quote: Where did I say I support laws favoring one race over another?
You have never said this. However, as I have already explained, your arguments amount to this. I say that the government can do nothing to fix racism. Would you disagree with that statement?"
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
You make a criticism when there is a legitimate explanation.
Approximately for every ten African-Americans, there are eighty to ninety whites. Let's pretend that before anything else happens, whites and blacks are, individually, equally as likely to be racist or prejudiced and show it to the minority or the white person.
The African-American is still nine times more likely than the white person to encounter racism against himself, which will make them more likely to be intolerant in the future. This applies to those who aren't intolerant to begin with.
It's not just because "they're allowed to", although I agree that attitude poses a problem.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The bit about black unemployment levels being higher is not indicative or racism - it is to be expected in a country where blacks are significantly poorer than whites.
This reasoning sounds rather circular to me. Blacks are poorer than whites because they are more likely to be unemployed. They are more likely to be unemployed because they are poor. Neither statement does anything to address why they are more likely to be poor and unemployed.
Robespierre:
You seem to pretty firmly believe that if we got rid of programs like Affirmative Action, that we would eventually have a society where the only reason social inequalities would exist is because of individual motivation and work, or lack thereof.
I think the discussion needs to move past what the situation is. It sounds like most of us on both sides of this argument agree that racism does exist. There is some disagreement about the source and amount of racism, but let's table that for the moment. What we need is a discussion of why each of us thinks a certain course of action will be advantageous (what are the benefits and end results?) and how the implementation will function (why will this course of action work?).
The problem is that this is all revolving around opinions and guesses. Do we have any data on whether Affirmative Action has increased minority representation in schools and the workplace? Do we have any data correlating it with a change in the social or financial status of any racial groups? Do we have any data correlating it with an increase of racial prejudice or resentment? It's all well and good to say that Affirmative Action causes resentment and removing it would remove the resentment, but how do we know that? And how do we know whether it has the benefits it claims to have?
Personally, I see no reason to suppose that getting rid of temporary government programs desiged to help minorities before they have accomplished their goals would cause racial prejudice and resentment to disappear.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This reasoning sounds rather circular to me. Blacks are poorer than whites because they are more likely to be unemployed. They are more likely to be unemployed because they are poor. Neither statement does anything to address why they are more likely to be poor and unemployed.
Well, I'd argue the reason is primarily because of past racism that rendered their parents poor, not as much present racism.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Here's something that I find interesting. In your last post you said:
quote:I say that the government can do nothing to fix racism.
Based on your previous arguments, I assume that by this you mean the government is incapable of changing the way people think about race. OK, I can accept that. But you've also said:
quote:I have stated many times that I believe the problems you point out can be solved by applying a large dose of capitalism. People who prosper together, will get along.
"Prospering together" implies an assumption that black people would be in a position to be financially successful, and that, if we are all doing as well as we can, racist tendencies will decrease. And from your previous arguments, I am pretty sure that you do think that eventually black people would be in such a position.
So here's the thing: if being on the same financial level will fix racism, and if the government can act to try to put people on the same financial level, then wouldn't executing such actions constitute the government fixing racism?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read through most of the forum, and am a little shocked at the negative response to Robespierre's comments.
Not once did I hear Robespierre make a racist statement, and yet Leto tries to invalidate questions or statements he makes based on race.
I would have to dissect the arguments more to find out why, but the shifts in focus are interesting.
Race is an issue, but so far few people have validated Robespierres main point. Racism is something that is solved by the individual.
In Vonnegut's book "Mother Night," the main theme is that is that "we are what we pretend successfully to be." In the book, Howard Campbell is, publicly, an influental propogandist for the Third Riech. Secretly, he is also a spy for the Allies. Did he inspire more anti-semites than Jews he saved?
The language you use to pursuade is important, and can define who you are, in spite of what you believe to be true. Your words, when heard by others, can become your actions whether you are ready for it or not.
Leto, I think maybe you are confused by Robespierres tone or defensiveness. But do not assume that you are escaping your own racism by calling his words those of a typical white.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally don't think that putting people on the same economic levels fixes racism. Racism and classism, while similar, aren't the same.
Also, it's not all black and white, figuratively or literally. Racism can be regionalized by exposure and can run in many different directions.
While whites have commited racial crimes on blacks and vice versa, that is far from the extent of racism in America. Rioters in LA went after Koreans in their neighborhood, Latino gangs have targeted blacks and whites in their areas, Vietnamese street gangs have had their moments of racially motivated violence, and white racists have mistreated Native Americans for generations.
Our form of government can't remove racism, it can only set penalties for it. Our educational system can't remove racism, it can only preach tolerance and expose our youth to many cultures. Parents can do a lot to alleviate racism, but have to take a hard look at themselves first and instruct respect for all to their children... then they must practice it themselves.
The problem is, it only takes on bad apple to spoil the bunch. Once upon a time it was a disheartened painter who thought that maybe the Jews should be blamed for everything.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Personally, I see no reason to suppose that getting rid of temporary government programs desiged to help minorities before they have accomplished their goals would cause racial prejudice and resentment to disappear.
I would argue that these programs cannot possible accomplish their goals, and that many of their goals are racist to begin with.
The goal I see AA as having is to cause the workforce to reflect the population in percentage of workers who are minorities. The only criteria companies should be hiring people for should be their qualifications. To do otherwise, for any reason, is to limit the freedom of businesses to be successful.
quote: It's all well and good to say that Affirmative Action causes resentment and removing it would remove the resentment, but how do we know that?
We don't know that it would heal the wounds, but that is not a reason to keep it around. I believe AA to be racist, to keep it on the books for any reason is not okay with me.
quote: a discussion of why each of us thinks a certain course of action will be advantageous (what are the benefits and end results?) and how the implementation will function (why will this course of action work?).
I think the proper course of action is to repeal all laws based on race. I was a supporter of the California ballot proposition that would have made the collection of racial data by the cal. gov. illegal.
I believe that this will not bring about instantaneous change in people's views on race. However, it will allow fairness to exist. There will be no reasonable questioning of the black doctor's qualifications, there will be no pent up rage from police officers and fire fighters who are denied jobs because some departments have a 50-50 hiring rule.
quote: Prospering together" implies an assumption that black people would be in a position to be financially successful, and that, if we are all doing as well as we can, racist tendencies will decrease. And from your previous arguments, I am pretty sure that you do think that eventually black people would be in such a position.
I should clarify my previous statement, there is nothing the government can do to "directly" solve the problem of racism. You are correct in thinking that I am of the opinion that if capitalism is let loose, all will prosper.
quote:So here's the thing: if being on the same financial level will fix racism,
Not only on the same financial level, but the same legal level. How people get to these levels is as important as being there. If minorities are given a chance, they will achieve the same success as all other groups in this country.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's important to point out that there's a huge difference between being admitted to a medical school and graduating from it.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think it's important to point out that there's a huge difference between being admitted to a medical school and graduating from it.
Of course there is. I don't think any reasonable person would say there isn't. However, the point I made about black doctors was one that was discussed in a previous thread, I thought the example to be timely. If I implied that it would be reasonable to question a black doctor's qualifications now, I did not mean to. I don't personally think that a black doctor is any more or less qualified than a white doctor. However, this is the perception that is created when racial programs are in place.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Were any of these propositions bundled in with other legislation? I have seen a number of questions asked on the ballot which ask two or three questions all as part of a package. So for example, if one of those questions were worded something like this:
Editing the constitution:
Shall the constitution be amended as follows:
Racist phrase X is changed to Y
Phrase Z prohibiting punlic spitting is deleted
Phrase A condemning chooping down trees is added
Then I could understand a broad range of people voting against it.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robespierre, your quote about the government's involvement in the race issue is important.
quote: ...the government can do nothing to fix racism. Would you disagree with that statement?
In this sentence, the word "fix" polarizes the concept of governmental involvement. Racism is a complex human behavior, and as Sopwith pointed out:
quote:Racism can be regionalized by exposure and can run in many different directions.
Sopwith also made the connection between Racism and classism. No, the government cannot "fix" racism, but they have the power to educate on large scales.
It is possible that your opposition to AA is warranted. It can encourage learned helplessness by discouraging minority group members from acting (individually) against personal discrimination. It can remove the power of the individual by encouraging them to acccept other forms of discrimination.
However, this does not mean that the government should not be involved. The flaws of AA do not preclue a stop on the country self-checking and self-regulating. Part of the Government's Job is to uphold the constitution and remind us of our personal liberties. Personally, I don't think they do this enough.
posted
I think that part of the problem, Robespierre, is that you are assuming that everybody who opposes you favors affirmative action, and that they disagree with your stance on affirmative action. The people who have argued with you in this thread include people who favor affirmative action, people who oppose it, and people who haven't made up their minds yet. What are they disagreeing with, then? Statements of yours that imply that racism from whites to minorities is a much smaller problem today than many of us feel it still is, and statements suggesting that the racism suffered by whites is equivalent or even comparable to that suffered by minorities.
Ironically enough, in light of your "black as the ace of spades" parallel, you have suggested that at least a couple of white guys in this thread are racist against you because you are white. In other words, while not making any overt statements like that one, you have nonetheless subtly made assumptions about their ethnicity.
Let me ask you a question about your beliefs--and it's not a question for which I already have an answer, but rather a question I am exploring for myself. Is it your belief that affirmative action is no longer necessary, or that it never was? (Some people in this thread have argued that once it served a purpose but that the need has gone away, but I can't remember if this was your position or not.) Your repeated comments on affirmative action being racist seem to imply that it never was a good thing. Does this mean that you believe that minorities would have eventually achieved equality without it, based solely on market forces?
See, in trying to decide how I feel about this, I look at the two "ends" (in time) of the problem: when affirmative action began and when it will end. When I look back in time thirty or forty years, it seems self-evident to me that market forces would not have ever eliminated the problem. The deck was stacked, and just continuing to play the game under the existing rules would never have unstacked it. (Does this mean that affirmative action was a solution? I dunno, but so far nobody has proposed a third alternative between affirmative action and no action at all. I think many of the opponents of affirmative action who oppose you as well, Robespierre, wish that there were a third option.)
On the other hand, I look in the future and it seems equally clear to me that affirmative action should not exist forever. (A question to those of you in favor of affirmative action: do you agree that it should not exist forever?)
So where should it end? Will the group being benefitted by afirmative action ever, as a group, believe it will end? Won't the group not receiving benefits be predisposed to think its usefulness has been outlived even if it has not? Well, who decides then? Maybe this conflict, this agitation, is a good thing because only in this dialogue can we ever hope to decide as one people that the time has come. (In other words, even if it has not come yet, the fact that people are pushing for it to end now makes it more likely that it will end when the time for it to end has come.)
Here's an analogy. Like all analogies, of course it is flawed, but maybe it helps explain what we're talking about when we talk about the lingering effects of racism, and why it's not enough that nobody is racist anymore (pretending that this is true). Imagine we were playing Monopoly, and during our first three trips around the board, while I followed the normal rules, you began the game with only $500 instead of the usual $1500, and you were not allowed to buy any property at all. After three rounds, let's say I had an attack of conscience, and lifted those restrictions on you, so that now you could buy property. Of course, this is not perfectly analogous, but it illustrates the idea of a stacked game. I imagine that we agree that, in the past at least, the race game in this country was stacked against minorities. Well, now that I'm letting you buy property, the game is fair, right? Or is it? After all, I have already grabbed up much of the property, and I probably still have more money than you do, since I began with more and haven't really had to pay rent, while you have. It's not good enough for me to magnanimously declare that the rules are equal now, after spending three trips around the board building up a huge advantage. You haven't achieved equality. And this is the problem with your faith that the market will fix everything. So what can we do to right the wrong? We could decide to let you take twice as much when you pass Go for a time, until you could buy some property from me, or we could come up with some alternative, or we could do nothing at all. Or we could try some sort of "affirmative action" for a time.
The biggest problem with the analogy, of course, is that it's no longer you and I who are playing, but our children--or our grandchildren. And maybe it's not fair to punish my descendents for my actions. And yet, without having committed the actions, aren't they clearly benefitting from them if we do nothing at all to balance it?
This is that "sea of white privilege" some people can't see. I'm not telling you how it should be fixed, just affirming that it does exist (we can argue about the extent), and expressing my doubts over the assertion that the market would have eventually fixed it on its own.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My only problem with the "sea of white privilege" is that not every white person gets to swim in it. Poor white folks, "poor white trash" is apparently an okay racial epithet, may have had plenty of trips around the monopoly board, but didn't start the game with any money.
What it boils down to, however, is that it's just pretty darned hard for ANYONE to catch an even break if they don't know someone who already has their foot in the door. Priviledge vs. disenfranchisment. The Haves and the Have-nots. It's not who you are, but who you know. All of those old hackneyed expressions sadly, do hold some amount of water.
The only way that has been proven to break the cycle, though, is hard work. There are thousands, if not millions, of success stories in the US of people who came to these shores with only the clothes on their backs. They worked, they saved, the pursued and they slaved. Somehow, someway, they made it, though. Perhaps we, as a society, should look less at what held them back and instead study how they made it happen.
Part of the problem with discussing racism of any form right now is that it only focuses on the negatives. It looks at how people are discriminated against and attempts to get rid of the discrimnation. It points to economic pressures, but never speaks of the real value of a life lived worthy of pride. It speaks of wasted chances, but not of new-found opportunities.
Perhaps, in our efforts to do the right thing, we've missed the obvious: the success of an individual innately falls upon the individual, no matter the disadvantages or advantages they are beset/blessed with.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
You admit the analogy is flawed, but you use it anyway. I don't really understand... Are you illustrating the flawed beliefs of other people, or are you saying you don't really know if you're right?
Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
This is a good question, for which I don't have an answer. I would ask those that disagree to point out what it is that I have said that they disagree with.
quote: you have suggested that at least a couple of white guys in this thread are racist against you because you are white. In other words, while not making any overt statements like that one, you have nonetheless subtly made assumptions about their ethnicity.
This is incorrect. I have made NO assumptions about the race of those making racist attacks against me. It does not matter if those leveling the attacks are white, black, or latino. The attack still makes a judgement of me based on my race, and attempts to invalidate my point of view becuase of the color of my skin.
quote: Is it your belief that affirmative action is no longer necessary, or that it never was?
I believe that it has never been a just law. To say that it was not needed is to say that there has never been a problem, and clearly there was a problem. I just think that AA is a racist concept and has been since it was created.
quote: Maybe this conflict, this agitation, is a good thing because only in this dialogue can we ever hope to decide as one people that the time has come.
When it can remain civil, this dialogue is a good thing.
quote: Imagine we were playing Monopoly, and during our first three trips around the board, while I followed the normal rules, you began the game with only $500 instead of the usual $1500, and you were not allowed to buy any property at all. After three rounds, let's say I had an attack of conscience, and lifted those restrictions on you, so that now you could buy property.
The main problem I see in this analogy is that those who started to play the game, are no longer playing. However, the choice of monopoly causes the analogy to seem overly simple. I understand that you know the analogy is flawwed. I just want to point out that in real life, properties can come up for sale, new businesses can be started, and new land developed. I understand and agree that the game was once stacked against minorities, but it no longer is, and there exists ample opportunity on our American game board for anyone who has the will to prosper.
quote: and expressing my doubts over the assertion that the market would have eventually fixed it on its own.
As stated before, I am not of the opinion that the problem is fixed when the %'s of minorities employed mimics the %'s of minorities in the population. This implies nothing about race relations. The only way equality can be achieved is when no applicant is accepted or denied on the basis of race.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of people dismiss arguments by harping on one minor issue in them. I am admitting that the analogy is not perfect, because no analogy is ever perfect. No situation is never truly analogous to another. And yet, analogy is a valid technique for analizing situations, because it allows you to get to brass tacks instead of getting hung up on details.
So, while my analogy is not perfect, I think it is useful.Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Perhaps, in our efforts to do the right thing, we've missed the obvious: the success of an individual innately falls upon the individual, no matter the disadvantages or advantages they are beset/blessed with.
I can agree with this statement.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I understand and agree that the game was once stacked against minorities, but it no longer is..."
See, I'm even going to go so far as to say that even THIS is not yet true. While most of the actual rules of the game are no longer written specifically to require that minority players are sent to jail every time they pass "Go," we still have a situation in which the other players don't charge each other rent and share properties back and forth, but don't think to extend the courtesy to the minority player. And there may even be a player or two who still secretly loathes the minority player and does his best to screw the other guy over.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Of course the analogy is simpler than reality. That's the whole freaking point of an analogy. But it illustrates why many of us think that merely ceasing to be racist does not solve the problem.
-o-
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is it your belief that affirmative action is no longer necessary, or that it never was? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that it has never been a just law. To say that it was not needed is to say that there has never been a problem, and clearly there was a problem. I just think that AA is a racist concept and has been since it was created.
So what's your answer? It's not just but it was necessary? It was racist, but necessary?
-o-
quote:I understand and agree that the game was once stacked against minorities, but it no longer is. . . .
This is where we do not agree.
-o-
quote:The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars, but in ourselves.
Perhaps. Does this mean we should no longer concern ourselves with ending injustice? After all, hardworking, motivated people will overcome injustices, right?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: we still have a situation in which the other players don't charge each other rent and share properties back and forth, but don't think to extend the courtesy to the minority player. And there may even be a player or two who still secretly loathes the minority player and does his best to screw the other guy over.
I would say that this is not a problem of racism, but class differences. Many people in the US get justice based on how much money they have, this is a problem effecting all races.
However, even though some of the players "still secretly loathes the minority player" this is not a problem with the rules, but with the society. As stated before, I don't think any rules can be made which directly fix the problem of racism.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So what's your answer? It's not just but it was necessary? It was racist, but necessary?
Not at all, I was covering myself from an obvious line of attack. If I said, no, it has never been needed, then I would be accused of saying there has never been racism.
I think that AA should never have been made and is horribly racist. While I admitt there was a problem of racism in our society, I think AA was the wrong way to approach it.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Mega/Ic, I thought the analogy was a very good one that does just as it was intended. Well said.
To follow on the theme, and what Tom has said, though... Monopoly isn't the only game in town and if folks aren't played with fairly, they'll take their game elsewhere. The NAACP boycott of South Carolina did have a serious economic impact and that has started making small changes.
In the current business world, turning away any customer or potential worker can have a dire domino-tipping effect. Overt racism, or classism, can have tremendously bad effects; covert racism and classism can also bring about bad situations. If you don't think so, watch Wal-Mart over the next few months as the impact of the illegal immigrant workforce scandal takes shape. It may not seem like much at this time, but K-Mart recently began changing their marketing to a more Latino-friendly situation. One small stumbling block for one competitor can be a big step up for the other.
But still, why does it have to be purely economical? It's one thing I dislike about these discussions, it always seems to devolve into the dollar. Money isn't the single bellweather here. Human decency and respect are. Should those two be fixed, the financial side will fix itself.
It's not that I may not allow someone to make a decent living, it's that I wouldn't consider their life as important as mine. Once we take that step of subhumanization of another being, it's the slippery slope that has led to where we are.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: A lot of people dismiss arguments by harping on one minor issue in them.
First of all, you dismissed your own argument, and I asked you what you meant. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Second, I'm not really closer to understanding the answer to the (cleverly phrased) topic of the thread. If being black defines who you are, then is it possible to not be racist?
Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's one thing I dislike about these discussions, it always seems to devolve into the dollar. Money isn't the single bellweather here. Human decency and respect are.
As much as I may agree that human decency and respect are more important than money, I think it's interesting to note that, typically, the people who advance such viewpoints in discussions about race and class relations are members of the group with the power. According to some theorists, Marx for example, things like ideals tend to fall by the wayside when you don't have enough money to feed and clothe yourself.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to make sure everyone understands, affirmative action isn't a topic I addressed or implicated in any of my posts. That is, this thread was not a backdoor statement about the usefulness of affirmative action.
I've been reading over the thread and I think some of the posters might have that impression. Just wanted to clear things up. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I most certainly did not "dismiss" my argument. I acknowledged that, like all analogies, it was not perfect, but I asserted that it was still useful. It was my hope that those of you who feel that racism's effects are a thing of the past would not harp on details but see the larger point I was trying to make.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robespierre, you keep returning to the idea that what is important about racism in our country is what we do as individuals. This is good. However, I don't think you're qualified or justified to say whether or not AA should or should not have been created. Maybe racism was the quickest, or only tool known to fight racism. So be it. It was the tool chosen, and I suppose it's fate remains to be seen.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It was my hope that those of you who feel that racism's effects are a thing of the past would not harp on details but see the larger point I was trying to make.
I don't think anyone here has a problem understanding that the rules were once stacked against minorities. The problem when you discuss this issue in such an analogy is that it paints the wrong sort of back-drop on the situation. If you likened the situation to a white person holding a club, then beating any black person who tried to apply for a job, you would be using an analogy, and painting the wrong picture with it.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Throughout history, jews have had laws forbiding inter-racial marriage. Most of these cases are in situations where the jewish population is the vast minority, places like venice, vienna, berlin, etc. Are these Jews racist? I do not judge them either way on this issue. However, you state that it is a given that those who oppose inter-racial marriage are racist, I say that this is not a given, and is a logically unsound way to test for racism in the overall population.
Back up the truck, bucko! Jews have NEVER had laws forbidding inter-racial marriage. Forbidding intermarriage with people of other faiths, yes. But should a person of ANY race or ethnicity convert, that takes care of the prohibition.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Robes, I think he hit the nail on the head with it and that it does deal quite well with both the past and the present.
Evening the odds later in the situation without a complete restart still leaves some folks behind. For some, it's not an insurmountable gap, but for others the chasm remains as vast and uncrossable as it once was.
To use your own analogy, it's as if the person holding the club had already gone three rounds against an unarmed person, then threw the weapon away to "even things up" but the fight continued on with one person already battered and bruised.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: you're qualified or justified to say whether or not AA should or should not have been created. Maybe racism was the quickest, or only tool known to fight racism.
I understand your point here, but would say that capitalism is the only true way to solve the problem, and it does not act quickly. Creating AA, in my opinion, has shifted the problem to a whole new group of people, while not solving the problem for the people it was originally intended to help. I oppose AA because I see it as racism, and I am of the opinion that one cannot fix racism with counter-racism.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: To use your own analogy, it's as if the person holding the club had already gone three rounds against an unarmed person, then threw the weapon away to "even things up" but the fight continued on with one person already battered and bruised.
Actually, you illustrate my point perfectly, that the use of analogy can bring un-wanted overtones and implications into the debate. I did not mean the analogy as a serious one, but rather to point out how they can used to change the tone without any reasonable facts.
Also, the two people competing for jobs are the grandchildren of the person with the club, and the person without.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Jews have NEVER had laws forbidding inter-racial marriage. Forbidding intermarriage with people of other faiths, yes. But should a person of ANY race or ethnicity convert, that takes care of the prohibition.
I am referring to the Jewish ghettos of the dark and middle ages. I was under the impression that other races were not allowed to convert to judaism, and this therefor, would prohibit inter-racial marriage. If I am wrong about that, let me know, I am honestly unsure.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Racism only goes away when you see a person and you don't notice what colour they are. Just like when you see someone with brown hair and someone with blonde hair, you don't really notice that, because it's not significant in any way other than remembering the person. Racism will only stop existing when people stop thinking about it, and it becomes merely a feature like hair or eyes. No one ever gets annoyed when you ask what colour their hair is, because it's not a feature that has any insinuations attached to it. One day, race will be like this, then racism will be dead.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robes, are you basing your idea of racism on the situation in the 18- or 19- 60s? Those aren't necessarily grandchildren who are still facing racism, if you're working on the last 50 years.
Affirmative Action wasn't a construct set up to offset slavery. It was set up to address the inequity minorities people were having in this day and age in finding jobs. It was book-ended with the Fair Housing Act which made it against the law to discriminate in offering housing to people. One worked to break down the walls of the workforce, the other to break down the walls that were separating communities and lives.
Penalties are assessed (in both cases) if people discriminate against someone based on their race, creed, religious beliefs, disabilities, etc. It also provided a prod for corporations and educational institutions to promote more racial diversity, but not at the stakes of discriminating against anyone.
Of course, here comes the "but what about the white guy that couldn't get into a college because they needed to fill a racial quota?" whine. It's possible that it has happened once or twice, but many of those alleged situations, on deeper investigation have proven to be bull, or smoke and mirrors.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, AA wasn't the answer, but it was a noble effort. It hasn't fixed the problem, but it never could and never was truly designed to do so. The problems with it, however, have been greatly exagerated and claims to it being reverse discrimination, while attractive at times, are sadly lacking in any concrete proof.
But then again, opportunists on both sides of the divide are willing to run it up the flagpole now and then to make waves or a quick buck.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Judaism discourages, but most certainly does not forbid, conversion by people of all races equally. Race has nothing to do with it.
I suddenly feel as if I ought to get various converts I know -- including some who are Hispanic, some who are black, and some who are Asian -- to come here and disabuse you of these false notions. But I think you'll just have to take my word for it.
I should point out that the ghettos you mention were created by the laws of the countries in question.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The problems with it, however, have been greatly exagerated and claims to it being reverse discrimination, while attractive at times, are sadly lacking in any concrete proof.
The fact is that it judges people on the color of their skin. Thats as far as I am willing to take it before I say it's un-just. Anything that follows from it is also unjust.
The intentions with which it was written are meaningless. The method of equalization was unsound, applying it less does not make it less unsound.
I have stated before that the very goal of AA, to make the %'s employment of minorities equal to their relative % of the population is fundamentally flawed. If there are more blacks qualified to work as biologists, then there should be a higher percentage of blacks working as biologists.
This gets back to the idea of equal outcome VS equal opportunity.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Robes, are you basing your idea of racism on the situation in the 18- or 19- 60s? Those aren't necessarily grandchildren who are still facing racism, if you're working on the last 50 years.
This once again brings us back to the discussion topic of the forum, which addresses more directly the question of what racism really is.
We have to define racism in order to know when it is detrimental. Asking what time period Robespierre is "basing [his] idea of racism on" clearly illustrates that we do not all agree on what racism is. Anyway, I thought he said he was referencing the middle-ages.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Racism only goes away when you see a person and you don't notice what colour they are. Just like when you see someone with brown hair and someone with blonde hair, you don't really notice that, because it's not significant in any way other than remembering the person. Racism will only stop existing when people stop thinking about it, and it becomes merely a feature like hair or eyes. No one ever gets annoyed when you ask what colour their hair is, because it's not a feature that has any insinuations attached to it. One day, race will be like this, then racism will be dead.
To most people of a minority race, noticing someone's race is not racism. Noticing someone's race AND using it as a reason to assume that person is inferior is racism. And, quite to the contrary, not only do we notice what color a person's hair is, but, as I understand it, we also use that and physical information to define and even judge the people we meet. The problem with such a comparison is that hair color does not have the same cultural correlation as race. To many people, ignoring their race is the same as ignoring their culture, which is more or less the same as ignoring them.
Robespierre:
quote:This gets back to the idea of equal outcome VS equal opportunity.
Would it really be equal opportunity if one group did not, by and large, have the financial wherewithal to prepare themselves as well as another group, and also did not have the social power to have much hope of ever getting such a financial position?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would it really be equal opportunity if one group did not, by and large, have the financial wherewithal to prepare themselves as well as another group, and also did not have the social power to have much hope of ever getting such a financial position?
I would say that yes, it would be equal opportunity. Equal opportunity implies that laws apply equally to all people. There are plenty of whites that don't have the wherewithal to prepare themselves. And this leads us back to my belief that capitalism can solve these issues, if only it is applied enough.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So far, I agree with Robespierre on this one. Problems arise when the rules are constricted or relaxed by the enforcer based on race. Earlier, Sopwith made an interesting point:
quote: Our form of government can't remove racism, it can only set penalties for it. Our educational system can't remove racism, it can only preach tolerance and expose our youth to many cultures.
When I play a video game, the rule set in the game can be separate from the starting conditions. The game could be different every time I play it. As long as success is always possible within the rule set (i.e. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).
Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's worth noting that capitalism "solves" these issues by starving to death the people who don't apply themselves.
I think we have been over this ground before. Since the US is not truly a capitalist society, you cannot use the current US to judge what a truly capitalist economy would do.
However, even though we have an imperfect system, people do not starve becuase they didn't apply themselves. People perhaps starve becuase they fell down and can't move, or they refuse to eat, or have some disease that prevents them from eating. Starvation occurs most in countries where there is the least amount of capitalism. This is no accident.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Starvation occurs most in countries where there is the least amount of capitalism. This is no accident.
Just what do you mean by this? Are you saying people in non-capitalist countries are lazy and didn't apply themselves?
Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Just what do you mean by this? Are you saying people in non-capitalist countries are lazy and didn't apply themselves?
Of course I am not saying that people in non-capitalist countries are lazy. Although I am curious, why would it matter one way or another how hard one works in a non-capitalist system?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry if this is a little off-topic. I'd also like to say that though I disagree with many of Robespierre's views, I do admire your debating skills. Your refutation of LetoII's long stat-filled post was surprisingly good.
quote: Since the US is not truly a capitalist society, you cannot use the current US to judge what a truly capitalist economy would do.
People perhaps starve because they fell down and can't move, or they refuse to eat, or have some disease that prevents them from eating.
Starvation occurs most in countries where there is the least amount of capitalism.
Ok, then name a "truely capitalist society" in the present world, Robespierre. I doubt you or anybody else can. That's the same cop-out my ex-girlfriend, The Last of the Communists, would use when she couldn't defend the policies of the USSR or Red China or Cuba--"they aren't REAL communists." Of course, by her definition there had never been a real communist system, so she was free to keep her arguments in a idealistic dream world without enough contact to the real world. The US comes closest to pure capitalism in the G7 nations, I'll wager.
So people starve because they've fallen and they can't get up? That would be funny if it wasn't tragically callous.
For your last point, that can be readily disputed. What's ironic is that your namesake came to power after bread riots by starving Frenchman began the French revolution and he supported government price controls.
quote:Robespierre, “the incorruptible”, is the “champion of the little people”, sternly pursuing revolutionary logic until he falls foul of this very logic when he turns on his plebeian supporters Robespierre gave the poor price controls on bread with one hand but took away their power with the other, crushing their leadership and organisations. He thus found himself isolated when right-wing forces overthrew him and took both power and bread from the poor.
French revolution sources:link1link2 The Irish Potato Famine caused massive inflation in wheat and other grain prices. Poor Irish tenant farmers couldn't afford to buy bread. The British government sat on its hands and did nothing, including refusing to support grain prices. The Irish starved or emigrated by the millions, which is what the British wanted anyway, to disposess the Irish or kill them. They just used Smith's "invisible hand of the markets" to do their dirty work instead of British soldiers.
But it was capitalism's finest hour. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
