Airlift, or was it Les.. yeah Lex.. this is for you..

[MrVicchio]

This is a saliant way of saying that Diversity and such (i.e. a direct hit on Affermative Action) is not only bad, but racist. Period.


President Bush faces an ideal opportunity to take a principled position on the issue of racial "diversity." As his administration ponders whether to support the legal challenge, now before the Supreme Court, to the University of Michigan's affirmative action policies, he should go further and raise a moral challenge to the entire notion of "diversity." Instead of timidly wavering on this question, in fear of being smeared by Democrats as racist, President Bush should rise to the occasion by categorically repudiating racism�and condemning "diversity" as its crudest manifestation.

It is now widely accepted that "diversity" is an appropriate goal for society. But what does this dictum actually mean? Racial integration is a valid objective, but that is something very different from what the advocates of "diversity" seek. According to its proponents, we need "diversity" in order to be exposed to new perspectives on life. We supposedly gain "enrichment from the differences in viewpoint of minorities," as the MIT Faculty Newsletter puts it. "It is the only way to prepare students to live and work effectively in our diverse democracy and in the global economy," says the president of the University of Michigan. Minorities should be given preferential treatment, the university's vice president says, because "learning in a diverse environment benefits all students, minority and majority alike."

These circumlocutions translate simply into this: one's race determines the content of one's mind. They imply that people have worthwhile views to express because of their ethnicity, and that "diversity" enables us to encounter "black ideas," "Hispanic ideas," etc. What could be more repulsively racist than that? This is exactly the premise held by the South's slave-owners and by the Nazis' Storm Troopers. They too believed that an individual's thoughts and actions are determined by his racial heritage.

Whether a given race receives special rewards or special punishments is immaterial. The essence of racism is the idea that the individual is meaningless and that membership in the collective�the race�is the source of his identity and value. To the racist, the individual's moral and intellectual character is the product, not of his own choices, but of the genes he shares with all others of his race. To the racist, the particular members of a given race are interchangeable.

The advocates of "diversity" similarly believe that colleges must admit not individuals, but "representatives" of various races. They believe that those representatives have certain ideas innately imprinted on their minds, and that giving preferences to minority races creates a "diversity" of viewpoints on campus. They have the quota-mentality, which holds that in judging someone, the salient fact is the racial collective to which he belongs.

____


The value of a racially integrated student body or work force lies entirely in the individualism this implies. A racially integrated group implies that skin color is irrelevant in judging human beings. It implies that those who chose the students or the workers based their evaluations only on that which reflects upon the individual: merit. But that is not what the advocates of "diversity" want. They sneer at the principle of "color-blindness." Whether the issue is being admitted to college or getting a job at a corporation or being cast as an actor on TV shows, the "diversity" supporters want such decisions to be made exactly the way that the vilest of racists make them: by bloodline. They insist that whatever is a result of your own choices�your ideas, your character, your accomplishments�is to be dismissed, while that which is outside your control�the accident of skin color�is to define your life. Their fundamental goal is to "diversify"�and thus to undercut�the standard of individual achievement with the non-standard of race.

As a result of their efforts, the creed of "diversity" is metastasizing. There are now demands for "linguistic diversity," under which English teachers grant equal validity to ungrammatical writing�for "diversity" in beauty pageants, under which the unattractive are not discriminated against�for "diversity" in oratory contests, under which mutes are not excluded. These egalitarian crusaders for "diversity" seek to wipe out a standard of value as such. They want to negate genuine, life-serving values by claiming that non-values must be given equal status.

Is this the philosophy that will "prepare students to live and work effectively"?

Racial "diversity" is a doctrine that splits people into ethnic tribes, which then battle one another for special favors. If President Bush is eager to demonstrate his disagreement with the racist views of a Strom Thurmond, let him stand up and denounce all forms of racism�particularly, the one that underlies "diversity."

*(*()))**(**()))))((((****(()()***)(*&)*()*()*()*()(*)(*()*()*()(*)*

For the whole article:


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5550

[Airlift]

What is this, freeper south?

[Unregistered]

rac�ism
n.
1)The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2) Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Like it or not Afirmitive Action = Racism because it discriminates against against people bassed on their race.

I would prefer a society where I am judged by my merits not by the color of my skin. Afirmitive Action was indeed a good idea at one point, but the population has out grown the Civil Rights movement, and it is time for everyone to be treated equally. Personally I am offended that Race is even a concideration in anything.

[Tobias]

We are all one race, the Human Race.

Nuf said.





















Cept those people in tibet. I hate them, I dont know why. Death to all the tibeti peoples, may their citys crumble and all their young be born with only 9 toes.

[Lexington_Steele]

Nice artice, but the premise is incorrect. I do not see affirmative action's purpose as allowing cultural idea to be represented. I see it as an attempt to correct social inequality that has been created. Yes creating diversity is important, but I do not see it as the primary reason for Affirmative action.

Bottome line, there is some affirmative action in place. Do you really feel like white Americans are being oppressed?

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Unregistered
Like it or not Afirmitive Action = Racism because it discriminates against against people bassed on their race.

I would prefer a society where I am judged by my merits not by the color of my skin. Afirmitive Action was indeed a good idea at one point, but the population has out grown the Civil Rights movement, and it is time for everyone to be treated equally. Personally I am offended that Race is even a concideration in anything.

Like it or not, racism exists. Outgrown civil rights? (have you been to the south recently?) Have you heard about Senator Lott's comments at Stom Thurmans birthday party? This man was Senate majority leader and was saying that if we had followed Strom's seperate but equal platform we would not have the problems we have today.

I love Strom's quote, during his canidacy for president, "We will not allow ****3%$ in our pools." Yes, that would solve all of the problems that we have today.

I am offended that a person of color is less likely to succeed than a white person. I see this as a problem that should be corrected.

I would love to see the society that you are talking about. You must remeber affirmative action is not meant to last forever. It is an attempt to correct a problem. When that problem is corrected, affirmative action will no longer be neccessary. Ignoring the problem and allowing this social injustice to continue is not an acceptable solution.

[Tobias]

what about sexism, like the fact that in most jobs (real jobs, not burger flipper at Mc'Donolds), women only make 75% of what a man, with the same or lower skills, in the same job, makes.

[Unregistered]

First off I said we had Outgrown the Civil Rights Movement, not Civil Rights. The problems that exisited in the 1960's that made the Civil Rights Movement necessary simple do not exisit to the extent that Afirmitive Action is necessary.

You asked "Do you really feel oppressed as a White male?" and the answer to this question is yes, I do. There are countless programs that I am not eligable for simply for the color of my skin.

I am less likely to recieve a scholorship because I am white.

Many of my friends that work for Muni in SF have been passed over for less qualified Blacks/Asians because they were white, and Muni did not want to be racist be giving them the position.

The last cencus proved that there is no Majority in California. Afirmitive Action is supposed to help Minorities, so i ask the question: If there are no minorities then who exactly is it helping?

I also question the exisitance of organizations like NAACP. It is set up to help non-whites. Do you think that I can start an orgonisation with the sole purpose of helping whites, and whites only? Not with out being branded a racist.

Affirmitive Action does more to foster racial hatred then anything. It gives racists on both sides of the argument ammunition to accuse the other of discrimination.

Anything that mentions your race or the race of another is racist. When is Asian history month? How about Native American history month? Or the ever elusive Latino History Month? How is not racist to dedicate an entire month to the history of one culture while ignoring every other culture?

Anytime you bring Race into any equasition you take America a step in the wrong direction. We are supposed to be the "Melting Pot" of the world where all cultures come togeather to become one. Instead what we have become is the worlds "Salad Bar" where everyone is catagorized by race and then tucked neatly away into seprate containers. There is no true diversity untill you remove the things that keep them apart and toss them all onto one plate.

Afimitive Action is Racism and it's wrong.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Unregistered
Afimitive Action is Racism and it's wrong.

Then how do you propose that we fix the social inequality between races? Do nothing?

[MrVicchio]

Like it or not, racism exists. Outgrown civil rights? (have you been to the south recently?) Have you heard about Senator Lott's comments at Stom Thurmans birthday party? This man was Senate majority leader and was saying that if we had followed Strom's seperate but equal platform we would not have the problems we have today.

The question, has your appologist arse been in the south..EVER?
I am FROM the south... little town called Cameron Texas... Whites and blacks live together with very little animosity.. sure there is some.. but those ppl aren't worth a damn and the town knows it.

I bet you are for Reperations too aren't you?

These injustices you speak of.. most are gone.. they just don't happen... when they do, there is a perfectly good legal system in place to smak the pee pee's of racists...

Most of the big racists bad things happen 40 plus years ago by people long since dead.. should we now today, commit an equal evil as a way of making up for the past?

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVicchio
The question, has your appologist arse been in the south..EVER?

I live in Charleston South Carolina.

[Navaron]

How about letting people make their own places in the world. If anyone works hard, then they'll reap those rewards. That women's income statistic is outdated and misleading. That study ranked women in predominately male occupations. That study didn't take into account seniority. So if I have been doing job A for 10 years, I should make more than the broad who comes in the door for the first time tommorrow, right?

What really makes me mad is how the system is set up - Fraternal order of Black police officers, NAACP, Black Colleges, Black Scholarships, Black only fraternities, BET. If any of these were switched around, bang - - - rascist - - - . I sure wouldn't mind watching the WET channel.;)

[mistled]

"We will not allow ****3%$ in our pools." Yes, that would solve all of the problems that we have today.
So we replace this statement with, "We will not allow whites to have our scholarships." Like it or not, it's the same thing. Only difference is that no one has the balls to say it like that because people will see the racism in it.

[Lexington_Steele]

This boils down to two main things. Both of which we seem to disagrgee on.

Is there a social injustice? (the numbers are on my side on this one)

If there is a social injustice should the government correct it? (Like I have said a number of times, a survival of the fittest view is fine, but it is a bit too cut throat for me.)

[mistled]

The problem with AA is the same as the problem with the Crusades. You can't force people to believe anything. You can kill them as the Crusades did for not believing, but no one was actually converted. You can force people to hire unqualified people by threatening fines and jail time, but all you do is reinforce a sterotype by making the employer hire someone they know isn't qualified. Nothing is fixed this way. All it does is remind us that racists are out there, and that a lot of them are making stupid programs to try and force people to think a certain way.

[Navaron]

Is there a social injustice? (the numbers are on my side on this one)


I'd like to see those numbers. It's not a tangible or measurable thing. I think it's the clashing of culture with too many media outlets trying to get ratings by playing off of rascism.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
This boils down to two main things. Both of which we seem to disagrgee on.

Is there a social injustice? (the numbers are on my side on this one)

If there is a social injustice should the government correct it? (Like I have said a number of times, a survival of the fittest view is fine, but it is a bit too cut throat for me.)
You got the second question wrong. It's not a question of whther or not they should correct it. It's a question of whther or not they can. The government can never force anyone to believe any certain thing, no matter how correct that thing is. The government can't make me like people of all races if I choose not to. It just isn't possible.

[Lexington_Steele]

ROFL is being a member of the Republican National Convention a requirement for being in BOHICA. :p

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
You got the second question wrong. It's not a question of whther or not they should correct it. It's a question of whther or not they can. The government can never force anyone to believe any certain thing, no matter how correct that thing is. The government can't make me like people of all races if I choose not to. It just isn't possible.

We are not talking about making people not racist. Social equality means more than ending racism.

We are talking about a colored person having the the same chance for success that a white person has. Right now, a white person is more likely to find success than a colored person. This is not necessarily due to racism taking place today. This has alot more to do with the current economical situation and social conditions that the different races are in.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
We are talking about a colored person having the the same chance for success that a white person has.
EXACTLLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!
ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The key word there being 'same'. AA as it stands right now is a program about giving blacks a 'better' chance than whites. Don't even bother saying that it isn't true, because AA takes away a white's chance of success. If a white has no chance, and a black must be hired or given a scholarship or whatever, then there is nothing equal about it. Nothing.

You talk about giving people the same chances and then reduce their chances to the color of their skin. You have the chance to be black and get this scholarship, or you have the chance to be white and get nothing. Hmm... I guess it's all just chance then, isn't it??

[mistled]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
ROFL is being a member of the Republican National Convention a requirement for being in BOHICA. :p
No, but being a damn genius is. :D

[Airlift]

http://orbitalstrike.com/images/comicbookguy_wpe.gif

[MrVicchio]

MMMKay Lex, You speak of Numbers, lets see your numbers... cmon man, you are basing your WHOLE arguement on numbers that you have yet to show, but claim they uneqivocaly (sp?? I suk ) prove your point. Lets see some.. w8.. I think I am gonna fire first on the numbers thing.. you better beat me to it here, cause I think you ain't gonna like what I dig up.

[Navaron]

hehehe, vics the man....

and he's off..............

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
EXACTLLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!
ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The key word there being 'same'. AA as it stands right now is a program about giving blacks a 'better' chance than whites. Don't even bother saying that it isn't true, because AA takes away a white's chance of success. If a white has no chance, and a black must be hired or given a scholarship or whatever, then there is nothing equal about it. Nothing.


You are missing the key. We are not looking on an individual level here, our scope is society wide. With socio-economical conditions as they are, whites have a better chance to find success then blacks, period.

AA is meant to even out that discrepancy.

There seems to be the need for me to spell it out for you. If you are born white you are more likely to find yourself in a favorable situation that a black person. Being in a more favorable situation, you are more likely to find success. This inequality is a reality.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by MrVicchio
MMMKay Lex, You speak of Numbers, lets see your numbers... cmon man, you are basing your WHOLE arguement on numbers that you have yet to show, but claim they uneqivocaly (sp?? I suk ) prove your point. Lets see some.. w8.. I think I am gonna fire first on the numbers thing.. you better beat me to it here, cause I think you ain't gonna like what I dig up.

I'll see what I can do for you ;) . However I do remeber, that in your last post you made last night, you promised me some numbers and I have yet to see them. ;)

[Hamma]

h8 politics :mad::mad::mad:

[Lexington_Steele]

I have it already, here it comes...

[Tobias]

AA is a great program for people who are tring to sober up, dont disc it.

[MrVicchio]

So far, I have yet to finish wading through all the NAACP reports.. I am looking for NON-BIASED analyis..

BTW what numbers where we tlaking about, I might have said that then gone to bed...

[Navaron]

Here is goes....

1 Charles Krauthammer: Affirmative action has become a naked spoils system
7/15/2001 Dallas Morning News

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

In a 1996 referendum, California voters outlawed racial preferences. Or did they? At the University of California, a lovely backdoor has been found for beating the ban.

The maneuver appears wholly innocuous. Who, after all, would complain if UC decided to give the SAT II twice as much weight as the SAT I in determining college admission? Sure, some people might think it odd. After all, when standardized tests like SATs are denounced for cultural bias, a particular animus is reserved for the SAT II (which tests knowledge in specific subjects such as history, biology and French) on the grounds that it is more culturally influenced than the SAT (which measures general reasoning and linguistic ability).

Ah. But the beauty of this odd change is that it gets underqualified Hispanic students into the University of California system. In one predominantly Hispanic high school, among the worst in the state, the number of graduates accepted to UC schools increased by more than 50 percent this year. How did they do it? They aced the Spanish language SAT II.

Being fluent in Spanish, they breezed through, often without study or preparation, a test designed to measure second language acquisition. Despite doing dismally on all of the other tests, their spectacular scores in SAT II Spanish raised their average enough to get them into the better schools.

Presto. An almost foolproof way to give Hispanics a leg up � and the latest demonstration of the mindlessness and cynicism that have overtaken affirmative action.

Perhaps the most perverse effect of the SAT change is that it ignores or, indeed, injures blacks, the group for whom affirmative action originally was designed. Slots in UCLA's freshman class are a commodity in fixed supply. For every unqualified Hispanic student to whom you give a free ride because of a bogus bonus based on nothing but linguistic accident, you effectively have bumped a qualified student who otherwise would have been admitted.

Other immigrants, too, get a boost from taking, say, the Chinese or Korean language SAT II. Who gets boxed out? Anglos and blacks.

Affirmative action was invented to help blacks as redress for the centuries of state-sponsored slavery and discrimination. But as other groups � women, Hispanics and American Indians � claimed a piece of the grievance pie, affirmative action molted into "diversity." Diversity simply is the attempt to achieve rainbow representation for its own sake, without any pretense of redress or justice.

Justice? Consider: Doubling the weight given the SAT II benefits, even more perversely, newly arrived Hispanics over their more Americanized cousins. Second- or third-generation kids are far less likely to speak fluent Spanish. Thus, even within the now-favored Hispanic community, those who have been here the least amount of time are being awarded gratuitous advantage over those who have been here the longest.

By any measure of civic equity, the most deserving � those whose parents and grandparents have contributed to America for decades � get the least. An English-speaking third-generation Mexican-American whose grandfather fought in Normandy gets nothing � in fact, he even may lose his slot at Berkeley to the newly arrived Guatemalan whose slate as a citizen still is blank.

Why are we doing this? For the shibboleth of diversity. Diversity at any cost. And the cost is considerable. In order to artificially inflate the number of Hispanics admitted, the new rule places students who aren't academically prepared in colleges a notch or two above their ability.

The social wreckage created by such mismatches is enormous. Minority students are set up for failure, when they could have succeeded splendidly at less-advanced institutions. And more advanced students, denied their opportunity to learn in an appropriate academic setting, are left with deep ethnic animosities that can last a lifetime.

When affirmative action was about justice, it at least had moral force. Opponents could argue about the social costs (unfairness, racial resentment and patronization of minority achievement), but they had to acknowledge the contrary claims of racial redress. You might disagree that racial preferences were the best solution, but you had to respect the moral seriousness of the idea.

But now? What is there to respect in a scheme for giving newly arrived immigrants a leg up over everyone, including blacks? The SAT ploy is a sideshow, to be sure, but there is no better illustration of the wretched state to which affirmative action has sunk than this: a naked spoils system that under the flag of diversity makes a mockery of the impulse for justice that once lay at the core of affirmative action.

Charles Krauthammer writes for the Washington Post.

2 I'm gonna link the rest..... http://www.ceousa.org/

3 gooodd one - I don't want to end up in a hospital in CA... http://www.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/analysis/RaceTriplesYourChances.html

4 http://www.sandiego.edu/~e_cook/chances/index.html

5 hahaha CA sucks again... http://www.adversity.net/c13_tbd.htm

6 flip side in TX - http://www.adversity.net/c12_tbd.htm

7 just wrong.... http://www.adversity.net/c24_tbd.htm

8 Walmart sucks the fat double standard... http://www.hrhero.com/sample/hrquicklist/attendance/spat.shtml

9 and 46 more................ http://home.ddc.net/ygg/rb/index.htm

[mistled]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
You are missing the key. We are not looking on an individual level here, our scope is society wide. With socio-economical conditions as they are, whites have a better chance to find success then blacks, period.

AA is meant to even out that discrepancy.

There seems to be the need for me to spell it out for you. If you are born white you are more likely to find yourself in a favorable situation that a black person. Being in a more favorable situation, you are more likely to find success. This inequality is a reality.
And this discrepancy is an economic one, and has nothing to do with skin color. So why do we try to solve this based on color and not economic status?? If I am white and born into poverty I am in a terrible position also, but AA doesn't help me out. But, on the other hand, if I'm black and born into a wealthy family, AA puts me that much more ahead of that poor white kid.

-- and Airlift, I had to reply somehow, didn't I?? What else did you expect me to say?? :p

[Navaron]

Best qoute I've seen yet.....

"Huck finn wouldn't get a scholarship to Yale, but Micheal Jordan and Oprah winfrey would"

[SandTrout]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
You are missing the key. We are not looking on an individual level here, our scope is society wide. With socio-economical conditions as they are, whites have a better chance to find success then blacks, period.

AA is meant to even out that discrepancy.

There seems to be the need for me to spell it out for you. If you are born white you are more likely to find yourself in a favorable situation that a black person. Being in a more favorable situation, you are more likely to find success. This inequality is a reality.

So you're saying that all minorities are poor? This is the thinking that brough AA into existance, and the racism that it promotes. There are poor whites and rich minorities.

Of course if you hapen to be born into a rich family you are more likely to succeed because your parents can afford a better education for you. Everone has a equil opertunity to be born into a rich family, but we cant control that, only whatever dieties there are can do that.

Why should someone be punished for haveing white parents? You don't choose who your parents are. If you traced my family tree back a couple generations, I'm mostly of eropean ancestrey, but I lable my race as hispanic because my mom was born in Brazil. Why? Because I can get more oppertunitys for scholerships for hispanics that arent available to whites.

Yes, thats useing the system to my advantage, but thats what people do. AA makes complanies hire people that are less qualified, just because they are a "minority", and they can add them to their quota of minorities hired.

Screw the "socio-economic" conciquences, without individuals, you have nothing.

[Navaron]

Hell if you trace my blood back, my people were probably slaves to the Romans. Fuck it, I want some repairations.

[SandTrout]

I guess I would have to pay them too, sence I'm 50% Italian by blood...

[Navaron]

DIE YOU BIGOT SOB! GO MAKE SOME PASTA!

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
This boils down to two main things. Both of which we seem to disagrgee on.

Is there a social injustice? (the numbers are on my side on this one)

If there is a social injustice should the government correct it? (Like I have said a number of times, a survival of the fittest view is fine, but it is a bit too cut throat for me.)

1) Yes there are social injustices.

2) The government should not Force (racial quotas) anything upon the people as Afirmitive Action does, but laws that gaurenty equality should be enacted and enforced.

Let me now ask you a few questions.....

Do two wrongs make a right?

Do we fight racism with racism, and won't the end result be replacing one racist society with another racist society?

Last Question is Multiple Choice.

3 Seprate people apply for the same job. One Graduated from Stanford with a 3.5 GPA. The next graduated from Harverd with a 3.0, and the last from Texas A&M with a 2.0

Who should get the job?

A) The Black Man
B) The Woman
C) The White Man
D) The one who was most qualified

[Lexington_Steele]

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). "Assessing Human Development." Human Development Report 1993. New York: Oxford U.P., 1993: page 17.

As it is printed:

"When the HDI (Human Development Index) is desaggregated by calculating the specific HDI for groups or regions in a country, there can be startling divergences from the national average. Disaggregating HDIs provides a group-specific or region-specific human development measure, whereas the gender-adjusted and income-distribution-adjusted HDIs are still national averages incorperating the extent of inequality. Five countries that have readily available data to undertake such a disaggregation: the United States, India, Mexico, Turkey and Switzerland. More countries should launch efforts to gather such data.
In the United States, with the HDIs of white, black and hispanic populations seperated, whites rank number 1 in the world (ahead of Japan), blacks rank number 31 (next to Trinidad and Tobago) and hispanics rank number 35 (next to Estonia). This, even despite the fact that that income levels are considerably discounted in the HDI calculations. So, full equality is a distant prospect in the United States."

Is that good enough for you?

BTW, FYI, the top ten HDI ranking countries (without disaggregating the HDI value for specific groups):
1 Canada
2 Switzerland
3 Japan
4 Sweden
5 Norway
6 France
7 Australia
8 USA
9 Netherlands
10 United Kingdom


*edited to correct title of the book*

[Lexington_Steele]

BTW searching the internet did me no good, I had to bust out hard copy documentation.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
And this discrepancy is an economic one, and has nothing to do with skin color. So why do we try to solve this based on color and not economic status?? If I am white and born into poverty I am in a terrible position also, but AA doesn't help me out. But, on the other hand, if I'm black and born into a wealthy family, AA puts me that much more ahead of that poor white kid.

-- and Airlift, I had to reply somehow, didn't I?? What else did you expect me to say?? :p

A socio-economic discrepance based on race. Why doesn't that have to do with skin color?

[Navaron]

In the US what are the other 33?

[mistled]

Lex, all that tells me is that there are a lot of rich white people in the US. Of course the whites are better educated on average because the average rich person is white. We shouldn't be trying to help blacks by hurting whites, we should be helping the poor (many who happen to be black) by giving them more education choices, which is what the rich have that keeps them rich.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). "Assessing Human Development." Human Development Report 1999. New York: Oxford U.P., 1993: page 17.
I'll asume that this is report number 1999 since the book was only published in 1993.

[Airlift]

There are two distinct issues for debate here. The one that is being argued is whether or not Affirmative Action is a good or bad thing today. The one that is being quietly skipped on the thread is whether or not Affirmative Action was a good or bad thing in the sixties when it was introduced.

I'd be more interested to hear the opinions on the subject with some historical perspective? Obviously if you think it is a good thing now then it was a good thing then. But if you think it is a bad thing now, should Johnson have ever pushed the legislation in the first place?

P.S. You can't have my opinion on affirmative action.

[mistled]

Actually, that's addressed in that long post of nav's. But personally, I don't want to argue what was a good idea or a bad idea years and years ago. It doesn't matter. We have to live with the past. I'd rather debate the current, and let the past be brought up only in a way that it sheds light on the current situation.

[Airlift]

It's the root issue. Before you can say that legislated diversity is racism, you have to consider it's origins. Affirmative Action isn't something that suddenly sprang into being. It has been here for almost 40 years. That's longer than I've been alive, and I feel old on a game forum.

[Navaron]

My great great great grandfather gouged out your's eye. Gouge mine out now, it'll get better.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
In the US what are the other 33?

I think you misunderstood the article.

Those numbers are compared to the Income-distributed-HDI rankings of all countries.

This may help you to understand.

The USA's
HDI value: 0.976
HDI rank as compared to other countries HDI value: 8

So when you look at the just the whites in the USA, they have the best HDI as compared to the HDI of any other nation in the world.

When you look at the Blacks in the USA their HDI ranks 31st when compared to the HDI of other countries. The HDI of blacks ranks them just ahead the people of Tridad and Tobago.

The HDI of hispanics ranks them 35 in the world which is just ahead of the HDI in Estonia.

[mistled]

Airlift, from nav's post...
--------------------------------------------
When affirmative action was about justice, it at least had moral force. Opponents could argue about the social costs (unfairness, racial resentment and patronization of minority achievement), but they had to acknowledge the contrary claims of racial redress. You might disagree that racial preferences were the best solution, but you had to respect the moral seriousness of the idea.

But now? What is there to respect in a scheme for giving newly arrived immigrants a leg up over everyone, including blacks? The SAT ploy is a sideshow, to be sure, but there is no better illustration of the wretched state to which affirmative action has sunk than this: a naked spoils system that under the flag of diversity makes a mockery of the impulse for justice that once lay at the core of affirmative action.
-----------------------------------------------------
The idea here is that it was never a good method of doing things. All AA ever had going for it was the same thing the Crusades had. A good moral intent.

[Unregistered]

Whites have more in this country because they have worked longer at becoming sucessful.

Let me tell you the story of my Great Garnd Father who came here from Sweeden with $5 in his pocket. Him and his brother spent everything they had on train tickets and travled as far west as the could.

They ended up in Jawbridge, NV and began mining gold to scratch out a living. After working in the mines for a number of years the gold began to run out and, and the small mining town they lived in dryed up quickly and practically became a ghost town.

My Great Grandfather bought the local genral store with his hard earned cash, and continued to buy up all the buildings in town as they became available. At one point he owned 90% of the public buildings in Mt. City, NV.

Many people thought him a fool for buying buildings in a ghost town. All the time that he was busy buying up property in Mt City he was also funding "A crazy old drunk" who swore there was a rich copper vein in the area.

Well the drunk turned out to be right and struck the richest copper strike in Nevada history. Suddenly the town was alive again and my Great Grandfather became a very wealth man. Money he spent doing things like brining electricity to the entire city.

My Great Grandfather was ridiculed as a "Big Dumb Sweede" and was never once given a hand out of any kind. Not that he would have accepted it in the first place. He got where he was not by being white, but by working hard.

Why shoudl things be any diffrent today? I got to where i am by working hard. No one gave me any hand outs. I was homeless, and living under a bridge, but i got cleaned up, worked my way through school, and am now fairly sucessful with a good job. If anything the color of my skin made my transition from the streets to success that much more difficult.

I applied for Student Aid but was denied.

I applied for Scholarships but didn't recieve any.

But all around me there were Asians, hispanics, and Blacks that came from afluent families that were getting a free ride on the back of afirmitiave action. In the eyes of the State they were more important then i was simpley for the color of their skin, and not for their social situation.

I worked for everything that I have, and afirmative action has worked against me the entire time. It's time has passed and it needs to be abolished.

[mistled]

Lex, Are the numbers you quote true because of the color of their skin??

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
I'll asume that this is report number 1999 since the book was only published in 1993.

Oops, typo. The title is Human Development Report 1993

It was an accident. The report is from 1993. I will edit my original post to correct the typo.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
Lex, all that tells me is that there are a lot of rich white people in the US. Of course the whites are better educated on average because the average rich person is white. We shouldn't be trying to help blacks by hurting whites, we should be helping the poor (many who happen to be black) by giving them more education choices, which is what the rich have that keeps them rich.

Once again, AA is not meant to help the poor. It is meant to address an inequality between the races. If we are addressing a problem of inequality between races, why would we take race out of the equasion?

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Unregistered
Whites have more in this country because they have worked longer at becoming sucessful.

And what have blacks in America been doing all this time? Sitting on their butts?

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
I think you misunderstood the article.

Those numbers are compared to the Income-distributed-HDI rankings of all countries.

This may help you to understand.

The USA's
HDI value: 0.976
HDI rank as compared to other countries HDI value: 8

So when you look at the just the whites in the USA, they have the best HDI as compared to the HDI of any other nation in the world.

When you look at the Blacks in the USA their HDI ranks 31st when compared to the HDI of other countries. The HDI of blacks ranks them just ahead the people of Tridad and Tobago.

The HDI of hispanics ranks them 35 in the world which is just ahead of the HDI in Estonia.


These studies fail to take into concideration the amount of time that Whites/Blacks/Hispanics have been in the U.S.

I will a gree that whites poesses more money then Blacks, but far more blacks imigrate into this country every year then whites. Same goes for hispanics.

Is it too far of a strech to beleave that 1st and 2nd generation Mexican-Americans live a slightly better quality of life then they had in Mexico, but not the same Quality of life as a 10 generation white American.

By the same token a 10 generation Mexican American enjoys a much better quality of life then a 1st or 2nd generation Russian (white) American.

For a study like this to be acurate and to be taken seriously it must provide comparisons between races of similar imigration status. I'd be willing to bet that White Imagriants are just as poor as hispanic or black imigriants when they get here.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
Lex, Are the numbers you quote true because of the color of their skin??
I am not sure what you mean by this.

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
And what have blacks in America been doing all this time? Sitting on their butts?


Mostly screaming that they need hand outs.

[Airlift]

-- and Airlift, I had to reply somehow, didn't I?? What else did you expect me to say??

The CBG was for MrVicchio. Every time I pop in to check the new posts this thread jumps at me because my nick is all over the subject line and it gets on my nerves. I can't ignore him because he's my PS news source. On the other hand, he knows fuckall about my politics aside from my opinion about Suburb Utility Vehicles. I have many liberal views, and I have many conservative views, yet here we have a nice freerepublic thing going and I'm the villainous liberal hippy. The funniest part is that I hate SUVs as the owner of a sports car, not a bleeding heart.

[Navaron]

"Once again, AA is not meant to help the poor. It is meant to address an inequality between the races. If we are addressing a problem of inequality between races, why would we take race out of the equasion?"

What is their goal? Hmmm? If you don't know, then what are you trying to get them to attain? Hmmm, I'm gonna say we measure wealth as success. So we want them to get rich right? Why just poor blacks then? Why not help all poor people attain the means to get wealthy...Teach a man to fish...

"And what have blacks in America been doing all this time? Sitting on their butts?"

He said longer. Also, if the current system has it's way, they'll all be totally dependant on government handouts and mediocre urban schooling.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Unregistered
These studies fail to take into concideration the amount of time that Whites/Blacks/Hispanics have been in the U.S.

I will a gree that whites poesses more money then Blacks, but far more blacks imigrate into this country every year then whites. Same goes for hispanics.


I like your line of thinking here. So you are suggesting your family history plays a large part in determining your economic status. :D

Well lets look at the history of whites and blacks in America. Hmm, by your line of thinking that takes your families history in account, I would say that Blacks have been handicapped just a bit more than whites. AA is there to adress that handicap.

[MrVicchio]

I appologize if putting your nick in the subject line offended ya, and I wont do it again.

Secondly, Iam not argueing your ploitics as a whole, rather a single view point. I think if you hit the RIGHT subjects, you might me far more liberal then you might believe.

Back to the topic :P

AA was started to help people out that needed help. As for those numbers posted.. Your source is biased and thus /ignore I DID read it, but the UN is a BS orginazation that if it rEALLY cared woudln't be lambasting America for its "racial inequality" rather it would be inAfrica trying to fix REAL problems. Poor people in America are still better off then most poor people anywhere else in the world. Here atleast, they have a chance at a future, in most places.. your screwed.

[Airlift]

It isn't offensive, it's annoying. And my point was that you aren't arguing my politics at all, you're arguing politics suddenly attributed to me and I didn't like it. I do appreciate that you care enough not to do it again. :love: :love: :love:

[Lexington_Steele]

Unregistered.

Your opinion is perfectly valid.

There is nothing wrong with an approach that looks only at the individual and their performance. I have been terming this the survival of the fittest approach. This is where where the highest performer wins.

I just think that that is a bit cut throat for me, and I prefer the approach that adresses a racial socio-economic inequality.

Neither is right or wrong. It comes down to your preference (these preferences are often self serving but there is nothing necessartily wrong with that either).

Now it gets kind of fishy if you want to both address social inequality between the races, and you want to put the focus primarily on the individual. The second defeats the first.

[Lexington_Steele]

BTW, Mr. Vicchio I am still waiting on your numbers. ;)

[Navaron]

WTF??? My 50+ weren't enough???????????????

[Lexington_Steele]

And Mr Viccchio, the report was on HDI comparisons between different countries. There was a section that included relevant numbers and commentary on racial break down (as any good Standard of living report should). It is a little too easy for you to just scream out "It is biased because it has UN on it, and therefore meaning less."

(and the clock is still ticking on your numbers) :)

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
WTF??? My 50+ weren't enough???????????????

Those were more commentary on the situation rather than numbers comparing the status of Blacks versus Whites.

They did point out possible exploits of the system. I am not against adjusting AA to address certain exploits. Like anything, AA has to exolve. Just because there are a few loop holes does not mean you must toss the entire thing out.

Government is an ongoing process.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
Once again, AA is not meant to help the poor. It is meant to address an inequality between the races. If we are addressing a problem of inequality between races, why would we take race out of the equasion?
AA is not addressing inequality. If it were, it would simply make it illegal to discriminate against anyone and everyone would be judged on merit. AA, as it stands today, gives people gives people an advantage based on their skin color. It treats inequality by providing more inequality.

Besides, all the ways that are pointed out that blacks are considered to still be unequal are economic. If AA is not to help the poor, we shouldn't be using it to give scholarships. What does a rich black man need of a scholarship?? Nothing. But AA must be able to do something for him since you say is not not about economics. What can it do for him??

And what have blacks in America been doing all this time? Sitting on their butts?
I like your line of thinking here. So you are suggesting your family history plays a large part in determining your economic status.

Well lets look at the history of whites and blacks in America. Hmm, by your line of thinking that takes your families history in account, I would say that Blacks have been handicapped just a bit more than whites. AA is there to adress that handicap.
No, they were slaves part of the time.
You do realize that this second quote from you negates what you said to me, right??

What is AA here for?? I thought to was to make people equal. Obviously we mean two different things by this. When I say equal, I mean as all men are equal. Think Martin Luther King.

What AA means by equal is that everyone should have all the same things. Think communism. It's the same thing. The United Socialists of America. That's where AA takes us.


I am not sure what you mean by this.
I mean does the fact that these people are black have anything to do with why they are where they are?? Just to look at this study you have to say that it does. Otherwise, the study would be about geographic regions or types of living environments. I guarantee you that if you take a white child and a black child and make all other things equal, both would score the same in this study of theirs. It has nothing to do with color, it's the environment that that child grows up in.

[Lexington_Steele]

So mistled you are of the opinion there there isn't really an inequality between whites and blacks today.

Again as I outlined earlier, there are two main differences of opinion here where will have hang ups.

1) some people do not feel there is a problem.

2) if there is a problem, some people feel the government does not need to adress this problem/it is not the governments bussiness to address this problem.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
AA is not addressing inequality. If it were, it would simply make it illegal to discriminate against anyone and everyone would be judged on merit. AA, as it stands today, gives people gives people an advantage based on their skin color. It treats inequality by providing more inequality.

Do you really not see how your judgement based on merit would continue to keep whites ahead of blacks?

And how do you really police discrimination? If i choose not to hire someone, I can come up with a myriad of reason why I didn't hire them. How do prove that it was race when I was able to make up valid reasons? Discrimination is OT anyways.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
I mean does the fact that these people are black have anything to do with why they are where they are?? Just to look at this study you have to say that it does. Otherwise, the study would be about geographic regions or types of living environments. I guarantee you that if you take a white child and a black child and make all other things equal, both would score the same in this study of theirs. It has nothing to do with color, it's the environment that that child grows up in.

This is the crux of the issue. If in the same environment blacks and whites should succeed equaly. However their environments are not the same and blacks are not recieving the same success.

So if you feel this is a problem, you try to equal it out with AA.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
And how do you really police discrimination? If i choose not to hire someone, I can come up with a myriad of reason why I didn't hire them. How do prove that it was race when I was able to make up valid reasons? Discrimination is OT anyways.
Exactly. The government cannot do what it has set out to do. That's my whole point. It can't be done.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
Do you really not see how your judgement based on merit would continue to keep whites ahead of blacks?
No, I see how this keeps the rich ahead of the poor, but I do not see how it specifically hurts blacks, but not whites who are also in poverty.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
This is the crux of the issue. If in the same environment blacks and whites should succeed equaly. However their environments are not the same and blacks are not recieving the same success.
Lex, at least we mainly agree on the problem it seems.
But since the problem is the environment, why aren't we fixing the environment. AA does nothing to help that. It just gives you freebies at the expense of others that look nice, but don't help the underlying problem.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
No, I see how this keeps the rich ahead of the poor, but I do not see how it specifically hurts blacks, but not whites who are also in poverty.

But if a greater percentage of blacks are in poverty than whites are in poverty, then it is invariably hurting Blacks more.

So you have therefore validated a system that is going to inherently damage the black population more than the white population.

[mistled]

Then why isn't the program designed to help all the poor. Why does it discriminate in favor of blacks??

[Lexington_Steele]

As I posted before, affirmative action is in place to correct a racial inequality, not class inequality. And my question was: why would you take race out of the equasion if you are trying to address a racial issue.

You suggest helping the poor instead, how about doing both. When the socio-economic inequality is gone, so is the need for AA.

[Unregistered]

You have convinced me that Afirmitave Racism is the way to go. Now Lex can you help me become a better Racist? I'm really new to the whole judging people based on skin color thing so I was hoping you could set me straight.

Ok first I understand that Whites are evil, and should always be concidered last for anything because of things that happened 100's of years ago. In fact these atrocitys were so horrible that we need to punish all future generations of whites because of them.

Now that we have that straight can you help me rank these other races in order from Hate them to Love them.

Asians, Hispanics, Blacks, Middle Easteners, Indians, Native Americans and Woman.

If I do the easy thing and rank them alphebetacally it puts Asians ahead of blacks, but that doesn't seem right because Asians are genrally more finacally well off then Blacks.

So the were going to rank it from who needs money the most, but that puts the Middle Easteners at the top and that doesn't seem right either.

Boy it's hard to be a racist.

ok how about we rank them in order from least to most so that the true Minority get's the most help....No that won't work because Woman, and Blacks end up at the bottom of the list.

The there is the question of Homosexuality since it is protected by afirmitave action now too. Is a Gay White man more important then the Straight Black man? Or does his whiteness override his gayness? What about a Black Woman? Dose Racism stack? Should she get doubble the privliges for being Black and being a Woman?

Would a Gay Black Woman get 3 times the preferential treatment?

What if there are 2 Black men equally quallified for the same job? Does the one from Africa get the job over the Jamacian?


Please help me to better endorse racist policys so that America can never be equal.

[BLuE_ZeRO]

No sarcasm there :D

:rofl: :lol: http://smilies.networkessence.net/s/contrib/ed/laugh.gif

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
And my question was: why would you take race out of the equasion if you are trying to address a racial issue.



And you never answered my question....

Do two wrongs make a right?

How do you fight Racism with Racism without creating more Racism?

Afirmitiave Action is not the solution to these problems. I comend you for trying to solve Racial issues but supporting Racism is not the way to go about it.

[BLuE_ZeRO]

Only way to solve it is to have only one race. Well it's mass interracial breeding time http://smilies.networkessence.net/s/contrib/ed/laugh.gif

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Unregistered
And you never answered my question....

Do two wrongs make a right?



I see afirmative action as being a wrong, but alleviating another wrong. So in my eyes, the total net wrong is reduced by affirmative action.

In addition, it is meant to continue reducing the total net wrong until a time when the net wrong is nearly nonexistant.

So two wrongs eventually lead to a lack of wrong. :D

[mistled]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
As I posted before, affirmative action is in place to correct a racial inequality, not class inequality. And my question was: why would you take race out of the equasion if you are trying to address a racial issue.

You suggest helping the poor instead, how about doing both. When the socio-economic inequality is gone, so is the need for AA.
But the problem is class inequality, not race inequality. As we have both stated, the government can't force you to believe anything, so they can't stop racism. So why are they trying to do what we both know they can't??
My point is that if the problem in actually more about class than race. Why don't we put our efforts into helping the entire class of people, which will also bring the desired effect of helping racial inequality as well.
By suggesting we help the poor, I am saying to do both. Since the problem that people seem to think that blacks have is one of being poor, helping the poor helps on both levels.

[Tobias]

Originally posted by BLuE_ZeRO
Only way to solve it is to have only one race. Well it's mass interracial breeding time http://smilies.networkessence.net/s/contrib/ed/laugh.gif

Yes! we Can organize massive orgies! Everyone can join in! and then.....um....uh....more sex! And after we have babies of every race combined so we only have the one race of tan people we can have even more sex, just to be sure. And remember, AIDs kills kiddies, so use a condom. (The ladies can go to sperm banks for impregnation, the sex is just for fun)

[mistled]

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
I see afirmative action as being a wrong, but alleviating another wrong. So in my eyes, the total net wrong is reduced by affirmative action.

In addition, it is meant to continue reducing the total net wrong until a time when the net wrong is nearly nonexistant.

So two wrongs eventually lead to a lack of wrong. :D
Lex, I think we're done here. I think we both see AA as not being the ideal solution. Our difference is that you think the government should and can take an active role in the lives of people and I think that the government should get out of their way and let people fashion their own path.

Perhaps you have too much faith in government. Perhaps I have too much confidence in the generosity of people to help their fellow man.

Either way, I think we have come to a point where we can agree that we have both listened to the other's view and hopefully understand where they are coming from.

Have fun everyone, I'm bowing out (unless someone says something really stupid of course ;)).

mistled

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
Lex, I think we're done here. I think we both see AA as not being the ideal solution. Our difference is that you think the government should and can take an active role in the lives of people and I think that the government should get out of their way and let people fashion their own path.

Perhaps you have too much faith in government. Perhaps I have too much confidence in the generosity of people to help their fellow man.

Either way, I think we have come to a point where we can agree that we have both listened to the other's view and hopefully understand where they are coming from.

Have fun everyone, I'm bowing out (unless someone says something really stupid of course ;)).

mistled

I whole-heartedly agree. :nod:

[Navaron]

Something Really Stupid.

[Unregistered]

I'm tired of this thread. Racism makes me sick in every way shape or form and I'm tired of this thread. Affirmitave action is racism.

I'm sure the whites all had really good and justifiable reasons to opress blacks in the 20th century, and they were no less racist then the people that justify the state sanctioned opression of whites in the 21st.

[Hijinks]

Originally posted by Airlift
What is this, freeper south?

greetings crl monkeys.

:love:

[Airlift]

Jayzuz, you would have to bump this one for your first post, wouldn't you?