Affirmative Action

[BloodyPepperoni]

They are racists, but not exactly against themselves.

Originally posted by luiz

Unless you think black people are inferior and need some extra handout.

First, you tell me that if I support AA, I'm racist toward Blacks because I think they are inferior and need handout. Then, you tell me that I am also racist toward whites because I think Blacks 'should have special previledges because of their skin color'

You are contradicting yourself

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by BloodyPepperoni
First, you tell me that if I support AA, I'm racist toward Blacks because I think they are inferior and need handout. Then, you tell me that I am also racist toward whites because I think 'they should have special previledges because of their skin color'

You are contradicting yourself

Not at all. You're missing the context here.

What I said was:

-If you think blacks need extra handouts because they can't compete with whites, you're racist against blacks.

-If you think blacks deserve extra handouts because of skin colour, you're racist against non-blacks.

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

Originally posted by luiz
Not at all. You're missing the context here.

What I said was:

-If you think blacks need extra handouts because they can't compete with whites, you're racist against blacks.

-If you think blacks deserve extra handouts because of skin colour, you're racist against non-blacks.

And if I think AA exists to correct an unfair situation, against who am I racist?

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by BloodyPepperoni
And if I think AA exists to correct an unfair situation, against who am I racist?

Answer me this and I will tell you if you're racist.

Why do a poor black person deserves more handouts then a poor white person? How can you possibly rationalize this?

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

Originally posted by luiz
Answer me this and I will tell you if you're racist.

Why do a poor black person deserves more handouts then a poor white person? How can you possibly rationalize this?

Originally posted by luiz Yes, the unemployement and poverty rates are higher amoneg blacks. Yes, there is still racism, and that's bad.

 

[luiz]

But why not help ALL unemployed and ALL poor?
This way you're still helping all poor blacks, and in addition are not beign racist. Don't you agree it's a better solution?

Futhermore, if one white and one black are eqaully poor, do you think it matters that the average white is richer then the average black? Do you think it would be fair to help the black more simply because of this fact? After all, the two individuals are equally poor.

 

[luiz]

The only way to destroy racism is to stop treating people differently because of thei ethnicity. I hate the term race, and I avoid using it. We're not like dogs, we all belong to the same species.

When the government has different policies for different "races", it'a a disgrace. It's easy too see that this kinds of policies will only perpetuate discrimination against minorities, and the artificial "racial" borderlines.

 

[Jorge]

Originally posted by luiz
Answer me this and I will tell you if you're racist.

Why do a poor black person deserves more handouts then a poor white person? How can you possibly rationalize this?

You have to think from two different perspectives:

- From an individual or human point of view, people has to be treated equally, without distintion. So no afirmative action and both would deserve the same thing.

- From a social point of view, it would be good to have a balanced society, without marginal groups. If unemployment and capital is clearly unbalanced among white and black people, that will generate problems. So it is in the interest of the society to fix this, and afirmative action is one way to do it.

 

[Jorge]

Originally posted by luiz
But why not help ALL unemployed and ALL poor?
This way you're still helping all poor blacks, and in addition are not beign racist. Don't you agree it's a better solution?

Let's put it this way:

In a society where white people has the power:

A white guy without a job will have x% chances of finding a job.

A black guy with the same qualifications will have y% chances of getting a job with y<x.

So you have to help a little bit the black guy. That doesn't mean that if the white guy can't find a job you should let him down. If he is unemployed he will still get some welfare as everybody else.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by Jorge
Let's put it this way:

In a society where white people has the power:

A white guy without a job will have x% chances of finding a job.

A black guy with the same qualifications will have y% chances of getting a job with y<x.

So you have to help a little bit the black guy. That doesn't mean that if the white guy can't find a job you should let him down. If he is unemployed he will still get some welfare as everybody else.

But today in all western countries the chance of a black person to get a job is not inferior to the chance of a white person to get a job.

The correct way to fight racism is to stop caring for skin colour. What AA does is to tell everyone that there are "racial" differences.

 

[Jorge]

Originally posted by luiz
But today in all western countries the chance of a black person to get a job is not inferior to the chance of a white person to get a job.

The correct way to fight racism is to stop caring for skin colour. What AA does is to tell everyone that there are "racial" differences.

I wouldn't say so clearly that the chances are equal. I have serious doubts about that. Also women have less chances and afirmative action is applied to them.

As for the best way to fight racism, some people think that equality will be only reached when racial minorities have access to similar economic conditions than the white people. Only then we will be able to forget the skin color and racial differences. Untill then the racial minorities will fell opressed.

 

[student]

Originally posted by BloodyPepperoni
Why don't you bother asking yourself how come Blacks, and Native Indians while we're at it, are in general way poorer than Whites?

The key word is in general. You have again avoided my main questions.

Why not make aa according to socioeconomic status, not race?

Why do you take the racist assumption that blacks and indians are the only races that can be poor?

Why should a rich black person from a good school get admitted over a poor white person from a poor school who is more qualified just because he is white?

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by Jorge
I wouldn't say so clearly that the chances are equal. I have serious doubts about that. Also women have less chances and afirmative action is applied to them.

As for the best way to fight racism, some people think that equality will be only reached when racial minorities have access to similar economic conditions than the white people. Only then we will be able to forget the skin color and racial differences. Untill then the racial minorities will fell opressed.

Honestly I don't believe that anybody gets a job or a college appication denied because they're black. In Brazil the Colleges don't even know what race each candidate is.

So the right way to go is providing equal opportunities. Since there are no racial differences, with equal opportunities racial inequality will disappear.

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

Originally posted by luiz
But today in all western countries the chance of a black person to get a job is not inferior to the chance of a white person to get a job.

How do you explain the big differences between blacks and whites' unemployement rates in United States, then?

 

[Zarn]

Originally posted by BloodyPepperoni
How do you explain the big differences between blacks and whites' unemployement rates in United States, then?

It's an economic difference not a racial difference. Employers could care less of what color you are, as long as you can make them money. The US is run on money not race.

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

Originally posted by luiz
But why not help ALL unemployed and ALL poor?
This way you're still helping all poor blacks, and in addition are not beign racist. Don't you agree it's a better solution?

It would be a great idea, I wholeheartly agree. But, since 40 years, US is no longer 'officially' racist. The government has had 40 years to correct those injustices and to give every American , regardless of his color, a chance to succeed, because you will agree with me that, like I said in one of my previous posts, before 1964, Blacks could not legally get a decent education. Do Blacks of today have the same opportunities as whites? Are their schools equally funded? The statistics speak for themselves.

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

Originally posted by student
You have again avoided my main questions.

You have avoided my answer, the second part of the post

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

Originally posted by Jorge
I wouldn't say so clearly that the chances are equal. I have serious doubts about that. Also women have less chances and afirmative action is applied to them.

As for the best way to fight racism, some people think that equality will be only reached when racial minorities have access to similar economic conditions than the white people. Only then we will be able to forget the skin color and racial differences. Untill then the racial minorities will fell opressed.

That was by far the brightest post of this entire thread

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by Sobieski II
But it shouldn't be targeted betterment, it should be betterment for ALL that need it. Not just people of a particular colour. All for the sake of padding an overall racial statistic, which in itself is just a simplified version of the human condition for those that will not admit that the world is more complicated than just black and white.

Did I ever say anything to the contrary? Edit: Actually, I do sorta disagree with your point. See bottom portion of this post.

Originally posted by luiz
And that's why AA sucks

Not the only reason.

Originally posted by Syterion
That's why AA is racist, and it's why AA should be need-based. Seems like you unwittingly supported my argument.

Unwittingly? Apparently you didn't read my first post in this thread.

Originally posted by BloodyPepperoni
I denied that?

That's the message I got when you asked if that's the way things should be done, why aren't they done now.

Originally posted by BloodyPepperoni
The problem is that you use the same word (discrimination) to describe two very different things. Job discrimination is grounded in prejudice and exclusion, whereas affirmative action's goal is to put an end to prejudicial treatment using inclusion technique.

With affirmative action, University X is required to accept no fewer than 750 African Americans (just your average example). How in the world is that not discrimination? Sure, it's grounded with perfectly good intention (making sure blacks and other once-oppressed groups aren't discriminated against, as they were prior to the 60's), but THERE'S NO DENYING it's discrimination, at least by my definition (discriminate: to make distinctions on the basis of class or category with no or little regard to individual merit). Don't worry, I'm not calling you evil. I'm just saying you're supporting discrimination (which again, is an undeniable fact by my definition). But I do understand your viewpoint.

Originally posted by luiz
Why do a poor black person deserves more handouts then a poor white person? How can you possibly rationalize this?

Looks like you, and others, are misunderstanding the intent of affirmative action. (I myself misworded some of my posts, making it look like I'm with you on this.)

The goal of AA is NOT to help poor people. It's not to end poverty, or to give financial/educational/employment aid to the poor. It's to bring an end to the age when only white men could get what they wanted. But there's two basic problems with this:

a. We're not in that age anymore. And even if we are somewhat:
b. More problems are created than solved. (Underqualified people getting accepted, etc.) What makes more sense than AA is some sort of "hate check" system, where a panel is ready to investigate any case of suspected corporate, educational, etc. racist/sexist discrimination. Not to mention, of course, making sure all people have a near-equal opportunity for success by the time they get to college-age, so AA isn't necessary.

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

With affirmative action, University X is required to accept no fewer than 750 African Americans (just your average example).

my average? What do you mean by that?

THERE'S NO DENYING it's discrimination, at least by my definition (discriminate: to make distinctions on the basis of class or category with no or little regard to individual merit)

Without AA, a very small % of Blacks would have access to higher education. That would desserve to be called discrimination.

We're not in that age anymore. And even if we are somewhat

Sometimes, you have to look at the past to understand the present situation.