Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Racial Profiling, Whitesplaining, and White Privilege

Racial Profiling, Whitesplaining, and White Privilege (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2013, 02:53 PM
 
I posit the white people in the video, when they see a black person, have automatic thoughts based on them being black. Seeing the video, I decided to analyze what my automatic thoughts were when I encounter black people.

The answer is they make me uncomfortable, and I wouldn't be surprised the people in the video would answer the same way
My immediate thoughts on meeting a black person are "please andi don't say anything accidently offensive to them" which is futile, not knowing the other person's level of sensitivity, and also knowing my own propensity to put my foot in my mouth. So in this respect, yes, black people make me uncomfortable. I am unfamiliar with them on a personal scale, don't know many, and have never had a close black friend. Yet I don't consider myself racist. Clueless at times, but racist, no. I voted for Obama twice. Does that earn me a "get out of racist" card?

Context is important.
( Last edited by andi*pandi; Jul 29, 2013 at 03:16 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2013, 06:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
And what's the "CBT way" result? If it's only as good a result as PC, then you'll have to be prompted to invoke it for every new scenario. If it's better than PC, then your self-analysis after watching this video would carry over to a novel scenario that you had never considered before (ie it "cured" you to some degree; where you would otherwise require additional "treatment," now you don't). Has it ever gotten that far?



Let's not forget that horrible is a relative term, and there's an even more horrible state of affairs that the current state was designed to patch (and it worked; that previous state is a fading memory).



I'm a little confused about what you're saying here. First, is this the "treatment" vs "cure" thing I mentioned above? And second, is it solved, or just agreed that it's a challenge?
The result? I immediately started feeling more comfortable around black people. The (not particularly novel) scenario in which this occurs? Being around black people.

WRT the success of PC, I feel your argument implies PC was the only solution, or even worse, we somehow lacked a solution before it's existence. The civil rights movement happened just fine without PC.

My shrink agrees it's a challenge, and he said it's a similar issue to the one the narcissist has.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2013, 06:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
My immediate thoughts on meeting a black person are "please andi don't say anything accidently offensive to them" which is futile, not knowing the other person's level of sensitivity, and also knowing my own propensity to put my foot in my mouth. So in this respect, yes, black people make me uncomfortable. I am unfamiliar with them on a personal scale, don't know many, and have never had a close black friend. Yet I don't consider myself racist. Clueless at times, but racist, no. I voted for Obama twice. Does that earn me a "get out of racist" card?

Context is important.
I'd say, with the taxonomy we're developing here, you'd be "racist-minus".

You don't need a get out of racist-plus card because you were never there in the first place.

It's okay to feel uncomfortable around people who say you should get money when you land on "Free Parking", because that's not how you play the game.

I should also add if someone lands on a property and doesn't buy it, it goes up for auction. This is one of the most important rules, and nobody uses it.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2013, 09:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Profiling is real IMO and we've agreed DWB is such an example. What's frustrating to me is the prevalence of it among the black community upon itself, suggesting it's more innate. i.e. while it's certainly not fair for whites to exploit privilege, it's also not fair to wield this indictment loosely. Let me 'splain...
I would argue that it's more ingrained than innate. But continue ...

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I do not have the context of that discussion, but I'm of the firm belief that whites simply shouldn't can't use that word.
Indeed. As this guy learned the hard way ....



Man punched ‘N-word’ drunken head-injury victim after trying first to help him: source  - NY Daily News

::::: [Chris Rick voice] :::::: Now I'm not saying that the brother should have knocked him the f*ck out ... but I understand! ::::::::[/Chris Rock voice]::::::::::

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I saw two interesting things in the above points OAW that I think absolutely need to be mentioned because they illustrate a point I'm not sure can be addressed by conscientious white people;
[*] paternalistic; If your identity is mired entirely in ancestral subservience, you will perceive that you are being talked down to, but the interesting thing to observe is that this will always be defined exclusively by whether or not the lecturer is expressing a view that challenges one's partisan sensitivities or presuppositions. In other words, any explanation given by a white to a black or any expression of knowledge that might indicate a conservative lean could well be defined as whitesplaining. The same metric would not apply to a Harry Reid, a Joe Biden, or Bill Clinton; not that one couldn't cite examples of their whitesplaining mind you, but that they had expressed the preferred ideology -- telling people what their itching, partisan ears wanted to hear. Otherwise, this is how one perceives one's self, having little to nothing to do with the lecture or lecturers.
I would vociferously disagree that "whitesplaining" is rooted in ideology. It's simply not a "liberal" or "conservative" phenomenon. What one might call "white liberal paternalism" is well-versed in "whitesplaining". Trust me ... I know. Just a quick example. Many moons ago I was the President of the Black Student Union (BSU) at my "liberal arts" university. A place where black and brown were euphemistically referred to as "non-traditional students". And I got a lot of grief from the executive leadership of the 100% white administration about why the BSU under my leadership focused increasingly on academic, social, and community service activities oriented toward the black student body and the outside black community that the university was situated in. As opposed to focusing on working with the other predominantly white student groups. Never mind that we co-sponsored the annual Career Fair and several social functions per year with such groups. The fact that we also set up study groups for black students to help combat the problem of many of our freshmen and sophomores not returning because they were struggling academically was an issue for some people. The fact that we setup a tutoring program for 8th graders in a nearby inner city middle school in order to A) provide academic support at a critical time when most young people decide whether to focus on school or blow it off, and B) provide living breathing examples that people who look just like them can also go to college ... even that walled fortress in the middle of their hood that was full of white faces. You'd be surprised at how many conversations I had with well-intentioned white administration officials about whether that was the best use of our resources. Don't even get me started on how many of our white friends who were also supportive of Jesse Jackson's 1988 campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination couldn't grasp the concept of the BSU and asked silly questions like "Why is it ok to have a Black Student Union, but if there were a White Student Union that would be racist?" Completely oblivious to the fact that on a campus with a 95+% white student body, a 99% white faculty, and a 100% white administration everything outside the BSU already was the "white student union"! So to have a formal organization called that would be "redundant" ... at best. So believe me ... this is by no means a partisan issue.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
[*] "explaining sociopolitical events and/or history to audiences of color as though they are ignorant children". I'm trying to determine how this perception occurs, the genesis moment. Does it not have at least some small part to do with how on perceives one's self? And shouldn't this thought exercise include some attempt to understand one another? i.e. This is how whites talk to one another. Square I know, but this isn't sufficient cause to necessarily take it personally or perceive yourself as in a lower position and then project onto your speaker that he is producing the feelings of low self-worth. In fairness, if you can produce an example of a Democrat whitesplaining, I'll drop my line of reasoning. Otherwise, the term seems to be little more than "white-speak" that offends partisan sensitivities.
Again, that particular example with Sen. Rand Paul was demonstrative because he presumed his black audience didn't realize that African-Americans were loyal GOP for decades. Didn't realize that white GOP members help found the NAACP. Didn't realize that the first African-American popularly elected to the US Senate was GOP (Sen. Edward Brooke) ... even though he couldn't even remember than man's name. So trying to lecture that audience with his limited grasp of the black history within the GOP was bad enough. But then he compounded his error by completely ignoring the Southern Strategy history of the GOP with respect to black people since the 1970s. In the end ... he did himself no favors.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Secondly, "white" is the operative root of whitesplaining. This means black lecturers can perform this same act ad nauseum and of course, being of color it cannot be adequately defined as whitesplaining. Interesting to me that the most apt word for defining an aspect of racism, must itself be inherently racist. IMO, these terms are counterproductive and will never lead to a post-racial society. If an African-American does it, he's an Uncle Tom; a sellout. If a white person does it, it's whitesplaining. This way, the partisan never has to accept or acknowledge anything he may disagree with because the opposing viewpoint has already been compartmentalized into a distasteful figure bearing the burden of a most horrific history he had nothing to do with; becoming for the partisan a type of propaganda machine that never displeases. There's another phenomena today and that is that a truly post-racial society would bad for business; those whose careers are predicated on race and racial sensitivity. Of course, it would be "whitesplaining" to cite Booker T Washington on this phenomena 100 years ago.
I think you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of the term "Uncle Tom". A black person being conservative does not make him/her and Uncle Tom. There are plenty of black people who are conservative who don't fall into that category. Michael Steele. Colin Powell. Condi Rice. Lenny McCallister. Robert Traynham. But the Jesse Lee Petersons and Clarence Thomases of the world get no love. Not because they are conservative ... but because they are "self-hating negros". There's a difference. I'll give you an example that should really bring this home. Malcolm X was and Louis Farrakhan is conservative by any definition. But no one would accuse them of being an "Uncle Tom". Ask yourself why that is.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I think this is what concerns me most about all of this. I can't possibly imagine how identifying whitsplaining and "white privilege" facilitates progress -- of any kind. Ultimately, isn't the indictment of "white privilege" really just talking down to the 15+% white people living in poverty? Do you think this privilege is perceived as such to underemployed whites or whites working for peanuts to keep their heads above poverty? The guy still working concrete at 46 years old with no retirement wondering what he's going to do when he's 55? (my own brother) Do you really think they feel exceptional? Culturally affirmed? Ingrained with self- worth or enjoying a social status of any kind? Do you really think the ones keeping their mouths shut at work feel like they have freedom to speak? No, because without the abusive job, you also have no freedom to move, buy, or play. If this is what privilege looks like for whites, it must be a heavy crown with a suicide rate second only to Native Americans in the US.
Ask any white guy that's broker than the 10 Commandments if he'd rather be broke AND black.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Does this video do a sufficient job of demonstrating how black people feel about themselves? Do they not profile one another? How trusting are they of one another? To me, this is critical. As long as the feelings of low self-worth are perpetuated within the black community through defeatist rhetoric, you don't need to repeatedly point at white people because they can't possibly begin to address that problem anyway. No... I think progress is what we'd all like to see.

It should be noted, I'd have likely helped a hot black woman steal the bicycle. Don't judge me.
The video showed the black ladies ignoring the white guy too. Like I said ... it's culturally ingrained.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2013, 09:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I would argue that it's more ingrained than innate. But continue...
There's a "chicken and egg" question here.

Our culture is highly influenced by our innate biology.

If we have an innate desire to categorize appearance of the people we see the most one way, and to categorize people we see less in another, this will have a massive impact on how our culture evolves.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2013, 01:11 PM
 
apparently white privilege also means you are more likely to receive pain medication by paramedics:

Racial Differences in Receiving Morphine among P... [J Emerg Med. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI
We identified 6398 blunt trauma cases. There were 516 patients (8%) who received analgesia overall; among patients for whom a pain scale was recorded, 25% received analgesia. By multivariable analysis, adjusting for race, sex, age, time with patient, and pain score, African-American and Hispanic patients were less likely than Caucasian patients to receive analgesia. Pain score and prehospital time were both significant predictors of analgesia administration, with higher pain score and longer prehospital time associated with increased administration of pain medication. Neither sex nor age was a significant predictor of analgesia administration in the regression analysis.
( Last edited by andi*pandi; Aug 1, 2013 at 01:52 PM. Reason: my error in reading "prehospital")
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2013, 01:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
apparently white privilege also means you are more likely to receive pain medication at the ER:

Racial Differences in Receiving Morphine among P... [J Emerg Med. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI
I'm surprised they didn't address whether more whites in the study group had the white privilege of health insurance, and whether that made it easier for them to receive requested drugs. I can't read the full text... maybe they only chose subjects with insurance?
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2013, 01:55 PM
 
I think after more reading the study was done on paramedics, who don't check for insurance. Right?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2013, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
apparently white privilege also means you are more likely to receive pain medication by paramedics:

Racial Differences in Receiving Morphine among P... [J Emerg Med. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI
That is interesting. I wonder how paramedics ensure they're not liable for mixing their pain medications with whatever the wounded may have consumed prior.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2013, 03:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I can't read the full text...
I was developing a simulation for awhile (which never went anywhere), and every single one of the hundreds of astronomy and astrophysics papers I needed were available in full, for free.

WTF, social sciences?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2013, 03:37 PM
 
Not just social sciences, in biological sciences free access is the exception not the rule. It's a travesty really, since 95% of the research probably receives public funding at least in part.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2013, 03:58 PM
 
medical magazines are expensive, yo, and have rules about conflict of interest blah blah which limit advertising.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2013, 04:20 PM
 
This isn't medicine, it's sociology with subjects in the medical profession.

AFAIK, no journals have advertising.

The big astronomy and astrophysics journal (with the creative name Astronomy & Astrophysics) makes their money from university subscriptions. Even though you can get it for free, every astronomy department subscribes anyways, along with a good portion of the people with advanced degrees. They'd be considered a joke if they didn't.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2013, 04:31 PM
 
It's the kind of thing which makes me want to cover my face with a bike helmet and walk into a university server closet with a laptop and a python script.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2013, 04:55 PM
 
It was originally published in a medical journal - which does accept advertising, but only on certain pages.

Elsevier

ontopic: is it a white privilege to have free access to academic studies?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2013, 05:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
apparently white privilege also means you are more likely to receive pain medication by paramedics:

Racial Differences in Receiving Morphine among P... [J Emerg Med. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI
Well, that's the most unlikely thing I'd have expected to read in a while.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2013, 07:35 PM
 
Moral of the story;

When they ask you how much pain you're in on a scale of 1-10, scream 10! and squirm around a lot. You'll get that analgesic.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2013, 08:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
It was originally published in a medical journal - which does accept advertising, but only on certain pages.
To me, that makes it even more of a dick move.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2013, 02:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Moral of the story;

When they ask you how much pain you're in on a scale of 1-10, scream 10! and squirm around a lot. You'll get that analgesic.
Moral is, don't get hurt in tha `hood, their EMTs don't have narcotic pain meds, yo!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2013, 04:42 AM
 
I could buy that.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2013, 04:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
It was originally published in a medical journal - which does accept advertising, but only on certain pages.

Elsevier

ontopic: is it a white privilege to have free access to academic studies?
Digging around their site, you can have your article be openly accessible if you pay them $2,500.

****.

I don't think having access is white privilege. I'm white, and don't have that privilege.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2013, 10:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Moral of the story;

When they ask you how much pain you're in on a scale of 1-10, scream 10! and squirm around a lot. You'll get that analgesic.
I don't know. Purely from watching House, it seems that if you use such tactics, you'll be accused of displaying "drug-seeking behavior" and denied meds. So a better course of action, unless you are actively bleeding from the gut, is to maybe put it around a 7-8.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don't think having access is white privilege. I'm white, and don't have that privilege.
I forgot my winky face!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2013, 12:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
I don't know. Purely from watching House, it seems that if you use such tactics, you'll be accused of displaying "drug-seeking behavior" and denied meds. So a better course of action, unless you are actively bleeding from the gut, is to maybe put it around a 7-8.
As I'd mentioned before, EMTs in some areas don't have narcotic pain killers. I know guys who run in the more populated areas of town and they don't carry any, due to being robbed at gunpoint several times.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2013, 12:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
::::: [Chris Rick voice] :::::: Now I'm not saying that the brother should have knocked him the f*ck out ... but I understand! ::::::::[/Chris Rock voice]::::::::::
Yes, certainly no love lost on that guy. Besides, he was cranky and apparently needed a nap.

I would vociferously disagree that "whitesplaining" is rooted in ideology. It's simply not a "liberal" or "conservative" phenomenon. What one might call "white liberal paternalism" is well-versed in "whitesplaining". Trust me ... I know. Just a quick example. Many moons ago I was the President of the Black Student Union (BSU) at my "liberal arts" university. A place where black and brown were euphemistically referred to as "non-traditional students". And I got a lot of grief from the executive leadership of the 100% white administration about why the BSU under my leadership focused increasingly on academic, social, and community service activities oriented toward the black student body and the outside black community that the university was situated in. As opposed to focusing on working with the other predominantly white student groups. Never mind that we co-sponsored the annual Career Fair and several social functions per year with such groups. The fact that we also set up study groups for black students to help combat the problem of many of our freshmen and sophomores not returning because they were struggling academically was an issue for some people. The fact that we setup a tutoring program for 8th graders in a nearby inner city middle school in order to A) provide academic support at a critical time when most young people decide whether to focus on school or blow it off, and B) provide living breathing examples that people who look just like them can also go to college ... even that walled fortress in the middle of their hood that was full of white faces. You'd be surprised at how many conversations I had with well-intentioned white administration officials about whether that was the best use of our resources. Don't even get me started on how many of our white friends who were also supportive of Jesse Jackson's 1988 campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination couldn't grasp the concept of the BSU and asked silly questions like "Why is it ok to have a Black Student Union, but if there were a White Student Union that would be racist?" Completely oblivious to the fact that on a campus with a 95+% white student body, a 99% white faculty, and a 100% white administration everything outside the BSU already was the "white student union"! So to have a formal organization called that would be "redundant" ... at best. So believe me ... this is by no means a partisan issue.
How is your example above "whitesplaining" or even "paternalism"? No one attempted to indoctrinate you with their interpretation of your history. This is just white folks believing they can help and feel they're being shut out of the process. I happen to agree with you on the above scenario in that I too believe there is a great deal of merit to a more focused approach; blacks mentoring blacks. I used to run into problems like this with my card-carrying liberal boss back in the day. We needed to bring in a couple more managers for a particular branch. I felt we needed more blacks in leadership there because the overwhelming majority of the employee-base were blacks at that facility. Not only did he not agree with me, but would not even let ME run that branch because there was already one black, female supervisor there and he jokingly said to our Director; "we don't need two black people running the show".

What the white liberals in your scenario affirm for me is that they don't feel this privilege you've assumed for them. They don't see things as geared particularly for them and why should they? We're different skin colors, not different species.

Again, that particular example with Sen. Rand Paul was demonstrative because he presumed his black audience didn't realize that African-Americans were loyal GOP for decades. Didn't realize that white GOP members help found the NAACP. Didn't realize that the first African-American popularly elected to the US Senate was GOP (Sen. Edward Brooke) ... even though he couldn't even remember than man's name. So trying to lecture that audience with his limited grasp of the black history within the GOP was bad enough.
How many of any color at any time knows this of the GOP's history. Again, most Americans (of any color) have great difficulty citing Presidents and Vice Presidents or their party affiliations throughout history -- why would this be any different? It's sort of decrying a cloudy day while standing on a set of railroad tracks and a train approaching.

But then he compounded his error by completely ignoring the Southern Strategy history of the GOP with respect to black people since the 1970s. In the end ... he did himself no favors.
Southern Strategy. We've exhausted this topic before and we'll continue to agree to disagree. In spite of a racist Democratic strategy that maintained power throughout decades in the South, many will latch onto the Southern Strategy because for this time, that's all they've got; a potential mindset predicated on a nebulous GOP goal during what is arguably the ugliest of times for Democrats and racism. The fact is, southern whites had already begun flocking to the Republican party prior to the 60's under what was thought to be a New South of burgeoning population centers, prosperity, and -- read -- declining racism. The South at the time were comprised of the Deep South and Peripheral South. This would have to be deemed a "Southern Strategy" because the demonstratively un-racist North had already been all, but entirely locked up among the GOP. It's the economy stupid. (just a saying, not at YOU)

In fairness, I just ask that you give this a reading. In an attempt to understand one another, this piece probably expresses this entire subject matter more thoroughly than I ever manage to.

I think you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of the term "Uncle Tom". A black person being conservative does not make him/her and Uncle Tom. There are plenty of black people who are conservative who don't fall into that category. Michael Steele. Colin Powell. Condi Rice. Lenny McCallister. Robert Traynham.
Are you sure it's my fundamental flaw of misunderstanding?
  • Michael Steele being referred to as an Uncle Tom and "party trumps race".
  • In a May 2003 speech sponsored by Sharpton, likened both Powell and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to subservient house slaves. Here's an article from none other than the Daily Kos; Uncle Tom Powell Stumps for Massah Bush.
  • Luther Campbell in an article on Condi Rice entitled; "Condoleezza Rice Is an Uncle Tom". In it he says; "In fact, Rice joins U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio on the list of prominent Uncle Toms shucking and jiving about the so-called great American values of the Republican Party."
  • While the references understandably subside along with the prominence of the figure, let either Lenny McCallister or Robert Traynham get too noisy. Here's an article; Uncle Tom's Closet -- referring to Traynham as an Uncle Tom in light of being gay. While there's certainly no shortage of misunderstanding, it seems the term is most often being abused by the left as a baseball bat for those who disagree with them politically over any meaningful gauge of character or advocacy.

It's entirely about (R) or (D). We'll likely agree to disagree here as well.

But the Jesse Lee Petersons and Clarence Thomases of the world get no love. Not because they are conservative ... but because they are "self-hating negros". There's a difference.
Not supporting legislation based specifically on skin color can be deemed "self-hating". Not good enough IMO. Clarence Thomas can be found nowhere, in any meaningful way, to be self-hating. I could just as easily say this of any white person who aligns with you politically. Again, not good enough.

I'll give you an example that should really bring this home. Malcolm X was and Louis Farrakhan is conservative by any definition. But no one would accuse them of being an "Uncle Tom". Ask yourself why that is.
No, in fact. No one has accused them of being conservative! I'll certainly entertain any attempts to substantiate that claim. That is, anything that would rise above the "no one advocates clubbing snow seal pups" litmus.

Ask any white guy that's broker than the 10 Commandments if he'd rather be broke AND black.
Does that include Vanilla Ice or any number of the white folks I see spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on creams and beds and the like trying to be... darker?

The video showed the black ladies ignoring the white guy too. Like I said ... it's culturally ingrained.

OAW
Innate / ingrained -- tomato. We likely agree here. But there's a giant leap between this and malice.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2013, 01:19 PM
 
Please, "they" need to get their derogetory terminology correct. To paraphrase Robert Preston in "S.O.B" (Marco Rubio speaking) Sir, an Uncle Tom is a deferential black man, I, am a Pocho" (or Tio Taco)

There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.... After all we have been through. Just to think we can't walk down our own streets, how humiliating.
Jesse Jackson Sr.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2013, 06:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
In fairness, I just ask that you give this a reading. In an attempt to understand one another, this piece probably expresses this entire subject matter more thoroughly than I ever manage to.
Awesome piece! I get where the author is coming from. And while I understand his point about the demographic differences between the rural "deep South" and the suburban "peripheral South", naturally I disagree with his overall conclusion. I suspect the truth, as with most things, lies somewhere in between. Definitely fodder for future discussion.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Are you sure it's my fundamental flaw of misunderstanding?
  • Michael Steele being referred to as an Uncle Tom and "party trumps race".
  • In a May 2003 speech sponsored by Sharpton, likened both Powell and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to subservient house slaves. Here's an article from none other than the Daily Kos; Uncle Tom Powell Stumps for Massah Bush.
  • Luther Campbell in an article on Condi Rice entitled; "Condoleezza Rice Is an Uncle Tom". In it he says; "In fact, Rice joins U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio on the list of prominent Uncle Toms shucking and jiving about the so-called great American values of the Republican Party."
  • While the references understandably subside along with the prominence of the figure, let either Lenny McCallister or Robert Traynham get too noisy. Here's an article; Uncle Tom's Closet -- referring to Traynham as an Uncle Tom in light of being gay. While there's certainly no shortage of misunderstanding, it seems the term is most often being abused by the left as a baseball bat for those who disagree with them politically over any meaningful gauge of character or advocacy.

It's entirely about (R) or (D). We'll likely agree to disagree here as well.
Point well taken. Though I must say that you must not have realized that I was speaking for myself. You can certainly find some black person somewhere to take the "All black GOP are Uncle Toms" view. That's a politically immature position that I certainly don't hold. And in my experience, that doesn't seem to be the position that most African-Americans embrace either. At least ... theoretically. But here's a satirical piece by a black conservative Republican that illustrates why most African-American voters tend to view black Republicans as suspect until proven otherwise:

How to be a Successful Black Republican/Conservative

The following list represents a tried-and-true formula for gaining instant fame and prominence as a black conservative/Republican.

#1. Spend inordinate amounts of media time talking about how much you loathe being called an “African-American” -since hyphenations of any kind are “un-American.”

#2. Tell your audiences how sick you are of liberals playing the race card, but make sure your website, book name, documentary title, and T-shirt line CLEARLY identify you as a BLACK conservative/Republican.

#3. Constantly talk about how Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are race baiters. Obsessively mention Tawana Brawley and the Duke lacrosse scandal, but don’t ever mention Amadou Diallo (the unarmed African immigrant who was shot at 41 times in front of his home while pulling out his wallet to show the NYPD his identification) and Abner Louima (The Haitian immigrant sodomized by an NYPD officer with a bathroom plunger).

#4. Complain about how much you’re rejected and victimized by the black left and how sad you are that you’re always being excluded and called a “sellout.”

#5. Remind the conservative base, ad nauseum, how much black people love government handouts and welfare. Don’t mention anything about the fact that the black statistical representation of welfare recipients is virtually equal to that of whites. Also, don’t EVER tell them that the majority of blacks really aren’t poor, aren’t criminals, don’t hate white people, and don’t wait for marching orders from Sharpton and Jackson, et al. Mentioning any of the above could result in fewer book sales, less airtime, or a drastic reduction in donations.

(Note: Never, ever proffer the following questions: ‘Why do blacks who aren’t receiving any government handouts continue to reject the right?’ ‘Why do Asians, Jews, Hispanics and almost every other minority group vote overwhelmingly Democrat?’)

#6. Talk about how Martin Luther King’s dream was a post-racial society, but don’t ever post the clip of him proclaiming, “I’m black and I’m proud!” on any of your social media outlets.

#7. Make fun of Africa and be sure to thank God for slavery.

#8. Publicly denigrate movements like the NAACP, and the Congressional Black Caucus because they’re “racial separatists”-but don’t say anything about conservative organizations designed specifically for Blacks.

#9. When discussing George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, ignore everything that transpired up until the point Zimmerman was getting beat up.

#10. Defend Paula (Obama Supporter) Deen, but make fun of Rachel Jeantel every opportunity you get!

#11. Talk about race when it comes to abortion and welfare dependence, but don’t address race under any other circumstances. Sentencing disparities? Police brutality? Racial profiling? Red lining? Glass ceilings? What the heck are those?

#12. Do not discuss substantive issues like recidivism, inmate re-entry, community policing, or high school dropout rates. Instead, blame Obama for all that is wrong with the universe. (This one works like a charm!)

#13. Talk about black-on-black crime, black-on-white crime, but don’t ever discuss white-on-white crime, and especially not white-on-black crime!

#14. Whenever someone asks you about the racist undercurrent on the right, blame liberals. Under no circumstances are you allowed to address racism on the right. Remember: Racism doesn’t exist anymore.

#15. Finally, make certain to constantly go on right-wing media outlets and talk about how black people need to do this and that, but DON’T YOU DARE roll up your sleeves and go into those communities with the sole objective to listen and serve.

About the Author: Vanessa Jean-Louis is a proud member of the solution-oriented Black Republican and Conservative movement. Satire helps her keep her blood pressure down. She yearns to break the monopoly liberals have over minority voters, but realizes conservatives have their part to play as well (you know, the whole personal responsibility thing). She fights for endemic change on the right-not a change in principles, but a change in TONE. Vanessa’s made appearances on FOX, HOT97, BET, PJTV, Breitbart Radio, and Black Enterprise TV. She has contributed to online publications including, “HipHop Republican,” and “theGrio.” Follow her on Twitter: “Marcus Garvey Girl” @AFRconservative.
Hip Hop Republican | Music, Politics & Culture

I'm sorry my friend. But that right there was the funniest thing I've read all day! Unfortunately, there is a serious truth that underlies her humor. I respectfully ask you to save this piece and keep it handy. And the next time you see a black conservative/GOP pundit ... honestly compare the tone and content of their speeches, TV appearances, and social media posts to this list. And I would wager my next paycheck that if their M.O. seems like it is straight out of this playbook then most African-Americans will have no love for them ... but if it is NOT most will listen.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No, in fact. No one has accused them of being conservative! I'll certainly entertain any attempts to substantiate that claim. That is, anything that would rise above the "no one advocates clubbing snow seal pups" litmus.
The Black Church is a socially conservative institution. Black Muslims tend to be even more socially conservative.

The NOI also teaches morality and personal decorum, emphasizing modesty, mutual respect, and discipline in dress and comportment. NOI adherents stress a healthy diet and physical fitness, do not consume pork, shellfish, or alcohol, and do not use drugs or tobacco. They also refrain from premarital sex, as well as recreational sex while married, except for the sole purposes of producing children. Abortions are strongly discouraged except in the cases where the mother's life is in danger.
Nation of Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now let's not get sidetracked by the more um .. "outlandish" aspects of NOI teachings. I'm not here to advocate for or defend all of that. That's not my point. What I'm saying is that Malcolm X and Min. Louis Farrakhan held/hold what can arguably be described as "conservative principles". From a personal morality standpoint since embracing Islam neither has ever had a hint of scandal or impropriety. Their entire ideology was rooted in a "Do For Self" philosophy. That blacks should control the social, economic, educational, political institutions in their own community ... and not depend on government programs and handouts for their well-being. The NOI men under Farrakhan's leadership ... totally unarmed ... routinely patrol crime-ridden neighborhoods, push drug dealers out of public housing developments and other apartment buildings, and reform gang members both in and out of prison. Self-reliance and economic independence are the crux of their philosophy. Now both of these men are products of a generation when Jim Crow was in full force. So naturally the dynamics of the day played a great role in their rhetoric. But here are some quotes to illustrate my point further ...

Originally Posted by Min. Louis Farrakhan
You can blame the white man for putting you in this position. But you can only blame yourself for remaining in it.
Originally Posted by Malcolm X
You will not catch me with a free 15 minutes, in which I’m not studying something that I feel might be able to help the black man. Yesterday I spoke in London , and both ways on the plane across the Atlantic , I was studying. Every time I catch a plane, I have with me a book that I want to read, and that’s a lot of books these days, If I wasn’t out here battling the white man everyday, I could spend the rest of my life reading. Reading changed the course of my life forever. I didn’t go to college, my alma mater was books.
Originally Posted by Malcolm X
You’ve been waiting for the crumbs to fall off the white man’s table, but God is going to take the white man’s bread away, and force you to do for self. The only reason you are following the white man, is because you are looking for crumbs, and when you find out he has no more crumbs or bread to give you. Then you will turn him loose like a hot potato.
Originally Posted by Malcolm X
One thing that the white man can never give the black man is self respect. The black man in the ghettos, have to start self correcting his own material moral, and spiritual defects, and evil. The black man need to start his own program to get rid of drunkenness, drug addiction and prostitution. The black man in America has to lift up his own sense of values.
Originally Posted by Min. Louis Farrkhan
I was watching some Hip Hop artist the other day on television, and I just broke down and cried. Because I have been here preaching for 40 years, and our people are still acting like this. I thought about just quitting. Because it’s not the white man, it’s us now destroying one another.
Originally Posted by Malcolm X
Our people have to become registered voters, but we first have to get a better understanding of politics. We go into politics in a gullible way, an emotional way. When politics is cold blooded and heartless, we must first learn the science of politics, and we should not take sides with either party. We should not sell ourselves to either party.
Originally Posted by Malcolm X
You give white politicians all of your support, and get nothing in return. You put the Democrats first, and they put you last.
Originally Posted by Malcolm X
The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way. The liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro’s friend and benefactor, and by winning the friendship and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political football game. Politically the American Negro is nothing but a football, and the white liberals control this mentally dead ball. Through tricks of tokenism and false promises, and they have the willing cooperation of Negro leaders. These leaders sell out our people for just a few crumbs of token recognition and token gains.
Originally Posted by Malcolm X
The white conservatives aren’t friends of the Negro either, but at least they don’t try to hide it. They are like wolves, they show you their teeth in a snarl. That always keep the Negro aware of where he stands with them, but the white liberals are foxes who show their teeth to the Negro also, but they pretend they’re smiling. The white liberal is more dangerous than the conservative. They lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf. He flees into the open jaws of the smiling fox. The job of the Negro leaders is to make the Negro forget that the wolf and fox belong to the same canine family, and no matter which one of them the Negro puts his trust in. He always ends up in the dog house.
Originally Posted by Malcolm X
As black people we have to learn to produce something. We have to be producers as well as consumers, and then we can set the sale price at a low cost. If you produced the product that you sold, then you would be eliminating the middle man, and you could sell to your people at a low cost. Everything that leaves your pocket goes into the pocket of the white man. We are being robbed because we produce nothing of our own. Mr. Muhammad said that we must be producers as well as consumers. I don’t care if you have a million dollars business, if you are not producing anything, then you are just a rich slave. I don’t care how wealthy you are, if you are not producing you are just a slave for your master. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad teaches us that it is better to be independent, than dependent.
Originally Posted by Malcolm X
Go into Japanese neighborhoods, you don’t see Negro stores. Go into China town, you don’t see Negro stores. Go into Jew town, you don’t see Negro stores. But come up here in black town and every kind of store is here but yours.
Originally Posted by Malcolm X
In my years as a Muslim minister, I had always taught so strongly on moral issues. That many Muslim sisters accused me of being anti-woman. I had not even touched a woman for 12 years.
Originally Posted by Malcolm X
Our young girls, our daughters, and our baby sisters are becoming unwed mothers before they are hardly out of their teens. Our community has 1000’s of unwed mothers, that has no hope of ever getting a husband. Our community has 10’s of 1000’s of little black babies who have no father to act as their provider.
Originally Posted by Min. Louis Farrakhan
Don’t look for the easy road in life, if you really want something life. You got to give of yourself and practice hard.
Originally Posted by Min. Louis Farrakhan
Gang bangers you make it very difficult for me. In the 60’s we knew who the enemy was, but today you are the enemy. It’s black people killing black people, you have become the #1 slayers of your people. This murder that’s going on in the black community makes it difficult for me. On any given Saturday night it’s us killing each other. You make it easy for racist police to kill you, because you are busy killing yourself.
Originally Posted by Min. Louis Farrakhan
It’s easy for us to talk about the White man, and say the white man did this and the white man did that, but if we get our own feet out of the way there is no white man on earth that can stop us from attaining what God almighty has already willed for us to have. It is no longer the fault of white people. It is our fault and therefore it is our own responsibility to get our house in order.
My point is that these men were by no stretch of the imagination "blame whitey, big government liberals looking for a handout". Would they be allied with the modern day GOP? Absolutely not given its ongoing issues with race. They were primarily black nationalists after all. But as virulent, legally codified, and blatant racism has waned in our society "black nationalism" as an ideology has as well. After all it was always a reaction to the dominant social order of the day. But there are some underlying principles of "black nationalism" that these men espoused that are held in common with "conservatism" (hence, why the author of the piece I cited above has a Twitter handle called "Marcus Garvey Girl"). Specifically with respect to education, discipline, self-reliance, independence from government, entrepreneurship, personal responsibility, etc. You just have to get beyond all that religiously oriented "blue-eyed devils" nonsense.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Aug 8, 2013 at 07:20 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2013, 09:16 PM
 
List #1-15
Holy cow, there's a lot of distortion going on in that.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2013, 11:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Awesome piece! I get where the author is coming from. And while I understand his point about the demographic differences between the rural "deep South" and the suburban "peripheral South", naturally I disagree with his overall conclusion. I suspect the truth, as with most things, lies somewhere in between. Definitely fodder for future discussion.
Thanks for reading that, my brother. If the past is any indication -- future discussions we'll have indeed!

Point well taken. Though I must say that you must not have realized that I was speaking for myself. You can certainly find some black person somewhere to take the "All black GOP are Uncle Toms" view. That's a politically immature position that I certainly don't hold. And in my experience, that doesn't seem to be the position that most African-Americans embrace either. At least ... theoretically. But here's a satirical piece by a black conservative Republican that illustrates why most African-American voters tend to view black Republicans as suspect until proven otherwise:
I'm glad you added, theoretically as I'm certain voting patterns among the black community within at least the last 15-20 years strongly affirms my position that it is not just black conservatives that are suspect until proven acceptable to the black community, but anyone with an (R) after their name.

I'm sorry my friend. But that right there was the funniest thing I've read all day! Unfortunately, there is a serious truth that underlies her humor. I respectfully ask you to save this piece and keep it handy. And the next time you see a black conservative/GOP pundit ... honestly compare the tone and content of their speeches, TV appearances, and social media posts to this list. And I would wager my next paycheck that if their M.O. seems like it is straight out of this playbook then most African-Americans will have no love for them ... but if it is NOT most will listen.
It's funny as hell! BUT -- I'm not sure it's well-founded in reality. In other words, I don't show too many black conservatives that I'm frequenting, denouncing their heritage/ethnicity. Sure, you can find clips and pull them away from their overall context, but then -- I could do that to the statements you've cited below by whom you're referring to as Conservative blacks whose messages do resonate in the black community; Malcom X and Louis Farrakhan.

The Black Church is a socially conservative institution. Black Muslims tend to be even more socially conservative.
Now let's not get sidetracked by the more um .. "outlandish" aspects of NOI teachings. I'm not here to advocate for or defend all of that. That's not my point. What I'm saying is that Malcolm X and Min. Louis Farrakhan held/hold what can arguably be described as "conservative principles". From a personal morality standpoint since embracing Islam neither has ever had a hint of scandal or impropriety. Their entire ideology was rooted in a "Do For Self" philosophy. That blacks should control the social, economic, educational, political institutions in their own community ... and not depend on government programs and handouts for their well-being. The NOI men under Farrakhan's leadership ... totally unarmed ... routinely patrol crime-ridden neighborhoods, push drug dealers out of public housing developments and other apartment buildings, and reform gang members both in and out of prison. Self-reliance and economic independence are the crux of their philosophy. Now both of these men are products of a generation when Jim Crow was in full force. So naturally the dynamics of the day played a great role in their rhetoric. But here are some quotes to illustrate my point further ...

My point is that these men were by no stretch of the imagination "blame whitey, big government liberals looking for a handout". Would they be allied with the modern day GOP? Absolutely not given its ongoing issues with race. They were primarily black nationalists after all. But as virulent, legally codified, and blatant racism has waned in our society "black nationalism" as an ideology has as well. After all it was always a reaction to the dominant social order of the day. But there are some underlying principles of "black nationalism" that these men espoused that are held in common with "conservatism" (hence, why the author of the piece I cited above has a Twitter handle called "Marcus Garvey Girl"). Specifically with respect to education, discipline, self-reliance, independence from government, entrepreneurship, personal responsibility, etc. You just have to get beyond all that religiously oriented "blue-eyed devils" nonsense.

OAW
Social conservatism, I grant you in part. Otherwise, we're just meeting the snowseal pup litmus I offered earlier. Of course, everyone would advocate black business ownership and personal responsibility, but I certainly appreciate the messages you've cited and they've been remarkably ahead of their time. There are some problems though and it's not enough to simply say; "ignore the NOI nonsense". Pan Islamism and distaste for an alleged Jewish imperialism are decidedly not views friendly to an American conservative. And you have only to look at the platforms of those Farrakhan for example, has placed his weight behind politically including Jesse Jackson domestically or Muammar al-Qaddafi and Chavez abroad. While his support for Obama has become tepid if not downright retracted -- he had nothing, but very favorable reviews of Obama's prospects and strongly supported his bid for President in 2008. There was little that could've been cited as "conservative" throughout Obama's bio and platform at that time. (again, notwithstanding the snowseal pup litmus as no one would advocate clubbing them) Farrakhan's political views, affiliations, and allegiances have stood in such stark contrast to any clear, traditional conservative political ideology that it is near impossible to connect the two. In fact, it could be argued that neither Malcom X nor Farrakhan fit neatly into any American political ideology having equal parts Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

The blue-eyed devil stuff I get for what it is and I don't see that as a pervasive problem in the black community. It's there, but not front and center. Most recognize (generally) that at this point we're in this thing together and there are people who want us dead -- as Americans, not as black or white. While conservatives have had racial issues throughout their past, they've not owned the lion's share of it or at the least it's not exclusive to them, and the ideology itself has a great deal of merit for prosperity and peace. I've long-maintained that conservatism and the black community are inevitably wedded, it just takes the right GOP - JOP.

I've learned a lot here though and I appreciate your feedback, OAW.
ebuddy
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2013, 05:25 PM
 
I'm not sure if you'd find this relevant to the thread, OAW. I file it under white privilege.
White definitions of merit and admissions change when they think about Asian Americans, study finds | Inside Higher Ed
Specifically, he found, in a survey of white California adults, they generally favor admissions policies that place a high priority on high school grade-point averages and standardized test scores. But when these white people are focused on the success of Asian-American students, their views change.

The white adults in the survey were also divided into two groups. Half were simply asked to assign the importance they thought various criteria should have in the admissions system of the University of California. The other half received a different prompt, one that noted that Asian Americans make up more than twice as many undergraduates proportionally in the UC system as they do in the population of the state.

When informed of that fact, the white adults favor a reduced role for grade and test scores in admissions -- apparently based on high achievement levels by Asian-American applicants. (Nationally, Asian average total scores on the three parts of the SAT best white average scores by 1,641 to 1,578 this year.)
When asked about leadership as an admissions criterion, white ranking of the measure went up in importance when respondents were informed of the Asian success in University of California admissions.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2013, 05:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm not sure if you'd find this relevant to the thread, OAW. I file it under white privilege.
Oh I would just file that under good old-fashioned hypocrisy.

OAW
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2013, 05:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Oh I would just file that under good old-fashioned hypocrisy.

OAW
True, but I don't think hypocrisy is racially motivated; i.e., everyone would rather not be put knowingly at a disadvantage. Its that this study highlighted the disadvantage by using race.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2013, 06:18 PM
 
Well when it comes to college admissions things get interesting real quick. Multiple factors are used to determine who gets in and who doesn't ... but that often seems to go out the window when a white student comes up on the short end of the stick. A white student doesn't get admitted to a university while a black student with lower grades/test scores does. A lawsuit is filed which eventually end up before the SCOTUS. Never mind that with respect to the case in question over 40 white students with lower grades/test scores were also admitted. And black students with higher grades/test scores were not. All of that is beside the point because apparently it's only a problem when a person of color benefits. Which, I submit, is a prime example of white entitlement.

I posted this in another thread dealing with this topic a DECADE ago ...

Originally Posted by OAW
It's funny how those who oppose affirmative action only oppose "preferences" when they benefit people of color. Preferences for in-state students? No problem. Preferences for children of alumni? No problem. Preferences for athletes? No problem. Preferences for nieces and nephews of one-legged Vietnam War veterans? No problem. Etc. etc.
Imagine that ...

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2013, 08:08 PM
 
Asian students are the ones getting bumped
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 08:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW
It's funny how those who oppose affirmative action only oppose "preferences" when they benefit people of color. Preferences for in-state students? No problem. Preferences for children of alumni? No problem. Preferences for athletes? No problem. Preferences for nieces and nephews of one-legged Vietnam War veterans? No problem. Etc. etc.

OAW


Preferences for developing the skills of youth within the State? Not only is this the most likely "customer pool" for the school, it benefits the State. Children of alumni? Sounds like a "repeat business discount" and is good for the school. Preferences for athletes? Attracting quality talent to your athletic program pays for more than just athletics and is beneficial to the School. Preferences for the family of those who gave limb for country? Seems reasonable to me though I'm not sure if nieces and nephews should be included. Seems there's a political tinge there. Preferences for skin color? Entirely political though there's no reason to expect that people of color cannot also be residents of a State, children of alumni, athletes, or related to a disabled veteran of war.
ebuddy
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2013, 12:36 PM
 
^^^^

My point with that comment was that many who are anti-affirmative action claim that they are against "preferences" and are pro "meritocracy" ... but when you dig a little deeper that isn't necessarily true. Any sort of preference for any reason undermines the "meritocracy" claim. And one can argue that diversity in higher education is also "beneficial to the State" and "beneficial to the School".

Now I'm not looking to derail this thread with an affirmative-action debate. My position has and continues to be that I'm ambivalent about it at best. And it's well-documented in older threads. I just think that when it comes to test scores and GPAs perhaps public universities should adopt an approach where there is an explicitly stated minimum level that one needs to attain to be a candidate for admission ... but the final selection is made on a combination of factors. As opposed to an approach where people are given the impression that if there are only so many slots available then the students with the highest scores get in ... when that has never been the case.

OAW
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:00 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2