hannukah harry

i hear the term 'color blind society' thrown around a lot by someone on my school's pipeline (an uber-neocon) whenever affirmative action and other entitlement programs come up. i got to noticing that i really seem to only to hear that phrase from conservatives, people who are anti-affirmative action.

my question is this:

what is a color blind society and why do we want it?

i really don't understand that so i'd like to hear your opinions on this.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

ratbastid

Sounds like they're using it as a feel-good term to justify eliminating social welfare programs.

And it's a nice idea. Sure, it'd be great if society was color-blind. Only problem is: it's not. You can't alter a dozen generations of institutitutional racism by pretending race doesn't exist.

fightnight

I think this is exactly what it is... Let's pretend things are all equal so that we can cut spending on these programs that don't help "us".

martinguerre

quick excerpt from a paper i wrote...

colorblind people are those who do not see racial differences, even when race is being constructed and deployed to repress people. They will blame minority group members for focusing on the hurts of the past, and for not participating in the supposedly discrimination free present.

basically, it's a technical term to describe something very negative. the study i based that paper on (Burkard and Knox, 2004), saw that if a color blind pyschologist was given a situation where a freshman was having problems fitting in, they more frequently blamed the person for wrongly perceiving racial discriminatiopn. if the freshman was white? the colorblind shrinks were more likely to tell the patient that the other students were responsible. Exact same wording, exact same letter. And these people knew that they were participating in some kind of study. Even that level of self awareness and training was not enough to counter the problems of being tone deaf to racial issues.

Racism and other forms of discrimination are subltle, hard to deconstruct, and trying to take shortcuts, or just declare premature victory....it doesn't work.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

filtherton

A color blind society is one where the only people who benefit from racial discrimination are white people.

meembo

I don't believe that "color-blind society" means anything. It suggests an unfocused ideal, without specifying any benefit. Moreover, in the phrase, color is inferred to be a negative thing (something to which we need to be "blind"), which is ridiculous in and of itself.

The assumption is apparently that darker people (of "color) receive disproportionate benefits due to their "color". Lighter-skinned people should therefore resent and eradicate those benefits.

Of course, race, religion, and class issues are blithely ignored when one focuses on color.

__________________
less I say, smarter I am

seretogis

Oh, please. Last I checked, "white" is also a color and so would be something that idealists wishing for a color-blind society would want to be blind of. It is a simple term, not one that needs to be dissected for secret hidden neo-nazi racist agenda.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

the_marq

Using a term like "colour-blind" misses the point entirely. People are not racisits just because the society they hate (fear) is a different colour. All that matters is there is a DIFFERENCE.

No matter how small or insignificant that difference is, humans will find it, and make up an excuse to hate a group for it. It's simple human nature.

Look at the Hutus and Tutsis of Rwanda... both groups are black and yet find reason to murder each other based or race distinctions that 99% of people cannot even see.

__________________
The Truth:

Johnny Cash could have kicked Bruce Lee's ass if he wanted to.

#3 in a series

flstf

I always thought the term "color-blind society" was a good thing until I read this thread. So I did a few google searches and found that the term is used by some to justify eliminating affirmative action type programs. But it is also used by others to praise the ideals of Martin Luther King.

The Meaning of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday, By Coretta Scott King
In the following article the writer uses the term "color-blind" to emphasize integration vs. desegregation.
Martin Luther King’s Vision

meembo

Yes, white is a color, and there is still no explanation in this thread why anyone would want to be blind to white and other colors sociologically. Just closing your metaphorical eyes to the problem doesn't erase the problem and the circumstances underlying it. Is it also desirable to have a religion-blind society? I think the suggestion of having a "color-blind" society clearly implies an ideal. Please explain it!

__________________
less I say, smarter I am

meembo

I like the King quotes very much. I think the relevant point here is what "color-blind" implied to a black civil-rights leader 40 years ago, and what the term means to "uber-neocons" that hannukah harry refers to. The directions of the phrases are very different, aren't they?

__________________
less I say, smarter I am

flstf

Yeah, I guess so. I was in high school when King gave most of his speeches. Maybe I'm old fashioned but no one since has been able to match the quality of his words and the ideals he expressed.

politicophile

"Color-blind" is just a fancy way of saying that all races are treated equally. The issue that many liberals have with the concept is that it completely fails to address the issue of past race discrimination. This accusation is entirely true, but those that level it are missing a crucial point.

Affirmative action and other programs of that ilk are reverse discrimination programs, explicitly. They look at the "color" of an applicant or candidate and treat that person differently based on racial considerations. In modern times, this is done under the guise of helping races that have been systematically discriminated against.

So why would having a color-blind admissions process (at a college, for example) be preferable to undoing centuries of racial hatred through Affirmative Action?

The simple answer is that nothing, not even AA, is able to counter racism. I'll elaborate: the people who design an AA program must decide the amount of disadvantage members of Race A are exposed to. Then, this same handicap is applied (non-numerically now) to each applicant of that race. The obvious problem is that not all members of a particular race are equally discriminated against.

The goal of AA (ideally) should be providing fairness to individual members of a race, rather than trying to lift up a race as a whole. Thus, the AA approach is excessively blunt. A case example:

John is white. Steve is black. David is black.

John is from West Virginia. His family is extremely poor. His high school was of very low quality. Steve is from Southern California. His family is middle class. He attended a high-quality private high school. David is from Sierra Leon. His family is upper class. He attended a high-quality private high school in Sierra Leon.

John is treated exactly the same way as all the wealthier, better educated white applicants because, speaking in general terms, white people are wealthier than black people.

Steve receives the same handicap as the black students who grew up in the inner city attending failing schools because, speaking in general terms, black children live in poor, urban areas and have poor educational opportunities.

David receives the same handicap as the black students who grew up in the inner city attending failing schools because, speaking in general terms, black children live in poor, urban areas and have poor educational opportunities.

John receives no advantage based on his circumstances because it is just assumed that, as a white person, he doesn't need or deserve an advantage.

Steve receives a handicap despite the fact that he is as well educated and as wealthy as his white peers. Racism has not played a major role in his life, but the fact that he is black is enough for him to receive special treatment.

David receives a handicap despite the fact that he is from a country where black people are in the vast majority. His background is far more privileged than the majority of his white peers. On top of that, he has not suffered from anti-black racism because he was raised in a black society. Nonetheless, the AA program rewards him with a handicap.

So you see, AA targets race as the cause of non-competitiveness in school admissions (and other things). But in reality, race is just a factor that is correllated with the actual causes of the non-competitiveness:
1. school quality
2. familial wealth
3. wealth of neighboring families
4. access to reading materials...

...the list goes on.

Color-blindness is attractive because it bans "reverse-racism" as an acceptible policy choice. I think we all can agree that, in an ideal world, AA would not exist: it is a rather distasteful means to the end of racial equality. The time has come for us to take a step back and consider whether we would be better served by directly confronting the factors that make students unable to succeed rather than pretending that being black automatically makes you hopelessly unable to compete with your white peers.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

pig

Yep, depends on who says it, and their applications. I think distinction is related to questions of social / civil liberties (we should all have them) or socio-economic distinctions (they exist). So I'm all about a society where we can all pee together in harmony at the trough at the football game; I'm not about a society where pretending that generational issues of poverty/discrimination etc aren't at least tied to race.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

alansmithee

I'm not liberal, but the problem with this "Color-blind" society idea is that it doesn't address current discrimination (along with the lingering effects of past discrimination). It baffles me how many people seem to assume that racism is something that you only read about in history books. Racism (and it's aftereffects) linger to this very day. You can see evidence of it in any black community.

Ustwo

And by the government treating people differently based on color you continue this racism.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

FoolThemAll

An acceptable and desirable version of "colorblind", to me, is this:

Responding to racial injustice justly and not racially.

One obvious consequence being an anti-affirmative action stance.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Lebell

I don't have a lot of time to say what others have said, but a few points:

In the same way justice is supposed to be blind, so should we be (color)blind sociologically. If there is current discrimination, then by definition we aren't. It doesn't matter if that discrimination is the traditional kind against minorities or the sociably fashonable kind against white men; it's still discrimination.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, how anyone can defend one type of discrimination to "correct" past discrimination boggles the mind and defies logic.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

smooth

Since MLK was quoted in here, I encourage people to google and research what he had to say about affirmative action. He was supportive of it, is your clue.

-- http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/affirm25.htm

-- http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

flstf

I quoted a couple of King references in answer to the original poster's question as to why some people use the term "color-blind" and to show that it is not always a bad term when it refers to the goal of an integrated society.

I was in no way attempting to use his words in an effort to support anti AA sentiment, although I suspect if he was alive today he would be disappointed with both the pro and con advocates.

martinguerre

smooth...thanks for posting that. it's a smart piece, and one that needs to be heard.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

jorgelito

I would expand that to say: racism is indeed very much alive and heavily present everywhere and not just confined to the black community - it is everywhere, in all our communities (black people do not have a monopoly on being victims of racism, it's everywhere).

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

So much for "heros" or the "bravest".

shakran

Well here's a decidedly more liberal guy who buys into that concept.

We complain and complain that when we see a black person the first thing we think of is the color of their skin, yet we then have federally mandated programs that REQUIRE employers to consider the color of applicant's skin in order to meet racial quotas.

Besides, fixing a wrong (judging people based on the color of their skin) is never justifiably corrected by using the same wrong.

Let's remember MLK did not say he had a dream about a society where the government forced people to hire minorities regardless of qualifications. He said he had a dream that people would be judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. We must have a colorblind society in order to realize that dream.




You need to check the definition of colorblind. A colorblind person can still see. He won't ignore things that have colors. He just can't tell the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN the colors. In other words, it doesn't matter to him if something is red or green, it's all equal in his eyes. Doesn't sound like a bad concept to me. . . .




And on a side note, I'm really sick of people saying stuff like "yeah I was down in that neighborhood where all the black people live. . . I'm not racist or anything, I'm just saying. . . " Yes, if you make statements like that, you ARE racist.

alansmithee

Of course not, but I have the most direct knowledge of racism against blacks. It's also the most institutionally ingrained in America.

As for AA being discrimination against white men, I say tough. As far as I see things, it's better than the alternate (assuming that equality is something desired). Elimintating discrimination is impossible, so the best we can do is make sure that it's effects are lessened.

And personally, I find white people complaining about racism in America ridiculous, absurd, and offensive. This is a country build upon whites taking advantage of others, and now because they see something that might shift the imbalance, they get worried and start complaining (because it's not like AA programs have greatly uplifted blacks or other minorities here).

AngelicVampire

alansmithee, you find non-discrimination to be ridiculous, absurd and offensive? Whats wrong with having a society built on fair and just treatment where ability rather than race or religion?

Surely affirmitive action is wrong because it is discrimination just because its against a different group of people doesn't make it right.

shakran

I'm not complaining about shifting the imbalance. I'm complaining about imbalancing it the other way, and I'm complaining about businesses not being allowed to always choose the best-qualified candidate for a job.

If a black and a white guy apply for a job and the white guy is a little more qualified, but the business hasn't met its AA quota, guess who gets hired? That's bad for business and it's bad for the concept of racial harmony.

If a white guy finds out he lost out on a job because of the color of his skin, he's gonna be every bit as pissed off as the black guy would be. That pissed off attitude is NOT going to result in him embracing diversity.

Plus, AA is just plain damn insulting to minorities. What it says is "You're black and that means you're incapable of getting jobs by yourself, so we're gonna force businesses to give them to you."

That may have been necessary decades ago, but it's not only unnecessary today, it's downright inflamatory.

AA will work if minorities just want a small percentage of the jobs out there and don't care about race relations. But it's gonna fail for three reasons.

1) Eventually whites are going to be a minority because of the number of immigrants. This is already happening in several citites. What happens then? Let's say we have a mix in a city that's, for simplicity sake, 40% white, 60% black. Let's take the most generous AA quota that I'm aware of which requires 25% of a businesses upper management to be black. See the problem here? Theoretically there should be more than 25% of the staff being non-white, but under AA the business can get away with a minority control of a majority population. South Africa tried that and it didn't work very well.

2) Whether you agree with it or not, AA is causing a great deal of rage amongst the white male population. This rage is not conducive to good racial relations, and eventually it's gonna boil over and cause major social problems.

3) AA is inherently flawed. By FORCING diversity on a business you almost guarantee that the business will meet the letter of the law and no more. i.e. "well this black guy is more qualified than the white guy but I've already met that goddamn AA quota and I'll be damned if I go any farther."


It is possible for different races to coexist without constantly thinking about their differences, but it requires steps from both sides. We have to educate the whites that still believe blacks are inferior (their numbers are dwindling rapidly btw) and we also have to stop with the constant cries of racism every time something happens that we don't like.

That stir up over the black and white looter photos during the Gulf Coast flooding is a great example. You'll recall that one was from the AP, the other from the AFP, yet because the black guy was called a looter and the white guy was called a finder, never mind that it was done by two seperate reporters working for two seperate news agencies and uploading their caption to two seperate newswires, people howled that it was racist. I saw it appearing everywhere. Comedy shows, NPR broadcasts, TV, here, and each time you had people who were only too happy to call it racism even though it clearly was not. You can only do crap like that for so long before someone tells you to shut the hell up and stops listening, even when your cries of racism are accurate.

A few months ago we ran a story on my station about a black guy who had killed his daughter with a shotgun. We ran a 40 second story saying he'd been convicted. We got tons of letters telling us we were racist because we hadn't run any stories about white guys being convicted of blowing their kids away with shotguns. Never mind the fact that there werent' any white guys who had done that for us to report on, we're still racist.

It's crap like that that begins to piss people off, and that is not the way to go about furthering racial relations.

If we could just get past this stupid concept that race matters at all, our society would be a lot better off, and that's where the AA apologists who say "well that won't happen so we're going to force people to think about skin color" are creating a self fulfilling prophecy. It's NOT gonna happen as long as you force people to think about skin color. AA embodies the concept that "people suck too much to ever make strides toward real equality, so we're just gonna lock the situation down at the atrocious level it is now and never let it improve."

Appallingly stupid if you ask me.

politicophile

Advantages of Colorblindness:

1. There is no need to terminate it. AA is clearly a temporary program, albeit one that nobody knows when to stop.

2. It isn't racist or reverse racist, so institutions that practice it would not be committing acts of preferential racism themselves.

3. It gives minority applicants the respect they deserve instead of assuming that every single black person is an idiot.

4. It makes white people happy that they are not discriminated against.

If AA was truly about rectifying past discrimination, Asians would receive it. However, because Asian (college) applicants are competitive with white students, they receive no help. Is the motto of AA, "If your race was historically discriminated against and can't seem to bring itself back into competitiveness with white applicants, we will help you. But if you've managed to overcome discrimination and become competitive, we're not giving you anything."?

The designers of AA programs are only human: they make mistakes, they do the wrong thing. Let's do the right thing and take the power of racism out of their hands: let's make race a non-factor.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

smooth

What are you talking about?
Asians do receive affirmative action benefits. All minorities do...the single largest beneficiaries of AA are white women.

The most vocal opponents of AA are white men, yet they are still the dominant group in all segments of our society.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

FoolThemAll

AA isn't tied down to the idea that "every single black person is an idiot". It's also been motivated, often solely, by the idea that there still exist employers who discriminate on the basis of color. I know this to be true, though I've no idea of the extent. It certainly isn't broadcasted anymore.

I agree with your basic point, though. I think #2 is the most important point of yours.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

irateplatypus

that's interesting. i'm curious to see if that can be quantified... and if so, what the data actually is.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

martinguerre

Assuming a nice big happy world, where bunnies and squirrels lives. Bunnies, way back when, did some mean things. They enslaved the squirrels, and came up with a whole bunch of clap trap science, stereotypes, and ideas to help them cope with that. They actually started to believe that squirrels weren't smart, or able to be trusted.

Fastforward a bit. Squirrls and bunnies are now on equal legal footing. (I'm using a hypothetical, in part because i don't believe that statement to be true in the real world.) They can get jobs, buy homes, etc. But none of them are really in the good old bunnies network. On top of that, becuase bunnies are not used to seeing them succeed, they often assume (and sometimes based on those old, self-justifying ideas the bunnies came up) that squirrels just don't succeed. Some squirrels even beleive this, and under social pressure disidentify with school. The pressure of trying to disprove a sterotype that carries so much weight is distracting and emotionally draining. And so bunnies go on hiring bunnies....

No actual small furry creatures were harmed in this thought experiment. Do not attempt to recreate the history of modern racism with your pets.

Does this sound like a self-righting system? One that will with time, even itself out? Your assertion #2 assumes that the workplace, the school, and other forums of opportunity would be equal opportunity if left to their own devices. Pyschological study of modern racism doesn't bear that out. Most people (regardless of race, ironically) still have some levels of cognitive or affective racism...ideas or emotions that serve as barriers to those percieved as outsiders. Short of dealing with that legacy of institutional slavery...i don't know how you can claim that the system could be self-correcting.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Leftover_123

to say that we'll make it a non-factor is unrealistic. it's not something that can be easily made a non-factor. i live in the south, and i can honestly say that there's no amount of "ok, we're going to have a color-blind society" that would make it actually happen here. there's not a lot to be done, short of AA programs, that would make many of the businesses in the area i live hire black people. and even then, the hope of them seeing black people as equals is something that i doubt i'll see happen within my lifetime. so to eliminate these programs, though i disagree with a lot of the ideology behind them, would do nothing more than allow this racism that's not going away in many areas of the country to prevent people from getting jobs.

until society truly is color-blind, which may be many generations from now, race is going to be a factor.

is AA an idea that's inherently flawed? sure... but until someone comes up with something better, it's what we've got, and i think there's at least some merit to it

alansmithee

Where did I say I find non-discrimination ridiculous, absurd and offensive? I said I found white's complaining about racism to be those things. Because they are fine with racism as long as they're the beneficiaries, but if anyone else might get any benefit from their race, whites want to throw a fit. And there is nothing wrong with a society based upon ability and fair and just treatment of it's members without race or religion being involved. Unfortunately, in America we have a society built upon racism and whiteocracy.

Tough. Chances are that white guy didn't care much about diversity in the first place. And there's hundreds of places more than willing to hire qualified white people. The same cannot be said for blacks. I don't care about racial harmony. That's a pipe dream. I care about making sure that if a black person fail, it's because of their lack of ability/effort/whatever and not because they are black.

How is it unnecessary now? The economic inequalities between blacks and whites aren't much different now than they were in the 1960's.

In this example, if a business is happy only hiring 25% blacks to meet a quota (and if they are willing to practice minority control of a major population) that's probably 25% more blacks then they would hire without a AA program.

Of course it's causing rage. Where before being white was enough to ensure that you had an advantage, now it might also be a detriment in certain situations.

The majority of whites have never been worried about "good race relations". Good race relations to most whites is tipping your shoeshine boy around hollidays. Good race relations will never be present as long as the concept of "race" exists. And there's already a bigger social problem, in that a black male is more likely to be in prison than in college.

Again, that's essentially your first point. If a business is going to do this, it's most likely that they wouldn't have hired ANY blacks in the first place. This is a reason why AA is needed.


I think you would be supprised to find that the numbers of people who think blacks to be innately inferior isn't dwindling anywhere near the level you believe. And I agree that there is alot of misuse of the cry of racism. Like when whites complain about AA, that is a misuse of the cry of racism.

Again, it doesn't require steps from both sides, it requires the side with the power to change. Those in the inferior position aren't there by choice.


Oh, how the white man's burden weighs heavily upon his sholders. He must simultaneously control the savages, while being assaulted by their nonsense. Makes you yearn for the days when the problems could be solved with a tree and some rope, doesn't it .

I've never said AA created a situation where skin color wasn't looked at. But without AA, you will have a situation where skin color won't be looked at, because whites will all be in their nice suburbs and go to their nice jobs in thier nice cars, and the blacks will all be in ghettos and continue in a downward economic spiral. There's you "colorblind" society. Whites will get past the race issue by making sure they never come into contact with blacks (this can be seen currently, as the latter half of the 1900's whites increasingly migrated away from cities toward suburbs as blacks moved into the cities).

Again, whites don't complain about AA because it creates unfairness, they complain because they are no longer the sole benificiary of unfairness.

alansmithee

I would like to add something to this example (which I think is very good). The other problem that has emerged from previous discrimination and cultural destruction carried out by "bunnies" against "squirrels" is that after being continuously denied free access to things required to succeed in bunny society (education, literacy, proper speech) the squirrels have largely developed their own culture that decries these things as bad rather than face being constantly not allowed to do them by bunnies. So now, reading or doing well at school is seen as a "bunny" thing in many squirrel areas, and those who do either are shunned in both the bunny and squirrel areas. So essentially, failure has been ingrained into the squirrel culture. That won't be changed without drastic measures.

politicophile

I'm a little disconcerted that you feel that you are in a position to decide that black culture will have to be modified for the good of black people in general. Maybe they prefer to have different values than white people. If education isn't a priority in certain predominantly black inner-city environs, why should we feel compelled to enforce a different cultural value system on them?

I'd be mad if someone criticized my cultural values in this manner...

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

alansmithee

Two reasons:

1. My point was not valuing education wasn't something necessarily inherent, but something that came from white America denying education opportunities repeadedly to blacks. Remember, many black people literally DIED to attempt to learn, so saying that they don't want education inherently is foolish.

2. Since blacks have to live in a western society, for them to function they have to at least have a certain compatibility with western culture. And having a culture that dismissed education isn't compatible with western culture whatsoever. For those who don't have some amazing innate talent (sports, music, etc.), education is time and time again the best way of improving your lot. Especially with more and more jobs that require unskilled labor being shipped overseas.

I really don't understand your response whatsoever. It should be evident that education is the key toward elevating any group of people. Honestly, your post, coupled with your earlier criticisms of AA, makes me think that you want to see blacks held in a position of inferiority, and are just attempting to use terms that don't get you instantly branded a racist. "Prefer to have different values than white people" my ass. Yeah, all blacks love living in their ghettos and living in poverty. Wonderful values .

shakran

Well see you proved my point there. AA is not interested in getting the races to get along, which would be a much better goal than the one it currently has, which is to force discrimination.

It's only a pipe dream if no one's willing to do what it takes to accomplish it.





Crap. Pure, unadulterated crap. In the 60's you wouldn't see too many black lawyers or doctors or teachers. You'd see black janitors and waiters and porters. Things have improved, immensely. Sure they still have a long way to go but AA is only going to slow that process. You have to get the races to have mutual respect for each other before you can expect them to want to deal with each other. AA does NOT encourage respect.





Aside from your math error (I'm assuming you really meant 100% more blacks) your point is ludicrous. You're now advocating that when blacks outnumber whites the quota system be used to make sure blacks DON'T get their fair share of jobs. You're proving that AA is a broken concept.





Let's try that logic again. It's causing rage because race is being used to deny a more highly qualified candidate the opportunity for the job. And really, it doesn't matter WHY it's causing rage. The mere FACT that it is causing rage is enough that we should try and change things. Racial rage is never a good thing.



What decade are you from anyway? Did you hear the Beatles broke up? It's very obvious that this is a clearly racist statement.



Uh, yeah, that's exactly what I've been saying. That's what a colorblind society is - a society where the concept of race does not exist.


Really. More than 50% of all black men are in jail? That's fascinating. Care to back that one up with a source?





To the first sentence, prove it. To the bit about misusing racism. . . I'd be interested in knowing your definition of racism.



That's the chickenshit way out. It does require steps from both sides. For one thing the "inferior position" has to work to change the attitude of the side with the power. Sitting there with your hand out yelling "gimme everything I want because you were mean to my ancestors" is NOT going to work.






Again, exceedingly racist. Thanks for continuing to make my arguments look more rational than yours.





Then you address those problems as they arise. If a more qualified black guy gets passed over for a job in favor of a less qualified white guy, then you go after the employer in question with everything you've got. Huge fines, etc etc etc. Make it VERY unprofitible to hire based on race. That way we're not forcing businesses to hire underqualified individuals just so they meet an asinie quota, but we're taking care of the race issue just the same.



Total crap. You're going into this assuming all white people hate the blacks, all white people want to avoid the blacks all the time, and all white people want to oppress the blacks. That's not only racist, it's also total horseshit.




Again with the racist claptrap. Stop painting all whites with the same brush. That's called racism, and it's not acceptible in today's society.




(edit - - typo patrol)

AngelicVampire

alansmithee you say that basically its white men complaining, however this seems rather racist in itself.

Two people apply for the same job, one has the qualifications you asked for, the other one is clearly superior to the first guy. Who do you hire?

If the first is black? If the first is a woman? If the first is a black disabled woman? My answer would probably be the second guy irrespective of who/what the first person is because the second person is better than the first.

Now I know that I have been discriminated against in both jobs and scholarships, I know because I have spoken with the interviewers and heck even been involved in the interview process when you are told that we need to hire women/men/others etc to fill quotas, its not funny and I don't want to participate in it. People should be picked on skill and ability rather than any thing external, some of the best guys in Electronics I know are white males(is it pc to say South African?), others are asian females (or is it pc to say Chinese now?) however the best person should get that job, if its a toss up between the two candidates then things like filling quotas should perhaps be considered as there is no other way to distinguish between the candidates but starting on the wrong foot is well wrong to start.

martinguerre

I'm just going to take this moment to recognize one of the few times in this life that we find ourselves in agreement. Cheers.

You're very right to bring out the problems of the cultures of resistance. They serve both to create shelter from the storm, and insulation against assimilation. White america loves to nod along with Cosby when he points the second part out, but forgets that they had everything to do with helping the first part be necessary.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

jorgelito

Oftentimes, people are against affirmative action simply because they do not understand it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...affirm.htm#how

Affirmative action is NOT about QUOTAS nor is it about hiring UNQUALIFIED minorities.

It is about giving QUALIFIED minorities (women, ethnic minorities) CONSIDERATION in the hiring or admission process when most likely they otherwise wouldn't have.

So if Joe White Guy didn't get hired, it was because he wasn't QUALIFIED, not because some "dumb negro" 'stole his job'.

In regards to racial harmony, well, that's a whole 'nother animal.