Racism

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Icon
 
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 11:32 am
@OctoberMist,
So it seems to me that all of these programs in place such as affirmative action and african american college funds and such (I only point those out because they are the most prominent) are really not building equality at all. If anything, they are enforcing the idea of inequality by giving special allowances for those of different race.

Would it not make more sense to abolish those acts in order to reach a truly equal status? It's like golf. If you are playing with a handicap, you are not actually as good as the non-handicapped player you just beat. So you should play without one to truly test your skills and be held as equal.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 12:00 pm
@Icon,
Icon wrote:
So it seems to me that all of these programs in place such as affirmative action and african american college funds and such (I only point those out because they are the most prominent) are really not building equality at all. If anything, they are enforcing the idea of inequality by giving special allowances for those of different race.


This is a popular argument, but one I do not buy. How are these programs enforcing the idea of inequality by helping disadvantaged people?

Icon wrote:
Would it not make more sense to abolish those acts in order to reach a truly equal status? It's like golf. If you are playing with a handicap, you are not actually as good as the non-handicapped player you just beat. So you should play without one to truly test your skills and be held as equal.


It's not like golf at all. We're not talking about which player is better, we're talking about the amount of humanity people see in others. Racism is seeing less humanity in certain other humans.

Segregation fosters racism - by separating people you deprive them of their ability to connect with one another. Segregation in the post-civil war south was not just an ideological position. Segregation was a way to keep poor blacks and poor whites from joining together; both groups faced the same economic problems and the two groups united scared the hell out of rich landowners.

Affirmative action promotes equality because it 1) brings diverse people together and 2) actively addresses economic inequality, economic inequality which is the result of racism and class warfare.
 
Icon
 
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 12:40 pm
@OctoberMist,
Perhaps I am just too sheltered but, as a white male, I am at the most disadvantage in the job market today. A man, with less knowledge or skill sets than myself, will get a job before me simply because of the color of his skin. This is how many people view these acts which simply builds contempt for those people of different race because they are getting "a free ride" while I have to work my rear end off just to find a suitable job. This is not how I view it but how many people view it. I make it a point to talk with as many people I can about as many subjects as I can and this is the end result almost every time for this subject.

An African American man is now President of the United States of America. There is no more inequality to be had. (I am aware that this is not true but hear me out) These programs were necessary when they started but they have out lived their usefulness in the modern world. I will bring up the femenist and women's rights movements. They were completely necessary when they started. I could not agree with that more. But now, women are wanting special treatment in the work place. They want to be in the military but don't feel like they should have to go through the same physical training as men. They want special treatment when financing a start-up company. They want to be treated better than equal which is throwing the balance off in the other direction. The same with African Americans. The only way to be truly equal to to be truly equal. If I don't get the job and another person does, I don't want it to be because of the color of their skin. I want it to be because they are better than me at that job. I want them to be more qualified, regardless of their race, creed or religion. If we are going to judge people, we need to do so as individuals and not as generalizations. These acts had their purpose and they have, for the most part, served it. But these aren't going to change those who are too ignorant to understand and so they are going to punish those who have caught up with the times in order to preach to deaf ears.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 12:51 pm
@Icon,
Icon wrote:
Perhaps I am just too sheltered but, as a white male, I am at the most disadvantage in the job market today. A man, with less knowledge or skill sets than myself, will get a job before me simply because of the color of his skin. This is how many people view these acts which simply builds contempt for those people of different race because they are getting "a free ride" while I have to work my rear end off just to find a suitable job. This is not how I view it but how many people view it. I make it a point to talk with as many people I can about as many subjects as I can and this is the end result almost every time for this subject.


If you really believe that you, a white male, faces the greatest disadvantage in today's world, then, yeah, that's pretty sheltered. You have not experienced the sort of racism that faces many people.

Many people believe a great many things. So what? Maybe the people you talk to are also white males?

Icon wrote:
An African American man is now President of the United States of America. There is no more inequality to be had. (I am aware that this is not true but hear me out) These programs were necessary when they started but they have out lived their usefulness in the modern world. I will bring up the femenist and women's rights movements. They were completely necessary when they started. I could not agree with that more. But now, women are wanting special treatment in the work place. They want to be in the military but don't feel like they should have to go through the same physical training as men. They want special treatment when financing a start-up company. They want to be treated better than equal which is throwing the balance off in the other direction. The same with African Americans. The only way to be truly equal to to be truly equal. If I don't get the job and another person does, I don't want it to be because of the color of their skin. I want it to be because they are better than me at that job. I want them to be more qualified, regardless of their race, creed or religion. If we are going to judge people, we need to do so as individuals and not as generalizations. These acts had their purpose and they have, for the most part, served it. But these aren't going to change those who are too ignorant to understand and so they are going to punish those who have caught up with the times in order to preach to deaf ears.


You state that you are aware that the claim "There is no more inequality to be had" is not true; are you aware that most everything else you say in this passage is either entirely false or a horrible misrepresentation of the truth?
Looking at the income disparity based on race and gender, neither affirmative action programs nor the feminist movement have outlived their usefulness.
Affirmative action is not preaching - it's effective policy for for addressing racial inequality and racism. Again, when you increase diversity, you combat bigotry.
 
Icon
 
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 12:52 pm
@OctoberMist,
Where do you get your information?


The reason I ask is because I live in a place where race doesn't matter. People look at you for your ideas and not the color of your skin. But I have also lived in places where a white kid like me would get shot for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And places where a black man was no better than a slave still to this day. I've seen both ends of the spectrum.

You keep coming up with this information but I wonder if you have actually spent the time to ask people what they think or if you just read some stats somewhere. Stats are good for one thing, BSing information. They are fake and cannot be verified. It's approximation math. If you think that approximations mean anything to the real people living these lifestyles and experiencing racism then I am rather confused as to how a number can represent a person or how they feel. The fact of the matter is that people, not just white or black, feel like these regulations are giving a negative image. A persons determination and ability should be the only way in which we judge them.

If you doubt my sincerity, I just recently became a member of the Blacks in Government (BIG) organization. I helped organize, survey and analyze their most recent Training Conference in New Orleans. I may be white but I am not sheltered. I know the people and I talk with them and that is where I get my information. Straight from the horses mouth so to speak. Equality cannot be forced upon others. Moral values cannot be dictated by government. People must come to these conclusions on their own or they will never truly learn. The more you force it upon them, the more they will resist. That is human nature and that is history. I don't need approximations to show me that.

To attempt to control the people is admitting moral defeat.
 
Solace
 
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 01:50 pm
@Icon,
I won't attempt to weigh in on this newest direction that this topic has taken, because I have lead a very sheltered life when it comes to racial issues. This isn't to say that I have been consciously protected, but rather I have been geographically isolated. About 99% of the people who live here are of my own ethnic background. For those wonderful rarities that do show up, we pretty much have a communal reaction, which amounts to, "Wow, someone not from here actually chose to come live here!? That's awesome (but confusing)."

That all being said, I must say that Icon has a valued point when he says

Quote:
To attempt to control the people is admitting moral defeat.


Others may disagree about how much that applies to these racial issues, but it does seem, from an outside point of view, to be rather poignant.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 02:15 pm
@Solace,
Icon wrote:
Where do you get your information?


To what information are you referring?

Icon wrote:
The reason I ask is because I live in a place where race doesn't matter.


May I ask where?

Icon wrote:
People look at you for your ideas and not the color of your skin. But I have also lived in places where a white kid like me would get shot for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And places where a black man was no better than a slave still to this day. I've seen both ends of the spectrum.


I grew up in the south and still live there today.

Icon wrote:
You keep coming up with this information but I wonder if you have actually spent the time to ask people what they think or if you just read some stats somewhere. Stats are good for one thing, BSing information. They are fake and cannot be verified. It's approximation math. If you think that approximations mean anything to the real people living these lifestyles and experiencing racism then I am rather confused as to how a number can represent a person or how they feel. The fact of the matter is that people, not just white or black, feel like these regulations are giving a negative image. A persons determination and ability should be the only way in which we judge them.


Information is fake and unverifiable? You'll have to do some convincing on that one.

Numbers cannot represent how a person feels. I never suggested numbers could do such a thing. But numbers can say a great deal - we know, as a matter of fact, that women, Hispanics, African Americans, and just about every other minority imaginable, earns less money in American than a white male.

I understand that many people oppose affirmative action, but their feelings about the issue do not change the fact that affirmative action increases diversity and helps people overcome disadvantages that some of us do not face.

Icon wrote:
If you doubt my sincerity, I just recently became a member of the Blacks in Government (BIG) organization. I helped organize, survey and analyze their most recent Training Conference in New Orleans. I may be white but I am not sheltered. I know the people and I talk with them and that is where I get my information. Straight from the horses mouth so to speak. Equality cannot be forced upon others. Moral values cannot be dictated by government. People must come to these conclusions on their own or they will never truly learn. The more you force it upon them, the more they will resist. That is human nature and that is history. I don't need approximations to show me that.


I do not doubt your sincerity. I think it's great that you are involved in the civil rights movement.

Equality cannot be forced, and morals cannot be dictated by government. Affirmative action does not attempt to do either of these things. Affirmative action does not enforce equality, affirmative action promotes equality. Affirmative action does not dictate morality, affirmative action attempts to alleviate a moral problem facing our nation.

Icon wrote:
To attempt to control the people is admitting moral defeat.


And the relevance to affirmative action is what? Affirmative action does not control anyone.
 
Solace
 
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 03:29 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Quote:

And the relevance to affirmative action is what? Affirmative action does not control anyone.


If a racist owns a business and is compelled, via affirmative action, to hire a minority, is this not a measure of control? For that matter, it could ruin his business if he can't put aside his prejudice and find a way to work with this employee that was forced upon him. If a non-racist owns a business and is compelled to hire a less qualified minority individual, is this, not only a measure of control, but also of oppression, since the lilklihood of this business' success depends directly on the ability of the workers? What exactly gives the government the right to ruin either man's business?

I know these examples may be considered extreme cases, but even in ordinary cases I don't see why any government should have the power to manage a man's livelihood. We in the west like to promote freedom, or is that just a lie? Without freedom is equality even possible? It seems to be that affirmative action is more about taking away freedom than relieving inequalities.
 
Icon
 
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 03:36 pm
@OctoberMist,
Austin Texas has almost NO racial distinction unless from people not from here.

Racism is a moral issue and an issue of how people feel about each other. Both feelings and morals are involved. Affirmative action is a government control of how many minorities must be hired to meet a quota. This quota is enforced regardless of skills or business needs. Thus it is a government control in place to force diversity.

You keep pointing out disadvantages in relation to affirmative action. Isn't this a form of racism? Seeing people as disadvantaged because of their skin color is the same thing as considering them to be inferior. Affirmative action promotes this idea. I am about equality in the purest form. The purest form of equality comes down to who has earned it more. I am also a proponent of dedication determines results. If you do not acheive something, it is because you did not try hard enough. Race should have no bearing on this. You are never going to rid the world of ignorance. That is a given. We know this. We can work at it for 1000 years and it will still be there. But affirmative action, as demonstrated by your comments is proving to do nothing more than change the shape of that ignorance. It went from disgust to pity. Instead of inferior, they are disadvantaged. With affirmative action, a minority is placed in higher priority than Joe Blow White-guy because of the color of his skin. This is still racism and inequality. It is just a different form.

The reason for the final statement in relation to affirmative action and racism is simple. When a government feels the need to control the people in a moral way, it has admitted that the people are far to ignorant to control themselves or conduct themselves in a moral manner. Once this has been admitted, all is lost. We cannot control morality. All we can do is combat ignorance.
 
Pangloss
 
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 03:45 pm
@OctoberMist,
Milton Friedman famously made similar arguments-- why should we not allow people to hire based on racism? That is their own choice. In an efficient market, racist hiring practices should put the person out of business anyway, because the competition (of non-racist businesses) will be hiring people who are only best qualified for the job. Also, these programs could hurt business owners who, by no fault of their own, might need to use racism in their hiring, as their patrons demand it. Some restaurant in an area down south, even though the owner is not racist himself, might need to hire all whites because the patrons of the restaurant will stop coming to eat (putting the owner out of business) if he hires black people. So why punish him?

A true libertarian could consciously support these arguments, if he were to ignore the history of this country. But, black people were held as property across the US less than 150 years ago, and when they became free, they had very little to zero net worth in their families with which they could use for themselves or their children to invest in homes, education, etc. They started out at a disadvantage, and they are still behind for this reason; compared to whites, on average, they have always had less net worth and were only able to get jobs with lower salaries. I don't know if affirmative action is the best way to make up for the disadvantage, but it is one way that seems to help.

Friedman also used to argue that we should strive for equality of opportunities, not equality of outcomes, and I agree. But he seemed to ignore the fact that black people simply would never have the same equality of opportunity as white people, without government intervention, because they did not have comparable wealth in their families. The discrepancy in net worth is a big "equality of opportunity" problem, along with unfair hiring and salaries based on prejudice.
 
Icon
 
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 03:52 pm
@OctoberMist,
Again, I am not arguing the good intention of affirmative action. I am not even arguing the need for it at the time. What I AM arguing is the need for it today. No one alive today was alive during slavery. No one today knows about slavery save for stories in history books. The ignorance that exists today is from years of seclusion. Today, an African American is President Elect. Today, there are more female and minority executives than white male. Today, the "minority" out numbers the "majority" in most major cities.

We can no longer treat it like the 1950's. This is the year 2008. A lot has changed in half a century. Our ideals, regulations and government need to start reflecting this change. Even more so, it should be the driving force of this change.
 
Pangloss
 
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 04:01 pm
@Icon,
Icon;34121 wrote:
Today, there are more female and minority executives than white male. Today, the "minority" out numbers the "majority" in most major cities.


Citations to back these claims please?

Quote:
We can no longer treat it like the 1950's. This is the year 2008. A lot has changed in half a century. Our ideals, regulations and government need to start reflecting this change. Even more so, it should be the driving force of this change.


Yea. But the issue of the net worth discrepancy (along with numerous other issues), compounded over generations of black families since the days of slavery, is still a problem. Affirmative action has not yet been around long enough to offset the inequality of opportunity problem that has been passed on through the generations. Ideally we should get to a point where we don't need affirmative action at all, but as of now, we haven't reached it.
 
Icon
 
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 04:12 pm
@Pangloss,
Pangloss wrote:
Citations to back these claims please?

Google it. I did and came to the results that, in the USA, 57% of executives are Female or Minority. I am not including only major corporations. This is an avergae through all class of company


Pangloss wrote:

Yea. But the issue of the net worth discrepancy (along with numerous other issues), compounded over generations of black families since the days of slavery, is still a problem. Affirmative action has not yet been around long enough to offset the inequality of opportunity problem that has been passed on through the generations. Ideally we should get to a point where we don't need affirmative action at all, but as of now, we haven't reached it.


My point is, if we havn't reached it yet then it is obvious that we are traking the wrong tactic. We turn a national budget around in 8 years but we can't turn this around in 5 generations? We aren't doing something right. Regardless, what about those who DO excel and do well as a minority? If we were holding them all back then none of them would do well but they are. And what about the fact that most minorities admit to being more racists than white people? How is affirmative action helping that situation? How is our education system, which is forcing our children to learn spanish so they can get along with the hispanic kids, helping the situation? How is making exceptions changing anything? It isn't. All it is doing is making anglo Americans more timid when dealing with minorities. This is not the answer. We need to teach how to ignore racial discrimination through teaching of culture. We need to allow these kids to excel without even thinking about race or gender. Baby-ing them is doing nothing for the situation. It is not helping and this is obvious through the lack of results. Frankly, we need higher expections for our children and our adults.
 
Pangloss
 
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 04:27 pm
@Icon,
Icon;34128 wrote:
Google it. I did and came to the results that, in the USA, 57% of executives are Female or Minority. I am not including only major corporations. This is an avergae through all class of company


No. You made the claims, you need to back them up with legitimate sources. That's not my responsibility; the burden of proof is on you.

The statement you make there, "57% are Female or minority" (which you don't cite) is problematic in itself. Noting that 57% of executives are either a woman or a minority tells us nothing specifically about women executives or minority executives for their own part. Maybe 50% are women (wouldn't be surprising) and 7% are minority. Does that sound good?

You also say that this is "through all class of company". Well, what, according to your statistic is a "company"? Does it mean any private business, or just corporations, or what? You need to be more specific. If you say that 57% are "executives" at companies, including anything from ExxonMobil down to Joe's Roadside Chicken Shack, then you are not saying anything. Your claims are incredibly dubious, and you need to cite your "facts" if they are so important for your argument.

In the last page, you stated:

Quote:

Stats are good for one thing, BSing information.


And you have apparently mastered this faulty use of statistics (or else someone has mastered you with their worthless statistics).



Quote:
My point is, if we havn't reached it yet then it is obvious that we are traking the wrong tactic. We turn a national budget around in 8 years but we can't turn this around in 5 generations? We aren't doing something right. Regardless, what about those who DO excel and do well as a minority? If we were holding them all back then none of them would do well but they are. And what about the fact that most minorities admit to being racists than white people? How is affirmative action helping that situation? How is our education system, which is forcing our children to learn spanish so they can get along with the hispanic kids, helping the situation? How is making exceptions changing anything? It isn't. All it is doing is making anglo Americans more timid when dealing with minorities. This is not the answer. We need to teach how to ignore racial discrimination through teaching of culture. We need to allow these kids to excel without even thinking about race or gender. Baby-ing them is doing nothing for the situation. It is not helping and this is obvious through the lack of results. Frankly, we need higher expections for our children and our adults.



Well, it really sounds like you just haven't been out in the world to meet some of these people that you claim don't need help. Talk to the 60+ year old black man who can still tell you of the time his friend was lynched down the street from his house, or how his family was intimidated by white people on a regular basis for being black...that was 1-2 generations ago, not 5. It still goes on today, and the discrepancy in net worth is still felt by black families today.

Here you made another bold claim, without supporting evidence, about the "fact" that "most minorities admit to being racists than white people". Interesting claim, got a citation for that one? I'm also not aware that the education system in general is "forcing" kids to learn spanish. Certainly you are free to attend a school where other languages are offered if you wish. Really it sounds like you have a lot of preconceptions here that are unverified, or else based on some suspect source that you have been reading.
 
validity
 
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 06:04 pm
@OctoberMist,
OctoberMist wrote:
Is Racism ever justified? Why or why not?


Racism is never justified. All humans have the same innate ability to achieve great things. This is not the case only by hindrance of circumstance or oppression.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 06:42 pm
@validity,
Solace wrote:
If a racist owns a business and is compelled, via affirmative action, to hire a minority, is this not a measure of control? For that matter, it could ruin his business if he can't put aside his prejudice and find a way to work with this employee that was forced upon him. If a non-racist owns a business and is compelled to hire a less qualified minority individual, is this, not only a measure of control, but also of oppression, since the lilklihood of this business' success depends directly on the ability of the workers? What exactly gives the government the right to ruin either man's business?


No. The racist goes into business knowing that he may be compelled to hire in this fashion, as does the second business man. They, of their own free will, entered into business and should have understood all that going into business might require of them.

As for the ruin of said businesses, the racist' business was ruined from the start. The second business, well, the scenario just doesn't match reality. It's not so simple as you make it sound. Businesses have to maintain a certain degree of diversity, but this does not mean less qualified candidates get the job. This just means that companies have extra incentive to hire and keep qualified minority candidates.

Solace wrote:
I know these examples may be considered extreme cases, but even in ordinary cases I don't see why any government should have the power to manage a man's livelihood. We in the west like to promote freedom, or is that just a lie? Without freedom is equality even possible? It seems to be that affirmative action is more about taking away freedom than relieving inequalities.


Every government manages every man's livelihood.

Equality is possible without freedom; we can be equally unfree. But freedom is not possible without equality. Resting on my previous arguments regarding the success of affirmative action at increasing equality, if the concern is freedom, affirmative action must be viewed as positive. Even if you think that affirmative action limits some economic freedoms of racist businessmen, the net gain to freedom obviously favors affirmative action.

Icon wrote:
Austin Texas has almost NO racial distinction unless from people not from here.


That's almost funny. Maybe you just don't see the racism, but my Hispanic friends in Austin would disagree with what you say. Now, Austin is a college town and, apparently, the town is generally open and accepting of minorities. But being better than, say, Natchez, Mississippi, doesn't mean that race is not an issue in Austin, Texas.

Solace wrote:

You keep pointing out disadvantages in relation to affirmative action. Isn't this a form of racism? Seeing people as disadvantaged because of their skin color is the same thing as considering them to be inferior. Affirmative action promotes this idea.


Hardly. Recognizing that certain segments of the population have, and continue to be, systematically treated by society as somehow less human than other portions of society does not mean you think said oppressed segment is less human that other portions of society. Affirmative action does not promote the idea that some people are less human, affirmative action recognizes that some people have been treated as less human and attempts to help ameliorate the problem.

It isn't the color of the skin itself that disadvantages people - its the way people are treated that disadvantages them, and one feature highlighted by bigots happens to be skin color.

Solace wrote:
I am about equality in the purest form. The purest form of equality comes down to who has earned it more.


I think there must be a typo here. People must earn their equality as humans? How? If you mean earn equality by fighting bigotry, well, I agree. But bigotry isn't some enemy force that can be routed and mopped up. Bigotry is an ever present hatred.

Solace wrote:
I am also a proponent of dedication determines results. If you do not acheive something, it is because you did not try hard enough. Race should have no bearing on this. You are never going to rid the world of ignorance. That is a given. We know this. We can work at it for 1000 years and it will still be there. But affirmative action, as demonstrated by your comments is proving to do nothing more than change the shape of that ignorance. It went from disgust to pity. Instead of inferior, they are disadvantaged. With affirmative action, a minority is placed in higher priority than Joe Blow White-guy because of the color of his skin. This is still racism and inequality. It is just a different form.


Again, I do not buy this argument. My comments do not demonstrate that affirmative action reshapes ignorance. If you look back at those comments, you will see that I argue the opposite is the case; and those arguments are as yet untouched in this thread.

It's not so complicated.
Segments of the population are disadvantaged due to historic hatred and current hatred.
Affirmative action increases diversity, and therefore shrinks hatred, and affirmative action also provides opportunities for segments of the population which generally have fewer opportunities than other segments of the population.
White people are not harmed by affirmative action, and in no way does affirmative action dehumanize white people. Before we call something racism, let's try to remember what racism actually looks like.

Solace wrote:
The reason for the final statement in relation to affirmative action and racism is simple. When a government feels the need to control the people in a moral way, it has admitted that the people are far to ignorant to control themselves or conduct themselves in a moral manner. Once this has been admitted, all is lost. We cannot control morality. All we can do is combat ignorance.


Not quite. The government only admits that some people are too ignorant to control/conduct themselves in a moral manner. This happens to be true. Some people are just hateful.
Show me one government that has never coerced it's citizens on some moral matter. Now think about how many government policies, aside from affirmative action, coerce people on some moral matter. Just look at the Constitution - free speech, free practice of religion. Are these not examples of moral coercion?

Icon wrote:
Again, I am not arguing the good intention of affirmative action. I am not even arguing the need for it at the time. What I AM arguing is the need for it today. No one alive today was alive during slavery. No one today knows about slavery save for stories in history books. The ignorance that exists today is from years of seclusion. Today, an African American is President Elect. Today, there are more female and minority executives than white male. Today, the "minority" out numbers the "majority" in most major cities.


No one today was alive during slavery. True. So what? Does this fact somehow erase the lingering damage of slavery? Hardly. Do you think that when all Holocaust survivors are dead that the Holocaust will somehow no longer have an impact on the Jewish community? No, we should know better.
Besides, the end of slavery wasn't the end of institutional racism in this nation. Institutional racism against African Americans continues to this very day.
An African American president does not erase the lingering damages of slavery, or the 150 years of abuse suffered by African Americans.
You mention executives - wonderful. But the number of executives does not change the fact that women and other minorities in the US earn less than white men in the US. Sexism and racism is still a problem - just ask some of those executives.

The issue isn't which group of people is largest. Minority-majority - irrelevant. Were the common English better off than their Norman conquerors? The English certainly held a majority.

Solace wrote:
We can no longer treat it like the 1950's. This is the year 2008. A lot has changed in half a century. Our ideals, regulations and government need to start reflecting this change. Even more so, it should be the driving force of this change.


Yes, much has changed and the government must keep pace with this change. Good news, though. Like so many other policies, the people who shaped affirmative action were pretty smart. Now, it's not perfect, but it has been effective and continues to be effective at increasing diversity and increasing opportunity for disadvantaged people in the US.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Wed 19 Nov, 2008 08:23 pm
@Icon,
Icon;34072 wrote:
If anything, they are enforcing the idea of inequality by giving special allowances for those of different race.
The logic of affirmative action is based on the assumption (which is TRUE!) that there are systemic obstacles that block minorities from certain opportunities. Affirmative action is meant to level an already uneven playing field. It's an imperfect but necessary system.

Quote:
Would it not make more sense to abolish those acts in order to reach a truly equal status?
Sure, just as soon as we eliminate the educational, economic, and social disparities that prevent minority youth from succeeding, and as soon as we eliminate the entrenched racism that prevents them from getting positions for which they're equally qualified.

Didymos Thomas;34147 wrote:
My comments do not demonstrate that affirmative action reshapes ignorance.
But indeed it might. Awareness reshapes ignorance, and exposure fosters awareness. Think about how electing a black president changes white people's ideas about whether that's a realistic thing. In my own field of academic medicine, with occasional exceptions the old (retirement age) doctors are mostly white men; but in my generation half of doctors are women and there are many many minority physicians. The culture gets used to it through exposure.
 
josh0335
 
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2008 08:24 am
@Aedes,
Salaams peeps,

If I was put in charge of creating a winning team for the 2012 Olympics, would I be a racist if I scouted black people for my track team and white people for my aquatics team? Is this justified? If so, can we extend this sort of practice to other parts of society?

Peace
 
Icon
 
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2008 08:33 am
@OctoberMist,
I am going to ask a few questions and I want honest answers from everyone.

1: What race are you?

2: Have you ever lived, grown up in or spent a good deal of time (at least 6 months) in a community of a race other than your own?

3: What region of the world do you live?

4: How often do you interact with someone of a different race who does not like you?

5: What sort of cultural studies have you participated in?

6: What salary range do you fall into? (middle class, lower class, upper class)

7: How many different countries and/or states have you been to for extended periods of time?

8: What countries or states?

9: Through out your life, how often have you seen racism as a major factor in the job force of today?

10: Would you be willing to admit that someone with the determination to succeed, regardless of race, has just as much chance as anyone else?



The reason I ask these questions is simple. My information does not come from a book or from the internet (save that one BS statistic which was requested). I have spent time out in the world in both poor and rich neighborhoods. I have seen racism in many forms. But what I have never seen is someone with determination fail because of race. Instead of arguing the necessity of affirmative action, why not try to develop a better system? The one trap of philosophy is getting so caught up in being right that you ignore the chance to do something about it. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps it is still necessary but I have yet to see why. Racism is not a business issue, it is a moral and emotional issue. Regulations rarely change morals and emotions. My point is merely that we should stop attacking the policy and start attacking the personal morality on a personal level. You can't change the world with rules but you CAN change the world with actions.
 
Solace
 
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2008 09:09 am
@Icon,
1. White 2. no 3. N. America 4. Never. I only know a small handful and they're all relatives. We get along great. 5. None. 6. Low. 7. Just this one, though I've been all over this one. 8. Canada 9. Never. 10. Yes.

And what these answers reveal is that I don't know the first thing about racial issues. I do know a bit about too much government control, however. I'm a big fan of letting people be to live their lives. Maybe that's a reflection of my own limited exposure to the world. But speaking from my own experience with local issues, the more the government butts in the worse these things tend to get. Perhaps the Canadian government is just better than the American at messing things up for citizens, I can't say.

Oh, note to DT: could you edit your last post and readdress some of the quotes to the right person? Only the first two were mine. Just to make things clear and easier. Thanks.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/24/2024 at 04:36:42