NationStates Jolt Archive

Affirimitive action is racist. It is racist in 2 ways, 1. It takes jobs away from majorities and 2.It basicly says minorities are too stupid or weak or (fill in the blank with a fault)to get the job themselves. Anyone else think like this, or is it just me?

1. It takes jobs away from majorities

And that is "racist" exactly how?

Eliminating racial privilege obviously means those privileged must give something up.

2.It basicly says minorities are too stupid or weak or (fill in the blank with a fault)to get the job themselves.

No, it doesn't. It says that because of historic and present racism in this country, minorities are disadvantaged by society--not by natural stupidity or weakness.

Indeed, typically the argument that "it's all the fault of the minorities" is expressed by opponents of affirmative action.

Affirimitive action is racist. It is racist in 2 ways, 1. It takes jobs away from majorities and 2.It basicly says minorities are too stupid or weak or (fill in the blank with a fault)to get the job themselves. Anyone else think like this, or is it just me?

It is racist but not for the reasons you state. :eek:

Unless it is based off something more meaningfull than skin-colour.

It is racism that made categories of "race" meaningful... not advocates of affirmative action.

I don't agree with it, no.
Unless it is based off something more meaningfull than skin-colour.
...
Actually, I don't agree with it at all.
Give someone financial aid if they need it, but don't put them into some position over someone else unless they are more qualified.

Oh boy, one of these threads.

*pulls up a lawn chair and gets some popcorn*

No reason to expound the issue.

Unfortunately, pretending a problem doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.

Racism making "race" meaningful would also classify advocates of affirmative action(based on 'race'), racists.

No.

Racism makes "race" meaningful.

Affirmative action and its advocates merely acknowledge this fact.

It is racism that made categories of "race" meaningful... not advocates of affirmative action.

No reason to expound the issue.
Racism making "race" meaningful would also classify advocates of affirmative action(based on 'race'), racists.

And that is "racist" exactly how?

Eliminating racial privilege obviously means those privileged must give something up.


Privileged? Because Caucasions(however you spell it)are the majority they are privilged? And racism isn't only aganst minorities,it is aganst majorities too.
No, it doesn't. It says that because of historic and present racism in this country, minorities are disadvantaged by society--not by natural stupidity or weakness.

1.You can't blame everything on the past, things have went a long way since the 1950s.
2. Affirmitive Action has only fueled racism, Ex."I didn't get that job because a minority member who was less qualified for that job got it!I will forever hate that minority!!!"Ok that was a little extreme but it's the basic idea.

Oh boy, one of these threads.

*pulls up a lawn chair and gets some popcorn*

Care to share the popcorn if I provide the drinks?

In before TCT.

Mostly don't care about it. Not being of an underprivileged minor, or an overprivileged majority. We Indians are fine without the assistance.

Care to share the popcorn if I provide the drinks?

Gladly.

*steals popcorn and drinks*

... Sonofa-! GIVE THOSE BACK!

*steals back popcorn and drinks*

Care to share the popcorn if I provide the drinks?

*steals popcorn and drinks*

*steals popcorn and drinks*
Thief! :D

Meh, it's just popcorn.

*brings in chips and dip*

Anyone who opposes Positive Discrimination is racist and should be sent to a reeducation camp.

Unfortunately, pretending a problem doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.

No.

Racism makes "race" meaningful.

Affirmative action and its advocates merely acknowledge this fact.

Affirmative action is racist. If in a semi-benign sort of way.
It grants priviledge to some, over others, merely because of skin-colour.

I agree that a problem exists, but affirmative action is not the solution.
If say, affirmative action exists because 'African-Americans' in general, are poorer than 'Caucasians', give the poorer student financial aid just like the other poorer students. There is no reason to 'weight' the student's chances of getting into a college, merely because of skin-colour.

Unless you have a different reason for affirmative action.

1. It takes jobs away from majorities and 2.Where is there an Affirmative Action program that actually fires people?

It basicly says minorities are too stupid or weak or (fill in the blank with a fault)to get the job themselves.Or it says that they are at a disadvantage because of actual racism, which is the position of affirmative action advocates. The people who say that minorities are weak or stupid aren't the ones who want affirmative action.

Anyone else think like this, or is it just me?Lot's of people agree with you where I'm from, but they're wrong.

That's not to say that affirmative action is right or justified...

Because Caucasions(however you spell it)are the majority they are privilged?

The fact that they are the majority is irrelevant. The fact that they are privileged is the point.

And racism isn't only aganst minorities,it is aganst majorities too.

While obviously there is racism against the white majority, it is not comparable to the racism directed against racial minorities... if only because whites (for the most part, and disproportionately) hold the wealth and the power.

1.You can't blame everything on the past, things have went a long way since the 1950s.

So? No one is blaming "everything" on the past, and the fact that things have improved somewhat from the 1950s in no way changes the fact that racial inequity remains a fact of life in the present.

2. Affirmitive Action has only fueled racism

Only insofar as attempts to attack privilege always garner the resentment of the privileged... which is a necessary cost of justice and always has been.

Anyone who opposes Positive Discrimination is racist and should be sent to a reeducation camp
PLease define Positive Descrimination, I'm not familar with the term. Oh and I've already been sent to one of those, they had happy people with white coats and I had a padded room of my own.

Universities are enrolling many African immegrants instead of African Americans

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501296.html

It grants priviledge to some, over others, merely because of skin-colour.

No, it doesn't.

It grants "privilege" to some because of the effects of "skin color" (not really a defining element of racial categories, but I digress) in a racist society.

If we lived in a society where racism did not exist, there would be no reason for affirmative action... even though people would still have different "racial" traits.

If say, affirmative action exists because 'African-Americans' in general, are poorer than 'Caucasians', give the poorer student financial aid just like the other poorer students.

If the problem was that African-Americans simply happened to be disproportionately poorer, you'd be right.

But the causes of poverty among African-Americans (which include such factors as pervasive past and present discrimination) are different from the causes of poverty among whites... and tackling the problem therefore requires different means.

QUOTE]The fact that they are the majority is irrelevant. The fact that they are privileged is the point.

[/QUOTE]
What is our privilage???? I come from a lower-middle-class family with no privleges from our race!!!PLEASE TELL ME WHAT PRIVLEGES I HAVE BECAUSE OF MY RACE!!!
While obviously there is racism against the white majority, it is not comparable to the racism directed against racial minorities... if only because whites (for the most part, and disproportionately) hold the wealth and the power

Because we are the majority, there is a good chance that the extremly rich and powerful in this country are white!!! And there are rich and powerful African-Americans in this country,just a smaller % of the rich and powerful.

So? No one is blaming "everything" on the past, and the fact that things have improved somewhat from the 1950s in no way changes the fact that racial inequity remains a fact of life in the present.

Improved SOMEWHAT! It's improved a LOT!!! What Racial inequity there is,is not helped by affirmitive action!

Only insofar as attempts to attack privilege always garner the resentment of the privileged... which is a necessary cost of justice and always has been.


Justice is not taking away power and wasting education because a ethincity is not "properly represented"

Positive Discrimination is just what some people on the other side of the pond call AA. I find it more accurate

Then postive discrimination is not postive as the name suggests. It is negative as is any other type of discrimination.

PLease define Positive Descrimination, I'm not familar with the term. Oh and I've already been sent to one of those, they had happy people with white coats and I had a padded room of my own.

Positive Discrimination is just what some people on the other side of the pond call AA. I find it more accurate.

No, it doesn't.
It grants "privilege" to some because of the effects of "skin color" (not really a defining element of racial categories, but I digress) in a racist society.
If we lived in a society where racism did not exist, there would be no reason for affirmative action... even though people would still have different "racial" traits.

The effects being racism?
Because of racism against a 'race', affirmative action grants priviledge to the discriminated 'race' over the discrimator 'race'?

If the problem was that African-Americans simply happened to be disproportionately poorer, you'd be right.
So what is the problem?
But the causes of poverty among African-Americans (which include such factors as pervasive past and present discrimination) are different from the causes of poverty among whites... and tackling the problem therefore requires different means.
I don't think you are attempting whatsoever to be evasive, but I am not understanding your point.
If you can put in a few points/sentences, why exactly affirmative action is just, will benefit society, and makes sense logically, it would be a great help to me.

And in other news: the world was discovered to be round.

*did I hear someone say popcorn and drinks?:D*

Justice is not taking away power and wasting education because a ethincity is not "properly represented"

Exactly, especially since collages are enrolling Africans instead of African Americans who have the history of enslavement

Here is another article that talks about it

“They said that only about a third of the students were from families in which all four grandparents were born in this country, descendants of slaves. Many argue that it was students like these, disadvantaged by the legacy of Jim Crow laws, segregation and decades of racism, poverty and inferior schools, who were intended as principal beneficiaries of affirmative action in university admissions.”

This is a rare example of black leaders protesting one of the strangest wrinkles in American social policy: the rarely-mentioned fact that immigrants benefit from affirmative action policies invented for the descendents of slaves … and virtually nobody objects. (At least in public.)

After all, the ancestors of native-born African-Americans didn’t ask to be dragged here. But immigrants chose America, presumably warts and all.

Why they should receive racial privileges as well?

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/harvard_quotas.htm

What is our privilage????

Take a glance at some statistics sometime.

PLEASE TELL ME WHAT PRIVLEGES I HAVE BECAUSE OF MY RACE!!!

The privilege of having been born to a family not part of a group that has been victimized by centuries by the ruling culture... with quite substantial consequences to this day, in higher levels of poverty, in "glass ceilings", in relatively low average levels of real wealth, in employment discrimination, in ordinary social interaction, and elsewhere.

Because we are the majority, there is a good chance that the extremly rich and powerful in this country are white!!! And there are rich and powerful African-Americans in this country,just a smaller % of the rich and powerful.

I suggest you review the meaning of "disproportionate."

Improved SOMEWHAT! It's improved a LOT!!!

Whatever terms you choose to use, the fact still remains that the problem is still quite substantial.

What Racial inequity there is,is not helped by affirmitive action!

Because it only strengthens racism? But as I said, racist reactions from the privileged is a necessary consequence of struggling for equality. If we want equality, we have to deal with it.

Justice is not taking away power and wasting education because a ethincity is not "properly represented"

But it is distributing power more fairly and using education to improve the conditions of the underprivileged.

Soon ehough whites will get affirmative action, we will be a minority within 15 years.

This is another reason why I believe affirmative action is not a great thing, at least for schools

http://s120.photobucket.com/albums/o180/Markellion/th_fff.jpg



Black
18% Graduation rate for students admitted as a result of racial preferences
42% Graduation rate for students admitted under normal admissions criteria

Hispanic
22% Graduation rate for students admitted as a result of racial preferences
55% Graduation rate for students admitted under normal admissions criteria




http://www.justfacts.com/racialissues.asp#education

Gladly.



... Sonofa-! GIVE THOSE BACK!

*steals back popcorn and drinks*

Here, have some of mine.
http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/popcom.gif

The privilege of having been born to a family not part of a group that has been victimized by centuries by the ruling culture
But If I was a born a minority NOW, I would not be victimized.
You know what?Forget it. I have realized you are immune to my only weapon:Logic. Thus I will stop debating(wasting my time would be more appropriate)with you and find somone who will not repeat their reasons in different words and expect you to be convinced by the different wording.

*did I hear someone say popcorn and drinks?:D*

You did. Me and HotRodia brought some popcorn and drinks. There's plenty to share.

But If I was a born a minority NOW, I would not be victimized.
You know what?Forget it. I have realized you are immune to my only weapon:Logic. Thus I will stop debating(wasting my time would be more appropriate)with you and find somone who will not repeat their reasons in different words and expect you to be convinced by the different wording.

Then debate with me, because I do not agree at all with how you are going about this debate.

Edit: *checks time* I'm going to sleep before I end up arguing through my left ear.

But I thought you were aganst AA?

The effects being racism?

No... the effects being the consequences of racism.

Because of racism against a 'race', affirmative action grants priviledge to the discriminated 'race' over the discrimator 'race'?

Because the consequences of racism are unjust, affirmative action attempts to counteract them by helping the victims of racism.

So what is the problem?

That Blacks are poorer because of racism (primarily)... not accidentally.

If you can put in a few points/sentences, why exactly affirmative action is just, will benefit society, and makes sense logically, it would be a great help to me.

Affirmative action strives to counteract the unjust effects of a racist society by benefiting those harmed by it.

It is "discrimination" in a sense... but only because it is targeted at the actual problem. Just as people seeking to put out a fire do not use firehoses on every house in the country. If whites were disadvantaged because of their "race", they would be just as deserving of affirmative action.

Hmm I have a question, If I apply for a "black" college, where whites are in the minority, can I get Affirmative Action to work for me, how about minority scholarships? :D

Hmm I have a question, If I apply for a "black" college, where whites are in the minority, can I get Affirmative Action to work for me, how about minority scholarships?
LOL!:p

Hmm I have a question, If I apply for a "black" college, where whites are in the minority, can I get Affirmative Action to work for me, how about minority scholarships? :D

Sorry, there is no NAAWP and the KKK doesn't give scholarships to anyone. However if you are a Catholic of Irish descent, from County Mayo, left handed, with one leg we might have something for you. :p

I prefer the Equal Opportunity system, where the application is colorblind.

Whatever drawbacks there are to Affirmative Action, and there will be a drawback to any program of this size and scope, I think that it does more good than harm. It seems that the only group which is negatively effected (read this last time I argued about it - a college scholarship to whoever can find the study) by school admissions using Affirmative Action are Chinese Americans. And they by only a small percentage.

We needed you 300 years ago. Where were you?

A direct relative of mine was commanding the War of the Barbary Pirates. :cool:

Frankly speaking, anyone who believes that institutions of slavery, black oppression and ongoing racial hatred throughout our nation's history do not continue to have obvious and direct social and economic ramifications today is either wilfully ignorant or an idiot.

Those are the only options.

Affirimitive action is racist. It is racist in 2 ways, 1. It takes jobs away from majorities and 2.It basicly says minorities are too stupid or weak or (fill in the blank with a fault)to get the job themselves. Anyone else think like this, or is it just me?


What majorities?

I prefer the Equal Opportunity system, where the application is colorblind.

We needed you 300 years ago. Where were you?

Affirmative action might be defined by some as "counter" racism.

It seems that "counter" racism is comparable to "counter" terrorism in that both use the methods they abhor (in a loose sense, not a strict one) to put a stop to the methods they abhor. The object of counter terrorism seems to be to terrorize the terrorists (and sometimes the populous as a result) and the object of counter racism seems to be to use racism positively to counteract negative racism.

Sometimes this seems just, fair and reasonable and sometimes less so. Most of the time ones perspective affects how just, fair and reasonable it appears.

This comparison may be an oarple, but it seems reasonable thus far, so it has been decided to be put up for inspection regardless of its possible flaws.

But If I was a born a minority NOW, I would not be victimized.

Where have you been living?

Where have you been living?
Maryland.

and just for those who say "slavery was almost 200 years ago it doesn't have any affect today!" I have just one question.

Once, someone who may, or may not have existed and if he did exist may, or may not have been god, may or may not have gotten nailed to a cross.

That was 2000 years ago. Doesn't affect today anymore?

Have you read Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle? I still have to get to the last in the trilogy.

Nope. Sounds kinda sorta interesting.

This is my relative by the way: Edward Preble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Preble)

A direct relative of mine was commanding the War of the Barbary Pirates. :cool:

Have you read Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle? I still have to get to the last in the trilogy.

Maryland.

Must be pretty nice there if you think that you wouldn't be victimized as a minority. I've seen the problems caused for minorities by longstanding institutionalized racism all across the US. In the West, the Southwest, the Midwest, and the South. I haven't been around the East Coast yet, but somehow, I doubt it escapes the same problems.

Nope. Sounds kinda sorta interesting.

This is my relative by the way: Edward Preble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Preble)

I just read that he was held in the prison ship New Jersey and had to laugh.

Where I live there is no racism or discrimination that I can tell. But thats probably because since most of the people are white there is no racial tension. We also have a lot of work too, so that may be another reason.

Affirmative action is racist. If in a semi-benign sort of way.
It grants priviledge to some, over others, merely because of skin-colour.

I agree that a problem exists, but affirmative action is not the solution.
If say, affirmative action exists because 'African-Americans' in general, are poorer than 'Caucasians', give the poorer student financial aid just like the other poorer students. There is no reason to 'weight' the student's chances of getting into a college, merely because of skin-colour.

Unless you have a different reason for affirmative action.

Actually, I do. The fact is that many white male business owners and managers (keep in mind that I'm a white male) would unquestionably hire a white male over a black female any day, regardless of the two's credentials. How do I know this? I grew up with the children of white male business managers and owners, and based on how racist they are, I shudder to think how their parents are.

This is something I've thought about before, and I've come to the conclusion that: Why is it that we ever fill out our race on anything. Why can't we just be free of marking that little box W,B,H,or M. Never on any official form should we have to put in our race. It should not be know what race we are until they see our face, and then, I never judge a person by that. I judge a person by what they do. I am not perfect, I've made assumptions about a person based on race, but I never judge a person on color alone.

I mean, I just want to know why where our ancestors fell in the migration and micro evolutionary chain that has made the 'races' of humanity should ever be filled out. Racism stays alive because people continue to make a big deal about it, they continue to try to make up for old mistakes, which can't really be made up for. The best way is to make an Equal Opportunity system and practice Tabula Rosa. Too bad that is way easier said than done.

Though, I submit one exception to this: American Indians, we (the USA) owe them for doing to them what amounts to something very similar to genocide. They should get some special privileges.

This is something I've thought about before, and I've come to the conclusion that: Why is it that we ever fill out our race on anything. Why can't we just be free of marking that little box W,B,H,or M. Never on any official form should we have to put in our race. It should not be know what race we are until they see our face, and then, I never judge a person by that. I judge a person by what they do. I am not perfect, I've made assumptions about a person based on race, but I never judge a person on color alone.

I mean, I just want to know why where our ancestors fell in the migration and micro evolutionary chain that has made the 'races' of humanity should ever be filled out. Racism stays alive because people continue to make a big deal about it, they continue to try to make up for old mistakes, which can't really be made up for. The best way is to make an Equal Opportunity system and practice Tabula Rosa. Too bad that is way easier said than done.

Though, I submit one exception to this: American Indians (Native Americans), we (the USA) owe them for doing to them what amounts to something very similar to genocide. They should get some special privileges.

PLease define Positive Descrimination, I'm not familar with the term.

n-= Negative Discrimination
p= Positive Discrimination
0= Total Equality
0np= Net Equality

If sum=p>0 then p=n

0+0=0 (Total Equality)
1p+1p=2n- (Extreme Discrimination)
1p+0=1n- (Discrimination)
1n-1p=0np (Net Equality)
1n-0=1n- (Discrimination)
1n-1n=2n- (Extreme Discrimination)


Though, I submit one exception to this: American Indians (Native Americans), we (the USA) owe them for doing to them what amounts to something very similar to genocide. They should get some special privileges.

Missing Something? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_United_States)

Affirimitive action is racist. It is racist in 2 ways, 1. It takes jobs away from majorities and 2.It basicly says minorities are too stupid or weak or (fill in the blank with a fault)to get the job themselves. Anyone else think like this, or is it just me?

I tend to think of Affirmitive action as equilibrium reinforcement if you understand, talking about 'majorities' and 'minorities' is unhelpful because it groups society when instead you need to look at society as a coherent whole and to be preferential in the areas of disadvantage proportionately. I am not advocating privilege or special treatment but just a more equal society.

I AA racist? Well no because you can't help the fact that certain ethnicities are worst off. But in that way if it makes you feel better don't refer to them as Blacks, Hispanics or whatever, just refer to them as fellow citizens not as fortune as others.

instead you need to look at society as a coherent whole


Why?

Why?

Because that's what a society is friend, you know, E Pluribus Unum and all that.

Because that's what a society is friend, you know, E Pluribus Unum and all that.

It could be one big, solid and very uniform "lump" with one universal goal with which the entire whole agrees with....

or it could be a dynamic and interactive group of individuals who share similar interests, which would be much more like a "cluster" or a series of interconnected clusters. Each of these clusters would have many distinct and disguisable areas. This whole would be both coherent and disorganized because of individual will.

This definition would differ greatly from a "coherent whole" which would more accurately compare to an ant colony.

NSG could be compared to a society; would you call it one coherent whole?

Why then, is your definition any more correct?

QUOTE]The fact that they are the majority is irrelevant. The fact that they are privileged is the point.

What is our privilage???? I come from a lower-middle-class family with no privleges from our race!!!PLEASE TELL ME WHAT PRIVLEGES I HAVE BECAUSE OF MY RACE!!!



Well, here's an easy one:

You are 50% more likely to be interviewed for jobs for which you have submitted a resume. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_2_48/ai_97873146) That's a pretty big boost, wouldn't you think?

Strange that a country would have Affirmative Action in the first place...

Affirimitive action is racist.
Define "affirmitive action".

This is another reason why I believe affirmative action is not a great thing, at least for schools

http://s120.photobucket.com/albums/o180/Markellion/th_fff.jpg

Black
18% Graduation rate for students admitted as a result of racial preferences
42% Graduation rate for students admitted under normal admissions criteria

Hispanic
22% Graduation rate for students admitted as a result of racial preferences
55% Graduation rate for students admitted under normal admissions criteria

http://www.justfacts.com/racialissues.asp#education
What about white people?


At the elite colleges - dim white kids

What they almost never say is that many of the applicants who were rejected were far more qualified than those accepted. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, it was not the black and Hispanic beneficiaries of affirmative action, but the rich white kids with cash and connections who elbowed most of the worthier applicants aside.

Researchers with access to closely guarded college admissions data have found that, on the whole, about 15 percent of freshmen enrolled at America's highly selective colleges are white teens who failed to meet their institutions' minimum admissions standards.

Five years ago, two researchers working for the Educational Testing Service, Anthony Carnevale and Stephen Rose, took the academic profiles of students admitted into 146 colleges in the top two tiers of Barron's college guide and matched them up against the institutions' advertised requirements in terms of high school grade point average, SAT or ACT scores, letters of recommendation, and records of involvement in extracurricular activities. White students who failed to make the grade on all counts were nearly twice as prevalent on such campuses as black and Hispanic students who received an admissions break based on their ethnicity or race.

Who are these mediocre white students getting into institutions such as Harvard, Wellesley, Notre Dame, Duke, and the University of Virginia? A sizable number are recruited athletes who, research has shown, will perform worse on average than other students with similar academic profiles, mainly as a result of the demands their coaches will place on them.

A larger share, however, are students who gained admission through their ties to people the institution wanted to keep happy, with alumni, donors, faculty members, administrators, and politicians topping the list.

Applicants who stood no chance of gaining admission without connections are only the most blatant beneficiaries of such admissions preferences. Except perhaps at the very summit of the applicant pile - that lofty place occupied by young people too brilliant for anyone in their right mind to turn down - colleges routinely favor those who have connections over those who don't. While some applicants gain admission by legitimately beating out their peers, many others get into exclusive colleges the same way people get into trendy night clubs, by knowing the management or flashing cash at the person manning the velvet rope.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/28/at_the_elite_colleges___dim_white_kids/

And that is "racist" exactly how?

Eliminating racial privilege obviously means those privileged must give something up.

You assume that it is racial privilege, which it is not. Actually, I was perfectly qualified for a huge number of scholarships for college (my SAT score was almost 400 points above their requirements) but couldn't take any of them because they were for "students previously underrepresented in America's colleges." And I checked-- the fact that I'm Catholic didn't allow me to get the scholarship. Racial privilege my a**.

As my Arab friend told me, to put that you're white on a college app is to "sign your own rejection."

As my Arab friend told me, to put that you're white on a college app is to "sign your own rejection."

Only if you're a non-athletic white from the lower middle-class.

You assume that it is racial privilege, which it is not. Actually, I was perfectly qualified for a huge number of scholarships for college (my SAT score was almost 400 points above their requirements) but couldn't take any of them because they were for "students previously underrepresented in America's colleges." And I checked-- the fact that I'm Catholic didn't allow me to get the scholarship. Racial privilege my a**.

As my Arab friend told me, to put that you're white on a college app is to "sign your own rejection."

Your country's tertiary admissions system confuses me :confused:

The problem with affirmative action is that it only deals with a symptom, NOT the soruce. Sure, it helps people of minorities with lower scores into college, but guess what? Those minorities still have lower scores and are therefore more likely to flunk out! What's needed is an overhaul so that those minorities are doing about as well (on average) by the end of high school!

Only if you're a non-athletic white from the lower middle-class.

Hardly. To be rejected or accepted AT ALL on account of race is racist. That section shouldn't even be on the application, if you want truly color-blind admissions.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n122/ai_17884703/pg_1

read

Well, it isn't called 'positive discrimination' for nothing, it does serve to equalise the opportunities of disadvantaged minorities, but that is more of an ethnic distinction than colour of skin. Although, I found it annoying that, when I was wanting to apply for a civil service summer placement, it was only offered to ethnic minorities and those with a disability.

In general, I wish people would shut up about 'race'. It is such a non-existent concept. Cultural and socio-economic distinctions are far more decisive in separating people into groups.

Racial privilege my a**.

Yeah, that's right. Scholarships designed to help underrepresented minorities don't help you. Why should they? Your group isn't underrepresented... its place is already secure.

As my Arab friend told me, to put that you're white on a college app is to "sign your own rejection."

Actually, affirmative action affects only a very small portion of white applicants.

Affirmative Action... what a joke.

While I agree we should and must have anti-discrimination laws, I believe AA contributes to that with "quotas". There are places that have hiring quotas because they want to look like an equal opportunity employer.

Being mixed Caucasian doesn't grant me any privileges when it comes to finding work. I've often wondered if I wouldn't have an easier time if I part of a minority. I say this because it seems to me that more "minority" people are employed than "majority".

Quotas, positive discrimination... it doesn't actually make for an equal opportunity environment, especially in the government that had actual hiring quotas. They will over look someone qualified because the hiring department hasn't filled their "Asian" quota for that quarter, even if other applicants have stronger English and are equally as skilled.

If you think I'm kidding about the last paragraph, you're mistaken. The quotas really do exist and in some job postings, they will specify a general race. There were jobs I could have qualified for during the summer in college but I couldn't apply because I wasn't a minority. Why should I have the same chance as others? After all, everyone who is qualified should have a fair chance.

True equal opportunity is colour blind; it should not be based on one's race or ethnicity or anything else other than what they can bring to the job, team and organisation.

The priority should be on intervention at an earlier stage than college applications and the job market. Then there won't be the inequalities that make affirmative action a justifiable policy in the first place.

The priority should be on intervention at an earlier stage than college applications and the job market. Then there won't be the inequalities that make affirmative action a justifiable policy in the first place.

Solutions start with primary education and getting parents involved, keeping children engaged in education from an earlier age and show all students that anything is possible. Bring in successful people from all walks of life. Make it so teachers can actually help students who are struggling and have programmes for smarter students who are learning faster or allow for them to skip ahead. Have funds for students who need basic supplies... anything to make learning an equal opportunity.

Anyone who opposes Positive Discrimination is racist and should be sent to a reeducation camp.

The Godwinable Irony.

. I've often wondered if I wouldn't have an easier time if I part of a minority. I say this because it seems to me that more "minority" people are employed than "majority".


It's far easier to get a job if you're white. Far easier.

-----------

I think when people talk about this issue I think the use of the word "racist" really fogs the issue.

Should people who want tolerance tolerate intolerant people? It's that kind of question where it's almost a language confusion more than an issue confusion. I think that if you want to reduce the effects of "racism" (meaning in this case the disadvantages faced by minorities in society) you have to be "racist" (meaning to discriminate based on skin colour) in the same way that if you want to reduce "intolerance" (meaning the lack the virtue of tolerance for the individual opinions of others on religion etc etc) you can't "tolerate" (meaning allow, or not interfere with, an issue) intolerance.

In general, I wish people would shut up about 'race'. It is such a non-existent concept. Cultural and socio-economic distinctions are far more decisive in separating people into groups.

"Race" is a "cultural and socio-economic" distinction... just one that sometimes falsely purports to be a genetic one.

It's far easier to get a job if you're white. Far easier.

I'm white. Yes, I am really white. Yet, I'm using YES (Youth Employment Services) because I have been unable to find work since finishing my college education. I took a computer technical support programme at school yet I'm struggling to find work.

I don't see how being white is helping me at all, or being a woman. It isn't helping me the slightest.

But you know, what, I don't care if someone of colour is hired ahead of me if they are equally as qualified or even more so. They made the application and they got in first. Good for them. They got it because they had a skill I may not have had. I only care if the person is hired because of quotas and not their skills.

Should people who want tolerance tolerate intolerant people? It's that kind of question where it's almost a language confusion more than an issue confusion. I think that if you want to reduce the effects of "racism" (meaning in this case the disadvantages faced by minorities in society) you have to be "racist" (meaning to discriminate based on skin colour) in the same way that if you want to reduce "intolerance" (meaning the lack the virtue of tolerance for the individual opinions of others on religion etc etc) you can't "tolerate" (meaning allow, or not interfere with, an issue) intolerance.

It doesn't actually help to eliminate the causes. To do so, one must not be intolerant or racist. It perpetuates the cycle. To eliminate the inequalities, we must focus on what is in a person's mind and heart, not the colour of their skin. If we want to discriminate based on colour, do it on the colour of their soul; this means looking within. There are plenty of people who are ugly inside. That ugliness needs to be exposed by discriminate based on that. This means we can ignore everything that looks obvious.

What is our privilage???? I come from a lower-middle-class family with no privleges from our race!!!PLEASE TELL ME WHAT PRIVLEGES I HAVE BECAUSE OF MY RACE!!!
Do you get followed around stores? Do people cross the street because they see you coming? Do people assume you don't 'belong' in your neighborhood? Do you get stopped by the police more often? Do you get pulled over more often? Are there a disproportionate number of people of your ethnicity in jail, as compared to the percentages of other races?


Because we are the majority, there is a good chance that the extremly rich and powerful in this country are white!!! And there are rich and powerful African-Americans in this country,just a smaller % of the rich and powerful.
You're not THAT much more of a majority anymore. And there are a disproportionate number of wealthy whites when you compare the percentage of persons holding wealth within their population.


Improved SOMEWHAT! It's improved a LOT!!! What Racial inequity there is,is not helped by affirmitive action! So you admit there is still racial inequality. Therefore, affirmative action is still necessary.

Justice is not taking away power and wasting education because a ethincity is not "properly represented"
And here is where we see where you stand. You don't believe that dark skinned people are educable.

But If I was a born a minority NOW, I would not be victimized.

:rolleyes: There goes the neighborhood.

Maryland.

Certainly not Baltimore.

Must be pretty nice there if you think that you wouldn't be victimized as a minority. I've seen the problems caused for minorities by longstanding institutionalized racism all across the US. In the West, the Southwest, the Midwest, and the South. I haven't been around the East Coast yet, but somehow, I doubt it escapes the same problems.

It doesn't, HotRod.

Certainly not Baltimore.

Or any other place in this state. :rolleyes:

Or any other place in this state. :rolleyes:

Where I have visited in Maryland is limited. Baltimore is the easiest place for me to refute his, "oh no, no racism here!" because I've been there, seen the effects of it, and seen the innumerable news reports.

Where I have visited in Maryland is limited. Baltimore is the easiest place for me to refute his, "oh no, no racism here!" because I've been there, seen the effects of it, and seen the innumerable news reports.

My eye-rolling was not directed at you.

My eye-rolling was not directed at you.

Ok, I wasn't quite sure. :)

Affirimitive action is racist. It is racist in 2 ways, 1. It takes jobs away from majorities and 2.It basicly says minorities are too stupid or weak or (fill in the blank with a fault)to get the job themselves. Anyone else think like this, or is it just me?

Racist? WHERE! Νiggers....

Yes, it is, vaguely. But in the short-term, it's probably the best way to redress the balance of education and wealth in the US.

Positive Discrimination is actually banned in the UK, but things aren't nearly so bad here, although the police have a habit of searching black people and Asians (as in 'from the Indian Subcontinent, not like US Asians which are from the other bit) about seven times more often.

Affirimitive action is racist. It is racist in 2 ways, 1. It takes jobs away from majorities and 2.It basicly says minorities are too stupid or weak or (fill in the blank with a fault)to get the job themselves. Anyone else think like this, or is it just me?

I could have told you that affirmative action was unjust years ago. Prime example; I was working in a service department at UCRiverside. The Office Manager in our department was preparing for retirement so the powers that be told us we were to hire a particular person to replace her because this person was black. There were 22 people waiting to apply for the position, all more qualified - 12 of them were black, 1 was male, 5 were Hispanic, 5 were white - I was one of them. The job was not opened for applications - this woman was foisted on us. Every day for a year we were told we were racist whiteys - even though most of the people in the department were Hispanic. I was upset, not just because a woman 11 years younger than me with no degree was imposed on me as my supervisor, not because she was capable, but because she was black, but also because there were 22 capable, competent people of many ethnicities who didn't have a chance for the position. Tell me how diversity and equality were served in this instance?

I could have told you that affirmative action was unjust years ago. Prime example; I was working in a service department at UCRiverside. The Office Manager in our department was preparing for retirement so the powers that be told us we were to hire a particular person to replace her because this person was black. There were 22 people waiting to apply for the position, all more qualified - 12 of them were black, 1 was male, 5 were Hispanic, 5 were white - I was one of them. The job was not opened for applications - this woman was foisted on us. Every day for a year we were told we were racist whiteys - even though most of the people in the department were Hispanic. I was upset, not just because a woman 11 years younger than me with no degree was imposed on me as my supervisor, not because she was capable, but because she was black, but also because there were 22 capable, competent people of many ethnicities who didn't have a chance for the position. Tell me how diversity and equality were served in this instance?

it wasnt

you were a victim of the-powers-that-be-ism where the bigwig put a person in a powerful position for his own reasons, one of which may or may not have been racial equality. something else besides affirmative action was at work here.

Hardly. To be rejected or accepted AT ALL on account of race is racist. That section shouldn't even be on the application, if you want truly color-blind admissions.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n122/ai_17884703/pg_1

read

While I agree that the section about race shouldn't be on applications (never met it myself, mind you - and don't get me startet about my animosity against forms which asks about your religion!) answer me this: How many white students have been rejected on the grounds that they where white?

If you find anyone, how many of those come from the upper middle-class or higher?

Hopefully you'll see my point...

I could have told you that affirmative action was unjust years ago. Prime example; I was working in a service department at UCRiverside. The Office Manager in our department was preparing for retirement so the powers that be told us we were to hire a particular person to replace her because this person was black. There were 22 people waiting to apply for the position, all more qualified - 12 of them were black, 1 was male, 5 were Hispanic, 5 were white - I was one of them. The job was not opened for applications - this woman was foisted on us. Every day for a year we were told we were racist whiteys - even though most of the people in the department were Hispanic. I was upset, not just because a woman 11 years younger than me with no degree was imposed on me as my supervisor, not because she was capable, but because she was black, but also because there were 22 capable, competent people of many ethnicities who didn't have a chance for the position. Tell me how diversity and equality were served in this instance?

?

No, it doesn't.

It grants "privilege" to some because of the effects of "skin color" (not really a defining element of racial categories, but I digress) in a racist society.

If we lived in a society where racism did not exist, there would be no reason for affirmative action... even though people would still have different "racial" traits.

Of course those institutions that engage in affirmative action study how disadvantaged the individual black student is because of his race, rather than lumping in groups and assuming that all black students are disadvantaged to the point of needing government assistance, right?

They wouldn't give all black students a few extra points on their admittance score, regardless of the fact that many black students either excel despite the adversities or in absence of the majority of the adversities.

Of course those institutions that engage in affirmative action study how disadvantaged the individual black student is because of his race, rather than lumping in groups and assuming that all black students are disadvantaged to the point of needing government assistance, right?

First, who said anything about "government assistance"? Government institutions engage in affirmative action, but so do private institutions... affirmative action as a whole is not a government program.

Second, how exactly do you expect them to do this research? It's very difficult to tell how much an individual person is disadvantaged by his or her race... it's a matter of trends.

regardless of the fact that many black students either excel despite the adversities

Which shows what, exactly?

The question is: would they excel even more without the adversities?

or in absence of the majority of the adversities.

Right. Most measures in the real world have this problem... they never always indicate what they are supposed to. So?

While I agree that the section about race shouldn't be on applications (never met it myself, mind you - and don't get me startet about my animosity against forms which asks about your religion!) answer me this: How many white students have been rejected on the grounds that they where white?

If you find anyone, how many of those come from the upper middle-class or higher?

Hopefully you'll see my point...

When I was a student I worked for a health research center. At one point a position opened up that paid state funds. There were several who submitted resumes who were unaware that the center would only receive the funds if they hired a minority.

All of them had their resumes trashed because they weren't minority, is that close enough? Of course some may have been from a higher class, but there was no inquisition as to what actual economic background the candidates had.

In the end, racism commits a wrong by identifying people with the groups with which they share qualities. All people should be treated as individuals, on their own merits, and should not be forced to carry the burden of their last name, their race, the gender, their ethnicity.

Those institutions who do engage in affirmative action cannot make the error of treating individuals according to what groups they belong to.

The fact that they are privileged is the point.
The "fact" that "they" are privileged? Who's "they"? Privilege varies way too much from individual to individual to reasonably be classified collectively to race. And I'm not just talking about financially either. I as an individual am disadvantaged by having type 1 diabetes despite being white. By looking at someone's skin colour as a basis of how privileged they are, isn't that judging based on skin colour?

The whole idea of treating people collectively as groups instead of as individuals is the same problem as was with racism in the first place.

Let's talk Realpolitik. No one likes it, it doesn't ennoble you like talking morality, but it's a very necessary part of political thinking:

In our country right now, we may be on the brink of a very major economic storm. Affirmative action could revive racism by taking vast angry hordes of unemployed WASP's (Generic Industrial Town, OH) and present them with a viable KKK position of "He's got your job, and the government's behind him."

It was probably fear or anger that created Racism in the first place, and fear could recreate it if people are not willing to accept that problems like this can only be solved with time. Just because an employer has to give you a job doesn't mean he has to give you promotions or pay raises, and just because a school has to accept you doesn't mean you'll get your choice of major or classes, or won't be failed out easier.

In the meantime, the best I think they can do is talk to people, connect with them, reach out and take them by the arms, because when you know somebody truly well, you cease to think of them as black or white, but as a real individual with real feelings and ambitions. No degree of "Positive Discrimination" can possibly undo all the harm that was done and will probably only result in the entire cycle being thrown back a hundred years, while at least now discrimination is loose and informal enough that with ambition, planning, or personal connection it can be walked right over.

First, who said anything about "government assistance"? Government institutions engage in affirmative action, but so do private institutions... affirmative action as a whole is not a government program.

I am not concerned with the hiring practices of private institutions. If a private institution has bad hiring practices, I might not do business there, I am not going to march up to them with a gun and say "Change or I am shutting you down".

Second, how exactly do you expect them to do this research? It's very difficult to tell how much an individual person is disadvantaged by his or her race... it's a matter of trends.


It is not my job to come up with the research, I am just saying how individuals should and should not be treated.

Which shows what, exactly?

That these disadvantaged individuals can change society by way of their abilities.

I'm a person that beleives in a dictatorship so I'd have to sya noooooooooooooo it's not racist. I beleive it would be better if the people were told what they need to do...soooo....my people wouldn't have choices so therefore it wouldn't be racist.


:upyours:

Let's talk Realpolitik. No one likes it, it doesn't ennoble you like talking morality, but it's a very necessary part of political thinking:

In our country right now, we may be on the brink of a very major economic storm. Affirmative action could revive racism by taking vast angry hordes of unemployed WASP's (Generic Industrial Town, OH) and present them with a viable KKK position of "He's got your job, and the government's behind him."

It was probably fear or anger that created Racism in the first place, and fear could recreate it if people are not willing to accept that problems like this can only be solved with time. Just because an employer has to give you a job doesn't mean he has to give you promotions or pay raises, and just because a school has to accept you doesn't mean you'll get your choice of major or classes, or won't be failed out easier.

In the meantime, the best I think they can do is talk to people, connect with them, reach out and take them by the arms, because when you know somebody truly well, you cease to think of them as black or white, but as a real individual with real feelings and ambitions. No degree of "Positive Discrimination" can possibly undo all the harm that was done and will probably only result in the entire cycle being thrown back a hundred years, while at least now discrimination is loose and informal enough that with ambition, planning, or personal connection it can be walked right over.

or

if there were to be NO pressure for equality in hiring, the level of african american employment, especially in well-paying jobs, might fall to the level where race riots break out and we are back where we were in the 60's.

mild affirmative action has been in effect for ....35-40 years and has not lead to the rise of the KKK. why should it start now?

I'm a person that beleives in a dictatorship so I'd have to sya noooooooooooooo it's not racist. I beleive it would be better if the people were told what they need to do...soooo....my people wouldn't have choices so therefore it wouldn't be racist.


:upyours:

I looked at your nation discription, it looks like you want to turn America into a country in which we "are ruled without fear or favor by a psychotic dictator, who outlaws just about everything and refers to the populace as "my little playthings."

sweet

No... the effects being the consequences of racism.

Okay.
Because the consequences of racism are unjust, affirmative action attempts to counteract them by helping the victims of racism.
And similarly hurting the same amount of individuals on the other side of the spectrum who may or may not be part of the problem and had nothing to do with slavery at the very least.
That Blacks are poorer because of racism (primarily)... not accidentally.
Every poor individual is poor for a reason, I don't see why racism is a more valid one than any other. Racism is hardly going to vanish due to Affirmative Action, if anything, I can see it getting slightly worse. As people who aren't racist get annoyed that people, regardless of ability etc etc.. get into college, or a job, over oneself, merely due to 'race'.
Affirmative action strives to counteract the unjust effects of a racist society by benefiting those harmed by it.
And again hurting some of those that had and have nothing to do with it. Hardly a logical way to go about it.
It is "discrimination" in a sense... but only because it is targeted at the actual problem. Just as people seeking to put out a fire do not use firehoses on every house in the country. If whites were disadvantaged because of their "race", they would be just as deserving of affirmative action.
But it is a very blanket generalization of a process. In essence, it takes a black kid and covers him with the blanket, but then there are too many people on the bed, so it kicks a white kid off the bed onto the floor, or leaves him on the floor, assuming they started at the same place. All because of skin colour, or as you say, "the effects of racism". The best way to combat racism is to discriminate based on race in the opposite direction of the original discrimination. Obviously.
If whites were disadvantaged because of their race, I still would not support helping them out with an Affirmative Action process.

I am opposed to the method, not necessarily the madness. The method being affirmative action and the madness being the fact that racism has caused certain groups to be 'disadvantaged' even today.

Strange that a country would have Affirmative Action in the first place...
Wait... what? What's that supposed to mean?

I'm a person that beleives in a dictatorship so I'd have to sya noooooooooooooo it's not racist. I beleive it would be better if the people were told what they need to do...soooo....my people wouldn't have choices so therefore it wouldn't be racist.


:upyours:

I can't tell if you are a puppet or a troll. Of course you could be a real person with real feeling, but how many people on this forum are actually real?

I'm opposed to the concept of affirmative action based on racial grounds. Not because I consider it racist, but I believe that race is not an obvious enough factor for creating an AA program. I'd much rather have affirmative action based on class rather than race. It seems unfair to me that a middle class black kid gets an advantage where a working class white kid does not, despite the likelihood that the black kid has probably received a better education and has parents that can pay for college.

snip


It sounds like you think racism ended after the civil war.

Affirimitive action is racist. It is racist in 2 ways, 1. It takes jobs away from majorities and 2.It basicly says minorities are too stupid or weak or (fill in the blank with a fault)to get the job themselves. Anyone else think like this, or is it just me?

2. Is there anybody around that truly believes a hypothetical "stupid" minority person who might only qualify for a job at McCrakkkas would be given an accounting job of a hypothetical majority person who is a licensed CPA?

Whatever is affirmative action is when people of multiple backgrounds both basically qualify for a position (it's interesting to note that craperations over the years have outsourced their training to our public universities and technical colleges, etc... in which any of us has to pay to get ahead)
then those filling the position might take a minority person because of the slight buzz in popular culture that insinuated people of minority backgrounds were slightly less good. (afterall, some weirdos judge record albums being good on sales. haha)


1. push for 100% employment for all who want to work with a living wage (what the minimum wage was supposed to originally be. but they forgot to tie it automatically to the rate of inflation.)

instead of scapegoating one group against another

Affirmative Action is racist for the following reasons:

1. Jobs are given to minorities just because they are minorities. Whites, for example, may not get a job even if they are highly qualified simply because the employer needs to hire more minorities. Thus, it privileges minorities over the majority rather than actually making them equal. True equality would be the policy of hiring any individual who implies and basing them purely on their qualifications.
2. Usually, employers need to maintain racial "quotas", to the point where they won't even hire a minority because they have too many of them already. This not only hurts the majority but now also the qualified minority.
3. Whites who complain about AA are deemed racist themselves, when they are only trying to look out for themselves and fight back against the inequalities it causes. The fact that someone could be considered racist for standing up against institutionalized racism baffles me. "All whites are privileged, all whites are racist, whites are the only racists because they can back up their racism, etc."

Disgusts me. There shouldn't be Affirmative Action anyone. Black, female, whatever - get rid of it all.

Every poor individual is poor for a reason, I don't see why racism is a more valid one than any other. Racism is hardly going to vanish due to Affirmative Action, if anything, I can see it getting slightly worse. As people who aren't racist get annoyed that people, regardless of ability etc etc.. get into college, or a job, over oneself, merely due to 'race'.

HE SPEAKS THE TRUTH!
Ashmoria
if there were to be NO pressure for equality in hiring, the level of african american employment, especially in well-paying jobs, might fall to the level where race riots break out and we are back where we were in the 60's.


Pardon? Racism now is a lot less widespread, if anything reducing or getting rid of pressure for equal hiring will decrease what racial tension there is. Very few people nowadays are racist, MOST whites do not hate minorities and African-Americans. Get with the times!!!
So you admit there is still racial inequality. Therefore, affirmative action is still necessary
No. Although there is still racial equality, only society can solve it, the government can't solve it.
And here is where we see where you stand. You don't believe that dark skinned people are educable
Stop twisting around my words. I'm just saying that affirmitive action makes employers turn down educated whites for minorities.I'm all for employers hiring African-Americans and other minorities,as long as they are as educated or show the same skill in that profession as the white applicant.
Certainly not Baltimore.


Nope. I live in a sleepy little town in western Maryland.

Privilege varies way too much from individual to individual to reasonably be classified collectively to race.

Yes, "privilege" as such. There are many kinds of privilege. But when we're talking about racial privilege, "race" is at least a good approximation of who is benefited and who harmed.

Advocating affirmative action to remedy the inequities of racial privilege and racist discrimination in no way precludes advocating other policies to remedy other unjust inequities.

It is not my job to come up with the research, I am just saying how individuals should and should not be treated.

If you have no better solution, you have no grounds to criticize the existing solutions as imperfect. Of course they are. Everything is.

That these disadvantaged individuals can change society by way of their abilities.

How? And why should it be left to them?

And similarly hurting the same amount of individuals on the other side of the spectrum who may or may not be part of the problem and had nothing to do with slavery at the very least.

Yes, equality always hurts some people. So?

If they were being actively punished, that would be different. But the point isn't to oppress whites to get revenge for racism... it's to have genuine equality of opportunity despite the consequences of racism.

Every poor individual is poor for a reason, I don't see why racism is a more valid one than any other.

If you want to get rid of poverty, you have to consider its causes, and address them.

If you just address some and not others, you won't solve the problem.

Racism is hardly going to vanish due to Affirmative Action,

Affirmative action doesn't try to make racism vanish. It tries to address the consequences of racism in a society where racism exists and isn't going to suddenly disappear.

Of course, reducing the disparities between whites and disadvantaged minorities might well improve the situation by increasing exposure and integration... as well as helping to ensure that more of the wealthy and powerful will be members of those minority groups.

As people who aren't racist get annoyed that people, regardless of ability etc etc.. get into college, or a job, over oneself, merely due to 'race'.

Actually, this seems like a rather racist explanation to me... especially considering that the effects of affirmative action on white applicants are rather minor.

It requires the assumption that a minority getting a position over oneself must have been despite the fact that the minority was underqualified... even though affirmative action usually works within a qualified pool anyway.

And again hurting some of those that had and have nothing to do with it.

You're still missing the point.

Inequality of opportunity caused by a racist society always hurts some (disadvantaged minorities) and benefits others (whites).

Attempts to ensure equality of opportunity despite that inequality will always hurt some (whites) for the benefit of others (disadvantaged minorities.)

Yes, some people are hurt. But only because the "default" is a racist society where some people are unjustly privileged over others.

In essence, it takes a black kid and covers him with the blanket, but then there are too many people on the bed, so it kicks a white kid off the bed onto the floor

If your objection is to people being on the floor, I suggest you object not to affirmative action but to the socio-economic structure of a class society more generally.

It sounds like you think racism ended after the civil war.

I would like you to point out where I said that, because I didn't.
I stated myself that racism is a problem, just that affirmative action is not the solution.
Next time you attempt to invalidate someone's argument, try to use a couple of valid points, not a single irrelevant sentence.

I would like you to point out where I said that, because I didn't.


Why the references to slavery?

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal."

America was founded by whites, built by whites, and thrived by whites; this was meant and should remain to be a white nation. Blacks were brought to America unjustly, and should have every opportunity to return to their homelands and start anew, with America's help. If there are no minorities, you cannot have inequalities or privileges or racism. Whites get to rule themselves, blacks get to rule themselves, mestizos get to rule themselves, etc. Native Americans even deserve their own nation, not some racist, privileged reservation to waste away on.

Any nation so bent on multiculturalism as America is destined to fall. We're tearing ourselves apart from the inside, while simultaneously creating more and more enemies for ourselves on the outside. It's a horrible trend, and it will only land in disaster unless some action is taken to better things.

Removing AA would be a step in the right direction.

Say... America?
A decent chunk, yes, but not the whole thing. We still deserve to keep what we conquered.

1. Jobs are given to minorities just because they are minorities.

No, they aren't.

Jobs are given to qualified minorities over qualified non-minorities because the minority underrepresentation in the given area is understood to be at least partially a matter of social inequity (and even if it isn't, concerns for diversity might still justify affirmative action.)

True equality would be the policy of hiring any individual who implies and basing them purely on their qualifications.

What does "purely on their qualifications" mean? What if you have candidates whose differences in "qualifications" mean virtually nothing? How do you choose then?

If any distinction is going to be "arbitrary" in the qualifications sense, why not undermine racial inequality and promote diversity by selecting more members of disadvantaged minorities?

2. Usually, employers need to maintain racial "quotas"

Actually, affirmative action programs virtually never involve "quotas."

If there are no minorities, you cannot have inequalities or privileges or racism.

Yes you can. You just change the nature of the racism. Consider earlier America, where racism was directed towards Jews, Catholics, Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans...

Native Americans even deserve their own nation, not some racist, privileged reservation to waste away on.

You do realise that a Native American nation would lie on top of what is currently the United States, right?

Any nation so bent on multiculturalism as America is destined to fall. We're tearing ourselves apart from the inside, while simultaneously creating more and more enemies for ourselves on the outside. It's a horrible trend, and it will only land in disaster unless some action is taken to better things.

Agreed. The US should follow the example of other world powers who shunned multiculturalism, like... er... hang on, I'll think of one eventually...

Native Americans even deserve their own nation

Say... America?

=Pardon? Racism now is a lot less widespread, if anything reducing or getting rid of pressure for equal hiring will decrease what racial tension there is. Very few people nowadays are racist, MOST whites do not hate minorities and African-Americans. Get with the times!!!


the poster i quoted was talking out his ass about how affirmative action might bring a storm of racial hatred from the non-minority population. i decided to talk out my own ass about how not having it might do the same thing IN the minority population. (although removing them might bring more trouble since it would be a slap in the face of minorities in indicating that they are no longer worth protecting.)

its so hard to bring a successful racial discirimination suit against a company these days that the effectiveness of affirmative action laws are mostly only in society pressure to conform, not in enforcement. having them only keeps racists from the worst abuses, it doesnt equalize anything.

If you want to get rid of poverty, you have to consider its causes, and address them.
I can't imagine it is easy to determine whether or not racism was the cause of the poverty.

Actually, this seems like a rather racist explanation to me... especially considering that the effects of affirmative action on white applicants are rather minor.

Well, if it is so minor negatively, it is minor on the positive side as well. So does that mean we should scrap the idea?
It requires the assumption that a minority getting a position over oneself must have been despite the fact that the minority was underqualified... even though affirmative action usually works within a qualified pool anyway.
No it does not. It requires the assumption that when candidates are equally qualified, one is picked due to race, as well as when candidates are not equally qualified. I don't know if Affirmative Action distinguishes between the two.

Yes, equality always hurts some people. So?
To the effect that equality brings some people down to bring some up? The thing is, if it was equality, it would do neither. Two individuals would be considered equally and thus have equal chances of getting a position. Affirmative action does not do this. It counterskews the skewed balance.
If you have no better solution, you have no grounds to criticize the existing solutions as imperfect. Of course they are. Everything is.
A better solution would be to enforce the equal choosing of candidates for colleges, jobs, etc, based on ability only. However, it is hard to find out whether say, a college admissions staff, is being racist in their decisions or not.

If your objection is to people being on the floor, I suggest you object not to affirmative action but to the socio-economic structure of a class society more generally.
That is, if anything, what I think the criteria for affirmative action should be based on.

I'm getting lost in this debate.:p

A decent chunk, yes, but not the whole thing. We still deserve to keep what we conquered.

Congratulations on that victory Oakondra. It wouldn't be right if the effort you put into it wasn't rewarded.

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal."

America was founded by whites, built by whites, and thrived by whites; this was meant and should remain to be a white nation. Blacks were brought to America unjustly, and should have every opportunity to return to their homelands and start anew, with America's help. If there are no minorities, you cannot have inequalities or privileges or racism. Whites get to rule themselves, blacks get to rule themselves, mestizos get to rule themselves, etc. Native Americans even deserve their own nation, not some racist, privileged reservation to waste away on.

Any nation so bent on multiculturalism as America is destined to fall. We're tearing ourselves apart from the inside, while simultaneously creating more and more enemies for ourselves on the outside. It's a horrible trend, and it will only land in disaster unless some action is taken to better things.

Removing AA would be a step in the right direction.

ignoring the racism...

you DO know that white america is also multi cultural dont you?

No, they aren't.

Jobs are given to qualified minorities over qualified non-minorities because the minority underrepresentation in the given area is understood to be at least partially a matter of social inequity (and even if it isn't, concerns for diversity might still justify affirmative action.)
You venture to say this, then follow up with:

What does "purely on their qualifications" mean? What if you have candidates whose differences in "qualifications" mean virtually nothing? How do you choose then?
How do you choose anyone's qualifications? You look at what their qualifications are. You say yourself that qualified minorities are getting jobs over un-qualified majorities. How are you deciding who is more qualified? Try not to contradict yourself.

Also, many people are displaced from jobs for instead minorities. It's disgusting.

If any distinction is going to be "arbitrary" in the qualifications sense, why not undermine racial inequality and promote diversity by selecting more members of disadvantaged minorities?
"Arbitrary" qualifications? I don't know where you're coming up with some of this but it's rather odd.

Undermine racial inequality and promote diversity - woah, now. Stop right there. I don't want to promote diversity. Multiculturalism and the like is the problem we have already, promoting it makes it worse.

You seem to hold onto the ideal that a diverse company means hiring people who look differently.

Actually, affirmative action programs virtually never involve "quotas."
You obviously don't even know what you're talking about in regards to the subject, so I'm not going to bother with you.

Why the references to slavery?

There was one reference.
I made that reference because that is essentially when racism started in the United States.
What does this have to do with anything else I said?
Nothing.

Whites get to rule themselves, blacks get to rule themselves, mestizos get to rule themselves, etc.

And whites get to keep all their stolen wealth and stolen land, of course... while the people they stole it from are afforded the generous gift of nominal sovereignty.

No, thanks. :rolleyes:

ignoring the racism...

you DO know that white america is also multi cultural dont you?
What racism?

If by "White America" you mean a nation of just whites but different white cultures, all white culture is European. Euro-Americans live peaceably and happily and willingly with each other. It's when other races get into the mix that things start to become complicated for both parties.

There was one reference.
I made that reference because that is essentially where racism started in the United States.
What does this have to do with anything else I said?
Nothing.

That's "where racism started"? I don't understand what that means. Would you mind explaining? :)

And whites get to keep all their stolen wealth and stolen land, of course... while the people they stole it from are afforded the generous gift of nominal sovereignty.

No, thanks. :rolleyes:
America was founded by whites, conquered by whites. If white Americans should have to surrender what they earned, then any country in the history of forever that has ever attacked and annexed land anywhere in the world should have to surrender it. Essentially, there would no nations left anywhere. Your counters are ridiculous.

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal."

So like, when Nazi Germany invaded Europe - making the balance of power, not to mention the balance of justice and ethics, unequal - the really bad thing was the Allied attempt to reverse the situation.

Right.

America was founded by whites, built by whites, and thrived by whites

You haven't even defined "whites." But since you say the country was "built" by "whites," I guess by "white" you mean "migrant laborers."

this was meant and should remain to be a white nation.

Even assuming your first statement was true, it doesn't follow that "is" means "should" or "meant."

Blacks were brought to America unjustly, and should have every opportunity to return to their homelands and start anew, with America's help

How generous. Of course, they *do* have opportunities to return to their "homelands" if they want. Just like you could return to yours. What you are really talking about is racial-based forced deportation.

If there are no minorities, you cannot have inequalities or privileges or racism.

This is like saying "if there is no money, you cannot have inequalities between class." And just like the hypothetical socialist simpleton who would say that, you are so clearly removed from reality with your statement that it's stunning.

Whites get to rule themselves, blacks get to rule themselves, mestizos get to rule themselves, etc. Native Americans even deserve their own nation, not some racist, privileged reservation to waste away on.

Sadly, people like you don't even have the honesty or consistency to advocate deporting yourselves. You're not concerned with anyone's welfare except "whites."

Any nation so bent on multiculturalism as America is destined to fall.

You talk a lot about what was "meant to" happen and "destined." You say America was "founded by whites," and therefore "meant" to be a "white" nation. But now you say that America is "destined" to fall. You can't seem to make up your mind what America's Destiny is, but you are obviously certain it has something to do with race.

Affirmative action isn't racist. You are.

That's "where racism started"? I don't understand what that means. Would you mind explaining? :)

I am very sure that subjugating another culture/race is pretty damn racist.
Hence slavery.
Hence the origin of racism in the United States.

Edit: Maybe I should have said 'when' being as slavery in America is more of a time period than a place. Sorry if that is what confused you.

Anyone who opposes Positive Discrimination is racist and should be sent to a reeducation camp.

For the good of the country. To anyone who takes this seriously: I kid, I kid.

Yes, "privilege" as such. There are many kinds of privilege. But when we're talking about racial privilege, "race" is at least a good approximation of who is benefited and who harmed.

Advocating affirmative action to remedy the inequities of racial privilege and racist discrimination in no way precludes advocating other policies to remedy other unjust inequities.
But how does classification as groups improve justice, when some whites, as individuals, are unjustly disadvantaged by such policies? Not to mention how when different inequities are combined the result of the combination of the inequities is different from the combination of the results of the separate inequities. Such as having type 1 diabetes, anti-religious views, etc... these things combine in a different way than each on their own might influence it, and though I'm "in the minority" in each way, I'm probably even further "in the minority" in how these things combine with each other and so many other things in my own mind. Again, it's just too complex to act like treating people as groups is going to fix the problem, when people vary from individual to individual in probably way too many ways for us to see.

What racism?

If by "White America" you mean a nation of just whites but different white cultures, all white culture is European. Euro-Americans live peaceably and happily and willingly with each other. It's when other races get into the mix that things start to become complicated for both parties.

This is hilarious.

gb2 stormfront.

What racism?

If by "White America" you mean a nation of just whites but different white cultures, all white culture is European. Euro-Americans live peaceably and happily and willingly with each other. It's when other races get into the mix that things start to become complicated for both parties.

Hahaha! Europeans living in peace with each other! Good one!

Oh wait, you're being serious.

So like, when Nazi Germany invaded Europe - making the balance of power, not to mention the balance of justice and ethics, unequal - the really bad thing was the Allied attempt to reverse the situation.

Right.
Nazi Germany was a great nation. They never invaded an entire continent, they attacked firstly Czechoslovakia to retake German lands, and then were attacked by Poland and responded to that with force. When the rest of the world got involved, Germany was actually the one to suffer. Just LOOK at the horrible effects that Germany, even today, has to deal with because the rest of the world's bigotry.

You haven't even defined "whites."
White Europeans.

How generous. Of course, they *do* have opportunities to return to their "homelands" if they want. Just like you could return to yours. What you are really talking about is racial-based forced deportation.
America was founded as a white European nation, fought for by whites to gain sovereignty, and white blood was shed to keep it in power. This is my homeland.

This is like saying "if there is no money, you cannot have inequalities between class." And just like the hypothetical socialist simpleton who would say that, you are so clearly removed from reality with your statement that it's stunning.
I am not a socialist, and I hate socialism, but think about what you just said.

If race was not an issue, there would be no racial dispute.
If money was not an issue, there would be no class dispute.

If you ask me, those are pretty valid points. However, the latter would never work since the implication of no money is a controlling government.

Sadly, people like you don't even have the honesty or consistency to advocate deporting yourselves. You're not concerned with anyone's welfare except "whites."
Apparently you don't bother to read what I say, so after this post I don't think I'll bother with this thread anymore. People like you are the reason why I can't even speak up for what I believe without being misunderstood entirely.

You talk a lot about what was "meant to" happen and "destined." You say America was "founded by whites," and therefore "meant" to be a "white" nation. But now you say that America is "destined" to fall. You can't seem to make up your mind what America's Destiny is, but you are obviously certain it has something to do with race.
See above.

America is destined to fall because it is become a multicultural hellhole.

Affirmative action isn't racist. You are.
Your bigotry is overflowing.

What racism?

If by "White America" you mean a nation of just whites but different white cultures, all white culture is European. Euro-Americans live peaceably and happily and willingly with each other. It's when other races get into the mix that things start to become complicated for both parties.

not all white culture is european.

europe is not monocultural.

black americans dont have a culture that is significantly different than white americans. for god's sake, they share a language, history, cultural references, holidays, fashions, food, music, arts, entertainment, laws, religions, etc.

the only "problem" is when racists get into the mix.

I am very sure that subjugating another culture/race is pretty damn racist.
Hence slavery.
Hence the origin of racism in the United States.

Edit: Maybe I should have said 'when' being as slavery in America is more of a time period than a place. Sorry if that is what confused you.

The origin of racism in the US began as an attempt to distinguish between "Free, Christian, English" and all the others. Since all free christian englishmen were white, white became a shorthand form of denoting "free christian english" It went downhill from there.

Nazi Germany was a great nation. They never invaded an entire continent, they attacked firstly Czechoslovakia to retake German lands, and then were attacked by Poland and responded to that with force. When the rest of the world got involved, Germany was actually the one to suffer. Just LOOK at the horrible effects that Germany, even today, has to deal with because the rest of the world's bigotry.


White Europeans.


America was founded as a white European nation, fought for by whites to gain sovereignty, and white blood was shed to keep it in power. This is my homeland.


I am not a socialist, and I hate socialism, but think about what you just said.

If race was not an issue, there would be no racial dispute.
If money was not an issue, there would be no class dispute.

If you ask me, those are pretty valid points. However, the latter would never work since the implication of no money is a controlling government.


Apparently you don't bother to read what I say, so after this post I don't think I'll bother with this thread anymore. People like you are the reason why I can't even speak up for what I believe without being misunderstood entirely.


See above.

America is destined to fall because it is become a multicultural hellhole.


Your bigotry is overflowing.
Look who's talking.

Stop setting a bad name for the opposition to affirmative action with your racist horse shit. Are you faking your views? You're poisoning this side of the debate, and I can't help but think it's on purpose...

I am very sure that subjugating another culture/race is pretty damn racist.
Hence slavery.
Hence the origin of racism in the United States.

Edit: Maybe I should have said 'when' being as slavery in America is more of a time period than a place. Sorry if that is what confused you.

The origin of racism in the US began as an attempt to distinguish between "Free, Christian, English" and all the others. Since all free christian englishmen were white, white became a shorthand form of denoting "free christian english" It went downhill from there.

I am very sure that subjugating another culture/race is pretty damn racist.
Hence slavery.
Hence the origin of racism in the United States.

Edit: Maybe I should have said 'when' being as slavery in America is more of a time period than a place. Sorry if that is what confused you.

The origin of racism in the US began as an attempt to distinguish between "Free, Christian, English" and all the others. Since all free christian englishmen were white, white became a shorthand form of denoting "free christian english" At least in the English Colonies. It went downhill from there.

Nazi Germany was a great nation.
:eek: Great as in power-wise maybe...other than that..
America was founded as a white European nation, fought for by whites to gain sovereignty, and white blood was shed to keep it in power.
What about the Natives slaughtered?
This is my homeland.
Unfortunately.

America is destined to fall because it is become a multicultural hellhole.

:eek:

I can't imagine it is easy to determine whether or not racism was the cause of the poverty.

In a given individual case, it's virtually impossible. But when we look at society broadly and see a strong pattern of discrimination, disproportionate poverty, etc., we can see that the problem is there.

Well, if it is so minor negatively, it is minor on the positive side as well.

Actually, it isn't... it's quite significant on the positive side.

No it does not. It requires the assumption that when candidates are equally qualified, one is picked due to race,

Then why is there cause for resentment?

If the candidates are equally qualified, whatever the basis for the distinction one of the candidates is going to be "passed over" for a reason that has nothing to do with qualification.

I don't know if Affirmative Action distinguishes between the two.

Affirmative action operates on the basis of a qualified pool. Any minority benefiting from affirmative action already meets the basic qualifications.

The members of that pool may not be exactly "equally qualified"... but the differences between them mean relatively little.

Two individuals would be considered equally and thus have equal chances of getting a position.

Right. And if you're starting from a skewed balance where Individual A has an unfairly better chance than Individual B, moving back to equality means that Individual A will be harmed for the benefit of Individual B.

A better solution would be to enforce the equal choosing of candidates for colleges, jobs, etc, based on ability only. However, it is hard to find out whether say, a college admissions staff, is being racist in their decisions or not.

That's one of the problems... racial discrimination is, for good reason, difficult to prove in individual cases. So we end up overlooking a lot of individual cases that could be something else, and these cases accumulate and lead to gross racial disparities.

That is, if anything, what I think the criteria for affirmative action should be based on.

Well, I'm not saying no to radically challenging structures of class inequality... indeed, if anything, generally speaking affirmative action supporters seem more inclined to support such a thing than affirmative action opponents.

You say yourself that qualified minorities are getting jobs over un-qualified majorities.

That's not what I said. I said that qualified minorities were getting jobs over qualified majorities.

They are also, of course, getting jobs over unqualified majorities. But that is not what is in dispute... while you have revealed decidedly racist tendencies, most people in affirmative action debates are willing to accept that a qualified minority should get the job over an unqualified non-minority.

"Arbitrary" qualifications? I don't know where you're coming up with some of this but it's rather odd.

Perhaps because you didn't read? I didn't say "arbitrary qualifications." I pointed out that sometimes you have candidates who are equally qualified, but not enough slots for all of them... where any distinction between them is going to be arbitrary as far as "qualifications" go.

How do you decide then, if you want a standard based purely on qualifications? Flipping a coin? How is that any better than affirmative action?

I don't want to promote diversity.

In writing my post, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you weren't an outright racist.

From your later posts, I now understand that I was wrong. I apologize.

You obviously don't even know what you're talking about in regards to the subject

You do know that quotas are illegal, right?

America was founded by whites, conquered by whites. If white Americans should have to surrender what they earned, then any country in the history of forever that has ever attacked and annexed land anywhere in the world should have to surrender it. Essentially, there would no nations left anywhere. Your counters are ridiculous.

Hey, it was you who introduced the idea of property rights in land and nations, to support your implication that multiculturalism is giving to racial minorities what they don't deserve.

I never said I held by it. I don't, for what it's worth. But I think that if you want to advance an argument based on it, you should apply it consistently.

Nazi Germany was a great nation. They never invaded an entire continent, they attacked firstly Czechoslovakia to retake German lands, and then were attacked by Poland and responded to that with force.

Poland did what now?

What racism?

If by "White America" you mean a nation of just whites but different white cultures, all white culture is European. Euro-Americans live peaceably and happily and willingly with each other. It's when other races get into the mix that things start to become complicated for both parties.

These are some links that talk about persecution against the Irish

http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SS/irish/unit_2.html

http://www.kinsella.org/history/histira.htm

Also Italians weren’t considered white when they initially stated immigrating

But how does classification as groups improve justice, when some whites, as individuals, are unjustly disadvantaged by such policies?

How so?

Not to mention how when different inequities are combined the result of the combination of the inequities is different from the combination of the results of the separate inequities.

Yes, I am familiar with the notion of intersectionality, but I fail to see exactly how you expect to deal with this.

I would agree that the problem of racism in the United States cannot be solved without also addressing the problem of class inequality, but this seems more an argument for combining the two approaches than dropping one of them.

Again, it's just too complex to act like treating people as groups is going to fix the problem

Right, "treating people as groups" is always imperfect.

But this is not just true of affirmative action. It is true of the applications process in every respect. When choosing between candidates, because every individual detail of the candidate is not known the candidates must be assessed as members of the groups into which they fall.

Nazi Germany was a great nation. They never invaded an entire continent, they attacked firstly Czechoslovakia to retake German lands, and then were attacked by Poland and responded to that with force. When the rest of the world got involved, Germany was actually the one to suffer. Just LOOK at the horrible effects that Germany, even today, has to deal with because the rest of the world's bigotry.


Why did he attack Russia?

Nazi Germany was a great nation.

Nice trolling.

They never invaded an entire continent, they attacked firstly Czechoslovakia to retake German lands, and then were attacked by Poland and responded to that with force. When the rest of the world got involved, Germany was actually the one to suffer. Just LOOK at the horrible effects that Germany, even today, has to deal with because the rest of the world's bigotry.

Yeah yeah yeah, and the Holocaust didn't happen either.

White Europeans.

Hmm nope, most of the US's founders were not born in Europe. You can't even define your own silly racist terms. Why don't you just use "ubermensch" or whatever your type prefers?

America was founded as a white European nation, fought for by whites to gain sovereignty, and white blood was shed to keep it in power. This is my homeland.

You didn't shed a single drop of blood. Like most racists, you try to take credit for things your "race" did. This is because like most racists, you believe races have hive-minds and collective consciousnesses. Therefore one member of the race = the entire race. It's all very convenient and you don't generally have to bother with thinking or anything else too challenging.

I am not a socialist, and I hate socialism,

Mmm. Except National Socialism, eh?

but think about what you just said.

If race was not an issue, there would be no racial dispute.
If money was not an issue, there would be no class dispute.

If you ask me, those are pretty valid points.

You've misquoted and made a strawman but, in light of your other flaws it's no biggie.


Apparently you don't bother to read what I say, so after this post I don't think I'll bother with this thread anymore. People like you are the reason why I can't even speak up for what I believe without being misunderstood entirely.


No, I read what you said. Ich verstehe!

See above.

So, I'm misunderstanding you in some way - taking what you say out of context, being an evil multicultural non-white, twisting your innocent words into malicious- and stupid-sounding irrationalities.

But, you can't and won't explain how I'm doing this, or what it is you're supposedly "really" saying.

How conveeeeenient.

America is destined to fall because it is become a multicultural hellhole.


And yet you said America was destined to be a white nation. How can there be two equally true, mutually exclusive "destinies?" for the same nation? You see, your way of thinking doesn't even make sense from *your* point of view. No wonder you whine about being misunderstood by more rational people.

Your bigotry is overflowing.

Yes, I'm sure anyone reading this thread will be thinking, "Damn, but Greater Trostia is clearly a bigot! Unlike that Oakondra fellow."

Nazi Germany was a great nation.

I am not a socialist, and I hate socialism, but think about what you just said..

Nazi Germany was socialist

How so?
Someone of close-to-equal merit to me would be chosen instead of me for a job because of their skin colour?

Yes, I am familiar with the notion of intersectionality, but I fail to see exactly how you expect to deal with this.
So the lack of alternatives somehow is automatically a defense of yours? B not working means you must do A rather than neither? What if it's something that isn't really something to "deal with" anyway? I mean, there's inequality that is probably even worse than racism is going to be inevitable anyway, especially things that aren't a consequence of the person disadvantaged by them decrease their ability to contribute to society. For example, it's not my fault I have type 1 diabetes, yet because of it I can't donate blood. People who are born untalented at something will have less skills than someone born talented who works even close to the same amount, despite talent not being a consequence of actions; as such, with less skills, even the "meritocratic" approach would choose the talented one, disadvantaging the untalented one despite that the other one didn't choose to be untalented. How "fair" is that?

I would agree that the problem of racism in the United States cannot be solved without also addressing the problem of class inequality,
What the hell? I never said that. What about white employees at minority owned businesses?

http://www.theadvocates.org/library/libertarian-faq.html#Lib.FAQ.14

Not that I agree with everything on that site, just referencing it.

But this is not just true of affirmative action. It is true of the applications process in every respect.
Every respect? What about how educated someone is, as an individual, in the field in which they're looking to work? What about how hard-working an individual is, based on asking previous contacts of different kinds? (Eg. Teachers, previous employers, etc...)

When choosing between candidates, because every individual detail of the candidate is not known the candidates must be assessed as members of the groups into which they fall.
Groups? What are you talking about?

Someone of close-to-equal merit to me would be chosen instead of me for a job because of their skin colour?

Rather than you getting it because of the privileges associated with your "skin color"? How is that unjust?

So the lack of alternatives somehow is automatically a defense of yours? B not working means you must do A rather than neither?

No, but A not being perfect (as opposed to "not working") is not an argument against A unless B is better.

For example, it's not my fault I have type 1 diabetes, yet because of it I can't donate blood.

Right, and this is a rational distinction.

Racial disparities are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, not founded on good reasons... rather on racist ones.

People who are born untalented at something will have less skills than someone born talented who works even close to the same amount, despite talent not being a consequence of actions; as such, with less skills, even the "meritocratic" approach would choose the talented one, disadvantaging the untalented one despite that the other one didn't choose to be untalented. How "fair" is that?

It's not "fair", really, but it's rational because of the logic of incentives: we pay those with more talent more because otherwise they wouldn't use that talent to benefit society.

As it happens, I have my objections to that line of reasoning, but I'm willing to grant that it's a reasonable argument. Race, however, has nothing to do with merit.

What the hell? I never said that.

No, you didn't. Since you weren't being clear, I made a guess as to what you might mean.

What about white employees at minority owned businesses?

What about them?

Every respect? What about how educated someone is, as an individual, in the field in which they're looking to work?

Yes, obviously you measure "how educated someone is" as an individual. Similarly, you measure what race someone is as an individual.

The question is what these measures are supposed to indicate. A person's education level is supposed to be connected to how qualified he or she is for the job. But some people with more education are going to be worse than some people with less education. By using this measure you're treating people according to the average, as members of the group, rather than as individuals. You have to, because no application process is going to get everything, and the more you take into consideration the harder and costlier the process is.

What about how hard-working an individual is, based on asking previous contacts of different kinds?

Again, this is a measure of qualification, but it doesn't tell us everything. Some people may work hard, but be very inefficient. Some people may be lazy, but still get the work done effectively.

Generally speaking, of course, a hard worker may be better for the company than a lazy person. But then, generally speaking, African-Americans are substantially disadvantaged by the racism directed against them.

]In a given individual case, it's virtually impossible. But when we look at society broadly and see a strong pattern of discrimination, disproportionate poverty, etc., we can see that the problem is there.
Which is a problem, because it becomes a sweeping generalization.
Actually, it isn't... it's quite significant on the positive side.
Do you have a source for that? I'm just honestly curious to see whether the effects have been shown yet.
Then why is there cause for resentment?
It is automatically weighted towards one candidate.
If the candidates are equally qualified, whatever the basis for the distinction one of the candidates is going to be "passed over" for a reason that has nothing to do with qualification.
Yes, but as above, it is automatically a weighted decision. If the final decision between two equally qualified candidates was based off the flip of a coin, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. But that wouldn't be Affirmative Action.
Affirmative action operates on the basis of a qualified pool. Any minority benefiting from affirmative action already meets the basic qualifications.
Which is good for the minority only.
The members of that pool may not be exactly "equally qualified"... but the differences between them mean relatively little.
Granted, how the decision is made is the problem.
Right. And if you're starting from a skewed balance where Individual A has an unfairly better chance than Individual B, moving back to equality means that Individual A will be harmed for the benefit of Individual B.
Not necessarily. If Individual B is brought up to the same level as A and one of them is chosen based completely randomly(assuming both are equally qualified) then no one is theoretically harmed. At least not anymore than anyone is harmed in a completely equal system.
That's one of the problems... racial discrimination is, for good reason, difficult to prove in individual cases. So we end up overlooking a lot of individual cases that could be something else, and these cases accumulate and lead to gross racial disparities.
Or we assume that the cause is racial discrimination even when it isn't?
Well, I'm not saying no to radically challenging structures of class inequality... indeed, if anything, generally speaking affirmative action supporters seem more inclined to support such a thing than affirmative action opponents.
I wouldn't know.

Someone mentioned earlier that black people were free to go back to Africa. He obviously failed US History, or he would know that the US tried that at one point. To quote my history book...

Most northern states had abolished slavery by the early 1800s. After working for abolition in their own states, many antislavery northerners supported a plan by the American Colonization Society to send freed African Americans to Africa to found new settlements. In 1822 the society established Monrovia, the capital city of a settlement later called Liberia on the west coast of Africa.

Some white southerners supported colonization as a way to rid the South of free African Americans, whom they feared would incite slave rebellions. Most northern supporters of colonization genuinely wanted to end slavery. Most people in both groups, however, shared the prejudice that African Americans were inferior to whites and would never fit into American society.

Obviously, you can tell how that worked out. But just in case...

Many northern free African Americans strongly objected to such negative characterizations. They opposed the American Colonization Society's plans to banish them from their country of birth. African American minister Peter Williams was one who opposed colonization.

"Far be it from me to question the motives of ever member of the African American Colonization Society...

There are those, however, who do not hesitate to say that they wish to rid the country of the free black population, and there is good reason to believe that for many people, this is the principal motive for supporting the society."

--Peter Williams, quoted in Negro Oraters and Their Orations, edited by Carter G. Woodson

At first, only free African Americans chose to resettle in Liberia. Later, a few southerners freed slaves solely to send them to Africa. Despite the discrimination that free African Americans faced, few wanted to leave the United States. By 1830 just some 1,400 African Americans had settled in Liberia. Since it was clear that colonization was not popular, many abolitionists who had once supported the colonization plan began to turn against it.

African Americans began organizing among themselves to end slavery. But 1826, the had formed more than 143 antislavery societies with the mission of freeing "their brothers in chains." In 1827 Samuel Cornish Freedom's Journal, to proclaim opposition to slavery.

Yeah... that worked well. On another note, how dare that goddamned Poland pick on the Reich? What did Hitler ever do to deserve that?

Besides, y'know, the obvious.

Which is a problem, because it becomes a sweeping generalization.

All application processes are based upon "generalizations."

Do you have a source for that?

Not on hand, no.

Yes, but as above, it is automatically a weighted decision. If the final decision between two equally qualified candidates was based off the flip of a coin, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all.

I don't see the difference.

Flip a coin: a person gets it because it happened to land on "heads" instead of "tails."

Affirmative action: a person gets it because he or she happens to be a member of a disadvantaged minority.

If anything, affirmative action is less arbitrary, because it serves to meet the general social objective of equality and fairness and it may better account for merit that has been veiled by the effects of racism.

Not necessarily. If Individual B is brought up to the same level as A and one of them is chosen based completely randomly(assuming both are equally qualified) then no one is theoretically harmed.

Right. And once "Individual B is brought up to the same level as A"--once racial inequality is extinguished at last in this country--there will be no need for affirmative action.

Or we assume that the cause is racial discrimination even when it isn't?

Not when both gross racial disparities and the existence of substantial past and present discrimination is well-documented... and the alternative explanations tend to be rather flawed.

But then, generally speaking, African-Americans are substantially disadvantaged by the racism directed against them.
I don't doubt that there is a significant level of racism/prejudice/inequality directed against African-Americans or other minorites in the US and around the globe, but I wouldn't mind some clarification on a couple of points:

According to your fine self, is Affirmative Action justified because of past grievences, present inequalities, or a mix of both?

Should AA only apply to African-Americans, or any minority that has suffered inequalities due to their status as a minority? Does this include minorities of sexual orientation or religious denomination?

How far should Affirmative Action go? To take entrance to universities as an example, should AA be a 'helping hand' to those who have been transgressed, a push in the right direction that still relies on merit; or an 'automatic' entry, if you will?

Apologies if you've already covered these points.

All application processes are based upon "generalizations."

Not sure I understand you there.
I don't see the difference.

Flip a coin: a person gets it because it happened to land on "heads" instead of "tails."

Affirmative action: a person gets it because he or she happens to be a member of a disadvantaged minority.
Exactly.
One is fair by basis of giving both an equal chance of getting in. 50%
The second gives one person a 100% chance and the other a 0% chance.

If anything, affirmative action is less arbitrary, because it serves to meet the general social objective of equality and fairness and it may better account for merit that has been veiled by the effects of racism.
It is less arbitrary as well less fair. Whether or not it "meets the general social objective of equality and fairness".
Right. And once "Individual B is brought up to the same level as A"--once racial inequality is extinguished at last in this country--there will be no need for affirmative action.
That would be nice.
Not when both gross racial disparities and the existence of substantial past and present discrimination is well-documented... and the alternative explanations tend to be rather flawed.
Ah.

I agree racial discrimination was a problem in the past and still causes problems today. I do not believe, even after going through this thread, that Affirmative Action is the right course of action to take.

According to your fine self, is Affirmative Action justified because of past grievences, present inequalities, or a mix of both?

Affirmative action is justified as a means to remedy present inequality... but that present inequality has its roots in practices and policies both past and present.

Past slavery and legal discrimination in the abstract is not a reason for affirmative action. Such policies contributing to patterns of racial inequality lingering to this day is a reason for affirmative action.

Should AA only apply to African-Americans, or any minority that has suffered inequalities due to their status as a minority?

Any group--it doesn't even need to be a minority--that is substantially disadvantaged by the consequences of bigotry.

Does this include minorities of sexual orientation or religious denomination?

Yes, in principle.

How far should Affirmative Action go? To take entrance to universities as an example, should AA be a 'helping hand' to those who have been transgressed, a push in the right direction that still relies on merit; or an 'automatic' entry, if you will?

The former, and not the latter.

Affirmative action should (and for the most part does) only apply in making decisions about a group of people who already meet the basic qualifications.

Pardon? Racism now is a lot less widespread, if anything reducing or getting rid of pressure for equal hiring will decrease what racial tension there is. Very few people nowadays are racist, MOST whites do not hate minorities and African-Americans. Get with the times!!!
And what do you think has reduced it? Wishing?

No. Although there is still racial equality, only society can solve it, the government can't solve it.
Newsflash. The government is the tool of society.

Stop twisting around my words. I'm just saying that affirmitive action makes employers turn down educated whites for minorities.I'm all for employers hiring African-Americans and other minorities,as long as they are as educated or show the same skill in that profession as the white applicant.
What makes you think they don't have the same qualifications, and are chosen all OTHER things being equal?

Nope. I live in a sleepy little town in western Maryland.
Hate to break it to you, but your own position in this argument speaks volumes about this.

Not directed at me but:

According to your fine self, is Affirmative Action justified because of past grievences, present inequalities, or a mix of both?

Present inequalities caused, in part, by past grievences, and the present day ramifcations of such.

"Race" is a "cultural and socio-economic" distinction... just one that sometimes falsely purports to be a genetic one.

That's what I was meaning, apologises as I wasn't clear what I meant. As evidenced by Oakondra and others, people still claim there is such as thing as 'white' and 'black' cultures, as if those skins colours exist independently and aren't a gradual scale of browns, and as if this genetic distinction (or lack of it) is the governing factor in separation of cultures.

America was founded by whites, built by whites, and thrived by whites; this was meant and should remain to be a white nation. Blacks were brought to America unjustly, and should have every opportunity to return to their homelands and start anew, with America's help. If there are no minorities, you cannot have inequalities or privileges or racism. Whites get to rule themselves, blacks get to rule themselves, mestizos get to rule themselves, etc. Native Americans even deserve their own nation, not some racist, privileged reservation to waste away on.

Oh, I see, you're one of those. No wonder the need to cram Christianity down people's throats -- if they aren't white and Christian, they need to be sent away.

No, African-Americans were dragged here and forced to work as slaves; they helped build this nation. Certainly lots of money was made on their backs. The Chinese came and built this nation too, or have you no education about the transcontinental railroad? The Hispanics, the Irish, the Italians were all unwelcome when they came here, and they built this nation too.

Get yourself back to Western Europe if you don't like the fact that MY homeland is here, and has more colors in it than lily-white.

A decent chunk, yes, but not the whole thing. We still deserve to keep what we conquered.

If this wasn't so pathetic, I'd laugh.

ignoring the racism...

you DO know that white america is also multi cultural dont you?

I doubt he does. Or that in this country Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, German-Americans... pretty much every "white" immigrant you can think of -- was treated like shit when they first started emigrating here by the other white Americans that were already here.

snip


I think the problem is that we can't operationalise racial discrimination very effectively which means that when discussing affirmative action people try to micromanage the process, leading to blunt solutions under the guise of 'common sense'.

Not sure I understand you there.

As I have tried to explain to Hayteria, every detail of a specific candidate cannot be known. Rather, certain measures must be used to get an approximation based on the general trend.

A college, for instance, cannot know how well a student will perform, or how well he or she will fit in, beforehand. It can only make an estimate based on what it knows of how people with similar "measures" (SAT score, high school grades, recommendations, etc.) have done.

It is thus based on generalizations--imperfect ones, but necessary ones.

One is fair by basis of giving both an equal chance of getting in. 50%

One will get in, one will not--not because of merit, but because of luck.

It is "equal" only in that no one knew beforehand which of the two would get it. But what difference does that make?

Soheran and others have done an excellent job of explaining the truth about affirmative action.

To be honest, I'm not up to wading into this bullshit again right now. So I'm going to recycle some posts from my past.

First, let's deal with some background on what affirmative action really is and isn't. For one, it isn't quotas.

I'd love to see some of you try to show a U.S. law that requires quotas. You love to burn that strawman.

Here are some links and information about what affirmative action actually is and why it should exist and/or debunking some of the canards you have fallen for/perpetuate:

US Dept. of Labor: Facts on Executive Order 11246 -- Affirmative Action (http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm)

This part is particularly enlightening:

The numerical goals are established based on the availability of qualified applicants in the job market or qualified candidates in the employer’s work force. Executive Order numerical goals do not create set-asides for specific groups, nor are they designed to achieve proportional representation or equal results. Rather, the goal-setting process in affirmative action planning is used to target and measure the effectiveness of affirmative action efforts to eradicate and prevent discrimination. The Executive Order and its supporting regulations do not authorize OFCCP to penalize contractors for not meeting goals. The regulations at 41 CFR 60-2.12(e), 60-2.30 and 60-2.15, specifically prohibit quota and preferential hiring and promotions under the guise of affirmative action numerical goals. In other words, discrimination in the selection decision is prohibited.

These are good sources of information. The first is short and summarizes some of the relevant law. The second is extremely detailed.

ABA Talking Points: Affirmative Action (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/talking/equal_aa.html)
Affirmative Action Review: Report to the President (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa-index.html)

ACLU Position Paper: Affirmative Action (http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/affirmative_action99.pdf)
Equal Opportunity Employment Commission: Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination (http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html)
Ten Myths About Affirmative Action (http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm)
Reverse Discrimination Quiz (http://www.prrac.org/full_text.php?text_id=794&item_id=7812&newsletter_id=67&header=Race+%2F+Racism)
Whites Swim in Racial Preference (http://www.prrac.org/full_text.php?text_id=789&item_id=7807&newsletter_id=67&header=Race+%2F+Racism)

Some definitions of affirmative action:

Here is the U.S. Department of Labor's official definition(s):
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/fs11246.htm

http://www.usd.edu/equalopp/definitions.cfm
Affirmative Action: Proactively hiring and promoting qualified individuals in protected groups such as minorities, disabled veterans, Vietnam-era veterans and women

http://www.unmc.edu/ethics/words.html
Affirmative action*. Positive steps to enhance the diversity of some group, often to remedy the cumulative effect of subtle as well as gross expressions of prejudice. When numerical goals are set, they are set according to the group's representation in the applicant pool rather than the group's representation in the general population. For example, a medical school with an affirmative action program would seek to admit members of an underrepresented group in proportion to their representation in the population of those who had completed pre-medical requirements and wished to attend medical school. Affirmative action should be distinguished from reparations.

http://www.wwnorton.com/stiglitzwalsh/economics/glossary.htm
affirmative action
actions by employers to seek out actively minorities and women for jobs and to provide them with training and other opportunities for promotion

http://www.kumc.edu/eoo/glossary.html
Affirmative Action: Good faith efforts to ensure equal employment opportunity and correct the effects of past discrimination against affected groups. Where appropriate, affirmative action includes goals to correct underutilization and development of results-oriented programs to address problem areas.

http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/GovAA/definitions.shtml
Affirmative Action: procedures by which racial/ethnic minorities, women, persons in the protected age category, persons with disabilities, Vietnam era veterans, and disabled veterans are provided with increased employment opportunities. This will also include programs for monitoring progress and problem identification. It shall not mean any sort of quota system.

http://www.malyconsulting.com/Resources/terms.html#AffirmativeAction
Affirmative Action (AA) top ^
Actions, policies, and procedures to which a contractor commits itself that are designed to achieve equal employment opportunity. The affirmative action obligation entails: (1) thorough, systematic efforts to prevent discrimination from occurring or to detect it and eliminate it as promptly as possible, and (2) recruitment and outreach measures.

Some have question whether racism is still a significant factor in the U.S. Some have argued blacks are not disadvantaged, and may even be privileged. Some of denied that whites are privileged in the U.S.

Let me commit the cardinal sin of asking you to look at some facts:

African American men are more than twice as likely to be unemployed as white males and make only 75 percent as much a year. They’re nearly seven times more likely to be incarcerated, and their average jail sentences are 10 months longer than those of white men. In addition, young black males between the ages of 15 and 34 years are nine times more likely to die of homicide than their white counterparts and nearly seven times as likely to suffer from AIDS.


In terms of annual median income, black men earned less than three-quarters of what white men earned ($34,443 vs. $46,807), roughly a $12,000 gap. Black women made 87 percent of what white women made and $5,000 less than black men ($29,588 a year).


Further evidence of discrimination comes from more complex and detailed comparisons of earnings of blacks and whites, or males and females. Even after adjusting for characteristics that affect earnings (such as years of education and work experience), these studies typically find that blacks and women are paid less than their white male counterparts.


Unemployment was highest among black men – 9.5 percent compared to 4.0 percent for white men – a 5.5 percentage point gap. Black women experienced an unemployment rate of 8.5 percent, 4.4 percentage points above the 4.1 percent of their white counterparts.


Poverty, much like unemployment, also tends to affect blacks, especially those under 18, at a higher rate than whites; nearly 25 percent live below the poverty line, three times the percentage of whites. Of blacks under 18, 33.5 percent lived in poverty compared to 10 percent of white youths.


Homeownership among blacks is substantially lower than among whites (47.9 percent compared to 75.8 percent) and they’re three times more likely to get high-priced mortgage loans (54.7 percent of blacks vs. 17.2 percent of whites).


Blatant discrimination is a continuing problem in the labor market. Perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from "audit" studies, in which white and minority (or male and female) job seekers are given similar resumes and sent to the same set of firms to apply for a job. These studies often find that employers are less likely to interview or offer a job to minority applicants and to female applicants.


In 1995, white males held 97 percent of senior management positions in Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service industries. Only 0.6 percent of senior management were African American, 0.3 percent are Asian and 0.4 percent are Hispanic. Little change has occurred in these numbers since 1995.


In 1995, African Americans held only 2.5 percent of top jobs in the private sector and African American men with professional degrees earned only 79 percent of the amount earned by their white counterparts. Comparably situated African American women earned only 60 percent of the amount earned by white males. Little change has occurred in these numbers since 1995.


Some sources:
National Urban League’s THE STATE OF BLACK AMERICA 2007 (Executive Summary, pdf) (http://www.nul.org/publications/SOBA/Executive%20Summary/2007SOBAEXCSUMMARY.pdf)
Affirmative Action Review: Report to the President (1995) (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa04.html)
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Job Patterns For Minorities And Women In Private Industry (http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/jobpat/jobpat.html)
Census report: Broad racial disparities persist (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15704759/)
Poverty trends by race (http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/povrace.html)

What racism?

If by "White America" you mean a nation of just whites but different white cultures, all white culture is European. Euro-Americans live peaceably and happily and willingly with each other. It's when other races get into the mix that things start to become complicated for both parties.

*laughs hysterically*

http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed311/kafai/Team%204/immigration#anchor2210832
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1999/3/99.03.06.x.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_American
http://www.germanheritage.com/Essays/1848/forty-eighters_part3.html
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/102103/jewish_immigration_under_fdr_and_european.html
http://www.clevelandmemory.org/ebooks/polish/part02.html

Please, for heaven's sake, at least know what you're talking about.

As I have tried to explain to Hayteria, every detail of a specific candidate cannot be known. Rather, certain measures must be used to get an approximation based on the general trend.

A college, for instance, cannot know how well a student will perform, or how well he or she will fit in, beforehand. It can only make an estimate based on what it knows of how people with similar "measures" (SAT score, high school grades, recommendations, etc.) have done.

It is thus based on generalizations--imperfect ones, but necessary ones.

Agreed. No reason to make more generalizations though.

One will get in, one will not--not because of merit, but because of luck.

It is "equal" only in that no one knew beforehand which of the two would get it. But what difference does that make?
One will automatically get in, one will definitely not--not because of merit, but because of 'race'.
It is 'equal' in that nobody knows before, as well as it is equal in that both have an equal chance of getting in.
With affirmative action there is no equal chance.

Here are some of the audit studies showing rampant discrimination in the job market that I am talking about in my last post:
Race at work (http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/race_at_work.pdf) (pdf)
Discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities in access to employment in the United States: Empirical findings from situation testing (http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/migrant/papers/usempir/)
Culture, Information, and Screening Discrimination (http://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jpolec/v104y1996i3p542-71.html)
The Use of Field Experiments for Studies of Employment Discrimination: Contributions, Critiques, and Directions for the Future (http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/609/1/104) (pdf)
Discrimination in Low-Wage Labor Markets: Evidence from an Experimental Audit Study in New York City (http://paa2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=50874) (pdf)

I particularly draw your attention to Race at work (http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/race_at_work.pdf) (pdf) which is easy to read and profound in its implications.

Among the findings are that "blacks are only slightly more than half as likely to receive consideration by employers relative to equally qualified white applicants." (p.3)

And, a "white applicant with a felony conviction appears to do just as well, if not better, than his black counterpart with no criminal background. These results suggest that employers view minority applications as essentially equivalent to whites just out of prison." (p. 6)

OK - hopefully this guy is a puppet, but I've got a while to kill.

Nazi Germany was a great nation.
From 1934-39, if you were a white, middle-class, Christian male with a conservative streak, yes.
They never invaded an entire continent, they attacked firstly Czechoslovakia to retake German lands
I'd love to see some proof of this, because I've been a student of history long enough to know that this is some serious bullshitting you're doing right here.

The Germans took the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia without any problems from the Czech army. They then went on to take the rest of the country in March 1939. I don't see how this was caused by any kind of attack against the German military, to be quite honest.
and then were attacked by Poland and responded to that with force.
Er, no.
When the rest of the world got involved, Germany was actually the one to suffer.
Aye, because the millions of Jews and Romany people, as well as over 20 million Russians pales in comparison to the utterly deserved 6 million Germans, right?
Just LOOK at the horrible effects that Germany, even today, has to deal with because the rest of the world's bigotry.
Looking... looking... can't find any.
America was founded as a white European nation
I think you're forgetting the native Americans thing going on.
fought for by whites to gain sovereignty
Against other white people...
and white blood was shed to keep it in power.
Against other white people.
This is my homeland.
There are plenty other 'white' nations out there, although none of them want you. Or will ever want you.
America is destined to fall because it is become a multicultural hellhole.
Not really, the thing that'll bring America down is its arrogance and greed.

OK - hopefully this guy is a puppet, but I've got a while to kill.


From 1934-39, if you were a white, middle-class, Christian male with a conservative streak, yes.

I'd love to see some proof of this, because I've been a student of history long enough to know that this is some serious bullshitting you're doing right here.

The Germans took the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia without any problems from the Czech army. They then went on to take the rest of the country in March 1939. I don't see how this was caused by any kind of attack against the German military, to be quite honest.

Er, no.

Aye, because the millions of Jews and Romany people, as well as over 20 million Russians pales in comparison to the utterly deserved 6 million Germans, right?

Looking... looking... can't find any.

I think you're forgetting the native Americans thing going on.

Against other white people...

Against other white people.

There are plenty other 'white' nations out there, although none of them want you. Or will ever want you.

Not really, the thing that'll bring America down is its arrogance and greed.

/thread

Agreed. No reason to make more generalizations though.

The point is that sometimes to achieve your objective, you have to make generalizations.

If your objective is finding the qualified applicants among all those who apply, you have to generalize based on imperfect measures of qualification.

If your objective is promoting genuinely equal opportunity for all races, you have to generalize based on imperfect measures of racial disadvantage.

as well as it is equal in that both have an equal chance of getting in.

Look, I could be pedantic about this, and point out that as a matter of fact which side the coin is going to land on is already set: it is not truly "random" and does not give an equal chance, but is the result of causal laws.

But I see no point in even opening that discussion, because the real test, in moral terms, is not whether or not it is truly "random" but whether or not it is arbitrary. Whether we base our decision on a truly random factor like some minute random fluctuation on the quantum level, or on an equally arbitrary non-random factor like what race a person happens to be or what side of a coin happens to land on the table, it is still arbitrary.

As someone who is against Affirmative Action because I despise all forms of discrimination except those based on skills, I find the words of the people racially motivated against AA to be disgusting. There is nothing wrong with minorities, and yes, they are disadvantaged in some ways, but why should someone with white skin be slighted for someone slightly less skilled of colour for a job?

I don't mind losing out to someone equally or more qualified. I hate being discriminated against because someone is of colour and less qualified. Positive discrimination doesn't undo years of negative discrimination. Discrimination is still discrimination. The only time it is ever justifiable when it comes to people is when you're doing it based on just skills (soft, technical etc), because then you're judging the person on what they can or cannot do, not what the colour of their skin is or their heritage.

I'd rather compete on the basis of intelligence and skill than skin colour.

There are non-racial reasons to be against AA - especially if one of those reasons is you're looking for work and you're being left out in the cold.

Equal Opportunity should mean that we all have a chance to qualify for a job based on skill, not qualify because we're part of a visible minority. Sadly it seems like EO has become just that instead of a tool for true equality.

Rather than you getting it because of the privileges associated with your "skin color"?
What privileges? Again, you're acting like privileges associated with skin colour are inherent in white people. When the merits are about equal, should "the black person should get the job because he/she is part of a disadvantaged race" be an adequate reason to hire them? Granted, I suppose equal merits lend consideration to other reasons for hiring, but there's other reasons for hiring than merits OR race, like the extent to which a certain person would need the job, etc...

No, but A not being perfect (as opposed to "not working") is not an argument against A unless B is better.
More like A being collectivist, and as such having the same problem as is the problem with racism anyway. My point was one not working doesn't mean you should choose the other, it means to choose the other OR choose neither.

Since you weren't being clear, I made a guess as to what you might mean.
I wasn't being clear? What the hell? I thought I made myself very clear, and if I didn't, maybe you should've asked instead of just randomly guessing.

Oh, and...

Race, however, has nothing to do with merit.
vs...
Yes, obviously you measure "how educated someone is" as an individual. Similarly, you measure what race someone is as an individual.
...

In case it didn't occur to you, how educated someone is qualifies as merit, because it is exactly relevant to the job, since knowledge is something that will help them do their job. Race is irrelevant to the job (except for maybe in a hypothetically racist-minded community within a laissez-faire society where someone hiring salespeople wanted to appease racist customers so as not to get drowned out in competition) so it's unreasonable to compare it to education.

Some people may work hard, but be very inefficient. Some people may be lazy, but still get the work done effectively.
Why would a hard worker be inefficient and laziness effective? That just sounds contradictory to me.

Affirimitive action is racist. It is racist in 2 ways, 1. It takes jobs away from majorities and 2.It basicly says minorities are too stupid or weak or (fill in the blank with a fault)to get the job themselves. Anyone else think like this, or is it just me?

Not for the reasons you listed

When the merits are about equal, should "the black person should get the job because he/she is part of a disadvantaged race" be an adequate reason to hire them? Granted, I suppose equal merits lend consideration to other reasons for hiring, but there's other reasons for hiring than merits OR race, like the extent to which a certain person would need the job, etc...

Indeed there are. Why shouldn't race be one of the considerations?

More like A being collectivist, and as such having the same problem as is the problem with racism anyway.

By "collectivist" you seem to mean "makes generalizations"... but that is true of all kinds of decisions we make, by necessity.

Imperfect. Not unworkable.

I wasn't being clear? What the hell? I thought I made myself very clear, and if I didn't, maybe you should've asked instead of just randomly guessing.

You spoke vaguely about combinations of problems, without explaining how it applied... and I did ask you about that.

Then I guessed one way it might possibly apply, one that made a great deal of sense in the context, and responded to it. Makes things faster if you're right.

Oh, and...


vs...

...

You're equivocating.

"Race" as a basis for racist discrimination has nothing to do with merit, and is completely arbitrary.

"Race" as a basis for affirmative action sometimes has to do with merit (a person's accomplishments, if they occurred despite obstacles caused by racism, might mean more), and even when it does not is still not arbitrary as long as it is oriented towards the objectives of correcting racial injustices and promoting diversity.

In case it didn't occur to you, how educated someone is qualifies as merit, because it is exactly relevant to the job, since knowledge is something that will help them do their job. Race is irrelevant to the job (except for maybe in a hypothetically racist-minded community within a laissez-faire society where someone hiring salespeople wanted to appease racist customers so as not to get drowned out in competition) so it's unreasonable to compare it to education.

You're missing the point. My point was about generalization.

You are, of course, right that the indicators measure different things: education level is intended to measure qualification, race (in affirmative action) is intended to measure suitability for fulfilling the objectives of racial justice and diversity.

But both indicators are based on generalization.

Why would a hard worker be inefficient

Because he or she is bad at the job?

I can work really hard, but if I don't have the necessary talent it might not make a difference.

and laziness effective?

Not laziness. A particular lazy person, who is talented enough that he or she can be perfectly effective without working very hard.

Anyone who tries to tell you that racist "doesn't exist anymore", or even that racism is "a lot less prevalent now than it was 1960's" is absolutely pissing on your leg.

Since the 1960's, the "negroes only" and "whites only" signs have come down. There used to be such segregation, enforced by law, in schools and public transport to name a few examples. Not any more.

However, while there isn't a "negroes only" section in the back of the bus today, not much else has actually changed.

A few examples are required here:

1. Racist provision of credit. Major banks (such as Citibank) regularly engage in the practice of "red-lining" - cutting off or restricting credit to minorities. Minorities are typically about 50% less likely to have loan applications approved. And for those who do get loans, interest rates are often double those charged for whites.

2. Police harassment. This is a particular problem experienced by blacks all over the country. Nearly every black male has at some point in his life been accosted by the police for no reason at all. Jails in the USA are disproportionately filled with blacks. The criminal justice system routinely hands down harsher punishments to blacks. When you see a wanted suspect on a poster or on a TV appeal, it is almost always a black male.

3. Taxi hailing. An interesting experiment was done a few years ago in New York to see how prevalent racism was. It was simple - they got a white man and a black man, stood them on opposite sides of a busy road, and got them both to try and hail a cab. The white guy always go picked up within minutes, whereas the black guy was totally ignored by nearly every cab (the only cabs that did pick up the black guy were also driven by black guys).

People have mentioned slavery, saying that it was "a long time ago" and that it doesn't have any effect today any more. Really? I don't think so. There are still people alive today whose grandparents were slaves. The State of Mississipi didn't outlaw slavery until 1995 (no, I'm not joking). That is NOT a long time ago.

So I for one support affirmative action. Is it racist? No, in point of fact, it's the opposite of racism.

I agree with the OP here. Affirmative action IS racist. It is really nothing more than politically correct racism, a means by which the government tries to impoverish white families by taking away any hope of income the white families might otherwise have (i.e. by telling companies they can't hire white people, they have to hire blacks.)

Police harassment. This is a particular problem experienced by blacks all over the country. Nearly every black male has at some point in his life been accosted by the police for no reason at all. Jails in the USA are disproportionately filled with blacks. The criminal justice system routinely hands down harsher punishments to blacks. When you see a wanted suspect on a poster or on a TV appeal, it is almost always a black male.

So you're saying black people should not be punished for crimes they commit? That white people should be thrown in jail in their stead? That's just more politically correct racism. And affirmative action certainly IS racist.

So you're saying black people should not be punished for crimes they commit? That white people should be thrown in jail in their stead? That's just more politically correct racism. And affirmative action certainly IS racist.

WTF thats not what he said at all

As someone who is against Affirmative Action because I despise all forms of discrimination except those based on skills, I find the words of the people racially motivated against AA to be disgusting. There is nothing wrong with minorities, and yes, they are disadvantaged in some ways, but why should someone with white skin be slighted for someone slightly less skilled of colour for a job?

I don't mind losing out to someone equally or more qualified. I hate being discriminated against because someone is of colour and less qualified. Positive discrimination doesn't undo years of negative discrimination. Discrimination is still discrimination. The only time it is ever justifiable when it comes to people is when you're doing it based on just skills (soft, technical etc), because then you're judging the person on what they can or cannot do, not what the colour of their skin is or their heritage.

I'd rather compete on the basis of intelligence and skill than skin colour.

There are non-racial reasons to be against AA - especially if one of those reasons is you're looking for work and you're being left out in the cold.

Equal Opportunity should mean that we all have a chance to qualify for a job based on skill, not qualify because we're part of a visible minority. Sadly it seems like EO has become just that instead of a tool for true equality.

QFT.

WTF thats not what he said at all

He said that the jails in the USA are "disproportionately filled with blacks", as if the government were just grabbing them off the street and throwing them in jail for no reason, or because they're black (which is not the case). It looked to me like he was suggesting (he may not have been, but it looked like he was) that, when blacks commit crimes, instead of punishing the criminal, the gov't should go grab a white person off the street (or the victim if s/he survived the crime) and imprison THAT person instead of the actual criminal.

If I misunderstood, I apologize, but I sometimes hear people complaining about the jails in the USA being "disproportionately filled with blacks", and I think that these people should stop to think that maybe blacks are committing disproportionately more crimes than whites are, and THAT may be (and IMO it almost certainly is) the reason our jails are disproportionately filled with blacks.

1. Racist provision of credit. Major banks (such as Citibank) regularly engage in the practice of "red-lining" - cutting off or restricting credit to minorities. Minorities are typically about 50% less likely to have loan applications approved. And for those who do get loans, interest rates are often double those charged for whites.

2. Police harassment. This is a particular problem experienced by blacks all over the country. Nearly every black male has at some point in his life been accosted by the police for no reason at all. Jails in the USA are disproportionately filled with blacks. The criminal justice system routinely hands down harsher punishments to blacks. When you see a wanted suspect on a poster or on a TV appeal, it is almost always a black male.

I'd put these two down to economic rather than racist factors.

He said that the jails in the USA are "disproportionately filled with blacks", as if the government were just grabbing them off the street and throwing them in jail for no reason

That is what he said ... and you extrapolated a whole lot of un-supported information on top of it

There have been a whole host of studdies showing harsher or longer average punishments for the SAME crime handed out to individuals of non-white races. Thats not saying they should not be punished rather that they should be punished the SAME as counterparts of other races (who also deserve punishment)
, or because they're black (which is not the case)
Amazing a whole host of studies seem to disagree with you there

. It looked to me like he was suggesting (he may not have been, but it looked like he was) that, when blacks commit crimes, instead of punishing the criminal, the gov't should go grab a white person off the street (or the victim if s/he survived the crime) and imprison THAT person instead of the actual criminal.

No where anywhere in that entire quoted statement did he even hint at punishing someone for a crime they did not commit based on race

If I misunderstood, I apologize, but I sometimes hear people complaining about the jails in the USA being "disproportionately filled with blacks", and I think that these people should stop to think that maybe blacks are committing disproportionately more crimes than whites are, and THAT may be (and IMO it almost certainly is) the reason our jails are disproportionately filled with blacks.
That is some of the reason but again any respectable study I have ever seen seems to point at more then that single reason

Anyone who tries to tell you that racist "doesn't exist anymore", or even that racism is "a lot less prevalent now than it was 1960's" is absolutely pissing on your leg.

Since the 1960's, the "negroes only" and "whites only" signs have come down. There used to be such segregation, enforced by law, in schools and public transport to name a few examples. Not any more.

However, while there isn't a "negroes only" section in the back of the bus today, not much else has actually changed.

A few examples are required here:

1. Racist provision of credit. Major banks (such as Citibank) regularly engage in the practice of "red-lining" - cutting off or restricting credit to minorities. Minorities are typically about 50% less likely to have loan applications approved. And for those who do get loans, interest rates are often double those charged for whites.

2. Police harassment. This is a particular problem experienced by blacks all over the country. Nearly every black male has at some point in his life been accosted by the police for no reason at all. Jails in the USA are disproportionately filled with blacks. The criminal justice system routinely hands down harsher punishments to blacks. When you see a wanted suspect on a poster or on a TV appeal, it is almost always a black male.

3. Taxi hailing. An interesting experiment was done a few years ago in New York to see how prevalent racism was. It was simple - they got a white man and a black man, stood them on opposite sides of a busy road, and got them both to try and hail a cab. The white guy always go picked up within minutes, whereas the black guy was totally ignored by nearly every cab (the only cabs that did pick up the black guy were also driven by black guys).

People have mentioned slavery, saying that it was "a long time ago" and that it doesn't have any effect today any more. Really? I don't think so. There are still people alive today whose grandparents were slaves. The State of Mississipi didn't outlaw slavery until 1995 (no, I'm not joking). That is NOT a long time ago.

So I for one support affirmative action. Is it racist? No, in point of fact, it's the opposite of racism.

Affirmative Action is racist. Just because it is racist towards a traditionally disadvantaged group doesn't stop it from being racist. And if you think you're being all benevalent and shit by supporting it, guess what? YOU"RE NOT!
An explanation:
Citi-bank probably does this because most blacks live in the ghetto (a legacy of racism but by no means an indicator of contemporary racism), meaning that of course, THEY WOULD PAY HIGHER CREDIT!! Unless it says point blank Blacks pay this rate because their black, it's not racist.

Relative to Mississippi, laws stay on file years after they become overturned in a court case or otherwise ceases to be relevant. In my county there is a law (I swear, this is still on our files) that one cannot walk a duck on Main Street. Apparently, this was somehow pertinent to a disease in my county during the 1830's. Yet the law is still there. More than likely Mississippian law makers noticed this anachronism and decided it was time to get rid of it. Unless the law was actively being used to enslave blacks, this example means jack shit.

Your police example is the only one I might be willing to consider, but then again, they live in a poor area where CRIME IS TRADITIONALLY HIGHER, regardless of what race occupies the slums.

Now, do you want some real statistics? Here, I got some:
Whites in 2006 were 70% of the population and blacks were 12%. Now, according to the FBI, of all hate crimes committed during that year, 58% were committed by whites and 20% were committed by blacks. If you can do basic math, you would see that white participation in hate crimes is disproportionately low and black participation was disproportionately high. If you remember a while back on NSG some girl was complaining about being called a "white slut" by a black women on a train. Blacks are therefore, proportionately of course, more responsible for hate crimes than whites and this shows that yes, among whites, hate IS ON THE DECLINE.

The fact is that I have never in my life seen a white who could be remotely charged with racism and I used to live in the deep south of all places. Obviously racism does exist in some places, but it is imperceptibly small. Have you ever seen a racist? No, not on the news. The media can lie, you know. It does happen. I mean in real life. Like a full out, Hitler-worshiping, cross-burning racist? No, really? Have you?

The US periodically goes on witch-hunts. First, in the 1690's, we hunted actual "witches" and burned them at the stake, despite the fact that THEY WEREN"T WITCHES! Then in the 1920's and again in the 1950's, we started again, this time hunting the communists who weren't actually there. Now, here we are again, hunting non-existant racists, using bullshit evidence to attempt to convince ourselves that they are still out there. You see a white kid arguing with a black man in the street and you automatically assume the white kid is arguing because he's a racist. And the belief becomes reinforced with a percieved "real world" example.

The fact is that racism is largely now a hobgoblin, used by politicians to discredit each other. Accusing other politicians of being racist is a quick way of ripping the support right out from under their feet. Many politicians play off it to avoid talking about real issues, like the economy or foriegn policy. Or to discredit their opponents. Or to beat money out of guilty/benevolent feeling whites for their constituents.

Link to FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/offenders.html

AA is a quick-patch solution to a deeper problem.

Why are African Americans getting employed through Affirmative Action considered to be underqualified? Perhaps in place of Affirmative Action, a more efficient program designed to ensure that ALL Americans meet the workforce with adequate education and job training should be implemented. This way there can be no question of discrimination based on any one person's skin color as everyone will be equally qualified.

The problem that I personally see with Affirmative Action is that, instead of breaking down racial barriers, it creates new ones that eventually leave at least one race feeling snubbed or mistreated because of skin color. Discrimination cannot be positive as long as it still leaves even just one person being discriminated against on the basis of race alone.

1. Racist provision of credit. Major banks (such as Citibank) regularly engage in the practice of "red-lining" - cutting off or restricting credit to minorities. Minorities are typically about 50% less likely to have loan applications approved. And for those who do get loans, interest rates are often double those charged for whites.


While I don't disagree about racism being alive and well I do want to point out that your definition of redlineing is incorrect.

Redlineing is specific to geographic areas which banks used to not lend in (sorta how pizza delivery companies won't deliver to certain high-crime areas) These areas tended to have high minoriy presense. It was calle redlining because the banks literally drew a red line areound neighborhoods they considered unfit.

Here's the rub - I think that a person should be free to be as prejudice and discriminatory as they want. If a business owner does not want to serve blacks then so be it. If a bank does not want to serve hispanics then so be it. I can personally tell you that I would intentionally avoid frequenting such places - but I don't see any reason why a private enterprise should be forced to serve anyone they don't want to anymore than a private person should be forced to work for an employer they don't want to or buy service from a business they don't want to.

Yes - that means that I could get passed up on a job because I am not the right race - but you know what - it happens every day. Customers can come into a business and not buy there because they don't like being waited on by a man, woman, black, white, old, young, whatever. I don't miss one of them. Since I am paid on a comission basis - that means I am discriminated against regularly. So what?

There is no question that discrimination is a vile thing - but I don't see where forcing people to buy/sell/behave in any manner with people they don't want to will change that. It could make it worse. At the end of the day I think people should be free to be idiots - and if it means I have to live with bigotry on occasion - well - what has really changed?

AA is a quick-patch solution to a deeper problem.

Why are African Americans getting employed through Affirmative Action considered to be underqualified? Perhaps in place of Affirmative Action, a more efficient program designed to ensure that ALL Americans meet the workforce with adequate education and job training should be implemented. This way there can be no question of discrimination based on any one person's skin color as everyone will be equally qualified.



You mean like 13-14 years of free education with regular standardized tests on occasion to insure people are learning at a consistent pace? Maybe throw in government subsizied education beyond that?

tadaaaa! Your wish is my command.

You mean like 13-14 years of free education with regular standardized tests on occasion to insure people are learning at a consistent pace? Maybe throw in government subsizied education beyond that?

tadaaaa! Your wish is my command.

In my happy-go-lucky fantasy world, at the very least college would be goverment subsidized, aka free for any who wish to go. Of course goverment subsidized means the money has to come from somewhere and that would hit the taxpayers pretty hard, but I think it would be worth it to have a higher level of education available to all. I wouldn't even mind siphoning funds from other budget demands, such as costly wars. Oooh, that sounds so liberal!

If I misunderstood, I apologize, but I sometimes hear people complaining about the jails in the USA being "disproportionately filled with blacks", and I think that these people should stop to think that maybe blacks are committing disproportionately more crimes than whites are, and THAT may be (and IMO it almost certainly is) the reason our jails are disproportionately filled with blacks.

Even if that were true, what do you think the reason might be that black people would commit more crimes than whites? Could it possibly, just maybe be that blacks are far, far more likely to be economically disadvantaged, to attend schools with poorer track records, to be unable to afford to live outside of ghettos? Could it possibly be that blacks have a harder time finding jobs, and are more likely to be forced into illegal activities simply to support themselves and their families?

Nah...that'd be too logical.

I wouldn't even mind siphoning funds from other budget demands, such as costly wars.

You can't put a price tag on freedom. :)

Fixed the title.



[/spellingnazi] Carry on!

I have an idea on how to overhaul AA programs to make them less "racist" and more "fair." Instead of giving ethnic, racial, or religious minorities prefference to a school, we should give POOR KIDS preference to schools. I know there are already financial aid programs for poor kids but I think we need to take that a step further by haiving AA programs revolve around the income level of one's parents. The people who make AA unfair are middle class minorites who are not dissadvantaged in any way and live in perfectly stable families and safe neighborhoods where there is a stronger community emphasis on education. Besides, AA leaves behind those of the racial majority tho dissadvantaged in every same way as the dissadvanteged fo the minority: they live in poor, violent, unstable communities prone to unhealthy fmaily situations and are devoid of any emphasis on education.

The idea behind any AA program is that racial minorities are dissadvantaged, but the fact is that their continued state of being dissadvantaged is in no way correlated to their race. It all has to do with the income of the parents, thereby the neighborhoods they live in.

I'm sure a million people have this idea before. It just seems to obvious, or something. Maybe it's flawed, I don't know. (Has someone already posted something like this? I didn't bother to read every signle one...)

I was going to go into more detail about the examples I gave, but I didn't, at the risk of boring the shit out of everyone. But it is clear now that I do need to.

First of all, the issue of biased access to credit. This is not a matter of opinion, I'm afraid. It's a matter of FACT. It is based on extensive research done by community credit unions. For example, the Lower East Side Peoples Credit union in New York. They investigated the lending practices of several commercial banking outfits operating in the area, including Citibank and Charter Bank. They found out that Citibank was 50% more likely to reject loan applications from minorities. Charter bank was a whopping 300% more likely to reject loan applications from minorities. The interest rates charged to blacks and hispanics on loans and home mortgages averaged 12%, whereas for whites, the average rate charged was 7%. The credit unions also analysed the credit rating of all the ethnic groups present, and found that there was little discernible difference in creditworthiness between blacks, hispanics and whites in the area.

Now tell me with a straight face that the banks aren't racist.

Further detail on the issue of police harassment: Do you remember the (admittedly a bit off-the-wall) show called TV Nation? Well, they did a news segment on this very issue in Washington DC. Being a documentary show, they have limited time, so they chose one example of a black citizen - a guy called Brian Anthony Harris. This guy works for Black Entertainment TV in Washington. He has a spotless criminal record. He has a proper job, and a car. He's the kind of guy that racism-deniers would point to as being an example that racism "doesn't exist anymore".
However, he has been pulled over by the DC police no less than 30 times, for no reason at all. TV Nation made an example of him and ran a media campaign to persuade the police to leave him alone (which was successful).
Ok, so this is just one guy. Is this an isolated case? Well, unfortunately not. At the end of the show, they gave out a freephone number, and encouraged anyone else who is persistently harassed by the police to phone in. During the two days when the lines were open, their phones rang off the hook.

Again, please tell me with a straight face that the police aren't racist.

Ok, so my example about Mississipi was a bit silly, and no, I don't think that slavery was actually still going on in the early 1990s. But my larger point was that society does still feel the effects of slavery, which manifest themselves as racism.

As I understand it, what affirmative action is all about is giving opportunities to those who would otherwise not have those opportunities due to racist discrimination. As such, it is fighting the effects of racism. It is a counter-measure to racism, if you like. So my statement that affirmative action is the opposite to racism isn't so unreasonable, is it?

If Affirmative Action was not racist, there would be an expiration date.
Clearly the belief of the supporters of Affirmative Action is that those targeted for 'help' will *always* need it......

If Affirmative Action was not racist, there would be an expiration date.
Clearly the belief of the supporters of Affirmative Action is that those targeted for 'help' will *always* need it......

What, are we supposed to look into our crystal balls and find exactly what date it won't be necessary anymore? Or maybe we should consult goat entrails?

Of course, if you do have a good way of telling the future, could you look up next week's Michigan lottery for me?

Further detail on the issue of police harassment: Do you remember the (admittedly a bit off-the-wall) show called TV Nation? Well, they did a news segment on this very issue in Washington DC. Being a documentary show, they have limited time, so they chose one example of a black citizen - a guy called Brian Anthony Harris. This guy works for Black Entertainment TV in Washington. He has a spotless criminal record. He has a proper job, and a car. He's the kind of guy that racism-deniers would point to as being an example that racism "doesn't exist anymore".
However, he has been pulled over by the DC police no less than 30 times, for no reason at all. TV Nation made an example of him and ran a media campaign to persuade the police to leave him alone (which was successful).
Ok, so this is just one guy. Is this an isolated case? Well, unfortunately not. At the end of the show, they gave out a freephone number, and encouraged anyone else who is persistently harassed by the police to phone in. During the two days when the lines were open, their phones rang off the hook.

How did the police know he was black if they pulled him over in his CAR? Does he have a big glow-in-the-dark sign that says "I am an African-American" on it? Of course, silly me, the police can see through car seats and walls. And nobody would EVER lie to get on TV or even just for the fun.(rolls eyes)

How did the police know he was black if they pulled him over in his CAR? Does he have a big glow-in-the-dark sign that says "I am an African-American" on it? Of course, silly me, the police can see through car seats and walls. And nobody would EVER lie to get on TV or even just for the fun.(rolls eyes)

Erm...most cars have these things called "windows."

In my happy-go-lucky fantasy world, at the very least college would be goverment subsidized, aka free for any who wish to go. Of course goverment subsidized means the money has to come from somewhere and that would hit the taxpayers pretty hard, but I think it would be worth it to have a higher level of education available to all. I wouldn't even mind siphoning funds from other budget demands, such as costly wars. Oooh, that sounds so liberal!

Hmmm - nice in theory - but before you start giving away even more education why don't you get everyone to utilize (and appreciate) all of the free one they are already being given.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3790483

I have an idea on how to overhaul AA programs to make them less "racist" and more "fair." Instead of giving ethnic, racial, or religious minorities prefference to a school, we should give POOR KIDS preference to schools. I know there are already financial aid programs for poor kids but I think we need to take that a step further by haiving AA programs revolve around the income level of one's parents. The people who make AA unfair are middle class minorites who are not dissadvantaged in any way and live in perfectly stable families and safe neighborhoods where there is a stronger community emphasis on education. Besides, AA leaves behind those of the racial majority tho dissadvantaged in every same way as the dissadvanteged fo the minority: they live in poor, violent, unstable communities prone to unhealthy fmaily situations and are devoid of any emphasis on education.
Well... I guess it's a step,but I'm still for getting rid of AA. This will weaken it for when a mostly Libertarian senate is elected!

Erm...most cars have these things called "windows."
Most people don't lean over to the side and look out the back window while driving. Thats why I said car seats, you know with that head rest that compleatly obscures your head from anyone looking behind you.

Most people don't lean over to the side and look out the back window while driving. Thats why I said car seats, you know with that head rest that compleatly obscures your head from anyone looking behind you.Unless they're positioned up a little higher for taller people and the neck is clearly seen.

Or an arm off from the side.

Most people don't lean over to the side and look out the back window while driving. Thats why I said car seats, you know with that head rest that compleatly obscures your head from anyone looking behind you.

I'm a little puzzled as to why you think seeing someone's face is a necessary part of determining their skin color. Most people, in fact, have skin on the rest of their bodies, too. (Further, it should be noted that any halfway responsible driver most definitely does lean over to the side and look out their rear window while driving. It's called checking your blind spot, and you'll never pass a driving test if you don't do it.)

Do me a favor - next time you're riding in a car, look at the cars next to and in front of you and see if you can't determine the skin colors of the people driving them. I strongly suspect you'll find it a lot easier than you seem to think.

Now tell me with a straight face that the banks aren't racist.
Banks aren't racist.

Your post makes no mention of any weighting for other factors such as income, credit, work history, etc. Just as some minority groups have higher or lower crime statistics or income statistics, they also have higher or lower credit statistics. Unless you make allowances for that your results will continue to be critically flawed.

The ultimate evidence that banks are not racially prejudiced - underwriters (the people who approve/deny credit) never meet nor see the applicant. They don't know if the applicant is white, brown black or yellow. To the underwriters they are all, eventually either green or red.


Further detail on the issue of police harassment: Do you remember the (admittedly a bit off-the-wall) show called TV Nation? Well, they did a news segment on this very issue in Washington DC. Being a documentary show, they have limited time, so they chose one example of a black citizen - a guy called Brian Anthony Harris. This guy works for Black Entertainment TV in Washington. He has a spotless criminal record. He has a proper job, and a car. He's the kind of guy that racism-deniers would point to as being an example that racism "doesn't exist anymore".
However, he has been pulled over by the DC police no less than 30 times, for no reason at all. TV Nation made an example of him and ran a media campaign to persuade the police to leave him alone (which was successful).
Ok, so this is just one guy. Is this an isolated case? Well, unfortunately not. At the end of the show, they gave out a freephone number, and encouraged anyone else who is persistently harassed by the police to phone in. During the two days when the lines were open, their phones rang off the hook.

Again, please tell me with a straight face that the police aren't racist.

The police (and other emgency workers as well) are racist.

Big shock? Can you blame them - you know the statistics - and every day who are they getting shot at by, hit by, chasing, arresting etc.? Disproportionatly minorities - The police are being conditioned by circumstances to be more suspicious of certain minorities. What race says 'don't snitch'? What race promotes music with such wonderous lyrics like 'cop killa'? Is it fair for police to treat all member of that race with aditional suspicion? No. Is it understandable? Yes. It is the responsibility not only of the police to be fair - but also of minorities (and everyone else) to realize that actions, even of a few, have concenquences that can affect everyone else.

Ok, so my example about Mississipi was a bit silly, and no, I don't think that slavery was actually still going on in the early 1990s. But my larger point was that society does still feel the effects of slavery, which manifest themselves as racism.
Racism has been around globaly much longer than slavery was in the US. Slavery was also not contained to just blacks.

As I understand it, what affirmative action is all about is giving opportunities to those who would otherwise not have those opportunities due to racist discrimination. As such, it is fighting the effects of racism. It is a counter-measure to racism, if you like. So my statement that affirmative action is the opposite to racism isn't so unreasonable, is it?

If that were the net result or even method you would get little argument. Tragically - it is not always the case. Follow the money and you will find the truth - and it, sadly, has little to do with making minorities more empowered.

How did the police know he was black if they pulled him over in his CAR? Does he have a big glow-in-the-dark sign that says "I am an African-American" on it? Of course, silly me, the police can see through car seats and walls. And nobody would EVER lie to get on TV or even just for the fun.(rolls eyes)

It is not that difficult to determine the general race of a car's occupants from outside the car.* Sorry my friend, but the Police are racist. Even the black ones are (weird, I know). Same goes for any emergency worker. Se my prior post for more details on why.

* Hell - I even play a game to pass the time in city traffic where I try to guess the race, gender and age of a driver just by observing how they drive. I guess correctly about 70% of the time...

You can't put a price tag on freedom. :)

Why, sure you can!

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkk_wzkhHYmYBKLVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE5ZXAyc2J1BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA0RGUjVfMTIzB GwDV1Mx/SIG=11d7c99i2/EXP=1196040304/**http%3a//www.costofwar.com/

I do have to apologize for grabbing the first link I saw, but I'm a lazy and it served my purpose. ;)

Hmmm - nice in theory - but before you start giving away even more education why don't you get everyone to utilize (and appreciate) all of the free one they are already being given.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3790483

Yes, an even deeper problem that needs to be addressed. How to make someone want to learn despite all of the challenges s/he is surrounded by.
Ha, I bet if we started paying kids to go to school that would fix interest levels in education. As you can see any budget pre-existent to any hypothetical leadership of mine would go straight down the crapper. Which is why I am not in charge. But I'd like to think my ideas aren't all bad!

Ha, I bet if we started paying kids to go to school that would fix interest levels in education.

Heh - lets pay them to accept the gift of free education. (kiding)

btw - I enjoy your writing style. (not kidding)

When I was a student I worked for a health research center. At one point a position opened up that paid state funds. There were several who submitted resumes who were unaware that the center would only receive the funds if they hired a minority.

All of them had their resumes trashed because they weren't minority, is that close enough? Of course some may have been from a higher class, but there was no inquisition as to what actual economic background the candidates had.

In the end, racism commits a wrong by identifying people with the groups with which they share qualities. All people should be treated as individuals, on their own merits, and should not be forced to carry the burden of their last name, their race, the gender, their ethnicity.

Those institutions who do engage in affirmative action cannot make the error of treating individuals according to what groups they belong to.
So... What are you going to do about the 15% of white people who doesn't deserve their places at the university, who buy their way in or use legacy or donations as a stepping stone? Shouldn't it be outlawed?

*snip*
:fluffle:

You're the first to even try to define Affirmative action, aren't you...

*Snip*
GRAINNE!!! :D

:fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:

Heh - lets pay them to accept the gift of free education. (kiding)

btw - I enjoy your writing style. (not kidding)

Yes, there is a hint of irony somewhere in there. Still, I thought it was a better idea than rounding the kids up and carting them off to school in shackles.

And thank you very much. Some of you might even get lucky and read one of my books some day... when I get around to writing them.



GRAINNE!!! :D

:fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:

GRAVLEN!!! Hiya! Thank you for the warm fuzzy feeling of being missed! :fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:

GRAVLEN!!! Hiya! Thank you for the warm fuzzy feeling of being missed! :fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:

NSG might be slower these days, but it's always good to see good ol' favourites like you around ;) :fluffle:

You mean like 13-14 years of free education with regular standardized tests on occasion to insure people are learning at a consistent pace? Maybe throw in government subsizied education beyond that?

tadaaaa! Your wish is my command.

Add to that consistent quality of education, tests that actually work rather then take away class time to learn how to take tests that do not reflect the real world

Those would go a long way

Good evening all,

okay, first off; i am a white male living in america; what priveliges do i have? i am living in an apartment/flat, working a minimum wage labor job with no benifits other then weekends off, and being in my *now late!* twenties, i STILL have no possible way of moving out from my parents home.

are you saying i have privelige just because my skin colour has a ratio of saturation higher then other colours?

i have yet to see it. no one has come over in a suit, telling me of the many benefits i have.

go to school you say? great, pay off high-interest loans with a minimum wage job, while still having to pay bills, and now, study, all at once?

so...anti-sleep is good; since when?

the illegal, the baby-machine, the lazy, the militant-racist foreigner, and the rich, get subsidized. be it preferential in any way.

what about the other 90+% of the people in this country?

*in no way was i biaching, im just wondering*

-Rafe,
OOC

I was going to go into more detail about the examples I gave, but I didn't, at the risk of boring the shit out of everyone. But it is clear now that I do need to.

First of all, the issue of biased access to credit. This is not a matter of opinion, I'm afraid. It's a matter of FACT. It is based on extensive research done by community credit unions. For example, the Lower East Side Peoples Credit union in New York. They investigated the lending practices of several commercial banking outfits operating in the area, including Citibank and Charter Bank. They found out that Citibank was 50% more likely to reject loan applications from minorities. Charter bank was a whopping 300% more likely to reject loan applications from minorities. The interest rates charged to blacks and hispanics on loans and home mortgages averaged 12%, whereas for whites, the average rate charged was 7%. The credit unions also analysed the credit rating of all the ethnic groups present, and found that there was little discernible difference in creditworthiness between blacks, hispanics and whites in the area.

Now tell me with a straight face that the banks aren't racist.

Further detail on the issue of police harassment: Do you remember the (admittedly a bit off-the-wall) show called TV Nation? Well, they did a news segment on this very issue in Washington DC. Being a documentary show, they have limited time, so they chose one example of a black citizen - a guy called Brian Anthony Harris. This guy works for Black Entertainment TV in Washington. He has a spotless criminal record. He has a proper job, and a car. He's the kind of guy that racism-deniers would point to as being an example that racism "doesn't exist anymore".
However, he has been pulled over by the DC police no less than 30 times, for no reason at all. TV Nation made an example of him and ran a media campaign to persuade the police to leave him alone (which was successful).
Ok, so this is just one guy. Is this an isolated case? Well, unfortunately not. At the end of the show, they gave out a freephone number, and encouraged anyone else who is persistently harassed by the police to phone in. During the two days when the lines were open, their phones rang off the hook.

Again, please tell me with a straight face that the police aren't racist.

Ok, so my example about Mississipi was a bit silly, and no, I don't think that slavery was actually still going on in the early 1990s. But my larger point was that society does still feel the effects of slavery, which manifest themselves as racism.

As I understand it, what affirmative action is all about is giving opportunities to those who would otherwise not have those opportunities due to racist discrimination. As such, it is fighting the effects of racism. It is a counter-measure to racism, if you like. So my statement that affirmative action is the opposite to racism isn't so unreasonable, is it?

The first problem is you watch TV for your evidence. Have you ever heard of sensationalism? The media is always trying to blow things way out of proportion. If they shock the viewer, they get higher ratings. That's why I read BBC-- I can't trust American news at all. Your source may have some truth behind, but the fact that they work for a television program (not a research team or even a news program) means that they're dedicated more towards ratings than accuracy. Like I said, there could be truth behind it, but take it with a grain of salt. Make that several grains of salt.

I've heard that the police can be racist and target people because of their race. However, the police of the inner cities seem to be the only people in the country who act (this is a fucking huge generalization for the police) racist. But then again, they live in the inner city where blacks are the majority of the population and also the majority of crime-committers. It's difficult not to become racist when the only interaction with blacks is through criminals.

I've lived in the suburbs of several large cities with large immigrant populations and in the Deep South. I have never once in my life seen a real-life example of white racism. And I'd hardly consider myself a sheltered person. The people are (for the most part) respectful and tolerant when it comes to race.

Yes, there may be racism among police and in the far backwoods, but among the vast majority of americans, it has all but disappeared. As proof: The insane desire among colleges and the workplace isn't to fufill some government quota (none exist to the best of my knowledge), it is the authentic desire to have people of another race in the workplace. We see african americans all the time in our films and they usually seem to play the good guys. And in regards to our films, nothing seems to please us more when Indiana Jones beats the shit out of the racist Nazi fucker or when Clooney takes on the KKK in Oh Brother Where Art Thou. Diversity and multiculturalism seem to be on everyone's mind (I took a course, yes a full course on it). And I've already shown you the hate crime statistics. White hate crime is disproportionately low and black hate crime is disproportionately high. Thus spoke the FBI. Racism on the part of whites is clearly on the decline. At least in the US. Most of the racist stuff you see in the media is hyp by the media (whose sole function is to shock us about how, despite our best efforts, we still are a racist so city, all in the name of higher ratings) or our politicians.

Well, I would continue about my belief on how the AA is racist and would do more to divide and hurt the country than heal it, but I'm tired and want to go to bed.

I think this thread is dying anyway...

I've lived in the suburbs of several large cities with large immigrant populations and in the Deep South. I have never once in my life seen a real-life example of white racism. And I'd hardly consider myself a sheltered person. The people are (for the most part) respectful and tolerant when it comes to race.

Yes, there may be racism among police and in the far backwoods, but among the vast majority of americans, it has all but disappeared. As proof: The insane desire among colleges and the workplace isn't to fufill some government quota (none exist to the best of my knowledge), it is the authentic desire to have people of another race in the workplace. We see african americans all the time in our films and they usually seem to play the good guys. And in regards to our films, nothing seems to please us more when Indiana Jones beats the shit out of the racist Nazi fucker or when Clooney takes on the KKK in Oh Brother Where Art Thou. Diversity and multiculturalism seem to be on everyone's mind (I took a course, yes a full course on it). And I've already shown you the hate crime statistics. White hate crime is disproportionately low and black hate crime is disproportionately high. Thus spoke the FBI. Racism on the part of whites is clearly on the decline. At least in the US. Most of the racist stuff you see in the media is hyp by the media (whose sole function is to shock us about how, despite our best efforts, we still are a racist so city, all in the name of higher ratings) or our politicians.

Explicit racism is not socially acceptable. Even those who hold objectively racist views will tend to keep them private. Those who hold prejudices normally think that those prejudices are harmless (as we all think about our beliefs) and many people are simply in denial about their racism (how many times have you heard "I'm not racist but...". Racism is more than explicitly stating you think white people are inherently superior. Many people hold subtler prejudices which manifest themselves in subtler terms than "OMG KILL THE DARKIES" but can certainly be expressed in ways that aren't easily tallied. As I said earlier, that people think racial discrimination isn't a problem is a big contribution to the problem. The thing is that racial discrimination is a concept that is very hard to operationalise. Whenever we have managed to operationalise the concept whether it be scientific (sending out CVs with ethnic names) or clumsier (the taxi thing) we've always seen evidence that strongly suggest racial discrimination is a real problem.

Btw, it's interesting you bring up media portrayals. This is an ethical issue that has been the subject of fierce debate. I took up the line that whilst we should be conscious not to promote unjust stereotypes that we can end up doing more harm than good, creating a false impression of a cohesive intergrated society. How many black female judges are there? There are loads on my tv. How many black police chiefs? They seem to have a monopoly on the big screen. The media often shows us the world we wish we lived in. Unfortunately, we actually have to live in the real world and getting a black actor to play parts that are essentially white won't do a lot to help that.

The ultimate evidence that banks are not racially prejudiced - underwriters (the people who approve/deny credit) never meet nor see the applicant. They don't know if the applicant is white, brown black or yellow. To the underwriters they are all, eventually either green or red.


If the name sounds black you have a less chance for a loan

If you have no better solution, you have no grounds to criticize the existing solutions as imperfect. Of course they are. Everything is.

Hold on, just because I said that I have no method in mind for more accurately measuring disadvantage does not mean that the current method is preferable. It could be that I am just woefully ignorant of current hiring practices and possibilities (I am), or that the entire enterprise of classifying individuals by some group that possesses arbitrary qualities and assuming that classification grants some meaningful understanding of the person is reprehensible (it is).

How? And why should it be left to them?

If you cannot fathom how individuals have proven their worth and defended their dignity without violent intervention by a third party, it would explain many of our differences.

And of course it should not be left to them, I believe that we should all have a moral obligation to be conscious of our judgments and the methods with which they arose. With that said, should doesn't mean will, and there will occur times when individuals are left dealing with difficult situations that they should not.

The one entity that it should not be left to is some ruling class that will only offer "equality" in exchange for greater dependence. The one method that should not be engaged in is violent manipulation of the situation as it only begets more resistance to any real solution.

snip.

First, that some races are shown to be disadvantaged is not justification in itself.

Secondly, a scenario:

Ten applicants are brought in for a group interview, eight are black, two are white. Of the ten, only two will be offered positions. Upon review, five of the candidates are all determined to be indistinguishable in terms of qualification and abilities. Among these five are the two white applicants who are then granted an extra point based on the fact that they are white.

The two whites are hired and the eight blacks are turned away.

Is this a just resolution?

Lastly, many of these programs, like the one I mentioned where the position would only be paid for if the position was filled by a minority candidate, quite obviously limit some position that would have otherwise been filled without exclusive racial preference. Even if this is not a quota, it still is culpable to the same moral argument.

When affirmative action is limited to "Good faith efforts to ensure equal employment opportunity", and those engaging in it are simply monitoring their own hiring processes to ensure that they are not discriminating based upon race, I doubt many would have a problem with it. The problem is that it doesn't seem to always stay within those bounds.

So... What are you going to do about the 15% of white people who doesn't deserve their places at the university, who buy their way in or use legacy or donations as a stepping stone? Shouldn't it be outlawed?

First off, the use of legacy or donation is a related but distinguishable issue.

Now if we are talking about public institutions (which I am not sure if there are any universities which are not in some great sense public), I wish to do away with these institutions altogether. If we do assume that they will exist, they should at least be policed well enough to ensure that they represent everyone rather than priveleged groups.

If the name sounds black you have a less chance for a loanA black-sounding name? Such as?

A black-sounding name? Such as?

Leeroy Jenkins

and just for those who say "slavery was almost 200 years ago it doesn't have any affect today!" I have just one question.

Once, someone who may, or may not have existed and if he did exist may, or may not have been god, may or may not have gotten nailed to a cross.

That was 2000 years ago. Doesn't affect today anymore?

It shouldn't

Affirmative Action is racist for the following reasons:

1. Jobs are given to minorities just because they are minorities. Whites, for example, may not get a job even if they are highly qualified simply because the employer needs to hire more minorities. Thus, it privileges minorities over the majority rather than actually making them equal. True equality would be the policy of hiring any individual who implies and basing them purely on their qualifications.
2. Usually, employers need to maintain racial "quotas", to the point where they won't even hire a minority because they have too many of them already. This not only hurts the majority but now also the qualified minority.
3. Whites who complain about AA are deemed racist themselves, when they are only trying to look out for themselves and fight back against the inequalities it causes. The fact that someone could be considered racist for standing up against institutionalized racism baffles me. "All whites are privileged, all whites are racist, whites are the only racists because they can back up their racism, etc."

Disgusts me. There shouldn't be Affirmative Action anyone. Black, female, whatever - get rid of it all.

I hate to say it but I agree with OAK

or that the entire enterprise of classifying individuals by some group that possesses arbitrary qualities

The indicators according to which affirmative action works are not "arbitrary": being Black or Latino in this country absolutely says something substantial about the degree of racial disadvantage a person has likely suffered.

They are not, of course, perfect. But then, no indicator used in applications is.

If you cannot fathom how individuals have proven their worth and defended their dignity without violent intervention by a third party, it would explain many of our differences.

If you cannot fathom the simple fact that reality is not as convenient as we would like it to be and individuals cannot always stand on their own against oppression... yes, that would explain many of our differences.

And of course it should not be left to them, I believe that we should all have a moral obligation to be conscious of our judgments and the methods with which they arose.

I agree.

Similarly, we should all avoid being murderers... but our individual fulfillment of that obligation means little to the person murdered by one who was not so generous.

With that said, should doesn't mean will, and there will occur times when individuals are left dealing with difficult situations that they should not.

So what should we do about it?

If your only answer is "nothing", the imperfections you note in affirmative action do not invalidate it. Affirmative action, at least, strives to solve the problem.

The one entity that it should not be left to is some ruling class that will only offer "equality" in exchange for greater dependence.

In theory, sure.

Meanwhile, the scope of racial inequality is still vast, its consequences are still destructive, and to fail to act because the available means are imperfect is to adopt a puritanical passivity that amounts to little more than collaboration.

Leeroy Jenkins

LOL

basically the question is: do 2 acts of racism make a right?

basically the question is: do 2 acts of racism make a right?

no, but 3 lefts do ;)

I have something to add.

You see, I am a high school student, who will probably graduate in the top 15% of my class.

And in Texas, if you get into the top 10%, you get automatically accepted into any College in the state, usually with some sort of scholarship (the acceptance part is state law, the scholarship is usually for being a good student).

Well, I have heard that the law is being debated, so that by the time I graduate, only the top 5% will be accepted automatically, along with the top 5% of minorities (I assume that this only includes people who wouldn't already be in the top 5%).

Now, this is very racist, in that numbers can't discriminate between black and white. This grants scholastic preference to those who aren't necessarily the best students.

Sure, minorities have been discriminated against, and yeah something has to be done about it, but how can you claim that a number can be racist?

I assume someone will point out that the teachers could give better grades to the white kids, but almost all the teachers are minorities, and no student in our school has ever accused a teacher of being racist.

I have something to add.

You see, I am a high school student, who will probably graduate in the top 15% of my class.

And in Texas, if you get into the top 10%, you get automatically accepted into any College in the state, usually with some sort of scholarship (the acceptance part is state law, the scholarship is usually for being a good student).

Well, I have heard that the law is being debated, so that by the time I graduate, only the top 5% will be accepted automatically, along with the top 5% of minorities (I assume that this only includes people who wouldn't already be in the top 5%).

Now, this is very racist, in that numbers can't discriminate between black and white. This grants scholastic preference to those who aren't necessarily the best students.

Sure, minorities have been discriminated against, and yeah something has to be done about it, but how can you claim that a number can be racist?

I assume someone will point out that the teachers could give better grades to the white kids, but almost all the teachers are minorities, and no student in our school has ever accused a teacher of being racist.

You'll graduate in the top 15%, considering you're spelling skills I'm afraid for the state of public education in Texas

I have no idea what you're talking about *guilty twitch*

LOL

You'll graduate in the top 15%, considering you're spelling skills I'm afraid for the state of public education in Texas

I have no idea what you're talking about *guilty twitch*

First, that some races are shown to be disadvantaged is not justification in itself.

1. Yes. It is not the only justification, but it is a justification in itself for affirmative action.

Affirmative action traces its moral roots to several related goals: (1) fighting discrimination, (2) compensating for past injuries, (3) offsetting current disadvantages, (4) striving for a fair distribution of opportunities and responsibilities, (5) seeking social well-being, and (6) promoting diversity.

2. As you know, the point was to rebut those that suggested that whites aren't privileged and that blacks are even advantaged. Although people have continued to make such assertions, no one has tackled my laying out of the facts.

Secondly, a scenario:

Ten applicants are brought in for a group interview, eight are black, two are white. Of the ten, only two will be offered positions. Upon review, five of the candidates are all determined to be indistinguishable in terms of qualification and abilities. Among these five are the two white applicants who are then granted an extra point based on the fact that they are white.

The two whites are hired and the eight blacks are turned away.

Is this a just resolution?

Of course not. It doesn't serve any of the aforementioned goals of affirmative action. To the contrary, it violates them.

But the hypothetical is easily distinguishable from reality.

Lastly, many of these programs, like the one I mentioned where the position would only be paid for if the position was filled by a minority candidate, quite obviously limit some position that would have otherwise been filled without exclusive racial preference. Even if this is not a quota, it still is culpable to the same moral argument.

Given my obvious lack of knowledge about that situation, I can't argue it with you. As you state the facts, the situation seems unfair. But that is only taking your characterization at face value.

When affirmative action is limited to "Good faith efforts to ensure equal employment opportunity", and those engaging in it are simply monitoring their own hiring processes to ensure that they are not discriminating based upon race, I doubt many would have a problem with it. The problem is that it doesn't seem to always stay within those bounds.

So even though the idea of affirmative action may be fundamentally sound, you oppose it merely because sometimes there are unfair abberations. Nevermind that the default situation is itself unfair to minorities. Nice double standard.

Affirmative Action is racist for the following reasons:

1. Jobs are given to minorities just because they are minorities. Whites, for example, may not get a job even if they are highly qualified simply because the employer needs to hire more minorities. Thus, it privileges minorities over the majority rather than actually making them equal. True equality would be the policy of hiring any individual who implies and basing them purely on their qualifications.
2. Usually, employers need to maintain racial "quotas", to the point where they won't even hire a minority because they have too many of them already. This not only hurts the majority but now also the qualified minority.
3. Whites who complain about AA are deemed racist themselves, when they are only trying to look out for themselves and fight back against the inequalities it causes. The fact that someone could be considered racist for standing up against institutionalized racism baffles me. "All whites are privileged, all whites are racist, whites are the only racists because they can back up their racism, etc."

Disgusts me. There shouldn't be Affirmative Action anyone. Black, female, whatever - get rid of it all.

1. Simply not true. Not how affirmative action works at all. I'm the only one in this thread to posit actual evidence of how affirmative action works and you are simply wrong. (link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13240385&postcount=161))
2. Again not true. Again not how affirmative action works. Quotas are generally illegal. (see link above)
3. WAAAHH!! You openly admit you are racist and the white race is superior, but how dare we call you racist. :confused::headbang:

Of course, whites are not the only ones that can be racist, but we do live in a society in which whites are privileged and minorities disadvantaged due to racism -- as I proved with my two posts on the matter. (link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13240390&postcount=162), link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13240407&postcount=165)) It is a simple fact.

I hate to say it but I agree with OAK

You should re-think that.

Pardon? Racism now is a lot less widespread, if anything reducing or getting rid of pressure for equal hiring will decrease what racial tension there is.

1. Racism is still widespread as I showed in my two posts that no one has tried to rebut. (see two links above)

2. How will getting rid of "pressure" for equal opportunities decrease racial tension? Won't continuing to shut out minorities cause those minorities to feel mistreated and eventually rebel?

Very few people nowadays are racist, MOST whites do not hate minorities and African-Americans. Get with the times!!!

And yet racism is rampant in our society. Go figure.

Stop twisting around my words. I'm just saying that affirmitive action makes employers turn down educated whites for minorities.

No. It doesn't. That is simply a myth. (see my first two links)

I'm all for employers hiring African-Americans and other minorities,as long as they are as educated or show the same skill in that profession as the white applicant.

The you should be all for affirmative action as this is exactly what it is about. :headbang:

You should re-think that.

It's only in the one statement that I quoted that I agree with him, not with the rest of the rubbish that he's posted to explain himself.

It's only in the one statement that I quoted that I agree with him, not with the rest of the rubbish that he's posted to explain himself.

I understand that. I am saying you shouldn't agree with the one statement that you quoted, because it too is rubbish -- for the reasons I explained in my post.

I understand that. I am saying you shouldn't agree with the one statement that you quoted, because it too is rubbish -- for the reasons I explained in my post.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree, since I do not and will not agree with AA

Here's MY problem with affirmative action:

Have you ever heard of 'potlatch?' It was a "festival" that used to take place among the Native Americans of the Pacific Northwest, which would later become a heavily referenced concept by such philosophers as Georges Bataille.
What it consists of is this: two rival tribes convene for a festival in which they shower one another with gifts for the sole purpose of humiliating one another. They would give one another gold, culinary delicacies, and so on as a way of saying, "in our generosity you will find that we are superior." There has even been an incident recorded in which one tribe slashed the necks of its own slaves for the benefit of the rival tribe.

Affirmative action is potlatch. It is a kick in the teeth to the dignity of the affected minorities, and only exists to humiliate them.

1. Yes. It is not the only justification, but it is a justification in itself for affirmative action.

Affirmative action traces its moral roots to several related goals: (1) fighting discrimination, (2) compensating for past injuries, (3) offsetting current disadvantages, (4) striving for a fair distribution of opportunities and responsibilities, (5) seeking social well-being, and (6) promoting diversity.

So even though the idea of affirmative action may be fundamentally sound, you oppose it merely because sometimes there are unfair abberations. Nevermind that the default situation is itself unfair to minorities. Nice double standard.


This follows in the order of your six points:
1) According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Blacks committed 20.1% of all hate crimes and whites committed 58% in 2006. Now, the demographic layout of the US is such that blacks are 12% and whites are 70%. If you can do basic math, you would see that white hate crime IS DISPROPORTIONATELY LOW and Black hate crime is DISPROPORTIONATELY HIGH. Seeing as all the businesses and colleges are obsessed with multiculturalism and diversity, are you sure you're fighting the right type of discrimination?

2) Past Injuries? My family left Germany when my great-grandpa's brother stole all my great-grandpa's money through an unfair law in Germany at that time that stated all inheritance goes to the first-born regardless of the will. Should I go back and beat the legal shit out of my great-grandpa's brother's great-grandson because his great grandpa earned his money in a dishonest way? Settling old scores isn't justice and it has a nasty habit of reviving old conflicts. After all, every nation ever to exist ever was born on wars and past injustices. And you can't hold all whites accountable for what happened to blacks just because they're white and maybe related to the minority of people who perpetuated the atrocities. Hell, my family wasn't even in the US during slavery. Why should I pay for someone else's immorality? Or does my white skin condemn me?

3) Current disadvantages? Hardly. Every college I've applied to worships diversity (mind you, this is without government interference) and I've spent the last three weeks bullshitting my essays on how ethnically diverse I am. Businesses do the same. I took an entire course on "Diversity in the Workplace". You think there are disadvantages? Now, I can't cite this because I read it so long ago in a magazine, but it said somewhere that blacks enter college with an SAT score on average of 100 points lower than whites or Asians. If you feel the source on the last example was too vague, feel free not to believe it, but I would hardly call blacks disadvantaged, at least in their opportunities for advancement. They already do take precedence over whites. As my Arab friend told me "Putting that you're white on a college application is like signing your own rejection" This may not necessarily be 100% true, but it's harder for whites to get ahead than blacks.

4) So you want to ensure fair distribution of wealth amongst the races? I'll agree with you here, but government sponsored racism is not the way to go. Read on.

5) Affirmative Action for Social well-being? BULLSHIT!! This is the real reason I dislike it so much. There are 33 million blacks in the US and 210 million whites. Now, 60% of all blacks are under the middle class and 30% of whites. If you can do basic math you would quickly understand that means there are around 20 million blacks under the middle class and 70 million whites, MORE THAN DOUBLE THE BLACK POPULATION AS A WHOLE! Now, being a financial conservative, I don't support welfare programs, but you obviously do. You are going to provide money to benefit the minority of poor people while asking the government to take a collective shit on the majority ALL ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR RACE. This racist bullshit is overwhelming. You obviously don't care about social well-being because your actions would benefit less than 30% of all the poor that exists in America. Not only do you wish to give blacks opportunities based on their race, BUT YOU ACTIVELY SEEK TO DENY WHITE POOR OPPORTUNITES BASED ON THEIR RACE?? Or perhaps the poor white trash of the south and appalachia don't actually matter.

6) Promoting diversity? I'm against racism, and this mindless worshipping of diversity seems like just another form of it. Not being a racist means treating everyone equally and not caring what someone else's race is. Diversity means both care about other people's race and you actively seek to promote multiple races at the expense of treating everyone equally.

Overall, AA is wrong because it officially condemns white people collectively as the scapegoat for all contemporary problems in the black community, it gives white racists an actual reason to feel they are being discriminated against and, therefore, more likely to increase racist sentiment in the country, it completely ignores the much larger white poor and strips them of their opportunities, and it isn't even effective, allowing less than competent blacks to enter the legal and medical profession (I'm not suggesting all blacks are less than competent, but AA significantly lowers the bar for who can enter a profession, allowing for a flood of un-competents).
LINK:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/offenders.html

Quick Query: Has anyone brought up the fact yet that Affirmative Action was designed to help women as well as minorities?

Interesting how that aspect of it seems to be entirely glossed over as I discovered during a conversation with my mother last night, whose only problem with Affirmative Action seems to be that it came just after she had already worked twice as hard as any male to get where she did. She did mention that it was a program designed to fail, but didn't expand upon that.

1. Simply not true. Not how affirmative action works at all. I'm the only one in this thread to posit actual evidence of how affirmative action works and you are simply wrong. (link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13240385&postcount=161))
2. Again not true. Again not how affirmative action works. Quotas are generally illegal. (see link above)
3. WAAAHH!! You openly admit you are racist and the white race is superior, but how dare we call you racist. :confused::headbang:

Of course, whites are not the only ones that can be racist, but we do live in a society in which whites are privileged and minorities disadvantaged due to racism -- as I proved with my two posts on the matter. (link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13240390&postcount=162), link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13240407&postcount=165)) It is a simple fact.

1. Racism is still widespread as I showed in my two posts that no one has tried to rebut. (see two links above)

2. How will getting rid of "pressure" for equal opportunities decrease racial tension? Won't continuing to shut out minorities cause those minorities to feel mistreated and eventually rebel?

And yet racism is rampant in our society. Go figure.

No. It doesn't. That is simply a myth. (see my first two links)
QTF

My family left Germany when my great-grandpa's brother stole all my great-grandpa's money through an unfair law in Germany at that time that stated all inheritance goes to the first-born regardless of the will. Should I go back and beat the legal shit out of my great-grandpa's brother's great-grandson because his great grandpa earned his money in a dishonest way?He stole your grandpa's money?
1# Your Family legal mess has nothing to do with AA
2# He did not steal.
.
Settling scores isn't justice and it has a nasty habit of reviving old conflicts.Shall we stop trying to settle our scores with Osama? How old is "old"?

You'll graduate in the top 15%, considering you're spelling skills I'm afraid for the state of public education in Texas

Accepted is the correct word. You have mistaken it for the word excepted.

Accept means to take into a group.
Except means to keep out of a group.

You're also using the wrong word where I've bolded it.

Your = something belonging to you.
You're = a contraction of you are.

Ironic, no?

Quick Query: Has anyone brought up the fact yet that Affirmative Action was designed to help women as well as minorities?

Interesting how that aspect of it seems to be entirely glossed over as I discovered during a conversation with my mother last night, whose only problem with Affirmative Action seems to be that it came just after she had already worked twice as hard as any male to get where she did. She did mention that it was a program designed to fail, but didn't expand upon that.

Not only that, Grainne, but the only minorities it helps seems to be African Americans, who are by some people's definition in this thread "a waste of education."

Given some of the outright ignorance and gaffes I've seen here, I don't see most of the complainers as being superior to much.

This follows in the order of your six points:
1) According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Blacks committed 20.1% of all hate crimes and whites committed 58% in 2006. Now, the demographic layout of the US is such that blacks are 12% and whites are 70%. If you can do basic math, you would see that white hate crime IS DISPROPORTIONATELY LOW and Black hate crime is DISPROPORTIONATELY HIGH. Seeing as all the businesses and colleges are obsessed with multiculturalism and diversity, are you sure you're fighting the right type of discrimination?

You seem to think this statistic is very important. I fail to see why. For one year, a slightly disproportionate number of hate-crime offenders were black. (I show much greater disportionality in statistics regarding unemployment, salaries, poverty, etc., but you seem to ignore that.) It also happens to be true that (1) the majority of hate crimes were committed by whites, (2) 52.1% of hate crimes were based on the offenders bias against race, and (3) of those race-based hate crimes, 66.4 % were victims of an offender’s anti-black bias. So, even if hate crime statistics were particularly relevant to stopping discrimination in the workplace and in education, there is clearly work to be done stopping bias against blacks.

Not to mention that affirmative action helps other minorities. It is not a zero-sum game between whites and blacks.

So, yes, discrimination needs to be fought and affirmative action is one of the ways to fight it. Perhaps you have something relevant to say on the subject.

2) Past Injuries? My family left Germany when my great-grandpa's brother stole all my great-grandpa's money through an unfair law in Germany at that time that stated all inheritance goes to the first-born regardless of the will. Should I go back and beat the legal shit out of my great-grandpa's brother's great-grandson because his great grandpa earned his money in a dishonest way? Settling old scores isn't justice and it has a nasty habit of reviving old conflicts. After all, every nation ever to exist ever was born on wars and past injustices. And you can't hold all whites accountable for what happened to blacks just because they're white and maybe related to the minority of people who perpetuated the atrocities. Hell, my family wasn't even in the US during slavery. Why should I pay for someone else's immorality? Or does my white skin condemn me?

1. Um. I can't believe you'd compare some inheritance dispute to slavery and segregation.

2. Was your family in the US during segregation? How about during current discrimination? Have you and your family benefitted from how this country was built on the backs of slaves and oppressed minorities?

3. Regardless, you take the typical but mistaken view that whites are somehow victims of affirmative action. This simply isn't the case. Everyone benefits from equal opportunities. Everyone benefits from an emphasis on fair hiring practices. Without affirmative action, your white skin "condemn[s]" you to privilege and advantage. With affirmative action, you are "condemn[ed]" to have to compete fairly with minorities.

3) Current disadvantages? Hardly. Every college I've applied to worships diversity (mind you, this is without government interference) and I've spent the last three weeks bullshitting my essays on how ethnically diverse I am. Businesses do the same. I took an entire course on "Diversity in the Workplace". You think there are disadvantages? Now, I can't cite this because I read it so long ago in a magazine, but it said somewhere that blacks enter college with an SAT score on average of 100 points lower than whites or Asians. If you feel the source on the last example was too vague, feel free not to believe it, but I would hardly call blacks disadvantaged, at least in their opportunities for advancement. They already do take precedence over whites. As my Arab friend told me "Putting that you're white on a college application is like signing your own rejection" This may not necessarily be 100% true, but it's harder for whites to get ahead than blacks.

OK. Here you are just talking out your ass. I gave two posts, one of which was very long, documenting the current disadvantage under which blacks live in the U.S. (link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13240390&postcount=162), link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13240407&postcount=165)) Feel free to go back and address those posts.

4) So you want to ensure fair distribution of wealth amongst the races? I'll agree with you here, but government sponsored racism is not the way to go. Read on.

Actually, what I said was "striving for a fair distribution of opportunities and responsibilities." But you don't really make an argument here. You merely repeat your conclusionary slogan. I've already documented what affirmative action programs actually are. (link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13240385&postcount=161)) Reality doesn't conform to your preconceived notions.

5) Affirmative Action for Social well-being? BULLSHIT!! This is the real reason I dislike it so much. There are 33 million blacks in the US and 210 million whites. Now, 60% of all blacks are under the middle class and 30% of whites. If you can do basic math you would quickly understand that means there are around 20 million blacks under the middle class and 70 million whites, MORE THAN DOUBLE THE BLACK POPULATION AS A WHOLE! Now, being a financial conservative, I don't support welfare programs, but you obviously do. You are going to provide money to benefit the minority of poor people while asking the government to take a collective shit on the majority ALL ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR RACE. This racist bullshit is overwhelming. You obviously don't care about social well-being because your actions would benefit less than 30% of all the poor that exists in America. Not only do you wish to give blacks opportunities based on their race, BUT YOU ACTIVELY SEEK TO DENY WHITE POOR OPPORTUNITES BASED ON THEIR RACE?? Or perhaps the poor white trash of the south and appalachia don't actually matter.

1. Weren't you the one going on about DISPROPORTIONATELY HIGH and DISPROPORTIONATELY LOW? What happened to that perspective.

2. Affirmative action doesn't seek to deny opportunities to anyone. To the contrary, it seeks to make sure everyone has equal opportunities. Denying privilege to white skin or male genitalia is not disadvantaging whites or males.

3. And, yes, I do support welfare programs as I actually care about all the poor and don't just use some poverty as a whipping point.

6) Promoting diversity? I'm against racism, and this mindless worshipping of diversity seems like just another form of it. Not being a racist means treating everyone equally and not caring what someone else's race is. Diversity means both care about other people's race and you actively seek to promote multiple races at the expense of treating everyone equally.

*sigh*

If the workplace is grossly disproportionately white and male (which it is), then not everyone is being treated equally. Thus, among other values, we seek diversity. Both because it is fair and just and because it is valuable in and of itself.

Overall, AA is wrong because it officially condemns white people collectively as the scapegoat for all contemporary problems in the black community,

No. It doesn't.

it gives white racists an actual reason to feel they are being discriminated against and,

Like white racists need a reason to be racist.

therefore, more likely to increase racist sentiment in the country,

No. It isn't. Perpetuating a state of disadvantage for minorities and unfair opportunities will, however.

it completely ignores the much larger white poor and strips them of their opportunities,

No. The problem of poverty is to be solved by a myriad of solutions. One of which is the protection of equal opportunities in education and employment.

and it isn't even effective

Yes. It is. We have made great strides in the last 40 years, due largely to affirmative action.


allowing less than competent blacks to enter the legal and medical profession (I'm not suggesting all blacks are less than competent, but AA significantly lowers the bar for who can enter a profession, allowing for a flood of un-competents).

The word you are looking for is "incompetent." :p

Regardless, this is simply racism. Affirmative action doesn't "lower the bar" for anyone. One must still be qualified in order to get into medical school or law school. Once admitted, affirmative action doesn't make it any easier to graduate from medical or law school. Affirmative action doesn't make it any easier to pass the bar exam or the medical exams.

There is no rational reason to assume a black lawyer or doctor is less competent than a white lawyer or doctor. Just racism.

Whether it is good, or bad, Affirmative Action is racist because it discriminates based on race.
(as well as gender, since it is supposed to benefit women too, but that isn't a race issue)

Whether it is good, or bad, Affirmative Action is racist because it discriminates based on race.

Affirmative action is not founded on the supposed "inferiority" of a "racial" group. Therefore, it is not racist.

Affirmative action proponents have no problem with racial equality and integration... indeed, we tend to advocate affirmative action precisely because we believe in it. Genuine racists, on the other hand, usually advocate for the supremacy of their "race" and the inferiority of the others... advancing racial inequality.

Affirmative action is not founded on the supposed "inferiority" of a "racial" group. Therefore, it is not racist.

Affirmative action proponents have no problem with racial equality and integration... indeed, we tend to advocate affirmative action precisely because we believe in it. Genuine racists, on the other hand, usually advocate for the supremacy of their "race" and the inferiority of the others... advancing racial inequality.

rac·ism
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

I'm just going by(part of) the definition here.

I'm just going by(part of) the definition here.

Affirmative action is not "discrimination based on race"... not in the racist sense, anyway.

Racists are concerned for race because, as your first definition notes, they believe that race "accounts for differences in human character or ability" and provides a meaningful measure of inherent superiority or inferiority.

Affirmative action is concerned for race not for itself, not for any effect it has on people's intrinsic characteristics or worth, but insofar as it is indicative of racism and the disadvantage caused by a racist society.

Its basis is not race but the effects of racism. Race is merely used as an indicator.

rac·ism
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

I'm just going by(part of) the definition here.
If you are going to go the insipid and banal route of relying dictionaries for you facile arguments, you must at least follow through. I provided copious definititions of affirmative action already, but here is one from the dictionary:

Affimative action: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affirmative%20action)
Function: noun
Date: 1965
: an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women; also : a similar effort to promote the rights or progress of other disadvantaged persons

No racism to be found there. So I guess we must take the long route:

Fine, we start with racism:
racism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism)
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

The first definition doesn't fit affirmative action at all. So turn to the terms "'racial prejudice or discrimination."

Prejudice (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice)
1: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1): preconceived judgment or opinion (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

Discrimination (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination): 1 a: the act of discriminating b: the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2: the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3 a: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>

Now looking at the words being used as a whole how is affirmative action racist?

1. Yes. It is not the only justification, but it is a justification in itself for affirmative action.

No, there must also be some strong evidence that it meets the ends that you seek and that that those ends justify the means.

2. As you know, the point was to rebut those that suggested that whites aren't privileged and that blacks are even advantaged. Although people have continued to make such assertions, no one has tackled my laying out of the facts.

Why even pick such an easy target.

Of course not. It doesn't serve any of the aforementioned goals of affirmative action. To the contrary, it violates them.

So then quotas are justifiable if they accomplish the goals? At what point do the ends cease to justify the means?

So even though the idea of affirmative action may be fundamentally sound, you oppose it merely because sometimes there are unfair abberations. Nevermind that the default situation is itself unfair to minorities. Nice double standard.

No, the problem is that it often leads to violent government intervention on behalf of one group over another that cannot possibly measure just what is an fair intervention, that is more than likely a counterproductive attempt to solve the problem, and sets a bad precedent of government intervention to bring about some sort of optimal social order.

Being as Affirmative Action is apparently not racist by definition..

I would like to make it clear that I blame this mess on the racists, not the people trying to fix the problem using an imperfect(and what I consider illogical) system. Since I have not thought up in detail a more successful and reasonable system, I am on the side of Affirmative Action, but I am definitely not standing next to it.

On second though, if we are going to play dictionary games, we should get out the definitive Oxford English Dictionary:

affirmative action(U.S.), action taken to affirm an established policy; spec. positive action by employers to ensure that minority groups are not discriminated against during recruitment or employment.

1935 N.Y. Times 2 July 15/1 If..the Board shall be of the opinion that any person..has engaged or is engaging in any such unfair labor practice, then the Board shall..issue..an order requiring such person..to take such affirmative action, including reinstatement of employees with or without back pay, as will effect the policies of this Act. 1961 N.Y. Times 7 Mar. 27/3 The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated, during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin. 1974 National Observer (U.S.) 9 Mar. 4/3 ‘The hospital, once life support was begun, was committed to it,’ Mitchell said. ‘To follow the parents' wishes would have been to violate medical precepts. It was the difference between not starting life support at all and terminating it. In other words, inaction versus affirmative action.’ 1984 Gainesville (Florida) Sun 28 Mar. 1B/6 She has prosecuted affirmative action cases for eight years.

RACISM a. The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race. b. = RACIALISM.

1936 L. DENNIS Coming Amer. Fascism 109 If..it be assumed that one of our values should be a type of racism which excludes certain races from citizenship, then the plan of execution should provide for the annihilation, deportation, or sterilization of the excluded races. 1938 E. & C. PAUL tr. Hirschfeld's Racism xx. 260 The apostles and energumens of racism can in all good faith give free rein to impulses of which they would be ashamed did they realise their true nature. 1940 R. BENEDICT Race: Science & Politics i. 7 Racism is an ism to which everyone in the world today is exposed. 1952 M. BERGER Equality by Statute 236 Racism, tension in industrial, urban areas. 1952 Theology LV. 283 The idolatry of our timeits setting up of nationalism, racism, vulgar materialism. 1960 New Left Rev. Jan./Feb. 21/2 George Rogers saw fit to kow-tow to the incipient racism of his electorate by including a line about getting rid of ‘undesirable elements’. 1964 GOULD & KOLB Dict. Social Sci. 571/2 Racism is a newer term for the word racialism... There is virtual agreement that it refers to a doctrine of racial supremacy. 1971 Ceylon Daily News (Colombo) 18 Sept. 8/5 Mr. Seneviratne is welcome to his ideal of inter-racial marriages as panacea for Racism. 1972 J. L. DILLARD Black English iii. 90 In the British sailors' reactions to the slaves.., the very early existence of racism is as well documented as the difference in language. 1974 M. FIDO R. Kipling 50/2 In The Story of Muhammad Din he wrote one of the most economical and bitter attacks on British racism ever penned. 1976 Plain Dealer (Cleveland, Ohio) 4 Mar. A2/4 The Vatican radio said,..‘Racism might have different faces but it will always be reprehensible.’ 1977 M. WALKER National Front vi. 155 A strike of the Asian workers against racism in the factory.

Racialism: Belief in the superiority of a particular race leading to prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those in close proximity who may be felt as a threat to one's cultural and racial integrity or economic well-being.

Using these definitive definitions, we see that affirmative action is not racist.

QTF

QTF? Quoted Truth For?


:p

Nazi Germany was a great nation.

Define "great."

They never invaded an entire continent,

True (they never invaded Switzerland, Portugal, Spain, and maybe a few others), but they came close enough.

they attacked firstly Czechoslovakia to retake German lands,

Just because they had some Germans living there doesn't make them "German lands."

and then were attacked by Poland and responded to that with force.

Bullshit.

When the rest of the world got involved, Germany was actually the one to suffer. Just LOOK at the horrible effects that Germany, even today, has to deal with because the rest of the world's bigotry.

I'm guessing you've never heard of the Holocaust, which killed 11-26 million people (the estimates vary). Oh, I forgot, it "never happened." How silly of me. :rolleyes:

White Europeans.

If you're that obsessed with whiteness, I know the perfect place for you: Antarctica.

Down there, practically everywhere is white.

America was founded as a white European nation, fought for by whites to gain sovereignty, and white blood was shed to keep it in power. This is my homeland.

Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc. have shed plenty of blood defending the U.S.A.

I am not a socialist, and I hate socialism, but think about what you just said.

Just not National Socialism, right?

If race was not an issue, there would be no racial dispute.

People like you make it an issue.

America is destined to fall because it is become a multicultural hellhole.

You're welcome to leave, then. We can even assist you by pointing you toward the exit. :)

Your bigotry is overflowing.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Your = something belonging to you.
You're = a contraction of you are.

Ironic, no?

Yes, yes it is...
damn it all, I usually do a better job of proof reading my posts :(

beer