[OAW]

According to the Washington Post ....

"Five of eight top Federal Emergency Management Agency officials came to their posts with virtually no experience in handling disasters and now lead an agency whose ranks of seasoned crisis managers have thinned dramatically since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

FEMA's top three leaders -- Director Michael D. Brown, Chief of Staff Patrick J. Rhode and Deputy Chief of Staff Brooks D. Altshuler -- arrived with ties to President Bush's 2000 campaign or to the White House advance operation, according to the agency. Two other senior operational jobs are filled by a former Republican lieutenant governor of Nebraska and a U.S. Chamber of Commerce official who was once a political operative."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090802165.html

So much for the anti-affirmative action crowd (including President Bush) and their "the best qualified person should get the position" and "positions/admissions should be based upon merit" rhetoric. Top leadership positions at FEMA apparently are obtained by having connections to Bush. Of course, this is nothing new and this isn't meant as a criticism of Republicans for Democratic administrations are just as guilty. Also, this certainly isn't limited only to FEMA. The intent is to simply point out the blatant hypocrisy of it all. The fact of the matter is that formal affirmative action programs were designed to counter the de facto "affirmative action" programs such as this. As well as legacy and/or "daddy donated big dollars to the university" hookups when it comes to university admissions. And even general white-skin and/or male privilege in our society. So the question is, why all the outrage against affirmative action programs but nary a peep against such blatant political patronage? Especially when it can be argued that the lack of experience at the top of FEMA could very well be a big factor in the delayed and befuddled response in the early stages after Katrina? Discuss!

OAW

[Y3a]

<< The fact of the matter is that formal affirmative action programs were designed to counter the de facto "affirmative action" programs such as this. >>

But these examples are that neither are looking for the best qualified person.

[BRussell]

What are you talking about OAW, there are no special advantages for people. Take George Bush: He's had the life he's had solely through his own hard work, rather than any patronage based on his name or wealth. Right?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Y3a

But these examples are that neither are looking for the best qualified person.

[Spliffdaddy]

Where can I partake of some of this "white male privilege"?

Apparently, I've been missing out on life's little shortcuts.

So far, being white hasn't got me jack. Seems I have to work hard to get what I want. Silly me.

Oh well. Ya'll just wait on the government to give you what you want. I'll keep doing what I've been doing.

and we'll see who gets there first.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by BRussell

What are you talking about OAW, there are no special advantages for people. Take George Bush: He's had the life he's had solely through his own hard work, rather than any patronage based on his name or wealth. Right?

Are you suggesting his father had connections?

Simey will be along shortly to dispute this.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Where can I partake of some of this "white male privilege"?

Apparently, I've been missing out on life's little shortcuts.

So far, being white hasn't got me jack. Seems I have to work hard to get what I want. Silly me.

While I shouldn't have to explain this to anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty, I'll go ahead anyway just for grins ....

You don't have to do anything to partake of "white male privilege". It just exists for those who fit the description. It typically isn't noticed because it is just normal for them. There's nothing "special" about it. It's just the way it is. Nor does it eliminate the need to "work hard" to make it in this society. I certainly never said that so going there is simply a red herring response. Everybody has to "work hard" to make it in this society. Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, etc. That's just a given. The problem is that some of us .... minorities in particular, females to a certain extent as well ... have additional BS that we have to deal with on a regular basis ... above and beyond the daily grind of getting an education, working, supporting a family, etc. So the "privilege" is the relative absence of such other "entanglements". Things like being able to catch a cab in NY or other major metro areas whenever. Or being able to go into a bank and apply for a loan and know that if you didn't get approved it wasn't because of the color of your skin or the fact that you live in a zip code that is predominantly non-white. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of white people in this country face little to no disadvantages on the basis of race. Allow me to explain why I say this ...

Let's say for the sake of discussion that all Affirmative Action programs are patently bogus quota programs that allow for unqualified minorities to get jobs over better qualified white people. This is the way that many affirmative action opponents like to characterize the situation ... which is BS but let's just accept that view for now. Blacks represent about 15% of the population. Hispanics a little more. I don't have a figure for Asians offhand but they are considerable smaller. So let's say that minorities account for about 30% of the US population. So whites are approximately 70%. Now let's say that every single minority who is working got their job over a better qualified white person due to affirmative action. Even if that were true then 57% of whites are still unaffected by affirmative action. Now of course anyone with 2 cents worth of intelligence knows this is not true. First of all the unemployment rate among minorities is 2 to 3 times that of whites. Additionally, many minorities take jobs on the lower rungs of the economic scale that don't even have affirmative action programs in place. How many affirmative action programs exist for janitorial or lawn and gardening work? Or for fast food or other low skilled jobs? I mean really ... let's keep it real here! So that 57% has just dramatically increased. Then take into account that affirmative action doesn't even require unqualified or less qualified minorities to get positions over more qualified whites. That figure increases even more. Then take into account that many white people in professional, "corporate America' type of jobs work all day long and hardly ever come across more than a handful of minorities in similar positions. I've been working such jobs in the IT industry for 16+ years and believe you me I have often been the only minority in the office or one of a handful at best. And the same can be said of the vast majority of the clients that I have done work for. So when that is taken into account that percentage of whites who are unaffected by affirmative action grows even larger.

The bottom line is that in the grand scheme of things... when you look at white people as a group ... affirmative action is an irritant at best. And it's benefit to minorities has been rather limited because most programs are "guidelines" and lack real measurement and enforcement mechanisms. Now are there some white individuals who have been negatively impacted? Certainly. Are there numbers grossly overstated? Indeed. Do their numbers even remotely approach the number of minorities who have been negatively impacted by discrimination ... historically and currently? Hell no!

Take for example the situation in St. Louis County with the well-paying blue collar profession of firefighting ....

http://www.firetimes.com/story.asp?FragID=4333

"In its nearly 50-year history, the Spanish Lake Fire Protection District has never hired an African-American firefighter, even though it now serves a district that is 54 percent black.

Spanish Lake is not alone. Of the 42 fire departments serving St. Louis County, 22 have no African-American firefighters. Nine departments have just one black firefighter.

In north St. Louis County, the black population has grown steadily in recent years, yet most of North County's fire departments have remained overwhelmingly white."

Here is "white male privilege" in action. A certain degree of nepotism at work as well. But my point remains ....

OAW

[Spliffdaddy]

Your statistics lead me to believe that blacks are somehow inferior to whites. I don't believe that is true. The same culture that keeps white trailer trash living in poverty also permeates the black community. This "culture" thrives on low expectation and victimization. When you see generation after generation of poverty - you'll see a commonality in their upbringing. A place where luck determines one's success....not the quality of decisions that are made. A place where failure dominates. "There is no escape!", they scream, as they make no effort to push open an unlocked door. It's always somebody else's fault. "If only (fill in the blank) would help me, then I'd be successful."
Bad decisions are the root cause of poverty. Perpetual bad decisions are the root cause of perpetual poverty.
Changing those bad decisions will break the cycle of poverty. Sometimes, I think there are folks who thrive on being unsuccessful. As if they're more comfortable living that way. There is no other valid reason for their state of being.
It isn't the duty of a nation nor its citizens to intrude on the lives of perpetually unsuccessful people. Instead, we should assume that they desire to live their life in that manner. There is no other logical conclusion that can be reached.
The color of a person's skin has absolutely nothing to do with their potential for success. I don't believe any arguments to the contrary. It falls on deaf ears when white people are told their success is owed to their lack of skin pigmentation. It's condescending and rude. After all, *my* failures are not blamed on other people - nor are my successes credited to others.
If success is always eluding you, then change your decisions. Life won't last long enough for you to change everybody else's decisions. Mostly because we're all assuming that you desire failure.

Where is it written that poverty is a bad thing? Money doesn't guarantee happiness. Often it's the worst thing that can happen to a person.
Buddy, I've been broke before. And I don't recall being unhappy. Those were some of the happiest days of my life, in retrospect.
Besides, there will *always* be a bottom 10-15% of wage-earners. That's the definition of poverty. It will never get better. As the population grows, so will the number of wage earners in the lower 15%. It has exactly nothing to do with the quality of those lives.
The simple answer for black folks is to mimic what white folks do - if their goal is to define success as "what most white people do". Be a firefighter that lives in the suburbs and drives a Volvo wagon. I don't care if there are places where qualified black folks aren't being employed. It just makes for a larger pool of talented people for *me* to employ. With which my business shall kick their collective asses.
It ain't nuthin but *you* that determines your own success or failure. To suggest otherwise is to waste your breath.

[dreilly1]

I was going to comment on this when you first posted it, but got sidetracked. So here are my comments now:

First of all, is the way to fight the preferential treatment given to (white) people in the past really to give (non-white) people preferential treatment now (i.e. fighting institutionalized racism with a slightly different type of racism)? Because that's really what some Affirmative Action programs are. You can talk all you want about the fact that the racism that you advocate is really "leveling the playing field" or "making up for past injustices", but that's just rationalizing in the same manner that people used during segregation.

The FEMA thing is a red herring, I think -- it's unfortunate that Bush thought to put people in charge of FEMA and Homeland Security based on political favors and not on their ability to do their job. But Bush also has a pretty good record of including minorities in his administration. They just happen to be conservative minorities, which I think annoys some people. Seriously, I think the Democratic Party is about to lose its support in the Black community (and probably already has lost its support in the Latino community) because there are so many Democratic leaders who are still playing the Race War like its 1960 or 1970, and implying that the institutuional racism is so bad that minorities have no chance of success at all without help. "Soft bigtory of lowered expectations" indeed.

I actually think that in places where Affirmative Action or other "Diversity" initiatives are practiced, it actually makes the situation worse. Because it puts the focus on making sure that you have so many of one group, or making sure that you can check off all the boxes on your Diversity worksheet, and then after meeting these superficial requirements, a company can say "See, we're diverse!" and not think about it amymore. And then, the people who did get jobs under these initiatives have to wonder, "Did I really get this job on my merits, or did they just need their token brown guy, and I was the best they had?" The only difference is in who gets the job, and the inequity remains.

If a company or government really wants to be diverse, it ought to collect a diversity of opinions among its employees, not a diversity of pigments.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Your statistics lead me to believe that blacks are somehow inferior to whites. I don't believe that is true.

And how you got that out of what I said will forever remain a mystery.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Bad decisions are the root cause of poverty. Perpetual bad decisions are the root cause of perpetual poverty.
Changing those bad decisions will break the cycle of poverty. Sometimes, I think there are folks who thrive on being unsuccessful. As if they're more comfortable living that way. There is no other valid reason for their state of being.

While this may be true in some instances, it is definitely not true in most instances. It certainly isn't true when one looks at the overall poverty rate in the African-American community. It wasn't a "bad decision" on the part of our ancestors to be taken from their land against their will and brought to these shores. It wasn't a "bad decision" on the part of our ancestors to be enslaved for 400+ years. It wasn't a "bad decision" on the part of our ancestors to be stripped of their names, language, religion, and culture. It wasn't a "bad decision" on the part of our ancestors to be treated as property ... and used to build wealth for the white majority via hundreds of years of free labor. It wasn't a "bad decision" on the part of our ancestors to be forbidden by law to be taught to read. It wasn't a "bad decision" on the part of our ancestors to be denied compensation when slavery was ended. It wasn't a "bad decision" on the part of our ancestors and even our parents and grandparents to be subjugated to systematic and legally sanctioned discrimination and apartheid conditions for 100 years after slavery ended. It wasn't a "bad decision" on the part of our parents and grandparents to be "educated" in a public school system that was systematically underfunded leading to lower educational achievements. It wasn't a "bad decision" on the part of our parents and grandparents to be systematically denied admission to colleges and universities thereby limiting their access to higher paying professions. It wasn't a "bad decision" on the part of our parents and grandparents to be legally forced to live in segregated ghettos that were systematically redlined by banks and other financial institutions, thereby limiting home ownership which is the primary vehicle for wealth generation in our society. It wasn't a "bad decision" on the part of our parents and grandparents to be systematically paid less for the same work performed as their white counterparts ... when they were lucky enough to even get hired in the first place.

Look at the faces of the poor in New Orleans that have borne the brunt of hurricane Katrina. Do you really think that the poverty in that area is a new phenomenon? The systematic and disproportionate poverty you see on your TV screen has long-standing and deeply rooted historical causes like I have mentioned above. Now are there some today how haven't made the best decisions when it comes to staying in and excelling in school? Or avoiding drugs and crime? Certainly. But today's generation stands on the shoulders of those that came before. Contrary to the notion that some would like to believe, the game isn't renewed when a new generation (or even a new person) is born. A kid born into an upper middle class family with multiple generations of college graduates simply is not starting at the same place as a kid born into a poor working class family with no one who's gone to school beyond high school. This is simply common sense. And while we can all point out the anecdotes of the kid from humble beginnings who makes it big .... the Oprah Winfrey's of the world are exceptions to the rule. Not the rule itself.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The color of a person's skin has absolutely nothing to do with their potential for success. I don't believe any arguments to the contrary. It falls on deaf ears when white people are told their success is owed to their lack of skin pigmentation. It's condescending and rude. After all, *my* failures are not blamed on other people - nor are my successes credited to others.

And I never claimed that it was. Skin pigmentation is not the issue. The issue is one of power. And which segments of our society have it, and which don't. White people didn't get to the position that they hold today because they lacked skin pigmentation. Or even because they were more intelligent than other people. The fact of the matter is that the earliest white civilizations in antiquity learned and "borrowed" from ancient African societies. So that isn't the issue. The reason why white people are in a dominant position in the world today is because they developed the gun before other people did, and they weren't shy about using it for the economic benefit. Additionally, they (not every single individual but their societies as a whole) developed a world view that they were superior to other people. So with these two factors in play they had no qualms with practicing chattel slavery and colonialism for hundreds of years against people of color, thereby enriching their nations. The wealthiest European nations (including America) on the planet today all have a history of colonialism if not outright slavery. Not a single one can claim to have developed their great wealth and power independently ... without resorting to subjugation, theft, or exploitation of natural resources that did not belong to them. This is an historical fact that simply can't be credibly denied.

Do you think the sharecropping system in the South that existed for a hundred years after slavery enriched white landowners because they lacked skin pigmentation? Or do you think it had more to do with the fact that they could exploit the black farmers because the farmers had no choice but to sell to landowners at the price that they set instead of a free market price? You think the fact that the landowners could deduct from the pay of the black farmers for whatever "charges" for seed and supplies they felt like had anything to do with it? Do you think the fact that the white landowners colluded with each other and made "gentlemen's agreements" not to take on a black "tenant" who was still in debt to another landowner had anything to do with it? Do you think the fact that the black "tenants" were always in debt because the white landowners set the prices paid for the products, the prices charged for supplies, and kept the books for a largely illiterate black farming population which resulted in "de facto" slavery conditions had anything to do with it? Do you think the fact that white landowners organized posses of poor whites to attack and in some cases downright massacre black communities whenever they tried to organize and resist such exploitation had anything to do with it? Do you think the fact that the white judicial system consistently said such exploitation was "legal" if a case ever made it to court had anything to do with it? Do you think that the idea that was generally accepted but officially asserted by a Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case that "the black man has no right that the white man is bound to respect.” ... with the rationale that this was in accordance with God’s principles ... had anything to do with it?

So I agree with you. The success of whites isn't the result of their lack of skin pigmentation. The issue is one of power and the opportunity to succeed. It is simply a cliche to talk about "hard work". That is simply a given. The hard truth that is conveniently ignored by many of a more "conservative" persuasion is that Hard Work - Opportunity <> Success. My ancestors who were enslaved worked harder than most could ever imagine. But the one's who succeeded out of the deal were those that "owned" them. Now imagine that.

OAW

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

OAW, I’m sorry, but people like you use this argument too often as a crutch.

None of the things you outline actually affects your ability to function and succeed in this society. None of it affects your ability to present yourself as capable and therefore able to succeed, right here, right NOW, in the PRESENT.

Few if any of us get by solely on the merits of our ancestors, whatever they did, good or bad, nor is our present success or failure based on whatever color their skin was. It’s a sad bill of goods you’ve been sold that’s made you believe otherwise.

The saddest thing is, since adopting this crutch, much of the black community in many ways has actually declined over the years, not progressed, even as racism itself has become less and less prevalent.

Previous minority generations didn’t allow even the far greater levels of racism to hold them back to anywhere near the extent that current generations believe a far lesser level of racism holds them back. Many current ills that are blamed on slavery and racism DO NOT have direct, unbroken lineages that can be traced directly back to slavery.

The facts are, previous generations didn’t subscribe to much of the same excuses that current generations often float. In the past, black families were often stronger than white families, IE: lower illegitimacy and divorce rates across all classes. The two parent family was a norm more so than virtually any other racial group. Drug abuse, alcoholism, and high crime rates in black communities were comparable to any other, and not rampantly worse. Businesses in black neighborhoods were more often black owned, not owned by Koreans or other outside groups. Many of these conditions have gotten far worse in RECENT times than they were in the past, so blaming them on a direct lineage to slavery is utter bullcrap.

No one denies that there was crushing racism, nor claims there isn’t any today, but your argument seeks to forever make past injustices into present day crutches, or worse, seeks to amplify present-day political disagreements or misunderstandings into what you claim is racism equal to or worse than that of the past.

I for one think it’s a sad situation. Try as you might, you will never convince those of us that don’t care about race and color that you’re deserving of special consideration (legally, in business, in life, whatever) due to race or color, nor based on what happened to anyone other than yourself in the past. To do so, would be to treat you as an inferior. Everyone sinks or swims among equals …as an equal. The good comes with the bad, the bad comes with the good. Special consideration for things none of us at present are responsible for, does not, and will never go hand-in-hand with true equality. They are ideas directly opposed to one another.

So you can keep making lists of why you or others should be afforded any sort of consideration beyond the equal, and why you can’t do X Y or Z when no one is keeping you from doing X Y or Z other than yourself. But it’s an exercise in futility. My hope is that you realize the futility before you allow any of it to deny yourself any opportunities that you could have achieved otherwise.

[Spliffdaddy]

I always liked the idea of succeeding in places where success was elusive. It makes winning all the more meaningful.

What drives me toward success is all the losers that keep telling me I can't succeed. It would be easier to listen to them and to agree with them - and simply stop trying. I didn't have any role models. Nobody held my hand and showed me the way. I left all the losers and naysayers behind. They didn't learn anything from me. They think I've just been 'lucky'. I found luck by working 100 hours a week. By employing more people like myself (not all of who are white). I found luck in 98 degree heat while roofing houses, by laying 800 concrete blocks, and while trudging through muddy construction sites at 5am. Luck is beside me when the backhoe digs the footer - and he waits patiently in the attorneys office the day the house sells. I don't recall seeing any of my wealthy ancestors, though.

For the redhaired girl that always turned me down for a date back in school. For the guidance counselor that suggested I pursue a 'factory job'. For my own mother who flatly said I'd never be as good as my father. For my ex-wife that gave up waiting for me to succeed. For all of them - I say THANK YOU!

If it wasn't for those folks I wouldn't be successful today.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

OAW, I’m sorry, but people like you use this argument too often as a crutch.

None of the things you outline actually affects your ability to function and succeed in this society. None of it affects your ability to present yourself as capable and therefore able to succeed, right here, right NOW, in the PRESENT.

.....

Well I never said that it did. In fact, if one were to read my comments carefully and discern what they actually say ... specifically those that are responses to the comments of others ... then one would see that the point was not to advocate for affirmative action or to make excuses. Personally, I am rather ambivalent about affirmative action. If it is there fine, if not then oh well. The fact of the matter is that I, and most other African-Americans that I know, were raised with the philosophy that you had to be twice as smart and work twice as hard to get the same opportunity as your white counterpart. And that's just the way it was so just go out there and make that happen. Furthermore, considering how I graduated from one of the top high schools in the country, graduated with honors from a prestigious university, and succeeded in my career to the point where I am now in the top 10-15% of income earners ... well, let's just say that one shouldn't run around making assumptions about who is using what as a "crutch".

In fact, the point of the OP was merely to point out the hypocrisy of those who get all bent out of shape about affirmative action, but whose silence is deafening when it comes to political patronage. The double-standard so blatantly revealed when "merit" is the order of the day when it comes to minorities ... but a nary a peep when whites who are clearly unqualified get positions because of "hookups". And the funny thing about it is that the direction that this thread has taken with all the comments like yours above just serves to prove my point.

OAW

[Spliffdaddy]

Well, actually, you just disproved your original point - and reinforced mine.

There isn't a person alive who doesn't believe that the game of life is stacked against them. Every success story seemingly has a hard-luck story that goes along with it. After all, success is defined as winning in spite of adversity.

Success surely isn't a birthright. Far too many children of wealthy folks end up blowing their heads off with shotguns.

[dreilly1]

Plus, I made the point that Brownie didn't get his job because he is white, he got the job because he supported Bush. And Bush has done a remarkable job appointing minorities and women to positions of power in his administration. They just happen to be conservative minorities and women, like Alberto Gonzalez and Condalezza Rice. Bush appointed them because he felt they could do the job, not because he felt he needed a Black or a Latino in his cabinet.

As a side note, I think the first non-white president will be a Republican....

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by OAW

In fact, the point of the OP was merely to point out the hypocrisy of those who get all bent out of shape about affirmative action, but whose silence is deafening when it comes to political patronage. The double-standard so blatantly revealed when "merit" is the order of the day when it comes to minorities

Well, of course, there is a pretty simple distinction that can be made. Political patronage and nepotism doesn't exclude anyone by the color of their skins. All races can and do benefit from it. That's how come people like Jesse Jackson, Jr. get elected to office, or for that matter, how Michael Powell got his job. It's also alive and well at historically black universities. They have legacy admissions just like the ivies do.

However, racism is something that most of us agreed long ago is a bad thing, and unconstitutional to boot. Affirmative action is simply another form of racism. People defend it as "benign racism" but it is still racism. If you want to talk about hypocrisy, then supporting affirmative action while decrying racism is a much better candidate than the kind of minor cronyism that everyone partakes in.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW

Well I never said that it did. In fact, if one were to read my comments carefully and discern what they actually say ... specifically those that are responses to the comments of others ... then one would see that the point was not to advocate for affirmative action or to make excuses.

I read what you actually said, which makes me question if you read what Spliffdaddy actually wrote that you were responding to. You merely made a long list of past atrocities that in no way refuted his premise.

So you don’t personally use your ancestors’ condition as an excuse or crutch in your own life, but you seem more than eager to float it as an excuse for others. (And not just you, but this seems to be a common tact). I find this highly contradictory. How is it that these things didn’t hold you back, racism didn’t stop you in your tracks, yet you find it perfectly natural to ascribe these as ironclad excuses for others? How is it you can state that hard work and your own initiative put you where you are today, yet in the same breath ‘poo-poo’ someone else basically stating the EXACT SAME THING applying equally to everyone? I honestly don’t think you’re at much at odds with the ‘conservative’ view of this issue as you let on, but find it too tempting to trot out your lists of atrocities for the sake of political argument.

Personally, I am rather ambivalent about affirmative action. If it is there fine, if not then oh well. The fact of the matter is that I, and most other African-Americans that I know, were raised with the philosophy that you had to be twice as smart and work twice as hard to get the same opportunity as your white counterpart. And that's just the way it was so just go out there and make that happen. Furthermore, considering how I graduated from one of the top high schools in the country, graduated with honors from a prestigious university, and succeeded in my career to the point where I am now in the top 10-15% of income earners ... well, let's just say that one shouldn't run around making assumptions about who is using what as a "crutch".

Case in point.

By the way, this isn’t untypical across the board. Most people just substitute the racial terms with whomever they consider their own group, vs. their own competition.

In fact, the point of the OP was merely to point out the hypocrisy of those who get all bent out of shape about affirmative action, but whose silence is deafening when it comes to political patronage.

It’s telling that you equate the two, revealing that affirmative action (at least as it continues in practice today) is perhaps a ‘wrong’ kept in effect to somehow ‘right’ another wrong. Hence Y3a’s original point that: “…neither are looking for the best qualified person.”

The double-standard so blatantly revealed when "merit" is the order of the day when it comes to minorities ...

Simey as usual said it best in pointing out the fast one you’re pulling by boiling down “merit” and political patronage as narrowly constrained by race along set left/right political lines, when clearly, neither is.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

I read what you actually said, which makes me question if you read what Spliffdaddy actually wrote that you were responding to. You merely made a long list of past atrocities that in no way refuted his premise.

Oh really? His premise being ... and I quote "Bad decisions are the root of poverty." ... and I made a long list of what you yourself admit were "atrocities" ... yet we are supposed to believe that systemic discrimination, violence, and exploitation spanning centuries are not at the root of the disproportionate poverty rate that exist today in the African-American community? Hmmm .... decades upon decades of job and wage discrimination has had no impact on the disparity between income levels of black and white households today? Decades upon decades of red-lining and housing discrimination has had no effect upon the disparity in home ownership rates between black and white households? Even though the home is the number one source of wealth in this country, I suppose the disparity in net worth between black and white households is completely unaffected by this? I suppose discrimination in bank lending has no effect on entrepreneurship in the African-American community in a post-segregation era either.

Let me see if I can break this down using a rather simple analogy ....

There are two teams running a relay race. A team composed of white runners and a team composed of black runners. Now the referees for the race are white as well as the organizers of the racing event itself. So those in the position to set the "rules" have done so in a manner that dictates that each black runner must run his leg of the race with a 50 lb weight on his back along with shackles on his feet. So the race begins, and as expected the relatively unencumbered white runner established a 50 yard lead after the first leg. The baton is handed off to the next set of runners and that lead of the white team was expanded further by the time that leg was complete. This situation continued for several more legs of the race until the white team had a 200 yard lead. At this point the white referees and organizers declared that the black runners shouldn't have to run the race with all those extra encumbrances, so the 50 lb weight was removed (conveniently leaving on the shackles) and the race continued. After several more legs the lead of the white team continued to expand ... but at a slower rate. Eventually after a 300 yard lead was established the white referees and organizers again declared that the black runners shouldn't have to run the race with all those extra encumbrances. So they declared that the shackles should be removed and that the race should continue.

So the $64,000 question becomes ... is the race now "fair" now that all the extra weights and shackles have been removed from the black runners? (And let's just say "all" to keep it simple for the sake of discussion.) Some would say that it is because each runner can now run to the best of his ability without any hindrances by the referees or the event organizers. Others would say that it is not because there is a 300 yard lead that hasn't been addressed in any way.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

So you don’t personally use your ancestors’ condition as an excuse or crutch in your own life, but you seem more than eager to float it as an excuse for others. (And not just you, but this seems to be a common tact). I find this highly contradictory. How is it that these things didn’t hold you back, racism didn’t stop you in your tracks, yet you find it perfectly natural to ascribe these as ironclad excuses for others? How is it you can state that hard work and your own initiative put you where you are today, yet in the same breath ‘poo-poo’ someone else basically stating the EXACT SAME THING applying equally to everyone? I honestly don’t think you’re at much at odds with the ‘conservative’ view of this issue as you let on, but find it too tempting to trot out your lists of atrocities for the sake of political argument.

It's not that I disagree with the "conservative view" when it comes to individual leg of the race. I do, however, disagree with the tendency of "conservatives" to conveniently ignore that 300 yard lead. I disagree with a nonsensical ideology that tries to convince people that the race is not really even a relay .. but rather some sort of individual race that gets re-started after each heat. In fact, it is "political conservatism" that has been at the forefront of every major attempt to impede the progress of African-American people in this country. Be that slavery, Jim Crow, and anti-Civil Rights efforts/legislation in the past along with anti-Affirmative Action efforts/legislation today. And please note I did not say anything about Democrat or Republican ... I said "political conservatism". But I digress. The fact of the matter is that each "leg" of the race represents a generation. No man is an island ... and for that matter no generation is an island either. Each generation stands on the shoulders of those that came before it. It's "inheritance" is what the previous generations were able to achieve. That is it's starting point. And the fact of the matter is that the starting point for some groups of people is considerably further back than others.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Simey as usual said it best in pointing out the fast one you’re pulling by boiling down “merit” and political patronage as narrowly constrained by race along set left/right political lines, when clearly, neither is.

I couldn't really determine what you were trying to say here ... it just wasn't very clear. So I will attempt to address what I think you are saying. Or perhaps, maybe I should just clarify what it was that I originally said. First, I never said anything about "political patronage" being racially based. So Simey's statement ...

"Political patronage and nepotism doesn't exclude anyone by the color of their skins. "

... is quite beside the point. Or to put it another way, is the fact that political patronage is not racially based make it OK? The issue I raised is about "qualifications" and "merit" and how those who oppose affirmative action fall all over themselves proclaiming how positions should be obtained upon these factors alone. You never here them say ... "This position should be filled by the best qualified person ....unless I giving a hookup to a campaign contributor".

So my original point was not about the race of the FEMA appointees. It was also not about their political affiliations or ideology. Quite frankly, other than the Brown guy that resigned I have no clue as to the race of the other individuals. The point was that they are clearly unqualified ... so where is the outcry over their lack of "merit"? But of course, the silence from that camp isn't surprising. After all, these are the same people that defended Bush's numerous and repeated mangling of the English language ... some even going so far as to say that "You don't have to be that smart to be President of the United States. You just have to surround yourself with smart people." :laughing:

So the bottom line ... what is the real issue? Is it that unqualified people shouldn't get the position? Or is that unqualified minorities shouldn't get the job? Because there definitely is a rather distinct difference.

OAW

[Spliffdaddy]

"what is the real issue? Is it that unqualified people shouldn't get the position? Or is that unqualified minorities shouldn't get the job? Because there definitely is a rather distinct difference. "

Um, no, there's no difference. Unqualified people of any race shouldn't get the job.

Even in cities where the majority of voters are black, you get the same result as majority white cities at election time (see; New Orleans, Birmingham, Washington DC, etc).

Worse results, in most cases.

So that pretty much destroys your argument.

Racism *is* a contributing factor in the apparent 'lack of success' in the black community. But that racism is rooted in the black community. Bottom line. The change must start there.

Damn near all white folks, as a rule, spend less than 5 seconds per lifetime thinking about race. I can't understand how we're supposed to be oppressing so many non-white-folks - when we ain't even making an effort to. There's no conspiracy.

[himself]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

"what is the real issue? Is it that unqualified people shouldn't get the position? Or is that unqualified minorities shouldn't get the job? Because there definitely is a rather distinct difference. "

Um, no, there's no difference. Unqualified people of any race shouldn't get the job.

The point is, there apparently is a difference when there isn't nearly as much of an outcry against political patronage and nepotism as there is against affirmative action among conservatives (or, more broadly, amongst opponents of affirmative action). If there actually is no difference, why aren't conservatives as loudly insisting that qualified people be appointed to political positions as well, when the appointees clearly aren't qualified? I agree that there is no difference. The deeds and practices of various partisan political warriors say otherwise.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Even in cities where the majority of voters are black, you get the same result as majority white cities at election time (see; New Orleans, Birmingham, Washington DC, etc).

Worse results, in most cases.

So that pretty much destroys your argument.

What results are you referring to, specifically? Election outcomes? Voter turnout? Propositions, initiatives, or referenda? Something else? All of the above? I can say a number of things contribute to issues of "citizen agency" among the black and other minority communities, the most prominent of which is education. When you live in an underdeveloped community for generations (communities that have historically had sub-par educational systems), as many minority groups do, your educational prospects are not generally high from the start, and this is where the cycle of poverty begins, and how it perpetuates. Serious educational reforms that addressed this issue would show results within one generation, but no politician of any party has offered anything more than lip service to that situation.

Then, there is voter apathy. When a person/community feels that a system consistently works against them, regardless of who is in office, where would their motivation to participate come from? When black americans were granted the right to vote in this country, voter turnout was massive compared to today (despite attempts to impede the process, in many cases). Now, there is little-to-no trust in the political system, and the “results” that you may be referring to reflect that.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Racism *is* a contributing factor in the apparent 'lack of success' in the black community. But that racism is rooted in the black community. Bottom line. The change must start there.

Statements like these often come from people who haven't experienced this first-hand, and therefore have no experience to speak from. It is very easy to give up or give in when you are putting your best foot forward, when you know you are the best qualified, and you're still denied an opportunity. This scenario is played out with freakish consistency amongst minorities, and it isn't always self inflicted, as you would assume. I do agree that there must be some change, but on all sides. Everyone is implicit.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Damn near all white folks, as a rule, spend less than 5 seconds per lifetime thinking about race.

Umm... because whites don't need to? White folk aren't as affected by the side-affects of racism (in fact, whites are likely to benefit from it), so they don't give it any mind. And therein lies a large part of the problem; no one wants to pay any attention to something that seemingly doesn't affect them, though they may be contributing to the problem. This concept of racism doesn't exist in a vacuum, after all... the transgressions (both past and current) are real, and proven.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I can't understand how we're supposed to be oppressing so many non-white-folks - when we ain't even making an effort to. There's no conspiracy.

The question isn't whether you are consciously “oppressing” anyone. In fact, the phenomenon is largely unconscious. It is deeply ingrained into our society, to the point where it can be considered institutional. America became what it is today largely due to racism, after all. So, why would it be such a stretch? In this environment, I'd say it is nearly impossible for anyone raised in America (or possibly anywhere in the world) to not carry at least a portion of the seeds of racism. It is everywhere we look, and we humans are all too efficient at pre-judging and stereotyping. Therefore, I'd also say that anyone, whatever their color, who insists that they aren't racist (even a little bit) is likely delusional, or at least in denial. The only real way to combat it is on an individual basis, and to first acknowledge that it is there to begin with. So, again, the question isn't whether you're making a conscious effort to oppress anyone, but what are you doing to understand your role?

That being said, let's settle this mis-characterization of what affirmative action really aims to achieve. It is misleading to state that the point of affirmative action is to take opportunities away from “qualified whites” and give them to ”unqualified non-whites.” The standard is that equally (or similarly) qualified people of all backgrounds be considered, and in that situation, why would it matter if the non-white was chosen? It is largely about getting organizations to consider the benefits of diversity versus homogeneity, and I agree with that precept.

[Spliffdaddy]

^

If you can maintain "victim" status - nothing is your fault...and there's no compelling reason to change your behaviour.

Just keep doing the same thing. You're guaranteed to see the same results.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW

Oh really? His premise being ... and I quote "Bad decisions are the root of poverty." ... and I made a long list of what you yourself admit were "atrocities" ... yet we are supposed to believe that systemic discrimination, violence, and exploitation spanning centuries are not at the root of the disproportionate poverty rate that exist today in the African-American community? Hmmm .... decades upon decades of job and wage discrimination has had no impact on the disparity between income levels of black and white households today? Decades upon decades of red-lining and housing discrimination has had no effect upon the disparity in home ownership rates between black and white households? Even though the home is the number one source of wealth in this country, I suppose the disparity in net worth between black and white households is completely unaffected by this? I suppose discrimination in bank lending has no effect on entrepreneurship in the African-American community in a post-segregation era either.

And yet you ignore every cause of poverty that is a recent development. Why not work to eliminate causes of poverty that ARE based on bad decisions and see how far it takes you toward overcoming your lists of historic atrocities?

The fact that individuals and other ethnic minorities routinely disallow atrocities that have happened to them or their ancestors to hold them back currently flies in the face of your earnest wish to use past injustices as ironclad excuses for lack of success now.

There simply MUST come a time when people say enough is enough, and it’s time for current generations to take FULL and COMPLETE advantage of the gains secured for them by the sacrifices of those who came before them. To sit around and pretend to be mired yourself in the same racism as those who endured far worse, first hand, and to use their suffering as a current excuse for failing, is not only squandering past efforts to make things better for future generations, it’s downright weak.

There are two teams running a relay race. A team composed of white runners and a team composed of black runners. Now the referees for the race are white as well as the organizers of the racing event itself.

Ugh. Sorry, but anyone caught up in such simplistic, literally black and white thinking, has the hurdle of their own misguided worldview to overcome first and foremost before they worry about overcoming external forces.

To assume all ‘whites’ come from the same background, haven’t themselves experienced injustices, and always have some imaginary lead in some imaginary race is pure nonsense.

Many more people than your realize could claim that their ancestors losing everything in the great depression is their ticket to guaranteed failure today. Perhaps because someone’s parents or grandparents were tossed into a gas oven/persecuted by an oppressive regime/forced into exile by dictators and tyrants etc, serves as an ironclad excuse to claim a person compete currently.

I know of people from all over the world that have overcome horrible poverty and unjust persecution in their native countries that come here, jump right into your ‘relay race’ and wind up taking the lead. These are simply people that realize that no one is stopping them from achieving. The very existence of so many such people douses water all over your pat relay theory that attempts to boil everything down to some overly-simplistic ‘black vs. white’ relay race.

The issue I raised is about "qualifications" and "merit" and how those who oppose affirmative action fall all over themselves proclaiming how positions should be obtained upon these factors alone. You never here them say ... "This position should be filled by the best qualified person ....unless I giving a hookup to a campaign contributor".

Once again, you’re attempting to boil down to completely separate issues to fit your narrow argument. Affirmative action isn’t about \ political appointees. Yet you’re arguing about political appointees, while ignoring that biased political appointments happen regardless of race, and regardless of political affiliation. What you haven’t realized about this that derails your argument, is that BOTH SIDES, both pro and anti-affirmative action don’t get very outraged over political patronage. So your pointing out just one side of that equation is meaningless.

There’s no double standard based on merit, in fact, it’s your argument that seeks to create the double standard. You seek a measure of ‘merit’ for blacks that takes into consideration past atrocities, vs. another measure of merit for everyone else, (or to boil it down to your worldview, ‘whites’). The conservative viewpoint holds that merit applies equally to everyone. ONE standard.

Since we’re to assume you can’t have succeed yourself based on your own merits, we perhaps should conclude that you have to be the benefactor of political patronage. In running your own relay race, you must have been hooked up by well-heeled parents who bought your way to the head of the pack. There’s no other way you could have overcome past atrocities and having to start so far behind in the race, based on your own arguments.

Otherwise, if this isn’t the case, I’d be curious to know how you somehow got around this paradox. How do you justify not imparting your own method of overcoming as the way for others?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

^

If you can maintain "victim" status - nothing is your fault...and there's no compelling reason to change your behaviour.

Just keep doing the same thing. You're guaranteed to see the same results.

Careful Spliffdaddy, by disagreeing with someone you’re unconsciously oppressing them!

[Spliffdaddy]

As long as there are folks who believe they can't succeed - and never try - they won't be in *my* way. More power to those self-proclaimed victims, I say.

I ain't here to help. I ain't here to mitigate past injustices in which I played no role.

I'm here to win. So lead, follow, or get out of my way.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by himself

The point is, there apparently is a difference when there isn't nearly as much of an outcry against political patronage and nepotism as there is against affirmative action among conservatives (or, more broadly, amongst opponents of affirmative action). If there actually is no difference, why aren't conservatives as loudly insisting that qualified people be appointed to political positions as well, when the appointees clearly aren't qualified? I agree that there is no difference. The deeds and practices of various partisan political warriors say otherwise.

Originally Posted by himself

The question isn't whether you are consciously “oppressing” anyone. In fact, the phenomenon is largely unconscious. It is deeply ingrained into our society, to the point where it can be considered institutional. America became what it is today largely due to racism, after all. So, why would it be such a stretch?

OAW

[Spliffdaddy]

Well, if that's true - then the black community is really screwed. Because there's no possible solution.

If it isn't true - and my theories are correct - then there's hope for the black community.

[Artful Dodger]

ignore, sorry

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

^

If you can maintain "victim" status - nothing is your fault...and there's no compelling reason to change your behaviour.

Just keep doing the same thing. You're guaranteed to see the same results.

You are right.

Once you are victimized, it is difficult to change that.

Unless you fight really strongly against it. True enough, Tennessee is a perfect example of a ladder that needed to be taken by force from by a minority from a majority.

Got to show them that Freedom is something they got to fight for.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

And yet you ignore every cause of poverty that is a recent development. Why not work to eliminate causes of poverty that ARE based on bad decisions and see how far it takes you toward overcoming your lists of historic atrocities?

If this is what you really think then all I can say is that you have some uh, "challenges" with respect to reading comprehension. That subtext to this whole conversation began when Spliffdaddy made the statement that "Bad decisions are the root of poverty." A rather sweeping and certainly erroneous assessment ... especially with regard to the African-American community. I took issue with that statement and responded. And the first thing I said was ...

While this may be true in some instances, it is definitely not true in most instances. It certainly isn't true when one looks at the overall poverty rate in the African-American community.

So how exactly does an explicit acknowledgment equate to "ignoring every cause of poverty that is a recent development" in your mind? Furthermore, the overall point of the remainder of my comments on that issue was to point out that poverty in the African-American community was not a recent development! Let's keep it real here ..... do you think the rampant poverty in the African-American communities that got hit the hardest by hurricane Katrina is a recent development? These communities have always been poor ... going all the way back to Jim Crow and/or slavery. They have experienced decades upon decades of systematic disenfranchisement .... but apparently you wish to delude yourself into thinking that these communities fell into poverty in recent memory huh? The fact of the matter is that if anyone is "ignoring" something it is you. So go ahead and tell yourself whatever you have to tell yourself about the issue. The historical record is quite clear.

And to make my position on this particular point even clearer, the reality is that poverty in such communities is not a new phenomenon. It goes back decades and its root causes are systemic, institutionalized racism going back for centuries ... all the way to the inception of those communities. Having said that, there are some more recent developments in said communities that certainly don't help the situation ... and in some cases make it worse. Drugs, crime, less vigorous pursuit of educational opportunities, etc. No sane person can deny that. Now one could argue that these phenomenon are influenced and exacerbated by the poverty itself ... but that's a subject for another thread. For the purposes of this discussion the only point that needs to be made is that these communities were clearly poor well before such "recent developments" existed. Period. Dot. End of sentence.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Ugh. Sorry, but anyone caught up in such simplistic, literally black and white thinking, has the hurdle of their own misguided worldview to overcome first and foremost before they worry about overcoming external forces.

It never ceases to amaze me how some otherwise intelligent people seem to mysteriously lose all ability to think abstractly when issues of race are involved. One thing to keep in mind is that racism is not personal. It never was, it isn't today, and it won't be tomorrow. The reality is that racism is a group phenomenon. It is the systematic mistreatment of one group of people by another group of people on the basis of "race". Now individuals experience the ill effects of that phenomenon to one degree or another (perhaps even not at all). And other individuals participate in the activities that cause those ill effects to one degree or another (perhaps even not at all). Nevertheless, those ill effects still exist. And they can easily be seen, studied, and analyzed in aggregate. Take any relevant statistic and compare the averages, means, medians or whatever of one group vs. another. Male vs. female, High School Dropout vs. High School Graduate, High School Graduate vs. College Graduate, Carnivores vs. Vegetarians, Blondes vs. Brunettes .... whatever! Such statistical comparisons are done all the time and nary a peep out of anyone. Yet do such a comparison with respect to Black vs. White and some people seem to conveniently become utterly incapable of seeing the forest for the trees and make inane comments like ....

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

To assume all ‘whites’ come from the same background, haven’t themselves experienced injustices, and always have some imaginary lead in some imaginary race is pure nonsense.

So again, it's not about every single individual white person or every single individual black person. The comparison is about white people as a group and black people as a group. Take any relevant statistic. Education Level, Net Worth, Incarceration Rate, Home Ownership Rate, Income Level, Mortality Rate, etc ... hell just look at any of the US Census Bureau statistics over recent decades and you will see that such comparisons are made all the time. When the Census Bureau does it are they assuming that "all whites come from the same background"? Or is the point to compile and analyze statistics at an aggregate level? Jeez .... run a comparison of Income Level by Zip Code and nobody says a word. But run a comparison of Income Level by Race and all hell breaks loose.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Once again, you’re attempting to boil down to completely separate issues to fit your narrow argument. Affirmative action isn’t about \ political appointees. Yet you’re arguing about political appointees, while ignoring that biased political appointments happen regardless of race, and regardless of political affiliation. What you haven’t realized about this that derails your argument, is that BOTH SIDES, both pro and anti-affirmative action don’t get very outraged over political patronage. So your pointing out just one side of that equation is meaningless.

Your capacity for obtuseness is rather impressive I must say. They are not completely separate issues. The issue is supposedly one of merit. Right? If that is the case, then unqualified individuals should not get positions .... period. Across the board. Treat everybody equally right? Let me try this one last time and come at it from a different angle because I am certainly growing weary of debating the obvious with you ....

Let's say you have a Joe Sixpack ... a bonafide card-carrying member of the "angry white male" crowd and president of the local Rush Limbaugh fan club ... and he's up for a promotion at his company. He's the type that claims on a stack of bibles that promotions should be based upon merit and that's the way it ought to be and anything else is just downright "un-American". When promotion time comes around he along with a black male and a white female are in consideration for the position. Joe Sixpack has an MBA and a "gold level" sales volume. The black guy also has a "gold level" sales volume but he only has a Bachelor's degree. The white lady has a "silver level" sales volume and a Bachelor's degree.

Now let's say that the company "values diversity" and has a racially-based "affirmative action" program. And let's also say that the boss making the promotion decision has an uh, shall we say ... "personal relationship" with the white lady that's a not-so-well-kept secret around the office. If Joe Sixpack is truly honest in his "conservative" view that merit alone should factor into promotion decisions, then he would be equally upset if the black guy got the spot because of the "affirmative action" program (and let's say for the sake of discussion that such programs actually work like that ... which they don't) OR if the white lady got the spot because she gives toe-curling blowjobs to the boss. But if he finds himself getting more bent out of shape over the black guy getting the spot than he does the white lady ... then that right there is the point of my comments in this thread.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

There’s no double standard based on merit, in fact, it’s your argument that seeks to create the double standard. You seek a measure of ‘merit’ for blacks that takes into consideration past atrocities, vs. another measure of merit for everyone else, (or to boil it down to your worldview, ‘whites’).

Oh please! I challenge you to find one comment of mine in this thread that says that merit takes into consideration past atrocities when it comes to blacks. The only thing I said past atrocities impacted with respect to blacks was the poverty rate in the African-American community. I didn't say a damned thing about job qualifications. You are really starting to embarrass yourself now. Repeat after me ...

"Reading is fundamental."

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

The conservative viewpoint holds that merit applies equally to everyone. ONE standard.

That's what conservative rhetoric purports. But quite obviously, that really isn't the conservative viewpoint. Hence the deafening silence from them when it comes to the rather blatant lack of qualifications of Bush's cronies at FEMA. And the resounding outcry from them when it comes to affirmative action programs. It's one standard when unqualified individuals get a position because of race, but quite another standard when equally unqualified individuals get a position because of political connections.

The issue here ... and the entire point of this thread is the difference between PROFESSED STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR and the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR ITSELF.

OAW

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW

Having said that, there are some more recent developments in said communities that certainly don't help the situation ... and in some cases make it worse. Drugs, crime, less vigorous pursuit of educational opportunities, etc. No sane person can deny that.

Amazing how you attempt to wax past this! Yeah, sure, in SOME cases “drugs, crime and less vigorous pursuit of educational opportunities etc. MIGHT make things worse for people! Gee, YA THINK?

As I said before, rather than make your useless lists and endlessly bitch about them to people that have absolutely NOTHING to do with them, why not: “…work to eliminate causes of poverty that ARE based on bad decisions and see how far it takes you toward overcoming your lists of historic atrocities?”

No, no, you can’t do that. That’s too hard and requires some actual effort from the individual. You’d rather keep blathering on expecting people who had nothing to do with past atrocities somehow to snap their fingers and voila! Make history change for you. Okay, well here goes: *snap!* Did it work, OAW? Did history change? Did past atrocities not happen? I wished really hard. Honestly. Anything? No?

Okay, so barring that approach to a problem, why not try something that MIGHT actually stand a chance of working? As in here in REALITY? You know, something like: “…work to eliminate causes of poverty that ARE based on bad decisions and see how far it takes you toward overcoming your lists of historic atrocities?”

Yeah, I know. I know. Make another list and keep blaming me, someone else, or some ‘group’ for it.

One thing to keep in mind is that racism is not personal. It never was, it isn't today, and it won't be tomorrow.

Yeah, yeah, we’ve heard. It’s subconscious. It’s subliminal. Whenever a white person sneezes, osmosis steals opportunity from a black person across town. Because education is now a zero sum game, when a white person cracks a book and learns advanced calculus, it subliminally causes a black person to be unable to.

Yup, knowledge, entrepreneurship, motivation, skill, drive- all are finite resources that once acquired by whites, are subconsciously denied to blacks.

The reality is that racism is a group phenomenon. It is the systematic mistreatment of one group of people by another group of people on the basis of "race".

This is your entire problem, ‘group-think’. You’re absolutely mired in it. No, I’m sorry, I don’t buy that the entire white race gets together and plot ways to practice racism against you, subconsciously or otherwise.

So again, it's not about every single individual white person or every single individual black person.

Of course it isn’t for you. Because this is called LIFE, and you seem deadest to avoid the realities of it. Life is indeed an individual endeavor. No one else, and no group can live yours for you, nor is anyone else ultimately responsible for your life.

The comparison is about white people as a group and black people as a group.

Which is 100% meaningless. What ‘group’ of white people? What ‘group’ of black people? All white people aren’t (despite your fantasies) part of the same group where they all have the same experiences, all have the same advantages/disadvantages. Nor are black people. Your insistence on lumping both into pat little one-vs-the-other groups is completely useless. It certainly won’t help a SINGLE black person accomplish A SINGLE THING. Nada. Zip. Squat.

Get out of your group-think. You and everyone else ARE individuals whether you realize it or not.

A purely ridiculous hypothetical situation proving absolutely nothing, culminating in:
But if he finds himself getting more bent out of shape over the black guy getting the spot than he does the white lady ... then that right there is the point of my comments in this thread.

So the point of your thread is to get bent out of shape about some MADE UP situation where a non-existent person is upset over a complete nonsense hypothetical? Whooooosh. First of all, WHO THE F CARES which upsets your imagined character more? What the F has this got to do with anything other than your obsession with dividing people up by racial groups?

Oh please! I challenge you to find one comment of mine in this thread that says that merit takes into consideration past atrocities when it comes to blacks.

You claimed it was a double-standard that conservatives apply merit to minorities. Why would this be a double-standard when merit applies equally to everyone? Once again, you’re not arguing for equality, or this would go without saying. Your gripe is that you don’t feel you benefit from enough political patronage that you imagine that every white person somehow has the power to float every other white person. When it’s been pointed out to you that even political patronage doesn’t happen just among whites, or Republicans or whoever your bogeymen are, you want to pretend that fact isn’t relevant. Well of course you’d like it not to be relevant. It destroys your non-argument.

That's what conservative rhetoric purports. But quite obviously, that really isn't the conservative viewpoint. Hence the deafening silence from them when it comes to the rather blatant lack of qualifications of Bush's cronies at FEMA. And the resounding outcry from them when it comes to affirmative action programs.

Did you get passed over for the FEMA position or something? I’m sure this is just a situation that affects you virtually every day of your waking life to be passed over for FEMA positions. Yes, sure, because ALL presidents make political crony appointments, let’s justify another wrong that affects tens of thousands more jobs and positions in the private sector. No apples to oranges there!

It's one standard when unqualified individuals get a position because of race, but quite another standard when equally unqualified individuals get a position because of political connections.

So go insist Jesse Jackson Jr. resign and not use his political connections (like everyone else in politics does) if this so outrages you. Obviously he and all other political figures using their connections so deeply diminishes your life.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

You claimed it was a double-standard that conservatives apply merit to minorities. Why would this be a double-standard when merit applies equally to everyone? Once again, you’re not arguing for equality, or this would go without saying. Your gripe is that you don’t feel you benefit from enough political patronage that you imagine that every white person somehow has the power to float every other white person. When it’s been pointed out to you that even political patronage doesn’t happen just among whites, or Republicans or whoever your bogeymen are, you want to pretend that fact isn’t relevant. Well of course you’d like it not to be relevant. It destroys your non-argument.

As I said before, you have serious issues with reading comprehension. Going back and forth with you has proven to be futile because you keep arguing with yourself over things I never said and positions I never took. See above for a case in point. I never once said anything about me (or black people in general) not benefiting from political patronage jobs. The only person who went there was you. So you keep pointing out that political patronage jobs benefit black and white, democrat and republican, liberal and conservative ... and you get frustrated because I'm not running off on that tangent with you. And there are two very simple reasons why I haven't done so ....

1. You are arguing a point that is not and never was in dispute.

2. The fact that political patronage can benefit both black and white individuals does not in any way negate my central point which is that the conservative position of "merit alone" often gets a big pass when political hookups are being made. Whether the political hookup goes to a black person or a white person is utterly irrelevant! It is still going (at least in these cases) to people who are clearly unqualified. So even Stevie Wonder can see that "merit equally applies to everyone" is simply not true ... despite claims to the contrary.

The fact that you persist in denying the obvious just goes to show that common sense isn't always that common. So like I said before .... tell yourself whatever you have to tell yourself.

OAW

[Spliffdaddy]

So, in other words, you didn't make any points. You just typed several paragraphs of nonsense.

What, may I ask *was* your point?

Because I certainly can't figure it out.

From here, it looks like you made some assertions and they were subsequently rebutted - so now you're backing away from everything you typed.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

So, in other words, you didn't make any points. You just typed several paragraphs of nonsense.

What, may I ask *was* your point?

Because I certainly can't figure it out.

From here, it looks like you made some assertions and they were subsequently rebutted - so now you're backing away from everything you typed.

I'll just mention Proverbs 23:9 and call it a day ...

"Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words."



OAW

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by OAW

I'll just mention Proverbs 23:9 and call it a day ...

"Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words."



OAW

Your basic problem is that your premise was based on a strawman. I don't know any conservatives who believe in pure objective merit as the only criteria for hiring someone. That's kind of a Marxist concept, and would require the government to force people to ignore all the usual interpersonal and familial relationships that conservatives by and large revere.

The conservative argument that you are misstating is a lot less radical than that. It's simply that the Constitution and people's independent sense of morals rejects the use of racism to sort people into categories. Because Affirmative Action relies on racism, conservatives tend to reject it. Liberals ought to take pride in that as a triumph of their values, but strangely, liberals seem to have embraced racism in recent years.

However, neither the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment nor any conservative's sense of morals requires complete egalitarianism in other areas. Indeed, conservatives tend to think that the government has no place forcing people into private associations that they don't want, and conservatives tend also to think that there is nothing wrong with helping one's children, or others in the community.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by OAW

I'll just mention Proverbs 23:9 and call it a day ...

"Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words."



OAW

Spliffdaddy 17:12

"You know you won the debate when your opponent starts quoting Bible verses."

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Your basic problem is that your premise was based on a strawman. I don't know any conservatives who believe in pure objective merit as the only criteria for hiring someone. That's kind of a Marxist concept, and would require the government to force people to ignore all the usual interpersonal and familial relationships that conservatives by and large revere.

The conservative argument that you are misstating is a lot less radical than that. .......

So in other words, the conservative position is to pick and choose when and where merit applies!

Well at least someone has finally admitted it! But again, that just reiterates my central point. IIRC you are a lawyer or are currently in law school. I don't remember which. So here's a case in point that you might appreciate ...

You say that you "don't know of any conservatives who believe in pure objective merit" and that conservatives don't want to be forced to ignore "all the usual interpersonal and familial relationships". Ok. That's cool. But as I see it, let there be a law school that has an affirmative action program (i.e. The University of Michigan) and a black student gets in with a lower LSAT score than some white student who was denied admission ... then all of a sudden it's all about "objective merit"! This is a fact Simey because these same "conservatives" who won't say a word about "Heather" who gets into a prestigious law school with a lower LSAT than some white male who was denied because her daddy is an alumnus will have an all out hissy fit if "Aisha" gets in with the exact same test score because of an affirmative action program. This happens all the time! Conservatives rail about it on talk radio. They organize political action against it and get confused African-Americans like Ward Connerly to spearhead it in order to provide political cover against charges of racism. So it seems to me that if it was truly about the test score ... if it was truly about "merit" ... then they would be equally upset about either situation. But that simply isn't the way it goes down. When was the last time you've seen organized political action against legacy "hookups"? Especially considering how with the relative dearth of minorities on campus at such prestigious schools .... the numbers of those who get in with lesser credentials due to "legacy hookups" far exceeds the number of minorities with lesser credentials who get in due to AA! (Stay tuned ... I'll address that last statement again later just to show you that I'm not just pulling this out of my ass. )

Now of course, admissions take into account additional criteria besides test scores ... but in cases like this that is the only one that seems to matter to the conservative crowd when they make their arguments against AA. So in a nutshell, if you are a student with a higher score who was denied admission to a prestigious law school while another student with a lesser score was admitted ... and you choose to make a big issue over the test score and argue that you should have been admitted because yours was higher .... then the reason why the other student with the lesser score was admitted ought to be irrelevant. And if it is not irrelevant and you find yourself more bent out of shape if "Jamal" got in than if "Brandon" got in when their scores were the same .... then I submit that there are other uh, "motivations" in the mix.

Some interesting background material ....

An excerpt from an interview on PBS NewsHour regarding the Univ. of Michigan case:

"WALTER HARRISON: No, we don't reject people automatically. There is a very small group of extremely high aptitude students with almost perfect grades and almost perfect GPA's that we will automatically accept. But that's a very tiny, small part. Everyone else gets reviewed by a counselor. She then goes through the application, looks at all the things, reads the essay. Then she will apply what we call SCUGA points. SCUGA points are the factors that we look at that measure this whole range of factors that we consider, in addition to grades and test scores.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Applicants get SCUGA points if they come from a top quality high school, or from an under-represented part of the state or country, if their immediate family attended the university, or if they are minorities. Next, the grade point is recalculated adding the SCUGA points, if any. Then the grid, with its different lines based on race, is used. But Harrison insists this is not a dual admissions policy.

WALTER HARRISON: It would be a dual admissions policy if we selected them from different pools. We just have one pool of applicants. We just look at different qualifications in those applications. Race is--we have been very up front about this--we consider race as a factor. We consider race as one of a number of factors. It's not the most important factor. It's not even close. GPA--that is to say your high school academics--would be the most important thing we look at. So in the case of Jennifer Gratz, in the year that she applied, there are white students with her grades and test scores who were accepted. And there are black students with her grades and test scores who were rejected. Why is that, you say--because of all these other factors and all these other things the counselor is looking at."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/educa...gan_12-22.html

So in the Univ. of Michigan situation, we have several non-objective, non-merit based factors that are openly acknowledged as "additional factors" that are considered when it comes to admission:

- Top Quality High School
- Under-represented part of the country
- Immediate family attended the university
- Member of a minority group

Now not one of these things has a damned thing to do with grades or test scores. But the only one that gets the "conservative" crowd up in arms is minority status it seems. If you get into a Northeastern school with lower grades and test scores with a boost because you are from the South that's cool ... but if you get that boost because you are a minority all hell breaks loose. Now why do you think that is?

Regarding the Univ. of Texas case ...

"In addition to the Michigan suits, the CIR has challenged affirmative action programs at the University of Washington and the University of Texas on behalf of rejected White applicants. In Texas, a three-judge panel of the 5th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of CIR’s clients, effectively ending the use of affirmative action in admissions, scholarships, hiring and financial aid programs at all state colleges and universities. The court did so even though more than 100 Whites with lower test scores and grade-point averages were accepted. In the state of Washington, the 9th Circuit did just the opposite, holding that public institutions could use race as a factor in admissions. In addition to suing universities over affirmative action, CIR represented an anti-affirmative action Proposition 209 group in California."

http://www.sacobserver.com/community...e_divides2.htm

So you have some white students who got all bent out of shape because some black students were admitted with lower test scores and GPAs when they weren't .... but nary a peep out of them about the more than 100 white students who were admitted with lower test scores and GPAs. Again ... why do you think that is?

Finally, let me get back to that point I made earlier that I said I would address again. Here's an excerpt from a book ... Affirmative Action: Racial Preference In Black And White (Positions: Education, Politics and Culture) ... by Tim Wise (a white guy BTW) who tackles a lot of the myths and misconceptions surrounding AA programs:

"Some Preferences Are More Equal Than Others: White Racial Preference in Admissions

It is worth noting that for all the complaints about the so-called preferences for students of color, affirmative action critics are remarkably silent about the much larger system of preferences that works to the benefit of the children of alumni. At most schools - and especially the elite colleges and universities with the most aggressive affirmative action programs - there are far more "legacy" admissions than there are students who benefit from affirmative action; and because of the historic barriers that for many generations excluded blacks and other students of color from those schools, almost all of the students admitted as legacies with be white and mostly affluent. At Ivy League schools, as just one example, ninety-six percent of living alums are white, meaning that almost all of the beneficiaries of legacy preference will also be white. In other words, there are far more middle-class, working-class, and poor whites being "bumped" from the college of their choice because of these handouts to legacies than are being bumped for all the students of color combined.

At Harvard, the admission rate for nonlegacies is fifteen percent, but for legacies the rate is nearly forty percent, despite that legacy applicants tend to have lower SAT scores than regular applicants. In fact, if the 1988 freshman class at Harvard had been admitted at the same rate as nonlegacies (in other words, had legacies not received "preferential treatment"), two hundred fewer legacies would have been admitted. This is a larger number than all the people of color admitted that year, with or without the help of affirmative action. Nationally, anywhere from twelve to twenty-five percent of each freshman class at top schools will be filled by the children of alumni, which is far more than the number admitted because of so-called racial preference for people of color.

Not only do conservatives rarely complain about, let alone seek to abolish, alumni preferences that benefit whites, but indeed many of the folks who complain about so-called preferences for people of color are quick to demand that such white preferences remain in place. In 1996, just one year after the regents of the University of California voted to abolish affirmative action in the University of California system, it was revealed that the same regents had been doling out slots at UCLA to the children of well-connected contributors and political allies. Two years later, after public outcry, the regents voted to allow these special "backdoor" admissions for the well connected to remain in place, in addition to the preferences granted to children of alumni, who receive preferential review and can be admitted, despite lower GPAs."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0415...3D#reader-page

I don't even need to add anything to that because it sums up the point of this thread rather nicely. The numbers and his very logical argument speaks for itself.

OAW

[Spliffdaddy]

nah. he's just a "confused" white guy.

Sorta like the "confused" black folks you mention who disagree with him.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

nah. he's just a "confused" white guy.

Sorta like the "confused" black folks you mention who disagree with him.

You know I put that comment in there just for you figuring that you would hone in on that and none of the more substantive points raised. And I'll be damned if you didn't take the bait!

Your complete lack of a counter-argument to the points raised ... your failure to even attempt to refute any of the facts and arguments presented speaks volumes. I rest my case.

OAW

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by OAW

So in the Univ. of Michigan situation, we have several non-objective, non-merit based factors that are openly acknowledged as "additional factors" that are considered when it comes to admission:

- Top Quality High School
- Under-represented part of the country
- Immediate family attended the university
- Member of a minority group

Now not one of these things has a damned thing to do with grades or test scores. But the only one that gets the "conservative" crowd up in arms is minority status it seems. If you get into a Northeastern school with lower grades and test scores with a boost because you are from the South that's cool ... but if you get that boost because you are a minority all hell breaks loose. Now why do you think that is?

What this really boils down to is that you raised a strawman, and now you are admitting as such. Your strawman argument was that conservatives advocate purely merit-based admissions (and presumably hiring also, but you only talk about college). Now you introduce examples that show that conservatives have no objection to the inclusion of certain factors that don't implicate racism. What you call hypocrisy is in fact just your dishonest choice to put words in people's mouths. Deal with the arguments that people actually raised. The actual argument is that race should not be among the factors, because race as a factor is unconstitutional and immoral.

That's why using race as a criteria is different from using those other factors -- family, geography, having gone to a smaller school underrepresented in the applicant pool, being a veteran, etc. None of those other factors are constitutionally protected the way race is. None of those other factors systematically deny opportunities to racial minorities -- and that is the reason for the constitutional amendment.

So now you have admitted your strawman, let's deal with the actual point of disagreement -- is it acceptable or not for state-funded institutions to use racism (and specifically racism) in making admission decisions? It's a simple question, and you don't have to look at any other non-race-based factors to answer it. My answer is that it is not. Your answer seems to be that it is acceptable, provided it is racism in favor of minorities. My question to you is why is it you like some kinds of racism, but not others? How can you justify racism in the name of anti-racism?

That's an inconsistency. You can see that by flipping the result around. What if organizations subject to the 14th Amendment (that is, states, and state funded organizations like state universities) were free to choose to deny blacks opportunities by using race "as a factor", would you be as supportive? If The University of Michigan had two equal candidates, but one was white, and the other were black, and they said, "well, its really a tossup, but we don't like black people around here, let's pick the white guy" would you be OK with that? If not, why not? One test of equality is that the result should seem equally fair no matter which direction the result comes out. If your answer is different depending on the answer, then you aren't defending equality. If that answer depends on race, then you are defending racism. Is that your position? Are you defending racism?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

What this really boils down to is that you raised a strawman, and now you are admitting as such. Your strawman argument was that conservatives advocate purely merit-based admissions (and presumably hiring also, but you only talk about college). Now you introduce examples that show that conservatives have no objection to the inclusion of certain factors that don't implicate racism. What you call hypocrisy is in fact just your dishonest choice to put words in people's mouths.

Oh really? Well let's just take a look at the words of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent on the Univ. of Michigan Law School case ...

There is much to be said for the view that the use of tests and other measures to "predict" academic performance is a poor substitute for a system that gives every applicant a chance to prove he can succeed in the study of law. The rallying cry that in the absence of racial discrimination in admissions there would be a true meritocracy ignores the fact that the entire process is poisoned by numerous exceptions to "merit." For example, in the national debate on racial discrimination in higher education admissions, much has been made of the fact that elite institutions utilize a so-called "legacy" preference to give the children of alumni an advantage in admissions. This, and other, exceptions to a "true" meritocracy give the lie to protestations that merit admissions are in fact the order of the day at the Nation's universities.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/symposium-aa/bell.php

So here we have the favorite African-American lapdog of the right acknowledging that this is in fact a "rallying cry" for the opponents of AA ... and rather ironically and accurately disagreeing with that assessment. And while he went on to refer to such practices as legacy admissions et al as "unseemly" and "arbitrary", he voted against AA nevertheless ... despite the fact that he himself benefitted from such programs ... just like a good little confused and self-hating Negro is supposed to do. Yeah ... I suppose that last remark was a bit of a dig, but I wonder at times if the typical white American truly understands the extent to which this man is persona non grata in the African-American community. I mean the man is nearly universally reviled .... on the order of 95% .... and for good reason. But anyway, I digress. The point is that Clarence Thomas .... the most conservative member of the Supreme Court next to Antonin Scalia .... is himself acknowledging the existence of the "meritocracy" argument in the very case I cited.

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

That's why using race as a criteria is different from using those other factors -- family, geography, having gone to a smaller school underrepresented in the applicant pool, being a veteran, etc. None of those other factors are constitutionally protected the way race is. None of those other factors systematically deny opportunities to racial minorities -- and that is the reason for the constitutional amendment.

Well apparently you overlooked the part in my last post that discussed this very thing. So I'll provide the quote again ....

At Ivy League schools, as just one example, ninety-six percent of living alums are white, meaning that almost all of the beneficiaries of legacy preference will also be white. In other words, there are far more middle-class, working-class, and poor whites being "bumped" from the college of their choice because of these handouts to legacies than are being bumped for all the students of color combined.

So your contention that these "other factors" don't "systematically deny opportunities to racial minorities" flies in the face of reality and defies simple common sense. If for decades in the past schools systematically denied admissions to racial minorities then anyone with more than an ounce of intelligence and intellectual honesty can see that "legacy" admissions are a de facto preference for white students. Sure as time goes on there may be increasing numbers of racial minorities who are able to utilize that avenue, but the fact remains that at present it highly favors the children of those who benefitted from undue preferences in the past. Certainly "legacy" admissions are not explicitly discriminatory on the basis of race ... but they definitely have a discriminatory effect that can't be plausibly denied.

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

So now you have admitted your strawman, let's deal with the actual point of disagreement -- is it acceptable or not for state-funded institutions to use racism (and specifically racism) in making admission decisions? It's a simple question, and you don't have to look at any other non-race-based factors to answer it. My answer is that it is not. Your answer seems to be that it is acceptable, provided it is racism in favor of minorities. My question to you is why is it you like some kinds of racism, but not others? How can you justify racism in the name of anti-racism?

Talk about a "strawman" argument. Your use of the term "racism" above is rather uh, "hyperbolic" and certainly not accurate given the definition of the term itself.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=*&q=racism

AA programs certainly don't support or advocate the superiority of one race over another as indicated in the primary definition. Furthermore, regarding the secondary definition they definitely don't foster discriminatory or prejudicial effects against whites as evidenced by the fact that the overwhelming majority of college and university campuses are still "bastions of whiteness" despite AA. But enough about vocabulary. Back to the issue at hand which is whether race can be used in making admission decisions. And as you noted, my answer is a qualified "Yes". Why? Because I approach this situation from a "real-world" perspective ... and not from some academic and theoretical vantage point. A few reasons ...

1. The reality is that outright, blatant, virulent, and apartheid-style racist practices were the order of the day in this country for decades after the slavery era ... and for centuries if one includes the slavery era. The effects of this linger today. The reality on the ground in October 2005 is without question negatively impacted by these past practices. In other words, when you look at the white community as a whole and black community as a whole ... they simply are not on the same level playing field as a direct result of these practices. Quite frankly, those who claim otherwise are clearly delusional.

2. The reality is that today racism is alive and well. For the most part, it is certainly not as virulent and blatant as in the past and that is undeniable progress. But there is a long way to go because the form that it takes now is a lot more subtle and insidious. Job, wage, housing, etc. discrimination still exists despite the denials and "head in the sand" mentality on the part of a lot of white Americans. Take a look at any of the "undercover discrimination testers" series on shows like 20/20, PrimeTime Live, etc. The shows where they send in two equally qualified, similarly dressed individuals with essentially identical resumes into various situations. What they all consistently show is that African-American person routinely received negatively disparate treatment ... albeit with a polite smile. Whether that was "the job has been filled" comments when the white guy who came in 10 minutes before was told that it wasn't. Or an "the apartment is no longer available" comment when the white lady who came in previously was shown the still empty but supposed "unavailable" apartment. Or whether it was the African-American person being quoted an interest rate for a car loan that was several points higher despite having identical incomes and credit ratings as the white tester. Did such "racist with a smile" treatment happen every single time? No. But it happened routinely enough to prove without a doubt that racism and discrimination is still a clear and present reality in this country ... despite the denials by the majority of white America.

3. As the late, great abolitionist orator Frederick Douglass once said .... "Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will." It would be most ridiculous to expect that the deleterious effects of the realities mentioned in points 1 and 2 above will be addressed and eliminated by a policy of willful blindness to them! You can't overcome the effects of disproportionate poverty in the African-American community which definitely impacts college admission rates by pretending that such poverty is not a direct result of the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. You can't overcome the effects of present-day discriminatory behavior by pretending that African-Americans are suffering from some sort of mass hallucination when they talk about the realities they face to one degree or another on a daily basis. The fact of the matter is that there are those who must be compelled to do right. The white majority ... and in many rural areas the white minority ... in the South didn't end discrimination in public facilities and outright segregationist policies out of the goodness of their hearts. They had to be made to do it. As a wise man once said ... "Even the devil can do right under the gun." So to rely solely upon the "sense of fairness" of a group of people with a demonstrated history of discriminatory attitudes and behavior towards people of color to overcome the pre-exisiting deficit resulting from points 1 and 2 above would be the height of foolishness at best ... and the epitome of delusional thinking at worst.

So while the so-called "reverse discrimination" arguments sound good on paper ... they ignore the reality that the very term presupposes the existence of discrimination itself. Furthermore, when such "anti-reverse discrimination" arguments are made vociferously by people whose "anti-discrimination" rhetoric is lackluster at best .... when such people share a political ideology that has a long and demonstrated history of outright hostility to the interests of African-Americans ... from the support of slavery .... to the support of Jim Crow and segregation laws ... to the support of local Conservative Citizens Councils (CCC) throughout the South that were led by people who wore suits by day and white sheets and hoods by night .... to the opposition to anti-lynching legislation ... to the opposition of Brown vs. Board of Education ... to the opposition to civil rights legislation including but not limited to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 .... all the way to the opposition to Affirmative Action ... well let's just say that I am somewhat skeptical regarding the motivations of such individuals. I find it incensing, though on a certain level quite amusing as well, how those who oppose AA actually have the nerve to quote Dr. Martin Luther King today when they loathed the man and everything he stood for when he was alive.

So the question really becomes, given the reality that racism is a force that is alive and well in America ... what is the most effective counter-force when it comes to college and university admissions? If not AA, then what? Or do we just pretend that the realities of race in America simply don't exist and institute so-called "colorblind" policies that will have the de facto effect of maintaining the privilege of the white majority?

OAW

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by OAW

So while the so-called "reverse discrimination" arguments sound good on paper ... they ignore the reality that the very term presupposes the existence of discrimination itself. Furthermore, when such "anti-reverse discrimination" arguments are made vociferously by people whose "anti-discrimination" rhetoric is lackluster at best .... when such people share a political ideology that has a long and demonstrated history of outright hostility to the interests of African-Americans ... from the support of slavery .... to the support of Jim Crow and segregation laws ... to the support of local Conservative Citizens Councils (CCC) throughout the South that were led by people who wore suits by day and white sheets and hoods by night .... to the opposition to anti-lynching legislation ... to the opposition of Brown vs. Board of Education ... to the opposition to civil rights legislation including but not limited to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 .... all the way to the opposition to Affirmative Action ... well let's just say that I am somewhat skeptical regarding the motivations of such individuals. I find it incensing, though on a certain level quite amusing as well, how those who oppose AA actually have the nerve to quote Dr. Martin Luther King today when they loathed the man and everything he stood for when he was alive.

Are you suggesting that everyone who opposes government-sponsored racism (Affirmative Action) is a racist and a Klan sympathizer? Don't you think that is a bit of an extreme position?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Are you suggesting that everyone who opposes government-sponsored racism (Affirmative Action) is a racist and a Klan sympathizer? Don't you think that is a bit of an extreme position?

Not at all. What I'm saying is that political conservatism has a track record when it comes to racial issues. And it's not all that pretty. So one can make certain reasonable determinations regarding the true motivations behind their opposition given the fact that the proponents of this ideology have a decidedly anti-minority track record. But having said that .... as quiet as it's kept, I wouldn't personally get too upset if race-based preferences were eliminated as long as all the other non-merit based preferences were eliminated as well ... and the admissions process got over its obsession with standardized tests. Again, as my original post indicated ... it's the hypocrisy of it all that irritates me more than anything else.

OAW

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by himself

The question isn't whether you are consciously “oppressing” anyone. In fact, the phenomenon is largely unconscious. It is deeply ingrained into our society, to the point where it can be considered institutional. America became what it is today largely due to racism, after all. So, why would it be such a stretch? In this environment, I'd say it is nearly impossible for anyone raised in America (or possibly anywhere in the world) to not carry at least a portion of the seeds of racism. It is everywhere we look, and we humans are all too efficient at pre-judging and stereotyping. Therefore, I'd also say that anyone, whatever their color, who insists that they aren't racist (even a little bit) is likely delusional, or at least in denial. The only real way to combat it is on an individual basis, and to first acknowledge that it is there to begin with. So, again, the question isn't whether you're making a conscious effort to oppress anyone, but what are you doing to understand your role?

Oh dear. This kind of crap is what George Orwell was trying to warn us about.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Anyone whose biggest worry in life is some “unconscious oppression” bullcrap has already enslaved THEMSELVES.

Talk about free your mind and your ass will follow…

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by OAW

Not at all. What I'm saying is that political conservatism has a track record when it comes to racial issues. And it's not all that pretty. So one can make certain reasonable determinations regarding the true motivations behind their opposition given the fact that the proponents of this ideology have a decidedly anti-minority track record. But having said that .... as quiet as it's kept, I wouldn't personally get too upset if race-based preferences were eliminated as long as all the other non-merit based preferences were eliminated as well ... and the admissions process got over its obsession with standardized tests. Again, as my original post indicated ... it's the hypocrisy of it all that irritates me more than anything else.

OAW

You seem to have this habit of denying that you are doing something, and then doing the very thing that you deny you are doing. Here, I asked you whether you think that anyone who opposes the use of race discrimination in the form of Affirmative Action (which is just a euphamism for affirmatively discriminating on the basis of race in favor of some and against others) means that those opponants are racists. You say "not at all" -- and then you post a screed about how people who oppose AA are conservatives with a track record of racism. That's contradictory.

If you can't concede that people might disagree with you without being racists, then you aren't going to get very far. It's appropriate to call an individual racist if it is supported by real evidence that the individual is racist. But just because someone disagrees with you on a policy question or reads the Constitution more strictly than you do is not enough to lob a blanket charge like that.

[Troll]

I like OAW's track race analogy. As a white person born in South Africa, I benefit from a base of stability and education and wealth and property and power that society and government have been applying their resources to strengthen for hundreds of years. It took me a while to recognise that. It's hard for me to perceive the advantage I have but I know that it does exist because I notice that it's missing in other communities. People who grew up in colonial countries benefitted from the same racism in equal measure. Their base was created at the expense of others. In the US, it's probably more difficult to identify the advantage and perhaps in rare cases, there is no advantage (although figures suggest otherwise). The equivalent base in the black community in South Africa was consciously and systematically destroyed as it was at one point in the USA and rebuilding the foundations will take generations.

11 years ago, OAW's race stopped in South Africa. The powers that be recognised they had a problem with the white team 500 yards ahead and the black team shackled and weighted down. They decided for reasons of justice and expediency it wasn't right to leave things the way they were. If you'd been the referee of the race at the time it was stopped what would you do? What we toyed with in South Africa was making the white runner go backwards 500 yards. Impose a massive once off tax, nationalise some property, send a few whiteys to jail and do some other things to punish the white team. That doesn't work because it's too high a price to pay for the white team and because in most cases the runners on the track aren't responsible for their lead. They'd leave the race if you tried to punish them. Affirmative action was a compromise. It is designed to slow the white runner down a little and speed the black runner up a little so that a few laps from now, they'll be running next to each other. Then, you can stop the race again, take all of the restrictions off and let them compete on the same terms.

Personally, I object to the label of racism being applied to AA. AA is discrimination but it's positive discrimination. For me racism by definition is negative discrimination. The purpose of AA is to benefit and uplift. The purpose of racism is to destroy. I don't think they should be used interchangeably. Affirmative action works. All you need to do is go to South Africa and stand outside a high school or sit in a board meeting for a South African company and observe it working. Wealth and power are being gradually redistributed with relatively low levels of violence because of the recognition that the wrongs of the past need to be addressed to create true equality. The transformation is happening faster than I anticipated. Of course, in South Africa affirmative action is written into the Constitution and is specifically recognised as not being racism. Hopefully in a few decades time, South Africa will be able to scrap it. I don't know why it isn't working as well as some people would like it to in the US but I think it's wrong to throw the baby out with the bath water.

What I think is even more wrong is that those who want to scrap it, don't have a plan for bridging the gap. Basically because they don't acknowledge the gap. I don't know if this is what OAW was hinting at and I don't intend to call anyone a racist, but I think it definitely shows some kind of prejudice to either deny that there is a gap at all or to blame the gap on something other than the manifestation of present or past racial inequalities. I mean, if race isn't responsible for the gap, then what is? It's hard to get an answer to that question out of opponents of AA that doesn't sound like racism.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Troll

Personally, I object to the label of racism being applied to AA. AA is discrimination but it's positive discrimination. For me racism by definition is negative discrimination.

What if I were to say that I was only going to employ white folks because it would make the workforce more integrated? What's negative about that? The only difference between positive or negative discrimination is in your own perceptions.

Positive or negative discrimination - it's all wrong if it's based on skin colour. Spliffy has it right - the best bloke for the job should get it, regardless of race.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Doofy

What if I were to say that I was only going to employ white folks because it would make the workforce more integrated? What's negative about that? The only difference between positive or negative discrimination is in your own perceptions.

Discrimination for workforce integration is not recognised as a good. You might see it as a good, but society generally doesn't. There is no law or other manifestation of society's values that says discriminating for the purpose of integrating a workforce is positive. In fact, you'll find quite the opposite is true. So, basically workforce integration is not seen as a good that trumps non-discrimination. Discriminating in order to redress past injustices is seen as a good and there are laws confirming that that kind of discrimination IS seen as positive.

You have a point that it's about perceptions but it's not personal perceptions that count; it's the perceptions of the society you're in.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Positive or negative discrimination - it's all wrong if it's based on skin colour. Spliffy has it right - the best bloke for the job should get it, regardless of race.

In the ideal world agreed. But in this world we're in, the best is often best because of his skin colour. He's running 500 yards behind the white guy because of injustices that happened earlier in the relay. If you keep choosing solely on the basis of who's best, then you perpetuate the gap between the teams.

[Dakar]

Personally, I think Affirmative Action has out-lived its usefulnesss. Now its just becoming part of the problem, which is making race conspicuous.

If minorities really think they're not being represented properly in the workplace, they should look towards education and preparation for the answer to the dilemma. Racism just isn't as prevalent as it used to be.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

You seem to have this habit of denying that you are doing something, and then doing the very thing that you deny you are doing. Here, I asked you whether you think that anyone who opposes the use of race discrimination in the form of Affirmative Action (which is just a euphamism for affirmatively discriminating on the basis of race in favor of some and against others) means that those opponants are racists. You say "not at all" -- and then you post a screed about how people who oppose AA are conservatives with a track record of racism. That's contradictory.

If you can't concede that people might disagree with you without being racists, then you aren't going to get very far. It's appropriate to call an individual racist if it is supported by real evidence that the individual is racist. But just because someone disagrees with you on a policy question or reads the Constitution more strictly than you do is not enough to lob a blanket charge like that.

Simey the only thing I can say to this is that you are coming to this conclusion because you see what you want to see in my words as opposed to what I actually said. This time pay attention to the flow and hopefully this might become a bit clearer for you ....

1. You asked whether I thought anyone who opposed AA was a racist.

2. I responded with "Not at all."

3. You then see what you want to see and conclude that I am denying something and then turn around and do the very thing I'm denying.


Now let me illuminate the error of your ways ....

First of all you didn't ask me if I thought political conservatives who opposed AA were racists .... you asked me if I thought anyone who opposed AA was a racist. My answer was, and still is, not at all. The fallacy in your thinking is that you are making an assumption that everyone who opposes AA is a political conservative! And that simply isn't true. In this thread I have made various comments regarding the anti-minority positions taken in conservative political ideology throughout the history of this country. Statements which haven't even been denied let alone refuted by the way. But in my last post I was responding to your question and attempting to differentiate between opposition to AA in general ... and the opposition to AA by political conservatives in particular. So all I'm saying is that opposition to AA per se does not equate to racism in and of itself. However, I am highly skeptical of the true motivations behind such opposition by political conservatives in particular because in addition to this opposition .... they were opposed to civil rights legislation, anti-lynching laws, desegregation, the ending of slavery, etc. So when one looks at conservative political ideology over time with regard to racial issues one sees a rather distinct pattern of anti-minority sentiment. Now again, pay attention to what I actually said. I'm not talking about the advocation of smaller government. I'm not talking about "strict constructionist" interpretation of the constitution. I'm not talking about supply-side economics. I'm not talking about the advocation of lower taxes. Or any of the other aspects to "conservative" political ideology. I'm speaking specifically about conservative political ideology with respect to issues involving race. So your contention that I am leveling a charge of racism merely because of a policy disagreement is simply inaccurate.

OAW