Would he not be a African European fahrer?[/quote]
He would, were it not for the fact that the only approved Newspeak term for “black” is “African-American.”
I once had an amusing exchange with a gentleman on these forums, who was a white man born in South Africa. He was months away from acquiring United States citizenship, and I quipped that once he had done so, he could correctly refer to himself as “African-American.”
He said he tried that once. His black friends thought it was hilarious, whereas his white friends were quite offended.
Go figger. [/quote]
Serious question: could a dude like that get consider for financial aid? What about slipping by affirmative action on a college admittance test. And if they got rejected… suing them. I would really be interested in that legal argument.
Serious question: could a dude like that get consider for financial aid? What about slipping by affirmative action on a college admittance test. And if they got rejected… suing them. I would really be interested in that legal argument.[/quote]
Nah, I doubt he’d get very far. It would all come down to what kind of African he was. Affirmative Action was intended to even the odds in favor of “underrepresented minorities” in universities and workplaces, and I doubt anybody would be impressed with my friend’s very accurate claim that in South Africa, his race is a minority.
Here is a spin on your question: considering that Affirmative Action is, in part, a way to make up for the injustice of the wide-scale transportation and enslavement of black people in the United States throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, should a second-generation Ethiopian-American be eligible for the same preferential treatment as a black person whose ancestors were here before the Civil War?
Assume that the Ethiopian is a member of the dominant tribe in the country (and therefore not one of the pathetic starving people that USA for Africa was so interested in) and also consider that Ethiopia has never been colonized by a white European power, nor its people subjected to slavery at the hands of the white man.
Whether black people in America should receive preferential treatment is not the issue. The issue is, should these two men, from opposite sides of Africa, one removed by ten generations, the other removed by just one generation, be given the same preferential treatment, disregarding their respective backgrounds, based solely on the color of their skin?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
He would, were it not for the fact that the only approved Newspeak term for “black” is “African-American.” [/quote]
Is it? Back in the late 90s I had to take one of those “multicultural” classes. As I recall, at that time “African-American” was out and “Black” was in. Of course, that could have been because we had a black woman in class from Belgium. “I am neither African, nor American!” lol
Would he not be a African European fahrer?[/quote]
He would, were it not for the fact that the only approved Newspeak term for “black” is “African-American.”
I once had an amusing exchange with a gentleman on these forums, who was a white man born in South Africa. He was months away from acquiring United States citizenship, and I quipped that once he had done so, he could correctly refer to himself as “African-American.”
He said he tried that once. His black friends thought it was hilarious, whereas his white friends were quite offended.
Go figger. [/quote]
Serious question: could a dude like that get consider for financial aid? What about slipping by affirmative action on a college admittance test. And if they got rejected… suing them. I would really be interested in that legal argument.[/quote]
My wife is half Guatemalan. She has blond hair and blue eyes, but her mother has brown hair, brown eyes, and light brown skin. My wife was turned down for grants because her last name was Covington. My mother-in-laws maiden name is Alvarado. My wife was turned down because they could not prove she was hispanic. My children are now quarter Guatemalan. You bet your a@@ I am going to sue if my children are discriminated against because they have my last name. My Mother-in-law will show up and show them they are hispanic.
My wife is half Guatemalan. She has blond hair and blue eyes, but her mother has brown hair, brown eyes, and light brown skin. My wife was turned down for grants because her last name was Covington. My mother-in-laws maiden name is Alvarado. My wife was turned down because they could not prove she was hispanic. My children are now quarter Guatemalan. You bet your a@@ I am going to sue if my children are discriminated against because they have my last name. My Mother-in-law will show up and show them they are hispanic.
[/quote]
Huh. This is the state of America in the twenty-first century, I guess.
A white man threatening to sue for discrimination if his mixed-race children are presumed to be white.
My wife is half Guatemalan. She has blond hair and blue eyes, but her mother has brown hair, brown eyes, and light brown skin. My wife was turned down for grants because her last name was Covington. My mother-in-laws maiden name is Alvarado. My wife was turned down because they could not prove she was hispanic. My children are now quarter Guatemalan. You bet your a@@ I am going to sue if my children are discriminated against because they have my last name. My Mother-in-law will show up and show them they are hispanic.
[/quote]
My son has light brown hair, blue eyes, pale skin and freckles. His mother is full-blooded Hispanic (Garza), so he’s half-Hispanic. I fully plan to have him apply for every La Raza, MALDEF, Hispanic Scholarship Fund, and any other minority scholarship he is qualified on paper for. I probably wouldn’t go so far as to sue, but I probably will write a tersely worded letter or two.
My wife is half Guatemalan. She has blond hair and blue eyes, but her mother has brown hair, brown eyes, and light brown skin. My wife was turned down for grants because her last name was Covington. My mother-in-laws maiden name is Alvarado. My wife was turned down because they could not prove she was hispanic. My children are now quarter Guatemalan. You bet your a@@ I am going to sue if my children are discriminated against because they have my last name. My Mother-in-law will show up and show them they are hispanic.
[/quote]
My son has light brown hair, blue eyes, pale skin and freckles. His mother is full-blooded Hispanic (Garza), so he’s half-Hispanic. I fully plan to have him apply for every La Raza, MALDEF, Hispanic Scholarship Fund, and any other minority scholarship he is qualified on paper for. I probably wouldn’t go so far as to sue, but I probably will write a tersely worded letter or two.[/quote]
Sue may have been a bit harsh, but I will make sure it goes up the chain.
Serious question: could a dude like that get consider for financial aid? What about slipping by affirmative action on a college admittance test. And if they got rejected… suing them. I would really be interested in that legal argument.[/quote]
Nah, I doubt he’d get very far. It would all come down to what kind of African he was. Affirmative Action was intended to even the odds in favor of “underrepresented minorities” in universities and workplaces, and I doubt anybody would be impressed with my friend’s very accurate claim that in South Africa, his race is a minority.
Here is a spin on your question: considering that Affirmative Action is, in part, a way to make up for the injustice of the wide-scale transportation and enslavement of black people in the United States throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, should a second-generation Ethiopian-American be eligible for the same preferential treatment as a black person whose ancestors were here before the Civil War?
Assume that the Ethiopian is a member of the dominant tribe in the country (and therefore not one of the pathetic starving people that USA for Africa was so interested in) and also consider that Ethiopia has never been colonized by a white European power, nor its people subjected to slavery at the hands of the white man.
Whether black people in America should receive preferential treatment is not the issue. The issue is, should these two men, from opposite sides of Africa, one removed by ten generations, the other removed by just one generation, be given the same preferential treatment, disregarding their respective backgrounds, based solely on the color of their skin?
Why or why not?
[/quote]
That’s a good question. I would say the person with the deepest roots in the U.S. would get the nod. You could argue that they experience more years of “hardship” and discrimination than the other, which would be difficult to prove. But at least they would experience more American discrimination/racism than the other, since the African wasn’t even on the continent.
Okay, but does an Affirmative Action board look that deeply into the ancestries of the applicants?
Do you really think they’d make a distinction between the 2nd generation upper class Ethiopian with no history of enslavement and colonization, and the tenth-generation black man whose ancestors were kidnapped and sold to slavers on the Ivory Coast, whose family spent 150 years in bondage, and whose grandparents and parents had to live through the Jim Crow laws and the civil rights movements?
My contention is that they would not make the distinction. I think that they would see two guys with dark skin and assume that they are in equivalent need of what is referred to in golf as a “handicap”.
[i]Something I wrote a few years ago on this forum.
It was on a thread discussing whether or not a prominent public figure was “black”. I include it here for your consideration. [/i]
Yes, he is a black man.
The question to ask, though, is, “is he a black man in the same sense that most black men in America are black men?” The answer to that is no.
He is not the descendent of slaves. Nobody in his family was ever forcibly transported across the Atlantic. None of his relatives were ever whipped by a white foreman on a tobacco plantation, nor chased by bloodhounds through a swamp with broken chains around their ankles. None of his ancestors were ever spit on in a public street, or forced to drink from a different faucet, go to a different school, swim at a different beach, or ride at the back of the bus. None of his family ever lived in a sharecropper’s shack, a tenement, or a ghetto. None of his family ever died in a gang shooting, nor were they ever falsely arrested or beaten by white police.
His skin is… well, not black so much as khaki, but at least as dark as, say, Jesse Jackson’s. He is well and truly African-American, being equal parts of each, but his African side is from a different side of Africa than that of 99 percent of black Americans. In short, he doesn’t share the culture of the vast majority of black Americans, any more than the son of an aristocrat from Madrid shares the same culture of the vast majority of Hispanic Americans. This is not a criticism of the man. It is merely an observation.
Does it matter? I don’t know. Should it? Or is black only skin deep?
I wouldn’t listen to this Varqanir guy. He appears to be a buffoon of the highest order. He’s a racist scoundrel worthy of no intellectual consideration.
Disgusting human being.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[i]Something I wrote a few years ago on this forum.
It was on a thread discussing whether or not a prominent public figure was “black”. I include it here for your consideration. [/i]
Yes, he is a black man.
The question to ask, though, is, “is he a black man in the same sense that most black men in America are black men?” The answer to that is no.
He is not the descendent of slaves. Nobody in his family was ever forcibly transported across the Atlantic. None of his relatives were ever whipped by a white foreman on a tobacco plantation, nor chased by bloodhounds through a swamp with broken chains around their ankles. None of his ancestors were ever spit on in a public street, or forced to drink from a different faucet, go to a different school, swim at a different beach, or ride at the back of the bus. None of his family ever lived in a sharecropper’s shack, a tenement, or a ghetto. None of his family ever died in a gang shooting, nor were they ever falsely arrested or beaten by white police.
His skin is… well, not black so much as khaki, but at least as dark as, say, Jesse Jackson’s. He is well and truly African-American, being equal parts of each, but his African side is from a different side of Africa than that of 99 percent of black Americans. In short, he doesn’t share the culture of the vast majority of black Americans, any more than the son of an aristocrat from Madrid shares the same culture of the vast majority of Hispanic Americans. This is not a criticism of the man. It is merely an observation.
Does it matter? I don’t know. Should it? Or is black only skin deep? [/quote]
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I wouldn’t listen to this Varqanir guy. He appears to be a buffoon of the highest order. He’s a racist scoundrel worthy of no intellectual consideration.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I wouldn’t listen to this Varqanir guy. He appears to be a buffoon of the highest order. He’s a racist scoundrel worthy of no intellectual consideration.
Disgusting human being.
[/quote]
Damnit, Mike, that was supposed to be our little secret!
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Okay, but does an Affirmative Action board look that deeply into the ancestries of the applicants?
Do you really think they’d make a distinction between the 2nd generation upper class Ethiopian with no history of enslavement and colonization, and the tenth-generation black man whose ancestors were kidnapped and sold to slavers on the Ivory Coast, whose family spent 150 years in bondage, and whose grandparents and parents had to live through the Jim Crow laws and the civil rights movements?
My contention is that they would not make the distinction. I think that they would see two guys with dark skin and assume that they are in equivalent need of what is referred to in golf as a “handicap”.
My question is, should it be so? [/quote]
I think if AA is in place, then the burden should be on the applicant to prove to the school for instance to show why they are deserving of extra assistance. Pointing out their history, poverty level, socio-economic status would be things they could argue on why they are disadvantaged and they would have to cite specifics and have to provide proof of this. And then a panel would review all applicants and rank them top to bottom.