fair discrimination

[yellowfish]

So recently I attended EE training (employment equity)
I was told of how apartheid created some terrible wrongs in our country
So now to balance the scales we are tipping them to the other side (to me we are just tipping scales again and balancing nothing but hey im not a law maker so I don’t really have a say)
But all of this brings me to my point
I got taught that we now need to use fair discrimination
So I thought that would be hating everyone equally but alas we now need to fairly discriminate against white skins
So do you think this fair discrimination is justified or is South Africa just completely loosing all its marbles?

Has America ever tried affirmative action and did it work
Did it empower the previously disadvantaged or did it break their self-esteem from giving them jobs they were unqualified for and totally unsuited for?

[thecowboy]

In my opinion, affirmative action is blatant discrimination. If you want it to be equal, make it equal and be done with it. Giving a preference to anyone based on the color of their skin or what's in their pants to me is perpetuating discrimination rather than helping to solve the problem.

The problem of affirmative action runs deeper than employment as well. I'm white and male. If a "minority" had the grades I had in undergrad and the grades I have in law school, they'd be getting a free ride. I know this because one of my friends in fact does, and with lower grades and accomplishments than mine. I get the honor of paying full price.

Bitter? Yes.

[ravenshrike]

In the 80's Mugabe took over Zimbabwe/South Rhodesia on a leftist platform that called for discrimination against whites, aka 'fair discrimination'. At the start of this wonderful train of thought Zimbabwe was a breadbasket of Africa. Now everybody's starving and it sure as fuck wasn't because the land gave out.

[Juan.Camaney]

Being a minority, all I can say is, if you are white, you will never see equal opportunity employers as what they really are. White men rule america. Equal opportunity employers don't hire future millionaires, they hire "senior clerk typists" etc.

[joerockhead]

We have Affirmative Action because too many people are racist and do discriminate.

It is sad, and everyone does it. Color does mean one can not or will not discriminate.

I being a White Male have seen people get promoted ahead of me, because the numbers where not there. I just as qualified and just as dedicated, and yet a Mexican American got the job. Was I upset, yes, but not at him, but at my boss.
He got the job and I got laid off.
In the long run, it paid off for me, I now make more money then I did before, and it has nothing to do with race.

But I see it all the time. What are people to do? No one can be 100% non Racist or Non Feminist.

[licupssy]

I noticed it most in the early '70s when I got out of the navy. Getting out of high school at 17 hurt since you had to be 18 to work around machinery. I ended up working in a department store before entering the navy. Then when I got out and tried to get a job if you didn't have experience companies couldn't hire you. I was out right told at one very large company where half my family worked, if I wasn't black, I needed at least 5 years experience before they could even think about hiring me. I finally had to go back to the department store I worked for. I even had to force them to take me back even though at the time I enter the service they had the policy requiring them to.

It was funy years later, when I went into Computer rooms were the manager was black the whole department would be black. I say most all other CIS department were mixed equal to the population except those connected to the goverment would have closer to about 70% minorities.

[yellowfish]

Our economy is taking strain due to unqualified people in power
The estimate out the other day was 50 million for one of our biggest companies
Our country has lost 50 million rands worth of revenue due to affirmative action
The company that supplies power to the country hired an affirmative action candidate CEO
He decided that the infrastructure did not need upgrading
So he saved the company lots of money in the short term
He gave himself huge bonuses ect

Now 5 years down the line the cables cant hold the load and its causing rolling blackouts across the country
They did a quick assessment and found out that in the last year we have had a sever impact on our current economy and also future economy due to investors being weary to invest
:shannon:

[JenniferJuly]

Are you kidding/

[zip29]

I work for the government, and I have seen major discrimination in favor of blacks and women. Almost everybody in the plum jobs are black women, although there are some white women and black men.

The last time they interviewed people for a position identical to mine, they interviewed four people. All of them were black women.

[Krasch]

I work for the government, and I have seen major discrimination in favor of blacks and women. Almost everybody in the plum jobs are black women, although there are some white women and black men.

The last time they interviewed people for a position identical to mine, they interviewed four people. All of them were black women.
The last time I applied for a government job, I was basically told whites ned not apply.

It's total crap. A job should be given on merit alone, so that you get the best people for the job.

[shiiboi]

The last time I applied for a government job, I was basically told whites ned not apply.

It's total crap. A job should be given on merit alone, so that you get the best people for the job.
I guess now you understand what minorities have been going through in this country for 200 years.

[snipaw26]

Back in 1996 when California put a proposition on the ballot to do away with Affirmative Action in university admissions my mother and I had a big debate about this. My mother felt "Those people" had been paying the price for too long to take away Affirmative Action. I countered with admissions should be based on academic achievement and should be skin color neutral. She said that my thinking was tainted by the fact I had the opportunity to get a better education and I told her I didn't see the reason why I should have to apologize for the hand that was dealt me..... the debate continues.

Doesn't it really come down to people feeling a sense of entitlement? The Declaration of Independence says "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" ... It doesn't promise happiness.

[CD]

It's possible that decades of holding down blacks in America has put them at a disadvantage as far as where they live and work. Because of that, maybe they are sent to inferior schools and don't have access to the same quality education as a typical white kid. In that regard, Affirmative Action would still be a good thing. But just like the whole "PC" thread, I think AA has gotten way out of hand. A good idea can be corrupted, even though it may still be better then the alternative of not having it.

[Krasch]

I guess now you understand what minorities have been going through in this country for 200 years.
Excuse me, but that doesn't cut it.

I wasn't alive over the last 200 years, neither was anyone else here.

It's a safe bet nobody here owned any slaves, nor have any been owned as slaves by someone else.

I may be white and male, but I never did anything to minorities. Maybe some other white folks did back when, but they're not me and I don't deserve to suffer for something someone else did years ago. Let's say you're black, and some other black person murders someone, it doesn't even matter when. Are you really suggesting it's a fair concept then to execute you or throw you in jail for the crimes of some other black person?

The whole "whites had it good so now they have to suffer to make things even" is the kind of infantile logic that in most cases we all outgrow as an excuse before we hit our teens, yet for this issue some seem to think it still has merit.

You want discrimination to stop? Then everyone must be treated equally based on merit, end of story. Anything else is just creating a new set of victims who will simply then have just cause for yet more bigotry and hatred. And it ensures this kind of crap will stay with us forever, only the victims will change.

Is it not better that everyone be elevated and treated equally rather than simply shifting the victimization from one group to another eventually dragging everyone down?

[yellowfish]

Are you kidding/
tell me is this aimed at me?
do you live in South Africa?
i suggest you try read some of this every day
www.iol.co.za
thats about the most unbaised news site South Africa has
read it
you will be surprised how far down we have sank
Nelson Mandela had the correct idea
these new twits just want a reversal of aparthied

perfect example is the one guy i have working for me thinks he should just get a job because he is black and he believes he can keep the job without doing any work because he is black
everything must fall into his lap
this is what AA or EE lead to
a sense of entitalment
it makes you think that something for nothing is a reality

sorry if you want it equal
make it equal

[shiiboi]

I told her I didn't see the reason why I should have to apologize for the hand that was dealt me..... the debate continues.I don't deserve to suffer for something someone else did years ago.
.
.
.
You want discrimination to stop? Then everyone must be treated equally based on merit, end of story..
.
.
Is it not better that everyone be elevated and treated equally rather than simply shifting the victimization from one group to another eventually dragging everyone down?
You guys are simply promoting the same argument always used by those who already benefit from the status quo, afraid of new competition when the rules change.
Here's some good reading that may help you understand the bigger picture:
http://www.aww-kittah-aww.com/up/public/41486/9264966.jpg
You can probably find a copy at your local library, or order it used from amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0451192036/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used

[Krasch]

You guys are simply promoting the same argument always used by those who already benefit from the status quo, afraid of new competition when the rules change.
But here's where your argument falls apart.

As long as Affirmative Action and similar programs exist, there is NO competition. Whites are automatically put at the back of the line so the race is fixed. We're not afraid of real competition, but the playing field needs to be at least close to level so that everyone is able to compete fairly.

Maybe blacks and other minorities had their shoelaces tied together in the race in the old days, and now it's the whites, but the race is still just as fixed. The outcome just as pre-determined. Let all the runners compete fairly.

Wasn't it Dr. King that talked about the ideal of people being judged by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin? When did that ideal get perverted into the get-evenism we have now?

[shiiboi]

Whites are automatically put at the back of the line so the race is fixed. We're not afraid of real competition, but the playing field needs to be at least close to level so that everyone is able to compete fairly.
.
.
.
Let all the runners compete fairly.
The race has always been fixed. The credentials, experience and cultural factors required for employment have always been defined in terms of what the dominant white culture automatically has. Minorities were excluded not only from getting the jobs, but getting the credentials, experience and cultural factors required to apply for the jobs after anti-discrimination laws were put in place.

So, now these requirements are being redefined, and minorities are being given preference in the same way that whites were given preference in the past.

Look at it this way: it's as if you're running a race, but certain players were chained to a stake in the ground for the first 3 laps while you and others were allowed to run free. Now the runners who were held back are allowed to run, but they are 3 laps behind and you and the others who were never chained insist that the race is now fair.

All affirmative action does is hold back the frontrunners for a few laps while the others catch up.

Affirmative action is a short-term fix. It will continue only until an ACTUAL fair playing field exists.

[Krasch]

The race has always been fixed. The credentials, experience and cultural factors required for employment have always been defined in terms of what the dominant white culture automatically has. Minorities were excluded not only from getting the jobs, but getting the credentials, experience and cultural factors required to apply for the jobs after anti-discrimination laws were put in place.

So, now these requirements are being redefined, and minorities are being given preference in the same way that whites were given preference in the past.

Look at it this way: it's as if you're running a race, but certain players were chained to a stake in the ground for the first 3 laps while you and others were allowed to run free. Now the runners who were held back are allowed to run, but they are 3 laps behind and you and the others who were never chained insist that the race is now fair.

All affirmative action does is hold back the frontrunners for a few laps while the others catch up.

Affirmative action is a short-term fix. It will continue only until an ACTUAL fair playing field exists.
But here's where the fallacy in your argument lies.

I'm apparently in the role of a "frontrunner" who's now being held back to give those previously disadvantaged a chance to catch up.

But I was never leading the race to begin with. Some other white people may have been, but they're not in the race anymore, and neither are those people previously disadvantaged. We have new generations of people now runing their own race, and it's simply a different set of runners chained to the ground for 3 laps.

As long as affirmative action exists, there can be no level playing field, only a shifting around of who gets chained to the ground for awhile. The only way for things to be truly fair and equal is for everyone to be able to run the race unfettered, and let the runners' speed itself and merit determine the victor.

The existence of an "actual faier playing field" can only occur with the absence of affirmative action. You're sayiing A is only a temp fix until we get B. But B can only happen if there is no A, B's existence is dependent on an absence of A.

You might as well argue "I'm only going to stay in my room until it's empty", with the problem being that the room will NEVER be empty unless you leave the room.

[zip29]

All affirmative action does is hold back the frontrunners for a few laps while the others catch up.

Affirmative action is a short-term fix. It will continue only until an ACTUAL fair playing field exists.

Affirmative action will never be eliminated.

[yellowfish]

Affirmative action will never be eliminated.

agreed
the reason i think this is true is that the people who get affirmatively actioned did not have to work too hard to get it
it was kinda given to them
they loose perspective and always maintain that they are previously disadvantaged.
in my opinion thier only disadvantage is the fact that it was all given to them
when i work for something i become proud of my acheviment this raises my confidence witch in turn raises my self worth

but hey thats just me
i dont take handouts

[Krasch]

agreed
the reason i think this is true is that the people who get affirmatively actioned did not have to work too hard to get it
it was kinda given to them
they loose perspective and always maintain that they are previously disadvantaged.
in my opinion thier only disadvantage is the fact that it was all given to them
when i work for something i become proud of my acheviment this raises my confidence witch in turn raises my self worth

but hey thats just me
i dont take handouts
Clarence Thomas would agree with you.

While Affirmative Action would ostensibly seek to elevate minorities, what it actually does is infantilize them, teaching them the message that they can't succeed in a "white man's" world without help.

Of course, any white man knows this is total BS. Many of the most successful white people out there were born into terrible situations, and managed through a great deal of hard work and effort to overcome their circumstances and succeed anyway. They were well behind the curve up agsinst other better-off whites, and they didn't get any kind of help, but still pulled it off.

The sad thing is that any person of a visible minority out there today COULD do the same thing. They're just as capable, just as intelligent, but so many have bought into the fiction of "being held back by the man" which doesn't exist anymore, so many buying into the whole gangsta rap culture, that they fail to realize that if they just pulled up their damn pants and played the game by the white man's rules there's no reason they couldn't win. But as long as they do buy into the crap, they ensure they'll never win and always need Affirmative Action.

I may be currently disadvantaged by Affirmative Action, and may wish for true equality because I'm not responsible for anyone being held back, but in the end I don't need things to change. As long as blacks et al are intent on holding themselves back, I'll succeed despite the disadvantages no problem.

[shiiboi]

the reason i think this is true is that the people who get affirmatively actioned did not have to work too hard to get it
it was kinda given to them
This, from someone who lists his location as 'Capetown?'


Many of the most successful white people out there were born into terrible situations, and managed through a great deal of hard work and effort to overcome their circumstances and succeed anyway.
In the US, the top 1% of the population possesses wealth equal to total wealth of the bottom 80%.
99% of this top 1% are white men who INHERITED their wealth.

The earliest anti-racial discrimination laws in the US were enacted in 1964- taking another 20 years to become fully implemented. This is well within the lifespan of minority people still of working age. And their children, who were systematically denied access to the best schools and opportunities are the bulk of the working age black population today. Unemployment rates among black males are at 25%- while white males are at 6%. College-educated black males earn 22% less than their white counterparts in the same jobs.

The EEOC (the government agency responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws) receives 20,000 complaints annually of discrimination in the workforce.

And you continue to blame the victims?

[yellowfish]

This, from someone who lists his location as 'Capetown?'

yes i am from Cape Town South Africa
and this effects the argument in witch way?

i come from one of the most racist pasts on the earth so i think i am speaking from experience
i work for a huge corporation i am the employment equity rep
i think i have some experience in this field

so back to the point
yes i am from Cape Town South Africa
and this effects the argument in witch way?

[Krasch]

This, from someone who lists his location as 'Capetown?'


In the US, the top 1% of the population possesses wealth equal to total wealth of the bottom 80%.
99% of this top 1% are white men who INHERITED their wealth.

The earliest anti-racial discrimination laws in the US were enacted in 1964- taking another 20 years to become fully implemented. This is well within the lifespan of minority people still of working age. And their children, who were systematically denied access to the best schools and opportunities are the bulk of the working age black population today. Unemployment rates among black males are at 25%- while white males are at 6%. College-educated black males earn 22% less than their white counterparts in the same jobs.

The EEOC (the government agency responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws) receives 20,000 complaints annually of discrimination in the workforce.

And you continue to blame the victims?
And that 1% of wage earners pays about 50% of all federal income taxes received, What's yer point?

The vast majority of us white guys aren't in that 1%, anywhere near it, or ever will be. So it's fair that we're all supposed to be disadvantaged because a scant few are the exception?

Let's just lock up all the blacks because a few of them are in gangs and commit crimes. It's the same argument. It's also one that virtually no one would agree with because it's patently wrong on it's face, yet you insist on defending race inequity.

The reason that black unemployment is at 22% is that they still don't want to play the game by the same rules we all have to, and end up giving their employer's more than ample reason to replace them. They believe in the false sense of entitlement, when companies see the reality that entitlement to a job is only created by doing that job well and fitting in to the corporate environment, something that also doesn't go along with the "gangsta rap" culture.

[gemo]

Its okay, people. Obama is president.
affirmative action should be decleared over once Obama takes office.

[BackdoorJesus]

All affirmative action does is hold back the frontrunners for a few laps while the others catch up.

Affirmative action is a short-term fix. It will continue only until an ACTUAL fair playing field exists.
"Affirmative Action" in the United States was established initially by executive order in 1961; that was three years before I was born, and I'm 44.

Short-term fix? What have you been smoking, cuz I want some too.

Affirmative Action is a crutch that some people have been relying upon for far longer than it has been needed - this fallacy should be ended now.

[Juan.Camaney]

Its okay, people. Obama is president.
affirmative action should be decleared over once Obama takes office.
1 half black president is enough to balance out all the other ones, eh?

For those in the more liberal states, maybe affirmative action has ended its need. For those where stars and bars wave proudly, I strongly disagree.

I don't want to promote the white guilt BS that some people love to use as crutches, like BDJ said. But to claim that the playing field is level is naive. The fact that Obama only won by such a small margin and some old fart that couldn't remember how many houses he had nearly did him in goes to show how many retards out there still judge a man by the color of his skin.

[Krasch]

1 half black president is enough to balance out all the other ones, eh?

For those in the more liberal states, maybe affirmative action has ended its need. For those where stars and bars wave proudly, I strongly disagree.

I don't want to promote the white guilt BS that some people love to use as crutches, like BDJ said. But to claim that the playing field is level is naive. The fact that Obama only won by such a small margin and some old fart that couldn't remember how many houses he had nearly did him in goes to show how many retards out there still judge a man by the color of his skin.
Now now there Juan, that's not entirely fiar.

There are certainly some low-foreheaded idiots who avoided voting for Obama because he's black.

But most people according to the exit polls saw age as an issue rather than race, and those who voted for McCain mostly had doubts about Obama's lack of experience and concerns over just how ideologically left of center he is. Race was in no way the reason the race was as close as it was.

A little surprising to me, and to many I'm sure, but I have little doubt as to it's accuracy.

[Juan.Camaney]

Now now there Juan, that's not entirely fiar.

There are certainly some low-foreheaded idiots who avoided voting for Obama because he's black.

But most people according to the exit polls saw age as an issue rather than race, and those who voted for McCain mostly had doubts about Obama's lack of experience and concerns over just how ideologically left of center he is. Race was in no way the reason the race was as close as it was.

A little surprising to me, and to many I'm sure, but I have little doubt as to it's accuracy.
Riiiight. If race was not an issue, no one would have even bothered calling him the first black anything...specially since he is half black. Living in Canadia, you might not know how things are in southern states...belonging to a truck forum for Dodge, I know the type of BS that gets thrown around and if WR is pretend racist...these guys take the cake.

[Krasch]

Riiiight. If race was not an issue, no one would have even bothered calling him the first black anything...specially since he is half black. Living in Canadia, you might not know how things are in southern states...belonging to a truck forum for Dodge, I know the type of BS that gets thrown around and if WR is pretend racist...these guys take the cake.
Oh I'm not at all naive enough to say it wasn't an issue for everyone.

But according to the exit polls, it simply wasn't an issue to the country at large. Sure one expects such behavior from the southern states, but let's not forget he took a lot of non-southern states too, and ones with a hell of a lot of electoral votes. California and New York spring to mind, as does Illinois and Ohio.

The media made a big deal out of it because they live to create controversy even where none exists. It creates ratings. Blacks understandably made a big deal out of it because he's black and they wanted to chest thump a bit. Outside of that, he's apparently seen as just a candidate for the presidency.

[snipaw26]

So what would be the harm if all AA was eliminated? What is wrong with a level play field where all are judged on their merits and the ability to do the job and not a quota to keep the federal dollars coming in? You demand a fair and impartial assessment of your abilities to do the job and so do we.

We who were born into more advantages should not have to apologize for the rest of our lives. This is just the hand we were dealt and it is up to use to make the most of what we have. It may not be fair in the grand scheme of things but what is the alternative? Wealth redistribution?

Doesn't that smack of Socialism?

[Juan.Camaney]

So what would be the harm if all AA was eliminated? What is wrong with a level play field where all are judged on their merits and the ability to do the job and not a quota to keep the federal dollars coming in? You demand a fair and impartial assessment of your abilities to do the job and so do we.

We who were born into more advantages should not have to apologize for the rest of our lives. This is just the hand we were dealt and it is up to use to make the most of what we have. It may not be fair in the grand scheme of things but what is the alternative? Wealth redistribution?

Doesn't that smack of Socialism?
Because we who are out in the working world know that favortism exists. Favortism to firends, family, friends of family....and by nature, those people tend to be of the same race. Specifically in construction, too much "friendly" name calling goes on. Racism isnt as dead as you think it is.

It's not like affirmative action replaces a smart white guy with a dumb ass minority. They are making sure intelligent well qualified people of all races assume higher up positions.

[ryster]

Admittedly I haven't read through the whole thread, because something Juan said in the beginning caught my eye and I wanted to respond specifically to that.

Being a minority, all I can say is, if you are white, you will never see equal opportunity employers as what they really are. White men rule america. Equal opportunity employers don't hire future millionaires, they hire "senior clerk typists" etc.

I've got a cousin (by marriage) who is a direct immigrant from Iran, came here with absolutely nothing. I don't know if he is officially a "millionaire" (he has 5 kids after all, 3 of whom are in/approaching college), but he lives in a mansion with a huge piece of property (especially considering his property is Maryland).

I have another cousin who came here from Germany during the Post-War Russian Occupation. Russians destroyed his home and family. He came here with nothing but an elementary education. He is now relatively wealthy (not rich but certainly established) and lives extremely comfortably in eastern North Carolina.

Point is, white men don't rule shit (Aha! we have a black president now too :mags: ). The majority of wealthy men are white because the majority of Americans have been and still are white. And do you think any employer hires someone, hoping that they will climb the ranks to success? Unless you got a lucky break in general or have some wealthy family members, everything anyone gets they fought for.

Now, I won't argue with you if you tell me that it is harder for the lower class (of which minorities make a large portion) to get the education and foundation necessary for success. But the two cases I gave above prove it's possible. You will have to work harder and longer than anyone else, but you can still do it. And I think as long as that is true, tipping the scales backwards will only screw things up down the line.

And I think both cousins have races that would put them at an even larger disadvantage then blacks or hispanics (Middle Eastern and German? German doesn't mean anything today, but in the wake of WWII...).

And besides Juan, population projections say that by 2024 whites will be officially surpassed by hispanics in America!

Riiiight. If race was not an issue, no one would have even bothered calling him the first black anything...specially since he is half black. Living in Canadia, you might not know how things are in southern states...belonging to a truck forum for Dodge, I know the type of BS that gets thrown around and if WR is pretend racist...these guys take the cake.

I'm sure there are plenty of whites who didn't vote for McCain because Obama is half black. I'm also sure that there are plenty of blacks who only voted for Obama because he's black. It balances out, and the effect is negligible regardless. Both you and me know that.

I don't like Obama because of his history with extreme activists/terrorists, his general left-wing idealism, and the fact that with him in charge there will not necessarily be a check on democratic legislature.

[Juan.Camaney]

I've got a cousin (by marriage) who is a direct immigrant from Iran, came here with absolutely nothing. I don't know if he is officially a "millionaire" (he has 5 kids after all, 3 of whom are in/approaching college), but he lives in a mansion with a huge piece of property (especially considering his property is Maryland).

I have another cousin who came here from Germany during the Post-War Russian Occupation. Russians destroyed his home and family. He came here with nothing but an elementary education. He is now relatively wealthy (not rich but certainly established) and lives extremely comfortably in eastern North Carolina.
I got a cousin who was shot in the head a few times and lived and is perfectly normal...however, is that the norm?

Point is, white men don't rule shit (Aha! we have a black president now too :mags: ). The majority of wealthy men are white because the majority of Americans have been and still are white. And do you think any employer hires someone, hoping that they will climb the ranks to success? Unless you got a lucky break in general or have some wealthy family members, everything anyone gets they fought for.
Your president is to being black as adding battery acid to vodka is to being Kettle One. Try being a non legacy minority applying to Yale and ask yourself if whites don't rule the majority of the country. Here in america, a very small percentage of men rule the majority of the money. The majority (read all) of the founding fathers and their friends were white. That trickles down through generations, and thus people from old money (read white) keep controlling. Affirmative action just made it so that people that are not white or come from money get a decent start....what it has been perverted to now is something else.

Now, I won't argue with you if you tell me that it is harder for the lower class (of which minorities make a large portion) to get the education and foundation necessary for success. But the two cases I gave above prove it's possible. You will have to work harder and longer than anyone else, but you can still do it. And I think as long as that is true, tipping the scales backwards will only screw things up down the line.
This is what afirmative action was designed to do. AA gives out scholarships to make it so that when a person receiving assistance grows up and makes something of himself, he can now influence higher ups and create new legacies.

And I think both cousins have races that would put them at an even larger disadvantage then blacks or hispanics (Middle Eastern and German? German doesn't mean anything today, but in the wake of WWII...).

And besides Juan, population projections say that by 2024 whites will be officially surpassed by hispanics in America!
2024? Didn't the latest statistical annalysis (read BS) say 2012? FYI, immigrants are fleeing the US right now in record numbers. That might just fuck that study up by a decade :bowrofl:

I'm sure there are plenty of whites who didn't vote for McCain because Obama is half black. I'm also sure that there are plenty of blacks who only voted for Obama because he's black. It balances out, and the effect is negligible regardless. Both you and me know that.
What happened to your statistics? Did you forget that whites are still a bigger group than blacks? Do you know how a balance works? As a republican leaning democrat, I assure you that as shitty a candidate as the republican party threw up, had Obama been a white guy, the margin would have been bigger by a LONG shot.

I don't like Obama because of his history with extreme activists/terrorists, his general left-wing idealism, and the fact that with him in charge there will not necessarily be a check on democratic legislature.
I hate to tell you this, but recently released records show that the US was allowing Iraq to gas kurds in an effort to establish an ally in the middle east to go against Iran....so other people had radical friends back before Obama. Abraham Lincoln was also a radical in his time...he did okay other than that whole getting shot in the head thing.


This is the last I will post on this subject as we'll just end up going in circles.

I'll just requote what I said earlier:
Being a minority, all I can say is, if you are white, you will never see equal opportunity employers as what they really are.
You can always point out someone who made it big inspite of being a minority. I can always point out that up to a few decades ago, black men weren't even allowed to be seen alone with white women....you think 200 years of a white powered america goes away with a few decades?

[ryster]

We'll I suppose if this is the last your posting in this thread ain't much point in debating, but to give my rebuttal...

I got a cousin who was shot in the head a few times and lived and is perfectly normal...however, is that the norm?

My point is that hard work and dedication are the traits rewarded most in America, not being white.

Your president is to being black as adding battery acid to vodka is to being Kettle One.

I don't really think Obama being elected is a big win for minorities, I was just kidding around, hence the :mags: dude.

Try being a non legacy minority applying to Yale and ask yourself if whites don't rule the majority of the country. Here in america, a very small percentage of men rule the majority of the money. The majority (read all) of the founding fathers and their friends were white. That trickles down through generations, and thus people from old money (read white) keep controlling.

I think this part is a sign of your misunderstanding. That is such a common misconception, that American's today are distant relatives of the the original 13 colonies' settlers and their slaves. I do not know a SINGLE person who can trace their lineage back that far and say they lived in America. Nobody. 90% of the families in America today probably came here after our country was established. 75% probably came here after the Civil War. That sounds like a lot, but consider that the population of America was roughly 30,000,000 in 1861, and it crossed 300,000,000 in 2006.

And even at that, the founding fathers weren't exactly rich either. That's the whole story of America, you start with nothing, and you make it big by working hard. Every family that lives here, white, black or hispanic, man or woman, was poor somewhere down the line. Most of us came here from other countries with hardly anything, looking to make a better life (few people are going to move to another country if they are already successful and wealthy where they are).

Plus, what proof do you have that it is harder for a minority to get into Yale? If his grades and test scores are good and he participated in community/extracurricular stuff, statistics say he has a higher chance of getting in then a white of the same merit.

Affirmative action just made it so that people that are not white or come from money get a decent start....what it has been perverted to now is something else.

It has been perverted and that's part of the reason it needs to go. I mean believe me, I'm all for giving people an equal start. So instead of giving the minorities a leg up, how about we just make sure they start on the same line as everybody else? For instance, make college applications totally blind to race and gender, so that applicants are only judged by their merit.

This is what afirmative action was designed to do. AA gives out scholarships to make it so that when a person receiving assistance grows up and makes something of himself, he can now influence higher ups and create new legacies.

AA gives out scholarships. Yeah. AA also requires schools and public offices to maintain a racial quota. That forces them to hire a given number of minorities, even if it means that some of them are inferior in merit to white competitors.

2024? Didn't the latest statistical annalysis (read BS) say 2012? FYI, immigrants are fleeing the US right now in record numbers. That might just fuck that study up by a decade :bowrofl:

Yeah I fucked that up. Some dbag on the forum I got that from had posted a month old article. Immigrants are fleeing, but in no time US economy will be on the good side of this dip, and they'll be fleeing backwards into our open arms (seeing as how I doubt Obama will do much for border control).

What happened to your statistics? Did you forget that whites are still a bigger group than blacks? Do you know how a balance works? As a republican leaning democrat, I assure you that as shitty a candidate as the republican party threw up, had Obama been a white guy, the margin would have been bigger by a LONG shot.

Well, your opinion is that it would've been bigger. I disagree. Obviously a lot of blacks voted for Obama, but I think he also got a lot of on-the-fence voters, and the majority of the lower and middle class, because he has the whole "bring about change" thing going for him.

On one hand you have a white man, he's old, he's military, he agreed with many of Bush's policies - that's more of the same crap and anyone who isn't happy with where they are (read: lower and middle class) is going to hate that. On the other hand you have "The First African-American Candidate", young and charismatic, very idealistic (read: supportive of drastic and rapid change), and inexperienced (doesn't sound like it'd benefit, but it kind of brings him down to our level, he's not a politician, he's a regular guy).

Can you see what I'm getting at here? The divide was not along race, it was along wealth. And your supposed "ruling" rich whites did not win. I mean, you can say that whites voted for McCain just because Obama is black, but I've got the election results on my side, so clearly the racism and white domination doesn't exist like you think it does.


I hate to tell you this, but recently released records show that the US was allowing Iraq to gas kurds in an effort to establish an ally in the middle east to go against Iran....so other people had radical friends back before Obama. Abraham Lincoln was also a radical in his time...he did okay other than that whole getting shot in the head thing.

Radical for a righteous cause is one thing. Sure righteousness is arguable, but me and you would agree that racial supremacy and murder is not. I wouldn't support the US promoting terrorist attacks (I'm a bit confused on "allow"...could you link me the docs/news article? "Allowing" something which is not our business to occur is part of being a responsible and successful country), and I sure as hell don't support what some of Obamas old friends did. I'm not saying he's a terrorist, but you'd be a fool to believe Obama didn't know who he was palling around with back in the day.

You can always point out someone who made it big inspite of being a minority. I can always point out that up to a few decades ago, black men weren't even allowed to be seen alone with white women....you think 200 years of a white powered america goes away with a few decades?

I think if we look at things in terms of race, of course not, it would take genocide to ensure that the ratio of class was equally distributed relative to ethnicity in a matter of ten or twenty years. But if we look at things in terms of opportunity and fairness, then yes, things can change in a few decades.

You point out how blacks couldn't walk with white women 60 years ago, I point out how a black and white couple live across the street from me. I tend to think the reality of today is what deserves attention.

[shiiboi]

"Affirmative Action" in the United States was established initially by executive order in 1961; that was three years before I was born, and I'm 44.
Er, perhaps you're mistaken.

The 1961 executive order (Kennedy, 10925) was one of the sources of the phrase 'affirmative action' but it was just the precursor to a law which merely prohibited discrimination because of 'race, creed, or color.'

What we mean by 'affirmative action' today is preferential hiring treatment, usually by relaxing credentials requirements for minorities.

They're not at all the same thing.

The first case of 'affirmative action' as we mean it today was in 1967, when Lyndon Johnson issued an executive order that required the US Government to give preferential treatment in government construction contracting to companies that had significant numbers of women in their employ.

The first case of racial affirmative action was in 1969, when the department of labor's 'philadelphia plan' required government contractors to demonstrate that their racial composition was in keeping with the percentage of blacks in the local communities (the first quotas).

Since then, individual states and other entities, such as universities, have at times implemented programs of preferential hiring / accceptance of minorities, but there have been no further laws requiring it.

[BackdoorJesus]

Er, perhaps you're mistaken.

The 1961 executive order (Kennedy, 10925) was one of the sources of the phrase 'affirmative action' but it was just the precursor to a law which merely prohibited discrimination because of 'race, creed, or color.'

What we mean by 'affirmative action' today is preferential hiring treatment, usually by relaxing credentials requirements for minorities.

They're not at all the same thing.

The first case of 'affirmative action' as we mean it today was in 1967, when Lyndon Johnson issued an executive order that required the US Government to give preferential treatment in government construction contracting to companies that had significant numbers of women in their employ.

The first case of racial affirmative action was in 1969...
hey buddy anyway you want to slice it & whatever dates you want to nitpick - it isn't the "short-term solution" you would attempt to have us believe. Even if it had been around only since 1969 that's still close to 40 years...time to give it a rest.