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

[Agayek]

Not a conservative either, and I too think both are racism. I never said there was a kind of racial distinction that can't be racism: I said 'when it is based on race *illegitimately*' it's racism.

The fact that they are black *criminals* pretty much means what they're doing is "illegitimate" so I don't see what your example has to do with what I said.

Simple questions for you that will at least be able to lay to rest my argument with you:

1. What constitutes "legitimate racial differentiation"?
2. Why is "legitimate" racial differentiation a good thing?

The way I see it, people are *insert country*-ans, no matter the color of their skin. Why treat them differently because of things beyond their control?

 

[xXCrocmonXx]

I understand the 'Equal Opportunity Employer' slogans about 100%, I understand they were made to combat the days when a black man would be fired because a white man needed the job.

However, now it's been flipped around. If a man looks at the resumes and/or interviews (can't remember HTML today, forgive me) and based off their listed experience and what their references had to say about the person and hires the one who seems to do a better job who happens to be white. Let's say the one who didn't have such a great resume and/or interview due to various reasons (terrible work ethic, not-so-thrilled references, etc) happens to be a minority like African-American or Hispanic. The second one can fuss to some board of people who review 'Equal Opportunity Employers' and then make it so that the employer looks like he is some racist KKK/NeoNazi and have the board start some legal battle that eventually makes the employer and his business look bad, and gets the better worker fired because he's white and that by hiring him and not the minority-member he is a terrible person, regardless of the fact that the first guy worked better.

tl;dr is that it is understandable because it comes from the times when racism was so big that it was even spouted by reporters and the such, but has now been flipped over so that now it's the minorities using it against the majorities (such as whites, Europeans, etc). In theory, it's a good system. In practice, it's butchered and turned into a weapon rather than a defense.

 

[Coolness]

To me, there was a time when affirmative action helped those that actually deserved it, as in them or immediate family members actually went through hardship that the government SHOULD apologize and help them for.

However, now, it shouldn't affect any descendants of said people in a way that calls for reimbursement. I can't say for sure, but IF I was a minority at this age, I would think it'd be condescending for the government to pity me for something that happened to my great great grandparents.

 

[Nurb]

Fixing the problem of hiring people based on their skin color by making business hire people based on their skin color seems a tad like the original problem.

It will prolly be done away with once this generation gets older since we've not grown up in establishment enforced racism and we don't feel guilty for things we haven't done.

 

[Crazy Elf]

A government is not a person. What is appropriate for one is not necessarily appropriate for the other. You may think the Treaty of Versailles was a brilliant idea--most of us do not.

My point is that it would be perceived by many people that something more than an apology is in order for crimes of that magnitude. The Treaty of Versailles is not a valid example as it was put forward by the allied forces that won World War One, rather than being put forward voluntarily by the Germans along with their surrender. The injustice in that case was conducted by the Allies, not the Germans.

If you want to apologise for something you must also make it clear that the apology is genuine. Saying, "Sorry, now shut up," doesn't do that.

A Civil War was fought, and at the end slavery was abolished.

But the persecution of African Americans most certainly was not, which what this debate is all about. Their persecution continued and continues to this day, as can be seen in the disparity in living standards, life expectancy and imprisonment rates in African Americans as opposed to whites.

Slavery, as in actually owning people, may have ended in law, but it hadn't in practice. It still hasn't, as I have already explained in relation to illegal immigration. I think that's a pretty interesting conversation to have, but I'm not sure that these forums would be the best place for it, though.

So, even if it is true that "other countries have gone to greater lengths to try to right the wrongs of the past, whereas the US has done very little in comparison" it is ALSO true that other countries have far more to apologize for than the U.S.

Oh I think that the US has caused enough trouble in the last century to make the wrongs of many of the other countries look like piss in bathwater by comparison. However, this argument is about slavery, and on that count I can't think of any other major Western country that has systemic slavery issues to the same degree that the US did and still does. Neo-Capitalism has only increased demand for cheap and exploitative labour, and the US has been the strongest advocate of this.

So if you want a 'comparison' show me another country where there was that kind of struggle for control of the government over these kinds of issues occured [sic].

So let me get this straight. You're saying that it was particularly hard for reforms to occur in the US because there were many aspects of the society that were horrifyingly bigoted, and that it's not a fair comparison to make unless I can come up with another country that's just as racist as the US? I don't see how this is helping your case.

But for comparison, South Africa. 1992 blacks get the vote. 1994 Mandela's in power.

And how does me needing to work harder not have to do with me? Do I send my clone out to work harder? My robot?

Why do you keep attacking the same strawman over and over? If you get no further response from me on this point, it's because if you can't see that you're attacking a strawman by this point, you never will.

If your point is that you're no longer in a privileged position in regards to getting work and thus have to work on a more even basis, then sure, it does have something to do with you. On the other hand if that's a huge issue for you I wouldn't be taking your opinion very seriously.

You're also assuming I'm against AA even in concept. Maybe you should check your assumptions.

Not at all, I'm simply pointing out that your perspective is one of privilege.

But you yourself said that this kind of inequality *cannot* be eliminated: "Pulling lower socio-economic groups out of their rut won't actually happen, as there will always be some people at that level."

AA isn't about eliminating inequality of a socio-economic kind, it's about putting racial groups on an even level. More support being needed for lower socio-economic groups doesn't change the need for AA.

That term has come to refer to countries in a lower state of of development, regardless of it's origins referring to the America and *the Soviet Union*.

Ha! Don't speak so soon. Russia has nuclear bombers in the air again running patrols and is slowly regaining territory. Russia IS the Soviet Union. The chance to completely destroy it was botched.

That's because we count our problems in our demographics, we don't sweep them under the rug.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Cronulla_riots

How are we sweeping that under the rug? Those riots were a huge problem and the government and Australian people responded to it. Middle Eastern shows started popping up and Middle Eastern comedians got a lot more exposure. Public debates about Islam cropped up everywhere, radio and other forms of news media were openly discussing the issues surrounding the riots.

You'll also keep in mind that the riots were a result of youth gangs going crazy. It wasn't systemic by any means, and the main reason it received so much press is because it was such a freak occurrence. That sort of thing doesn't really happen in Australia, which is why it was so shocking.

Foreigners fail to realize how unique the issues America faces really are, and how different the U.S. is from other Westernized countries. That's a big part of the problem here too.

Yes, but Americans also fail to notice the rest of the world, and seem to be under the impression that anyone that's not from the US has no capacity to understand what goes on over there. However, I've stayed and performed in Harlem, South Chicago, and just played host a few weeks back to an African American singer/poet. You'd be surprised how clued in the rest of the world can be, sometimes.

No, I'm going to use it against you--by that definition, plenty of whites were 'slaves' in America too, not to mention in other countries. And well within the last 150 or 100 or however many years you want to specify this time you move the goalposts

Yes, but the white slavery was not systemic, whereas the African American slavery was.

Anyone who says that much about racism in America and doesn't mention Reconstruction once doesn't know anything about American history

Ancient history that has nothing to do with the period that we're discussing now.

 

[Crazy Elf]

Then your point is not relevant to my point.

That's you moving goalposts, I'm afraid. If your reply is nothing more than, "Nah uh!" you should just drop it.

There's a difference between persecution accepted by a government as legitimate and a government struggling to rid itself of persecution.

Well it wasn't much of a struggle. You've got the abolition of slavery after the civil war in the 1860's, and you have the civil rights movement ONE HUNDRED YEARS LATER.

That's because all the other Western countries kept their slaves oversees in colonies and then abandoned them. America did not have that option.

No, so instead they kept them on as second class citizens. I guess that makes it okay, because they couldn't think of anything else. What a heroic struggle that was.

No, I'm saying show me another country where the struggle against racism was taken as seriously as early as it was in America.

Okay then, Britain. They outlawed slavery in 1833 and the British West Africa Squadron liberated around 150,000 Africans before the US had finished with the Civil War.

I'd say that's taking things more seriously than the US ever has.

For comparison, blacks compose over 70% of the South African population. Blacks compose 14% of the American population.

Show me another country where 14% of the population is black, 65% is white, and there's a head of government with a black parent.

Um, so I need to show you another country with the exact same demographics as the US that has behaved as horribly towards a minority group and now has someone from that minority group in charge right now? You do realise that your request is idiotic, right?

It's clear you're bigoted against Americans.

No, I dislike idiocy and hypocrisy. It just so happens that the US has a lot of that going around.

Then it's a waste of money.

It's legislation.

If we're talking about enfranchising people and ending the cycle of poverty, AA makes sense. If we're talking about just shifting around who is disenfranchised and impoverished, that's not justice, that's revenge.

No, it's a means towards creating equality. The US likes to talk a lot about equality, so they should probably keep doing the things that make that talk something other than just talk.

You get more comedians, we get a President from the minority group. That sound comparable to you?

Well seeing that our major racial riot (singular, mind you) happened in 2005, I can't see it as such a big deal. Particularly when you consider that a hell of a lot of politicians in Australia are from Middle Eastern backgrounds. The longest serving Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks, is Lebanese. You'll note that he was premier when those riots occurred. On top of that we've a lot of Asian politicians, too, with John So being the longest running Mayor of Melbourne, with almost incomprehensible English. That doesn't stop people voting him in. Oh yeah, and out PM speaks Mandarin.

However, I didn't realise that this was a competition. Should I list the racial issues in the US, or should we just skip that part and you can agree that those riots probably weren't as much of an issue as you'd like them to be?

I see you're moving the goalposts by affixing the term "systemic" to the word "slavery."

No, I'm simply making a point that you can't refute.

So when you talk about what happened 150 years ago, that's fine because there are lingering effects.

When I talk about what happened 150 years ago, that's "ancient history."

Um, yeah, because I'm talking about something that's still in effect, and you're talking about something that isn't. Saying, "Oh, but we did a lot a long time ago!" doesn't excuse lack of solid movement for one hundred years.

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[Crazy Elf]

Affirmative action (by which I think you mean what I would call positive discrimination) creates resentment from those who feel they are not being treated fairly on the grounds of their race (weird, that) and reinforces our traditional view of the relationships between different racial groups.

You've just skipped five pages of discussion, haven't you?

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[Cairo]

I hope to someday not be judged by the content of my character, but rather by the color of my skin.

 

[Crazy Elf]

Yep. What'd I miss?

A lot of circular logic.

 

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[vacuumbrand]

I haven't read through every single post, so this might have already been said.
But I think it's detrimental to even the minorities that are typically thought of as being the ones receiving affirmative action. This being because it takes away from the accomplishments of the people that legitimately were qualified to get the job/scholarship/spot in a university or whatever since people automatically assume that, "Oh, they're (fill in minority here), so they MUST have only gotten in because of affirmative action."
Personally, I don't think race, religion, or gender should be a deciding factor in 99.9% of applications. Those most qualified should get the position, whether they be black, white, Asian, Hispanic, or whatever.

 

[RavingLibDem]

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.

I do not have a debt to make up. And the amount of blacks that are "African-American" is like less than 5%. They're all Americans. Just like me.

If there are less minorities getting jobs isn't that just because there are less MINORITIES>?

Affirmative action makes those who benefit from it think that our society owes them a debt (anyone born in the past 40 years doesn't know ****) and they believe they are different. We're all Americans, and it's causing discrimination against whites and Mexicans(lol majority rite?) perpetuating racism by acknowledging they are different.

EDIT: Why would White Entertainment Television be racist? And can you prove that most television is for white Americans?

oh dear god, when I say less, I mean percentage wise, Ie, there is a glass ceiling in management where there's suddenly only 1% above the threshold who are from an ethnic minority! and great, they are american, but you see affirmatve action isnt targeted at you, you seem to accept that they are equal in everyway, however, until they have a similar basis to work from society will unforunately fail to correct the imbalance in american society.

also, I didn't say white american tv is racist, I just said it is, and I can say that most televisin is for american whites, because it is!! you know, the whole tv's aiming to market? well they aim a lot of shows at white americans - eg. Fox, that kinda stuff, though they have got better in recent years.

And you don't accentuate racism by acknowledging their different, you encourage inequality by standing by and ignoring people being discriminated against without trying to fix a problem

 

[RavingLibDem]

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.

...I'm scottish, half of my family was kicked out of the highlands during the clearances, and then went to america and became textile workers. I don't suggest that everyone did benefit, however everyone was part of the system, and now affirmative action is not targeted against that, its targeted mainly against those from expensive private exclusive schools, where they have a much higher chance of success- the idea being to compensate for the head start that some other people get in life.

 

[RavingLibDem]

I think in places like the US at the moment you do need a period of affirmative action, because what people regularly regret is that it rarely involves admitting actually poorer candidates, it tends to just mean if your at the same level as someone else but they happen to come from a racial minority they get let in above you. Frankly as most figures will show if you've got to the same stage as many white applicants while being from what is often a poorer, less educated home then you deserve to get in above some middle class white boy who feels he has a god given right to go to college.

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.

1. Middle class does not mean easy street. My family is considered middle class and we have lived in some pretty fucked up places and barely scraped enough to survive growing up.

2. It is EVERYONE'S god given right to make it in college and better themselves. I am all for a poorer person getting the government aid that I requested as long as they use it.

3. We do not owe the african americans jack crap. Every society that has ever been large or powerful has been started off slavery of some sort (rome, egypt, england (had some for awhile), russia(they didn't really hire any but their people were basically slaves), the aztec indians had a form of slavery. Hell there are places in africa that still have slavery today. I am not saying it's right or that we should go out and own some people to do our work, but you have to realize that damn near every power used slavery at some point and if you are going to give America shit about it, you damn well better attack other cultures as well.

4. My people (the irish) suffered far worse than slaves did. My people were killed outright, starved to death most of the times when they got to america, suffered racial prejudice far exceeding the african slaves, got their arms ripped off in factories, and worked to death. Where is our payback? How about the Chinese and the Japanese. Go look up what we did to them during World War 2 and look up what we did to them during the "wild west". Paying back one group of people for past fuck ups and showing one group compassion, while at the same time hindering others, is massive bullshit.

On that note, let's just try to make a White Entrainment Television or Asian Entertainment Television (this one could pass) and see how far it goes.

1. look, what I meant about the middle class was that you generally have a more supportive home, and certainly a home more conductive and encouraging to learning.

2. great, yes, im all for it, but while in the US you insist on your stupid flawed bias system you don't get this.

3. okay, woopee, your not the only one's who did a whoopsee, does that mean you shouldn't try and make up for it? Frankly, I think the argument that other people have buggered up, therefore we don't need to try and make up for what we do is a rubbish one. In the US it is still a fact that african americans have much less chance of getting various jobs, or education oppurtunities, and not in a way that can be explained by them being poorer, or less clever.

4. ummm, dear god, your saying the irish had it worse than the african americans? uve just described what happened to african americans, not more, and if anything less, and for less tie, early on in america everyone got exploited, it happened, however you later based much of your growth and success on killing, maiming, exploiting, ignoring, and generally maltreating the african american population, for a longer time than the irish population, since they gained equalish rights in the US in about 1850. as for the war, well frankly, that was against people from other countries, its a war, both sides entered willingly knowing the costs, normal people get screwed over, it happened, not right, not wrong, but much harder to deal with than this particular probelm, where affirmative action has had some very real succeses in equalising society, though not fully yet.

and great, no one else gets there own television station, mainly cause most tv in the US is aimed at the white population, being the majority, as for asian tv, well what can you do, im actually quite certain that there wouldnt be much of an outcry at all if someone set up a channel aimed at them.

Err the irish were repressed more in their own country than the african americans were for far longer. And while on the books we had equal rights, irish people got treated far worse than slaves. Slaves at least had places to live. You want to know a people even more repressed EVERYWHERE than the african americans. Gypsies they were not even granted equal rights until the 80's. Slaves also had better living styles than the irish (until we outlawed slavery) back in the later days of american slavery, slave actually liked their masters pretty well until the master did something to the slave's family. Also there are far more aid programs for african americans than there are "white folk". There are literally hundreds of programs to help out african americans specifically that "white" folk cannot even apply for. And I do not owe african americans shit. My family never owned a single slave and we were poor white trash until the last few generations.

Also all this "we owe them" shit is just furthering the stereotype that they cannot help themselves which is what most of my AA(to lazy to type at the moment just did a 9 hour shift remodeling some rich fucker's house because his dumb ass keeps punching holes in his walls) friends hate more than anything. 90% of my graduating class at my high school were minorities so don't try to tell me they are repressed. I got the same education they do and we all have to deal with the broken system just the same.

I'm scottish, as I've said before, of course the Irish were repressed, so were the scots, fact is, in american society now, there isn't a major discrimination against the Irish, where there is against african americans - hence treating the problem that is there! and dear god, your saying that slaves liked being slaves, because homes could be good, look, freedom is good, peiople should have the freedom to live, and reach their potential, however in this case some extra help is required to help people reach their required potential! Frankly the Irish didnt live worse than slaves, because they had their freedom, they could move, and they could attempt to get better, it was hard, but it was for many people, and the point remains that they have now gained a status of unquestioned equality in the USA, unlike the african american population!

and I have to say, at what stage where you discriminated against, or punished by affirmative action? the main idea however is that if an african american does very well, and is put against a richer white american, then the african american should win out, very rarely is it a poorer candidate.

I agree that the education system is broken, but I don't think aboloshing affirmative action would help anyone!

 

[RavingLibDem]

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.

i didnt see this little gem until right now.


lets get a few things straight. my opinion:

1. im white. i grew up white. im caucasian by definition.
2. i have no debt to anyone, and ill say this to every race out there.
im sorry you were treated like crap. not my fault, it wasnt me, and you cant hold ME responsible for some idiots hundreds of years ago.

my debt to the african american population is inexistent.


im sorry jews were killed in the holocaust. its not my fault, get over it and stop playing the holocaust card so much, its in the past.

im sorry your race was somehow wronged by a race that encompasses me. i didnt do it, and you cant hold me responsible for it. so yet again. there is no debt to pay back.

Maybe my words were clumsy, however it remains that if a society punishes a people repeatedly simply for where their from, I don't see the problem in giving them a slight leg up, in attempting to bring the african american population up to an equal level on average, in society! its not a personal debt, its a debt that society owes, and that society pays, I find it highly unlikely that you ahve missed out on anything due to affirmative action, and therefore this idea that it punishes the white, generally richer, majority is bogus.