http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-onlin...19772830.shtml

So yeah, racism clearly still exists, at all levels.

This one is especially abhorrent: How can I trust a fireman ever again? Any wonder why the minorities had so little faith in police or govt. in New Orleans?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/12/fir...ion=cnn_latest

That's the problem, many white's aren't more qualified because of anything they did, they are qualified because of a system where whites have an inherent economic advantage. It would be like a 100yd dash where you start 30yds ahead because you're white, then complain if they try to let the black guy catch up. You aren't necessarily faster, you just started out farther ahead.

Just wanted to quote this just in case anyone missed it. I was going to try to point out that quota's aren't used much at all in AA programs, but figured it would get ignored. And also, even if AA were about quotas it doesn't changes anything.

Unless, of course, the employee wasn't racist in his hiring practices and the 'special consideration' given to black candidates gave them an edge in what would've otherwise been decided by merit.

Then he could've very well been more qualified that whoever got hired. And denied because of race.

That's a good point, but unfortunately, very difficult to discern. But that's also assuming that non-white male applicants are NOT qualified or unmerited which in and of itself, is indicative of institutionalized racism whether intentional or not. Also, if an employer wasn't racist in his hiring practices, then why would he need to give consideration. Remember, consideration means for those that are qualified.

For example, if I am denied employment at a black restaurant, is it because I'm not black or is it because I'm not a competitive applicant (relative to the pool)?

That's part of the problem, it all gets blurred. Kind of like legacy admissions or getting hired through the buddy system. I think lots of people get hired because they are a friend or they know someone etc, not because they are the most qualified (government comes to mind, especially federal govt.).

I made no such assumption.

It is difficult to discern. But I happen to be against "guilty until proven innocent", which is what I see as the consequence of AA for this particular concern.

It's my understanding that AA doesn't discern between racist and nonracist employers. They don't test for case-specific racism before applying AA.

The answer, then: he would need to if he was ordered to.

Which again is not always true, my family is not that well off, I attended a school in a deprived area however I came out with top grades and attend a good university because I worked hard for my grades and what I achieved. I will admit that starting 30 yards ahead is an advantage however it can be overcome easily and successfully by applying yourself to things.

Assuming however that I and a Minority got the same grades, etc then apply for a job, the interview (assuming we should assume that the interview goes 100% right for both people) then surely the result should basically be the toss of a coin?

Also the analogy is flawed, Some white men started 30yds ahead, however we removed the majority of the advantage making people equal and giving them the opportunity to perform well, some people still have the advantages that money brings however its a fairly level playing field (so your average whites/blacks are startign at 0, your poor blacks/whites 5 yds behind and your rich 10yds ahead)... still an advantage but managable without programs to ensure that one group is favoured.

This is ridiculous. So people who face discrimination and inequality should just "apply theirselves to things"? I can't take this serious at all.

Nope, the minority should get the job. Chances are, he/she worked harder than you, because he/she was able to get to the same circumstances (grades, abilities, skills) despite having the disadvantage of being a minority group.

For one, where was the advantage removed? This is one of the biggest myths (and greatest failures) of the civil rights movements of the 50's-70's. Many people think that some magic wand was waved that instantly erased all of the racism in the country, as well as eliminating the lingering effects of past racism. This did not happen, all that happened was the most egregious examples have been somewhat abated.

Also, my analogy is near-perfect. Even assuming that the advantages break solely along economic class lines (which is wrong anyway, because a poor white guy can still put on a suit and nobody would innately see he was poor. A minority couldn't do the same quick transformation), there is still a problem because a disproportionate amount of those who are poor are black.

And as for programs that supposedly "ensure one group is favoured", all they do is try to apply some balance to a system that automatically favours white males. Again, it boils down to the fact that white males are upset because they are no longer automatically entitled to better opportuntites because of their race and sex. There are now programs in place that at least partially help to eliminate this inequality.

The SES disadvantage isn't based merely on how you are perceived by others: the more important factor to consider is the effect it has on educational opportunities and reading materials. The fact that black people are disproportionately poor is not a problem. The problem is that this fact is used to justify race-based reverse-discrimination in order to counteract a socioeconomic disadvantage. If being poor makes it harder to get accepted into college, for example, then poor white people and poor black people should be helped out equally.

In a colorblind society, racism could not be perpetuated under the guise of helping the poor, for example. Instead of looking at someone's skin color to determine whether or not they are in need of assistence, each candidate could be looked at individually. I can't even convey how wrong it is to assume that all candidates of Race X need the same handicap. Black people are individuals. White people are individuals.

Another advantage of a colorblind society that I have not yet mentioned is the effect on minority perceptions of their own capabilities. Imagine how you would feel if people had said to you all your life, "Your race has been discriminated against in this country for centuries. Because you are a member of that race and have yourself been a target of discrimination, you are not able to compete on a level playing field with white applicants. You deserve special treatment to counteract the evils that have happened to others of your race. Remember that time the store owner in the mall ignored you? Remember that time when your classmate called you a nigger? Remember that time your great-great-great grandfather was lynched by the KKK? Because those things happened, you are incapable of getting into a good college without getting extra points for being a member of a minority race. Fortunately, affirmative action is here to help you."

Once young people buy into this kind of logic, they have every incentive to blame any setbacks or problems they have on their race. Their heritage becomes a curse, a thing to be ashamed of. It doesn't take long to realize that minority races are given handicaps because they are pittied. And one does not receive pity from equals or subordinates.

This attitude is what I perceive to be part of the problem in regards to why some of us argue for affirmative action programs. Many young people alive today had grandparents who were abused and lynched. The rest of the Black people alive today either directly experienced abuse or their parents did...it's not ancient history.

So how does saddling all future generations with the sins of our fathers in regard to job openings and college admissions make up for this abuse?

Again, this is totally wrong. You want to ignore race as an issue in socioeconomic status because doing so helps keep blacks down. You say it's not a problem that there are disproportionately more poor blacks than whites? The only reason someone could think this is if A. they feel blacks to be innately inferior or B. they want to maintain a race-based lower class. Either viewpoint isn't based on any true notion of "fairness", but on keeping the status quo of whites gaining an advantage from their race. And if that's your position, there's really no reason for further discussion.

No, in a "colorblind" society, racism is perpetuated under the guise of blacks not being as "qualified". And your idea of looking at people individually is naive and ridiculous. You can't implement public policy on a one-on-one basis. I will agree that not all blacks are in need of AA, but because a couple don't need it doesn't invalidate the program.

Again, you try to take on the role of sympathizer, but what you type makes it abundantly clear that it's not the case. You are still assuming that racism is something that is in the history books, and not an ongoing thing. It wouldn't have been my great-great-great grandfather lynched by the KKK, it would've been my GRANDFATHER. And I'm only 24. Racism didn't die with the dinosaurs. You say that young people would blame setbacks on their race, but you want to ignore any racism in society in favor of making sure that whites maintain their current favored status.

Being 1/2 Irish I owe the British 1/2 an asskicking, and its not ancient history either.

What the hell does a past injustice have to do with AA?

Smooth is saying that injustice isn't something that only exists in the past. He's saying that racism and injustice are an ongoing thing. Racism didn't end yet.

And you need to stop calling everyone who disagrees with you a racist. Where do you get off interpreting people's motives for them? How do you know he's trying to keep the blacks down? Simple answer? You don't know that, and to assume that is racist in and of itself. Knock it off.





Your definition of colorblind is vastly different from the rest of the world's. You would perhaps gain more respect for your arguments if you at least used the same dictionery as the rest of us.

Yes, we can tell you think that since you insist on painting all white people as minority-suppressing racist monsters.


You want your cake and eat it too. Either AA is a program meant to help those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged or it is not. On the one hand you say it is because of all the socioeconomically poor blacks. On the other hand you say that a poor white guy shouldn't get the same benefit simply because he is white and someone who looked like him 200 years ago had slaves. Then you tell us that even if the black guy is not poor and doesn't need any help, he should get it anyway. Your position on this is either not well thought out or, more likely, drawn solidly along racist lines.





No one is saying there is not a problem with racism in this country. We are saying it's not as big as it used to be (and unless you can dig up proof of multiple lynchings PER DAY in addition to multiple other abuses that no longer happen, you can't refute that). And we are saying that if we want the racial relations to improve then people have to learn to disregard skin color differences - something you are not willing to do. And that means that you are happilly stepping in line with the others who wish to perpetuate racism.



I'm sorry for your grandfather, but I did not kill him. Nor did anyone else here. We will not take the blame for his murder. That's as stupid as it would be if I found out your grandfather killed my grandmother and then demanded reparations from YOU. YOU are not responsible for what your ancestors did, just as I am not responsible for what MY ancestors did. I refuse to be punished for a crime that I did not commit.

Again a racist statement. Your racism is quite apparent by now, we do not need more examples. Until you learn to see people as individuals rather than the Great White Evil, you will never be able to approach a discussion of this nature with any hint of rationality.

I'm not calling everyone who disagrees with me racist. I'm interpreting motives by what someone says, the same as you (and everyone else) does. I don't know he's trying to keep blacks down, but based on his replies that's the most logical conclusion. And your hypocricy in this secion is truly stunning.

No, my definition of colorblind is different than that of people who think racism is something in the past. It's also different fron the definition of people who don't think that racial equality is something to be strived for.

A sensible person would understand that my statement was in context to government programs.

And as for painting all white people as "minority-suppressing racist monsters", all I can say is that I really know white people well, so this is false. I even have a white friend, so obviously I'm fully capable on talking about white people as a whole and understanding their motivations.



Here you are totally wrong. Not only do you give a false dillema, but you give the wrong dillema. AA is not meant to help those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, it's meant to help eliminate inequalities in the socioeconomic system that arrise from race or sex. The reason a poor white guy shoudn't get the same benefit from AA as a minority/woman is because the problem being addressed by AA is an inequality in oportunity between white males and minorities/women, and not inequalities in opportunity between socioeconomic classes. You are trying to combine two separate issues into one. Maybe if you would actually try understanding the issue at hand you would better see the point of AA. Because currently it doesn't seem you understand either the purpose of AA or the problems it seeks to correct.

Race relations has nothing to do with AA. AA is built to address economic imbalances between white males and minorites and women, and institutional racism/sexism. That is all. Race relations is another separate issue. And you don't want people to disregard skin color, you want minorites to disregard skin color. What this comes off as is saying that minorities need to shut up and wait while whites get around to truly wanting equality. And while minorities wait for the whitocracy to come around to a true colorblind society, they sink further into poverty. Although from your point of view, I should be grateful to white people because I'm not on a plantation picking cotton, or being lynched now right?

I will gladly disregard skin color when doing so doesn't relegate those of my skin color to a lower place in society. Disregarding skin color is a problem with those who hold the power (whites) and not those who suffer from the imbalance.




I'm sorry for your grandfather, but I did not kill him. Nor did anyone else here. We will not take the blame for his murder. That's as stupid as it would be if I found out your grandfather killed my grandmother and then demanded reparations from YOU. YOU are not responsible for what your ancestors did, just as I am not responsible for what MY ancestors did. I refuse to be punished for a crime that I did not commit.



Again a racist statement. Your racism is quite apparent by now, we do not need more examples. Until you learn to see people as individuals rather than the Great White Evil, you will never be able to approach a discussion of this nature with any hint of rationality.[/QUOTE]

While the goal of AA to level the playing field may be a noble one, I'm afraid the cure may be worse than the illness. Causing additional animosity between the races/sexes does not help us to build an integrated society where people are judged on the basis of their ability and character.

If AA was limited (expanded) to addressing inequalities in opportunity between socioeconomic classes it would not be nearly as controversial. If the class (wealth) difference in our country was addressed by AA, surely a great number of minorities and women would benefit, after all the lower classes are probably made up of those most discriminated against. The wealthy of any race/sex, etc.. do not need the government's assistance.

The government can set an example by enforcing laws against discrimination without showing preference to one group or another. Mothers and fathers should teach their children to judge people on their merits and to ignore race/sex when determining people's abilities. We have to get to the point where we understand that we are all humans and all in this together.

A poor white man/woman has a lot more in common with a poor minority man/woman than either has with the wealthy of any race/sex.

Looks like a lively bravado in here. Fantastic. Now that the question of "what does a color blind society" mean has morphed into a discussion of the merits of affirmative action, I thought the old "Search" function might be kind of cool. Not to stifle current "discussion," but the the following might be germane:

1. This

and that

and some of this

and maybe some of this

Oh hell, get all hogwild - this used to work, but i'm an idiot. fair enough. do a search on affirmative action. stuff pops up.


I don't really know what to comment on - there's so much going on in this thread. I will say that if you fight fire with fire, that's fine - but recognize you're not actually putting out the flames.

Hahahahaa!! "hogwild".... from "pigglet".. get it? Hahahaha...ahem ...uh...erm

Nevermind (thanks pigglet, love that pggystyle!)

P.S. - the hogwild link doesn't work

Yes, you are. Whenever someone disagrees with you here you accuse them of trying to suppress the blacks or put whites in a position of power, or in some other way accuse them of being racist. Based on his replies, the most logical conclusion is that he wants equality. Equality does not equal putting the blacks down.




Look. It's really very simple. A color blind society is one in which race does not matter. Note that I did not say that it is one in which race does not matter as long as you're white. You've been adding that last part, but that's not how we define it. I'm not out to oppress blacks or anyone else. My goal is a society where people finally stop pissing around acting as though skin pigmentation makes any difference in the worth of a person. We're not gonna achieve that as long as we force people to discriminate based on skin pigmentation, which IS what AA does.




I assume you're trying to be ironic here, but it's not working - you're shooting yourself in the foot. And if you're not being ironic, then you just shot yourself in both feet.







Oh ok. I get it now. So you're saying that only POOR black people should benefit from affirmative action. If they came from a home where, say, dad was a doctor making $400k per year, they shouldn't recieve any special consideration as far as minority hiring goes. Because see the RICH black applicant is not socioeconomically disadvantaged.

Of course, if that were REALLY how AA works, don't you think "parent's income" would be an item on the pre-employment questionaire?

It's not I that needs to study affirmative action here. . . .


Plus, AA does have something to do with race relations. It's pissing a lot of people off, which is hurting race relations. You can stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes all you want, but the ugly truth will still be out there, and that is that AA is fostering racial hatred.


No, that's what you WANT me to want because then it would further your cause. Unfortunately for you, I don't want only minorities to disregard skin color, I want EVERYONE to disregard skin color.

No, what it's saying is that you need to stop using racist terminology. Stop bitching about the whitocracy. Even if you were correct that there was one, you certainly wouldn't gain any ground by pissing the "whitocracy" off by sitting there calling them names.

But I for one am tired of being lumped in with the evil white guys. It is not I who have been hurling racist insults left and right in this thread, it is you.

I never said that. You seem to be having an awfully good time putting racist words in my mouth. Seems to me you need to have a little diversity training yourself so that you realize that not all white people are KKK members, and not all white people feel as though you owe us something for not enslaving you. Sheesh.



Again, you are trying to shove 100% of the problem onto one group without shouldering any of the work that needs to be done to address the problem yourself. I know that you feel the white population owes you everything because some of our ancient ancestors enslaved some of your ancient ancestors (not mine, btw - my ancestors immigrated here long after the emancipation proclamation, so I really fail to see how you can possibly lay the blame for slavery at my feet.) No one's arguing that the whites enslaved the blacks. No one's arguing that it was an atrocious thing to do. But now we are at a point where you need to sit down and decide whether or not you really want good race relations. Because if you do, you also need to take steps to meet that goal. You cannot expect us to do it all because we cannot change your apparent attitude that all whites are out to get you.

Now, if decent relations among the races aren't important to you, then by all means keep doing what you're doing, because following your ideas pretty much guarantees that they'll never get any better.

The problem is it's NOT equality. There are present imbalances that won't go away by people sticking their heads in the sand. As the OP was saying, the "color blind" society is only really trotted out now to attack AA. But these people never address what to do about the current imbalances, they just attack AA. They never want to address the racism that is ingrained into many places across the country, it's just attack AA.


Again, you say you want a society "where people finally stop pissing around acting as though skin pigmentation makes any difference in the worth of a person". But from what you (and many others) seem to say, the only thing holding this back is AA. The "color blind" society idea is never brought out when there IS racism, but only when attacking AA. We won't achieve a true color blind society as long as people who are in economically powerful positions continue to discriminate and as long as minorities are second class citizens.

How am I shooting myself in the foot?

You're missing my point. I said economic imbalance and institutional racism/sexism. That has nothing to do with the wealth of individual applicants (or their parent's wealth). The rich black applicant might not be disadvantaged, but there is still the chance for institutional racism (or even economic imbalance).

I fully understand that it angers alot of people. Were the roles reversed, I'd probably be angry myself. I'm also sure that freeing the slaves fostered racial hatred and pissed alot of people off. As did giving women and minorities the vote, desegregating schools, and numerous other government action/legislaton which tried to address racism/sexism. It's just I value an equal chance for minorites over the contentment of the general white populace.

I don't really want you to want anything. But there's no other logical conclusion than what I initially said. Because the only time this "color blind" nonsence seems to be brought up is when AA comes up, not when issues of real discrimination come up. And I have yet to see anyone suggest something better than AA for addressing institutional racism/sexism and economic imbalance between white males and women/minorities.

For one, I've not used one piece of racist terminology. It seems you are hypersensitive to anything that might not make white people look the best. And as for being lumped in with the "evil white guys", I never once mentioned evil. As i've said, were the positions reversed I'd probably feel much the same way. And again, you can't point out a single racist insult that I've posted, so harping on that is useless.


I realize not all white people are KKK members. I also realize that many white people think that a magic wand was waved in the 70's that eliminated racism.What the civil rights movement has done is make "racism" something to be avoid being called, not something to avoid BEING. I also know that many white people who claim to not be racist can say things like this:

And not all whites feel owed something for ending slavery, but many think that was enough. Which is false.

You are totally wrong. I'm not trying to shove 100% of the problem onto any group. I just recognize that it isn't black people who are keeping themselves in poverty. And that is where the "color blind" society nonsense comes into play. First, many whites seem to think (like you obviously do) that every racial problem origninates from slavery (and "ancient ancestors" is overstating the time since slavery, they weren't neanderthals being enslaved, it was only 150 yrs ago). The effects of racism aren't as bad as during slavery, but they are still here, and aren't so much the exception as the norm. Also, I DON'T think the white population owes me everything, but I do think that blacks are owed a fair chance. I actually EXPECT little from whites. And I agree with much of what Cosby says (who is often attacked by many so-called black leaders) about self reliance. Because I know that even with AA, for a black person to achieve anything lasting, it's not good enough to be as good as a white person, you have to try to be better. And as for "good race relations", that seems to be a euphamism for "blacks shutting up". Because personally, I'd rather have bad "race relations" and see blacks have a better position in society than have good "race relations" and continue a spiral into poverty.

No, my ideas help ensure that black people have a chance at elevating themselves. Race relations aren't something that I see as ever being much better than they are now, so steps have to be taken to ensure that those without the power aren't totally at the mercy of those holding the power. And this is threatening to many people in power.

This thread has:

1. completely diverged from the original topic
2. been filled with hateful racist language by alansmithee

For these reasons, I will not post another contribution to it. It would probably be prudent to shut the thread down before anything worse is said.

i have been performing my ambivalence about this forum by checking in from time to time, looking to see the general state of discourse in here...normally, i have been finding it really really easy to simply move on to something else, but politicophile's post is so thoroughly absurd that it seemed to me to require a response.

first, as seems usual in these degenerate times, the real conflict in this thread is over control of terms and, by extension, the frame within which debate can happen. so the question "what is a color blind society" is not one that makes sense posed in the abstract--the question seems to me more "what does the contemporary right mean when it uses this term...."--and what it means is pretty straighforward: the right prefers to pretend that racism, and more problematically class divisions (which intertwine with good old american racism in often very ugly ways--witness nola) is no longer a going concern--from this ridiculous assumption follows the question of whether affirmative action can be seen as a relic of the bad old days the functions of which have gone from attempting to address the history and ongoing consequences of a racist society to replicating the problem it purports to address, but this time at the expense of--well who?---well, petit bourgeois white men as it turns out....

now in the inverted world that conservatives inhabit, the last clause would in itself be racist. this is the correlate of politicophile's post above. from ANY viewpoint not constructed on its knees before the televisual pulpit of the right, that claim is wholly absurd--but let's put that aside for a minute and think about it, shall we?

it often looks like the contemporary right has a particular axe to grind across this debate--the sense of victimization that befell lots of petit bourgeois whites during Reconstruction. contemporary conservativism replicates this response, and with it the whole set of arguments from the "state's rights" crowd of the 1870s-1880s and beyond. of course, i suspect that conservatives would prefer not to think about this history, following the same "logic" as ustwo's post above (which, sadly, seems about par for the course): history? what history? what me worry? why is the past binding on me?


so from two directions in as many sentences, you get a logic that converges on what the real point of conservative opposition to aa is: a sense of being-victimized by attempts to redress the foul history of the united states when it comes to racism: begin with genocide (the native american population) add slavery, close the cover and grind: there you have it, a lovely american history milkshake that you too can drink in the privacy of your own home.
so the motor of the right's usage of the term "color-blind society" is a sense of being-victimized. the specific class interest that this sense of being-victimized speaks to is that of the white petit bourgeois. the object of this sense of victimization: federal level attempts to redress racism. the specific target: affirmative action. the argument: usually some weak admission of the previous need for such legislation followed by a hollow claim to have triumphed over it--and at this point, much of what i would say dovetails with alansmithee's posts above.
the goal: a "colorblind society"--which means?--a society in which there is no federal-level effort to redress racism, in which this history, its present, its future are all pushed to the local level, where the implications of all this can be ignored, all in the interest of..well what? i have never understood this step: to wrap your head around what the right is saying, you have to buy into an entirely revisionist history of race relations in america. if you reject that history--and there is every reason to reject it, beginning with the ridiculous nature of its most basic claims---so i am not sure that there really is a goal behind the right's opposition to aa taken on its own terms--but i can say what i think its the motor for the arguments themselves: channelling economic anxiety on the part of a social group particularly vulnerable to changes in overall economic organization onto a red herring, a fake issue--the function of which has nothing to do with the content of conservative "arguments" but rather is about articulating and cementing a relationship--the right as defender of petit bourgeois interests.

politicophile, above, outlines a sense of conservative outrage, primarily because he lost control of the frame of reference and so cannot control the debate. conservative arguments against aa presuppose control of the frame of reference, because the claims against aa floated by the right are not arguments based on either history or an understanding of the present--they are a mobilization of signifiers that affirm an identity of interests between the contemporary right and their anxiety-filled, debt-bubble riding petit bourgreois constituency. outside the rights own frame of reference, their claims against aa are nonsense.

but rather than acknowledge that, you get another, all-too-typical move: a second-order claim to victimization: you do not respect my attempts to control this debate, therefore you are a racist. just shows what the draining of meaning is about, in the hands of the contemporary right.

i do not agree with everything alansmithee posted above, have not seen anything approaching an adequate refutation of his basic claims about the relationship of class and racism in the history of the united states, nothing approaching a coherent response to the thumbnail sketch of what aa was and was not about: what i do see is alot of facile coded nonsense from the right.

sad thing is that it appears that, like many many debates, this started off ok then dove straight into this kind of nonsense. because i have been thinking about tfp in general, i link this to, for example, the conservative disprespecting of host in another thread---the one person who systematically tries to take seriously the idea that conservatives can and should be countered with information--and you get a really unpleasant image of the politics forum: self-referential, self-confirming, a space for "debate" amongst folk who have too little time and dont really want to be pushed outside their already given frame of reference--there is nothing at stake here in debate. maybe this is a function of messageboard culture in general--patterns of usage that have people stuffing the occaisional political post into a crammed day of whatever one has to do to get over in a deteriorating empire....

there is nothing at stake here because nothing can be...i can't figure out why i do this any more. i would not be surprised to find the same reponse with host. i suspect that there is a cadre here that really would prefer to turn this forum into a conservative circle jerk, a space where the empty claims of the right can be floated without reference to an external world that refutes them at every turn. look at nola and tell me that there is no class stratification in america, and no intertwining of racism with class in america. this alone should pulverize anything the right has to say about racism as a thing of the past. there are many such circle jerk spaces out there--anmd i suspect there will be more and more of them as the therapeutic requirements for conservatives grow more pronounced.

if that is the way this is going here, you can have it.
i have other things to do.