A few weeks ago I came across this site: www.stormfront.org , a site of white power and basicly anti anyone alse. I read a lot of the articles and threads there and was amazed. I have no idea what's the situation is between blacks and whites in America and all the knowledge I posses on those subjects come from television. Eventhough I don't really know what are the crime rates and such commited by blacks (we have very few blacks in Israel and personaly I never had a black friend) I was still horrified by their description as animals and sub-humans, all supported by "science" and "sociological factors". What personaly got me was the description of the jews as power hungry monsters who plan to rule the world and destroy the white race (which until then I had no idea I was not a part of according to some people) via mixing them with blacks and mexicans by the jewish multicultural laws and dogma. The way the see jewish history and religion (especialy the Talmud) is completly paranoid and untrue (most of them believe the holocoust never happened or on a very low scale and everyone is covering up, or that the media is run by jews who brain wash everyone with their ideas) but this sites has many many members most of them fairly educated. I tried to post there and discuss some issues without just fighting but I was basicly told to shut up and my posts got deleted. So I'll ask here you honest folks. How do you see multicultural America? Do you see racial and stereotypical views around you?
[ August 05, 2005, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Erez ]
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Paragraph breaks, please. It's really frustrating to read that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You should know that, although racism and anti-semitism does, depressingly, exist in a not insignificant minority of Americans, such extreme sites as this represent the views of a very tiny portion of America.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Well put Dag. I will add that there does seem to be a growing trend of reverse discrimination. Not sure what we can do to slow that since any attempt would be taken the wrong way.
Posted by Erez (Member # 8282) on :
According to the site those aren't minorities at all and come from all levels of society. Reverse discrimantion annoys me, eventhough it has nothing to so with me. I see "black" movies or shows like The Chappel Show where the whites are being rediculed and put down just because their white and that annoys me just the same, is the racial and ethnic tension there is really as high as that site shows?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
@ Jay (for bringing up a loaded issue like reverse-descrimination) and White Power.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I don't think so. I've worked in multicultural environments without a problem. It's actually quite fun and informative to learn about other cultures and how to respect traditions and beliefs and whathaveyou.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
What? Both are wrong and shouldn’t be tolerated. Yes, his question came from the idiot white power group, but his question was about racial views, so I don’t think I’m off topic.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Yeah, there are bigots at all levels of society, but they are still a minority.
Most of us just think of them as somewhere along the Jerk--------Wacko continuum
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:According to the site those aren't minorities at all and come from all levels of society.
That site isn't going to be the best place to get any accurate information. While I don't doubt they come from all levels of society, they are a tiny minority in each one.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And Jay, there's no such thing as reverse-discrimination - there's discrimination, pure and simple.
And no matter how bad one thinks affirmative action or other typical examples of "reverse discrimination" might be, no honest commentator can equate it with what's depicted on these sites. Plus, there's plenty of discrimination against minorities remaining, whether inspired by bigotry or not. Compare that to "reverse discrimination" instances if you must, but not the garbage espoused at this site.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
True, I agree, but made my comment only for the clarity of race relations in society today. We should be color blind in our race relations. All of us. By giving special things to certain races this will give fuel to these white power groups. Where as a race neutral society would be able to say “huh, what’s a race?”
Posted by Crotalus (Member # 7339) on :
I can only speak about the part of America I personally know about. And I will touch mainly on how I see multicultural america. I live in the deep south. Yes, racism is still around. No, it is nowhere as bad as it once was. As for these stormfront people, please do not think they represent the views of the majority of white people.
The place where I work is very integrated and the races get along very well. Really, in this work place it isn't even very much of an issue. Where I see racism is actually in the socio-economical aspects of my city.
The downtown area is predominantly black and also poorer. And there is also a visible 'white flight' syndrome: meaning that most middle-upper class whites either build apart from or move away from these neighborhoods. A lot of the economic division, I believe, is a carry-over from what happened to these folks over a hundred years ago. It will still take some time for the effects of slavery to diminish to the point where you see no class divisions among blacks and whites.
My pastor's wife said it like this (when answering a young black man about why so many blacks here are poor or in jail): Families were divided, split apart, during slavery. Education was unattainable for most of these people. These things have persisted from one generation to the next. Fathers still do not raise their sons and daughters (for the most part), the schools in these sections of town are still considered sub-par, and education isn't stressed enough. Basically, families are still fractured and opportunities and skills for advancement are still not equally available, and all this can be traced back to slavery.
All that said, I do believe it's getting better. There are programs in place to ameliorate the wrongs of the past. They are not perfect, but they are a start. Affirmitive action is one way that my company encourages diversity and provides opportunities for minorities. This is a good thing.
Also, my church is a somewhat integrated church. Blacks and whites worship alongside one another and visit in one another's homes. We are friends in and apart from church. Still, this is not the case with most of the churches. We are a non-denominational church, located downtown, with several outreach programs designed specifically for the urban areas of our city.
All that said, the majority of folks in my church are white. The majority of folks we are trying to minister to in the urban part of town are black. Again, division due to economics. And here's where it gets touchy. A few of the predominantly black churches actually resent the fact that we are doing so much outreach. Some seem to see us as white folks trying to get brownie points by doing charity for token blacks. This is, imo, nonsense. Most of us, it wasn't even our idea. God put the desire in one of our pastors and we just got on board with his vision and are trying to do good in the part of town where we are located. Lest you get the wrong idea though, I think this is not a widespread opinion among other churches. We have folks from other churches who do support and agree with what we are trying to do. And we actively seek ways to minister alongside other churches.
So, maybe that gives you a small window into how I see multicultural Georgia. Is racism still around, sure. But we are moving in a positive direction, or at least we are trying to. It will still take a lot of effort from everyone to get us where we need to be.
Now to your second question: Do I see racial and stereotypical views around me? Moreso in the media than in actual life. But probably because, even for all my exposure to other races, I am still pretty insulated. The folks I work with are all college educated and very easy to get along with. We have more in common than not. The folks I go to church with, the same. I don't discuss race issues very often, and never with people I don't know, so my exposure to other people's views is limited. Maybe I need to do more about this, I don't know.
I did see something in particular in the supermarket the other day. It was a Land o' Lakes butter label. (I think that was the brand). It had a female native american on the label. I always am sensitive about such images because I have two very close friends who are native americans; one lives here, the other in Oklahoma. We have baseball teams like the Atlanta Braves, or Cleveland Indians, and I don't think that's right. We wouldn't have the Atlanta Sharecroppers with a black man behind a mule. Or even the Atlanta Crackers, with a white man holding a whip. I know these are not exactly analagous, but we really shouldn't have a symbol of a minority's heritage as a mascot. And even then, the symbols are often inaccurate. I would dare to say that the Land o' Lakes butter woman is not dressed in authentic native american garb. She is drawn like the artist (the picture looks like it was done back in the 50s or something) thinks a native american would be dressed.
okay, this post has gone on too long. I have work to do. Maybe this helps.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Where as a race neutral society would be able to say “huh, what’s a race?”
Is that how we'd want to think? (This is just an honest question by the way - I don't really know how I'd answer.)
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
The only reason "reverse discrimination" and affirmitive action take place is because not all races are on a level playing field. Unfortunately, many people are hindered financially, socially, and politically because of their race. A child who lives in a ghetto and is part of a visible minority might not receive the same level of education as a caucasian kid living in an up-scale neighborhood. Is this the first kid's fault? No. should this occurence be taken into account later on in life? Tricky question. I disagree with the concept of affirmitive action, because it is a short term solution that doesn't really address the issue. I would be much more in favor of an effort to provide equal education for all people in any country, which would make it so that affirmitive action would be no longer necessary. That said, right now affirmitive action is important if people are going to be provided with the opportunities they need to live a healthy and prosperous life (which is hard considering the melting pot of the US).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I tend to think it's a bit strange and lacking of any reasonable historical perspective for any white male in America to be surprised at so-called 'reverse discrimination'. Or to complain about it as a horrible injustice, without recognizing the incredible irony in doing so.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
It is still an injustice though, even if an ironic one. Certainly not a horrible one, though.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
There's no irony in calling racial discrimination an injustice. It is an injustice, regardless of whom it is directed toward. Perhaps you think that because I'm white, I somehow "deserve" to be discriminated against for awhile as punishment for what other people of my ethnicity did before I was born. But that's ludicrous. No one deserves to be treated unfairly because of what they are. Equality doesn't mean we take turns being the bad guy.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Well put, Verily!
Not punishment, though. I think its supposed to be in compensation, to balance the supposed racial playing field. I agree that fairness is not balancing things across generations like that, though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not particularly well-put, really, since I was careful not to say I approved of so-called 'reverse discrimination', or that I disapproved of it.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I don't think racism is much of an issue for the majority of Americans, but I think stereotyping is still a big problem, whether it be based on race, gender, religion, age, politics, etc. It's not really acknowledged or thought about all the time, but it still has an effect on our culture.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I tend to think that racism isn't an issue for a majority of Americans since about 70% of Americans are white:)
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay: True, I agree, but made my comment only for the clarity of race relations in society today. We should be color blind in our race relations. All of us. By giving special things to certain races this will give fuel to these white power groups. Where as a race neutral society would be able to say “huh, what’s a race?”
Being tolerant is not about ignoring the differences between people of different races, genders, or sexual orientations. It is about seeing the similarities and the differences and accepting and even embracing them.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
I prefer Jay take, it should coe to a point where soemone points out a friend is jewish or black and you reply: "huh? He is?" Since once you reconize people are different people might start being divided among those lines, and prejudice may or may not evolve from those differences.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Being tolerant is not about ignoring the differences between people of different races, genders, or sexual orientations. It is about seeing the similarities and the differences and accepting and even embracing them.
I agree somewhat, but there is a problem with that approach. Seeing and embracing differences also necessarily implies making judgement calls based on them - that's just how the human mind processes. If skin color is to be viewed as an important feature of a person, there is simply no getting around the fact that people will be judged by skin color, based on what people of that skin color seem to share in common.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Unfortunately, many people are hindered financially, socially, and politically because of their race. A child who lives in a ghetto and is part of a visible minority might not receive the same level of education as a caucasian kid living in an up-scale neighborhood. Is this the first kid's fault?
We can easily reverse this and say a black child living in an up-scale neighborhood will receive a better education than a poor white kid in a rural county with parents that can't read or write.
In either case it's not race that makes the difference, but the socio-economic status.
I live in a county that's incredibly diverse. On a normal school day you can be in line to drop off your kids with a Mercedes in front of you and a beaten down old truck hauling a trailer with a calf on it behind you. We have subdivisions with half-million dollar homes less than a mile away from beaten down trailer parks where people count themselves lucky if they still have indoor plumbing that works.
There is a huge disparity, a huge gulf between the two types of people that live here, and of course quite a few people like myself who consider ourselves in the middle. Kids are quick to divide themselves into the different "classes" at school and pick on and make fun of the kids who come from the poorer areas.
Our racial demographic? The county is 98% white.
My point is that I think it's the socio-economics that separate people in America much more than the race.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Racism is a minor issue in America, Erez. It is still an issue, and there are still problems and traumas resulting from it.
But it is not the everyday norm. Far, far from it.
The website is stating that they (the racists) are not in the minority, and represent people from every walk of life, specifically because they want anyone reading it to be easily convinced that what they are saying represents reality.
It's a lie. America is a culturally rich and ethnically diverse place and racists are a tiny minority of people.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Having said that, racism is definitely real and not to be diminished.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Racism is a minor issue in America, Erez.
I might agree, with the caveat that racial inequity is still rampant. Some caused by racism, some caused by past racism, and some caused by socio-economic forces (which may be sharpened by racism).
But I wonder if racial perception, which would fall under some definitions of racism, is really minor. While there may be fewer outright bigoted people, there may still be many who hold unhealthy, inaccurate racial stereotypes.
Regardless, race (no "ism" at the end) is certainly not a minor issue in America.
[ August 05, 2005, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I'll agree with that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm going to ask what is normally an insulting question, TL: are you white?
If so, in what way exactly do you feel-for lack of a better word-anything other than ignorant about racism in American?
I mean, unless one (not you, just anybody) actually is a racist and consorts with racists, then of course they won't see it very often, because they quite rightly are repelled by racism and racists.
In the same way I am leery of statistics regarding homosexuality because of an uncertain number of closeted homosexuals, I am leery of people belonging to the majority group in any country claiming that racism is a minor problem.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote:Unfortunately, many people are hindered financially, socially, and politically because of their race. A child who lives in a ghetto and is part of a visible minority might not receive the same level of education as a caucasian kid living in an up-scale neighborhood. Is this the first kid's fault?
We can easily reverse this and say a black child living in an up-scale neighborhood will receive a better education than a poor white kid in a rural county with parents that can't read or write.
In either case it's not race that makes the difference, but the socio-economic status.
I live in a county that's incredibly diverse. On a normal school day you can be in line to drop off your kids with a Mercedes in front of you and a beaten down old truck hauling a trailer with a calf on it behind you. We have subdivisions with half-million dollar homes less than a mile away from beaten down trailer parks where people count themselves lucky if they still have indoor plumbing that works.
There is a huge disparity, a huge gulf between the two types of people that live here, and of course quite a few people like myself who consider ourselves in the middle. Kids are quick to divide themselves into the different "classes" at school and pick on and make fun of the kids who come from the poorer areas.
Our racial demographic? The county is 98% white.
My point is that I think it's the socio-economics that separate people in America much more than the race.
of course education is influenced by socio-economic status, but in a country like the US, where the melting pot is the predominating cultural structure, race and socio-economic status are much more intertwinned than they would be in, say your contry.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Also, I might add that racism ought to be expanded to "culturalism", because alot of the time modern discrimination is more about lifestyles, cultures, and religion than simply race.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Where as a race neutral society would be able to say “huh, what’s a race?” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that how we'd want to think?
Yes, I think so. I think the goal should be one race: humanity.
quote: I tend to think it's a bit strange and lacking of any reasonable historical perspective for any white male in America to be surprised at so-called 'reverse discrimination'. Or to complain about it as a horrible injustice, without recognizing the incredible irony in doing so.
Surprised? No. Outraged? Certainly. And why not? I didn't do anything to create the current situation, and neither did my ancestors. So why don't I have the right to be upset that I'm treated a certain way, based on the acts of total strangers, most of whom are dead now?
Well, since we're allowed to work by your model, that we can't complain about being ridiculed for the actions of others, Muslims can't complain about anti-Islamic actions. Which is obviously stupid.
As a whole though, I don't think we suffer from the blatent racism of the past. America is far more accepting and integrated today. Stereotypes do abound however. Metro Detroit isn't exactly a interracial fantasy land. But we rarely see hate crimes anymore. With every generation we get closer to eradicating predjudice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
You're misreading me. Again, as I've said, I've been careful not to say that so-called reverse discrimination is justified, or a good thing, or fair-game.
I think it's wrong-headed, counterproductive, and hypocritical for any people who proclaim themselves to be the enemies of one type of prejudice to support another.
All I'm saying, fellow white-guys, is that we should understand something: it's only forty years since we (and I mean 'we' as Americans) were turning fire hoses and police dogs on blacks demonstrating for civil rights. That's all. So just don't be so surprised and incredulous when you come across 'reverse discrimination', because like all prejudices, there is a kernal of rationality behind it. Un like many prejudices, this one's kernal is a bit bigger and a helluva lot more recent.
But that still doesn't make it good, productive behavior.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I said I'm not surprised at all. I see the rationale behind it, but I don't think that makes it right or justified.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Erez, those sites are run by a handfull of angry guys. That's kids stuff. The race problem in America is deeper than that, with a completely different feel.
I hear white people say that race doesn't matter, socio-economics does. Which is fine, I'm just not so sure that you can seperate the socio part of socio-economics from race. And furthermore, if we could, I'm not sure who we'd be doing a service to?
I think that the social differences(approaches to American culture) that are the result of independent cultural practices that have arisen from WASP culture-- in all of their manifestations-- and non-WASP cultures having to contend with WASP culture communicate some deep problems in all of the cultures involved.
In a rush to try to whitewash everyone into being the same suburban white guy-- which I think is considered is the default ideal of the "American"-- I think the dialogue would be better served if we take a closer look at the root of our cultural differences, and those differences are deeper than ones economic status. I think the same can be said for gender differences. I'm not sure we should be race blind or gender blind, until we figure what's a play, what's at stake, and how on earth there came to be so many social differences to begin with.
That's my two cents. In short, WASPS need get their moral act together before I even push for a color blind America. Because when people say, "A color blind America," I get the sense they mean a ubiquitous America whose structures and natural disposition is heavily influenced by WASP male sensibilities.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:WASPS need get their moral act together before I even push for a color blind America
Hmmm, I see. So I'm off the hook, then?
Yay me!
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
"To a certain degree, Catholics get a special dispensation because of the unmitigated influence that good deeds have in the church," he says, piously.
Edit:
For protestants, I think a few hundred years of this faith alone business has separated Godliness and from generousity and compassion on earth, and it's not an attractive distinction.
[ August 05, 2005, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Posted by RoyHobbs (Member # 7594) on :
I agree that the socio-economic factors are the most important as far as the "level of the playing field".
But as far as racism goes, I think it is extremely low and overblown, on all accounts.
Though we can argue about the level of education kids in the city get, ( and I would like to see some stats on it, if someone took the time) the bottom line is hard work, dedication and perserverance will overcome all barriers, whether racial or economic in nature.
As long as men like Michael Dell can create billion dollar companies out of their garages, this dream is alive.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:the bottom line is hard work, dedication and perserverance will overcome all barriers
Not if adequate education isn't available.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
RoyHobbs, I'd like to think what you say is true, but I just don't believe it.
What stats do you want to see? If you go to this website:
You can get reports on the testing on every school system in Alabama. I requested the results of the Stanford Achievement Test in Reading for eighth graders in Ragland - a very poor school system in a rural area. The reading percentile score was 47 for all students - and 88.8% of the students were white.
In contrast, I looked at eighth graders in Vestavia Hills, a wealthy suburb south of Birmingham. Their reading percentile was 81, and this school is 88.81% white. Almost the same racial makeup for both schools (the remaining percentages were black and hispanic students) and yet one apparently scores twice as well as the other in reading.
Race isn't making a difference, so what is? Socio-economic factors. And I can assure you, a child that graduates from high school in Vestavia Hills has a much greater chance of going to college and making a good career for themselves than does a student who graduates from Ragland High.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Michael Dell is a success because he is a billionaire?
I get confused. I just thought being a billionaire meant that he had was worth a billion dollars. I didn't see it as a testament to the quality of his character.
There are bigger, more menacing barriers than mere economics. Equality doesn't mean that everyone has access to the same amount of money. To a degree, that's part of it, but only a part. It's murkier business.
I don't even know if I want to push for equality, if equality means that everyone is equally morally bereft.
Posted by RoyHobbs (Member # 7594) on :
Also, if, as it seems to be the opinion of this board so far, it is true that socio-economic factors are the most important in determining someones education level and the degree to which they need help because of bad schools and situations...
(though I am not ready to concede the point that public schools in the suburbs provide a better opportunity for education than those in the "ghetto" - And it is just an opportunity to educate oneself. Students today think that it is the job of the teacher to pour knowledge into the student like a bucket. This is not accurate. If you have a love for learning, you can get a good education no matter where you go to school.)
...than the entire Affirmative Action policy makes no sense. Its the level of education that one receives before college that matters and that is the only thing that matters .
I am sure that there are inner city schools that are predominantly black and yet are much better than many in suburban USA. How would that difference in education be taken into account by the AA system? Why couldn't the suburban kids (probably predominantly white) get an education on par with those kids at the excellent inner city school?
As improbable as that may sound, my point is that to base someone's admission on their skin color is nearly irrelevant.
There are white kids in the ghetto and there are black kids in the 'burbs and I don't think the difference in their educations are all that great.
That said, the objective of the first SAT was to find diamonds in the rough, smart kids with little knowledge, farm kids and inner city kids. It was an assessment test. This helped colleges select students with the potential to become educated.
Now the test is an achievement test. This does nothing to help those students who actually have received a sub-par education. (and there definitely are some, like every public school grad )
So now, instead of intelligently finding smart students based on the numerous ways that colleges normally do - grades, test scores and extra-curricular achievements - they skip all those and go straight to a completely irrelevant characteristic of the prospective student: skin color.
Huh?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't even know if I want to push for equality, if equality means that everyone is equally morally bereft.
Are you saying Michael Dell is morally bereft?
quote:I am sure that there are inner city schools that are predominantly black and yet are much better than many in suburban USA. How would that difference in education be taken into account by the AA system? Why couldn't the suburban kids (probably predominantly white) get an education on par with those kids at the excellent inner city school?
As improbable as that may sound, my point is that to base someone's admission on their skin color is nearly irrelevant.
I think you better review the last exchange. Did anyone advocate AA in response to your post? You seem to think that recognizing that blacks regularly get shortchanged by our social, educational, and political institutions automatically equates to support for AA.
I also think you have a very limited understanding of what AA is if you think it requires taking skin color into account.
People, I believe, were responding to this portion of your posts:
quote:But as far as racism goes, I think it is extremely low and overblown, on all accounts.
Though we can argue about the level of education kids in the city get, ( and I would like to see some stats on it, if someone took the time) the bottom line is hard work, dedication and perserverance will overcome all barriers, whether racial or economic in nature.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Some of my meandering thoughts on AA, previously posted Elsewhere:
Affirmative action covers a lot of ground. In its broadest sense, it is affirmative steps to hire more of a member of a particular group. It does not mean only quotas or only minority preferences.
For example, programs that help companies or government agencies publish job announcements in places that are more likely to be seen are affirmative action. And one of the more successful types of affirmative action I might add.
Similar types include educating employers about resume items with which they may not be familiar. For example, many employers consider "Eagle Scout" to be a proxy for a host of admirable traits: leadership, dedication, hard work, etc. There are corresponding accomplishments which may be more popular with minorities that employers might not be aware of.
I would suggest few would disagree with these policies. Yet each such policy specifically has to acknowledge racial group attributes (more likely to read paper X, or more likely to participate in group Y). The reason this isn't problematic is because it doesn't extend an advantage; rather, it specifically targets a disadvantage. I suspect that if the lack of knowledge most employers have about black experiences could be totally overcome, these types of steps would go a very long way to allowing blacks access to equal opportunity.
More troublesome are preferences (where being black would add points or something similar). In this case, being black would serve as a proxy for something else. Even more troublesome are quotas, which, while they technically are never mandated, are often implemented as a preemptive strike against accusations of discrimination.
The context matters here. Affirmative action is only a problem if it results in the "wrong" person being put in a particular slot. For jobs in private industry, this would be the person most capable of doing the job that is willing to accept the pay offered or available, with other factors such as expected longevity factored in. What's often not acknowledged is that both ignorance of the targeted by the first type of AA programs I described and outright bigotry both stop the "right" person from getting the job very often.
In colleges, people seem to have a default expectation that the "right" person is the one with the best grades or the highest test scores or the best extra-curricular activities. This isn't really the case. Even the slightly better criteria, "who will do best in college," won't necessarily admit the "right" person, even if it could be measured perfectly. College is not a reward for past performance nor a self-contained, self-measuring program. Education is useful to society because of the type of people it produces. Truly successful colleges should be measured by how their alums contribute to society. I admit I have no practical means of making such a measurement. But the mere fact that colleges aren't about how well students do in college means that we shouldn't necessarily consider policies that reject "better" students as automatically bad.
[ August 05, 2005, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by RoyHobbs (Member # 7594) on :
Quote: "Not if adequate education isn't available"
Thats something you'll have to search deep in your self to really find the answer to.
Do you truly believe that?
Even if it is "true" on some scientific level, do you want to establish as a fact in this world that if you have a bad upbringing then you can't contribute positively to society? I don't think that is a good precedent to set.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
RoyHobbs
quote:Also, if, as it seems to be the opinion of this board so far, that socio-economic that...
I didn't know the board had an opinion. If you are talking about taking the feeling from the majority of the posts and attributing that to the whole. You can't just do that and call it the opinion of the board. I don't know how you think you can. I think that worship of majority rule is WASP conditioning, but anyway, quit it.
Even so, I'm not sure what the board's opinion has to do with the truth of the situation.
Again, I'm not sure how one can divorce race from the socio part of socio-economic, and since, for the most part, I'm against divorce, I'm not sure that race ought to split off.
Dag,
I don't know anything about Michael Dell, except that he is loaded and he makes computers. But I'm nervous when he is touted as being a hero or success because he has made a lot of money.
I'm sure Dell does good work, but I'm not so sure how much of that is evidenced by his gross worth.
___
As an aside, something is wrong with my computer's cut and paste function, I want to say that the last paragraph of your last post is spot on, down to mentioning that there is no easy, quantitative, way to measure the "success" of alumni contributions to society.
[ August 05, 2005, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Not particularly well-put, really, since I was careful not to say I approved of so-called 'reverse discrimination', or that I disapproved of it.
I wasn't necessarily saying that you either did or did not approve of pro-minority racial discrimination. (I refuse to call it "reverse", because that's nonsense.)
But you did say that it was "ironic" for whites to call racial discrimination against themselves an injustice. The implication was that because whites were the ones that caused the inequality in the first place, then whites shouldn't get to complain if the tables are turned and they start being discriminated against.
It is that notion that I am calling ludicrous. When it comes to social injustice, turnabout is not fair play. We should be working toward a society where everyone is given equal opportunities, not a society where the former oppressors become the oppressed. For one thing, that's still oppression, and it's still--and I say this without a trace of irony--an injustice.
For another thing, there is a distinction between saying "the people in power are white" and "white people are in power". Most actual white people don't have much power, and never did. I, for one, have never been a cause of racial discrimination. So for me to become a victim of racial discrimination would not be "irony", and it would not be fair.
(I'm not saying I have been the victim of racial discrimination. I don't actually believe I ever really have been. I'm just making a point.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Quote: "Not if adequate education isn't available"
Thats something you'll have to search deep in your self to really find the answer to.
Do you truly believe that?
Even if it is "true" on some scientific level, do you want to establish as a fact in this world that if you have a bad upbringing then you can't contribute positively to society?
Did I say if one has a bad upbringing that one can't contribute positively to society?
No. I disagreed with your statement that "hard work, dedication and perserverance will overcome all barriers."
And thanks, Irami.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Blacks and whites now mix at work, socially, at church, wherever. I was out pub crawling last week and saw blacks and whites chatting each other up. Of course, any site like the one you describe, Erez, is going to be totally unreliable.
Still, mostly, purely social groups will be all black or all white.
Jewishness? Well, we won't see them at church , but we'll mix everywhere else. It's no big deal.
White people are afraid of blacks. We tend to think they'll rob us and kill us. Although most blacks, of course, wouldn't do anything of the sort, when you do see a picture of a hoodlum, far too often it's a black face. So people get scared.
Best thing I know about this white supremacy stuff is that it is very passe. Almost nobody's interested.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Irami,
"WASP" is a term that bugs me about as much as "honky." Surely there are other words that could be chosen to describe more precisely the group you are concerned about.
More to the point, I think the "faith alone" thing was confined to a selection of Protestant sects, by the way. It is by no means universal in Protestant dogma, despite what it may appear from any localized sample you've run across.
Also, it'd be interesting to take a look at charitable giving in the US, and various projects run by various denominations.
As for the question that began this thread, I think racism and sexism are still alive and well (or not so well) in this country. The norm is by no means depicted by the fringe folks in the "white power" movement. They are typically portrayed as poor, under-educated, and seeking to blame others for their misfortune.
The fact that they are a small minority of the US population should be comforting. Every society has such people. It's only when their viewpoint becomes common that things get really scary on a grand scale. These groups tend to get noticed when they perpetrate some stupid act of violence or hatred and get caught or when they become outlaws and the Feds go after them. Our FBI monitors them pretty closely. Sometimes that enforcement gets out of control as well (look up "survivalists" if you want a nice history of that side of the issue). Basically, they have tended to isolate themselves because the primary tenet of these groups is that the government is already "infiltrated" and can't be trusted. As such, they lack political clout and are truly on the fringe.
The real racism in America is more of a vestige of official racism of the past. Stereotypes infiltrate our thinking about various subpopulations to the point that it is still difficult for a black man to get a cab in some cities, even from black cab drivers. For the most part it is based on fear.
The good news is that we do have laws that have been successfully used to break down the most damaging and obvious barriers in employment and housing. It's a start. It means that companies have to put policies in place that eliminate overt discrimination or face large fines and civil penalties from law suits.
The more subtle forms of discrimination persist, but I think the barriers are crumbling. One factor has been integration in schools, I think. While there have been incidents of race-based stratification in our schools, there have also been some less measurable results from mixing the races at an earlier age. Friendships form. Fear is reduced and replaced with a realistic appraisal of individuals. The bad stuff makes the news. The good stuff seldom does.
It's one of the things I worry about with so called "white flight" from urban environments and with the home-schooling movement in general. Not that these are universally things that perpetuate racism, but they are trends that slow the good effects of experiencing others of different races. Especially if the parents are making such moves out of their fear.
(so please don't dogpile. I know lots of kids get a healthy dose of interracial experiences even if they are homeschooled and I know that some of the fear of violence in the schools, and low education quality, are justified in some areas.)
I think people are afraid still. Areas of the country that are more traditionally "white" are the ones where I've encountered the most racism. The South has mostly gotten past it. But then, these people grew up knowing black people, and the wave of Hispanic immigrants from Mexico (especially) started in the South and the Southwest. The MidWest and NorthEast are among the areas where I've encountered the greatest ignorance of other races, and thus the greatest fear and racism.
I lived in the South for 12 years and heard the "N" word in reference to a black person exactly once. It was said by a guy from Ohio. A recent transplant. Southerners are far too polite and well-mannered to use the word, at least in front of strangers.
Inner cities in America are the tough nut to crack these days. The urban areas of America are generally impoverished and have a greater proportion of minorities than rural or sub-urban areas nearby. Urban areas have more crime. Urban areas generally have a reputation for worse-performing schools. It's all tied together, as Irami pointed out. Teasing out the race from the economic is not easy.
People with little direct experience with minority-group-members are likely to just ball it all together and end up believing in some stereotypes.
But we've also seen that bad things happen in the suburbs among the monied classes too. And then everyone's shocked by it! Sure, we expect it "over there" but not in the 'burbs.
Ah well...
Someday, I hope, people in the US will realize that we have gone down a too-violent path altogether and some things need fixing in order to get to a better place. Some of those things are the economic inequalities we have built into our version of capitalism. Others are power and class related.
I imagine we'll figure it out eventually, but there are probably some painful realizations ahead of us before we get there.
And, to me, we're among the most welcoming countries in the world. I shudder when thinking about how bad it'll be for other countries when they go through this.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:White people are afraid of blacks. We tend to think they'll rob us and kill us. Although most blacks, of course, wouldn't do anything of the sort, when you do see a picture of a hoodlum, far too often it's a black face. So people get scared.
We're afraid of blacks? Do you really think its possible to get a reliable number of people who are afraid? I suppose that's a facetious question, but still, it's the same kind of ignorant generalization as racism to say that all whites are afraid of blacks.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I agree.
I do think there's an element of "fear" but it could be fear of the unknown, fear of not giving your kids the best education possible, fear of being robbed, whatever.
The "black face" of crime in the US is a statistical oddity in that it very much depends on where you live and what you experience locally. The number of white criminals (last time I checked) still exceeds the number of minority criminals. But the prison population certainly is skewed in the other direction.
And it depends on the crime too. We put people in jail for life for drug possession. We put people like Kenneth Lay in jail for as short a time as possible under the circumstances. One person ruins their own life. The other ruined the retirement of 100's if not 1000's of people.
It's all a symptom of the fundamental unfairnesses remaining in US society. I think we'll address them someday. It's going to hurt a lot when we do. I think people know that and that's, in part, why it's taking too damned long!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:We put people like Kenneth Lay in jail for as short a time as possible under the circumstances. One person ruins their own life. The other ruined the retirement of 100's if not 1000's of people.
Be fair, Bob. This has changed in the last few years. Ebbers got 25 years, almost certainly a life sentence for him - there will be no parole. He could have been given life. The Rigas got 15 and 20 years. Tyco's ex-CEO faces up to 30.
If Lay goes down, I bet he'll do hard time. Very hard.
White-collar sentences are changing for the better.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
OHOHOHOH!!!! I have an amazing idea, lets all register on their forum and bash their arguements all to hell?
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:OHOHOHOH!!!! I have an amazing idea, lets all register on their forum and bash their arguements all to hell?
Who, white supremecists and seperatists? That might be fun!
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
get this, they think there's no way Treblinka could've killed 800,000 people because there was supposedly 120 people stall and rilfemen administering the camp, that is just plain stupid they didn't kill them all at once.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sid, nothing good can come of this. Don't give them the link; don't give them the hits.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
??? the link already existed at thye beggining of this thread, and quite frankly I'm STUNNED by the utter smell of their excrement these people exume everytime they post, I don't think I can hold myself back I feel like bashing their arguements with OMG *GASP* LOGIC AND HUMAN DECENCY! Which these (who don't even deserve the name) PEOPLE lack.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"Who, white supremecists and seperatists? That might be fun!"
Would we be considered trolls?
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
oh no, not if we do it right, you see if we bash their arguements using logic, human decency and etc we won't be considered trolls thus we can continue to destory their shells of dellusions of supremcy they hold around themselves. Unless of course they ban our IP's just because they don't want to listen to other people's opinions which would prove beyond a doubt that these people are scum.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:Would we be considered trolls?
I hope so. We would be like the troll under the bridge who eats the Big Bad Wolf. Trolls aren't always bad.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Unless of course they ban our IP's just because they don't want to listen to other people's opinions which would prove beyond a doubt that these people are scum.
It's statements like this that make me doubt your ability to "bash[] their arguements with OMG *GASP* LOGIC AND HUMAN DECENCY!"
That, plus the fact that they don't share premises with you, so logical discourse isn't even possible.
Posted by naledge (Member # 392) on :
Could someone please cite a personal example where Affirmative Action has resulted in someone losing a job opportunity? Does anyone know where I can find a study that provides research statistically showing how affirmative action programs has affected non-minority hiring practices?
-nal
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Reader: We're afraid of blacks? Do you really think its possible to get a reliable number of people who are afraid? I suppose that's a facetious question, but still, it's the same kind of ignorant generalization as racism to say that all whites are afraid of blacks.
It really isn't accurate to assume that any generalization about a racial group is racism. "Blacks are more prone to hypertension that whites" is not really a racist statement.
And the word "ignorant" here is just name-calling -- and ad hominem, and a distraction. If you knew that whites don't have a tendency to fear blacks, you'd provide evidence.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote: That, plus the fact that they don't share premises with you, so logical discourse isn't even possible.
What he said.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Could someone please cite a personal example where Affirmative Action has resulted in someone losing a job opportunity? Does anyone know where I can find a study that provides research statistically showing how affirmative action programs has affected non-minority hiring practices?
Not strictly hiring practices, but there were many contracts we couldn't bid on as a non-8A firm (minority owned, basically). In at least two instances, we had to work as a sub on contracts where the agency wanted to hire us directly but could only get money to an 8a firm. That meant we lost 51% of the work.
[ August 07, 2005, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:And the word "ignorant" here is just name-calling -- and ad hominem, and a distraction. If you knew that whites don't have a tendency to fear blacks, you'd provide evidence.
I called the generalization ignorant, not the poster. Whoever posted that statement (the post seems to have been deleted, and I don't remember who made it) said that "White people are afraid of blacks. We tend to think they will rob us and kill us." It seems a lot like stereotyping to say that white people have a tendency to fear blacks.
I can't provide evidence because a tendency in this instance means that it is a behavioral aspect applicable to a certain race. How can you prove that an intentional behavior is intrinsic to a whole race? Or was there a study of white people to determine whether or not we have a tendency to be afraid?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um, Sid, it's been tried, on this very board, against both creationists and theists. Some beliefs can't be shifted with anything short of machine guns.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Nice. Now you equate theism with virulent, violent racism.
Although if you think what you've engaged in on this board when discussing theism is "logical discourse," much about you is explained.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Actually, he didn't equate them. He just said they were equally unshiftable beliefs, which is very different from saying they are the same.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
oh oh, take 5 and *breath in* *breath out* relax, we don't want any petty arguements here we're better then that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Actually, he didn't equate them. He just said they were equally unshiftable beliefs, which is very different from saying they are the same.
This is what Sid is trying to accomplish:
quote:oh no, not if we do it right, you see if we bash their arguements using logic, human decency and etc we won't be considered trolls thus we can continue to destory their shells of dellusions of supremcy they hold around themselves.
quote:quite frankly I'm STUNNED by the utter smell of their excrement these people exume everytime they post, I don't think I can hold myself back I feel like bashing their arguements with OMG *GASP* LOGIC AND HUMAN DECENCY! Which these (who don't even deserve the name) PEOPLE lack.
To which, KoM responded:
quote:Um, Sid, it's been tried, on this very board, against both creationists and theists.
"It" refers to using logic and "human decency" "to destory their shells of dellusions of supremcy they hold around themselves."
Given KoM's desire to put us all in camps, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Dagonee
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Could someone please cite a personal example where Affirmative Action has resulted in someone losing a job opportunity? Does anyone know where I can find a study that provides research statistically showing how affirmative action programs has affected non-minority hiring practices?
When I worked as a university purchasing agent, I encountered it every day. Let's see if I can explain this so it makes sense.
When certain grants were awarded to researchers they included with them a requirement that a percentage of the grant money be spent with minority or women-owned businesses. We employed a full time minority and woman-owned business coordinator who made sure that we purchasing agents "did our job."
Our job consisted of awarding purchase orders to these minority and woman-owned firms, even when the orders were for supplies that were covered under contract with a different firm and could be gotten cheaper from that firm.
I've personally forced the university to pay twice as much for materials just so the materials could come from a minority or female owned firm. The exact same items. In one case the minority owned firm purchased the items from the company we had the contract with and then re-sold them to us for twice the cost.
Now that may not answer your question because you referred to jobs, but these practices certainly do affect jobs at some point.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Some more examples of affirmative action apparently denying people jobs and school admission:
The above is the findings of a case wherein a white student sued the Univ of Michigan Law School because she was denied acceptance to the school in favor of minority applicants. The court found in her favor, and the Univ was ordered to stop using race as a factor in admissions.
quote:For the reasons stated in this opinion, the court concludes that the University of Michigan Law School's use of race as a factor in its admissions decisions is unconstitutional and a violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The law school's justification for using race — to assemble a racially diverse student population — is not a compelling state interest. Even if it were, the law school has not narrowly tailored its use of race to achieve that interest. Nor may the law school's use of race be justified on the alternative grounds urged by the intervenors — to "level the playing field" between applicants of minority and non-minority races — because the remedying of societal discrimination, either past or present, has not been recognized as a compelling state interest.
There's also the issue for the Boston Fire and Police departments:
quote:Selya ruled in favor of the five white firefighters who were turned down for a firefighter position, despite scoring 99 out of 100 points on the Massachusetts Division of Personnel Administration exam. They were refused because the Beecher Decree required the BFD to hire more minority candidates, who scored lower on the exam.
Plenty of other examples can be found, just google "affirmative action lawsuits"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Belle, I believe the district court decision in Grutter was overturned by SCOTUS. The undergraduate AA program was struck down because it gave points to black applicants. The law school program was OKed because it merely used race as one of many factors.
My summary is definitely correct (though incomplete), but it might not be the case you linked.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Dag I certainly bow to you in all thing legal. I'm sure you're right.
Edit: Ah. A split decision. The court upheld the program for the law school but struck down the undergraduate policies.
"I want to say that the last paragraph of your last post is spot on, down to mentioning that there is no easy, quantitative, way to measure the "success" of alumni contributions to society."
Yep. I'd also add that it's not just the "success," but the value added. In my opinion, in California, the CSU system turns out more successful alumni than the UC system in terms of value added. The UCs starts out (mostly) with high-achieving kids (many of whose parents are working professionals with advance degrees). And yet, if you look at funding structure, pay, prestige, etc...
<-----proud to be both a community college, UC and CSU alum
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Anyone who believes that racism doesn't exist in this country have never lived in Milwaukee, WI or Detroit, MI. Move to those cities (I live in Milwaukee) and tell me racism doesn't exist.
At my company picnic yesterday, as I walked in to the park area, I noticed that there were tables off to the side with nothing but black people sitting at them and a whole bunch of other tables with nothing but white people (and one black family) sitting at them. It was actually kind of shocking and depressing, but this is how our city is made up.
I need to move out of this town.
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
Affirmative action HAS been misused and misused greatly.
But it has been used well too. Frankly if two applicants for a school or job have comperable qualifications, I see nothing wrong with taking the minority in the interest of racial/social/cultural/etc. diverstiy.
MOST affirmative action programs are NOT about quotas or hiring the less qualified just because they are minorities. That's just what people like to point to so that they have something to get mad about.
MOST Affirmative Action policies ARE about outreach. Advertising in places where certain minorities are likely to see it. Going to high schools with high minority populations to recruit promising students.
I am a beneficiary of Affirmative Action. In college I was in the Research Opportunity Program which took racial/cultural minority students and also first generation college students and went through the basics of applying for graduate school, finding references, writing VITAs, gave us a Kaplan class for the GRE, and also paired us with a mentor to work on a research project. To get into the program participants had to be someone that Grad Schools would actually look at. Good GPA, one good reference letter from a Professor, did well in an interview.
I also frequented the American Indian Student Services (AISS), which was exactly what it sounds like, had academic counseling, intervention, and advocacy. There were computers for research and word processing. It was also a space for the Indian students to go hang out.
NonIndians were not barred from using AISS, but where as there was outreach to make Indian Students aware of AISS, that was not a priority for Non-Indians. I imagine if it ever got to the point where nore Non-Indians were using it that Indians, it would have been shut down, because it would not have been serving its purpose.
My mom would never have gotten through school without AISS. She would have gotten lost in the shuffle, and quit in frustration. It would have been too bad too, because she graduated Magna Cum Laude, and in the Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society, one of the few members who's major was in humanities (they require lots of math and science).
She is a brilliant student, but not so good at negotiating the University Ropes, nor at standing up for herself when being harassed by a professor, or being given the run around by the Scholarship or English Department.
I think it would have been a shame, certainly for my Mom, but also for UNM if they had lost one of their really bright stars before graduation. AISS, an affirmative action program, prevented that.
The beautiful thing about AISS was that the counselors/advocates were familiar with how many to most Native American college students reacted to situations, and were sensitive to cultural differences that make University confusing and frustrating specifically for Natives.
I think many people would have all sorts of reasons why asking a Native student to compassionatley tell Kit Carson's side of the story of The Long Walk is just REALLY bad. "Get over it." They might say. But really it is tantamount to asking a Jewish person to compassionately tell Himmeler's (sp?) side of the story about a death camp.
It seems silly at best to condemn Affirmative Action as a whole because of misuses, abuses, and mistakes of SOME parts. Many parts are helpful and beneficial. Why sack those instead of working on the parts that don't work so well?
Think I lost my train of thought... sorry. Maybe I'll get back to it, I think I mostly said what I wanted to though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Very good point, Zalmoxis, and a nice extension to my thoughts on it.
Say person X will contribute 1000* to society without college, and 1100 to society with college. Person Y will contribute 400 to society without college, and 900 with it. The college doesn't contribute as much to society by admitting X over Y.
I don't think every admissions decision has to be made like this, but I don't think people examine the whole situation when they speak of merit-only admissions policies.
*Remember, I don't actually think this is reducible to a single number. Also, I think that some people who start at a higher "society contribution" measure will gain even more in college compared to some people who start with a lower measure. This was one example only.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:MOST affirmative action programs are NOT about quotas or hiring the less qualified just because they are minorities. That's just what people like to point to so that they have something to get mad about.
MOST Affirmative Action policies ARE about outreach. Advertising in places where certain minorities are likely to see it. Going to high schools with high minority populations to recruit promising students.
Yes - this cannot be emphasized enough. Much racial inequity is born because the people who make selections (for school, jobs, whatever) use a series of processes that are more geared to reaching the "average" person. For example, when we did college recruiting, we thought immediately of VT, UVA, and William and Mary. It didn't occur to us to think of historically black colleges.
I don't find malice in this, but it's something to overcome when we recognize it. And most AA is geared toward this.
Quotas are, in many ways, simply lazy AA. They are also a side-effect of anti-discrimination laws - proportional representation is a pretty strong defense, so many companies strive for it as a precaution.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
There's no question that some good has come of affirmative action programs and I'm not one of those people who thinks they should all be abolished.
I had no trouble, in my job, with making concerted efforts to ensure that minority and women owned businesses received opportunities to bid on contracts. I didn't have a problem with that at all - it ensured that some businesses that might have been economically disadvantaged got the same chances to land big contracts as any other business.
What I objected to was not the fact that we should make extra effort to give minority owned businesses opportunities, but that we should give them orders even if they lost the bids. At the expense of the company that won the bid, and at the expense of the university which now had to pay more for the same product.
I don't object to colleges spending extra money recruiting in minority areas and working hard to make sure that every opportunity for success is granted a minority student. I don't object to scholarships being available for minority students only, because I do think the university gains something if it has a diverse student body.
However, I do object to things like merit scholarships considering race as a factor. If it's a merit scholarship it should go to the student with the highest GPA or test score or whatever, regardless of race.
I object to practices like the one that was in place at the Boston fire department, where white firefighters were passed over for promotion in favor of minority firefighters with less experience and who scored lower on promotion exams.
I wouldn't object to efforts to recruit minority fire fighters to join the department, but once there everyone should be promoted solely on their own merit.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Verily,
You're again misrepresenting me. You're reading your own personal issues (which I share, btw) into what I said. It is in fact ironic from a political and social and historical standpoint for a white person to complain about 'reverse racism'. Even a cursory examination of the history of America reveals why it's ironic, just because that wasn't the way it was for most of our history.
That's all I said. I didn't say whites shouldn't get to complain if they're discriminated against, I didn't say discrimination against whites was fair and just, I didn't say that whites should just accept discrimination, for pete's sake!
All I said, ALL I said was one that white people should remember that in the game of racism and discrimination, we as a race (and I don't believe in characterizing individuals on that line) we have given minorities in America (pretty much the same across the world, really) much more reason to mistrust us, than they have them.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
actually they do have a geust forum, for the purposes of debates, in which I hope to join in with the opposition plenty of threads trying to debunk the delluded WN people.
I still can't believe that these people are serious, everything they say is nothing more then speculation and pseudo-science, no actual science just what they think is right. If people like these lived near me I'ld move 100 miles away.
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
Belle,
I think you and I are on the same page. At least it seems so.
I just really felt the need to interject with some clarifications, because often, TOO often, Affirmative Action discussions end up being all about the misuses and abuses, about quotas, and hiring unqualified people. People start thinking that that is what Affirmative Action IS. But it is bigger and better than that. And I think people really need to get that, understand that, accept that. Otherwise it is a meaningless discussion.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Eliminated the post as a request but the place holder remains, to show that there was indeed a post here.
[ August 09, 2005, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Sid Meier ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sid, perhaps you should concentrate on writing actual, non-run-on sentences if you wish to impress them with your logic and dispassion.
As it is, I predict someone will be calling you a racist name within 10 posts.
Seriously, NOTHING GOOD can come of this. You are only giving them more fodder for their loathsome worldview.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Sid, you realize that by cross-posting this here as well you give them a method (i.e., Google) to track you back to this forum?
--j_k
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And we would hate that.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
...... but would they actually do it? If a moderator asks me to remove it for the greater good and security of this forum then I will or if I'm sleeping delete it for me, but it will be a number of days even before it actually gets posted (considering they have a moderator check every post) , it may not even get posted though I did post it on their debate forum. so I'ld like it up for a bit so that a couple of other people can see it, I consider this dispite probable grammatic and spelling errors my little moral soap box. So preferably a one day delay so that I can enjoy my little moral stand here.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
True, but Google caches pages when it uses spiders to find them. If a spider were to drop by, a Google search would be linked to this page--even if you deleted the post.
Still, I'm just saying-- be careful.
--j_k
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Aye El Capitan just that I do really like my post its not often I write a post that I truly have my hearts into. The last paragraph I like the best.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Would they actually do it?
YES.
--------
Also, just bear this in mind (and this is not a criticism of you alone, I'm prone to too much of it myself): 'moral stands' online are almost always valueless in their impact. Nothing is risked.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Sid, I think it would be a good idea to remove that post from this site so that we don't end up with some kind of back-lash here.
Please?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Thus I am ashamed to have any kind of affiliation with you people
And yet you go and and cultivate a stronger association with them by participating in their discussions.
Do you know what the definition of troll is?
Just because they are doing something you consider repulsive is no reason to behave badly towards them.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
since you request it, as a favor to you I will. Since I value your respect.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
@ Jay (for bringing up a loaded issue like reverse-descrimination) and White Power.
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Smile]](smile.gif)
, but we'll mix everywhere else. It's no big deal.![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
Trolls aren't always bad.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)