should be a non-issue. A white scholarship is nothing more or less than a black or hispanic or asian scholarship, and probably will never amount to anything close to the 2% already there for the other groups, because the need isn't really there - it's covered by the needs-based money mentioned above. I don't think there are gonna be major moneybags throwing millions into these things to create even more of a white advantage or something.

And as far as the ethnic vs race part of this, I do see a need to make it white, as opposed to any specific European ethnicity, because the average white american has been here for quite a few generations now, and we're such mutts we wouldn't qualify under any of them. Personally, I'm English, Irish, Scottish, German, Dutch, and Native American, and that's the half I know about. Good luck getting a 25% out of any of that.

I personally cannot stand affirmative action and scholarships for minorities. I dont know where the 2% number comes from where that is the amount of scholarships that are given out for race, but I have my doubts about it. A citation would be wonderful.

Also, one of the major things that irk me are programs on campus designed specifically for minorities. I can't even begin to count the number of internships and summer research programs I see that require you to be a minority (or a first generation college student). Just because my parents are white or they have graduate degrees doesn't mean I am any less deserving for a (example) 10 week summer internship for the friggen national institutes of health. These research opportunities are yet another way that minorities might have a leg up getting into graduate schools, since they are a big plus on your application.

On the topic of affirmative action, I understand why they want higher minority enrollment in something like medical schools, where minority doctors are more likely to practice in minority neighborhoods (which are often underrepresented doctorwise), but it just isn't fair to others who worked just as hard (or more) if they get some kind of undue credit to help them get in.

I think that if they want to give white people scholarships based on their race then they should be able to. I am all for people having the freedom to be as stupid as they wanna be as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else. This particular way of making a point doesnt seem to hurt anyone.

People may get offended but thats just part of life.

I don't think that black people get scholarships based solely on their race (partially sure). From what I have see, they are required to show why they deserve it from a financial as well as academic standpoint.

If people are getting scholarships PURELY because of their skin color or ethnic origin, I'd like to see some proof of this.

How do they determine if sombody is "at least 25% caucasian"...
How do they define "caucasian"...
It's all rather silly, really.

I personally cannot stand affirmative action and scholarships for minorities. I dont know where the 2% number comes from where that is the amount of scholarships that are given out for race, but I have my doubts about it. A citation would be wonderful.

Also, one of the major things that irk me are programs on campus designed specifically for minorities. I can't even begin to count the number of internships and summer research programs I see that require you to be a minority (or a first generation college student). Just because my parents are white or they have graduate degrees doesn't mean I am any less deserving for a (example) 10 week summer internship for the friggen national institutes of health. These research opportunities are yet another way that minorities might have a leg up getting into graduate schools, since they are a big plus on your application.

On the topic of affirmative action, I understand why they want higher minority enrollment in something like medical schools, where minority doctors are more likely to practice in minority neighborhoods (which are often underrepresented doctorwise), but it just isn't fair to others who worked just as hard (or more) if they get some kind of undue credit to help them get in.

Interesting being good at what I do, finding internships and job opportunities were never an issue. I never encountered a situation in any of them where race would have made a difference one way or another

Maybe I was just qualified

Interesting being good at what I do, finding internships and job opportunities were never an issue. I never encountered a situation in any of them where race would have made a difference one way or another

Maybe I was just qualified

Maybe you filled in the wrong box under the question on the form that asks: "Are you black?"

but seriously, yeah you are right... I've gotten by okay while being white and am glad that minorities from the poor areas are being given a bit of extra help in getting a goot foothold on success.

And I actually had to compete for a scholarship with a black guy who didn't have grades as good as mine, and he got it, but I'm not crying about it. I still ended up getting enough help to put me through school and hold no resentment.

Maybe you filled in the wrong box under the question on the form that asks: "Are you black?"

but seriously, yeah you are right... I've gotten by okay while being white and am glad that minorities from the poor areas are being given a bit of extra help in getting a goot foothold on success.

And I actually had to compete for a scholarship with a black guy who didn't have grades as good as mine, and he got it, but I'm not crying about it. I still ended up getting enough help to put me through school and hold no resentment.
When I was a Dependant of my parents their income was too high for me to qualify (tried over and over)

But with them having to sink the money back into the farm because of stupid inheritance/zoning laws they were not able to help me beyond housing and feeding me (though I moved out anyways to be on my own)

In the end I managed to work hard enough to not only finish 4 degrees (to BS and 2 MA) but also am debt free

Amazing what you can do if you try

When I was a Dependant of my parents their income was too high for me to qualify (tried over and over)

But with them having to sink the money back into the farm because of stupid inheritance/zoning laws they were not able to help me beyond housing and feeding me (though I moved out anyways to be on my own)

In the end I managed to work hard enough to not only finish 4 degrees (to BS and 2 MA) but also am debt free

Amazing what you can do if you try

yeah, but in America, trying is for losers.

there are numerous black (and white) officials in our government that came up from poverty, and yet there are people willing to tell the poor that they are helpless and need help from something like this.

Interesting being good at what I do, finding internships and job opportunities were never an issue. I never encountered a situation in any of them where race would have made a difference one way or another

Maybe I was just qualified

I never said that *all* internship and research programs were limited to minorities... but a good many ones that I wanted to apply to are. There is even an office on campus for the "Health Career Opportunities Program", which is open only to minorities and first generation college students, and they maintain a list of summer programs intended for said minorities and first generation students.

There are of course other programs, but if I see one that is something I want to do, why do I not deserve the same opportunity to apply for it as a minority student?

I really find the idea that reverse racism is somehow a bad thing kind of sad.

If you can get your hands on Carmichael and Shane (2006 tropfest entry) .. its worth a view.

Imagine this situation:

You have twin sons... you don't have enough money to bring them both up and give them every chance in life.. if you split the money between them they will both miss out. So you choose to give all the support to one and not to the other.

Lets call them
Carmichael
and Shane

you pump all your support into Carmichael (private school, nice car, cool clothes etc) while shane just has to make do (public school, public transport, hand me down clothes)

they are both 21.. you win the lottery... you now have plenty of money.

Do you continue the trend by giving all the money to Carmichael?? Do you give 50/50 afterall they are both equal, both your sons.. twins even... or do you try and even the odds and give more to shane to try and make up the difference that has been incured over the years??

Obviously even if you added up all the money you spent on carmichael and gave it to shane out of his share it would be unlikely to even things up as many of the opportunities have already passed...

I really find the idea that reverse racism is somehow a bad thing kind of sad.

If you can get your hands on Carmichael and Shane (2006 tropfest entry) .. its worth a view.

Imagine this situation:

You have twin sons... you don't have enough money to bring them both up and give them every chance in life.. if you split the money between them they will both miss out. So you choose to give all the support to one and not to the other.

Lets call them
Carmichael
and Shane

you pump all your support into Carmichael (private school, nice car, cool clothes etc) while shane just has to make do (public school, public transport, hand me down clothes)

they are both 21.. you win the lottery... you now have plenty of money.

Do you continue the trend by giving all the money to Carmichael?? Do you give 50/50 afterall they are both equal, both your sons.. twins even... or do you try and even the odds and give more to shane to try and make up the difference that has been incured over the years??

Obviously even if you added up all the money you spent on carmichael and gave it to shane out of his share it would be unlikely to even things up as many of the opportunities have already passed...

Yes but in most cases the above is not true. For Scholarship applications, it is likely that the poorest from all ethnic groups who are applying. None of them (or very few) have had the investment that Carmichael got. If all whites were rich and had the support that Carmichael got and all minorities were poor then you would likely have my support (due to funding being targeted at the lower socio-economic groups). However that is not true, instead all groups have a mixture of socio-ecomic groups.

EDIT: Also note that I would never be in the above parent position as I would never choose one child over the other, they will both get equal shares from birth and have to deal with life with what they got.

EDIT: Also note that I would never be in the above parent position as I would never choose one child over the other, they will both get equal shares from birth and have to deal with life with what they got.

That may be your choice.. but there has been a clear deliniation in the past based on race. Sure there are white families that have poor socioeconomic backgrounds.. just as carmichael may well end up a bum dispite his parents best efforts.

The problem is that given the bias in the past the people judging who should recieve the money are likely to overwhelmingly be from families that are not from low socioeconomic backgrounds. They are therefore likely to be white.

College attendence is still around 15% higher for whites than for other ethnicities in the US... so it would seem that they need less encouragement than other ethnicities to attend college. Surely that would suggest that the other ethnic groups do need extra encouragement? That they have additional immpediments in their way than the average white person??

Imagine this situation:

You have twin sons... you don't have enough money to bring them both up and give them every chance in life.. if you split the money between them they will both miss out. So you choose to give all the support to one and not to the other.

Lets call them
Carmichael
and Shane

you pump all your support into Carmichael (private school, nice car, cool clothes etc) while shane just has to make do (public school, public transport, hand me down clothes)

they are both 21.. you win the lottery... you now have plenty of money.

Do you continue the trend by giving all the money to Carmichael?? Do you give 50/50 afterall they are both equal, both your sons.. twins even... or do you try and even the odds and give more to shane to try and make up the difference that has been incured over the years??

Obviously even if you added up all the money you spent on carmichael and gave it to shane out of his share it would be unlikely to even things up as many of the opportunities have already passed...

This breaks down in the race issue.

Your point is that you might want to help the disadvantaged person more. Which is fine. But in this case - there are disadvantaged people from all races. Why do you need a fund that only provides for disadvantaged people from one race? Surely it would be fairer to have a fund for disadvantaged people - and spread the resources regardless of what race the disadvantaged person is?

This breaks down in the race issue.

Your point is that you might want to help the disadvantaged person more. Which is fine. But in this case - there are disadvantaged people from all races. Why do you need a fund that only provides for disadvantaged people from one race? Surely it would be fairer to have a fund for disadvantaged people - and spread the resources regardless of what race the disadvantaged person is?

Because while there are poor white people, and while it could be argued that there is an institutional mechanism that keeps poor people poor, there hasn't been an institutional mechanism to keep white people specifically poor or block their access as there has been for minorities.

Because while there are poor white people, and while it could be argued that there is an institutional mechanism that keeps poor people poor, there hasn't been an institutional mechanism to keep white people specifically poor or block their access as there has been for minorities.

YEs, but more and more the mechinism for keeping minorities poor is being dismantled.

Although in the past there may have been an effective mechinism nowadays a poor and white person has very similar disadvantages to a poor and balck person.

Because while there are poor white people, and while it could be argued that there is an institutional mechanism that keeps poor people poor, there hasn't been an institutional mechanism to keep white people specifically poor or block their access as there has been for minorities.

Then I will give you an example: Irish

Then I will give you an example: Irish

There are in fact scholarships for the Irish. Further, it is far easier for Irish to 'pass' than it is for Hispanic or Black people to. To compare the level of institutional separation, one becomes comic in scale, which is not to say it didn't happen. Just in the grand scale, not as prevalent. We've had an Irish president...

YEs, but more and more the mechinism for keeping minorities poor is being dismantled.

Although in the past there may have been an effective mechinism nowadays a poor and white person has very similar disadvantages to a poor and balck person.

When it becomes statistically irrelevant, as in the Irish example provided, then you'll have a case. That, however, is not the current situation.

We've had an Irish president...

And in this current administration you have two other examples of people from minorities being in positions of power: Rice and Powell

When it becomes statistically irrelevant, as in the Irish example provided, then you'll have a case. That, however, is not the current situation.

A poor white person is individually just as unable to financially support themselves through college as a poor black person - why do they need the scholarship less?

A poor white person is individually just as unable to financially support themselves through college as a poor black person - why do they need the scholarship less?

Individually, they don't-to a degree. But taken as a whole, representationally, there is a greater need in certain communities. There are scholarships that are open to poor white people, and assistance. If there weren't, I would have never made it through college. Even given my poverty, I had a statistical advantage. That's the issue.

And in this current administration you have two other examples of people from minorities being in positions of power: Rice and Powell

Both of whom benefited from minority assistance.

There are in fact scholarships for the Irish. Further, it is far easier for Irish to 'pass' than it is for Hispanic or Black people to. To compare the level of institutional separation, one becomes comic in scale, which is not to say it didn't happen. Just in the grand scale, not as prevalent. We've had an Irish president...

Strangely enough I don't agree with those scholarships either though they are free to what they want with their money.

The groups objective is to call attention to the idea that we give any scholarship based on race instead of achievement. Students applying for this scholarship must be at least 25% caucasian. The money will come from the College Republicans, not the university.

Actually - Can't believe I missed this bit.

It looks more ot me that they are also/more questioning the concept of race in the US - as a person who is 25% caucasion could easily be 75% black and still be eligable for this fund. I'm guessing from this that a lot of 'Black-only' scholarship funds require you to have at least one black grandparent, or a perception in America that someone with one black grandparent is Black, rather than White - even if the majority of their ancestory is white.

Many people who would normally be classed as 'Black' are just as eligable to apply for this as any 'white' person.

Individually, they don't-to a degree. But taken as a whole, representationally, there is a greater need in certain communities. There are scholarships that are open to poor white people, and assistance. If there weren't, I would have never made it through college. Even given my poverty, I had a statistical advantage. That's the issue.

Which is why they should be done on an individual basis assessing the individual's merit and personal need. This is the problem when people stop treating people as individuals but start making decisions based on a group they are part off.

Actually - Can't believe I missed this bit.

It looks more ot me that they are also/more questioning the concept of race in the US - as a person who is 25% caucasion could easily be 75% black and still be eligable for this fund. I'm guessing from this that a lot of 'Black-only' scholarship funds require you to have at least one black grandparent, or a perception in America that someone with one black grandparent is Black, rather than White - even if the majority of their ancestory is white.

Many people who would normally be classed as 'Black' are just as eligable to apply for this as any 'white' person.

I never thought of it in that kind of terms, still people should be assessed as individuals rather than as part of a group.

Some are, as I understand it, but some have additional motivations as well.

Some people believe that (for example) dark-skinned Americans face disadvantages compared to light-skinned Americans when it comes to things like going to college. Some of this is due to disproportionate poverty rates, but some of it is due to lingering racial issues in our country. Some people feel that a good way to address this problem is to offer scholarships that are specifically targetted at dark-skinned individuals.


I assume most intelligent people realise though that this is total bollocks no?
I mean look at indian or oriental people. they generally come into a country poor, the work they're asses of for most their entire life, and the children all go to university, or are a least given every possibility to succeed.

It seem more like these scholarships are for poor ignorant families that just can't be bothered to put the time and effort into improving their lot.

Colored people are at one distinct disadvantage in the US, regardless of their parents' income or education.

A white guy who's grown up in poverty but managed to make it into university can buy decent clothes and learn to speak like an educated person. Not one person in a hundred would be likely to detect that he came from a poor family, and fewer likely to care.

A black guy on the other hand can never conceal or go beyond the fact that he's black, and the sad fact is that this works against him in the US.

Colored people are at one distinct disadvantage in the US, regardless of their parents' income or education.

A white guy who's grown up in poverty but managed to make it into university can buy decent clothes and learn to speak like an educated person. Not one person in a hundred would be likely to detect that he came from a poor family, and fewer likely to care.

A black guy on the other hand can never conceal or go beyond the fact that he's black, and the sad fact is that this works against him in the US.

I haven't seen it work against any "black guy" who speaks like an "educated person" where I live. Sorry, don't buy that at all.

I haven't seen it work against any "black guy" who speaks like an "educated person" where I live. Sorry, don't buy that at all.

how nice for you. now if only reality conformed to your subjective experience. unfortunately, we've got all these empirical studies that say you're wrong.

how nice for you. now if only reality conformed to your subjective experience. unfortunately, we've got all these empirical studies that say you're wrong.

I guess that explains why my boss is black, eh?

I guess that explains why my boss is black, eh?

Maybe he was rather qualified

Maybe he was rather qualified

Exactly my point.

There seem to be quite a few qualified people working here, and it doesn't seem to matter if they're from India, or if they're black, or any other racial variant.

In this occupation, it appears that technical ability is the only selector - not your skin color.

Exactly my point.

There seem to be quite a few qualified people working here, and it doesn't seem to matter if they're from India, or if they're black, or any other racial variant.

In this occupation, it appears that technical ability is the only selector - not your skin color.

In reality the stats don't bear that out yet ... hopefully it becomes that way someday

I guess that explains why my boss is black, eh?

Missed the phrase "subjective experience" the first time around, eh?

In reality the stats don't bear that out yet ... hopefully it becomes that way someday

Move here and you'll see the difference. White guys are a minority around here.

Colored people are at one distinct disadvantage in the US, regardless of their parents' income or education.

A white guy who's grown up in poverty but managed to make it into university can buy decent clothes and learn to speak like an educated person. Not one person in a hundred would be likely to detect that he came from a poor family, and fewer likely to care.

A black guy on the other hand can never conceal or go beyond the fact that he's black, and the sad fact is that this works against him in the US.

So what difference would a scholarship make except further strenghen this stereotype?
Maybe its these 'race' quotas and such that help create this image because racial statistics fuck things up for the individual?