|
28 Feb 05 - 09:50 PM (#1423500) Subject: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Susu's Hubby I wish this thread to be one of an actual discussion instead of a one liner hate fest. Where do you stand on affirmative action? There are usually three thoughts on this. 1. It helps minorities get the equality they deserve. 2. It hurts minorities by giving others the feeling of special treatment to minorities over caucasions. 3. It's purely a political idea thought up to pander for the votes of minorities. ....or are there more points of view out there? Support your view. Don't be afraid to tell us how you really feel. Don't hide behind the guest moniker. Tell all who you are. Hubby |
|
28 Feb 05 - 09:52 PM (#1423502) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: GUEST,Jesus Christ Love your neighbour as yourself |
|
28 Feb 05 - 09:54 PM (#1423504) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: mack/misophist It has it's flaws but it's better than nothing. Ideally, it should be a stopgap measure until the whole thing becomes a dead issue. |
|
28 Feb 05 - 09:55 PM (#1423505) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: GUEST,George Washington Who needs 'Affirmative Action'? .. it's all written here |
|
28 Feb 05 - 10:08 PM (#1423510) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Bobert Beats the heck out of what we used to have... |
|
28 Feb 05 - 10:30 PM (#1423513) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: GUEST,Not Bill... best wishes anyhow Is Affirmative action, the same as 'positive discrimination'? |
|
28 Feb 05 - 10:35 PM (#1423516) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Peace More like 'positive desegregation', IMO. |
|
28 Feb 05 - 10:38 PM (#1423518) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: GUEST If you reverse the sides ( black/white, female/male) and anyone thinks it is discrimination, just possibly it the original way... |
|
28 Feb 05 - 10:42 PM (#1423522) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Bobert Look, the system is still way tilted toward white folks and against black folks. I don't think, given Boss Hog's inventiveness, that affirmative action could make a dent in that basic premise in a 1000 years... But like I said, it beats what we used to have... Bobert |
|
28 Feb 05 - 11:35 PM (#1423544) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: dianavan 1. It gives minorities equal opportunities. |
|
28 Feb 05 - 11:46 PM (#1423551) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Jeep man Pure and simple, Reverse Discrimination. If a man is given preferential treatment because of race, he has accomplished nothing. America should always remain a level playing field. If a mans score does not measure up, Study,Study, Study. Jeep |
|
28 Feb 05 - 11:52 PM (#1423554) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: artbrooks Affirmative action does not, and never was intended to, mean giving one group preferential treatment over another. It means taking action to make sure that opportunities exist for people to compete rather than being shut out before they have a chance to start. It can mean, for example, recruiting for a vacant job in a "minority" newspaper in addition to the "regular" media or doing outreach in a predominately minority school to assure that students know about the availability of jobs. Quotas are another thing entirely, and so are hiring preferences. These have nothing to do with affirmative action and are, IMHO, wrong. The same principles should apply to admission to higher education. That is, admission standards should be the same for everyone, as should be academic expectations, but affirmative action implies making special effort to attract and, as needed, pay for minority students. BTW, I worked in affirmative employment for over 20 years, for the Federal (US) government (which is hardly the ogre that Bobert thinks it is) and I watched the workplace change tremendously over that time because of the positive efforts made by the government as an employer. To address the three rather loaded choices given above: It helps minorities get the equality they deserve. Doesn't everybody "deserve" an equal opportunity to demonstrate that they can do a job, without automatically being excluded because they aren't given a chance, often by simply not knowing that a job exists? It hurts minorities by giving others the feeling of special treatment to minorities over caucasions. Well, besides the fact that some "minorities" who have been the targets of affirmative action programs are Caucasians, such as many Hispanics and the majority of America's working women, I don't think this is at all accurate. Affirmative action provides an individual with the chance to compete fairly, and I have rarely encountered a situation in which the best person for the job wasn't hired, regardless of his (or her) "minority" status, and most of the other applicants didn't recognize that the person hired was the best candidate. It's purely a political idea thought up to pander for the votes of minorities. This is simple nonsense. Affirmative action is the reason that my last boss, before I retired, was a woman and her boss was a Hispanic man. They were given opportunities to compete which did not exist 20 years before, when every senior manager was a white man, and they rose to the level in the organization that their personal talents permitted. |
|
28 Feb 05 - 11:56 PM (#1423555) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Jeep man One last thought. When I was young, there were very few jobs in my home. The best paying with most benefits was the US.Post Office. I took all the tests and scored very high. I was on the list to get a job as Clerk/carrier. However I never got a job because Veterans were given a 10 point advantage. I couldn,t score high enough to outpace the many veterans applying for Federal jobs. I really didn't begrudge them their advantage. The vets had paid their dues. This is a leg up for them and I didn't get sore. The difference between this program and Affirmative Action is that little phrase; "Paid Their Dues" Jeep |
|
01 Mar 05 - 02:26 AM (#1423593) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: dianavan Jeep man - If you are a white male, this very fact gives you the advantage over any other group. Affirmative Action levels the playing field. |
|
01 Mar 05 - 03:03 AM (#1423599) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: GUEST "The difference between this program and Affirmative Action is that little phrase; "Paid Their Dues" Jeep" ever hear about slavery, jeep? |
|
01 Mar 05 - 03:10 AM (#1423601) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: GUEST,guest from NW "America should always remain a level playing field" in your second post you illustrated how there was not a level playing field. has there ever been? ask blacks, women, native americans. if you are a white male you've already got your "affirmative action". artbrooks gave a clear, good answer to a loaded question. good on ya. |
|
01 Mar 05 - 05:28 AM (#1423657) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: GUEST,Not Bill ... but best wishes anyhow From what I can glean from all of this, then, is that there are no underpriviliged white folks, out there. If Affirmative Action is only directed towards minorities, then (technically) it is discriminatory. Should it not be made a 'class' issue? That would level the field out a bit better, as far as I can see it |
|
01 Mar 05 - 06:55 AM (#1423704) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: John Hardly here |
|
01 Mar 05 - 07:36 AM (#1423732) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: GUEST,Not Bill ... but best wishes anyhow Read it. The thread started out well, but degenerated into some sort of Darwinian dissertation. Race and religion were always used to keep the poorer classes divided. I'm certain there are more underpriviliged 'minorities' than there are 'white' underpriviliged, but Jeep man's experience shows what can happen in these times. I think the underpriviliged, no matter which 'race' they belong to, should be the focus of such a program. The situation should never have to be addressed, if the truths are to be held as self-evident |
|
01 Mar 05 - 08:31 AM (#1423769) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Susu's Hubby Just a thought.......... The big three sports in the USA are baseball, football, and basketball. I don't see any racial inequality there. Those teams are created from choosing the best candidates available for the owners to choose from. If it's good enough for sports, then why not educational and corporate America? Aren't many sports franchises owned by rich, powerful white men? Any thoughts? Hubby |
|
01 Mar 05 - 09:03 AM (#1423788) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Greg F. America should always remain a level playing field Precisely the point. It never was, and is not now, a "level playing field". Idiosyncratic personal reminiscences notwithstanding. If it's good enough for sports, then why not... Because professional sport has devolved into a morally bankrupt, drug-sodden, corrupt cash cow for Bobert's "Boss Hogg". And because the "sport = life" analogy is infantile nonsense. |
|
01 Mar 05 - 09:33 AM (#1423797) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Susu's Hubby "If it's good enough for sports, then why not... Because professional sport has devolved into a morally bankrupt, drug-sodden, corrupt cash cow for Bobert's "Boss Hogg". And because the "sport = life" analogy is infantile nonsense." Greg, As usual, you are missing the point. In the sports arena, people are paid what they're worth regardless of color, creed or religion. You have whites, blacks, hispanics and asians making millions of dollars per year because they are good at what they do. If there are some bad apples at the decision making level then we need to deal with those people. Not make the playing field unlevel for everybody else. I thought we all had the same rights in this country. With Affirmative Action, it seems as if some people have "more" rights than others. Let's not spread the wide blanket of change that will end up hurting more than it helps, but rather, find the source of the problem and start there. Hubby |
|
01 Mar 05 - 09:47 AM (#1423808) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Greg F. No, Bubby, YOU'RE missing the point. Professional sport is artificial construct, comple bullshit, and not a reasonable analogy or example for anything in the real world. The assinine and astronomical salaries paid to sports figures have no relation whatsoever to "what they're worth". Besides, if you really think " we all had the same rights in this country " in practice, there's no point in further discussion with you. The rich ALWAYS have more "rights" than anyone else. |
|
01 Mar 05 - 11:13 AM (#1423879) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Susu's Hubby hmmm......are you sure? The last time that I read the bill of rights it seemed as if they applied to anybody that held US citizenship. What "rights" are you talking about? Are there more than what's in there? If so, then when were those expressed to the American people? Hubby |
|
01 Mar 05 - 11:41 AM (#1423908) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Bobert I would have to agree with Greg that sports is not a fair analogy when talking about the merits of affirmative action. Lets face it, the kids who are blessed with the size (mostly), talent and drive to become professional athletes do not mirror the population as a whole. Take football fir instance. In order to play the offensive line one must grow into 6'5", 330 pound person. If you take the population in general that is going to exclude just about ewveryone else. Sure, there are lots of obese folks out there and a few might be 6'5" but you'll find few folks who were blessed with the other attributes to allow them to be successfull as offensive linemen. Basketball? About the same story. If yer 6'8" in the 9th grade, some coach is gonna grab you in the hall between classes and try to get you into a gym. But the rest of the population? Different story. There are lots of folks perfectly capable of doing certain jobs and working in certain professions if given a chance to do so. Not every job requires the absolute best candidate. Might of fact, it has been my experience that a lot of the folks who hold down management positions ceratinly can't be the best or we're in big trouble... So, if it is a given that our society may noe have the absolute best people in every job then, hey, why not do a little experiementing in "intergtation"??? Intergration is waht it is all about, isn't it? I mean, once one gets beyond the morality issue of white men getting an unfair share of pie for thre last 270 some years here in what has become the US of A then the motive should be intergration. When Lincoln (supposedly) freed the slaves, what really did the slave get? Well, absolutely nothing, except still working on Boss Hog's plantations, Jim Crow, lynchings, the KKK, seperate-but-equal crap and like... Now if that's what folk's like hubby want to return to then they have a right to have that opinion but if we're going to take seriously the body of law, includuing the 14th Ammendment and the Civil Rights Act, which we enacted because the majority of folks felt that Jim Crow needed to be buried, then we're going to have to do some things to right the past wrongs. Now, hub, just what are your thoughts on the 14th Ammendment and the Civil Rights Act? And Part B, if you will, what ideas do you have on reaching the goals that those two important laws outline? Bobert |
|
01 Mar 05 - 11:49 AM (#1423916) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Greg F. Not to mention the 13th Ammendment. And Bubby, please re-read, this time for comprehension: I wrote "in practice", not "in theory". |
|
01 Mar 05 - 12:13 PM (#1423959) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: GUEST "With Affirmative Action, it seems as if some people have "more" rights than others." without "AA" there are people with "more" rights than others. that would be the white guys. |
|
01 Mar 05 - 12:20 PM (#1423965) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Peace This back and forth reminds me of a statement made by Dorothy Kilgallen: "If you don't smoke marijuana you don't know anybody who does; if you do, you don't know anybody who doesn't." If you don't see the need for AA, then likely you will never be convinced it's necessary. Has to do with the heart I think. Regarding sports: A player about a decade ago was given $42,000,000 to play basketball for either six or seven seasons. Nice work if ya can get it. I don't know his ethnicity--I do know that's a load of money to be paid to throw a ball through a hoop. |
|
01 Mar 05 - 01:00 PM (#1423999) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Susu's Hubby Greg, Please re-read, this time for comprehension: It's H-U-B-B-Y ! ;-) |
|
01 Mar 05 - 01:05 PM (#1424010) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Kim C I don't think race or sex should EVER be a factor in employment, university admissions, whatever. We're all People, after all. |
|
01 Mar 05 - 01:29 PM (#1424043) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Wolfgang Artbrooks has said it well. Just for my information: How much African American blood makes a person 'black' in the sense of affirmative action? For which groups is there affirmative action? African Americans, Asian Americans,...? As for sports, Hubby, you may also think of boxing (discrimination based on weight) or Olympics (with the exception of sailing and horse riding you'd see no woman competing at all if there were not separate competitions). Wolfgang |
|
01 Mar 05 - 01:41 PM (#1424063) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: wysiwyg Programs (like Affirmative Action) get complicated when a good idea for short-term tactical action becomes entrenched as a systematized strategy.... and then become further entrenched as normative culture. IMO the best programs include a good amount of attention to their own planned obsolescence. ~Susan |
|
01 Mar 05 - 03:39 PM (#1424183) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: DougR Wolfgang, I agree. Art Brooks nailed it. DougR |
|
01 Mar 05 - 03:46 PM (#1424187) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: artbrooks Wolfgang, we (in the US) have an interesting thing commonly referred to as "self-identification"...that is, you are what you think of yourself as being. I don't think there are percentages in use any more (except for Indians...and that's their choice), although it was once a normal practice . I remember a famous (at the time) case in the state of Louisiana in which a socialite (US code for rich White woman) was discovered to be 1/128 Black and was suddenly kicked out of all the organizations she belonged to...this was back in the bad old days, of course. "Hispanic" is another group that often has affirmative action programs available to it, but this term is more vague than you'd think. Legally, it means people who are from, or descended from, the Spanish speaking parts of the Old and New World. A rich Spaniard is Hispanic, but a poor Brazilian (who speaks Portuguese) is not. A person named Richardson, whose mother was Hispanic, is considered Hispanic (that would be the governor of New Mexico), but a woman whose married name is Gomez is not, unless she is of Spanish descent herself. Asians, as a "race", are usually not eligible for affirmative action...mostly because they do very well on their own...but there are exceptions for individual groups such as the Hmong. Indians, aka "Native Americans," are also eligible, and they have a specific legal priority, called the Indian Preferance Act, for positions in the Federal government in those agencies that deal directly with Indian issues (Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health Service, etc). The individual Indian nations/tribes define their own membership; they normally use percentages, but there is little consistency from one to another. It isn't impossible for a person to be 100% Indian by ancestry, but to have insufficient lineage in any specific tribe to be a member. As Susan says, the best AA programs are those that eliminate their own reasons for existance. Those for women in entry level professional positions are being, or have been, phased out. The emphasis has shifted to the "glass ceiling," which is the term used to describe the problem women have in moving past mid- and into upper management. As members of minority groups move into the level of employment at which they select those at the next lower level, the problem...and the need...will disappear. And, to anticipate the next comment, in over 20 years as a Human Resources professional, the only people who I encountered who made their job selections based upon ethnicity, race or sex were white males. Perhaps those who have been the subjects of prejudice are less likely to be the perpretrators of it. |
|
01 Mar 05 - 05:54 PM (#1424313) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Kim C A Brazilian would be considered Latino. |
|
01 Mar 05 - 07:11 PM (#1424389) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: artbrooks True, Kim. But, according to the (US) Federal government, the population group is Hispanic, not Latino, and that is how the AA programs are directed. |
|
01 Mar 05 - 09:02 PM (#1424493) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Jeep man Dianavan. When the "Playing Field" is leveled in this manner, you are removing the cream of the crop in favor of Almost as Good. Jeep Guest,Guess I had little to do with slavery, or the people who propogated it. I don't feel like I should suffer for deeds of my ancestors, no more that blacks should be rewarded for misdeeds to thier ancestors. Minorities should look around and find the real reason for their alledged inability to compete. Blaming Whitey is getting old. Jeep |
|
01 Mar 05 - 09:18 PM (#1424504) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Greg F. Guest,Guess I had little to do with slavery, or the people who propogated it. You give yourself too little credit; you're evidently one of those who enthusiastically perpetuate its legacy. |
|
01 Mar 05 - 09:26 PM (#1424508) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Don Firth There is also the matter of physical disability. I believe that is included in Affirmative Action, but if not, it certainly is in the Americans with Disabilities Act. I don't think that I, personally, have been denied a job because of my physical disability (polio at age two, walked with forearm crutches all my life; now, due to wear and tear on the shoulders from walking with crutches all that time, I use a wheelchair), because I never applied for a job that I couldn't do or at least learn quickly, and at interviews I tended to come on strong. I interview the interviewer, because I want to make sure I actually want that particular job. I've found that approach gives a whole new tone to a job interview. A few years back, shortly after I started using a wheelchair, I applied for a job as a "word processor" (this was when knowing how to operated WordStar, Multi-Mate, or MS Word was a specialized skill that not too many people had acquired yet), and there, I got my first hint of the kind of thing that someone in a wheelchair can run into from time to time. Since the place where the interview was held (not where I would actually be working) was down a long maze of hallways in one of the more sprawling buildings on the University of Washington campus, my wife accompanied me, pushing my chair when my arms pooped out. She came into the office with me and was going to wait in the reception area while the interview took place. The interviewer came out, and after introductions were made, she started out by directing her questions to Barbara, referring to me in the third person, as if I were some inanimate, uncomprehending object, not an intelligent and alert human being sitting right there in front of her. Barbara said rather stiffly, "I believe my husband is perfectly capable of speaking for himself." The interviewer turned her attention to me, but began speaking loudly and slowly. It took her several minutes of conversation to catch on to the fact that I was not sitting there rolling my eyes and drooling, but was indeed intelligent, alert, and getting a bit pissed off. As is my wont, I turned the interview back on her, and started asking her questions. I learned that, among other things, the material I would be dealing with was tediously dull, and the pay was minuscule. So I thanked her for her time and said, "No, I don't think so, thank you." I wasn't just being snotty, I really didn't want to do the kind of work she outlined. I could do better than that, And indeed, I got a much more interesting, better paying job a few days later. Many people seem to be under the impression that a physical disability is automatically accompanied by a reduction in mental capacity. If you can get by that hurdle, many employers are reluctant to hire someone with a physical disability because they are afraid they'll be required to make expensive modifications to the workplace to accommodate the person, when more likely than not, the only special consideration they need is for the rest rooms to be wheelchair accessible—which is required by law anyway. But to fill in the picture, I know a few developmentally delay people (used to be referred to as "retarded") who, if given a job within their capabilities, make diligent, hard-working employees. Affirmative Action and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act legally require that employers give due consideration to people who, for one reason or another, have all too frequently been shunted off to the side and forced to live on welfare instead of offering them a opportunity to earn a decent living by contributing to the community. Said employers often have to be dragged kicking and screaming into acting in their own best interest. Don Firth |
|
01 Mar 05 - 09:34 PM (#1424515) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: dianavan Jeep man: You said, "Minorities should look around and find the real reason for their alledged inability to compete." What do you think are the real reasons? Before affirmative action, most Blacks couldn't compete because the doors of opportunity were shut to them. Affirmative action opens the door of opportunity, no more - no less. |
|
01 Mar 05 - 10:07 PM (#1424533) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Bobert Wheres's Jim Crow and the KKK when ya need 'um, Ralph? (spit) |
|
01 Mar 05 - 10:22 PM (#1424539) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Azizi Just dropping by to say that I am reading this thread with great interest. IMO, schools and universities should be using threads like as supplemental educational resource. Another thread that earlier this evening I made the same comment about is Race stories That 2003 thread focuses on Alan Lomax's book 'Land Where The Blues Began.' It also includes posters' anecdotes about their memories of race relations when they were growing up.. Maybe reading that thread will shed some light on how unlevel the American playing field was-and to some extent-still is. For the record, I agree with artbrooks' 01 Mar 05 - 03:46 PM comment. As an African American female [who'd rather be thought of as an Human Being] I have had my share of prejudicial treatment. The one that hurt me the most was when I found out that a considerable number of White colleagues at this agency I worked at kept & passed around a N--g joke book..and engaged in such other 'fun' pranks as chopping off the heads of Black figurines that were in my office, and leaving the heads laying besides the trash can. And I thought these women were my friends. This was in the 1990s. To make a long story short, I left that place of employment with alot of emotional scars.. But life goes on...and I thought then and still believe that those former colleagues who engaged in such activities were acting out of ignorance and imaturity more than hatred. I believed then and still believe now that there are more good people in the world than bad.. But I'm convinced that laws are needed to provide protection against such situations and situations that are far worse. Azizi |
|
01 Mar 05 - 10:36 PM (#1424548) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Bobert Well said, MiziAzizi... Yeah, these days it is more about ignorance than hatred. One one hand that's good but on the other it is a sad commentary on the dumbed-downdeness of out country... But ask Joe Sixpack who's leading th NASCAR points race and he'll know that??? Sad... And yeah, I remember the Alan Lomax thread and it was interesting... Bobert |
|
01 Mar 05 - 11:23 PM (#1424571) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Peace "Before affirmative action, most Blacks couldn't compete because the doors of opportunity were shut to them." The only thing I would correct is this: The doors were shut to them before the interview. |
|
01 Mar 05 - 11:32 PM (#1424580) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Greg F. Yeah, these days it is more about ignorance than hatred. And that makes it WORSE, not better, Bobert. Hatred you can overcome. Ignorance is much more pernicious and intractable. |
|
01 Mar 05 - 11:35 PM (#1424581) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: LuteMonkey Does anyone know why we have affirmative action? Racism ain't going anywhere soon. We're talking centuries of racial problems (I can only say that for the US). It's going to take a few centuries more to rid ourselves of it. AA is trying, desperately, to speed that along. Most folks who have a beef with AA are...can you guess?...WHITE FOLKS. Affirmative action is slow. That's what I think about it. We got ourselves into this by turning fire hoses on black folks in the 60's, and raping the women folk in the 1760's, only to sell them into slavery. Hey, White man, Look upon your hands, see the blood? We got to get over this. Might as well start with AA. |
|
01 Mar 05 - 11:37 PM (#1424584) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Jeep man |
|
01 Mar 05 - 11:51 PM (#1424589) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Peace When people have been denied basic human rights for centuries, and when economic systems are in place that keep poor people poor, then yes, affirmative action policies and laws become necessary. They are not pretty, but they are necessary. The Government of the Northwest Territories has affirmative action policies. Of the eight categories, I was number eight of eight on the list. I am a Caucasian male. I think the policy is a fair one. |
|
02 Mar 05 - 12:10 AM (#1424599) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Azizi LuteMonkey, I also am very impatient with the lack of progress the United States has made in dismantaling institutional racism [in housing, health care, educational systems, employment, criminal justice systems etc]. And I am saddened by the ignorance and insensitivity some people of all races & ethnicities still have towards people whose backgrounds are different from theirs. That being said, I don't think that it is helpful to continue to blame White people alone for 17th-19th African slavery. While it is true that chattel slavery was largely orchestrated by people of European descent, it is a documented fact that Black Africans and Arabians also were heavily involved in and also profited from African slavery. Therefore Black Africans and Arabians also have 'blood on their hands', as some West African ethnic groups have acknowledged. Though I can't find the citations now, I recall reading that not too long ago some West African ethnic groups [in Ghana?] have asked forgiveness from African Americans for their role in slavery. It seems to me that while it is important to study the real history of African slavery [and other examples of 'man's' inhumanity to 'man'], it is also important to do all we can in the present to make the future better for all people-irregardless of their race and ethnicity. As the church song goes "If I can help somebody as I travel along..then my living will not be in vain..." Azizi |
|
02 Mar 05 - 02:43 AM (#1424627) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: dianavan Yes, Azizi, I think you are right when you said that there were also Black Africans that profited from the slave trade. Slavery is not a purely White concept. Slavery was practiced all over the world. It was also present in the Native populations of Pacific N.W. There will also be individuals who discriminate on the basis of colour but when speaking of Affirmative Action, we are talking about institutionalized racism. It is the responsibility of the govt. to combat institutionalized racism by implementing policies such as Affirmative Action. I am sorry you were subjected to such ignorance, Azizi. I would go even further and suggest that people who commit such acts are people who have very little personal power in their own lives. It seems to when people feel powerless in their personal lives that they seek to make the lives of others miserable. It must make you weary to forever have to discuss issues of racism. I know that there are other topics that are of more interest to you. Keep strong. |
|
02 Mar 05 - 04:30 AM (#1424683) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Azizi The subject of racism HAS come up a lot lately month here at Mudcat...Why??? Who knows..Maybe it's some cluster effect that has happened before with other subjects. Anyway, I suppose a cluster of subjects has probably happened here before. This is my 7th month on Mudcat so I can't point to any examples, but I would imagine some long time members could. And I'm not even going to mention the names of those thread on race and racism that have happened so close together within actually what seems like the last two weeks..One of which is still going strong.. Not to mention that in the last month or so there has also been politics, Blues, and Bob Marley threads that refer {referred} to race if not racism. [There was a vicious troll on a Bob Marley on the radio thread that Brucie conquered so admirably-Thanks again, Brucie!] And Dianavan, I so very much appeciated your posts on that infamous thread about that woman whose name I will not even mention. I thank you! Of course, just because those threads are there doesn't mean that I have to participate in the discussions-except for threads like "What books should I read next?' & and 'Feelin the Blues' threads which I started..Both of which mention African Americans.. But I could have 'played pass' those other threads- Free will and all that...I chose to comment. And you're right, Dianavan-I AM interested in other topics. It was actually children's rhymes that brought me to this folk community, but my special area of interest is African American rhymes..Hmmn-that subject deals with race... I'd prefer to discuss that or other things such as secular slave songs and culture -OOPS! You have to talk about race with that subject, too.. Well, I'd readily post on a thread that discussed astrology, or reincarnation, or psychic phenomenon, or dream interpretation, or science fiction books, or the history and cultural meanings of social dances in North America, South America, and the Caribbean- OOPS! that last subject would involve race and probably racism too... I'm also interested in the subject of adoption. At one time I worked in that field and, among other things, I facilitated workshops that provided opportunities for transracial adoptive parents to discuss the impact of race & racism on parenting non-White children.. OOPS! there's those two 'R' words again... Okay-I'd love it if there was a Mudcat thread on the subject of etymology, particularly slang, or the origins & meanings of names, or sound preferences among African Americans -OOPS! I'm back to issues of race.. Well I did post to the spatula thread..there was no mention of race there.. Did I mention spatulas? Is that craze still going on??! Inquiring minds want to know.. Even if I don't post to BS threads like that they provide a break from serious heavy duty matters..the pause that refreshes so energy is renewed to do what ya gotta do or want to do on a more serious tip... So thanks to all those witty, creative, [wacked out??!] 'Catters who keep making up those type of BS threads! You create them-I'll at least lurk. Peace! Azizi |
|
02 Mar 05 - 04:51 AM (#1424701) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: greg stephens Surely Affirmative Action comes into the category of the Plain Bloody Obvious. Sure it can mean the (temporary) abandonments of some quite serious principles, but so do lots of things in life. For those people who have more than one principle(as somebody said some time or other), there will come a time when they have to discard one. If you live in a society so stuck with a disgraceful past that you find yourself living in a disgraceful present, do something about it. Dont find excuses to leave it be and hope that time will cure all: it won't, on its own. |
|
02 Mar 05 - 06:07 AM (#1424759) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Liz the Squeak I'd agree that institutional racism is far more damaging than individual. I've been on the down side of 'positive discrimination'. A job was advertised internally in my local council, for whom I was working. I was not allowed to apply until certain grades had had their chance. No-one suitable was found during that stage, so it was re-advertised to the lower grades and I applied. I passed the written assessment with pretty high marks. I was appointed an interview, but the day before it, I was told the post had been filled. A colleague who had failed the written assessment got the job by pulling the 'you're failing me because I'm Asiain' card. No apology, no alternative post, no explanation was ever given to myself or the others who applied. The colleague was removed from the position after 6 months probation because she could not manage the work and it was filled without advertisement. In this case, I suffered, the colleague suffered, the department suffered, the public suffered and the council suffered (blow to confidence, managerial pressures, failure to serve, closure of service, huge budget deficiencies and bad press due to removal of services). Not one person came out of that experience without at least one scar. Giving someone a job on the basis of their ethnic background or sexual preference, rather than their ability to do the job well, will mostly end in disaster, either for the employer or the employee. I have to say that my present employer manages these things much better. There is still the vestige of an 'old boy' network, but assessments and interviews are done on a much more even system. There are women in high positions, there are black women in high positions, there are white men doing the lower grade, manual work that is 'traditionally' that of 'ethnic minority workers'. All people should be equally treated. Don - I've had the same problem. My mother is in a wheelchair and when I took her shopping, the assistant always asked me if I needed help, but never her. She's never been the sharpest tool in the box but she's certainly not stupid and can speak for herself. I would take her to the checkout and then leave her there for the assistant to deal with. It's called the 'Does he take sugar' syndrome, one that I've always tried very hard to avoid. On one particular day I'd had enough of it and when asked the inevitable 'can I help her with anything' I replied 'I don't know, can she?' addressed to the assistant behind the one who had spoken. LTS |
|
02 Mar 05 - 08:40 AM (#1424869) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Bobert Greg F, While I usually find myself agreeing with you It think it is easier to bring knowledge to a man that to take the hate out of his heart. That's what I meant by the good news/bad news. I think that most people are good people and if they just have the feacts can figure out right from wrong, But the problem as I see it, is that the badest of the bad people have usurped the power in thisa country and use disinformation as one of their tools to keep the good people divided and bickering while these bad people make off with the gold... Affirmative Action is a good example. The Bad people ahve reduced a complicated program down to bumper sticker lenght arguemnts with one side saying "Level the Playing Field" and the other saying "It's Reverse Discrimination"... Too bad that the vast area in between doesn't get talked about but it would seem that the Boss Hog and the Bad People have manipulated our society in a manner where most folks are just too busy trying not to slip down the socio-economic ladder to have much time to actually spend much time holding these progtams up to the light... One thing is for certain is that Boss Hog has in the last four years centralized power and that does not bode well for either serious discussion of Affirmarive Action or it's chances to survive... Bobert |
|
02 Mar 05 - 08:47 AM (#1424875) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Wolfgang Thanks for the long response, artbrooks. Wolfgang |
|
02 Mar 05 - 08:55 AM (#1424880) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: John Hardly It doesn't seem as clear cut an issue to me. I think that the more contemporary view of it - that of being tempered with an understanding, as described by artbrooks (above), of access, not favoritism or "handicapping" the system (giving points to those who don't earn them in order to "level the playing field") has been helpful -- and more morally acceptable. But discussions like this one show that it's still not very clear cut as an issue. Last fall I was watching an episode of "The History Detectives" on PBS. They were doing a segment on trying to uncover the provenance of a golf club that had been in a fellow's family for about 100 years. In the segment they talked, quite matter-of-factly about the country club this fellow's ancestor had belonged to at the time he participated in the US Open. It was a black family. I saw an informal, "get-to-know" type of interview with a very well-known political figure (if I said who it was the discussion would be side-tracked over personality when that isn't the point). The interviewer was either B. Walters or D. Sawyer (can't remember). This black politician was showing the interviewer the family photo album in which were pictures of her college-educated grandparents. In many northern States blacks were very vocally against affirmative action. Seems that, from their perspective, they were advancing fine without the "helping hand" even in the midst of unarguable racism. Other races succeed quite well in the US without a Affirmative Action -- in fact, are facing the reverse, as those of Asian descent are seeing relative to University acceptance in some States. Asians are at least equally different from caucasian as are blacks, and they, as immigrants, enter the country in profound poverty themselves. So, if Affirmative Action is not meant to be restitution for past wrong, how is it justifiable in light of how few other races have ever needed it to succeed in our society? It seems that the preponderance of people who favor Affirmative Action have an "institutional" rather than pragmatic or market view of the rationale behind employment. Interesting on-going discussion. |
|
02 Mar 05 - 09:24 AM (#1424904) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Greg F. It think it is easier to bring knowledge to a man that to take the hate out of his heart. I sincerely wish I could agree with you, Bobert, and I do wish you success in educating the NASCARites. You've taken on some heavy lifting there, and I haven't seen much progress in that area in the last 30 years or so. At least the person with hate in her/his heart will eventually die. Ignorance will be with us forever. Best, Greg |
|
02 Mar 05 - 09:55 AM (#1424937) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: semi-submersible Reinforcement (awards and other incentives) do lead some organisations to look at their structure to see if they measure up to standards such as diversity and equal opportunity. That, and spreading word of opportunities among target communities, are probably the best affirmative actions. Lots of people just don't notice their blinders, and would gladly correct their errors. Then programs need to provide guidelines to avoid the well-intentioned "reverse discrimination" overreaction. Enforcement should be used with much more caution. LtS's example of mismanagement is precisely what gives affirmative action the bad name expressed in Hubby's #2: special treatment to minorities. Quotas are infamous for this kind of failure. Emphatic agreement to all expressions of the need for AA to be strictly a temporary measure to combat institutionalised restrictions not based on competence. How about some pointers on the problem of identification of issues? We have discussed some obvious candidates, but discrimination against men (as in a Canadian government agency's official definition of domestic violence as violence against women and children) is just as prejudiced. Saying "now it's your turn" doesn't make it right. We all lose when Powers That Be decide that we need either a Minority Person or an Old Boy, or that male counsellors should be barred from offering their services to a shelter for battered women, however qualified. Surely there must be models for building just and healthy organisations with effective communication and open decision processes? Maureen |
|
02 Mar 05 - 10:08 AM (#1424943) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: GUEST There was 'forced integration' of blood in the military during WW II. |
|
02 Mar 05 - 11:13 AM (#1424964) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: GUEST,Uncle DaveO Don Firth, in an informative and thoughtful post, said: But to fill in the picture, I know a few developmentally delay people (used to be referred to as "retarded") who, if given a job within their capabilities, make diligent, hard-working employees. A couple of comments here: "Developmentally delay[ed]" implies that the path of "development" will be the same as in a "normal" individual, except on a slower timetable. I'm not in a position to say that none of the retarded (and that word is really subject to the same objection, I think) will, given enough time, arrive at the same development as "normal" people, but in general it's a false assumption. Indeed, it is not uncommon for a Down's Syndrome person, say, to take a long time to get to his/her peak, and then tail off substantially from there over time. I'm acutely aware of this because my son Hans, now 30, is far less vocal, far less insightful than he was when he left (supposedly, was graduated from) highschool nine years ago. In speaking with parents of other Down's Syndrome persons, this observation has been frequently corroborated. Now, as to employment, I will say that Hans works in the laundry of a local nursing home (and has for ten years), and is a valued employee. He's always there, he's always pleasant to everyone, he keeps working and doesn't goof off, does a good job at the admittedly simple function to which he's assigned. He gets good job evaluations on everything except speed of work--but they knew that and were prepared to accept it when they hired him. Dave Oesterreich |
|
02 Mar 05 - 03:18 PM (#1425177) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: susu To the "guest" who posted this idiotic statement…. "The difference between this program and Affirmative Action is that little phrase; "Paid Their Dues" Jeep" ever hear about slavery, jeep?" I have this to say, Affirmative Action is NOT restitution for slavery. The descendants of slaves are not suffering from the ramifications of slavery. In fact, those who are descendants are fortunate that they are here and not in Africa starving to death. Also, there are a lot of people who are covered by the Affirmative Action that are not descendants of slaves. Women, Hispanics, Asians, and even the handicapped. And NOT ALL black people are here as a result of slavery; some have just recently come over to this country. And not all slaves were mistreated. Get a clue! Also, I was passed over on a promotion that I was more than qualified for, for to a minority to be promoted who was NOT qualified. I was constantly being asked to help him to with his duties yet I received no compensation while he got a fat raise. This was not fair, so I eventually quit. He later got fired because he never measured up to the task. He found it hard to find a job because he then received negative references from the company stating he was sub-standard. When he did finally find a new job it paid way less than the position he was promoted from, so for him, IMHO, I would have to guess that Affirmative Action hurt him. Best to all. Susu |
|
02 Mar 05 - 04:22 PM (#1425217) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: GUEST speaking of idiotic statements... the reference to slavery related to jeep's statement about "paid their dues". "In fact, those who are descendants are fortunate that they are here and not in Africa starving to death." let me guess...you are not a descendant of slaves, but you feel quite comfortable deciding how lucky they are to have been a part of that process so they could be here now rather than in africa...my, the arrogance. "And not all slaves were mistreated." i would say the fact of being a slave constitutes mistreatment...now we have arrogance squared. as for your personal AA story...are you sure you weren't passed over for the job was because of your arrogance and inability to relate to people that don't share your prejudice? just a thought. |
|
02 Mar 05 - 04:50 PM (#1425250) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Kim C For the hundredth time, I watch NASCAR, and I'm not a freakin redneck. (If I remember correctly, Spaw is also a racing fan.) There's only been two or three races this season and frankly I can't tell you who's ahead in the points. Assuming that people who like car racing are ignorant is ignorant in itself. ArtBrooks, maybe that is how the government sees it, but not all Latinos speak Spanish; although it could be argued that Portuguese and Catalan are Spanish derivatives. Is it really fair for them to define a minority population group simply on the basis of language? Azizi, those people you worked with were idiots. I asked a black friend once how she felt about all this AA stuff. She told me pointblank that she would be pissed off if she knew she had gotten a job just because she was black. |
|
02 Mar 05 - 05:16 PM (#1425280) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: artbrooks Kim C: language has nothing at all to do with it. "Hispanic," as defined by the Feds, means a person with ancestors originating in Spain or one of the Spanish-speaking nations of the Americas. A Hispanic can self-certify as such, even if he or she doesn't speak a word of Spanish. My understanding of this, and I may well be wrong, is that a small group of mid-level Federal employees came up with this definition sometime in the late 60s or early 70s. My assumption is that none of them were of Portuguese descent. Catalans are Hispanics. In fact, to take it to its extreme, a Basque is Hispanic. On the other hand, a person from Nicaragua whose ancestry is 100% Indian is Hispanic. I'm not entirely sure how a Sephardic Jew, whose ancestors were kicked out of Spain in 1492, would be counted. Is any of this fair? Does it make any logical sense? No, but this is how it works. Susu: your experience had nothing to do with AA. That is what's generally referred to as "preferential placement," and is somewhere between improper and illegal, depending upon the circumstances. |
|
02 Mar 05 - 05:50 PM (#1425306) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Bobert KimC, Now, now, now... Calm down... When ol' Bobert get's into his NASCAR thing it ain't directed at every danged person who enjoys racing. Heck, I hate to admit it but I owned and raced a mini-stocker up until my son was born in '85 (10 laps every Friday night at Southside Speedway in Richmond... Yeah, underneath it all there's a little motorhead in me... I still got piccures of me drag racing in my teens and won about a dozen trophies back in 1965 with my drag car... But there are an awfullo lot of folks out there these days who are just way too much eat up. I got a neigbor that has more "88's" on the back of his pick-up than any person with any level of pride would have... I think he has 20 or so.. That's eat up... His entire life revolves around the 88 Car... Nevermnind, Bobert |
|
02 Mar 05 - 08:46 PM (#1425462) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: susu Guest, I am not prejudice. You do not know me so please do not try to tell me what I am and what I am not. In fact, I have distanced myself from several family members who are blind to the fact that blacks are not inferior. I have friends of all races and creeds, and their color nor beliefs are an issue, but whether or not they are good people. The guy I was referring to was a friend of mine actually, and we both knew why he got the job. Like I said before, it ended up hurting him in the long run. May I also say that to become a member on mudcat is free, so why are you hiding as a guest? Just a thought. Susu |
|
02 Mar 05 - 10:41 PM (#1425539) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Jeep man As for "Heard About Slavery?". Of course, sad comment on mans inhumanity to man. We have progressed. However, if you find someone,bound into slavery in the U.S.A., I will do my utmost at my own expense (No Goverment Money) to to return him to the lifestyle he had before slavery. I will supply money for the education he might have had before slavery. I will even supply living expenses for a period of time to be decided on circumstances. All of this will be his to do as he pleases. If he squanders his opportunities; Tough! He had his chance. Jeep |
|
02 Mar 05 - 11:43 PM (#1425585) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: LuteMonkey I am fully aware that the US isn't only to blame for slavery. But it happened. AA exist becuase it is the exact opposite of what had happened prior. If you don't like it now, you need to be patient. It will go away. After a few generations, at least. |
|
03 Mar 05 - 12:21 AM (#1425601) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: goodbar it's racist and is the same thing that made people so xenophobic back in the old days. |
|
03 Mar 05 - 10:43 AM (#1425938) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: Kim C Somehow I had the understanding that "Hispanic" referred to people from a Spanish-speaking country, and that Latin people from non-Spanish speaking countries (like Portugal or Brazil) were "Latino." That may have to do with what people prefer to call themselves, rather than what the Feds want to call them. |
|
03 Mar 05 - 11:29 AM (#1425987) Subject: RE: BS: Affirmative Action? From: artbrooks Kim C: Not exactly, and one of the problems is that people have difficulty agreeing upon terms. Here is what is probably the most widely accepted definition of the term Latino. It refers to people from Latin America, and excludes Spaniards and Portuguese. Where I live, in Albuquerque, they just went through a rather acrimonious process of renaming what used to be called the "Chicano/Chicana Studies Program" at the University of New Mexico...Chicano generally means people of Mexican descent and, in some minds, is derogatory. After they finished arguing about it, they realized that the new definition still excluded Brazilians. I'm not sure that there actually is a single word that is inclusive of all of the inhabitants of the Iberian penninsula and their descendants in the Americas. |