Statistics and surveys point out that more whites use drugs more often then Blacks, and yet go to jail far less than black. If we are to look at stats and apply them to a stereo-type, then the stereotype must be that white people are a bunch of drug abusers, who don't have to be responsible for their crimes. I'm all for not buying into the stereotypes, but if you want to make the argument that we should, then it is up to you.
My point is life isn't peach and rosey becuase your white. I see it all to often with young black agents that think people tell them "no" becuase they are black, yet don't realize white's receive their fair and equal rejection. The winners are the one's that push through rejection and go after their goals, and do not worry about the small percentage of jack azzes that are out their. Take that chip off your shoulder and realize the world doesn't revolve around you. You either take (through hard work and risk) what is yours, or you can sit behind a computer screen crying becuase someone else ISN'T just handing it to you on a silver platter. But the choice is yours. I just sick and tired of blacks thinking their a secret society every white belongs to where our soul objection is oppress minorities. Additionally, affirmative action will not now, nor will it ever penalize nepotism. All it does is take from those non minorities that work hard and give to those that haven't worked as hard. But what's the use trying to help you through advice. If I'm not giving you something, your not interested anyways. Thats where the problem lies.....
It's easy to "push through rejection" when you're looking down through your glass floor at the millions below you.
Your posts on this issue have really been condensending, ridiculous and borderline racists. But thanks for your advice, since its free, I guess me and the rest of black folx really appreciate it, ass hole.
And I find it equally racist for blacks to assume anything achieved by a white was achieved because of his skin color and not through risk and hard work. I suppose the only ones out their that agree with me are the Collin Powell's, Robert Johnsons, Oprah Winfrey's, etc (or as you may call them Uncle Tom's).
Colin Powell supports affirmative action dumb ass, and there was a thread about it being supported by the military in general, and I have never called any of these people uncle toms but that's another ignorant assumption where you show your true colors.
and pgabriel, I politely request that you read Jeff's thread on keeping things civil in here. These two posts, and their profanity, are truly unnecessary. http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64657
Affirmative action based on family income (if the student is under a particular age), or personal income (if beyond that age), would be fair and would likely benefit the same people who would benefit from race-based affirmative action without penalizing poor and white males for being born poor and white. As much as some would argue, a black student from a well-off family won't have any more trouble getting into a good school than a white student in similar conditions would. The white student vs. black student mentality that affirmative action discussions engender is entirely misguided. College is one of the few remaining institutions that realistically allow for upward mobility in American culture. The real problem is that good colleges are so expensive, and elitist, that a student from a poor and unestablished family, no matter how brilliant he or she may be, will face difficulties that may be insurmountable. So, for poor black students and poor white students - why do these institutions have us convinced that we have to fight EACH OTHER for the limited space/funding that good colleges make available? Hypothetically: There are 10 positions open at a good graduate school. 3 of those are filled by students whose parents are alumni. 2 of them are filled by students who could afford to get their undergraduate degree at the same university. 4 of them are filled by the sons of politicians/CEOs/Local Businessmen who have donated to the school. One position left - and now 50 eligible students (who get excellent grades, work hard, and could never afford to pay the tuition without assistance) have to fight over it. So, poor black students and poor white students are evaluated by the board of admissions, and only 1 student will be accepted. (At this point, race-based affirmative action would guarantee that one spot be given to a black person, regardless of his or her academic performance in comparison to the other students - other students who, by the way, don't have the finances to pay for school without the funding of that one spot). From this hypothetical (but realistic) situation, would you say that the REAL problem is between the poor students of different races, or between the wealthy old-guard who administer and fund the college and the po' folk who are struggling to succeed in a system where the deck is stacked against them from the day they are born? (in a trailer park or a ghetto, whatever the case may be). This has happened throughout history in some aspect - get the po' folk thinking that what's holding them back is each other, and then let them fight it out. But remember - there were 10 spots available. And, remember where 9 of them went.
Your conclusion is flawed since the 9 spots you mentioned are all based in whole or in part on wealth and income. Thus the 9 spots are unlikely to be filled by blacks since statistically they are far more poor than whites. At least you're trying to get to the heart of the issue though unlike a certain horde of posters around these parts.
The conclusion is flawed only if you read it from the naturalized "white vs. black" perspective - a perspective that is flawed in itself. I am arguing in favor of affirmative action that is income-based, and also arguing that race-based affirmative action is neither rational nor constructive. It is definitely divisive and counterproductive if one sees affirmative action as a method of allowing each person to progress according to his/her talents. One of the major points I'm trying to make is that basing school admissions on a racial quota is a disservice to everyone, because the difficulty with school admission is not race-based. It's like trying to use a toaster to chop down a tree. It's a method of avoiding the questions as to what has the most, and worst, influence on people who are trying to get ahead by proposing a easily-seen but false solution to a real problem, and encouraging people to actively debate the merits of that false solution - while nothing actually changes. In short - I thought it was apparent from the hypothetical characteristics of the hypothetical 9 students that they were from well-off families. I did not mention their hyptothetical race. They could be purple. Since it's hypothetical - let's say they're purple. But, they're well-off and will be able to attend the school for reasons entirely divorced from their actual academic performance (as long as they meet the minimum standards).
Sorry I just don't agree. Affirmative action isn't in place because x people are poor it's because x people are poor due to y treatment. A poor white person and poor black person aren't the same and never have been in this country. Attempting to sweep the race issue under the rug and use economics might make white people feel great about there not being the terrible asterisk to affirmative action (the wealthy black student getting in over poor white students) but that's not really serving to deal with the depth of the issue. Either way though an economics based system won't help poor whites anyway. Schools aren't going to recruit poor white students with this type system, the whole point of it all is diversity and proportionality. They already have all the white students they need to meet that goal.
When AA started, it was not intended to create "diversity". That is a new buzzword that was created to justify a program that legislators are too chicken to get rid of due to losing their "block votes" from blacks. The problem with AA is that it is applied to an *arbitrary* group of minorities in this country. Namely, blacks, hispanics and native americans. Why don't poor asians get it? They are discriminated against (as every group in America is by somebody), yet have not been *selected* to get to enjoy the benefits of AA. The funniest thing ever was when the city of Houston had that vote on their own little AA system a few years ago. Of course it passed, since Houston is majority minority. What a joke, having the majority vote for giving themselves more city contracts.
Poor bigtexxx, those mean old minorities are keeping him from getting his rightful piece of the pie, not only via affirmative action, but by dominating the vote in the legislatures in his latest attempt to rationalize the market prefernce for affirmative action. Why, next thing you know, they might start voting their own self-interest or that of their constituents! Boy those coloreds are gettin uppity! It must be hard to be so victiimized all the time bigtexx; stop feeling sorry for yourself, hard work and natural ability will pay off for you one day.
Samuel, you couldn't be farther from the truth. I live the good life, my friend. My hard work has provided me with a very comfortable life. I do *not* want for anything. What's truly sad is that these liberals think they are showing pity on *chosen* minorities and that they are doing them a favor by supporting AA. It does them no favors, and actually perpetuates their lower status in society.
And if Powell feels this way, then he is racist towards his own race. It pisses me off there is still a population of a few blacks out there that contine to have so little confidence in themselves. Do you actually think your imcompetent of providing for yourself? So maybe you want me to cave in and consider you incapable of self-support without the help of others.... I won't be a racist towards you and think the worst ......unlike others. You need to deprogram the way you think. Are you this way in picking up the ladies?
All that needs to be said is that two wrongs do not make a right. 1. It was wrong the way we treated minorities in the past in this country. The only folks who'd disagree with me on that are Nazis. 2. But it is equally wrong to unduly favor those minorities over white folks because of PAST trangressions. So I guess when you take away all the rheteoric, it is "You screwed me, so now, I'm going to screw you." So people of my age are going to get screwed over when it comes to job regardless of our worthiness for a position just because my ancestors were responsible for Jim Crow? 3. And Sam, how can you say that it doesn't negatively affect them? If something is simply handed to you with minimal effort, there is no sense of self-worth for overcoming obstacles. No sense of achievement. Always in the back of your mind, you will be thinking to yourself "Did they hire me for my resume....or because I belong the correct ethnicity."
He made a factual assertion based on an intuitive judgment. I am asking him to provide evidence that his assertion has any truth to it whatsoever with real world facts, not opinions, propositions, suppositions, conjecture, etc. As per usual, that is what you responded with. But that is not what I am soliciting. Prove that affirmative action perpetuates "lower status" by minority groups in society. Or don't even prove it. Just give some evidence, any evidence.
