is "affirmative action" further spreading race issues in our society?

[Crazy Elf]

Which is it? It can't be BOTH "one cent out of ever dollar" AND "still pay just as much."

You're arguing with a strawman here: whether or not the debt the government will come to me to collect is for a good cause or not is irrelevant to my point that you can't say it doesn't have to do with people because it only has to do with their government.

Ha! If you have a problem with taxes then I would assume that it would for reasons other than AA legislation, which costs next to nothing seeing as it's already implemented. Are you saying that the government DOESN'T have a duty to right the wrongs of the past?

So why not reform the entire education system? Why only make up for past injustice when you can make up for past injustice AND improve the lives of everyone at the same time?

Because reform of the educational system would STILL require AA to balance the score. It would just be more open to groups from a lower socio-economic background. Blacks are, on a percentage of total population base, far worse off than whites. When that's about balanced you can talk about reform across the board.

 

[Crazy Elf]

Neither 1865 nor 1839 are "within the last one hundred years" which is the question you asked.

True. Should have said past 150 years. Still, not bad for an Australian.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Um, yes. Racism is caused by a conscious distinction between "races" and acting towards them differently. It doesn't matter of you're giving someone something or taking it away, racism is still present when you judge based on "race". that said, I'm not going to comment on weither affirmative action is good or bad but it is inherently based on "race" and judgment based on "race" (or sex) so it is racism. Also note, "race" does not actually exist. It's made up, but skin color exists.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Um, yes. Racism is caused by a conscious distinction between "races" and acting towards them differently. It doesn't matter of you're giving someone something or taking it away, racism is still present when you judge based on "race". that said, I'm not going to comment on weither affirmative action is good or bad but it is inherently based on "race" and judgment based on "race" (or sex) so it is racism. Also note, "race" does not actually exist. It's made up, but skin color exists.

By that standard we'd have to call men's and women's restrooms "sexist."

In other words, you're technically right according to one definition you'll find in a dictionary, but wrong according to most of the definitions--usually including the main one--you'll find in a dictionary.

Men's and wemon's restrooms are sexist. It's making a distinction based on sex. I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying good or bad, I'm saying what it is. It's a dictionary definition, yes, but it also underlines the important point that so long as we think in terms of race, there will continue to be racism.

 

[Crowser]

These laws judge people on race, not crime, and are therefore, racist.

It teaches people to think in races, not that we are all just people.

 

[Crazy Elf]

I never said I had a problem with taxes: I only pointed out that the government pays its debts by doing things like taxing its people.

So what? Your issue here then is not AA, but it's every single decision that the government makes. The fact of the matter is you're totally powerless to influence any of these decisions in any way shape or form. As such, seeing as you have no real say (yes, you have the illusion of a say in that you can protest or yell, but it won't change anything), it really has nothing to do with you. It becomes an ethical decision that the government has to make, not you.

The real question is whether or not the government should be held responsible for its past actions.

So why not do that? Just open up AA to more groups from a lower socio-economic background.

Because, as I said, African Americans are, per capita, much more disenfranchised than whites. That's a pretty big problem and it needs to be fixed. You can start talking about equality already being in place when those numbers start to match up. Right now it's pretty bloody obvious that African Americans are still getting screwed by the government.

No actually, in 1865 the most advanced warships were the Monitor and the Merrimack, and the most advanced submarine was the Hunley as far as I know. By 1909 we're talking modern dreadnought battleships and U-boats. The military history alone should have tipped you off.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Xelanath]

You also have a debt to make up to the african american population, whether you like it or not, and I think this is one of the better ways of doing this, allowing society to start to balance itself out again.

As the descendent of the kind of poor white cracker sharecroppers Chicken George looked down on in Roots, I am always amused by this oversimplified view that EVERY white person profited from slavery or even other milder forms of discrimination.

We weren't all plantation owners 150 years ago.

QFT only about 20% of the white population had slaves. Those that did mainly had about 2-5 slaves. Only about 5% of the population had slave plantations that were large and prosperous with multitudes of slaves.

To further this point, the statistics I have state that only 31% of white Southerners belonged to the slave owning population in 1850, and 24% by 1860. Of these nearly 75% of owned fewer than 10, and most slaves were concentrated in 12% of plantations.
Think of what percentage of the whole population that really was, given that the population of the North was far larger than that of the South.

I apologise if this is completely separate from the current discussion, as I haven't read pages 2 or 3.

 

[Crazy Elf]

No, my issue here is saying that if my government incurs a debt that has nothing to do with me.

Okay... but AA isn't racking up a major debt. The US has been in the major debt area for a long, long time. Probably has something to do with no one other than Clinton running a budget surplus since 1969, and the continual borrowing of cash from surplus economies.

AA isn't racking up huge public debt. In fact, AA is probably paying for itself, as it gets more disadvantaged people into higher paying jobs, and makes everyone that's not from a disadvantaged position work harder in order to get places. Economically speaking that's a good thing. It's just a shame that most of the other policies out there suck.

Maybe, but you're still wrong saying it has nothing to do with 'me' no matter how powerless I may be or what the "real question" is. If the government incurs a debt, it may very well decide to pay that debt by taxing me.

No. The only way that they can pay off the debt is by printing more money and having inflation go through the roof, collapsing the US economy. Clearly they're not about to do that. It won't come down to taxation, though, the problem is much bigger than that. US spending can't pump up the world again.

Don't worry about taxation. Worry about the complete collapse of the US economy.

I don't see how this is a response to what I said.

Ah. Well AA is set to help the disenfranchised in order to bring them on par with everyone else. It's set for disenfranchised minority groups, not socio-economic groups. Pulling lower socio-economic groups out of their rut won't actually happen, as there will always be some people at that level. Help them all equally and the same problem occurs. There's more blacks in lower socio-economic levels than whites per capita. That is the inequality being dealt with. Anything that goes towards the lower socio-economic groups has to occur as well as AA.

Being Australian is no excuse for thinking the American Civil War ended six years before Gallipoli.

It's an excuse for not really being clued into exactly when slavery was legally abolished in the US. Even if there was no slavery the disenfranchisement of African Americans was pretty bloody horrifying well past the point where slavery was abolished.

 

[vampirekid.13]

my debt to the african american population is inexistent.

Totally true. You're not behind any of the past actions that occurred against the African Americans. However, the government certainly was behind many of those actions, with legislation being actively against African Americans for a good long while.

Although there is no need for YOU to legislate affirmative action, the argument really isn't about you. It's about the government, which is responsible for the legislation in the first place.

Now, when you look at it that way, wouldn't you agree that the GOVERNMENT has a debt?

not really, the government changed, you cant have people today responsible for something that happened out of their life time, they werent there, they werent the reason it happened and it just creates more problems.

 

[Anomynous 167]

You keep affirmative action around and the non-minorities start to complain about its unfairness. If you were then to remove it and the job scene becomes unbalanced with non-minorities gaining most of the jobs then questions arise about whether you are being racist or exclusionary in your hiring practises.

There is a logical reason why non-minoraties get most of the jobs.
BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THE MAJORITY
A minority group should be just that... A MINORITY,

 

[Crazy Elf]

Why do you keep attacking this strawman? This has nothing to do with whether the debt is major or minor: it has to do with your statement that the government incurring a debt--whether major or minor--has nothing to do with me.

I did not say anything for or against AA in this part: I only said it's incorrect to say that when a government incurs a debt it has nothing to do with me.

Sure, but in all likelihood AA is actually MAKING money rather than losing it, as I explained earlier. It's legislation, not an organisation. The Department of Civil Rights is still going to be there, AA or no AA. This ISN'T costing money, it's legislation.

Granting that for the sake of argument, how does that not have anything to do with me? Won't I be affected by inflation if my money is in U.S. dollars?

Oh shit yes! But AA isn't going to be doing that. AA is legislation, not a governmental body unto itself.

Granting that for the sake of argument: why is that inequality a bad thing if disenfranchisement is unavoidable? Why is it better for us to hand out disenfranchisement now to people on the basis of their race than to let things be what they are?

When one race is way more disenfranchised than the other? Hell yes. The percentage of African American below the poverty line is roughly double that of whites. That's not equality.

Well, if you're going to makes statements about slavery in the U.S. and the effect it has had on U.S. history, [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.112497.2008521] maybe you should know some basic facts about it like when it ended.

It was a throw away statement, and I think that the original person's reply validates my flippancy:

I didn't specify last 100 years and I was thinking specifically of Rome, Carthage, Tripoli and Egypt.

Right. So the slavery of African Americans is excusable because Europeans were enslaved over one thousand years ago?

As far as white slavery many countries in Europe, Asia and the Americas have suffered a huge rise in white slavery in the last 10 years. Look up human trafficking and see the results yourself. In fact slave came from the root word slav (a caucasian race that was much victimized).

Human trafficking isn't governmentally supported. It's totally illegal. It's not the same thing at all.

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

Can someone put forth a definition of "disenfranchised" so we can see if people in fact suffer from said condition? I thought "franchise" meant the right to vote. I'm pretty sure everybody has that. If you're going to move the goalposts, at least tell me where you're taking them.