[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Not going to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man!
[/quote]
You shouldn’t be so hard on yourself.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
No, it was a ridiculous and pointless question and I treated it as such. If you had bothered to read further, you would have seen that in order to give you the answer you wanted, it required proof that I didn’t have. Now if you would have asked me if I FELT like I lost out on opportunities based on race, I could answer that question, but I still wouldn’t have any proof. In other words, it was assine to even ask the question.
The point was that clearly lonelobo felt discriminated against and therefore deserves to be heard. Just like anyone of another color deserves the same courtesy.
Oh please! Flawed, yes I can agree with that. But trying to make it out to be racist, you going to have to do better than you feeling like it excludes you to prove that it is racist.
What you call a “flaw” is the reason it is racists. That would be preference based on ones race. THAT is racist. Now, if you want to give preference to all people based on low income, that would not be racist (as all races are included).
So the flaw is the design. Preference based on race is racists regardless of what race is preferred. You seem to think because a black or other non-white race is preferred then it’s not racists. Well, that is contrarry to what the definition of racism is, look it up.
No, not only are you clueless about AA, but you are clueless about racism in general. Do you realize that this myth of a large percentage of White workers losing out if affirmative action is continued has been disproved before? Government statistics do not support this myth. According to the U.S. Commerce Department, there are 1.3 million unemployed Black civilians and 112 million employed White civilians (according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). Thus, even if every unemployed Black worker in the United States were to displace a White worker, only 1% of Whites would be affected. And we know that this is NOT happening.
So you are saying that government sponsored racism is only bad if it negatively affects the non-preferred race? Sorry sport, racism is wrong regardless of whether it can be proven to harm other groups. Just like if only one black guy doesn’t get a job because of his color, it is also wrong if one white guys has the same experience.
See above response, and then come back when you have some actual facts and data to support your point. But since you can only piss and moan about the state of the “poor, downtroden white male” I won’t hold my breath waiting.
Dude, you just don’t get it. Regardless of the real or perceived damages of racism, it is still wrong. If you want to go change the laws to require that proof of harm is the only measure of racism, then go ahead, but that will negatively affect all races.
No, I like picking on people who like to rant but have no real facts to support their points. The fact that he is still a kid just made another point to show how a lack of maturity and wisdom created the original rants. He decided to step into an adult conversation and deliver his rant, so it made him fair game. However, I’ll pick on you as well because you fit the criteria. The only difference is that you are obviously older, which just makes you even more pathetic.
Well, he is old enough to know that preference by race is racism. He is also old enough to be able to read the dictionary definition of racism. He is also old enough to be able to think for himself and not just parrot a PC position in order to fit in. Three things that you appear to be not smart enough to do.
This is actually stupid that I’m even discussing this with you as you clearly don’t know what racism is and can’t read well enough to learn it.
So until you get a dictionary I don’t really have anything more to say to you.
Not going to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man!
[/quote]
This is totally amazing. You did exactly what I said you would do. You continued a rant, supplied no data or statistics to back up your points, and threw in insults and condescending remarks. All in all, your point boils down to “I don’t like it because I don’t see how it benefits me, so it is racist.” Are you sure that this person you are so vehemently defending is not a relative of yours? You sound exactly like him.
I realize that you rode the short bus all of your life so I am going to explain this slowly for your benefit. (BTW, I am using actual sources, including a dictionary, to help you understand. Since you accused me of not being able to read a dictionary, I figured that you should know this bit of info.)
Racism is is the belief that people of different races differ in value, that these differences can be measured on a ranked, hierarchical scale, and that result in the social, political, and economic advantage of one group in relation to others. Racism as a term is usually applied to actions by a dominant group in a society on others. Weaker groups are unlikely to practice racism publicly on a more dominant or powerful group, as they would effectively be unable to. This highlights the difference between oppression and repression. Since minorities are not the dominant group, it is virtually impossible for them to be racist. That is why I find it highly amusing when a white person calls a minority racist. Predjudiced, yes, racist, no.
Racist discrimination is any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. Affirmative action does not prevent any white male from operating on an equal footing considering white males are the ones who have had the advantage since the inception of the USA. Any point you base on unequal footing is not valid.
Affirmative Action is a set of procedures by which racial/ethnic minorities, women (including white women), persons in the protected age category, persons with disabilities, Vietnam era veterans, and disabled veterans are provided with increased employment opportunities. This will also include programs for monitoring progress and problem identification. It shall not mean any sort of quota system. Do you see this? If quotas are being used, it is being done by the individual companies, not because of affirmative action itself.
The only reason that the government is involved is because it will not give any money to companies or other entities that do not have an equal representation of all americans, not just the majority ones. If a company is using quotas is because they want government money and kickbacks, not because the government told them they had to do it. They choose to do it out of greed.
In addition, ethinic minorities could mean anybody. Also, I hate to break the news to you, but these quotas that you are hung up on that are employing black people are also used to employ WHITE women, whites of other ethinic backgrounds and virtually almost anybody in the USA. So how can something that includes all that be racist? It’s not. If you bothered to pick up a book and read, you would know all of this.
What I think you are trying to allude to is “Reverse racism”. This is usually applied to instances of perceived discrimination against members of a dominant (rather than minority) group, usually as a reaction to previous policies’ racism by said group. In the United States, many people, mostly conservatives, criticize policies such as affirmative action as an example of reverse racism. They point out that insofar as these policies provide preference to certain racial groups and not others, they are race-based discrimination, even if their goal is to correct a previous act of discrimination. Supporters of affirmative action argue that those policies counteract a systemic and cultural racism by providing a balancing force, and that it does not qualify as racist because they are enacted by politicians (mostly part of the majority) and directed towards their own race. So I guess you are talking about racism coming from your own group? How is that possible?
One last point. Increasingly significant numbers of white people (i.e. people of European ethnicity, youself and LoneLobo) believe that political correctness has led to a denigration of the white race, through “special attention” paid to minority races. For example, they consider the existence of Black History Month (February) but not a White History Month, Amerindian History Month, or Asian History Month to be de facto racism directed at the majority and non-black minorities. Yet again, others argue that the lack of a White History Month is due to the fact that much of the school year is devoted to teaching history from a Eurocentric perspective. Such as what is taught in every public and private school system in the USA. Maybe if the contributions of minorities were given equal weight as the ones from the majority, then we can go to this “blind-eye” society that you think we should have. But it doesn’t, so we don’t.
Maybe if you spent more time intelligently discussing the issue instead of throwing insults, you might have more of a point than what is on top of your head. A battle of wits with an unarmed man? Looks like you are the one that is unarmed.
This will be the last you will hear on this topic from me. I just wanted you to get a response on this post. Feel free to rant away and feel superior.
AlDurr, good post.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
This is totally amazing. You did exactly what I said you would do. You continued a rant, supplied no data or statistics to back up your points, and threw in insults and condescending remarks. All in all, your point boils down to “I don’t like it because I don’t see how it benefits me, so it is racist.” Are you sure that this person you are so vehemently defending is not a relative of yours? You sound exactly like him.
I realize that you rode the short bus all of your life so I am going to explain this slowly for your benefit. (BTW, I am using actual sources, including a dictionary, to help you understand. Since you accused me of not being able to read a dictionary, I figured that you should know this bit of info.)
Racism is is the belief that people of different races differ in value, that these differences can be measured on a ranked, hierarchical scale, and that result in the social, political, and economic advantage of one group in relation to others. Racism as a term is usually applied to actions by a dominant group in a society on others. Weaker groups are unlikely to practice racism publicly on a more dominant or powerful group, as they would effectively be unable to. This highlights the difference between oppression and repression. Since minorities are not the dominant group, it is virtually impossible for them to be racist. That is why I find it highly amusing when a white person calls a minority racist. Predjudiced, yes, racist, no.
[/quote]
So much for the PC version of the definition of racism. Now lets look at an unbiased factual definition:
- The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
- Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Notice the a person does not have to belong to a “dominant race” (of which there is no definition) to discriminate against someone else based on color.
Your asinine definition would allow a black business owner, who only hires other blacks, to continue to do so and it wouldn’t be considered racism. Sorry sport, but any one PERSON in a position of power or authority (regardless of his race) can discriminate based on race; and that action would be considered racism, because it is “prejudice or discrimination based on race”.
Hiring one person over another based purely on race does not allow “equal footing”.
If the past white advantage issue has to do with AA, than AA is based on reparations for the past and not designed to support equal footing. If AA is not based on past wrongs, than the fact that whites had the advantage because of racism in the past is irrelevant.
I personally know someone who worked for the State of California and he indicated that there were indeed quotas. Now that AA has been removed in California they are truly on equal footing.
What other whites (other than women) does AA favor?
First of all, you have no idea of my race, so stop assuming.
Next, there is no such thing as reverse racism as racism is based on an individual with power not a group.
Lastly, as far as a balancing force, that is an asinine method of dealing with racism; by being racist to another group.
You can’t stop racism by being racist. You can’t teach people to not murder by murdering.
Again, you have no idea what race I am. (Here is a hit dumb ass, Lorisco is Spanish for “the rock”).
Next, I feel giving special treatment to any race denigrates all races, not just white. It denigrates the races not receiving the special attention and those receiving the special attention.
If you are talking about highlighting groups of immigrates that had an impact on the US, I believe all those races should be given credit. So with that in mind it does seem biased or PC that there is not an Asian (particularly Chinese) history month, and Mexican history month as well as black for their contributions to this country.
You need to ask yourself why there isn’t recognition of these other groups?
I agree that white history in the US is already represented in the current school curriculum. However, that doesn’t explain why other races have not been recognized.
If you think quoting from slanted non-recognized biased materials makes you “armed”, you are just sad.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
If the past white advantage issue has to do with AA, than AA is based on reparations for the past and not designed to support equal footing. If AA is not based on past wrongs, than the fact that whites had the advantage because of racism in the past is irrelevant.[/quote]
AA was inacted because of then current issues of advantage based on race. It had nothing to do with “past reparations” and everything to do with the fact that minorities and women were not getting hired or paid the same as white males in the same jobs. It was born because of a lack of equal footing and was designed to equalize it. Your last statement makes no sense with this in mind. It wasn’t about “racism in the past” when it was inacted. It was about “racism in the present”.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
If the past white advantage issue has to do with AA, than AA is based on reparations for the past and not designed to support equal footing. If AA is not based on past wrongs, than the fact that whites had the advantage because of racism in the past is irrelevant.
AA was inacted because of then current issues of advantage based on race. It had nothing to do with “past reparations” and everything to do with the fact that minorities and women were not getting hired or paid the same as white males in the same jobs. It was born because of a lack of equal footing and was designed to equalize it. Your last statement makes no sense with this in mind. It wasn’t about “racism in the past” when it was inacted. It was about “racism in the present”.[/quote]
Welcome back Bro, hope you stay long enough this time to actually answer a few questions.
I agree that at that time there was institutional racism going on. Whites only hiring whites at the exclusion of black or other minorities (to a lesser degree).
So you call employers only hiring whites for whatever reason racist (and I would agree).
But then you call employers being required to hire on certain races “Affirmative Action”, when it is the same thing (only different races being favored).
Ever heard the phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right”?
Showing preference to anyone over another based purely on race is racism.
Now you can argue that women were included in AA, and for that issue it would make some sense assuming that the woman could actually do the job being hired for. But preference purely on race is just wrong, no matter the motivation.
Now if AA was based on socioeconomic status, that would make more sense and not be racism as all races would in included. This would actually have been a better approach because it gets at the core of the discrepancy, socioeconomic status. I mean, think about it, what was the motivation behind AA? It was to give all races equal ability to achieve and attain a higher socioeconomic status. So basing it on socioeconomic status would have been more effective and not racist.
In addition, there have been people of non-white racial background that already had a high socioeconomic status that were given an additional advantage through AA, when they didn’t need it. That is not a level playing field my friend.
So I still contend that AA has been flawed from the start and is certainly not needed anymore, as California has demonstrated.
I said that I wasn’t going respond to your idiocy anymore, but I can’t resist because you just argued yourself into a corner and you are too stupid and full of yourself to see it.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So much for the PC version of the definition of racism. Now lets look at an unbiased factual definition:
- The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
- Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Notice the a person does not have to belong to a “dominant race” (of which there is no definition) to discriminate against someone else based on color.
Your asinine definition would allow a black business owner, who only hires other blacks, to continue to do so and it wouldn’t be considered racism. Sorry sport, but any one PERSON in a position of power or authority (regardless of his race) can discriminate based on race; and that action would be considered racism, because it is “prejudice or discrimination based on race”.
[/quote]
Wow, I could have sworn that I posted that same generic definition back on page 6 of this post. The problem with your wanting to keep everything so generic is that when you apply definitions to the human condition, they fall short and are not so cut and dried. Your use of this definition is the same as using the definition of life. The generic term of life means “The quality by which living organisms are distinguished from dead organisms or inanimate matter.” This seems like it is pretty clear, but when you apply it to the real world, it is not going to be as clear. In other words, when dealing with human beings, things change depending on the circumstances. Generic definitions aren’t always enough to understand situations. But I am not surprised that you can’t see that based on your previous rants. By the way, your use of the black store owner is a weak example. That black store owner has not caused all black store owners to hire only blacks, just for the store that he owns. He is prejudiced and bigoted, but he doesn’t have enough power and influence to create a racist situation. Whether you want to recognize it or not, there is a difference.
What world do you operate in? Do you have any idea how ridiculous this statement sounds? You obviously have no clue on the past history and present circumstances that underrepresentative groups in this country have had to deal with regularly. AA doesn’t not force employers to hire someone based only on race. The person ACTUALLY HAS TO BE QUALIFIED! AA forces employers to look at every QUALIFIED person, regardless of race, gender (including WHITE females), age (including WHITE males and females), ethnicity, disabilities (including WHITE males and females), veteran status (including WHITE males and females) etc. What part of that don’t you understand? You are so stuck on just race that you don’t see beyond it. Do you have family members that were alive before AA? I do, and let me tell you, if you think AA is racist, you have no idea what true racism is. In addition, do you know how vietnam veterans were treated after they came back? I know several of them of different races and both genders and many of them were treated like crap by universities and employers. Much like the person you are defending, you obviously haven’t had these experiences.
As stated numerous time, oblivious one, those quotas applied to more than just race. Now, the mechanism that prevented employers and universities from exluding that long list of people has been removed. How is this equal footing? It’s not.
Here is where ALL of your arguments fall apart. The last time that I checked, WHITE WOMEN were part of the collective group known as white people. Unless you are now going to say that they aren’t, you will now need to conceed that AA is not racist. (You won’t do that because it takes a true adult to admit when they are wrong and you have already proven otherwise.) How can something be racist if it includes people from EVERY race?
Does it exclude a group of people? Well if someone is NOT of a specific race, gender (including WHITE females), age (including WHITE males and females), ethnicity, disabilities (including WHITE males and females), veteran status (including WHITE males and females) etc, then they are excluded. It pretty much boils down to white males that don’t fit the categories above, much like the person you are defending. Is that fair? No it’s not. I said before that AA is flawed, but it is not because it is racist. Anything you have said before to say it is racist and anything you say after to support this weak position is pretty much not valid and pure BS.
I assumed your race based on the person you are defending and the fact that you are so hung up on race, specifically black people. Do you have some deep seeded hatred of blacks? Because you don’t mention any other race getting the so-called “preferential treatment”, just black people.
If you are not white, then you are a beneficiary of AA and a hypocrite of the first order.
Additionally, you are defending someone who has no real point other than a rant. He is part of this group of young white kids that were told by their parents and grandparents that the USA was designed to benefit them and that they are destined to own it alone. Then as he is starting to grow up, he sees that it is a lie. He has to share the country with everybody else. He doesn’t like it, so he is mad. He is just an young angry white male who is mad because he is not getting his way. The fact that you can’t see through that calls into question your mental faculties.
Again, did I say that it was a perfect method? No, I didn’t. You are putting words in my mouth. As far as you making the statement “You can’t stop racism by being racist.” You STILL have not proven that it is racist. In fact, by your own words above you have shown that it includes members of all races. Your little cute quip was a waste.
First of all, jerk off, I know what lorisco means. I spent several years working in Latin America (all parts, including Central and South America), so I understand some spanish. I didn’t make the assumption that just because you used a spanish word for your ID that you were of spanish descent. I assumed your race based on the person you were defending. Since you didn’t make it clear, you got associated by the company you keep. BTW, the last time I checked, Spain is in Europe and they look as white as many other Europeans. If that is the case, your race is still white. Your ethnic background is what is different.
Second of all, again, by your own admission, you are a beneficiary of AA. You are a hypocrite. You want to get rid of something that either directly of indirectly helped you. Typical, “I got mine, now you get yours” attitude that people like Condelezza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzales endorse. It’s a selfish, self-absorbed viewpoint that hurts far more than it helps.
If you aren’t white, then you are just too dumb to realize that if it wasn’t for things like AA that you more than likely wouldn’t have many of opportunities you have now. Maybe you think you didn’t benefit from them, but you might have or somebody before you might have, which opened doors for you. And I don’t mean you getting a free ride. That argument is bullshit. None of us got a free ride. I mean that people were forced to actually look at you and take your credentials seriously as a candidate rather than ignore you and choose a white person. That is what it was like before things like AA.
Personal case in point, before AA, my uncle, who holds several advanced degrees in science was forced to work in the basement of a laboratory sweeping our animal cages while his lesser qualified (degree-wise and age wise), white counterparts were given R&D opportunities and advancement in the company. When AA was implemented, the company was forced to re-evaluate his credentials and offered him a better position. He left that company and went elsewhere where he retired as a high-level executive. By having that opportunity, door were opened for others.
People died, literally, for those opportunities and now you want to close the door simply because you feel that you got yours and its not needed anymore? If you truly think this way, maybe you need to check yourself
Unless, of course, you look white enough to pass. Then you will be just living a lie.
I ask that question all the time. American history includes ALL races and groups. However, your little statment assumes that Black History Month was just given to black people. This is the typical, narrow-minded viewpoint that many people have of blacks. We are just given things, we never earn them. Do you know that black people fought to get Black History Month? It wasn’t given to us, we fought for it. If Asians, Latinos etc. want to have a month, I am all for that and I will support it 100%. But they need to fight to get that month like we did. Nobody is going to give it to them.
No, it doesn’t and I totally agree.
No, I think that you providing no real material to support your point, other than material that was previously presented, ranting, throwing insults, trying to be condescending and then arguing yourself into a corner and proving me right means that I am armed and you are a pathetic waste of oxygen.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Ever heard the phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right”? [/quote]
I have also heard of glass ceilings. I could truly care less if the equalization process required a focus on those who were not granted access based on a certain race and gender historically. What alternative are you providing? It has been several pages and we haven’t heard one yet.
[quote]
Showing preference to anyone over another based purely on race is racism. [/quote]
Allowing races and genders to become further disenfranchised is racist. I am glad it was forced to stop on some levels.
[quote]
Now you can argue that women were included in AA, and for that issue it would make some sense assuming that the woman could actually do the job being hired for. But preference purely on race is just wrong, no matter the motivation. [/quote]
It was never just about race. It was ALWAYS about minorities and women meaning you have no point.
There are rich kids getting into colleges they don’t truly qualify for today. Why are you not creating the same fuss about this?
Human nature was flawed from the start. Thanks for proving it still is.
Watch the movie “Generation X” it deals with this. I was bothered by it.
Me Solomon Grundy
[quote]Solomon Grundy wrote:
Watch the movie “Generation X” it deals with this. I was bothered by it.
Me Solomon Grundy[/quote]
It bothers me too. I do not advocate killing anyone.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Ever heard the phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right”?
I have also heard of glass ceilings. I could truly care less if the equalization process required a focus on those who were not granted access based on a certain race and gender historically. What alternative are you providing? It has been several pages and we haven’t heard one yet.
Showing preference to anyone over another based purely on race is racism.
Allowing races and genders to become further disenfranchised is racist. I am glad it was forced to stop on some levels.
Now you can argue that women were included in AA, and for that issue it would make some sense assuming that the woman could actually do the job being hired for. But preference purely on race is just wrong, no matter the motivation.
It was never just about race. It was ALWAYS about minorities and women meaning you have no point.
In addition, there have been people of non-white racial background that already had a high socioeconomic status that were given an additional advantage through AA, when they didn’t need it. That is not a level playing field my friend.
There are rich kids getting into colleges they don’t truly qualify for today. Why are you not creating the same fuss about this?
So I still contend that AA has been flawed from the start and is certainly not needed anymore, as California has demonstrated.
Human nature was flawed from the start. Thanks for proving it still is.[/quote]
ProfX,
You are wasting your time. You won’t get any alternatives options from him. All you will get is more rants and raves and, in my case, insults.
One more pic.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Ever heard the phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right”?
I have also heard of glass ceilings. I could truly care less if the equalization process required a focus on those who were not granted access based on a certain race and gender historically. What alternative are you providing? It has been several pages and we haven’t heard one yet.
[/quote]
I have stated it several times; provide preference to all races by socioeconomic status. After all, why would a black guy with money need more of a level playing field anyway?
I agree, but they could have been forced to stop without causing other groups to be disenfranchised.
Really? Then why would Mexicans be included is a minority in US States where they are close to or the actual majority? That’s about being non-white my friend. Open your eyes.
Your response shows the weakness of your position and that you are avoiding the question. You didn’t answer the issue. The issue is; Should AA cover an affluent black guy? Answer the dam question.
As far as a rich kid; any rich kid of any race should not be shown preference based of his or his parents money. (Again, not a racial issue).
[quote]
Human nature was flawed from the start. Thanks for proving it still is.[/quote]
What does that have to do with anything? Try and stay focused will you.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
I have stated it several times; provide preference to all races by socioeconomic status. After all, why would a black guy with money need more of a level playing field anyway? [/quote]
On average, before the instatement of AA, what “ethnic group” had more of the money in America? Which one still does?
Who was disenfranchised by AA? White America is now disenfranchised? Please.
Because they experienced the same racism in jobs that other minorities did. Are you honestly arguing that this wasn’t the case?
[quote]Your response shows the weakness of your position and that you are avoiding the question. You didn’t answer the issue. The issue is; Should AA cover an affluent black guy? Answer the dam question.
[/quote]
If that affluent black guy was not getting a job he was qualified for because of racism in the workplace, YES. No one is running from your questions. It isn’t like you are making any sort of solid argument. You simply don’t like AA.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Really? Then why would Mexicans be included is a minority in US States where they are close to or the actual majority? That’s about being non-white my friend. Open your eyes.
[/quote]
“Mexicans” are not even close to being a majority.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Wow, I could have sworn that I posted that same generic definition back on page 6 of this post. The problem with your wanting to keep everything so generic is that when you apply definitions to the human condition, they fall short and are not so cut and dried. Your use of this definition is the same as using the definition of life. The generic term of life means “The quality by which living organisms are distinguished from dead organisms or inanimate matter.” This seems like it is pretty clear, but when you apply it to the real world, it is not going to be as clear. In other words, when dealing with human beings, things change depending on the circumstances. Generic definitions aren’t always enough to understand situations.
[/quote]
So do you also think they change the definition of every law for each circumstance when someone is arrested? If you do I have a bridge to sell you.
The point, my pointless friend, is that using a standard definition stops the bias factor. It stops manipulation of the definition to fit ones own biased position. The “extended” definition you quoted was a PC biased position developed years ago to push a particular position on AA.
So for us to have an unbiased discussion we need a consistent definition, which is what I provided. You also quoted it but added to it to bias your position. Either we use the generic position or we don’t. Anything else is just bias.
Why do say I’m ranting and who do you think I’m defending? I have posted on this site my opinion long before lonelobo posted anything. So as usual, you have your facts mixed up.
Next, the white business owners in the past have not caused all white business owners to only hire white either. So your example is without basis. Whether you want to believe it or not, not all whites prior to AA were racists. And it was not a country-wide conspiracy as you contend.
So anyone who has power over another person can be racists or cause a racists situation regardless of the rest of his race. This person can also not force other (you stated all) of his race to do the same. This is why your definition is flawed.
The part that you clearly don’t understand. That would be the part where the minority meet the minimum qualification, but the non-minority goes far above it in say experience or education, whatever. And in this situation the minority would still get the job under AA ever though there was a better candidate.
You need to think this through a little more.
That is unfortunate and we can all thank our ancestors for what their contributions to our quality of life today. They are what really changed this country. Not some failed government program.
Yes, I have been called racial slurs and I’m aware how Vietnam Vets were treated.
Because it is and was already illegal to show preference to or discriminate based on race, sex, sexual orientation, etc… This is already illegal.
So California now just enforces the law and doesn’t show preference to anyone based on race.
You apparent can’t read too well as I already stated I acknowledged the women and disabilities issue. If socioeconomic status was included with these other categories and race removed it would have been a good program.
Sorry I missed you saying that it was flawed.
As far as racism, maybe that is the wrong term. What is it called when a certain race and gender are excluded? Gender-racism? Whatever you call it it is biased. Socioeconomic states would have been a better approach.
Actuality, to the contrary I have a number of black friends and live in the south area where many different races reside.
The reason I focus on blacks is because they are the group that your kind of thinking has crippled. Even today you have able bodied blacks who are on welfare because they don’t know anything different. They don’t understand the power they have to change their own station in life. And they don’t know this because the so-called black leaders keep telling them they can’t succeed without help or on their own. That it is someone else’s fault thy got bad grades and couldn’t get into a good college.
Since AA and welfare, the blacks have been the most underdeveloped race in the US. Don’t get me wrong, this would be the same for any race that has had the same things happen to it. But when the hell will this stop? When will the black leaders who have succeeded come back to the communities and help kids learn their potential? When will black families stay together so kids can get the sense of worth that helps them know they can succeed like Pro X apparently received?
So I actually would love to see blacks succeed. I just think it is special treatment programs that have been holding them back. But this is changing.
To my knowledge I have never benefited from AA. And not wanting to be locked into a spirit-crippling entitlement program is not hypocritical.
Listen up and learn. All countries that speak Spanish as a primary language are considered “Latino” and not Anglo-Saxon. If you spent time in a Latin country they should have told you that while they were whipping your ass.
There is a politically-biased modern day term of “Hispanic”, which has become popular, but that has no real meaning. It is used to separate those from Mexico from other Latin countries. But since Spanish is the primary language in Mexico as well they are still Latino whether they like it or not.
Your response shows what is wrong with the black community. Why tear down Condelezza Rice and Clarence Thomas? They should be held up as examples of blacks succeeding. I bet you wanted to call them “uncle-Tom” didn’t you. How the hell can the majority of blacks know they can achieve when they have people like you telling them they can’t and tearing down those that do? You are hurting your own people!
That is crap! How did those people who succeeded (before AA) do it? There were those from every race who did just that without the help of AA. You and Pro X never seem to acknowledge that. You acknowledge what they went through but never that they did it out of their own strength and determination.
The fact that there were many of all races who succeeded before AA proves that AA was not the answer. Maybe that is why you tear down those blacks that succeed, because they prove your position is wrong.
Since that kind of shit was illegal, why didn’t he go to the labor board? With the degree issue he had a case. He didn’t need AA. But the difference is that through AA he didn’t have to do anything, while through the existing law he had to push it himself.
Your ancestors died to give you opportunities, not to give you AA.
I want others to have opportunities as well, but I feel it should come from their hard work and the existing laws. Don’t forget that the ACLU and NAACP was founded to deal with issues of discrimination. So there was an existing structure to help stop this crap from continuing.
Really! So what happened to AA? Now other races need to fight for stuff? Why don’t we have AA for special history months? Sounds like the “I’ve got mine” attitude you were accusing me of a few paragraphs ago.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
On average, before the instatement of AA, what “ethnic group” had more of the money in America? Which one still does?
[/quote]
The one that has the majority in terms of numbers of people. When there is more of one race than other races they are going to have more of the money.
So how many whites would it take to feel that they were disenfranchised? In my book, one of any race is too much.
All races at some point have been discriminated against. Even among what you considered a homogeneous “White” group there is racism. Read some of the history of the beginning of this country when all the immigrates came over. No one was excluded from racism.
The solid argument, since it has seemed to elude you, is that AA should be based on socioeconomic status. People of high socioeconomic status do not need additional special advantages.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Really? Then why would Mexicans be included is a minority in US States where they are close to or the actual majority? That’s about being non-white my friend. Open your eyes.
“Mexicans” are not even close to being a majority.
[/quote]
Hey doggie-style, they are close in certain States, which is what I stated.
In California it is 32% to 46% White, New Mexico it is 42% to 44%, and Texas 32% to 52% white.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So do you also think they change the definition of every law for each circumstance when someone is arrested? If you do I have a bridge to sell you.
[/quote]
No, what they do is change their interpretation of the law based on their own experiences and viewpoints. I didn’t change the definition, I simply stated that the definition gets interpreted differently by different people. This is why the generic doesn’t work when applied to the human condition.
As I stated above, the standard definition will still be interpreted by humans. When that happens, bias will happen whether you like it or not. You’ve been doing it the whole time.
When discussing something like AA, which, whether you want to admit it or not, has helped far more people than it has hurt, there will be bias on either side. Again, you have been biased the whole time and you won’t admit it.
No, I don’t have my facts mixed up. You are ranting because I have asked for proof to back up your position that it is racist, and you have yet to provide any. The only reason that I said anything to you in the first place is that you jumped into the middle of me giving LoneLobo a hard time about his rant. You started this whole thing. I didn’t even care about your opinion until you attacked me first. Had you not said anything to me, I wouldn’t even have responded to you. You need to check your facts, because, as usual, you are wrong.
It is obvious that you don’t know anybody who lived through the time before civil rights and AA or else you wouldn’t even have posted something this ill-informed. This type of thing happened all the time. White business owners worked together in many towns to keep non-whites from working in their areas or living in their neighboorhoods, going to their schools etc. And while not all whites were racist prior to AA, many of them sat on the sidelines (admittedly, so did some non-whites) kept their heads down and allowed this type of behavior to happen.
Your illogic is astounding.
Again, you throw out blatant crap and expect everyone to believe that this is a fact without any proof. When has this ever happened? Newsflash! YOU STILL HAVE TO BE QUALIFIED! If the non-minority is MORE qualified (experience, education etc.) then they get the job, enter the school, whatever. Period! Qualifications are looked at long before race is even an issue. AA doesn’t allow for this type of situation. This is the same bullshit arguement that some of the idiots that scream “reverse-racism” use. However, what they can never prove is that they are more qualified, because it is not true. Again, you are not very educated on AA if you believe this BS. You need to think this through a little more because you sound retarded for even suggesting that this happens.
How is it a failed government program? Again, you throw out nonsense statements without providing any evidence to support it.
BTW, you keep using the word “ancestors” like we are talking about 200 years ago. I have relatives who are still alive that were there during Jim Crow, segregation and the like. They were part of the struggle to insure that employers and universities will at least take my credentials into consideration before making decisions. This was not happening before AA. The civil rights laws were in place, but places still had the ability to ignore qualified minorities, because no one could prove that they didn’t ignore them. AA forced them to take a look at qualified minorities. And by doing so, many organizations realized the untapped potential that they were not utilizing because of their own racist viewpoints. What part of that don’t you understand?
Ok, at least I now know.
Do you really believe that California would be in a position to do this if they weren’t forced look at qualified minorities to begin with? Because of AA, there are now people in place that wouldn’t have been there without it and they can make sure that the laws can be followed. Do you really believe that if the powers that be weren’t forced to change their viewpoint that the illegality of those laws would be enforced? They weren’t before, that’s why AA was, and still is in some cases, necessary.
You’ve have already shown your ability to twist things around, so I won’t even address that. What I will say is that socioeconomic status is not a barrier to employment nor a barrier to admission to colleges. You may not be able to afford to go to college, but it doesn’t stop you from attending. Race was a barrier to these things and that is why it is included.
Before you say it, yes there are programs to help minorities to pay for college. I know this as well, and maybe even better than you do. There are also programs to help poor people, regardless of race, pay for college as well. You have to do the research. The problem is that many white kids that complain that minorities get all of the breaks are too lazy to do the research. When I was in graduate school, I personally helped many people locate money to help them pay for college and it wasn’t even my field of study. It was something that I did on my own time to help friends. And you know what? It didn’t take very long to do either.
I said this several times, you were too busy looking to attack me.
So you have gone from saying it is racist to saying that it is biased? That is quite different from racist, which was the basis of all your arguements. Are you now admitting that it is not racist? I said that from the beginning, but you wanted to argue.
Maybe you are too young to remember. When AA was created, there were also many other social programs like this that were geared to helping those of lower socioeconomic status as well. Those programs were cut because someone decided that they were a waste of money. AA survived because of the controversy that it would have created by cutting it too. Things were balanced like you wanted it, but certain powers created this inequity.
Give me a break! My kind of thinking? My kind of thinking is saying, keep the doors of opportunity open so you don’t have to keep dealing with a crappy situation. How does getting rid of AA help? With it, organizations are forced to consider all people for positions. Without it, organizations don’t even have to look at any qualified minorities and you have no way to prove any wrong was done. Unless some checks and balances are in place in this regard, we can easily revert back to pre-civil rights times. This may be a little extreme, but it can get pretty bad in a hurry.
Your mixing of AA and welfare is just plain stupid! They are two entirely different programs. Since the USA has been established, blacks have been the most underdeveloped race in the US. You making the statement that it is because of AA and welfare shows that you know nothing of the history of blacks in America. It goes far beyond these two programs.
I said that you may not know it. But the opportunities are there for you in part because of it. Whether you want to recognize it or not is your choice. You are a hypocrite for wanting to eliminate it for others without any vaiable alternatives when you got something out of the deal.
No, you need to listen up and learn. There is a difference between race and ethinic background. Race has to do with genetics, ethnic background has to do with environmental community. Anglo-Saxon is not a race. Caucasian is a race. All those countries share the same ethnic background but may not be of the same race. Your own family should have whipped your ass for not understanding the difference.
I said that if you are from Spain, which is in Europe, you could still be white. It is quite obvious by now that you don’t read very well.
I never used the term “Hispanic” either in this thread or in real life. You’re ranting again.
I am not tearing anyone down. Again, your are putting words in my mouth and ranting. The reason that I used them was that these are people, as well as others, who have benefited from civil rights programs such as AA and are now telling us that they are no longer needed.
It annoys me that they sit in positions to help but instead hurt people just because now they have arrived. They want to remove the very programs that were in place to help them simply because they judge them no longer necessary. It’s real easy to make judgements and assessments when you aren’t affected by the consequences. BTW, I don’t see how I am telling blacks they can’t achieve when I am telling them they can apply and be guaranteed a fair shot at opportunities?
Again, I am not tearing these people down. I am pointing out how hurtful their viewpoints are to the group that they came from. In order for us to raise them up as symbols for achievement, they have an obligation to give back to the community, not take away. This is why I have so much respect for Bill Cosby. People may have been angry at what he has said, but, unlike others, he earned that right to say it because he actively reaches back to help.
What a load of crap! You take my statements and twist them around and then try to make me out as the bad guy! Please! This just shows you have nothing of value to add.
I never took anything away from those that succeeded, you did. I’ve always acknowledged them. What you don’t obviously realize that for every 1 person that did achieve despite rampant racism, there were thousands that got buried because of it. What I will not allow you to do is to minimize the positive impact that AA has had for the country. It has done way more good than harm, but you’ll never admit that.
Once again, this demonstrates that you have NO real understanding about the history of racism in America. You have no idea of the struggles that minorities went through in this country to get to this point. You might have read about it, but you don’t really understand. Until you look in the eyes of people who had to put up with that crap for a good portion of their lives, you never will understand. You want to trivialize all those accomplishments to provide opportunities because of a weak stance that you are holding on AA. That’s just sad.
Another example of you lacking the knowledge of the history of racism. During the time this happened, this type of shit wasn’t illegal. Do you understand the times I am talking about? If he went to the labor board (which didn’t exist in the way it does now) he would have been unemployed. He needed to eat. Blacks sucked up many indignanties in order to survive. The rights and avenues that you enjoy right now were not around then. The options weren’t always there. Your comments show that you have no understanding of how things were, and still are in some cases, for blacks in this country. So, if you don’t know anything about our past, how can you think you can comment on what is good for us? You can’t.
There lies the problem. You think of AA as a detriment. I think of it as an opportunity.
You still don’t get it. AA is not giving away free jobs and free admission to colleges with a full ride. I think you are stuck on this concept. AA simply says that you will look at all QUALIFIED candidates equally and fairly.
Yes, you do have to fight for stuff. Did you spend all of your life having people just give you things or did you ask for them and/or work to get them? What an idiotic statement!
My response was directed to the way you tried to make it look like Black people are always just given things and never earned them. If other races have a desire to have a history month, it is their responsibility to do something about it. They have to speak up and state what they want. Black people did something about it, that’s why it is there. If other races want a month of history, Most blacks will support them, so will the NAACP, ACLU and most people in general. But nobody is just going to give it to them, which is what YOU think should happen. This is not the “I got mine” attitude that you have. This is the “If you want it, I’ll back you 100%” attitude. You are truly an expert at see only what you want and twisting words around.
The bottom line is that you claimed that AA was racist. You still have not proven that it is. You spent your time attacking me, but still haven’t proven your weak position. In fact, you managed to prove mine instead. This will definitely be the last that I am responding to this thread. I am going on vacation and will not be around to waste anymore time on this topic.
Regardless of our arguments, I hope you have a Merry Christmas.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So do you also think they change the definition of every law for each circumstance when someone is arrested? If you do I have a bridge to sell you.
No, what they do is change their interpretation of the law based on their own experiences and viewpoints. I didn’t change the definition, I simply stated that the definition gets interpreted differently by different people. This is why the generic doesn’t work when applied to the human condition.
The point, my pointless friend, is that using a standard definition stops the bias factor. It stops manipulation of the definition to fit ones own biased position. The “extended” definition you quoted was a PC biased position developed years ago to push a particular position on AA.
As I stated above, the standard definition will still be interpreted by humans. When that happens, bias will happen whether you like it or not. You’ve been doing it the whole time.
So for us to have an unbiased discussion we need a consistent definition, which is what I provided. You also quoted it but added to it to bias your position. Either we use the generic position or we don’t. Anything else is just bias.
When discussing something like AA, which, whether you want to admit it or not, has helped far more people than it has hurt, there will be bias on either side. Again, you have been biased the whole time and you won’t admit it.
Why do say I’m ranting and who do you think I’m defending? I have posted on this site my opinion long before lonelobo posted anything. So as usual, you have your facts mixed up.
No, I don’t have my facts mixed up. You are ranting because I have asked for proof to back up your position that it is racist, and you have yet to provide any. The only reason that I said anything to you in the first place is that you jumped into the middle of me giving LoneLobo a hard time about his rant. You started this whole thing. I didn’t even care about your opinion until you attacked me first. Had you not said anything to me, I wouldn’t even have responded to you. You need to check your facts, because, as usual, you are wrong.
Next, the white business owners in the past have not caused all white business owners to only hire white either. So your example is without basis. Whether you want to believe it or not, not all whites prior to AA were racists. And it was not a country-wide conspiracy as you contend.
It is obvious that you don’t know anybody who lived through the time before civil rights and AA or else you wouldn’t even have posted something this ill-informed. This type of thing happened all the time. White business owners worked together in many towns to keep non-whites from working in their areas or living in their neighboorhoods, going to their schools etc. And while not all whites were racist prior to AA, many of them sat on the sidelines (admittedly, so did some non-whites) kept their heads down and allowed this type of behavior to happen.
So anyone who has power over another person can be racists or cause a racists situation regardless of the rest of his race. This person can also not force other (you stated all) of his race to do the same. This is why your definition is flawed.
Your illogic is astounding.
The part that you clearly don’t understand. That would be the part where the minority meet the minimum qualification, but the non-minority goes far above it in say experience or education, whatever. And in this situation the minority would still get the job under AA ever though there was a better candidate.
You need to think this through a little more.
Again, you throw out blatant crap and expect everyone to believe that this is a fact without any proof. When has this ever happened? Newsflash! YOU STILL HAVE TO BE QUALIFIED! If the non-minority is MORE qualified (experience, education etc.) then they get the job, enter the school, whatever. Period! Qualifications are looked at long before race is even an issue. AA doesn’t allow for this type of situation. This is the same bullshit arguement that some of the idiots that scream “reverse-racism” use. However, what they can never prove is that they are more qualified, because it is not true. Again, you are not very educated on AA if you believe this BS. You need to think this through a little more because you sound retarded for even suggesting that this happens.
That is unfortunate and we can all thank our ancestors for what their contributions to our quality of life today. They are what really changed this country. Not some failed government program.
How is it a failed government program? Again, you throw out nonsense statements without providing any evidence to support it.
BTW, you keep using the word “ancestors” like we are talking about 200 years ago. I have relatives who are still alive that were there during Jim Crow, segregation and the like. They were part of the struggle to insure that employers and universities will at least take my credentials into consideration before making decisions. This was not happening before AA. The civil rights laws were in place, but places still had the ability to ignore qualified minorities, because no one could prove that they didn’t ignore them. AA forced them to take a look at qualified minorities. And by doing so, many organizations realized the untapped potential that they were not utilizing because of their own racist viewpoints. What part of that don’t you understand?
Yes, I have been called racial slurs and I’m aware how Vietnam Vets were treated.
Ok, at least I now know.
Because it is and was already illegal to show preference to or discriminate based on race, sex, sexual orientation, etc… This is already illegal.
So California now just enforces the law and doesn’t show preference to anyone based on race.
Do you really believe that California would be in a position to do this if they weren’t forced look at qualified minorities to begin with? Because of AA, there are now people in place that wouldn’t have been there without it and they can make sure that the laws can be followed. Do you really believe that if the powers that be weren’t forced to change their viewpoint that the illegality of those laws would be enforced? They weren’t before, that’s why AA was, and still is in some cases, necessary.
You apparent can’t read too well as I already stated I acknowledged the women and disabilities issue. If socioeconomic status was included with these other categories and race removed it would have been a good program.
You’ve have already shown your ability to twist things around, so I won’t even address that. What I will say is that socioeconomic status is not a barrier to employment nor a barrier to admission to colleges. You may not be able to afford to go to college, but it doesn’t stop you from attending. Race was a barrier to these things and that is why it is included.
Before you say it, yes there are programs to help minorities to pay for college. I know this as well, and maybe even better than you do. There are also programs to help poor people, regardless of race, pay for college as well. You have to do the research. The problem is that many white kids that complain that minorities get all of the breaks are too lazy to do the research. When I was in graduate school, I personally helped many people locate money to help them pay for college and it wasn’t even my field of study. It was something that I did on my own time to help friends. And you know what? It didn’t take very long to do either.
Sorry I missed you saying that it was flawed.
I said this several times, you were too busy looking to attack me.
As far as racism, maybe that is the wrong term. What is it called when a certain race and gender are excluded? Gender-racism? Whatever you call it it is biased. Socioeconomic states would have been a better approach.
So you have gone from saying it is racist to saying that it is biased? That is quite different from racist, which was the basis of all your arguements. Are you now admitting that it is not racist? I said that from the beginning, but you wanted to argue.
Maybe you are too young to remember. When AA was created, there were also many other social programs like this that were geared to helping those of lower socioeconomic status as well. Those programs were cut because someone decided that they were a waste of money. AA survived because of the controversy that it would have created by cutting it too. Things were balanced like you wanted it, but certain powers created this inequity.
Actuality, to the contrary I have a number of black friends and live in the south area where many different races reside.
The reason I focus on blacks is because they are the group that your kind of thinking has crippled. Even today you have able bodied blacks who are on welfare because they don’t know anything different. They don’t understand the power they have to change their own station in life. And they don’t know this because the so-called black leaders keep telling them they can’t succeed without help or on their own. That it is someone else’s fault thy got bad grades and couldn’t get into a good college.
Since AA and welfare, the blacks have been the most underdeveloped race in the US. Don’t get me wrong, this would be the same for any race that has had the same things happen to it. But when the hell will this stop? When will the black leaders who have succeeded come back to the communities and help kids learn their potential? When will black families stay together so kids can get the sense of worth that helps them know they can succeed like Pro X apparently received?
So I actually would love to see blacks succeed. I just think it is special treatment programs that have been holding them back. But this is changing.
Give me a break! My kind of thinking? My kind of thinking is saying, keep the doors of opportunity open so you don’t have to keep dealing with a crappy situation. How does getting rid of AA help? With it, organizations are forced to consider all people for positions. Without it, organizations don’t even have to look at any qualified minorities and you have no way to prove any wrong was done. Unless some checks and balances are in place in this regard, we can easily revert back to pre-civil rights times. This may be a little extreme, but it can get pretty bad in a hurry.
Your mixing of AA and welfare is just plain stupid! They are two entirely different programs. Since the USA has been established, blacks have been the most underdeveloped race in the US. You making the statement that it is because of AA and welfare shows that you know nothing of the history of blacks in America. It goes far beyond these two programs.
To my knowledge I have never benefited from AA. And not wanting to be locked into a spirit-crippling entitlement program is not hypocritical.
I said that you may not know it. But the opportunities are there for you in part because of it. Whether you want to recognize it or not is your choice. You are a hypocrite for wanting to eliminate it for others without any vaiable alternatives when you got something out of the deal.
Listen up and learn. All countries that speak Spanish as a primary language are considered “Latino” and not Anglo-Saxon. If you spent time in a Latin country they should have told you that while they were whipping your ass.
No, you need to listen up and learn. There is a difference between race and ethinic background. Race has to do with genetics, ethnic background has to do with environmental community. Anglo-Saxon is not a race. Caucasian is a race. All those countries share the same ethnic background but may not be of the same race. Your own family should have whipped your ass for not understanding the difference.
I said that if you are from Spain, which is in Europe, you could still be white. It is quite obvious by now that you don’t read very well.
There is a politically-biased modern day term of “Hispanic”, which has become popular, but that has no real meaning. It is used to separate those from Mexico from other Latin countries. But since Spanish is the primary language in Mexico as well they are still Latino whether they like it or not.
I never used the term “Hispanic” either in this thread or in real life. You’re ranting again.
Your response shows what is wrong with the black community. Why tear down Condelezza Rice and Clarence Thomas? They should be held up as examples of blacks succeeding. I bet you wanted to call them “uncle-Tom” didn’t you. How the hell can the majority of blacks know they can achieve when they have people like you telling them they can’t and tearing down those that do? You are hurting your own people!
I am not tearing anyone down. Again, your are putting words in my mouth and ranting. The reason that I used them was that these are people, as well as others, who have benefited from civil rights programs such as AA and are now telling us that they are no longer needed.
It annoys me that they sit in positions to help but instead hurt people just because now they have arrived. They want to remove the very programs that were in place to help them simply because they judge them no longer necessary. It’s real easy to make judgements and assessments when you aren’t affected by the consequences. BTW, I don’t see how I am telling blacks they can’t achieve when I am telling them they can apply and be guaranteed a fair shot at opportunities?
Again, I am not tearing these people down. I am pointing out how hurtful their viewpoints are to the group that they came from. In order for us to raise them up as symbols for achievement, they have an obligation to give back to the community, not take away. This is why I have so much respect for Bill Cosby. People may have been angry at what he has said, but, unlike others, he earned that right to say it because he actively reaches back to help.
That is crap! How did those people who succeeded (before AA) do it? There were those from every race who did just that without the help of AA. You and Pro X never seem to acknowledge that. You acknowledge what they went through but never that they did it out of their own strength and determination.
The fact that there were many of all races who succeeded before AA proves that AA was not the answer. Maybe that is why you tear down those blacks that succeed, because they prove your position is wrong.
What a load of crap! You take my statements and twist them around and then try to make me out as the bad guy! Please! This just shows you have nothing of value to add.
I never took anything away from those that succeeded, you did. I’ve always acknowledged them. What you don’t obviously realize that for every 1 person that did achieve despite rampant racism, there were thousands that got buried because of it. What I will not allow you to do is to minimize the positive impact that AA has had for the country. It has done way more good than harm, but you’ll never admit that.
Once again, this demonstrates that you have NO real understanding about the history of racism in America. You have no idea of the struggles that minorities went through in this country to get to this point. You might have read about it, but you don’t really understand. Until you look in the eyes of people who had to put up with that crap for a good portion of their lives, you never will understand. You want to trivialize all those accomplishments to provide opportunities because of a weak stance that you are holding on AA. That’s just sad.
Since that kind of shit was illegal, why didn’t he go to the labor board? With the degree issue he had a case. He didn’t need AA. But the difference is that through AA he didn’t have to do anything, while through the existing law he had to push it himself.
Another example of you lacking the knowledge of the history of racism. During the time this happened, this type of shit wasn’t illegal. Do you understand the times I am talking about? If he went to the labor board (which didn’t exist in the way it does now) he would have been unemployed. He needed to eat. Blacks sucked up many indignanties in order to survive. The rights and avenues that you enjoy right now were not around then. The options weren’t always there. Your comments show that you have no understanding of how things were, and still are in some cases, for blacks in this country. So, if you don’t know anything about our past, how can you think you can comment on what is good for us? You can’t.
Your ancestors died to give you opportunities, not to give you AA.
There lies the problem. You think of AA as a detriment. I think of it as an opportunity.
I want others to have opportunities as well, but I feel it should come from their hard work and the existing laws. Don’t forget that the ACLU and NAACP was founded to deal with issues of discrimination. So there was an existing structure to help stop this crap from continuing.
You still don’t get it. AA is not giving away free jobs and free admission to colleges with a full ride. I think you are stuck on this concept. AA simply says that you will look at all QUALIFIED candidates equally and fairly.
Really! So what happened to AA? Now other races need to fight for stuff?
Yes, you do have to fight for stuff. Did you spend all of your life having people just give you things or did you ask for them and/or work to get them? What an idiotic statement!
Why don’t we have AA for special history months? Sounds like the “I’ve got mine” attitude you were accusing me of a few paragraphs ago.
My response was directed to the way you tried to make it look like Black people are always just given things and never earned them. If other races have a desire to have a history month, it is their responsibility to do something about it. They have to speak up and state what they want. Black people did something about it, that’s why it is there. If other races want a month of history, Most blacks will support them, so will the NAACP, ACLU and most people in general. But nobody is just going to give it to them, which is what YOU think should happen. This is not the “I got mine” attitude that you have. This is the “If you want it, I’ll back you 100%” attitude. You are truly an expert at see only what you want and twisting words around.
The bottom line is that you claimed that AA was racist. You still have not proven that it is. You spent your time attacking me, but still haven’t proven your weak position. In fact, you managed to prove mine instead. This will definitely be the last that I am responding to this thread. I am going on vacation and will not be around to waste anymore time on this topic.
Regardless of our arguments, I hope you have a Merry Christmas.[/quote]
Have a good vacation Bro!