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

[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.

Speak for yourself, not for me. I feel horrible everytime i see a holocaust memorial and not only am i not that generation im not even german.

Empathy for victims and guilt for doing something wrong are two different things

 

[Crazy Elf]

So... has anyone that's not white got an opinion on this?

 

[sauerkraus]

also, I didn't say white american tv is racist, I just said it is,

I just ... you know, loled.

 

[Crazy Elf]

No, that's *exactly* the point--you brought up Australian politicians of Middle Eastern descent to prove something about Australia. I bring up African-American politicians to show that if you're going to use that logic, it's going to undercut your point about America's situation.

I brought up the point about Middle Eastern politicians to show that the riots we had in this country (an isolated incident), wasn't nearly indicative of an underlying racist attitude throughout Australia as you were trying to make it out to be. Also, Australians of Middle Eastern decent aren't twice as likely to live in poverty, whereas African Americans are.

So all those black baseball players who weren't as good as Jackie Robinson weren't oppressed--they just needed to 'play harder'?

Um, Jackie Robinson was black. Now if you want to talk about AA, you're going to have to show me how white players that are better than black players aren't getting work. If that's happening then you could probably argue that it's political oppression.

You can't, though, because it's not happening.

Yeah, and you just finished posting about how there's only a "legal" difference between "non-systemic and systemic" slavery and that difference "doesn't stop them behaving and feeling like" slaves.

Yes, that's true. On top of that African Americans were denied rights to vote, separated from white society, given different education and services, and basically treated as second class citizens. That didn't happen to white people of a lower socio-economic position that may have felt like slaves. As bad as things could get for white people in such a position, it would never be as bad as it could get for blacks.

That's the point.

So what you're saying is that it's okay to oppress people by going out and conquering their homelands and extracting from them the resources that will later give you your Western Privilege, as long as you give them back their countries at some point full of problems your colonialism created.

This thread is about AA. If you want to talk about British Colonialism, or Colonialism in general, start another thread. I'm finished with you trying to detract from the point here.

 

[henrebotha]

I'm not going to read this whole thread simply because I have homework to do, but as a healthy, affluent white male Afrikaans-speaking South African I have to comment.

The problem with affirmative action (in the sense of requiring businesses to employ a specific quota of previously disadvantaged people, such as black South Africans) is that it is trying to fix a problem the wrong way around. The reason it is required is so that the previously discriminated-against can get a foothold in society again, yes? Then don't give them jobs that they're not qualified for. Instead, give them free education.

It's the whole "give fish vs teach to fish" thing all over again. I am terrified of trying to get a job in this country (especially now that the Socialist Jacob Zuma is president) once I finish my studies, because I am:
- healthy
- affluent
- white
- Afrikaans-speaking
- heterosexual (well, only borderline )
etc. Instead of giving jobs away to the unqualified (leaving the qualified marooned despite the hard work they put in), why not educate the unqualified instead? Giving jobs to different people merely rotates the joblessness around; but educating the uneducated means we will uplift a country's skill base.

I agree that it fucking sucks what racist (and other discriminatory) governments did in the world; but I wasn't a part of that, and this bullshit arse-about-face way of going about "fixing" it is making life very, very difficult for me.

Watch me move to France in three years' time.

 

[Schnippshly]

I think it has been said a lot of times:
Imagine the different human races are about to start a foot race around a track (lol race pun). The black racer is forced to wear lead boots and his arms are tied behind his back. The white racer gets a scooter. After two minutes of racing, with both racers going all-out, the white player is stripped of his scooter and forced to run normally, and the black racer is given regular shoes (not made of lead) and his hands are untied.
Now both racers are given equal racing conditions, but it's the middle of the race so naturally the white racer is way ahead. So is that fair?

 

[vampirekid.13]

i stand by my point. affirmative action does nothing but give people the right to favor a race over another and give out jobs/scholarships/hard to get positions based on racism hidden behind the premise of affirmative action.


the US gov. actually has a list of all businesses they buy stuff from and one of the columns is "women owned y/n" ya. thats right. the gov are more likely to buy from a WO business just because of affirmative action. THATS STUPID.

So basically, you made this thread just to put your idea out there hoping people would agree with you, and when they didn't and gave you good, solid counter-arguments that respected your position, you decided after all that to just...

...stick to your original position like a whiny brat who didn't get his way and now he's pissed?

not really, i made this thread to see other opinions on it.

whether any "good, solid counter-arguments" were given or not, i was never going to change my position, the thread title doesnt say "make me believe AA isnt bad" it just simply asking for your opinion.

everything in the world has a counter-argument, just because of that doesnt mean i have to change my opinion.

What? you were expecting me to go "oh, well thats a good point, i guess AA isnt bad afterall"?

thats not what this thread was about, this was just your opinion on it, and why it helps and doesnt help.

Sounds to me like you're a whiny brat because im not willing to change my opinion on something haha.

on that note, there are several good counter-arguments to evolution, is that going to stop making you believe in it?

or if you are religious, there are several good counter arguments to creation, is that going to stop you believing in it? no, probably not.

way to show your colors tho.

I think it has been said a lot of times:
Imagine the different human races are about to start a foot race around a track (lol race pun). The black racer is forced to wear lead boots and his arms are tied behind his back. The white racer gets a scooter. After two minutes of racing, with both racers going all-out, the white player is stripped of his scooter and forced to run normally, and the black racer is given regular shoes (not made of lead) and his hands are untied.
Now both racers are given equal racing conditions, but it's the middle of the race so naturally the white racer is way ahead. So is that fair?

thats a horrible comparison, because there is no contest, and there is no prize. its just equality, and AA does not provide equality it provides favoritism.

 

[Dele]

I think it has been said a lot of times:
Imagine the different human races are about to start a foot race around a track (lol race pun). The black racer is forced to wear lead boots and his arms are tied behind his back. The white racer gets a scooter. After two minutes of racing, with both racers going all-out, the white player is stripped of his scooter and forced to run normally, and the black racer is given regular shoes (not made of lead) and his hands are untied.
Now both racers are given equal racing conditions, but it's the middle of the race so naturally the white racer is way ahead. So is that fair?

The only 'fair' way to fix apartheid is with more apartheid?

 

[Crazy Elf]

How much more likely are Australians of Middle Eastern descent to live in poverty?

On par from everything I can see. Arabic people have been in Australia pretty much since we started out, paving the way through the desert. Also, we didn't at any point enslave them and force them to live as second class citizens.

I'm not talking about white players--I'm talking about black players of Jackie Robinson's era. You said that if it's harder to get a job, that's not oppression--it's only oppression if you are *denied* a job otherwise you just need to work harder.

Still they were forced to ride the back of the bus, drink out of separate water taps, go top separate schools, etc. He was one black player surrounded by teams with none. That's not equality by any means.

Your point is stupid.

Exactly.

Stupid again.

So when you compare America to mid-19th century Britain to point out how much America needs AA because its white citizens benefit from the privilege that history granted them, that's fine.

When I compare America to late-19th century Britain--a more recent time period--to point out how the white residents of the favored dominions of the British Empire need to compensate non-white residents of exploited dominions because its white citizens benefit from the privilege that history granted them, I'm 'detracting from the point here.'

Those people were not forced to continue living as second class citizens in a country where they were persecuted for their race. It's not fucking relevant. If you want to argue about British colonialism do it elsewhere and stop trying to detract from the main point of this topic.

 

[Dele]

Maybe the only 'fair' way to fix apartheid implemented for an illegitimate reason which was a means designed to create inequality as an end result is with more apartheid implemented for a legitimate reason which is a means designed to create equality as an end result.

Maybe the means aren't justified by the ends, but don't say the two are identical.

Legitimacy is a matter of power and power only. For example it's perfectly legitimate for US or China or Saudis to have apartheid, but for Cuba it would be illegitimate. I personally live in a country where a small minority has always had huge power over the majority and still does. The most important factor here is the color as since we are western and white, it is perfectly legitimate to do this upon us. Still, you dont see me crying for AA since equality is not an end goal and it automatically balances itself out if inequality is not actively maintained.

The contest is called "compound interest" and "dividend income." We live in a market economy, and in a market economy there's the issue of competitive advantage.

It's still a horrible comparison as economy is not a zero-sum game and the poor technically have more advantages due inflation, inheritance tax and subsidies. Large amounts of wealths are unlikely to last past 3 generations, though decreased rate of birth and industrialization has turned the tables a bit.

 

[Ignignoct]

Moment of hypothetical meaninglessness:

Would African's have been better off left unmolested in Africa until the present time?

 

[Marv21]

I dunno, if a white man kills a Black guy...its a hate crime and murder

If a black guy kills a white guy its just murder....

I dunno, this does seem to make it so that minorities have more power...im still very sketchy about it but I feel its just a way to stop racist killing etc.

 

[Ignignoct]

Moment of hypothetical meaninglessness:

Would African's have been better off left unmolested in Africa until the present time?

Related hypothetical to act as a control on that hypothetical:

Would the Irish have been better off left unmolested by the English until the present time?

I say yes.

If the Irish retained control of their leprechauns' gold, their economic engine would have driven the country towards greater power and independence.