PDA

View Full Version : Cheapening MLK's Legacy With a Holiday



IMPress Polly
01-20-2013, 08:40 AM
It seems like everyone pimps off the legacy of one Dr. Martin Luther King on the national holiday that we will celebrate tomorrow, regardless of their actual philosophical and political persuasion. Frankly, it really feels to me as though I'm part of a very small minority of the population that actually has a right to commemorate his legacy at all, for only those of us who believe in democratic socialism and peace and civil disobedience have a right to do so. Most of those "commemorating" Dr. King's legacy, by contrast, are supporters of American imperialism as a general principle, favor capitalism over socialism, and, to be still more blunt about it, are probably also white racists who are opposed to anti-discrimination laws (or "affirmative action" laws, to use the more vague terms that our politicians prefer, seeking to honor former president JFK with their origin rather than the leaders of the civil rights movement). Even Ron Paul supporters have dared to compare HIM to Dr. King! (Such an assessment requires but seconds to debunk when one recalls that Dr. King was a self-described socialist who spent much of his life peacefully struggling for integration and race equality more broadly, whereas Dr. Paul, by contrast, is a segregationist and an advocate of laissez-faire (i.e. unrestricted) capitalism.) Declaring a national holiday in Dr. King's honor has been a great and very effective way NOT to advance his ideas and ideals, but to instead get us to fabricate ways in which our present policies and/or views in one or two isolated areas are kinda sorta vaguely similar to those espoused in one of Dr. King's weaker, yet uncoincidentally more popular, speeches: his famous "I Have a Dream" speech lamenting Jim Crow laws and culture. It is with this in mind that I believe it appropriate to take this occasion to bring to light Dr. King's worldview beyond "just" campaigning against segregated buses and lunch counters.

The following is taken from one of Dr. King's last great speeches. It is the speech in which he came out against the Vietnam War. In this speech, he spends much time (quite effectively I might add) addressing our criminal, imperial war of that era, but also expands upon his broader worldview, advocating for "a radical revolution of values". Therein he articulates specific opposition to three forms of oppression: racism, militarism, and economic exploitation. Therefore listen to the entire speech. It will become clear to the listener how much more sweeping Dr. King's vision was than the level we have watered it down to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b80Bsw0UG-U (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3 Db80Bsw0UG-U&h=tAQHmoi1V&s=1)http://thepoliticalforums.com/image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhEgASAPeCALTttfLy8mHSYNTm1FfPVt3 r3CmEJ6jqqRd7FmvWa/T484Pdg93733fad/b69k7MTfPz88DbwDSLMlmgWI/hkEKTQZvGmju0OpzmnIe6hg92DQx0Cvz8/Bp8GPf398jgyCeYJj+RPv///z+4PsXjxWeoZkW3RKnaqmrVak26TITOhGOxYWGuYaDfodjm1z2 UPEvISsPdwk+pTszhzO717i6ILZzbnTGJL1+tXnCtb1W4VPn8+ YvYi/Dy8KThpHPJc+rz6R2DG2KsYhyKG+v064ncisrgysHewF+jXi6Q LUiWRzuxOs3izdP11W/Mb0uwSiqHKRF7Dy6eLWKlYNbl1nO7ch2TG+Xs5TihN3Ovcsbex cDcv226bdnn2cPxxfDx8Nrq2pfNlxSAEki2R5PLlFW6VTGSMD+ 1Pj6rPWWvZTKeMJTfk32/fbLWsjeuNnzAfPz9/DiqN0K1Qo7Xj7/fvxt+GmrOaiKFIE63TdPk02qqaWrGadnp2X7NfsDxwcr1zNT41 hmQF////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA CH5BAEAAIIALAAAAAASABIAAAj/AAUJHCiwAA2CCAfCsaBkA5Q6CCZoSSgQzA0hJxhobELmxRQHCA d0YAOopMmSaSqAFKjAwJs/MGP+sRHICws9AzPg8MOzpx8VgaoE8qFhgEADLQAoXdonEAkRYQ JxySKowJ0DWAPxOPAjEB0OHIBYmSNBUAQzGDAEkhFoT6AjHjzw CaRjTQezSSgEWtFjS6A2ECC4CFSGQhEEVYMsCGQkQIArXwJQCY RnwQInZQUZsJMi0AzHAfIEGtOg9JMcAjNgSWAiEBMIXQLJSUAb RVGWBtAIOBPoQ6AlAoILUFOC4AAEcQhcCHSBgHMCUkKsHDigBo gRD7LDcDMEiQKKOyxUDdggJkrEGBQTFiCSPiAAOw== (https://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Db80bsw0ug-u%26h%3Dtaqhmoi1v%26s%3D1/-?pip=false&premium=false&client_uid=4062478387&client_ver=3.6.0.187&client_type=IEPlugin&suite=false&aff_id=0&locale=en_us&ui=1&os_ver=6.0.2.0)


Let's be perfectly clear: Dr. Martin Luther King was...

-a democratic socialist
-a pacifist
-an opponent of racism
-a devout Christian

Few people can call that type of worldview their own. Even I cannot truly, for example, because I am not a Christian. But being among the only Americans on board with at least three of the above four things, there is nevertheless no question in my mind that I have 50 times the right to claim Dr. King's legacy as one I genuinely uphold and respect that the average American does. Posturing is not my point here though. My point is to get us to reflect on who the man was AS A WHOLE and what he stood for AS A WHOLE on this day that we proclaim to celebrate in his honor rather than just to get a day off of school or work or business or whatever it is we do.

Mister D
01-20-2013, 10:15 AM
I see you are still struggling with this. Again, how can racial discrimination (AKA "affirmative action" laws) be "anti-discrimination"?

GrassrootsConservative
01-20-2013, 10:20 AM
How do you feel his "legacy" should be represented, if not a holiday? Maybe he should get his own religion? Communanity?
He would never survive in this day and age. His own party would lynch him as an 'uncle tom' or a 'cornball brother'.
His views aren't even respected by our own president, who thrives in his power solely by judging people on their skin color all day long. Wanting his cabinet to be diverse, <because racism is for old white men and not minorities.>
It's pathetic the way his "legacy" is "respected" these days, but what else do you expect? Saying that DRMLKJR improved race relationships is counterproductive to the leftist agenda of spreading this idea that America is still a nation of overwhelming racism and the only thing we can do to better ourselves is elect people who aren't white.

KC
01-20-2013, 10:23 AM
Is it the case that all those who are opposed to affirmative action laws harbor racism?

Is it the case that Dr. Paul, as you claimed, is a segregationist? Segregation was a policy that was only possible because it had the state governments' approval. Without the legislation passed in order to put racist values into law, segregation would have disappeared long before it actually did.

Boudreaux on Reading Hayek (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/12/boudreaux_on_re.html)explains it better than I could articulate:


In the late 19th-century U.S. South, the market was not tolerating segregation. It was too costly. And so you saw a lot of racial integration. So, how did racists get the segregation that they wanted? They needed legislation. That's why we had Jim Crow legislation. And it was the Civil Rights Acts of the middle-part of the 20th century, particularly the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that undid that legislation. And I agree that that that legislation should be, should have been undone. But it shouldn't have come in to begin with. If we had not relied on legislation to begin with, we would not have had the problem later. There is this interesting interplay--I'm sure there is a feedback loop between legislation and law. I have no doubt that Jim Crow legislation by in fact forcing blacks to the back of the bus and street car, as it were, itself helped enforce negative stereotypes.

So the problem was a government-created one, and the solution we wound up undertaking was an unconstitutional one. Of course the original laws themselves, one could argue, were unconstitutional. Boudreaux makes a good point about the feedback loop between legislation and law. Racial attitudes would not have prevailed so long if there had not been legislation passed protecting such attitudes.

One final question. Must one agree with everything, or even most of a person's agenda, in order to honor them for doing something really good in their lifetime? Most Democratic Socialists are not totally sold on Japanese internment camps, yet FDR is commonly held in high regards among them. So can those who favor small government honor Dr. King for his strong (and effective) advocacy of the rights of million of Americans, even if they disagree with some of the legislation that resulted. Of course they can.

Chris
01-20-2013, 10:42 AM
I see you are still struggling with this. Again, how can racial discrimination (AKA "affirmative action" laws) be "anti-discrimination"?

Agree, anti-discrimination laws are discriminatory.



No issue has been more saturated with dishonesty than the issue of racial quotas and preferences, which is now being examined by the Supreme Court of the United States. Many defenders of affirmative action are not even honest enough to admit that they are talking about quotas and preferences, even though everyone knows that that is what affirmative action amounts to in practice.

Despite all the gushing about the mystical benefits of “diversity” in higher education, a recent study by respected academic scholars found that “college diversity programs fail to raise standards” and that “a majority of faculty members and administrators recognize this when speaking anonymously.”

...

And that's just the start of Thomas Sowell's The Grand Fraud: Affirmative Action for Blacks (http://capitalismmagazine.com/2003/04/the-grand-fraud-affirmative-action-for-blacks/).

He he is again...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU4QyOHb9B0

Here he is interviewed by Walter Williams, author of Diversity Perversity (http://www.lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams77.1.html): "The terms affirmative action, equal representation, preferential treatment and quotas just don't sell well. The intellectual elite and their media, government and corporate enthusiasts have come up with diversity, a seemingly benign term that's a cover for racially discriminatory policy....."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvC12foKLEk

Mister D
01-20-2013, 10:49 AM
Frankly, I have no interest in claiming Mr King's grossly exaggerated legacy as my own but I think Polly is onto something albeit unwittingly. King was beautified by the white establishment and his worldview whitewashed. All his warts were removed and we are not permitted to question anything at all pertaining to patron saint of US race relations.

Peter1469
01-20-2013, 01:38 PM
Good and thoughtful post as always Polly.

I would say that MLK day came about in an effort to advance an agenda..., not to honor a man for his contribution to America. But that is high level politics.

I am still waiting his MLK's dream to be achieved:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs

One can argue that MLK was not a socialist, but rather advocating for a free market system that was not hobbled by the government, and was not infested with corporate interests.

One thing is for sure, as an orator, he was the best of the American 20th century. I don't know whether it was by design, or if he did it deliberately, but he uses all of the tools of public speaking and uses them very well.

countryboy
01-20-2013, 06:02 PM
Well, since Polly copy and pasted the same thread into two separate forums, I guess I'll do the same with my response from the other site. Never been a big fan of redundancy but.....


It seems like everyone pimps off the legacy of one Dr. Martin Luther King on the national holiday that we will celebrate tomorrow, regardless of their actual philosophical and political persuasion. Frankly, it really feels to me as though I'm part of a very small minority of the population that actually has a right to commemorate his legacy at all, for only those of us who believe in democratic socialism and peace and civil disobedience have a right to do so. Most of those "commemorating" Dr. King's legacy, by contrast, are supporters of American imperialism as a general principle, favor capitalism over socialism, and, to be still more blunt about it, are probably also white racists who are opposed to anti-discrimination laws (or "affirmative action" laws, to use the more vague terms that our politicians prefer, seeking to honor former president JFK with their origin rather than the leaders of the civil rights movement). Even Ron Paul supporters have dared to compare HIM to Dr. King! (Such an assessment requires but seconds to debunk when one recalls that Dr. King was a self-described socialist who spent much of his life peacefully struggling for integration and race equality more broadly, whereas Dr. Paul, by contrast, is a segregationist and an advocate of laissez-faire (i.e. unrestricted) capitalism.) Declaring a national holiday in Dr. King's honor has been a great and very effective way NOT to advance his ideas and ideals, but to instead get us to fabricate ways in which our present policies and/or views in one or two isolated areas are kinda sorta vaguely similar to those espoused in one of Dr. King's weaker, yet uncoincidentally more popular, speeches: his famous "I Have a Dream" speech lamenting Jim Crow laws and culture. It is with this in mind that I believe it appropriate to take this occasion to bring to light Dr. King's worldview beyond "just" campaigning against segregated buses and lunch counters.

The following is taken from one of Dr. King's last great speeches. It is the speech in which he came out against the Vietnam War. In this speech, he spends much time (quite effectively I might add) addressing our criminal, imperial war of that era, but also expands upon his broader worldview, advocating for "a radical revolution of values". Therein he articulates specific opposition to three forms of oppression: racism, militarism, and economic exploitation. Therefore listen to the entire speech. It will become clear to the listener how much more sweeping Dr. King's vision was than the level we have watered it down to.


Let's be perfectly clear: Dr. Martin Luther King was...

-a democratic socialist
-a pacifist
-an opponent of racism
-a devout Christian

Few people can call that type of worldview their own. Even I cannot truly, for example, because I am not a Christian. But being among the only Americans on board with at least three of the above four things, there is nevertheless no question in my mind that I have 50 times the right to claim Dr. King's legacy as one I genuinely uphold and respect that the average American does. Posturing is not my point here though. My point is to get us to reflect on who the man was AS A WHOLE and what he stood for AS A WHOLE on this day that we proclaim to celebrate in his honor rather than just to get a day off of school or work or business or whatever it is we do.

Excuse me? Why would you be any more worthy of celebrating MLK's birthday than anyone else?

I will submit you are less worthy of celebrating MLK's birthday than anyone else. Do you think Dr. King would approve of abortion on demand? Do you think he would approve of socialism? Do you think he would approve of his legacy being promoted by people who promote abortion and socialism?

Martin Luther King was a Republican.....

Come down off your high horse before you fall off and hurt yourself.

IMPress Polly
01-21-2013, 09:26 AM
KC wrote:
Is it the case that all those who are opposed to affirmative action laws harbor racism?

In my opinion, yes, but that's not really the subject at hand per se.


Is it the case that Dr. Paul, as you claimed, is a segregationist? Segregation was a policy that was only possible because it had the state governments' approval. Without the legislation passed in order to put racist values into law, segregation would have disappeared long before it actually did.

He's a segregationist because he doesn't believe that all forms of racial segregation should have been outlawed. In the video below, you can watch him say as much for yourself. Therein, in carefully dressed-up language, he expresses the belief that only government-owned institutions should have been desegregated. In other words, in his view, there should still be "Whites Only" signs allowed in restaurants and public restrooms and so on to this very day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbyZlFMASSM

(I've got more videos on this subject in case there is still any confusion.)


Peter wrote:
One can argue that MLK was not a socialist, but rather advocating for a free market system that was not hobbled by the government, and was not infested with corporate interests.

One can argue that Dr. King was not an outright socialist (in the sense of opposing capitalism as such, that is) for most of his life and thus that that's not the essence of his legacy taken in its entirety, but when you say that he was an advocate of laissez-faire economics, that's an impossible argument to make. Even in the video I posted in the OP, Dr. King makes his hitherto support for the Great Society programs very clear, his only criticism of which is that they didn't go far enough in his view because the Vietnam War was there taking away the resources that might have adequately funded the Great Society programs. All the evidence points to this being a consistent type of view he held concerning the role of government.

It is evident, however, that toward the end of his life he grew increasingly radical in his thinking. (Not violent, but radical in terms of his view of how significantly society needed to change.) For example, here are some of Dr. King's own words from this late period of his life that you may not be aware of: "There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism" because "something is wrong with capitalism". It's hard to misread the corresponding politics. You can find the speech from whence these words come in Robert Michael Franklin's Liberating Visions: Human Fulfillment and Social Justice in African-American Thought. Further, the link I provided in post #12 highlights more of these types of radical sentiments wherein Dr. King strongly questions whether America should be an essentially capitalist country. Now King wasn't a supporter of communism by any means, but he did believe that a considerable dose of wealth redistribution was necessary and just in order to abolish poverty and to set the races on an equal economic footing.

More information on this late transformation he underwent can be located here if you're interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76kVjRkl450

(I don't fully agree with the conclusion in the video that Obama is the "opposite" of an heir to Dr. King's legacy, but I do think that even President Obama is doing some considerable posturing in that regard this weekend in the inaugural ceremonies.)


countryboy wrote:
Martin Luther King was a Republican.....

And I'll give this claim the same reply I gave it on the other message board (http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads/1404-Cheapening-MLK-s-Legacy-With-a-Holiday?p=20524&viewfull=1#post20524) as well since it should have been more than adequate.


Well, since Polly copy and pasted the same thread into two separate forums, I guess I'll do the same with my response from the other site. Never been a big fan of redundancy but.....

Yeah, sometimes I do that with posts I make on my FB page if they're pretty long. It's just easier than coming up with fresh wording three times when you have that much to say.


Grassy wrote:
How do you feel his "legacy" should be represented, if not a holiday? Maybe he should get his own religion? Communanity?

Good question!

Well different people have different ideas on that (as you can see one of the videos I posted in this very entry), but personally I think that it's best represented as a philosophy or a life style.

Chris
01-21-2013, 10:56 AM
He's a segregationist because he doesn't believe that all forms of racial segregation should have been outlawed.

What malarkey. Laws against racial segregation are racist.

IMPress Polly
01-21-2013, 11:19 AM
Sorry Chris, but I had to link a bunch of my friends up to your above post so we could all get a good hysterical laugh in for an otherwise boring morning. Sorry to use your post as a form of public humiliation. Couldn't resist.

Peter1469
01-21-2013, 11:37 AM
I always understood Paul's position to be the limited government argument. The federal government does not have the authority to enact laws for or against segregation. It is a matter for the states to handle.

I understand that the various Congresses that wrestled with this issue used the Commerce Clause to make the link to a federal power. But this was after 1937, where the Commerce Clause became the defacto clause to confer federal power over anything whatsoever.

I would say that I could much more see civil rights laws as coming under the Commerce Clause, than most other legislation that uses that (like Obamacare as sold- SCOTUS shot that down).

Chris
01-21-2013, 11:48 AM
Sorry Chris, but I had to link a bunch of my friends up to your above post so we could all get a good hysterical laugh in for an otherwise boring morning. Sorry to use your post as a form of public humiliation. Couldn't resist.

Aw, polly, you disappoint, you find blacks criticizing the racism you and your friends advocate funny. I'd be humiliated if I were you.

When you going to come out from behind the cosplay act you're presenting everyone?

KC
01-21-2013, 11:50 AM
In my opinion, yes, but that's not really the subject at hand per se.


It's an empirical question, your opinion is irrelevant. Either all persons who oppose AA are racists or they are not. Certainly some are, but not all of those who oppose AA are racists.



He's a segregationist because he doesn't believe that all forms of racial segregation should have been outlawed. In the video below, you can watch him say as much for yourself. Therein, in carefully dressed-up language, he expresses the belief that only government-owned institutions should have been desegregated. In other words, in his view, there should still be "Whites Only" signs allowed in restaurants and public restrooms and so on to this very day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbyZlFMASSM

(I've got more videos on this subject in case there is still any confusion.)


Dr. Paul is 100% correct in that video. Racial segregation was forced by legislation. In the video, Paul talks about Jim Crow, and how it ought to have been repealed. He did oppose the Civil Rights act on the ground that it was destructive to individual liberties, if you listen to him in the video. How is it that makes him a segregationist?

IMPress Polly
01-21-2013, 02:00 PM
KC wrote:
It's an empirical question, your opinion is irrelevant.

Just trying to be polite about it. Or as polite as possible anyway.


Either all persons who oppose AA are racists or they are not. Certainly some are, but not all of those who oppose AA are racists.

Nope, I disagree. People oppose anti-discrimination laws for certain reasons. If it's because they believe themselves cheated, that's not something the data bears out. It's therefore something one chooses to believe. And one chooses to believe things for a reason. I think you get what I'm saying here.

Nobody admits to being a racist in the modern era because it's a social taboo to be one (and rightly so). Even the Ku Klux Klan today claims that they're not a racist organization. (http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/12/a-kinder-gentler-ku-klux-klan-we-do-not-hate-anyone-imperial-wizard-says/) Anyone with a functioning brain knows better though. Science has in fact proven that we are all racists whether we admit it or not. Our differences in that regard are only a matter of degrees. It's part of our "stranger danger" instinct. The only question then is the extent to which we're willing to question that instinct.

My point here is that there's a lot of denial that goes on in connection to this subject and that none of us is truly innocent.


Peter wrote:
I always understood Paul's position to be the limited government argument. The federal government does not have the authority to enact laws for or against segregation. It is a matter for the states to handle.

The position he articulates in the video seems more principled than that on the subject. For Dr. Paul, the government has a responsibility to treat its employees equitably in terms of opportunities, but should really just stay out of involvement in the affairs of private commerce and goddamn the human consequences. From an ideologically libertarian standpoint anyway, that position makes sense. "State's rights", by contrast, invariably strikes me as a cop-out or transitional position that people take to avoid coming up with a real position on a given issue.


I understand that the various Congresses that wrestled with this issue used the Commerce Clause to make the link to a federal power. But this was after 1937, where the Commerce Clause became the defacto clause to confer federal power over anything whatsoever.

I would say that I could much more see civil rights laws as coming under the Commerce Clause, than most other legislation that uses that (like Obamacare as sold- SCOTUS shot that down).

I totally need to get into law school to continue this conversation. :wink: Too much legalism for me.

Chris
01-21-2013, 02:05 PM
Nobody admits to being a racist in the modern era because it's a social taboo to be one (and rightly so). Even the Ku Klux Klan today claims that they're not a racist organization. Anyone with a functioning brain knows better though. Science has in fact proven that we are all racists whether we admit it or not. Our differences in that regard are only a matter of degrees. It's part of our "stranger danger" instinct. The only question then is the extent to which we're willing to question that instinct.

Well, we know you're a racist for advocating racist policies, you don't hide it a bit.

As for science, science doesn't prove things, polly, why are socialists and liberals so confused about this.

KC
01-21-2013, 02:06 PM
Nope, I disagree. People oppose anti-discrimination laws for certain reasons. If it's because they believe themselves cheated, that's not something the data bears out. It's therefore something one chooses to believe. And one chooses to believe things for a reason. I think you get what I'm saying here.

Affirmative Action laws are discriminatory, Polly. And you neglect the many who oppose AA because of their idealism, because they believe in a political philosophy that differs from your own.

Cigar
01-21-2013, 02:08 PM
:grin:

Chris
01-21-2013, 02:09 PM
And the race-card player grins his cheshire grin.

Mister D
01-21-2013, 02:11 PM
Polly, why is it OK in your opinion to cheat white people?

Mister D
01-21-2013, 02:12 PM
And the race-card player grins his cheshire grin.

He has likely benefited from race based policies.

Mister D
01-21-2013, 02:13 PM
Affirmative Action laws are discriminatory, Polly. And you neglect the many who oppose AA because of their idealism, because they believe in a political philosophy that differs from your own.

What someone's motivation is for opposing AA laws is irrelevant. What matters is whether they are right or not.

Cigar
01-21-2013, 02:13 PM
I guess you think it would be unfair if your Presidential Candidate Won the popular vote but Lost the Election by gerrymandering

Mister D
01-21-2013, 02:14 PM
I guess you think it would be unfair if your Presidential Candidate Won the popular vote but Lost the Election by gerrymandering

As usual, Cigar flails about when caught looking foolish.

IMPress Polly
01-21-2013, 02:16 PM
KC wrote:
Affirmative Action laws are discriminatory, Polly.

That's just not true and even the Supreme Court has agreed. I defy you to show me any numbers showcasing systematic unfair advantage. All anti-discrimination laws do is combat cultural disadvantage that would otherwise impair an employer's fair judgment. And they're not even that effective!


And you neglect the many who oppose AA because of their idealism, because they believe in a political philosophy that differs from your own.

Okay well let's trace that to its point of origin then: Why do people take up ideological positions that objectively give white Americans a distinct advantage in terms of job access? Hint: Why do you suppose it is that it's essentially only non-Hispanic white people who oppose these laws?


Mister D wrote:
Polly, why is it OK in your opinion to cheat white people?

I don't know if you've noticed this Mister D, but I'm white. I simply see no evidence that these laws produce any unfair advantage for minorities.

Mister D
01-21-2013, 02:21 PM
IMPress Polly;220050]That's just not true and even the Supreme Court has repeatedly agreed. I defy you to show me any numbers showcasing systematic unfair advantage. All anti-discrimination laws do is combat cultural disadvantage that would otherwise impair an employer's fair judgment.


So a non-white's inferior qualifications are ascribed to a cultural disadvantage (which somehow doesn't seem to affect Jews and east Asians)? It amazes me how self-loathing progressives rationalize racial discrimination.


Okay well let's trace that to its point of origin then: Why do people take up ideological positions that objectively give white Americans a distinct advantage in terms of job access? Hint: Why do you suppose it is that it's essentially only non-Hispanic white people who oppose these laws?[/

Probably because they don't benefit from them while non-whites do? Ya think? lol

Chris
01-21-2013, 02:22 PM
Polly, you simply miss the point. On what basis would you implement the anti-discriminatory policies you advocate? Policies like say hiring and admissions quotas. How would you do that but by applying the same racism you say you oppose? For you are selecting people for special treatment solely on the basis of race. That is racism. That makes you a racist.

KC
01-21-2013, 02:25 PM
That's just not true and even the Supreme Court has repeatedly agreed. I defy you to show me any numbers showcasing systematic unfair advantage. All anti-discrimination laws do is combat cultural disadvantage that would otherwise impair an employer's fair judgment. And they're not even that effective!

You cannot quantify fairness, Polly. The only policy the government can take that isn't discriminatory is that which maximizes equality in the treatment of citizens by their government. Choosing to elevate one group or another, regardless of their circumstances, is discrimination based on race. Benign racism.

Mister D
01-21-2013, 02:26 PM
That's just not true and even the Supreme Court has agreed. I defy you to show me any numbers showcasing systematic unfair advantage. All anti-discrimination laws do is combat cultural disadvantage that would otherwise impair an employer's fair judgment. And they're not even that effective!



Okay well let's trace that to its point of origin then: Why do people take up ideological positions that objectively give white Americans a distinct advantage in terms of job access? Hint: Why do you suppose it is that it's essentially only non-Hispanic white people who oppose these laws?



I don't know if you've noticed this Mister D, but I'm white. I simply see no evidence that these laws produce any unfair advantage for minorities.

It's obvious that you're white, Polly. :smiley: So, again, why do you think it's fair to cheat whites?

Mister D
01-21-2013, 02:28 PM
You cannot quantify fairness, Polly. The only policy the government can take that isn't discriminatory is that which maximizes equality in the treatment of citizens by their government. Choosing to elevate one group or another, regardless of their circumstances, is discrimination based on race. Benign racism.

Except there is nothing benign about it from the perspective of those cheated and penalized.

IMPress Polly
01-21-2013, 02:31 PM
Mister D:

I've already answered your silly rhetorical question. You're not going to get a different answer unless you show me some actual evidence that these laws do, in fact, cheat white people.


KC wrote:
You cannot quantify fairness, Polly.

You most certainly can in terms of probabilities.


The only policy the government can take that isn't discriminatory is that which maximizes equality in the treatment of citizens by their government. Choosing to elevate one group or another, regardless of their circumstances, is discrimination based on race. Benign racism.

The bolded statement is exactly what anti-discrimination laws do. That's why they're called anti-discrimination laws. If you've got evidence to the contrary, produce it.

Chris
01-21-2013, 02:32 PM
Mister D:

I've already answered your silly rhetorical question. You're not going to get a different answer unless you show me some actual evidence that these laws do, in fact, cheat white people.

Hiring and enrollment quotas.

Mister D
01-21-2013, 02:33 PM
Mister D:

I've already answered your silly rhetorical question. You're not going to get a different answer unless you show me some actual evidence that these laws do, in fact, cheat white people.

Sigh...

If you give an advantage to non-whites over whites based on race how could it do anything but impact whites negatively? Surely you're not this stupid, Polly.

Mister D
01-21-2013, 02:34 PM
Hiring and enrollment quotas.

I mean seriously? Those are the most obvious examples but does she really need them?

Mister D
01-21-2013, 02:34 PM
Are you Jewish, Polly?

KC
01-21-2013, 02:39 PM
The bolded statement is exactly what anti-discrimination laws do. That's why they're called anti-discrimination laws. If you've got evidence to the contrary, produce it.

How can Afirmative Action laws be examples of the government treating all citizens equally if affirmative action laws create different rules regarding employment for one race than another race? That's inequality, discrimination, and often, benign racism.

IMPress Polly
01-21-2013, 02:45 PM
No people, there are no "hiring and enrollment quotas". That's a myth.

And no Mister D, actually waaaaaaaay back there (several centuries in fact) my family was of Scandinavian origins.

Chris
01-21-2013, 02:45 PM
I mean seriously? Those are the most obvious examples but does she really need them?

Apparently, for she claims not to see it, hear or speak it...

http://i.snag.gy/ktTvh.jpg

Thing is besides the obvious harm to whites, there's the harm done to black as Sowell and Williams explain above but Polly ridicules (because they're black), and all told there's harm done to society as a whole. Rather than choosing candidates based on knowledge, experience, skills, and so one, she would rather choose based on something so superficial as color of skin.

Chris
01-21-2013, 02:47 PM
No people, there are no "hiring and enrollment quotas". That's a myth.

And no Mister D, actually waaaaaaaay back there (several centuries in fact) my family was of Scandinavian origins.

Ah, so now you deny the very affirmative action policies you earlier claimed. Self-contradiction is not very rational, polly.

Mister D
01-21-2013, 02:48 PM
Apparently, for she claims not to see it, hear or speak it...

http://i.snag.gy/ktTvh.jpg

Thing is besides the obvious harm to whites, there's the harm done to black as Sowell and Williams explain above but Polly ridicules (because they're black), and all told there's harm done to society as a whole. Rather than choosing candidates based on knowledge, experience, skills, and so one, she would rather choose based on something so superficial as color of skin.

Agreed. It creates resentment among the races and cheapens the real achievements of non-whites. After all, the idea that your black or Hispanic cunterpart had it easier than you is a valid and often inescapable suspicion.

Mister D
01-21-2013, 02:49 PM
No people, there are no "hiring and enrollment quotas". That's a myth.

And no Mister D, actually waaaaaaaay back there (several centuries in fact) my family was of Scandinavian origins.

Strange. I'm just trying to figure out why you hate your own people so much. I mean you choose not to see the obvious harm in such policies.

KC
01-21-2013, 02:51 PM
Like Sowell said, AA has been very good for blacks with higher education, not so great for those without.

Chris
01-21-2013, 02:52 PM
Agreed. It creates resentment among the races and cheapens the real achievements of non-whites. After all, the idea that your black or Hispanic cunterpart had it easier than you is a valid and often inescapable suspicion.

Clarence Thomas speaks to those very problems in his autobiography, My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir.

Peter1469
01-21-2013, 04:28 PM
Just trying to be polite about it. Or as polite as possible anyway.



Nope, I disagree. People oppose anti-discrimination laws for certain reasons. If it's because they believe themselves cheated, that's not something the data bears out. It's therefore something one chooses to believe. And one chooses to believe things for a reason. I think you get what I'm saying here.

Nobody admits to being a racist in the modern era because it's a social taboo to be one (and rightly so). Even the Ku Klux Klan today claims that they're not a racist organization. (http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/12/a-kinder-gentler-ku-klux-klan-we-do-not-hate-anyone-imperial-wizard-says/) Anyone with a functioning brain knows better though. Science has in fact proven that we are all racists whether we admit it or not. Our differences in that regard are only a matter of degrees. It's part of our "stranger danger" instinct. The only question then is the extent to which we're willing to question that instinct.

My point here is that there's a lot of denial that goes on in connection to this subject and that none of us is truly innocent.



The position he articulates in the video seems more principled than that on the subject. For Dr. Paul, the government has a responsibility to treat its employees equitably in terms of opportunities, but should really just stay out of involvement in the affairs of private commerce and goddamn the human consequences. From an ideologically libertarian standpoint anyway, that position makes sense. "State's rights", by contrast, invariably strikes me as a cop-out or transitional position that people take to avoid coming up with a real position on a given issue.



I totally need to get into law school to continue this conversation. :wink: Too much legalism for me.

Well I agree that if the federal government is going to employee people they should follow non-discrimination policies. But that doesn't counter my limited government (federal) argument for the powers of the federal government versus the States. State's rights is not a cop-out. It is how our Founders crafted the Constitution. Push most issues local. That gives you and me a greater chance of affecting change.

You don't need to go to law school to understand the Commerce Clause as drafted, and its eventual misuse starting in 1937. In fact a history class would be better. Law school would only focus on the evolution of the clause and accept that evolution without question.

roadmaster
01-22-2013, 10:48 PM
I don't think anyone should get a job because of their race or ancestors.