Does believing that 'Reverse Discrimination' is Wrong mean you're a racist?

[Standing Wolf]

DeVos Civil Rights Office Pick Once Claimed Discrimination for Being White

Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has appointed as the acting head of the department's Office for Civil Rights a woman who once complained of discrimination for being white. The appointment has civil rights advocates leery of the choice.
Attorney Candice Jackson, who was announced as the deputy assistant secretary in the Office for Civil Rights on Wednesday, spoke out about being discriminated against for being white as a college student, according to a report by ProPublica.

https://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_15/1965691/170414-candice-jackson-department-of-education-se-445p_adbeefea3e2167f520a1f61fafc6e172.nbcnews-ux-320-320.jpg

During her time at Stanford University in the mid-1990s, Jackson "gravitated towards a section of the class that provided students with extra help on challenging problems." After finding out it was for minority students, according to ProPublica, she wrote in the Stanford Review, "I am especially disappointed that the University encourages these and other discriminatory programs."

She added, "We need to allow each person to define his or her own achievements instead of assuming competence or incompetence based on race."

Jackson also penned an op-ed blasting affirmative action saying it "promotes racial discrimination," according to to the report.

"As with most liberal solutions to a problem, giving special assistance to minority students is a band-aid solution to a deep problem," she wrote. "No one, least of all the minority student, is well served by receiving special treatment based on race or ethnicity."

Jackson also has written extensively in favor of an economist, Murray N. Rothbard, who called the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "monstrous" and "the source of all the rest of the ills," as well as denounced compulsory education, according to the report.

The revelations have drawn concern from civil rights advocates who feel Jackson's ideas on race may be at odds with the office's mission of ensuring "vigorous enforcement of civil rights" and serves "student populations facing discrimination and the advocates and institutions promoting systemic solutions to civil rights problems."

"It's not someone I would want to see in this position," said Theodore Shaw, director of the Center for Civil Rights at the University of North Carolina School of Law. "We have good reason to be deeply worried about the enforcement of civil rights at the Department of Education," he said, adding that Jackson's background doesn't indicate any strong experience in civil rights or education issues.

Jackson and the Department of Education did not return NBC News' requests for comment.

However, Jackson did say on her personal website that she was "honored by the opportunity to serve our nation's students and schools."

Liliana Garces, co-director of the Center for Education and Civil Rights at Pennsylvania State University, expressed concern. "I am deeply troubled that someone who has held an idea of reverse discrimination will be holding this role," she said.

"The idea of reverse racism equates being conscious of race with racial discrimination," Garces added. "Statements about reverse discrimination reflect a particular ideology that is detrimental to how we go about addressing racial inequality."

[Mister D]

Very interesting...

[Common]

"Statements about reverse discrimination reflect a particular ideology that is detrimental to how we go about addressing racial inequality."

That statement is telling, of course theres reverse descrimination and because someone is a victim of it and is vocal about it, thats no indication they themselves are racist.

I dont buy the lefts ideology that only white men can be racist

[Standing Wolf]

What that last quote says to me is, "If you question the premise that it's acceptable to treat individuals unfairly because their skin is White, you are part of the problem. 'Discrimination' should only ever be used to describe unequal or unfair treatment of racial minority members."

[Chris]

Laws against discrimination ought to be neutral with regard to race, for general welfare and not special to any.

I suspect calling some racist for invoking those laws is meant to deter such claims through shame.

[Mister D]

While I agree with you all the problem here is really this obsession we have with equality. We've committed ourselves to chasing a chimera and have done a great deal of damage to our society in the process.

[DGUtley]

My oldest was AA'd out of a Pharm D program in Ohio -- despite the official position that they didn't engage in AA. I sued the university and told them: 'If they were equally qualified, you'd have never heard from me. Just give me one reason why this man with a 3.2 was taken over her with a 3.9 and you'll never hear from me again." They couldn't. They paid. She transferred and finished in the top 10% of her class at a different university.

I'm against it. There was a time for it. I think that time has passed. I think the Court will agree with me. Disparate treatment on the basis of race is discrimination.

[Chris]

While I agree with you all the problem here is really this obsession we have with equality. We've committed ourselves to chasing a chimera and have done a great deal of damage to our society in the process.

Yes, there's that. I can understand equality before the law, iow, the government ought to treat everyone equally, it shouldn't discriminate. It's when that concept is forced on society that we head for trouble because it's impossible to achieve.

[Common]

What that last quote says to me is, "If you question the premise that it's acceptable to treat individuals unfairly because their skin is White, you are part of the problem. 'Discrimination' should only ever be used to describe unequal or unfair treatment of racial minority members."
I disagree discrimination is just that no matter who is the recipient

[Mister D]

Yes, there's that. I can understand equality before the law, iow, the government ought to treat everyone equally, it shouldn't discriminate. It's when that concept is forced on society that we head for trouble because it's impossible to achieve.
Right but, more precisely, the expectations and demands we raise people to have cannot be met. This leads to resentment, anger and a perception that society has somehow failed. I think we can all agree that the contemporary USA is filled with aggrieved individuals who think society as somehow failed them or, worse yet, kept them from what is rightfully theirs.

[Adelaide]

Any form of discrimination based on factors you can't control is not right or fair. Affirmative action had good intentions but has been a bit of a problem or caused some problems. That said, I really have to struggle to muster any/much sympathy for those that claim that being a white, Christian male is hard in general. Sure, there are specific situations that could arise where I would agree there is discrimination but complaining generally that being in that demographic is difficult kind of makes me roll my eyes a bit.

[Standing Wolf]

Attorney Candice Jackson, who was announced as the deputy assistant secretary in the Office for Civil Rights on Wednesday, spoke out about being discriminated against for being white as a college student, according to a report by ProPublica. During her time at Stanford University in the mid-1990s, Jackson "gravitated towards a section of the class that provided students with extra help on challenging problems." After finding out it was for minority students, according to ProPublica, she wrote in the Stanford Review, "I am especially disappointed that the University encourages these and other discriminatory programs."
This reminded me of a story from a book called 'The Dictatorship of Virtue', in which a young man was participating in a training course for university student advisors. They were told that in dealing with students, they were to assume that Black and Hispanic students had come from an underprivileged background and that White students had not. He raised his hand and related that he had spent time in Appalachia, where there were some very poor White people, and he questioned why they were being instructed to assume anything of that kind because of a student's race. He was later called before the people conducting the course, chastised for his "insensitivity", and told that he would have to publicly apologize before the entire class before being allowed to continue with the training.

[Common]

Any form of discrimination based on factors you can't control is not right or fair. Affirmative action had good intentions but has been a bit of a problem or caused some problems. That said, I really have to struggle to muster any/much sympathy for those that claim that being a white, Christian male is hard in general. Sure, there are specific situations that could arise where I would agree there is discrimination but complaining generally that being in that demographic is difficult kind of makes me roll my eyes a bit.
Affirmative action was a big improvement over the original quota system. The quota was all major companies had to hire minorities until they had 15%. If they company had 400 employees that mean 60 minorities had to be hired before anyone else. In the brewery where I worked and could never get permanent status because I wasnt a miniorty, they didnt hire that many in years

[Adelaide]

Affirmative action was a big improvement over the original quota system. The quota was all major companies had to hire minorities until they had 15%. If they company had 400 employees that mean 60 minorities had to be hired before anyone else. In the brewery where I worked and could never get permanent status because I wasnt a miniorty, they didnt hire that many in years
I think my father's workplace opts to use a percentage because it is more helpful for tax purposes. My dad likes to joke that he meets the quota for the disabled persons portion because he is 15% disabled (had surgery for carpal tunnel back in the early 90s). He isn't a visual minority, but the company gets a tax deduction for having a certain percentage of people with a disability. Pretty sure my dad is all that is needed. Majority of the people he works with are Middle Eastern, Asian or Eastern European (high tech engineering company - worked on the Mars rover(s) cameras, and crap like that).

[The Xl]

In 2017, affirmative action is legalized bigotry.

[The Xl]

Any form of discrimination based on factors you can't control is not right or fair. Affirmative action had good intentions but has been a bit of a problem or caused some problems. That said, I really have to struggle to muster any/much sympathy for those that claim that being a white, Christian male is hard in general. Sure, there are specific situations that could arise where I would agree there is discrimination but complaining generally that being in that demographic is difficult kind of makes me roll my eyes a bit.

Not every white Christian is born with money and status.

[donttread]

DeVos Civil Rights Office Pick Once Claimed Discrimination for Being White

Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has appointed as the acting head of the department's Office for Civil Rights a woman who once complained of discrimination for being white. The appointment has civil rights advocates leery of the choice.
Attorney Candice Jackson, who was announced as the deputy assistant secretary in the Office for Civil Rights on Wednesday, spoke out about being discriminated against for being white as a college student, according to a report by ProPublica.

https://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_15/1965691/170414-candice-jackson-department-of-education-se-445p_adbeefea3e2167f520a1f61fafc6e172.nbcnews-ux-320-320.jpg

During her time at Stanford University in the mid-1990s, Jackson "gravitated towards a section of the class that provided students with extra help on challenging problems." After finding out it was for minority students, according to ProPublica, she wrote in the Stanford Review, "I am especially disappointed that the University encourages these and other discriminatory programs."

She added, "We need to allow each person to define his or her own achievements instead of assuming competence or incompetence based on race."

Jackson also penned an op-ed blasting affirmative action saying it "promotes racial discrimination," according to to the report.

"As with most liberal solutions to a problem, giving special assistance to minority students is a band-aid solution to a deep problem," she wrote. "No one, least of all the minority student, is well served by receiving special treatment based on race or ethnicity."

Jackson also has written extensively in favor of an economist, Murray N. Rothbard, who called the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "monstrous" and "the source of all the rest of the ills," as well as denounced compulsory education, according to the report.

The revelations have drawn concern from civil rights advocates who feel Jackson's ideas on race may be at odds with the office's mission of ensuring "vigorous enforcement of civil rights" and serves "student populations facing discrimination and the advocates and institutions promoting systemic solutions to civil rights problems."

"It's not someone I would want to see in this position," said Theodore Shaw, director of the Center for Civil Rights at the University of North Carolina School of Law. "We have good reason to be deeply worried about the enforcement of civil rights at the Department of Education," he said, adding that Jackson's background doesn't indicate any strong experience in civil rights or education issues.

Jackson and the Department of Education did not return NBC News' requests for comment.

However, Jackson did say on her personal website that she was "honored by the opportunity to serve our nation's students and schools."

Liliana Garces, co-director of the Center for Education and Civil Rights at Pennsylvania State University, expressed concern. "I am deeply troubled that someone who has held an idea of reverse discrimination will be holding this role," she said.

"The idea of reverse racism equates being conscious of race with racial discrimination," Garces added. "Statements about reverse discrimination reflect a particular ideology that is detrimental to how we go about addressing racial inequality."




Of course it makes you racist. Just reading your post made me a racist. Oh wait I'm a white 50 something white guy so I was automatically racist to begin with.
We cannot speak of the fact that other groups are racist, especially blacks who on average are probably more racist than whites are. Ultra libs even seem to give black males a pass on how they treat women . .
If we brought back assimilation and treated racism and sexism as the multi-directional issues they are . Well if we did that we might make progress with these problems and then what would the politicians and media have to talk about? How would Al sharpton types make a living? We might even make progress with poverty and destroy the dems entire platform.
But for now you sir are a racist in the millenial mind. Good for you that you probably don't give a damn what they think. Now I probably have to donnate to BLM to absolve me of the racist sin of reading your post!
What are you going to do next question Affirmtive Action ?

[decedent]

Affirmative Action is needed until there's equality. When I hear things like "I woudn't put him on the cash register because he's black," I am reminded that AA is necessary. When I hear that 2% of google's engineers are black, I'm reminded that AA is necessary. When I hear that black people have 13 times less wealth than white people, I'm reminded that AA is necessary.

[donttread]

Affirmative Action is needed until there's equality. When I hear things like "I woudn't put him on the cash register because he's black," I am reminded that AA is necessary. When I hear that 2% of google's engineers are black, I'm reminded that AA is necessary. When I hear that black people have 13 times less wealth than white people, I'm reminded that AA is necessary.

AA is outright saying to blacks "you can't compete with whites " so well tilt the table a little for you "cause you dumb son"
AA is liberal nanny state racism. It's where the dems say what they reallly mean.
"We are superior to you so we'll help you cause we're so wonderful." It's insulting and dependence generating . But then again that's what the war on poverty is all about. Think about it if we started actually fixing poverty and race relations the dems wouldn't have a platform left. Their entire existence depends upon people staying poor, blacks staying in the hood and all "needing" the "generous" ultra libs

[decedent]

AA is outright saying to blacks "you can't compete with whites " so well tilt the table a little for you"...


Correct. Whites have a monopoly on social, fiscal, legal and political power. Have you seen a lineup of the Senate lately? What's the race of most CEOs? How many black billionaires are there? Just look around and you see the effects of social exclusion.

[The Xl]

Affirmative Action is needed until there's equality. When I hear things like "I woudn't put him on the cash register because he's black," I am reminded that AA is necessary. When I hear that 2% of google's engineers are black, I'm reminded that AA is necessary. When I hear that black people have 13 times less wealth than white people, I'm reminded that AA is necessary.

That's the government screwing over the average black person, not the average white person. There isn't a reason for them to subsidize or be forced to hire someone less than stellar because of what the government has done.

[Mister D]

Correct. Whites have a monopoly on social, fiscal, legal and political power. Have you seen a lineup of the Senate lately? What's the race of most CEOs? How many black billionaires are there? Just look around and you see the effects of social exclusion.
Most of the professions requiring greater cognitive ability see a dearth of blacks. Yeah, "social exclusion". That's it.

[Mister D]

That's the government screwing over the average black person, not the average white person. There isn't a reason for them to subsidize or be forced to hire someone less than stellar because of what the government has done.
Decedent is a dinosaur.

[Peter1469]

Correct. It is the soft bigotry of low expectations.

It has its roots in slavery- some saw the slaves as less than human and needed to be protected.

You don't really see these issues in Europe. And they have a lot of disadvantaged minorities. (Of course, they have other serious issues.)


AA is outright saying to blacks "you can't compete with whites " so well tilt the table a little for you "cause you dumb son"
AA is liberal nanny state racism. It's where the dems say what they reallly mean.
"We are superior to you so we'll help you cause we're so wonderful." It's insulting and dependence generating . But then again that's what the war on poverty is all about. Think about it if we started actually fixing poverty and race relations the dems wouldn't have a platform left. Their entire existence depends upon people staying poor, blacks staying in the hood and all "needing" the "generous" ultra libs

[donttread]

Correct. Whites have a monopoly on social, fiscal, legal and political power. Have you seen a lineup of the Senate lately? What's the race of most CEOs? How many black billionaires are there? Just look around and you see the effects of social exclusion.

Most people raised in poverty don't rise to those positions. We are fairly poor at upward mobility as a nation and more vblacks are poor so... Why not look at middle management, sales , healthcare jobs or the NBA. Nobody is just going to hand you a CEO job. I also think what you see is what happens to people when you tell them indirectly they aren't good enough to compete and then give them an automatic blame card.

[donttread]

Affirmative Action is needed until there's equality. When I hear things like "I woudn't put him on the cash register because he's black," I am reminded that AA is necessary. When I hear that 2% of google's engineers are black, I'm reminded that AA is necessary. When I hear that black people have 13 times less wealth than white people, I'm reminded that AA is necessary.

Well apparently it hasn't worked and AA's been around a long time. Beat that dead horse! We are a country that re-elected a black man president after he had done the worst fiscal job in history. There is no systemic racism . Earn it!

[decedent]

Most of the professions requiring greater cognitive ability see a dearth of blacks. Yeah, "social exclusion". That's it.

If you think black people are too stupid to work then why would you complain about their employment?

[Mister D]

If you think black people are too stupid to work then why would you complain about their employment?
I don't think black people are too stupid to work. Not sure where you got that from. Anyway, most professions requiring greater cognitive ability see a dearth of blacks. Yeah, it's "social exclusion". :rollseyes:

[Safety]

Correct. It is the soft bigotry of low expectations.

It has its roots in slavery- some saw the slaves as less than human and needed to be protected.

You don't really see these issues in Europe. And they have a lot of disadvantaged minorities. (Of course, they have other serious issues.)

Europe didn't participate in chattel slavery, just the slave trade. They also didn't have the equivalent of Jim Crow laws, so blacks and other minorities there had equal opportunities from the get go.

The thing that so many choose to ignore is that although the programs were the fault of the government, the government consisted of people from society. When society changed, the government changed.

[Peter1469]

Europe didn't participate in chattel slavery, just the slave trade. They also didn't have the equivalent of Jim Crow laws, so blacks and other minorities there had equal opportunities from the get go.

The thing that so many choose to ignore is that although the programs were the fault of the government, the government consisted of people from society. When society changed, the government changed.

Minorities decidedly don't have equal opportunity in Europe- other than the extent they assimilate.

[Mister D]

I'd imagine that selling chattel slaves was a big part of chattel slavery...

[Safety]

Minorities decidedly don't have equal opportunity in Europe- other than the extent they assimilate.

Maybe not equal, per se, but definitely better than what was experienced here in the deep south. Assimilation is also a big key in harmonizing society.

[Safety]

I'd imagine that selling chattel slaves was a big part of chattel slavery...

I reckon, if splitting hairs is the goal.

[The Xl]

Europe didn't participate in chattel slavery, just the slave trade. They also didn't have the equivalent of Jim Crow laws, so blacks and other minorities there had equal opportunities from the get go.

The thing that so many choose to ignore is that although the programs were the fault of the government, the government consisted of people from society. When society changed, the government changed.

What had relevance in 1960 doesn't now.

I think black people from that generation got screwed. They should have gotten a heavy reparations payout back then directly from the bank accounts and assets of politicians and their constituents who championed those racist policies. Unfortunately that didn't happen, and the time for that has come and gone. Now America is in the business of subsidizing a generation that didn't go through slavery or segregation at the expense of people who didn't perpetrate it. That's wrong.

Black people are still getting fucked with, for sure. The drug war, a pay for justice court system, horrific public schools, that's just scratching the surface. That isn't perpetrated by average white folk, though.

[Mister D]

I reckon, if splitting hairs is the goal.
You aren't using that term properly. Like I said, I'd imagine that selling chattel slaves was a big part of chattel slavery. Feel free to disagree of course. "It's not 1916 anymore!" :wink:

[Safety]

What had relevance in 1960 doesn't now.

I think black people from that generation got screwed. They should have gotten a heavy reparations payout back then directly from the bank accounts and assets of politicians and their constituents who championed those racist policies. Unfortunately that didn't happen, and the time for that has come and gone. Now America is in the business of subsidizing a generation that didn't go through slavery or segregation at the expense of people who didn't perpetrate it. That's wrong.

Black people are still getting fucked with, for sure. The drug war, a pay for justice court system, horrific public schools, that's just scratching the surface. That isn't perpetrated by average white folk, though.

America is subsidizing much more than that. It's easy to single out blacks as the recipients of AA and argue against it because it is low hanging fruit, but let's not forget the millions of white women, hispanics, or native Americans whom are also being subsidized by AA, but is not being mentioned.

This is the same argument that several here make in regards to welfare, in saying how that was "black folk's" reparations, but suddenly lose their voice when I ask how come white people in Kentucky are on it at a rate of 90%....

[Safety]

You aren't using that term properly. Like I said, I'd imagine that selling chattel slaves was a big part of chattel slavery. Feel free to disagree of course. "It's not 1916 anymore!" :wink:

Yes I am using it properly, you are trying to marginalize what I am saying by deflecting from my intent.

There is a huge difference in participating in chattel slavery and running slaves. Is there not a difference in using drugs and selling them? How about being a prostitute and being a pimp?

[Mister D]

Yes I am using it properly, you are trying to marginalize what I am saying by deflecting from my intent.

There is a huge difference in participating in chattel slavery and running slaves. Is there not a difference in using drugs and selling them? How about being a prostitute and being a pimp?
There were no Jim Crow type laws because there were no black people (obviously, I mean very few so please...).

I'm sorry but I don't think so. I think those selling human beings like cattle are just as culpable as those who buy them. But that's just me.

[midcan5]

"White children, in the main, and whether they are rich or poor, grow up with a grasp of reality so feeble that they can very accurately be described as deluded--about themselves and the world they live in. White people have managed to get through their entire lifetimes in this euphoric state, but black people have not been so lucky: a black man who sees the world the way John Wayne, for example, sees it would not be an eccentric patriot, but a raving maniac." James Baldwin

[Safety]

There were no Jim Crow type laws because there were no black people (obviously, I mean very few so please...).

I'm sorry but I don't think so. I think those selling human beings like cattle are just as culpable as those who buy them. But that's just me.

So, it's comparing apples to oranges...thanks, I believe I said that already. My "splitting hairs" comment should have ended this discussion a while ago.

[Mister D]

So, it's comparing apples to oranges...thanks, I believe I said that already. My "splitting hairs" comment should have ended this discussion a while ago.
Did you really just say that buying and selling chattel slaves is like apples and oranges?

[Ethereal]

Europe didn't participate in chattel slavery, just the slave trade.

Irish and Scottish people were often treated worse than chattel slaves by the English monarchy and aristocracy.

[Safety]

Did you really just say that buying and selling chattel slaves is like apples and oranges?

No. Participating in the slave trade, is not the same as owning and fighting for chattel slavery.

[Ethereal]

While I agree with you all the problem here is really this obsession we have with equality. We've committed ourselves to chasing a chimera and have done a great deal of damage to our society in the process.

That depends on what sort of equality we're talking about. The equality of outcomes, which is largely a Marxist construct, or the equality of rights, which seems to be axiomatic.

[Safety]

Irish and Scottish people were often treated worse than chattel slaves by the English monarchy and aristocracy.

Ok. I reckon there was a point you were making, because penal transportation and indentured servitude is not chattel slavery.

[Ethereal]

No. Participating in the slave trade, is not the same as owning and fighting for chattel slavery.

Wow.

The transatlantic slave trade was typically far worse than the actual institution of chattel slavery. That is a big reason why it was banned in America long before chattel slavery was abolished.

[Safety]

That depends on what sort of equality we're talking about. The equality of outcomes, which is largely a Marxist construct, or the equality of rights, which seems to be axiomatic.

I have yet to see anyone here say they want equal outcomes, only equal opportunities. You know of some that have?

[Ethereal]

Ok. I reckon there was a point you were making, because penal transportation and indentured servitude is not chattel slavery.

My point is that Irish and Scottish people were treated much worse than chattel slaves in many instances. It's all there in the history books if you care to read it.

[Safety]

Wow.

The transatlantic slave trade was typically far worse than the actual institution of chattel slavery. That is a big reason why it was banned in America long before chattel slavery was abolished.

That's a pretty arrogant statement to make, isn't it?

[Mister D]

No. Participating in the slave trade, is not the same as owning and fighting for chattel slavery.
IOW, selling chattel slaves and owning them is apples and oranges. I didn't realize you thought so highly of slave traders.

[Ethereal]

I have yet to see anyone here say they want equal outcomes, only equal opportunities. You know of some that have?

I just said it is a Marxist construct, so that would mean Marxists (and their ideological ilk) subscribe to that belief.

[Mister D]

That's a pretty arrogant statement to make, isn't it?
You misspelled accurate.

[Safety]

My point is that Irish and Scottish people were treated much worse than chattel slaves in many instances. It's all there in the history books if you care to read it.

I have, which is why I'm able to discuss why your attempt to find equivalency is in err.

[Ethereal]

That's a pretty arrogant statement to make, isn't it?
No, it's a factual statement based on history. Scores of slaves would die in transit to the Americas and the conditions aboard the ships were generally horrific. Once they arrived in the American south, their chances for survival and even some measure of contentment increased markedly.

[Mister D]

I have yet to see anyone here say they want equal outcomes, only equal opportunities. You know of some that have?
Equal opportunity is a lie. It always will be.

[Safety]

I just said it is a Marxist construct, so that would mean Marxists (and their ideological ilk) subscribe to that belief.

Ok, yet I have not heard anyone here advocate for equal outcomes. Wouldn't that be an important step to address?

[Ethereal]

I have, which is why I'm able to discuss why your attempt to find equivalency is in err.
I'm not talking about JUST those institutions you referred to, I'm talking about the general treatment that Irish and Scottish people received over many centuries. Starved, murdered, tortured, raped, etc.

[Mister D]

No, it's a factual statement based on history. Scores of slaves would die in transit to the Americas and the conditions aboard the ships were generally horrific. Once they arrived in the American south, their chances for survival and even some measure of contentment increased markedly.
That's true of North American slavery. Slavery in the sugar growing regions of the Caribbean was tantamount to a death sentence. People think you're apologizing for the institution when you point out highly significant differences in practice but whatevs.

[Safety]

No, it's a factual statement based on history. Scores of slaves would die in transit to the Americas and the conditions aboard the ships were generally horrific. Once they arrived in the American south, their chances for survival and even some measure of contentment increased markedly.

The number may be factual, but you are quantifying how better or worse it was for the slave. That is your subjective opinion that can't be backed up by facts.

[Safety]

Equal opportunity is a lie. It always will be.

Kool, thanks for sharing.

[Mister D]

Kool, thanks for sharing.
You're welcome. Don't say I never did anything for you people. :smiley:

[Safety]

I'm not talking about JUST those institutions you referred to, I'm talking about the general treatment that Irish and Scottish people received over many centuries. Starved, murdered, tortured, raped, etc.

Ok, now what does that have to do with the discussion of Jim Crow and how blacks in America and blacks in Europe have assimilated.

[Safety]

You're welcome. Don't say I never did anything for you people. :smiley:

No need, your actions are well documented.

[Mister D]

Ok, now what does that have to do with the discussion of Jim Crow and how blacks in America and blacks in Europe have assimilated.
There were no blacks to assimilate into European societies until recently. See Peter's comments. If we want to understand what Europeans generally thought of blacks at the time of Jim Crow we should look to the policies they adopted in their African colonies.

[Scrounger]

Correct. Whites have a monopoly on social, fiscal, legal and political power. Have you seen a lineup of the Senate lately? What's the race of most CEOs? How many black billionaires are there? Just look around and you see the effects of social exclusion.

Gee, I know I'm about to step into it.... but....

Even if the black people think that they were mistreated in the past is not justification to blame them and punish the current generation for the present.

Blaming racism is short sighted, possibly dishonest. The richest minority group in America are from India:

http://blogs.voanews.com/all-about-america/2015/05/08/this-us-ethnic-group-makes-the-most-money/

A lot of opinions are out there and try to explain why other races outpace the blacks:

https://www.quora.com/Why-have-African-Americans-been-outpaced-economically-by-other-immigrant-groups-who-came-later-to-the-U-S

My feeling is this: IF slavery is still the excuse (and many whites came to America as slaves), then generations later that is the issue, it will never be resolved until the last white person is intermarried to a non-white and NO whites exist OR the black people will have to emigrate to Africa.

The liberals are trying to make this two wrongs make a right argument. A quick look at places like Chicago seem to indicate that it's not really the whites to blame, but rather, black people cannot (as a race) assimilate into our culture.

If race is colorblind, then how come the black people judge the rest of this country by how many black people they see in a given occupation? In areas where they dominate, they are protective of their status and see nothing wrong with it. If I am the one being discriminated against, then it cannot be brushed off nor marginalized by calling me a racist. If racism is wrong, then it's wrong. But, if one race feels they deserve something on account of their race - and by blaming what happened several generations ago to be the culprit as justification, it might be that you have to consider what Lincoln stated:

"...the negroes and the whites must either wholly part or wholly mingle."

Everybody has a point on this:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/slavery-reparations-final-piece-obama-apartheid-state-henderson

So, tell me, who among is going to be the first to marry outside your race in order to stamp out racism?

[Standing Wolf]

Ok, yet I have not heard anyone here advocate for equal outcomes. Wouldn't that be an important step to address?

"Equal outcomes" is one of those things that's nice to think about...like every child and puppy having a safe, loving home. The question is, to what lengths is Society willing to go in its attempt to achieve that goal?

The justifications that I hear for racial preferences in hiring, promotions, school admissions, etc., all deal with how well or poorly one "group" is doing, in terms of employment, income or status, compared with the others. In a nutshell, what is being said - without it really being said - is, "You White people are going to have to bite the bullet, as individuals, because as a group you are in a better position than others".

My first priority, some would say my obsession, is justice for the individual. If the color of someone's skin is being used to keep them down, or to exclude them from something to which they aspire, I find that to be wrong. How other individuals with their particular skin color are or are not doing is completely irrelevant. We live our lives as individuals, however closely we may identify with others, and it should be as individuals that the Law treats us.

[The Xl]

America is subsidizing much more than that. It's easy to single out blacks as the recipients of AA and argue against it because it is low hanging fruit, but let's not forget the millions of white women, hispanics, or native Americans whom are also being subsidized by AA, but is not being mentioned.

This is the same argument that several here make in regards to welfare, in saying how that was "black folk's" reparations, but suddenly lose their voice when I ask how come white people in Kentucky are on it at a rate of 90%....

And they shouldn't be subsidizing those groups either. But no one really argues that those groups should be subsidized.

[Mister D]

Equal opportunity falls into the same category. It's nice to think about but it's just as unreal as equal outcomes. These are very dangerous fictions. They tear at the roots of American society.

[Safety]

And they shouldn't be subsidizing those groups either. But no one really argues that those groups should be subsidized.

Doesn't matter, the reasons they aren't argued can have its own discussion. It falls along the same reason why there is such a thing as AA in the first place.

[Safety]

"Equal outcomes" is one of those things that's nice to think about...like every child and puppy having a safe, loving home. The question is, to what lengths is Society willing to go in its attempt to achieve that goal?

The justifications that I hear for racial preferences in hiring, promotions, school admissions, etc., all deal with how well or poorly one "group" is doing, in terms of employment, income or status, compared with the others. In a nutshell, what is being said - without it really being said - is, "You White people are going to have to bite the bullet, as individuals, because as a group you are in a better position than others".

My first priority, some would say my obsession, is justice for the individual. If the color of someone's skin is being used to keep them down, or to exclude them from something to which they aspire, I find that to be wrong. How other individuals with their particular skin color are or are not doing is completely irrelevant. We live our lives as individuals, however closely we may identify with others, and it should be as individuals that the Law treats us.

Who have argued for equal outcomes? Anyone here?

[Mister D]

Who have argued for equal outcomes? Anyone here?
decedent for one.

[The Xl]

Doesn't matter, the reasons they aren't argued can have its own discussion. It falls along the same reason why there is such a thing as AA in the first place.

Their really isn't much of a good reason for AA to exist based on race or gender. If privilege is the issue, it should be among socioeconomic lines, if at all.

[Safety]

decedent for one.

Then I disagree with his argument.

[Safety]

Their really isn't much of a good reason for AA to exist based on race or gender. If privilege is the issue, it should be among socioeconomic lines, if at all.

Pretty much, but then again it exists, and the only argument I've seen here is why does it exist for blacks.

[Mister D]

Then I disagree with his argument.
Glad to hear it but, unfortunately, it's a very common one used in the defense of AA. Apparently, we need AA until the number of black nuclear physicists is proportionate to America's black population.

[The Xl]

Pretty much, but then again it exists, and the only argument I've seen here is why does it exist for blacks.
I'm guessing that's because the only real verbalized argument for it is for black Americans

[Cletus]

Any form of discrimination based on factors you can't control is not right or fair. Affirmative action had good intentions but has been a bit of a problem or caused some problems. That said, I really have to struggle to muster any/much sympathy for those that claim that being a white, Christian male is hard in general. Sure, there are specific situations that could arise where I would agree there is discrimination but complaining generally that being in that demographic is difficult kind of makes me roll my eyes a bit.

I doubt it is any harder or any easier than being in any other demographic.

[Mister D]

I'm guessing that's because the only real verbalized argument for it is for black Americans
That's true. Excellent point. It's associated so closely with Black Americans precisely because many arguments in its favor are made in that context.

[Cletus]

Affirmative Action is needed until there's equality. When I hear things like "I woudn't put him on the cash register because he's black," I am reminded that AA is necessary. When I hear that 2% of google's engineers are black, I'm reminded that AA is necessary. When I hear that black people have 13 times less wealth than white people, I'm reminded that AA is necessary.

Affirmative Action by its very nature is discriminatory. It is evil and has no place in a free society.

[Safety]

I'm guessing that's because the only real verbalized argument for it is for black Americans

In the arguments I've seen here "for" AA, were all in rebuttal of those who started arguing against it for whatever reason.

[patrickt]

What's wrong is government mandated impartiality...for some and not for others. It violates the equal protection guarantee in the Constitution.

[patrickt]

Their really isn't much of a good reason for AA to exist based on race or gender. If privilege is the issue, it should be among socioeconomic lines, if at all.
Bingo. I remember a young man suing to get into Berkeley because he was black and being discriminated against. His father and grandfather were lawyers and multimillionaires but he needed AA to get along. On the other hand, the kids of the poor coal miners whose industry was destroyed by the Democrats can go suck swamp water. They won't get any help.

I have always supported helping everyone bright enough to go to college who legitimately couldn't afford to go to college. But, helping based solely on race, gender, gender preference is wrong.

[The Xl]

Bingo. I remember a young man suing to get into Berkeley because he was black and being discriminated against. His father and grandfather were lawyers and multimillionaires but he needed AA to get along. On the other hand, the kids of the poor coal miners whose industry was destroyed by the Democrats can go suck swamp water. They won't get any help.

I have always supported helping everyone bright enough to go to college who legitimately couldn't afford to go to college. But, helping bases solely on race, gender, gender preference is wrong.

Well said.

[Adelaide]

Not every white Christian is born with money and status.

You're right, but statistically they have better opportunities, more representation in government and the criminal justice system and so forth. Whereas if you are a black male, you have like a one in three chance of serving prison time at some point and have very little representation in the government and criminal justice system.

[resister]

You're right, but statistically they have better opportunities, more representation in government and the criminal justice system and so forth. Whereas if you are a black male, you have like a one in three chance of serving prison time at some point and have very little representation in the government and criminal justice system.
Statistically, my white ass landed In prison for 4 years at age 17. I served 3 years and 8 months of sais sentence.

The fact that blacks tend to commit more crime may also b e a factor.

[Private Pickle]

You're right, but statistically they have better opportunities, more representation in government and the criminal justice system and so forth. Whereas if you are a black male, you have like a one in three chance of serving prison time at some point and have very little representation in the government and criminal justice system.
Well if you ask "why" and discuss cultural implications you're a racist. The only way out of this discussion is white guilt.

[Standing Wolf]

You're right, but statistically they have better opportunities, more representation in government and the criminal justice system and so forth. Whereas if you are a black male, you have like a one in three chance of serving prison time at some point and have very little representation in the government and criminal justice system.

Statistically, the percentage of full-time, sworn police officers who are Black, in American cities of more than 100,000 people, is a bit over 16%. Despite the fact that only 4-5% of attorneys are Black, and an even smaller percentage have at least ten years of qualifying legal experience, they hold about 12% of federal judgeships. The percentage of state and county trial court judges may be slightly smaller...however study after study demonstrates that Black judges are harsher in their sentencing of both Black and White defendants than their White counterparts.

[Standing Wolf]

Well if you ask "why" and discuss cultural implications you're a racist.

True, if you are White. If you're Black and Conservative and say it, you're a self-hating Uncle Tom. If you're Black and not Conservative, you can usually cite things like "thug culture", absentee fathers and the Welfare State without too much condemnation from liberals and Black activists, as long as you're careful in your choice of words and suggest that, ultimately, all those things are somehow the fault of White people.

[resister]

True, if you are White. If you're Black and Conservative and say it, you're a self-hating Uncle Tom. If you're Black and not Conservative, you can usually cite things like "thug culture", absentee fathers and the Welfare State without too much condemnation from liberals and Black activists, as long as you're careful in your choice of words and suggest that, ultimately, all those things are somehow the fault of White people.
Careful, your spitting out some powerful truths that might burn up some circuit boards!

[CreepyOldDude]

Reverse Discrimination is one of the dumbest labels I've heard. If a black guy is discriminated against for being black, that's discrimination. If a white guy is discriminated against for being white, that's not reverse discrimination. That's just plain old discrimination. If you're white, and you encounter reverse discrimination, then you've just gotten preferential treatment. Because the reverse of being discriminated against, is being discriminated for.

[gripper]

Address this "racial inequality."
18171

[Safety]

Quality poster here, make sure we try to keep 'em.