Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
No, host, why don't YOU stop. I posted an academic economic article and you come back with incoherent irrelevancies. This last post of yours boils down your entire political worldview to one word: ENVY. It's not attractive.
I want everyone to be well-off. You don't care if everyone is miserable so long as no one is doing better than you are. Very nice.
|
I am offended by your attitude and opinion, but most of all, by your sheer denial of a systemic problem that is all encompassing and has NOTHING to do with training and education.
Consider that I am offended, and I am a white male. Can you even imagine how your opinions are perceived by some educated non-white males?
It is a white man's club !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote:
http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=4&gl=us
ORGANIZATIONAL SOURCES OF DISCRIMINATION
...Discrimination, though practiced by individuals, is often reinforced by the well-established rules,
policies, and practices of organizations. Once employed, discrimination at the organizational level
results in advancement difficulties for African Americans. They do not seem to get the same
opportunities for promotion and advancement to supervisory, middle management, and higher
administrative positions as Caucasians of equal abilities. Qualified African Americans and other
minorities are routinely passed over for jobs and promotions in favor of less qualified Caucasian
males (McCoy, 1994). Most high paying positions still remain occupied by Caucasian males. For
example, in 1995, about 40 percent of all managers were women,<h3> while 97 percent of the senior
Page 3
managers of Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 companies were Caucasian, and about 96
percent of all of them were males.</h3> In Fortune 2000 industrial and service companies, 5 percent of
senior managers were women, virtually all of them were Caucasian. Of the senior managers, 40
percent were Caucasian women, and 4 percent African American men (Kilborn, 1995). African
American women account for more than 12 percent of the female workforce at large, but make up
only 7 percent of 2.9 million female managers in the private sector. For every $1 Caucasian male
managers make, Caucasian female managers make 59 cents, and minority women earn 57 cents
(McCoy, 1994).
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
so wait, are you saying that Condi Rice, Colin Powell are just Uncle Toms? or whatever that derogatory infliction is that means they aren't there due to their ability or opportunity?
as far as those statistics are concerned, <h3>I recall in the 70s when those numbers were 0 minorities and 0 women.
are you expecting it to be radically different overnight?</h3>
|
It is 145 fucking years and three months since the emancipation proclamation was signed. There were more black elected officials holding higher office in Mississippi, for example, 140 years ago, than there are now.
Quote:
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...an_Senator.htm
How many blacks serve in the US senate, today?
1851-1877
February 25, 1870
First African American Senator
Photograph of Senator Hiram Revels
Hiram Revels (R-MS)
On February 25, 1870, visitors in the Senate galleries burst into applause as Mississippi senator-elect Hiram Revels of Mississippi entered the chamber to take his oath of office. Those present knew that they were witnessing an event of great historical significance. Revels was about to become the first African American to serve in the Senate.
Born 42 years earlier to free black parents in Fayetteville, North Carolina, Revels became an educator and minister of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. During the Civil War, he helped form regiments of African American soldiers and established schools for freed slaves. After the war, Revels moved to Mississippi, where he won election to the state senate. In recognition of his hard work and leadership skills, his legislative colleagues elected him to one of Mississippi's vacant U.S. Senate seats as that state prepared to rejoin the Union.
Revels' credentials arrived in the Senate on February 23, 1870, and were immediately blocked by a few members who had no desire to see a black man serve in Congress. Masking their racist views, they argued that Revels had not been a U.S. citizen for the nine years required of all senators. In their distorted interpretation, black Americans had only become citizens with the passage of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, just four years earlier. Revels' supporters dismissed that statement, pointing out that he had been a voter many years earlier in Ohio and was therefore certainly a citizen.
Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner brought the debate to an end with a stirring speech. "The time has passed for argument. Nothing more need be said. For a long time it has been clear that colored persons must be senators." Then, by an overwhelming margin, the Senate voted 48 to 8 to seat Revels....
|
<h3>If you could somehow dig up and animate Dr. King, and asked him to recite your post to a public audience, do you think he would do it, Cynthetiq?</h3>
Cynthetiq and loquitur, why are you both advocates for a status quo that neither of you would accept for yourselves or those who you care about, but you plead to the clearly disenfranchised? Where do you get the motivation to defend the backwardsness, the stagnation, versus looking at it as it actually is, and either remaining silent, or posting in objection to it?