Racism.... against whites?
 

Hello everyone -

I believe this is my first thread here in politics, but I have run into this issue quite a few times recently, and am curious as to what your thoughts are...

First of all, I would like to get a couple things out of the way.

I am not in any way, shape, or form racist or discriminitory, however, lately I have been noticing more and more how being a white male seems almost frowned upon by the government.

I am a younger white male, age 20, that went to a high school where whites were the minority. Although I can't say that I never, ever heard any terrible comments about someone's race, it seems to me that racism is quickly becoming more of an unpleasant memory for most of us than an actual issue.

Granted, I am not trying to say that it doesn't happen anymore, as I am sure it still does, but in my humble opinion, most members of Generation X and after (at least in my area) have few racial issues.

Anyway, here are a couple of stories that I would like to share for discussion, in an attempt to justify the title.

Example #1
I am in the lending business, and there are a variety of laws regarding ECOA (equal credit opportunity act). A portion of this consists of the HMDA reports, which basically is a government issued form that reports the race of people that we lend out to using a home as collateral.

The lending guidelines that we follow are federally governed, and after filling out the application, I submit it to be underwritten (approved, denied, ect.) Recently, on more than one occasion, I have submitted poor credit applications that were denied when "white, non hispanic" was checked. I realized on one application that I had made an error regarding the HMDA information and I wanted to correct it when the denial was sent out. However, when I resubmit the application with "black" checked, and no other information changed, it came back as approved. I have tested this on many applications that I have submitted for "white, non hispanic" by switching the racial information to a different race, and a good 20-30% of the time they'll come back approved.

This annoys me quite a bit. Simply because someone is white, it seems, they must meet more stringent requirements to qualify for a loan. Equal, in my mind, should be just that - not favoritism for one race or another.

Example #2
A friend of mine, who is a Hmong Female, was recently hired as a electrician on a large government project. However, they began laying people off, as they must have overestimated the number of people that they would require, and instead of laying off my friend, who has no experience in the field, they laid off several far more experienced white males. In fact, they didn't lay off a single non-white worker.

Again, this pisses me off, as the people, regardless of race, that are less experienced should be laid off first unless there are other circumstances (ie discipline, ect.).

My friend was actually so angry that she was favored over veterans in the field, due to the tax-breaks she can offer the company (minority & female), she quit. I certainly respect her for it, but I don't see any issues with anyone taking advantage of any "edges" that they are given.

Sorry for the longer post, just wanted to give you guys the full story...

I am very interested in your comments :D

Looks like I"m the first to respond, so here goes. This is what happens when strict policies against discrimination are in place. Companies would rather fire a betteer employee when making cuts than face multimillion dollar lawsuit on the basis of rascism.

White males are the only segment of society with no perks. Even white women have it better because they can cry sexual harassment, rape, or gender discrimination depending on the situation. I say stop rewarding people for being born who they are, and then you'll have true equality. Discrimination sure isn't going to fade away if we as a society keep drawing attention to people and calling them victims.

Gotta go, so not much time to post, BUT, i do firmly believe reverse discrimination is far more abundant and abusive in todays society than the 'normal' racism. I have known far too many minorities get places in colleges, etc simply because that institution needed to fulfill a racial blending quota.

Another observation. While not really discrimination or racism, ever find a scholorship out there for simply being white? Back when i was going to do the whole college ap thing, there were more than a few scholarships being offered simply for being a minority. I've got a little American Indian in me, so on one of the standardized tests i had to take, i put that as my ethnic affiliation. Youd be amazed how much more people are interested in you if your not white.

I think equal opportunity needs to become just that - EQUAL. Not slightly more equal if you've been 'oppressed' opportunity, or "you've had it equal for long enough" opportunity.

White male here, and I just find these types of arguments unbelievable. I have a very close friend( a guy I have know almost my whole life) who is black and he had run into more roadblocks in his first thiry-three years than I will ever in my whole life.

You know, my wife is a blonde with blue eyes and she got a ton of college loans and grants. I work with a group that gives scholarships to a state university, and we do it on merit. I honestly think the concept of "if your ancestors were oppressed you got it made" is a bunch of crap.

How many of you who feel blacks or hispanics or women are getting a better deal, would be willing to change places?

Who is or is not getting a "better deal" is not really the question -- it's whether or not fighting racism with racism is something that will be effective. I think it does nothing but encourage negativity towards one group or another -- and I belong to three such minority groups. Have I experienced some difficulties with certain people because of my minority-affiliations? Yes. Does that make it justified or right for me to be racist towards straight white males? Absolutely not.

Affirmative action, especially racial quotas, is a painfully obvious wrong way to go about the problem and provides only a temporary visible fix for election year -- not a lasting solution. Why, seretogis, what is a lasting solution, you ask? Remove all mentions of race/orientation/gender from legislation. Let society itself work out their prejudices by giving everyone an equal footing under the eyes of the law. Do not put any so-called oppressed group on a pedestal if it makes them higher than anyone else as far as the law is concerned.

of course the white male suffers from discrimination.

another story, as anecdotal as it may be: my dad accidently checked "native american" on his SATs in high school... scholarship offers nearly broke their mailbox. once those schools found out he was just another white kid... nothing.

mml, i'm glad your scholarship group gives them out on merit alone... but just because that is so doesn't change the fact that many state universities and government programs do not operate with that same criteria.

when and where does this stop? i don't think the government should be in the business of correcting perceived social injustice by showing favoritism. if the impetus for social change comes from laws imposed on people rather than individual choice... then we are no closer to racial/gender/sexual preference/religious harmony than before.

why aren't these loan/scholarship/employment decisions based on income rather than race? if the argument is that social injustice has caused a minority to be economically disadvantaged... then the minority will receive a greater portion of the assistance by virtue of their disadvantage. when that supposed injustice is righted by a scale based on economic status... the minority will no longer be as dependent on such programs with the added benefit of eliminating racial tension from the equation.

racism against whites is prevelant in society, but in an entirely different way to racism as we know it.

basically, being white (and especially male) makes you the lowest common denominator. your not entitled to any special treatment in any way whatsoever, you make it on your own.
if a black/asian guy accuses a white guy of taking his job, everyone goes up in arms, if it's the other way round, he gets a smack in the face for being such a whiney bastard.

excusing the crude terminology used, but society has become so PC that it's bending over backwards to deal with anyone who isn't white, and generally ignoring everyone who is.

Now, i'm going to ramble about how PC is affecting this, so scroll down if you don't want to read it.

For instance, my next door neighbours is a large asian family of about 4 generations. The owner of this house is a wealthy business man who lives in london, 25 miles away, and rarely visits.
the family has done extensive 'rennovations' to their house, all of which have broken every planning law in the book. whenever the council tries to get them to sort it out, the house owner plays the racist card and the council backs down.
Now, about a year ago, we tried to build a small pergola in our garden. the council spent 3 months jumping down our throats to make sure we followed planning laws, and it would have been fire and brimstone if we hadn't...


Unfortunatly, in a world run by PC, and where everyone can and does sue each other for no good reason. Real equality for everyone won't come around until the small factions and the governments stop dicking around.

considering the years(decades) of discrimination, which have lead to an obvious disparity in the ratio of well educated minorities, I can see the need for an equalizer. Is it fair, No. Does it work, Doubtful. Is it at least an attempt, Yes. We unfortunately, are attempting to create an even playing field out of a canyon, and it wont be easy.
As for the white male getting Zero preferential treatment, I beg to differ. As a representative of this class of person, I see (in the big picture) far more opportunity for myself from birth to death, than for any other class of humans on this earth, there can be no doubt about this FACT.
I am reminded of the spoiled child, bitching about vanilla ice cream, when he wanted chocolate, right in front of the child with none.

I'm sorry, but if you admit that it is doubtful that racism against whites works to "create an even playing field out of a canyon," why on earth would you support it? If anything, it adds to the problem by creating racial tension where there should be none. If I walked into a fast food restaurant and ordered a hamburger but they only gave me a patty and a half-eaten bun, I would not be satisfied with the product and I wouldn't give it an "A for effort" though it would be the politically correct thing to do. So, why would you be satisfied with an unfair "equalizer" that you don't think even works? Wouldn't you rather that a fair and working system be thought up and put into action rather than half-assed "well, it might work, but we doubt it" legislation?

Facts require evidence. Please provide evidence the next time you proclaim an opinion of yours to be fact. I pass as a straight white male and have received absolutely no preferential treatment because of it. However, if I fill out the race portion of applications correctly, I get all sorts of call-backs. This is not "equalizing" -- it's racism.

I fail to see how this relates. Are you suggesting that minorities are incapable to fend for themselves in this White Man Holding You Down world? That's nonsense. There are many minorities who have become successful by their own will and determination. So-called "minorities" will soon out-number whites in this country, and hold positions in every area of our marketplace.

I don't know if I'm being discriminated against as a white male. I do agree with Chris Rock about how great it is to be white.
Anecdotal evidence of successful minorities aside, looking at census data on poverty and race from 2002:
9.9% of whites below the poverty line
22.7% of blacks
10.2% of Asian/Pacific Islander
21.4% of Hispanic

Now I don't know if minorities are incapable of fending for themselves, but social Darwinism would seem to suggest that Hispanics and Blacks (or African-Americans, or whatever) should be ground up and spat out. To come up with another analogy, if the USA was a footrace started from this moment, whites would have a significant head start. Should we try to correct that disparity, or should we just hope that the other ethnic groups are fast enough to catch up?

Perhaps you should re-read my post, you may understand a few things more clearly.

#1- I do not support the "attempts" being made, but understand why they are bieng attempted. You drew a conclusion that was incorrect.

#2-If you did not understand the term "big picture" then I am sorry for my lack of clarity. As a general rule, there are far more opportunities available to a "white male" than to any other individual in this society. If you cannot see this, I will not convince you of the obvious regardless of the endless list of information available, both factual and hypothetical.

#3- Wow....talk about putting words into someones mouth. I would think, in the context of my post (and the general theme of those above it) the meaning here was abundantly clear. The complaints by White males, of reverse discrimination, would be the child with the Ice cream. While the treatless child would represent the minorities, lacking the same opportunity, and watching another bitch about what thay have.

It is unfortunate that you have chosen to take such a negative stance concerning my "opinion", but you are correct that it is indeed just that, opinion. It is however, one formed through years of observation and life experience. As for the benefits of bieng a white male in this society, if you truly cannot see this obvious reality, then I will bow out, and admit the error of my understanding in your eyes.

NoSoup, I think you should take Example 1 and shop the story around to your local TV stations. Keep trying until one does the story. That's a flagrant abuse and the public should know about it.

Racism in ANY form is wrong. For the government to deny loans to people solely because they are white is no less evil than for businesses to deny entrance to people solely because they are black.

You said: "We unfortunately, are attempting to create an even playing field out of a canyon, and it wont be easy."

This to me screams "justification," but I admit I may have read too much into it.

How, as a general rule, are there "far more opportunities" available to whites than minorities? It is reprehensible in this society to have "white-only" or "straight-only" scholarships, but it's perfectly acceptable to give scholarships only to non-white racial groups. What about the lower-middle-class white kids whose parents can't afford to send them to college? Don't try to force equality of outcome when there is already equality of opportunity.

Again, you assume that they lack the same opportunity, yet have nothing to back this claim up other than saying "big picture" and citing an "endless list of information available," none of which you bother to quote here.

So, my response to the near-religous fervor with which you proclaimed your opinion as "FACT" is now negative? Hmm..

I appreciate everyone's answers here - very interesting indeed.

I am reminded of a quote, I believe it was from Animal Farm...
All are created equal, but some are more equal than others



If ending racism/discrimination is our goal, we should not allow any mention of race in our laws, nor allow scholorships or other rewards be based on race.

Racism was once a very huge problem, and at one time racial quotas probably were useful, as it pretty much forced employers to integrate their businesses. However, it seems to me that most people are trying to get away from all racial discrimination altogether, yet every day it is thrown in our faces again and again via our lawmaking system. The fact that I am a straight, white male, or a gay, asian female should make absolutely no difference when it comes to hiring me or giving me money for school, it should be based on merit & merit alone.

Granted, if I was a gay, asian female I would not hesitate to take advantage of any governmental programs out there that would help me, and I wholeheartedly encourage anyone that can to do so. However, the fact that there is basically a "bonus" to being one color or sex over the next is pathetic.

As long as the government differentiates between races, it makes it impossible for the rest of us not to.

I am looking forward to a non-white person to reply to this, as it seems so far that is all we have. I hope that I do not offend anyone with my opinions, we all know that racial matters are a touchy subject, and I am certain that being a white male definately makes my thoughts on how often descrimination based on race still happens less valid, as it should.

Guess I will allow you to consider my opinion as unfounded, as I really haven't the inclination to debate the benefits of bieng a white male in America. The "Near religious fervor" you felt from my post was all in your interpretation of the message. I honestly don't place this issue in a high priority in my list, as there is little I can do to change it.
Fact was definately too strong of a word in this instance, simply because one has to be willing to accept a fact for it to be so. I will however, stick to my assumption of opportunity bieng more prevelant to this class of people in our society.
This will sound like a slam, but is in fact just an honest observation, I apologize in advance for the way it will sound.
There is a certain level of thought required to fully appreciate the depths of "built in" opportunity within our culture, that is directed towards those with money and power. I will refrain from further activity on this thread to avoid becoming negative towards the lack of comprehension I percieve. (note this is only my opinion).

Poverty and poor education are a serious disadvantage in life.

They day they put white racial quotas on football and basketball is the day i won't mind the non-white racial quotas everywhere else.

I agree with you 100% with this. However, if you consider that a [insert minority race here] child has a much better chance of attaining a better education than a white child when both are living in poverty, I feel that that in itself says a lot about the problems that arise from our "anti-discrimination" laws.

If you take those two children, both should have equal chances of becoming successful in life, not either one being favored over the other.

Tecoyah - Please don't refrain from posting your opinion here, as you are, so far, one of the few dissenting people. Your opinion is just as valued as anyone else, and had I wanted all to agree, I wouldn't have put a post regarding a controversial subject in the political forum. You certainly could bring to light many points that I haven't even considered, and welcome the opportunity to expand my personal horizians...

According to what I read, in the 70's minority leaders only envisioned affirmative action as lasting only about ten years at the most. It was just to help people catch up in areas and businesses where there was obvious discrimination.

Well, I don't think that's happened yet. I grant there are two interpretations: 1, that we need to keep doing it longer than anticipated to get things right or 2, that it doesn't work and we need to stop at once.

I think the problem is that people become so entrenched in their position on this issue that they don't try to compromise. There are those who say affirmative action was never needed and others who will always say it's needed, no matter what.

I think affirmative action was clearly needed in the 70s and it has done alot of good since then. Is everything perfect now? Of course not and numerous studies bear that out, but I think its unrealistic to think it ever will be. Affirmative action needs to reformed and gradually scaled back. Nowadays, more and more people are using the rationale of diversity to justify affirmative action, which doesn't make sense to me. If affirmative action is needed to continue its original purpose, that's fine. But don't make up excuses to justify its existence.

Now the question that arises in my mind. Assuming that minorities do in fact have a poor education and higher poverty levels, as that census data indicates...the question is why? Do you honestly believe they are poor simply because there skin is darker? Maybe in a few extremely rare cases, yes. Are they poor because of a poor education, probably. Do they have a poor education because blacks aren't allowed to attend school, or somebody doesn't allow them to turn in their papers because they have darker skin? I doubt it.

I think the real reason for the poverty levels and poor education is cultural, rather than their visual appearance. As a whole, the black community doesn't stress education very highly. School generally isn't looked upon as something you need to work hard on when you are young. Poor efforts at school is more at fault than a schools poor efforts with the students. Flip this around, and look as the Asian culture. They tend to put a very high stress on education. This of course leads to better job opportunities and a lower poverty level. It is, in fact, barely above that of the "whites". This small difference could easily be attributed to a smaller sample size. A simillar or smaller difference can make a bigger effect on the % if the sample size is smaller. Also, they are grouped in with teh "pacific islanders". Now i dont know as much about their culture, but they dont tend to stress education as much as the Asian culture, at least in my observations. In reality then, the Asian group probably has a much lower poverty percentage than the whites do. So, we have a culture that doesn't put much, if any, stress on education, and they have very high percentage living below the poverty line. And we have a culture that puts a helluva lot of stress on education, that is probably the lowest percentage below the poverty line.

Now which makes more sense, blacks and other minorities are poor because society is out to get them simply because they have a different skin color, or that they are feeling the effects of a cultural indiffernce to education?

Two things. First, whether we accept the stereotype that Asians are more hard-working, there is no such stereotype about whites. How do you explain their lack of poverty? Second, assuming that it is a cultural indifference to education, what better solution could there be than encouraging young African-Americans and Hispanics to go to college and be examples of how education can improve life?

programs like affirmative action are ment to encourage minorities into all walks of life. if we cultivate a society where all people in power are white we create the false impression that minorities are not capable of doing such jobs, this impression is likely not only to encourage racist beliefs but also discourages minority children from striving for excellence. The later is especially true when a child grows up in an all minority community with no role models in powerful or successful positions. Children like to identify with their heros, ideally racism would not exist and a child could easily overlook skin color when searching for similarities between him/herself and a role model, unfortunately, in our society it is often difficult to do this and children get the impression that white guys get to be presidents and mexican guys get to work the farms. psychologically white children (and psecifically white male children) are at an advantage because they can more easily see their heros as grown up version of themselves, until we have all races and both genders represented equally in out society true equality cannot be reached.

well first off, I think this "cultural indifference to education" is a load of bullshit, but let's say it's true.

Is it now my responsibility as a white person to give up my chance at an education so that someone who is "indifferent" to it can go in my place? That also is a load of bullshit.

As for the Asians being hardworking, look at the situation in Japan. Middle class families live in tiny, cramped apartments. People over there are workaholics. They have a name for a condition where workers die from fatigue from the long hours they put in. I've almost never heard of that happening over here. I'd say the environment they live in has a lot to do with it.

Regardless of how you perceive it, you cannot have equality when you favor any one race, or even gender, period. If they keep allowing preferential treatment to any segment of society for any reason, it won't ever end. Take away thses biased measure, and let integration happen on its own. It hasn't been legislation that changed the way Americans view minorities. Living and working together is the real force for change.

Ironically,

Racism knows no race.

I want to be clear, this precept is not my idea, but Peryn's.

This is what it all comes down to, in my opinion. The minute white people hear that somebody is going to come take our shit, we lose our minds.

Best post yet.

Yeah, because it's a bad thing to not want to have something taken from me and given to someone who doesn't deserve it.

If you want equality, you have to treat people equal. Just that simple. Anything that favors one group over another based one race does not do this.

If a non-white who is less qualified gets a job or a slot in a school that a more qualified white person was also up for, it is wrong.

If the non-white is more qualified, then he/she should have it. If he/she is less qualified, then he/she should not have it. It's that simple.

yes and no to much of this post...

I think on the one hand people need to take their heads out of their asses and realize that they themselves may not have truly deserved what someone else got... I mean psychologically all of us are going to look favorably upon ourselves or friends. That doesn't mean they're better but our perspective will say so til we believe it and thus its an example.

On the other hand, yes, there are many who don't deserve to get something that do and instead it is discriminatory.

I'll begin here by saying that I am from Los Angeles were much of the racism isn't all that prevalent as everywhere you go, you will see a diverse array of people. Its true there are enclaves or races but you honestly can't find a place that is more diverse.

As to the idea that people are culturally more focused... i say bullshit. I'm half Asian and the area I live in is almost entirely split between Asian and Hispanics. And I say bullshit.. why?

My family has had a strong emphasis on education and looking at my Asian side of the family, they have an emphasis too.

But is it culturally so? No. There were many Asians at schools who were complete fuck-ups that didn't deserve to be in Honors programs and what not because they cheated. Now of course that is not the norm but to say they are culturally more focused on education - that's not true.

The stereotype that blacks and hispanics aren't ... that's not true either. Generally many weren't focused but the truth is, there were many hard workers who did great.

But I'll put this for you to ponder:

A person's attitude and will to get ahead in society is the number one deciding factor. Because no matter how much money you have, if you are a lazy bum who can't say a coherent sentence, then all the money in the world isn't going to save you from being an unskilled fool.

At a close number two? Money and social status. A family that is well off (the Asian side of my family immigrated here a few decades ago but they were already quite well off and college educated) is going to have more of a focus on education no matter what.

What did I generally see in my years in schools and LA? No matter the race, often times if your family is in the middle to upper class, the family is going to focus on education more, and the child is going to get better support for school.

Now of course, my #1 factor shows that even poor can get ahead and can be brilliant at school through hard work.

But at the same time, the money and social status is important in how a child is raised. Many Hispanics I know have parents that did not have college educations. Many Asians I know have parents that did. Thus the emphasis is going to be changed - from my experience, Asians with college degrees are going to hold their children to much higher standards.

Anyways, I think most people get my point and may wonder what I am trying to get at..

Both social and economic status matter and shouldn't be discarded simply for not fitting a person's idea.

As for affirmative action and discrimination against whiites?

Trust me on this one - everyone wants their advantage and will do whatever it takes to find some grievance to make a big deal out of it.

In some ways, this call for racism against whites is the same thing that a minority may call for discrimination at work. Whether or not it is there, the simple feeling that they are being discrimianted will be brought up into a big issue. I see the exact same thing here.

And, another note, is that people will always focus on what they like. I remember doing college apps and from my experience, many Asians may be thinking "man I'm asian, i won't get any treatment... i hate affirmative action" then elsewhere they may be pro-affirmative action

I agree with Peryn on this. As another anecdote, I know someone who essentially lost all his high school friends by going off to college. That's apparently not the thing to do if you're from the black ghetto. It also doesn't help in getting out of poverty when that culture tells you to drop $5k on rims for your rusted out cavalier while you can't feed your own family (another anecdote, but it seems common enough).

First or second generation orientals, east indians and africans (grew up in africa) overall seem to be much more responsible. They often come from awful beginnings (by US standards), and end up very successful.

This probably has something to do with them having the motivation to leave their home countries to seek another life, but the point is that you can make it in this country regardless of how you grew up. Its more difficult if you're poor, but trying to make things equal for everyone is bound to fail.

I can accept the premise that people from a lower socioeconomic status have a disadvantage in society. What I cannot accept is the racist/sexist assumption that all black people (or women/Hispanics/etc) are necessarily disadvantaged. While racism still exists in a societal sense, many minorities are trapped in a cycle of poverty, not a cycle of racism. If you want fair and effective affirmative action, give it to all poor people because they are all attending the same failing schools in the same crime-ridden neighborhoods, regardless of race.

However, the problem with affirmative action is that it addresses the problem only after it has been created. There will always be poor people. But the key to upward mobility for the poor is early education, not trying to correct the problem when the person is 18, 28, 38 years old.

This can be true in certain cases, but both of my examples stated in the top post are completely factual.

... bah, someone just got here, post more soon :D

Completely factual... but obviously you're still taking it from the white perspective.

I think, however, in some of your examples, put in the % of the U.S. population based upon the numbers and you might see that the government is trying to balance it out based upon #s of whites and a share vs. # of blacks and a share (meaning, in other words, a black may have a higher chance due to fewer people)

Whether you agree or disagree with that method is another thing of course...

And to the comment by stingc on orientals and other places:

That isn't very true. Yes many do become successful when immigrating from poor areas.. but put it this way.

My mother and some of her family immigrated here in the 70's for college. She had already finished college in Taiwan and was coming to the U.S. for graduate stuff. She was already very well off in Taiwan as her parents were top bank officials and traders in Taiwan.

Many, and i say it again, many of those who have immigrated to the U.S. are those already well off enough to take that next step to immigrate to America. Take Indians (not Native Americans), for example - the only ones you will see here are those who are already considered upper class enough in Indian society to immigrate. The majority of Indians are too low in status to move. That's a big reason why we see (stereotyped or not) so many Indian doctors and lawyers - because those who can leave the country, are already those high enough in society.

This goes very well for a great load of Asians - the new wave of Chinese are coming from mainland China (the wave before was mainly from Taiwan). And these aren't poor peasants by any means - they are people rich enough to actually move out here and some are filthy rich (mom is a real estate broker and gets lots of these customers)

I think its easy to write down and say Asians are a model immigrant minority... that's simply based upon a very very small and mostly upper class minority in Asian society that has the ability to even move here. If you moved the typical Asian society to the U.S. in numbers equivalent to Hispanics or African Americans here, you will see conditions far worse.

Anecdotal evidence of successful minorities aside, looking at census data on poverty and race from 2002:
9.9% of whites below the poverty line
22.7% of blacks
10.2% of Asian/Pacific Islander
21.4% of Hispanic




Instead of trying to drag whites below the poverty level one should examine the culture of nonwork and government dependency that causes the high poverty stats among minorities. I work at a job where everyday I see able-bodied people who prefer to receive their pittance from the government than go out and work. For some reason the majority of these people are black women. Ending progressive tax systems and income transfer programs (that keep the poor impoverished) would go a long way towards improving equality. I know this sounds bad, but I say go work and cut down the number of illegitimate children. Don't breed ignorance and poverty.

LSD

I find this to be facinating. Please explain to me what the non-white perspective is.

Hmm... Reading that, it seems almost like I am belittling your comment. Let me elaborate so that it isn't taken the wrong way.

As a straight, white male, I, of all people am the least qualified to talk about racism. I tried to look at the situation from both points of view, and I had thought that I had formed an opinion that could be viewed and understood from both sides.

I certainly would encourage any minority to take full advantage of any programs out there that exclude whites, but my issue is basically this. Nowadays, if a minority person and a white person are both in the same situation, whether it be poverty, lack of education, or have troubled credit, ect, it has become far easier for the minority person to succeed. I don't believe that race should really make a difference in any of those cases - both should be helped and treated equally.

I also don't agree with giving a minority person a job solely due to their race, when they are less qualified than a white person. Personally, I couldn't care less if an entire company was comprised completely of minorities, as long as they were better qualified for the positions than whites. This relates to the educational breaks because as it sits right now, it is actually much easier for a minority person to become more qualified much easier than a white person in the same impoverished state.

If I remember correctly, you had said that you were half asian. If you were put in a situation similar to my friend, and you were a high-school graduate, but simply because of your skin color/sex you were able to continue earning an income instead of people that had college degrees in the field and/or years and years of experience, how would that make you feel? Would you feel that it was just or unjust? Just curious, as like you said, I am most likely viewing it from the white perspective.

Woe is me, i have to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune because i am white. Quit whining. Even with quotas and AA, white people still generally have a higher quality of life than minorities. White people run this country. White people get the benefit of the doubt more often than minorities when it comes to the police, retailers, loan applications, etc. It seems that, in buying all the decorations for this pity-party we have forgotten a little thing called white privelidge. White americans have been benefitting from de facto affirmative action since before america was a nation, and we continue to benefit from it.

I don't think AA is the answer, but i think when it comes to complaining about discrimination, it is just another example that white people have finally arrived at the "racial injustice" party. The only difference now is that instead of throwing the party, we're just another guest and it irks the hell out of some of us. The funny thing is that, when most white people complain about being discriminated against, they only think that they are being discriminated against. They only pewl about "the poor, suffering white people". As far as they're concerned, racism ended somewhere between mlk's death and the cosby show.

In fact, to interpret what some folks think from what they have said, minorities are all actually in a much better position than white people in america today. "My goodness! They're getting all of the jobs, they're crowding out all of the white people in colleges and universities accross the nation!!"

Stop feeling sorry for yourself, white people. You're still better of than the average minority. You(the general you) weren't too bothered by discrimination until it happened to you.

**takes a moment to stop and enjoy all of the outrageous fortune surrounding me, and offer my condolences to my minority boss - thanks for the reminder.

Well, please state your reasoning behind this. Is it simply your perception? Or do you have reasonable proof behind this?

Do white people generally have a better quality of life? Well, according to the national statistics on poverty, indeed they do.

However, as far as some of your examples go, I guarantee you that white people do not get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to loan applications. It is more difficult for a white person to quality than any minority. As far as white people running this country, that's true, however, there aren't any laws that state that only white people are eligible. My issue is that laws set forth by our government are discrimitory at all, be it against whites or non-whites, I still would have issues with it.

I am not trying to give the impression that I feel sorry for myself, I have an excellent job & lead a generally happy life, but I don't think that simply because I am fine with the way things are that I should have absolutely no vested interest in what happens. Why do you say that white people are better off than minorities? I beg to differ as far as your comment about white people caring only when they are discriminated against, many people of all races are both for and against discrimination, and although in America's past, many white people were bigots, that (at least from my perspective) doesn't ring true anymore. I am not saying that noone is racist anymore, but the vast majority don't seem to have issues with it.

I am not saying that people in general shouldn't be helped better their circumstances, but if our goal is equality, in my opinion, we shouldn't be helping some more than others based on the color of their skin, nor the shape of their eyes...

Well it comes to the question of far more needed or far more in demand... it's hard to quantify such things

Look I certainly understand what you're getting at and I am really against those who don't deserve the job... but in many cases, what about those that do?

My stand is pretty simple - I don't think its all that big of a deal especially since whites are still the clear majority in America and in most areas minorities are extremely hard to find

I don't like preferential treatment at all and while I think things shoould be fair, at the same time, I can't buy into either sides arguments..

Too many examples of "oh we were of the same qualification but the minority got the job instead" - and i say, suck it up and do better so you have an advantage

Then there are the "oh he wasn't as good but he got the job because he was a minority" - well, was there something you could have done to make it so you would win the job?

Its true there are cases where they'd hire the minority anyways (and that I'm against) but also take it from a boss perspective..

"These two guys do the same comparable work but one is willing to go on a smaller salary"

On the flipside there could be the "Damn the minorities, I ain't hiring one"

To me, people are going to end up acting in one of those ways I stated anyways...

But here's a view from a non-white perspective:

Even if there are more chances given, it's only a small minority of the minority that is going to get that most of the time. Top jobs for example are going to be handled by a small minority of the minority and even so, there are many more whites meaning there is a higher % chance a white will get hired if all equally skilled.

But the racism/discrimination I'm talking about here is that kind of stare or look or feeling of tension that may occur between the different races.. there is defenitely that feeling there. Ever been asked "what the fuck kind of person are you?"

I remember another time visiting Texas with a lot of friends on a journalism trip and being asked "do you guys speak english?"

What the fuck was my thought.

So yeah I rambled around a bit but here I come to the solution:

Rather than people constantly opposing integration of society as a whole, society as a whole can't fix any form of discrimination (be it at work, physical, etc.) until people are wiling to come in contact with others and see the other side as well as work with them. When all of society decides to move into enclaves (be it black, asian, hispanic, white, etc.) there is going to be a tension between races. And when there is that tension, hard feelings are going to come out whenver one even slightly FEELs cut out in anyway and will say discrimination.

So until people are willing to at the least feel there is no discrimination, people are always going to mutually distrust each other and will feel they are discriminated in one way or another.

And again as stated I've been fortunate that my family is very well off and I have achieved a top notch education and so I've been doing well, but that doesn't mean everyone should get the same results...

Equality of opportunity not equality of results

I said it before and i'll say it again and again. Affirmative action should be based on a persons financial situation and not their race.

People should not be judged by their race.

hmm ok so i think i made a pretty damn good point here about creating role models that kids can see themselves in and yet no one responded. so i'm quoting myself and commenting on it, i can do that cause i rock.

wow brianna, that's very inciteful, great point!

i agree to an extent on the model thing anyways...

but i also agree with theusername - if you really need it, it should be based on financial status only, and not race - and honestly helping minorities is often because of their financial status (usually) but this way those who need it of any race will get something, not just one race regardless of if they are rich or poor

See, this is the problem right here:
Who cares if the GROUPS catch up? Was the Klan right, and the blacks really are all in this together? I was under the impression that racist behavior was treating someone as though the color of their skin classified them as part of a group. I mean, news flash- you are not all in this together. No matter what your skin color is, it's you and you alone vs. life. I have never had my white brethren rally at my place to assist in any emergency I've been in. Whoever claims that white people are some kind of unified group are lying, plain and simple.

It's such a hypocritical double-standard- don't give different treatment to someone of a particular skin color. You know, unless that skin color isn't white and that treatment is good. Then you must treat them differently. How does that not promote the idea that these minority groups are very real and very separate from the rest of us?

Here's how pretty much everyone I know in college feels about it. I have never once discriminated against anyone in my life. I have never treated anyone better or poorer than I felt they deserved based solely on the content of the character. And yet, I am constantly told by the media and "community leaders" (whatever the hell that is, never saw that line on a tax form) that I have actually been surrounded and participated in vicious racist behavior all my life, and now that I'm in college, it's time to pay for it. So there's a Women's Engineering Society, a Black Engineer's Society, etc., but no White or Male Engineering Society. If anyone tried to make one, shit would hit the roof. So what's the message I take home? Women and minorities are perfectly happy forming sub-groups to exclude me, but I can't do it to them. How in the hell is that not racist again?

Well, I don't know about your college, but back when I was an engineering student women made up 50% of the school and 10% of the engineers. Similarly, black students were about 20% and there were maybe 4 black engineers. They form those groups not to exclude you, but to encourage more of the members of that group to pursue engineering. Not everything is a plot to fuck with you.

Your other points were good.

But, there it is again. They want to encourage more of "their kind" to join engineering- a fellowship tacitly based solely on race and gender. Again, how is that not racist? I mean, they came right out and said it in the name- they only are trying to help people of the right race and gender.

Here's the only test you'll ever need to know if something is racist. Take out whatever gender of race identifier they used- "Women," "Hispanic," etc.- and substitute in "White" or "Male" as appropriate. If it then sounds racist, then so was the original form.

Look, try to understand this. Pretend that you didn't have a whole fucking world of positive white male role models, positive images of white males on TV, 99% of fortune 500 companies run by white males and all that. Now wonder why you might want an organization that encouraged pride in your group. Your simplistic view of the world is noted and discouraged.

But I doubt that those "role models" (side note- engineering role models? Are you serious?) identify themselves primarily as male and white. If you want to identify yourself first as a minority and feel bad about the lack of others of your group, go right ahead, but understand that you are now part of the problem. You reinforce the false barrier of race. I'm sorry there's no Empowered Minority Engineer muppet, but I also don't see why anyone would care.

Oh, and the overwhelming majority of graduate students here are non-white, and non-American. So by your logic, where I look around and see few of "my kind," I ought to form the Americans in Graduate Level Engineering group, and everyone should be OK with that. Right?

Since this is an open forum, feel free to tell me straight- why do these groups insist on not being treated differently on the one hand, then insist that they are different on the other. Explain to me how that is EVER going to bring society to a point where there are no such barriers.

Alright, I think I am beginning to understand both sides of the argument a little more now. However, I pose a question.

How would you feel if there were certain governmental programs out there that helped only whites? Similarly, like Shades had said, what if there were white only/male only groups?

I completely understand that certain groups/rewards encourage women/minorities to do a certain something, be it engineering, police work, or whatever. I also am going to assume that the reasoning behind this is because white males dominate the market in these specific industries. However, why don't I see any programs out there for a male to be a hairdresser? Exotic Dancer? Paralegal?

I hope you see what I am trying to get at, and why I am not yet convinced that it is alright to have some programs out there for women/minorities with the argument that in that certain field, there are few of them, as I am sure there are fields where they are many fewer men than women...

Let me restate that integration happens when people are brought into direct contact with one other on a daily basis. People in close proximity even take on some of the characteristics of the people around them. the bottom line is that these programs biased towards race and gender are never going to go away because some of the people in these groups are looking to tip the scales in their favor, politicians are exploiting the legitimate and not so legitimate concerns of these "groups" for their own gain, and you will always find people who disciminate against other people for what they look like. I don't see how making fun of someone for being fat is any different than making fun of them for being black, asian, white, whatever, and the truth is I do it too.

Look Shades, I think you're thinking they're out to get you. Believe me, they are not.

These groups are meant to encourage others to participate because the norm ALREADY is the white male. It's not about race when you consider a group such as the Women's Society of Engineers, it's their attempts to promote engineering among females, a GENDER.

They're not out to screw the white male over. They're out to promote their field to others when they feel they are underrepresented and/or really want to see others participate.

The reason why they don't have a white male society of engineers? Because they're already (or at least WERE) a dominant group in that field and didn't have to promote it.

You see, I sense a lot of paranoia from many male whites who feel that minorities are "out to get them." They're not. In many cases, I sense (and I emphasize sense because that's certainly the feeling I get from many people here and elsewhere) that much of it is competition they don't want. In the history of the U.S., the white male has long dominated the upper echelons of society, business, and politics, and often times they're not facing competition from non-whites.

That's certainly not going to be true for everyone but I see it as an underlying subconscious feeling that many exhibit.

And as for your comment on the overwhelming majority of graduate students becoming non-white and non-American... that's because many of the brightest in other countries see the great ability in America and send their best to learn here. Rather than complain about it, it should be an honor when you realize that in a world of 6 billion, the top people everywhere are coming here.

And you know what's ironic? If/when whites are minority in America (be it 20 years or 100, doesn't matter) they might get preferential treatment. But right now, too many are painting all non-whites as a minority, (ironically reminding me of old segregation with whites vs. non-whites) and right now too much is this "us vs. them" policy when much of it is based on smaller gorups within that brush stroke.

Honestly though, I don't know what else to say. This is honestly an emotional subjective and personal thing within everyone and what the media and others feed you and your own perception of events in your life. Living in Los Angeles, the most diverse city, my perceptions are going to be different from someone in living, say, the rural Midwest where its predominately white and protestant.

Well to tackle the Exotic Dancer/Paralegal thing... are there many groups out there for them for females? They're a female dominated business (at least Exotic Dancer anyways) and really don't need promoting to get more females... and for males? Well, they're probably not in great demand to begin with and on top of that, be it social pressures or what not, males generally aren't interested in that field or it is shunned upon (such as Exotic Dancer).

As for all white/male groups... sure thing if their motive is benevolent (same goes for every group out there, i can't say the same for violent racial groups though).

But I'll say one thing... one of the things is that these groups aren't there to be a "Blacks ONLY" or "Asians ONLY" or "whatever ONLY" group. Usually these groups are formed with the mind of promoting their race and allowing OTHERS to understand theirs! Usually most groups WANT others to join them to create better understanding.

The falling, however, is that with many what I call "racial tensions" between groups, however, usually what happens is that these groups become increasingly segregated into their own race enclaves. Their purpose isn't to segregate, they want to integrate, the problem is that often times, that's exactly the opposite of what happens for whatever reason.

Put it this way: if they say no to you from an Asian club, then they're discriminating. They aren't a very great group if they claim to be anti-discriminatory and that should be brought up to them. But, the real question is, how many whites or non-Asians in general are wiling to actually join an Asian group?

Probably not very many.

Lol, well, I guess exotic dancer isn't exactly the best example, but it was one of the few female dominated careers that I can think of at this late hour. My point was, I don't really see any scholarships/grants out there to promote a white male to do anything, yet there are scholorships/grants out there for women/minorities to do pretty much anything.

I understand the "social enclaves", and unfortunately it does happen far to often, IMHO.

I started this thread simply to question the politics behind it, I am not trying to blame anyone for being for/against these programs, If I were a minority, I most certainly would take advantage of whatever I could.

I just think that racism & discrimination would be easier to get rid of as a whole if noone, especially the government, allowed biasing anything on race and/or sex.

I think a lot of the problem are people's perceptions on different races.

Gangsta'

When you see that word, what color was the person that you pictured? I would imagine most would picture black, but I am certain that there are quite a number of people out there that are gang members from every race.

Asian

What did you picture there? If I name a race, people will still have preconcieved ideas of what people should be like. If I had to take a gander, I would bet that most non-asians associate the word asian with incredibly good/hardworking students with large families.

Europeans

I am curious as to what this brings to mind to you non-whites out there. It would be difficult for me to come up with a non-biased description, as I am white.

Another misperception is that groups that are usually comprised of a single race, like the group of asian friends that hang out at school or whatever, don't want any non-asians in that group. When I was in highschool, I met a really interesting asian girl and she and her friends welcomed me with open arms. It was kinda funny, though, to play football with them, as I was a tall white dude and I was playin' with a bunch of tiny Asians. Anyway, the point of this excercise was to show how our common perceptions/misperceptions limit our ability to interact with these so called "enclaves". Certainly some do exist, but many are more open than anyone would dare believe.

As a 31 year old black man... I CAN'T WAIT TO START REAPING ALL THE PERCEIVED Benefits we BLACK PEOPLE have in society.

I mean, as a college graduate, I love getting beat out for entry level jobs by young hot white girls with GED's. I also enjoyed not even getting considered for management in a Telecommunication company even though I had trained half the people that were above me.

The best is when I went to get a loan to consolidate my debt and they told me I needed to pay my debts before they could give me a loan... but my white roommate walked out of the same bank with over $1k more than he asked for even though he was 8 times more in debt then me.

and I really enjoyed that 21% Car loan I was given when the average rate was like 2%.

Those were the days.

I will say this... This post was started with a story about blacks receiving loans and whites being denied... and it wasn't too long ago that a large Chrysler lender in the MidWest was popped because he denied all blacks loans stating that "n*ggers don't pay their bills." I could have easily started a post speaking about the racism against blacks but I didn't because I realize that there are some decision makers who have their heads up their asses when it comes to race.

Growing up in a neighborhood that quickly went to shit in the late 80's I can honestly say that the programs in place are needed because there are some GOOD people who are victims of circumstance and need a little help to get going which is what the programs are intended to do. When people blatently abuse these programs it places a stigma on the ptrogram on a whole and causes people to stand up and say they are unfair.

I"m pretty tired right now so please excuse me if my arguments are not as eloquent as I would like them to be... No Soup raises some interesting points though... some that will be addressed as soon..

as I get...

some...

sleem.

zzzzzzzzzzz

I find it more than a little condescending that you've chosen to cast me as paranoid. I suppose it allows you to not answer any questions I've raised (how the clubs will erase racial/gender barriers rather than apparently heightening them and wether or not it's inherently racist to form exclusive groups based on any such conceit, not just based on whiteness), but it's still crass. I'm not the slightest bit threatened by minority clubs, nor am I concerned that the assorted other races are "out to get me." Before they could be out to get me, I'd have to first believe that every other white person and I share some kind of bond by virtue of our skin color, and I don't. Hell, I can't stand members of my own family.

Additionally, the last 7 years have taught me a valuable lesson at college- no matter what, as long as you work hard and do well, nothing can hold you back. A while ago, the student government wanted to require that everyone take a diversity class, so I wrote to the paper. It is all true:

I can honestly say that in my circle of friends, the school I'm in, and the general scene I hang out at, white people are almost always the minority present. Does that make me feel self conscious? If it does, does that mean I can only really be comfortable when surrounded by white people? Should I want there to be more white people around me so I can feel comfortable? Do you realize how stupid that sounds? Do you hear how it is exactly as stupid to say I want more women in engineering because I'm a woman and I want there to be more of my kind around? How did the idea arise that there needed to be some percentage of women in engineering to begin with? Shouldn't women just do what they want to? I have a hard time believing that, especially now when women out number men in college, there are women who REALLY want to be in Engineering, but are taking philosophy instead because of that damed patriarchy.

As to just having a group to "promote your culture": again, how is that not raising a barrier? For the anthropologically minded out there, we call these "boundary defining mechanisms." And if you raise those barriers based on your skin color or plumbing, congratulations. You've just boldly declared that, yes, you consider your race to a group that you belong to, meaning that you do not belong to the other races. As a logical extension, it means that, for you, there exists an "us" defined by a common skin tone, and a "them", defined by a different skin tone. Is that not the very definition of racist? I think you would answer yes without thinking if someone defined "us" as white and "them" as not, so how not when any other color/gender is used in place of "white"?

Jesus, Shades.
Do you honestly not understand that "wanting more whites around so you can feel comfortable" sounds stupid because whites are the MAJORITY? Maybe not in your social circle, maybe even not at your school(though I find that highly unlikely) but in the country, in the media. Women/minorities don't want more of their kind around, they want a support group. A white male can swing a cat in an engineering classroom and hit 10 of his group.
Your article is amusing in that it provides, once again, anecdotal evidence of three (3) professors that are NOT white males in your department. Whether they are the best professors is not the point; what percentage of the total do they make up? Now, to be fair, I don't expect it to be much. Engineering has been white male dominated for such a long time that there just aren't that many others to go around.
I understand that you have a hard time believing women don't go into engineering because of the patriarchy. Get some numbers on the percentage of women in the engineering programs. Come back to me.

Although I cannot say for certain, the fact that you obtained a higher than market rate loan and denied a consolidation loan to what appears to be your Debt-to-Income Ratio - I would imagine that poor credit has more to do with you being denied than your race. I would imagine that your friend probably had better credit or a higher income, and that's why he was approved.

As far as the Chryster lender goes, I didn't really hear about it, but I have no doubts as to whether or not it actually could happen. However, the difference lies in the type of loan. Mortgage loans are government monitored and lenders are given specific guidelines that they are required by law to file. Unlike vehicle loans, race is actually required with the HMDA (home mortgage disclosure act). If we take an application in person and the customer chooses not to disclose their race, we must make a visual observation. And like I previously stated, non-whites get approved meeting less stringent requirements than whites.

I hope you see the difference now. That particular Chrystler bastard made life miserable for quite a few black people, but it isn't universal, affecting people all over the country - put into place by our own government. People are entitled to different opinions and although wrong in my opinion, certainly can be racist if they choose to be. The Government, however, is not.

EDIT: I reread your post, and I see that I may have misinterpreted it. By "Those were the Days" I am now unsure as to how long ago that was, the HMDA came out in 1975, I believe - so if the time period you are talking about came before than, you would have a much more valid opinion than I, as I wasn't really alive then...

It just occured to me that I didn't even mention the original "purpose" of the HMDA reporting laws. Never was this originally set out to ever have any effect on the outcome of the underwriting (approved, denied, ect) It was simply going to be a tool to make sure that lenders weren't discriminating when it came to borrowing out money.

However, due to suble changes throughout the years since it's inception, suddenly there are lending decisions based on race/sex.

Sorry about that, being in the business I sometimes overlook things that I know and realize that it certainly isn't common knowledge...

Jesus Kadath (Hail!),

You don't seem to be able to get it, so I'm going to break it down as granularly as possible.

And that support group is, what, white males? Or is it composed almost exclusively of others of the same minority/gender? Why is someone of the same skin color automagically of the same group? Why do you consistently equate gender and race as a group that we not only could, but SHOULD identify with?

Again, who the hell says that some other random white male is part of "his group?" We're not all in the Klan. What is is about "identifying with people based on the false connection of skin color makes you a racist" don't you understand? Even if I went to India where white people are a minority, if I still said "I wish I was surrounded by more good old whities because I don't feel comfortable around these brownies" THAT WOULD MAKE ME A RACIST. In fact, if I was all alone on the Moon, saying or thinking that would STILL make me a racist. Where you are and what proportion of people are part of your "group," as you define them, is completely irrelevant. A racist attitude could exist even in vacuum.

I'm aware that "three" == 3, thanks.

It's low. Is it low because AT THE COLLEGE LEVEL they're discouraged from signing up? Let me assure you, the answer is no. By the time you get to college, whatever damage has been done. If you want to really fix it, don't slap a band-aid on at the end of the race. Fix it at the source. If you have any proof that any one of the top, say, 20 (twenty) engineering schools have tried to keep women out in the last however many years back you care to go, you get back to me.

I just reread this post again... This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Although I stated in a previous post that it was probably due to poor credit, let's say for the sake of arguement that it was indeed because you are black. Did you like being denied because of your race? Do you think it's ok that your white friend got the loan even though he had more debt?*

If we are using this as an example, this is exactly what is taking place all over the US thousands of times a day. Whites have stricter underwriting guidelines than non-whites. Basically, in non lender jargon-

If a white person and a non-white person, with identical credit, income, bills, ect. walked into a bank & asked for a mortgage loan to buy a house, if the white person gets denied, there is a chance that the non-white may get approved.

I think that it's B.S., and probably feel much the same way that you do about being denied because you are black. However, the difference lies in the fact that this is government sponsered, so it isn't just the occasional bank that is discriminatory, it is mandatory for all banks to be.

*I am not trying to give the impression with those questions that I am in any way hostile about this, I am simply trying to show that regardless of who is discriminated against, is still sucks.

For all those people out there saying that white people are just whining, you may be right. But, we didn't just say that non-whites were just whining when they said they were being discriminated against. I will be the first to admit that white people aren't nearly as affected by discrimination as non-whites were in America's History (lynching, ect) but, discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.

To be honest, this probably is the first time in American history that discrimination against whites has really happened on a large scale, and to call us whiners or think that we are just pitying ourselves is ignorant, while at the same time complaining about discrimination against non-whites - because it is the same thing. It is simply percieved differently because whites were gernerally doing the discriminating in the past.

I personally stand for equality, true equality where nothing is judged based on race or sex. I certainly think that lowering the standards to be able to incorperate a more diverse workforce is the worst thing that we can do. Instead of everyone striving for excellence, certain genders/non-whites have less stringent requirements that could have a terrible affect in the end.

An example of this would be firefighters. To be a firefighter, you have to be able to perform certain physical tasks, such as carry a hose X feet, drag a person X heavy for X long, ect. However, women are usually not as strong as men. (Please don't read to much into this, there are many of buff women out there and weak men, but generally speaking, this holds true) To combat this, they lowered the physical requirements for women to meet to become a fightfighter.

If a loved one of mine dies in a fire because a women that was put there so that we could live in a more politically correct world is unable to carry/drag that person out, when a man's requirements would allow him to do so, I will be one pissed off guy. I am all for equality, but to put peoples lives at risk to be politically correct just seems assinine.

This is going downhill fast. I apologize for taking us down that particular road. Maybe we could try for civility.

Or...maybe not.


You exhaust me. I'm not the one who thinks we should identify with our own group. I am explaining to you, who apparently never wanted for a peer group, why they would want others like them.


You're right. The Society of Black Engineers exists solely to form a protective barrier of brothas against the crackers. I do grant that you could be a racist anywhere.

Not an uncommon technique in written media, much like, say, using the double equals to indicate equality rather than definition when one is experienced in coding.


They aren't actively discouraged from signing up for a career in engineering. It's a societal attitude. And in order to fix it at the source, we need more female/minority role models such as the bevy you listed so that people could look up to them. I note that you have conceded the point that there are very few women in the program, but I wonder if you would do me the favor of giving me numbers, that we might both be edified. If you do, I will be glad to explore your question regarding discrimination against women in the top twenty engineering schools.

Actually, NoSoup, I think Grimlok is making the exact opposite point. I'll wait for a response from him though, but it seems to me that, at least on a commercial bank level, your charge doesn't stand, and is in effect the reverse of your charge. I have different things that I can speak intelligently on, white-, or reverse-racism not being one of them (with the exception of one of my asian ex's parents). But I will keep your experience in mind when I apply for a home mortgage.

Great to see this thread has already degraded so fast...

Oh and I'll leave it at this:

You are who are you are. Nothing will change that. Your perspective? More often than not, it will not change either, because you are who you are.

One person sees a problem, another doesn't.

No amount of talking is going to change a person's mind when they're not going to be open about it. Claim it as you wish, but honestly unless you find a way to change races (unlikely) and start over (maybe in a few centuries ;) ) then there's not much that's going to change because this is all SUBJECTIVE on our feelings, emotions, and experiences.

Civility is good.

I think maybe we should back up into semantics for a moment. Perhaps we could agree that racist behavior is defined by any action taken, either with positive or negative consequences, where the most significant factor in deciding how to act was the race of the people involved. So, I might decide to give Sally a sticker for the sole reason that she was asian, or I might decide to slap Sally for the sole reason that she was not asian. Both are racist actions.

If that definition is OK, then perhaps we could make an assertion- racist behavior is bad. It's bad because it is not based on an honest appraisal of the other person's individual merits, but on a superficial quality that they have no control over.

Peers are generally fine. "Peers" as defined by skin color are not. Again, I just need to know how defining a group by its skin color isn't racist. Someone may define their peers as other people from the same area, city, or social strata, but defining them only on skin color is racist, period.

So much for civility. My point was this: creating a Black Engineers Society creates a solid, tangible delimitation between black engineers and non-black engineers (not just the crackers). This is exactly identical to constructing a conceptual "us" defined by the same skin color and a "them" defined by any other skin color. Doing so enforces the conceit that black people are somehow different than the rest of us. This only perpetuates the racial divide in our society. How could it not?

This is an assertion, not a fact. Please back this up in some way. By your logic, the fact that my advising professor is Chinese, my undergraduate boss was black, and the most skilled professor was a woman, not to mention the fact that not one of my friends, neighbors, or relatives have Ph.D.s, should make me feel discouraged about being an engineering graduate student. How does it give you confidence to do something just because someone with similar physical traits has already done it? If you're sitting around, waiting for someone to inspire you to do something, rather than being self-motivated and doing it because you want to, you're not going to have a successful life.

According to the Women in Engineering Program, it's 22%. I would have guessed 25%, but I guess I should have factored in the dearth of ladies in Electrical Engineering. I'm not sure how that proves that women are being discouraged from enrolling at the college level. As long as all women have the free choice to apply and an equal opportunity with respect to every other applicant to be accepted to the college of engineering, then I say the system is good. Even if the percentage of women enrolled was 5%, as long as they had the exact same opportunity and odds of getting in, the system is not broken at the college level. If you want to say that more women SHOULD WANT to be engineers, you've slipped into social engineering, which I believe is beyond the scope of this topic.

In 2003, there were 51.2% women in the entire university. As there are less than that in the college of engineering, there must be another college that has a less than 48.8% men. Should we not find that college and try to boost male enrollment? Or does that sound stupid?

Zeld2.0

Thanks for reminding us that the universally relativistic argument is alive and well.

Shades: This is just a placeholder to let you know I'll be back, probably around noon EST tomorrow to fight with you some more. I notice you do the majority of your posting in the night hours for me, and I didn't want you to think I'd abandoned you.

I am so very glad I left this thread.......

Hmm... not sure what you mean by a commercial bank level, if you could elaborate, I'd be more than happy to respond :D

*SIGH*

Every post from now on will be made in a respectful manner and in accordance with the rules and values set forth for debate on this forum. You have all been warned.

I'm tempted to kill it NOW, but I see a real debate kicking and screaming to come out of all the petty bullshit I'm reading.

Thank you.

Thanks analog
for keeping this thread open. Please review my posts and if you see me borderline-rule breaking, please feel free to PM me. I am rather new here in politics, and am not sure what exactly passes as status quo.

Thanks again :D

Hey... Finally got a chance to get back.

I guess what I was trying to say in tired rambling was that I don't think that what I experienced with the loan and what you noticed with your job is indicative of American Society as a whole. I think there are some people who abuse the system and use their position of power to actively promote their own race and in essence, discriminate against others.

So I'd make the assumption that the person making decisions in your company is either 1) Black or 2) a Black sympathizer or 3) a Black racist (as in racist against whites and this can be a white person). On the same note, I could assume the person who made the decision in my situation was either 1) White or 2) A White sympathizer or 3)A White racist (and I should note could be a black person).

To answer your question about how it felt to be denied... it felt like crap and for a few days I was even bitter towards my friend because he's the one that suggested I go get the loan because it was "sooooooooooo easy." But I got over it quick... I didn't take it personal and I chalked it up to another one of those roadblocks life threw my way. As far as When it happened... I'm talking mid-90's so it was fairly recent.

In looking back I'm shocked that I considered the color of my skin a road block because even though I grew up in a rough neighborhood... my parents always told me it was more out there and more importantly that it was attainable. I went to a college that was 95% White and most of my friends were white. We'd go out drinking and they'd all be like "How does it feel to be black?" and I would tell them stories about my youth and they'd be like "holy shit." But it never ever occurred to me that my Childhood was that amazing... it was normal for me to see the things that were going on but they just couldn't believe.

What I'm trying to get at is, in looking back to that time, when I was being denied credit and my white friends were so amazed at what I thought was a "normal" childhood, I never ever chalked it up to racism and I never realized how divided our cultures were and still are. This discussion started with an observation by a white guy and then others started to speak up... they had noticed the same thing. Then others started to contradict that observation with observations of their own...

I've never experienced preferential treatment as a black man in anything that mattered; namely, School, Jobs, Credit. Nor do I expect to receive preferential treatment. I'm the type to give the benefit of the doubt when things don't go my way in those situations. I just work harder to achieve the desired results... I may have to work harder than some others but I accept that.

Like my dad says... builds character.

The real question for you NoSoup is where do you work at... I'm looking to buy a house pretty soon and I could use a good loan. :)


Please Note: This post probably did nothing but progress this thread but it was mean to expound a little more my first post. I'll reread and post any other thoughts that I may have forgotten.

Grimlock -

Thanks for replying :D

I see that we are not quite yet on the same page as far as my original concern goes. I must not have explained myself well enough, so I'll give it another whirl.

Well, whereas the person who made the decision on your loan could be one of those options, "The Company" that I work at has no decision makers here when it comes to loans. The underwriting processes are Federally Mandated. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac are basically governmental agencies that have a huge effect on underwriting (approving) policies and guidelines, and as a result every approval or denial are based on their policies. In essence, what the quote should read is

"...So I'd make the assumption that the government is either......"

Does that make sense? Some people out there certainly are asses and may allow racial issues to come into play when making decisions, but all Mortgage lending is federally mandated - and it isn't just "may allow racial issues" - in fact, it requires racial information & then makes decisions based off of it.

So in answer to your question - apply with pretty much any bank out there, as you will experience the same underwriting guidelines, including HMDA info, anywhere you go. Preferential treatment based on race is basically required by law.

Hope this clears things up - I'm looking forward to your response :D

Long before I ever heard of the TFP I used to visit a board called "blacktalk", and this thread reminded me of something someone whose name happened to be "blackconservative" said (obviously the only one of his mindsight, aside from little old white me) and I thought it was pretty cool.....

"Our ancestors spent their lives dreaming of freedom, and now that we have it - we spend our lives dreaming of slavery."

I am a student currently, studying engineering. However a few years ago when I applied to study engineering I applied for scholarships, there were a fair number:

Academic Bursaries (10)
Financial Support Bursaries (25)
Company funded Scholarships (36)
Female Engineering Scholarships (10)
Female Support Scholarship (5)
Black Engineering Scholarships (5)

(and a few more that I cannot remember). Now I did well out of this picking up an academic bursary (because I had exceptionally high grades) and a company funded scholarship (because I am aware of how to deal with interviews and know enough about my subjects to actually discuss them with the interviewers). I was running against people of all races and genders, however there were some of these that I could not apply for, not becuase I was not qualified but becuase I was a white male.

Ok, firstly I am from what is considered a deprived area (while not poor we are not exactly rolling in money), our school was good however not on the same par as some private ones. However I achieved good grades and so did a few others in my school. I have no racist problems, I hang out with people of all religions and colours (pink, brown, light brown, dark pink etc...).

I find this wrong however, people are not equal, not becuase of colour or gender but because they are human. I know people who were infinitely better academically and more in need financially of some of these bursaries and scholarships than some of the people who achieved them, and the reason was that these people could not apply.

I don't know why colour has anything to do with this, if I apply for a loan you should look at my financial state, my previous investments etc, not my colour. If I apply for a course I want you to look at my grades and suchlike not my gender. Ok I am probably "privelaged" in some way however I cannot see this, from my perspective everyone is equal, I know that I do not discriminate based on things so why should people do it against me... I have felt this as people who are in worse financial states are offered loans and things despite the fact that they cannot afford to pay them back nor do they consider not paying to be wrong.

Society should be non-discriminatory, heck take the "race" part off of forms totally... quotas and ratios are inherently wrong, its not about having 10 white men 5 blacks, 2 women, 3 gays and a guy in a wheel chair in your work place its about having the 21 best people that can fill the jobs, if a disabled person gets a job over a non disabled person to fill this quota it is wrong, if the best person for the job is that gay black disabled female then she should get the job... I know people who have been told that they will not get a job because they are white and the company needs to meet "integration targets". What happened to the good old system of the best person for the job.

Do you have a hard time believing that companies can't find qualified people from minority groups?

When a minority gets a job, or you don't get one, why the sudden blame on affirmative action? It sounded like you received a fair amount of financial help from your illustration above.

Why can't a company fill the 21 slots with the best people while still maintaining a high degree of integration. The person with a disability might even be better qualified than the person without one, but I received the impression from your post that you would attribute the highering decision solely to the external factor--the person could have disabilities and be the best qualified.

When people who hire others come on this board and start explaining how they are constantly forced to turn away the best candidates for sub-par ones, then I will believe such claims.

Otherwise, I don't know how the candidate (posters in this thread who feel they were treated unfairly) could even know why he or she was not hired. Every candidate I ever knew thought he or she deserved the job more than the person hired. It's not as if you think to yourself, oh yeah, that person really does deserve the job more than me.

It's also not as if you even know who actually gets the job. I've never received a call along the lines of, "oh yeah, we hired that guy sitting next to you in the lobby." I don't even know anyone who received a call along the lines of "we would like to hire you but we had to hire that guy sitting next to you in the lobby because of his race." I think that's a pretty unlikely scenario--but maybe someone actually experienced that.

I'm more inclined to believe that any hiring manager is more likely to use that as an excuse and isn't very likely to tell the person they aren't hiring anything, must less the backroom decision making in regards to who to hire.

Basically, I'll agree that some companies want a diverse pool of workers, but I suspect this occurs far more often due to internal desires rather than external government regulations. Even so, one shouldn't conclude that just because companies are dedicated to diversifying their employee pool they are then resorting to turning down better candidates just to fill those slots--they are most likely to be finding qualified minorities. Since they comprise a lower proportion of the population, companies might turn down qualified non-minorities while they continue looking. It doesn't particularly matter in the long run, since qualified non-minorities are probably all in line--so companies can afford to be patient and selective.

I also want to point out, as someone who has been in a position to hire others, that there is no real objective way to ensure qualification. If that were they case, we wouldn't need interviews. Your belief regarding your qualifications notwithstanding, employers might be looking for qualities that aren't published, or may even decide based on what was had for breakfast. The point is hiring, like school admissions and scholarship awards, are extremely subjective matters and rarely result in what outsiders think would be better choices. But that's the point, outsiders (as in, anyone here who wasn't hired by a company or wasn't given a loan, etc.) don't have any further connection with the company deciding and aren't privy to the reasons underlying the decision. They are just speculating--and that speculation is going to redirect the cause of the rejection to an external source that is blameworthy.

Hmmm...after reading the posts in this thread, I've got a few thoughts. When talking about the affect of not having enough minority role models in positions of authority and power, I was reminded of something that I heard a while ago. Does anyone think that there might a tendency, with the advent and maturity of race and gender based affirmative action programs, to cause any feelings of something akin to "imposter syndrome" in white males? If the basic idea behind the need to make corrective measures based on race and gender is that they have historically been discriminated against, are white males kids starting to wonder if their role models are hypocritical bastards? I think it's a good thing for white kids to wonder if their ancestors mistreated other ethnicities, just as it's a good thing for other ethnicities to be aware of the fact that their people have traditionally been discriminated against in America. However, if the minority position can lead to a complex, can the reverse - and is that healthy? Just curious.

It seems to me in a lot of the comments that I've read, many of the posters are decrying all recognition and differentiation on the basis of race, and I'm not sure how I feel about that. I agree that the definition of racism is making differentiation or judgement on the basis of race, but I think this can be taken too far. First, how can you actually appreciate diversity if you don't recognize and judge based on race? You have to recognize that there are differences to appreciate them. As for the discussion concerning the Society for Black Engineers or Women's Engineers, I've thought about that before too. And the conclusion that I've come to is that there would, in fact, be a difference between the Society for Male Engineers, and the Society of Women Engineers, or The Society for White Engineers and The Society of Black Engineers. In particular, most of the people in the "minority" societies are pretty good people, and I like to hang out them, in general, as much as anyone else. A Society for White/Male Engineering, would suck ass. I'm a White Male Engineer, and I would masturbate with a sandpaper glove before I went to that meeting. It would be a meeting of about five of my closest Klan buddies and Neocon-puking friends. Even if you would like hanging about with one of the above mentioned factions of white male society, there's a different stigma attached to the White Male societies, and it's not coincidental. I think that things are starting to change, and this dialogue is a marker of that. I also agree that a lot of caucasian groups have been discriminated against (Italians, Irish, French Hugenots), but that for a while in America, this divisions do seem to pale versus white/black.

I think that these types of discussion are useful, but the truth of the matter is that this course of dialogue is more important than any legislation, in terms of ending the negative aspects of racism. All the affirmative action programs and scholarship programs are only crappy kickstands to try to correct in imbalance in the way things are, not the way they're supposed to be, in my opinion. I personally feel that it is becoming appropriate to more heavily consider economic situation and less heavily racial profile, but perhaps not completely eliminate race. I actually detest affirmative action, but so far, no one has really come up with a better alternative that's is pragmatic and enforcable. Saying "love your neighbor" doesn't seem to have a great track record.

One last thought, because everyone's been dealing in hypotheticals. Let's assume that two candidates apply for opportunity X, and they are exactly and completely and totally equivalent, except one is a white male, and one is something else. After an interview, they are both personable and witty and well informed. They answer the questions so identically that the interviewers are wondering if they are not joined in a para-psychological bond that has been unheard of since the Gods of the Greeks rules on Mount Olympus. Who gets the job. One position, two people. No difference.

If I own a business I am hiring the minority in order to prevent him from suing my ass. Same goes with the same situation except I have to fire one guy.

Yes, clearly when we white people congregate, only the inbred, conservative among us do. In fact, all predominantly white groups have always had that characteristic. Goodness, where did I get off thinking that white people weren't inherently bad, especially in large numbers? YEE-HAA! :rolleyes:

I'm still trying to decide how painting every white group that way, especially one peopled by engineers (who, in my experience, tend to be well-educated enough to not be racist a-holes) wasn't a flat-out flame. In case it was not,

Which, of course, presupposes that white kids will automatically choose only white people as role models, instead of minority athletes or media stars. Considering the dominance of hip hop on the airwaves, I'm thinking that maybe not every single white kid only looks up to other white people.

++

--

I'm only doing so in the interest of fairness. If I'm to believe that there is nothing good about being white, that white people have only been a plague on the Earth, and that showing even the slightest hint of even identifying as, let alone taking the slightest scintilla of pride in being white is a vicious slur upon every non-white person around me, even though I and all of the white people I personally know have never done a single thing to harm another person based in part or in whole on their skin color, then I submit that neither should any other race be allowed to do so. And if anything I claimed in that pervious (not entirely serious) sentence was false, then I submit that I would be allowed to organize a White Pride parade (we invented Tang, bitches!) and not be run out of town on a rail. But I would be. Seriously, please just give me one solitary example in your entire life when anything- an educator, a textbook, a TV show, a movie,- every once even intimated that being proud of being white was anything less than branding yourself as a racist.

And then tell me how perpetuating that attitude, combined with giving preferential treatment to non-whites on the basis of their skin color only, will someday eliminate racism in our society. The treatment is still separate, and it's still unequal. I strongly believe that the only way to do so is to make things truly fair- everyone gets the same shake. If people discriminate based on race or gender, throw the book at them hard, but until they do, don't treat them like criminals. Don't require that they hire a certain percentage of women- who says they weren't going to anyway, or that there are that many qualified women in that field in that geographical area that applied to that company? Racial quotas carry the underlying assumption that the company is run by racist turds that you can't turn your back on for one second.

Race-based initiatives in education do to the same thing. They say that the public school system is a machine built to advance the good ol' boys and hold the rest down. Even more insultingly, they say that, rather than try to fix public schools, they'll just slap a band-aid on at the end, when applying for college. At that time, your race will be taken into "consideration," meaning that, although you may have low academic and test scores, you could be admitted anyway. I don't see any other way to interpret that other than colleges just don't expect as much from minorities, which would really piss me off if I was a minority. I'm not, so I don't have the right to be.

Shades I can certainly echo your comment on colleges and minorities - it does still irk me that they allow for 'points' or whatever system to a minority based on race. I've voted heavily against that treatment in CA and a lot of times, even many other minorities have agreed to shoot it down. Now I went to a prestigious school in the end anways and did fine and all but here goes..

I thinkwe just have to be careful on what line we draw it. On the one hand, there are many people in minorities who really are brilliant and excellent students. What might shock many people outside of California though is no surprise to many living in CA itself is the fact that in the UC (University of California) system, a very large % of the schools are Asian a very small % in the country (4% last i checked).

I don't remember the exact numbers but it something like this: At University of California Irvine, the number of Asians is closer to 50% than 30%. At Berkeley, the conservative estimate is 30%.

That's a lot of students and considering each school has an average of something like 20,000 students - it leads to two conclusions/ideas:

1 - Minorities can succeed. This is true and applies to everyone. Now on the one hand its because many Asians are either first or second generation immigrants here and often there is a lot of pressure to succeed from their parents or themselves. I will say, though, that most of these people are fairly well off in society or are around the average but certainly few are in the poverty range.

2 - Minorities are taking up spaces (the other conclusion). That is what one might say - but I think that large # of people that is disproportionately Asian is hard to say. The UCs don't give points or anything to Asians and indeed most Asians feel they are cheated out by other races now since they have such a large percentage.

From my own experiences with the system, from friends, and from thoughts I can echo your sentiment that race is often times a factor.

But I don't think its worth blaming things over racial treatment as certainly there are a ton of people capable in college, jobs, wherever without a need for preferential treatment.

That being said, however, I will still say that economic factors are most likely to dictate a person's performance and not race and it should be financial and economic considerations, not race.

I would assume that the "internal desires" in a company, any company, would be to profit as much as possible. You do this by making as much money as you can, spending as little as you can, and utilizing any other "tools" that you are able to.

I may be incorrect here, but I am fairly certain that companies get tax breaks if they hire a minority/woman. If they do, that would make it advantageous to hire a minority/woman to fufill their "internal desires"

Well, to be honest, in most cases nowadays, the minority would probably get the job. Even if they were perfectly equal, the tax benefits that the employer would recieve would push the minority into the position, I believe.

However, why isn't it up to a coin toss? Let's say for the sake of argument, those two candidates are exactly the same, in every way. Financial situation, education, qualifications, GPA, IQ, ect.

Is it not discrimination if you choose one candiate over the other based on their race? If they are identical, that white person deserves the position less simply because he is white? I think that is terrible. For governmental policies to encourage this is even more pathetic. There is absolutely no reason that that white fella should be turned down based simply on his skin color - all hell would break lose if it happened to a minority, but the evil white men deserve everything they get.

What if the employer, seeing that they were identical, flipped a coin and the white person won? How many feel that the minority would have been discriminated against due to his race?

I think that we need to understand that we are trying to live by a double standard. If we don't discriminate based on race, we are looked at as racist. In this example, if we don't hire the minority, it will most likely be assumed that the minority wasn't hired due to his/her skin color.

I think that the question, in a perfect society, would just state that the candidates were perfectly equal, and wouldn't make mention of a race, as that has no affect on their abilities to perform their job duties. Race only has as much weight as people put on it - and although it seems to be getting lighter these days, I find it difficult to swallow that it is still encouraged by the government to discriminate, one way or another.

Quickly, allow me to respond to your comments, Shades. First - calm down. I'm not interested, even in the slightest, in getting involved in a proverbial flame war. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, perhaps you're a little worked up. In any event, here goes :

This is where the calm down comes into play - I guess I can understand where you're coming from, but I didn't say that ALL white people are bigots and Klansmen. By your own admission you're a graduate level engineering student, so I expect that you know that I didn't say that, any more than I said that there only 5 white people studying engineering at your school On a theoretical level, I completely agree with you. It is, however, my opinion that in reality if you were to start the said White Engineers Society, that you wouldn't find most of the white students showing up. I don't think that they would care. I think, even though it certainly wouldn't be a representative group of all white people, that the only people who would show would be the ones I mentioned. I could be wrong. Give it a shot - start the club. See how it goes.

It wasn't intended to be. First of all, once again I DID NOT say that every white engineer is a Klansmen. I said that, as above, my guess is that only a few very socially conservative and/or (if there could possibly be a racist white engineer) a racist white engineer who would show up. Secondly, it was intended to sarcastic exaggeration, perhaps (humbly) bordering on self-deprecating humor. Apparently, that's not the way it was taken.



Nope, that's not what I intended at all. I'm simply pointing out, and I think this may be what a poster above was trying to get at as well, that it could be that if a person was looking for inspiration, that in addition to looking at people for much more grandiose and intellectually satisfying reasons such as their philosophy, their goals, their ethics, their accomplishments - they might, even if it were subconscious, look for people based on superficial qualities. They might like to see someone who looked like them, or came from the same part of the world as them in a position that they might like to attain one day. We can argue the merits of such superficial judgements 'til the cows come home, but it's something that I think everyone does. Perhaps you don't. I think that most people do - and I don't think it's a bad thing.




I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "in the interest of fairness" - but I wholeheartedly agree with you that white people should feel no more shame about their heritage than any other person. As far as the question of race relations and the history thereof, I ascribe to something akin to the view point of Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel - basically that skin color had nothing to do with unforlding of events, save possibly being a secondary characteristic of environment - and that much more had to do with timing,the orientation of land masses where diffferent races seemed to arise, and the abundance of critical natural resources.


]/B]

That's one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.

[]/B]

Well, my first response to this was going to the A-Team. In seriousness, you're correct and I agree that it's a bad thing. That was my point with the stuff about the environment white kids are growing up in.


As for all the stuff on affirmative action, I'm going to cover it in a blanket statement as follows : On a theoretical level, I definately agree with you that the only way for things to be fair and equal....is for things to be fair and equal. Determining the best way to allow that to happen is a tough issue. I don't think that affirmative action based on race and gender are good ways to solve the problem, nor do I think that all the people who support these programs are out to screw over white males. I think that most of them simply want minorities, or a particular minority, to have better opportunities than they current do, and they are looking for pragmatic, enforceable ways to bring it about. I'm not going to blanketly demonize them either. Aside from that, I agree that early education and opportunity is the key, but once again - easier said than done.

Wow, so much going on here.

As a white South African, my experience of "affirmative action" has been far from positive, although I can understand the need to have them. I was granted a university place only to be told two weeks before the start of the term that my place was going to be given to a black student instead, in order to satisfy quotas. I have been denied jobs because preference was being given to black applicants.

With regards to "affirmative action," I am in two minds:

Pros:
It does at least attempt to address the imbalance. It provides opportunities to those who were previously denied them and gives them the chance to compete on an equal footing. In theory, it is only supposed to last for a short period of time, allowing those previously discriminated against a chance to excel and "level the playing field."

Cons:
It doesn't teach "minorities" to fend for themselves. They start to rely on the "positive discrimination" rather than their own abilities in order to better themselves. These are generally the people who also still cry "racism" on the odd occasion that things don't turn out their way instead of looking at their own failings and shortcomings. They don't work as hard because they don't have to. They don't exert themselves because there is no need. This breeds a culture of dependence that can be very cushy and difficult to break free from.

Some previous victims of discrimination seem to be reluctant to be seen as equal, in case they lose all the privileges of "positive discrimination." They still play the race card when it suits them and as such have taken "positive discrimination" to a new level. There's a recent case of a Sri Lankan cricketer who technique has recently been scientifically determined to be contrary to the rules of the game (if you don't follow cricket, I won't bore you with the details of this study). Despite this hard and fast evidence, his administrators have threatened to sue the ruling body if they don't overturn this decision, which they have called a racist plot hatched by white nations.

Since the end of apartheid, all of the South African sporting teams have been subject to racial quotas too. A few years ago there was uproar when the government objected to the inclusion of a white player in our national cricket team and replaced him with a player of colour instead (the omitted white player has since made his debut and is recognised as one of the world game's rising stars, while the coloured player has barely been heard of since). But more than highlight the injustice behind much "positive discrimination," this incident highlighted just how ashamed many "minorities" are to be seen to be benefitting from "affirmative action."

The player involved made many public statements about how embarrassed he was to have benefitted in this way. And it wasn't the same as a job applicant being hired with the reasoning being kept behind closed doors. It was on the front pages. Everyone knew that Justin Ontong was being selected because he wasn't white, and he didn't like it one bit. It makes me wonder how many of those being hired for private jobs or being awarded scholarships because of the colour of their skin would feel if the real reasons behind their appointment were to be made known to all their colleagues. They are happy to benefit from it in private, but if the truth was made public knowledge, how would they feel?

I'm a great believer in the saying, "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, but if you teach a man how to fish, you feed him for the rest of his life." This is what "positive discrimination" should model itself around. Give people opportunities to better themselves. Subsidise education, grant more scholarships, develop more training programs, maybe based on income levels rather than ethnicity. But once education has been completed and qualifications achieved, they're on their own. The goal should be that everyone enters the workplace on equal footing. If they've been given a subsidised education and they've just fucked around during it, then tough. If they've taken advantage of it and benefitted as they should have, then they will reap the rewards of their hard work.

"Affirmative action" can be beneficial if it not abused, but abusing it is just too easy at the moment. It's intentions are good, but it just doesn't work. I'm not sure that any official intervention will though, if the people who it is supposed to help don't stop relying on it as the sole means of their betterment. They have to realise that at some stage, they must take responsibility for their own destinies.

I agree.


If "Affirmative action"was based on something other than skin color, such as income level, it would be (imho) a good program, though too still easily abused. If we were able to "teach a man to fish" and then wean them off the program, it would be the ideal situation. I just don't see why skin color has anything to do with trying to educate the less fortunate...

That is odd and weird for sure. However, I think there might just be a possibility that it isn't racism. One of my household members recently became involved in underwriting. From what I understand most of it is based of statistical figures from past events. So, if the loan company has data that shows that so many people of (insert race) payback the loan at a set income/credit rating level. This would make them want to approve the loan. If people of a different race at the same income/credit rating don't payback the loan, it would make the company not want to approve that person.

I'm not saying what happed isn't racism but merely noting the possibility that things aren’t always how they seem.


Ha, indeed.

Understood, but I had checked into it as well with some of the companies that we work with. When speaking with the underwriters, they basically told me that there was no statistical evidence to back it up - it is simply required by law.

However, take it with a grain of salt, if you like, as it was just told to me secondhand.

I hate to bring back a thread from the dead, but I wanted to chip in my two cents and see this debate come back to life...

One of my very good friends from high school was a Native American and because he lived on the reservation he was given a portion of the profits from a nearby casino. His tribe is located in Minnesota and it is relatively small, the casino that they run is huge, as well as highly profitable. Since he turned 18, he has gotten weekly checks for many thousands of dollars a piece - he has so much money he doesn't even know what to do with it.

He spends his days sleeping and his nights partying - the money being used to purchase alchohol and other materials that he ends up snorting.

The whole situation pisses me off because he basically makes just under $300,000.00 a year for sitting on his ass because of his blood - while others are working their asses off and still struggling.

The reason I bring this up is because I don't believe that we should still allow native americans to have all these special rules that help them out ridiculously. Don't get me wrong - America has done many terrible things to a great number of people(s) - but paying for it for the rest of forever is ridiculous. Same goes for slavery. It was terrible, it happened, it's done. I think that monetary subsidation is a fraction of what should be given to those that acutally survived it, but someone should not be rewarded because their great great grandfather was a slave.

War and conquering land typically involve terrible things - but it happened os long ago it shouldn't have any real effect on what happens now to those related to those who were mistreated...

You don't see Rome paying out to countries because they had conquered them...

Here is a good article I wandered across the other week.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/31/di....ap/index.html
Then there was also a case I read about recently were 17 cops, if memory correctly serves, sued the Milwaukee area police department for discrimination. The cops were all white men and were all passed up on promotions by minorities and woman who were underqualified. The judge presiding over the case agreed with the cops and awarded them millions. Shit like this is happening more and more, but for some reason it doesn't get any attention.

A taste of medicine. Instant Karma. Dissapointing. Not suprising. Nothing I would shed a tear over.

I'm sure you realize that it always has and always will go both ways, yes? Fortunately for the white folk, there are more of them and they traditionally hold, and started with, the upper hand. So discrimination will always ultimately favor them, by virtue of mathematics.

They got BET (Black Entertainment TV) and Miss Black USA... not a probelm for me, but could you imagine the screams if whites started W(white)ET or had Miss white USA? I'd watch that just for the uproar

You should be asking yourself why anyone would shed a tear over discrimination against blacks, then. Especially when it took place 150 years ago.

Wrong.

Since non-whites are now a majority in California, it follows that you should support preferences for whites in college admissions, job placement, promotions, etc.

Hey, it's just mathematics.

I didn't realize it had stopped :rolleyes: I don't shed a tear - I support the best solution: AA.
No, RIGHT!

But I'm tired of this discussion. It seems to crop up every week or so around here:

Blacks/Asians/Mexicans are JUST as racist as Whites so they shouldn't be "given" anything.

I can only bang my head against illogic so much before it gives me a headache.

Good God.... So instead of discussing this on an intellectual level, we're STILL resorting to this discussion-ending BS?

How about talking about the issues instead of attacking those who would?


EDIT: Ouch - I just realized that I was quoting an almost-a-year-old thread somewhat out of context. I stand behind my statement, however...I've seen a great many discussions -- ones that we as participants in society SHOULD be talking about -- shut down due to ad hominem attacks on those with points of view that challenge our current PC culture.

I'm happy to see that the thread took a nice turn for the better in the intervening pages since my quoted message.

Manx the only illogic I see is your own, the arguement isn't whether or not minorities are as racist as white people. The issue is since when does legislated discrimination become legit?

And the answer is purely logical:

When there is no alternative method of dealing with the adverse affects of discrimination against minorities.

So when you argue against that week after week after week, your illogic gives me a headache.

So discrimination is legit as long as you are sticking it to whitey? Yeah that's sound logic...

Wow, that makes it a more interesting argument. I'm of the opinion that discrimination against ANYONE is a Bad Thing. Of course, I also realize that my views are somewhat simplistic and not based 100% in reality.

'Cause that's what I've been saying all along. :rolleyes:

Nice summation of probably a half dozen discussions I've had that you're certain to have read to some degree. Didn't even come close to the post you responded to either. Thanks.

It's called ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX so yes, BET is a response to that. To fulfill a market that wasn't being served. Perfect example of helping yourself. As you said, no problem with it...right?

I think there is a Miss White USA only it's called, Miss Dixie or something like that... I'm not sure, I'll try and look it up though.

I forgot this before: Remind me how your post #88, which is the post I responded to which brought about your apparent need to clarify the topic, is in anyway NOT a report of two incidents of apparent racism against whites and IS a point of consideration in AA legislation.

I don't see it.