This comes off the "guy fired for wearing a non-PC costume" thread.

Generally, do people think that we need to take things as they are now, without going back 150-100-50-20 years (or whatever) to where there was pervasive and obvious racism?

On the one hand, you have a present situation where there are laws (at least in the US) governing institutionalized racism. For example, you cannot refuse to rent an apartment to someone based on his race in most circumstances, nor can you refuse to accommodate someone in a retail establishment based on race, etc.

However, there is a whole undercurrent of racism that still exists according to many people. Also, can we ignore the fact that, in general and looking at the black/white picture, blacks are significantly less educated and have less resources? It's a tough question, and it is the heart of affirmative action -- should we level the playing field and, if so, how?

Generally, I am all for the idea that the best person qualified for the job/school slot should get the job/school slot, but it brings to mind the troubling idea that those who have less resources to begin with are going to be kept in that situation because they simply do not have the education and background to make the leaps necessary to get to the next economic level (as a group -- obviously, on the individual basis you can always point to someone from a disadvantaged background who turned out to be a massive success or, equally, you can point to someone who comes from massive money who is a waste of space and resources and winds up in jail).

If it's your company that is being forced to hire what you feel is an underqualified person based on race or, more personally, if you don't get a spot at a university because there are a certain number of less educated (and perhaps less intelligent) people of another race who are taken for diversity reasons, then you are going to be ticked off. But is that personal level a good enough reason to throw up our hands and say "well, it's a good enough attempt, let's get rid of all equal rights laws"?

In the hills of the Carolinas, poor is poor, whether you are white, black, yellow or whatever (I like that, although I probably am not quoting it completely accurately). However, in the USA, while poor is poor, you are more likely to be poor if you are black than white. How important is it to continue to try to level the playing field?

I'm of the belief that if we were to just stop all efforts at "levelling the field", it would work out on its own. However, that'd take perhaps centuries (certainly generations), and possibly involve some serious backlash once the "rich white" sect had its hands untied, so the short term ramifications would probably not be worth it. We're pretty much dedicated to this route now, and we need to see how it plays out.

I don't have a lot of time for this right now, but I'll take an initial stab at it.

I'm of the belief that if we were to just stop all efforts at "levelling the field", it would work out on its own. However, that'd take perhaps centuries (certainly generations), and possibly involve some serious backlash once the "rich white" sect had its hands untied, so the short term ramifications would probably not be worth it. We're pretty much dedicated to this route now, and we need to see how it plays out.

I'm not so sure that it would work out on it's own, but I agree that if it did, it would take a very long time.

Anyway, addressing dmc's original post, I think it's pretty hard to deny that an undercurrent of racism against blacks still exists. I do agree, however, that some (not all, or even most) people in the black community like to play the race card at every opportunity, and this can create a backlash that doesn't really help if we're trying to eliminate racism.

The question as to how best to level the playing field is indeed a tough one. There are definite drawbacks to affirmative action, but as Fel said, we're comitted to the path now, so unless someone can come up with something better (and that someone probably isn't going to be me), we should see it through.

However, in the USA, while poor is poor, you are more likely to be poor if you are black than white. How important is it to continue to try to level the playing field?

It is no secret that blacks are known for abusing the welfare system and milking it for all it's worth. I would imagine some poor whites share in that action, but it is the blacks that are particularly known for it. Could it be that the idea that you are more likely to be poor if you are black, have to do with children of welfare parents being raised under the welfare system.....and then going on to perpetuate the same? Having 10 kids under welfare that we, the taxpayers are paying for? And why not? Their parents did it.....it worked for them. What job could possibly pay them what they get from the government, for essentially doing nothing other than giving birth? And on and on it goes.

Ah, but which playing field are we leveling? Is it the 'inclusion' field? Do you think blacks are (or would be) denied access to higher education just because they were black? That's what affirmative action is based on, and I think, at this point, it is by and large unneccesary. The poverty issue is another playing field, and one that still needs to be leveled. But that can be done with scholorships and the like. The black kid still has to earn the spot, but now he gets help paying for it. I'd much rather see all the money going into affirmative aciton now go into something like that instead.

My point, however, is that a large portion of young black people today (at least around here) are growing up under the impression that if they act oppressed, people will let them walk all over them. They see what their parents and grandparents accomplished through struggle and suffering as free rides for themselves. They are taught (by parents or other teens) that 'The Government' and 'The Man' and 'The White Man' and 'Crackas' are the enemy, and that any action that such entities support must be an attack on blacks (or atleast that's how they come off). I'm sure some of the black people in jail are there because of poverty, and I wouldn't be shocked to hear that a few of them are there just because of racism, but I'd be willing to bet a majority of the black people in jail are there because they chose to do something that attacked these percieved power systems, even if they were just mindless, pointless acts of rebellion.

You all know what I'm talking about. It's commonly called the 'gangsta' mentality, but 95% of them are young black people, and 80% of young black people are them. Again, this is from personal observations and estimates from around here. Percentages may vary.

It is no secret that blacks are known for abusing the welfare system and milking it for all it's worth. I would imagine some poor whites share in that action, but it is the blacks that are particularly known for it. If, by "abuse" you mean "use", then you have a point. A larger percentage of black people are on welfare because a larger percentage of them are poor. Using the benefits for which you qualify is not "abuse". We all know that, in order to really make a good wage nowadays, you are usually going to need a degree. Now, do you think someone who grew up in poverty would be more or less likely than someone who grew up middle class will be more likely to get a college education?

It is no secret that blacks are known for abusing the welfare system and milking it for all it's worth. I would imagine some poor whites share in that action, but it is the blacks that are particularly known for it. Could it be that the idea that you are more likely to be poor if you are black, have to do with children of welfare parents being raised under the welfare system.....and then going on to perpetuate the same? Having 10 kids under welfare that we, the taxpayers are paying for? And why not? Their parents did it.....it worked for them. What job could possibly pay them what they get from the government, for essentially doing nothing other than giving birth? And on and on it goes.

Data, please.

First off, I meant "abuse" -- there are many blacks that have no intention of getting off of welfare -- they have a free ride (oh and wait...speaking of rides....these are the ones with cadillacs parked out front of the grocery stores that will hold the food they just paid for with food stamps).

"A larger percentage of black people are on welfare because a larger percentage of them are poor."

Where do you think the classification of "poor" comes from? From the Welfare rosters, that's where. So which comes first, the chicken or the egg? I know, personally, of a few black students here at school who are on welfare, with 3 or 4 kids each, getting financial aid, that refuse to attend class, cheat their way through, flunking the same class 2 and 3 times. They have no interest in being students -- they see the financial aid as ANOTHER handout, a system to be abused. I've had these individuals in my classes and have flunked them over and over again. Look around at your universities -- there are many blacks that fit this description, just as there are those blacks who truly DO want an education and EARN IT. One of the brightest students I've ever had is black and in my IT class this semester. So I'm not saying ALL blacks fit the "abuse" category -- but when it comes to Welfare abuse, they by far tip the scales.

Where do you think the classification of "poor" comes from? From the Welfare rosters, that's where.You don't seriously believe this, do you? Why would you check the welfare rosters, when not everyone who qualifies actually gets welfare, when you could check income levels with the IRS? Or the census bureau? I'm with Amaster. Data, please.

You're going to check income levels with the IRS, when many of the severely poor don't work? I wasn't stating that ALL poor people are registered in the welfare rolls -- I was referring to his classification of "poor" as defined by the Census -- and referring to the statement that was made under the other topic. Different measures of poverty.

I would not know where they check that in the US but in Finland it's up to you to prove that you earn little enough to be qualified for getting unemployment benefits. This is usually done by submitting your tax information.

You're going to check income levels with the IRS, when many of the severely poor don't work? I wasn't stating that ALL poor people are registered in the welfare rolls -- I was referring to his classification of "poor" as defined by the Census -- and referring to the statement that was made under the other topic. Different measures of poverty.No-one can stay indefinitely on welfare without working. To get state funds, you are required to prove that you are working or that you are at least looking for a job (which, in Iowa, means applying for a minimum of 2 jobs a week). That said, anyone who qualifies for welfare is also going to qualify for the EIC, so, if they aren't filing for taxes, they're losing money. All that aside, the Census is likely the best place to look for poverty figures, especially since they actively try to count homeless people (who almost never get welfare).

Where do you think the classification of "poor" comes from? From the Welfare rosters, that's where. So which comes first, the chicken or the egg? I know, personally, of a few black students here at school who are on welfare, with 3 or 4 kids each, getting financial aid, that refuse to attend class, cheat their way through, flunking the same class 2 and 3 times. They have no interest in being students -- they see the financial aid as ANOTHER handout, a system to be abused. I've had these individuals in my classes and have flunked them over and over again. Look around at your universities -- there are many blacks that fit this description, just as there are those blacks who truly DO want an education and EARN IT. One of the brightest students I've ever had is black and in my IT class this semester. So I'm not saying ALL blacks fit the "abuse" category -- but when it comes to Welfare abuse, they by far tip the scales.

And I'm saying that if you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide data, not anecdotes.

I think that you have to focus on what you can do as an individual, the things that are within your own power. As far as I can see, that means something as simple as treating everyone as individuals and doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Sounds simplistic and a bit :hippy:, but that's my view.

quote from Spell Checker dictionary:
"2 a (1): preconceived judgment or opinion (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge "

Based on the above we are all to some extent or other prejudiced.

I have personally suffered from prejudice both racially and for where I was born so I feel rather strongly about it. That said I do have mixed feelings about 'Affirmative Action'. I think it is needed but also that it perpetuates itself. 'Affirmative Action' is run by bureaucrats and bureaucrats like job security just as much as the next guy. Instead of encouraging people to learn to fish they keep feeding them fish. If you want data I will run a Google search and see what I can come up with.

I think education is the key to helping; both education for the 'oppressed' and education for the oppressor.

AMaster -- What I provided was my opinion, based on my experiences. You can call it what you like, if "anecdotes" suites you, then so be it. I've lived all over the US and over 15 years in the southeast -- I've observed what I've been talking about first hand. I've lived in very poor black neighborhoods, where I was one of a handful of whites. You, on the other hand, may have observed things differently.

I have spent over an hour trying to find Welfare abuse data for the sake of the argument, without much success. However, as I said earlier, what I've stated here is my opinion based on what I've seen. And on the topic of taking me seriously or not - it doesn't much matter to me if you do or if you don't -- I'm not trying to win you over. These kinds of discussions are most usually polar I think, without much swaying between the ranks. When discussions occur between people, I don't think to ask people for their facts to support their opinion -- I try to respect their opinion for what it is, though I may not agree with it and will challenge it -- I guess I'm not a very good debater.

I have spent over an hour trying to find Welfare abuse data for the sake of the argument, without much success. However, as I said earlier, what I've stated here is my opinion based on what I've seen.My boss frequently argues, from his experiences, that any white man who walks into a black neighborhood will get his ass kicked or worse (I've live in a "black" neighborhood for the last 2-3 years), that blacks and hispanics don't take care of their kids, that any time a white man is outnumbered by black people, they will beat him up, that half of all black people in Louisiana are on welfare (it's actually a bit under five percent and 80% of those recipients are actually children) and that the black majority (which is nonexistent, since 64% of the Louisiana population is actually white) stops the government from changing the laws. He says these things from his experience and refuses to acknowledge any factual evidence which countermands his conclusions. If your anecdotes are based in reality, they will stand up to factual scrutiny. If they do not, it's probably because they aren't true.

You seem to want to make the leap from the fact that welfare abuse data isn't that readily available to the fact that what I say isn't true. I do research for a living and if I thought some premise wasn't true simply because it didn't surface immediately, I'd be in a sorry state -- and I'd get nothing published. Fortunately, that's not the case. Or do you maybe think that I should spend hours researching something that is discussed here? Well I don't. I don't have that kind of time. And... if you want to go down the fact route----I have yet to see one piece of so-called "fact" that you have posted in this thread. Please, save your judgments for someone else. You are entitled to your opinion;I'm entitled to mine. The truth of your argument is certainly no more justified than mine.

To address the original topic, there are two separate but intertwined issues of social justice. The first relates to poverty, the second to race.

Poverty is heritable. Yes, this goes against conventional wisdom--'hard work is all you need to be successful'--but it's fully supported by all the data I've seen (I can provide). People who are born into poverty tend to remain there. People born with social advantages--'my parents went to college'--tend to inherit thosel. I could go on at length, but that's the gist of it.

The second is that a disproportionately large number of blacks are impoverished. This is in large part a legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Poverty is heritable, a disproportionately large number of blacks are born into poverty--therefore a disproportionately large number of blacks remain in poverty.

So, as to whether it's valuable to continue attempting to level the playing field; yes, but it's more important to address poverty in a general way. If poverty were addressed, the remaining imbalances would be reduced as a result.

AMaster -- What I provided was my opinion, based on my experiences. You can call it what you like, if "anecdotes" suites you, then so be it. I've lived all over the US and over 15 years in the southeast -- I've observed what I've been talking about first hand. I've lived in very poor black neighborhoods, where I was one of a handful of whites. You, on the other hand, may have observed things differently.

I don't think my experience is relevant, which is why I'm not basing arguments upon it. I don't think your experience is relevant either, which is why I'm not interested in arguments based upon it.

When we're talking about national policy--or at least these national policies--personal experience shouldn't enter the equation. If it does, it should be used to illustrate a conclusion drawn from data.

As for why I called your arguments in this thread anecdotal, here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdote#.22Merely_anecdotal.22:_anecdotal_evidenc e) what wiki has to say:

"Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote, or hearsay. The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, as evidence that cannot be investigated using the scientific method. The problem with arguing based on anecdotal evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; only statistical evidence can determine how typical something is. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy."

Science is a matter of making a hypothesis, testing your hypothesis against the real world (through personal experience, either your own or somebody else's) , and then either confirm, reject or refine your hypothesis.

Hypothesis: Blacks are poor because they are downtrodden. They need a head start, so we'll pass a government program called "Affirmative Action". In twenty or thirty or maybe fourty years' time blacks will have achieved an equal standing with whites.

Observation fourty years later: Blacks are still poor, largely live in ghettos, are overrepresented in prisons, need special privileges to get into colleges and Affirmative Action has gone from a temporary government program to a permanent entitlement (which, IMO, is based on the racist assumption that blacks will forever need "entitlement"). Moreover, racial tensions are as high as ever, with whites being angry at what they see as special treatment of blacks at the expense of whites, while blacks are angry because whites still don't treat them as equals.

Conclusion: Affirmative Action didn't work. Refine or reject hypothesis.

I don't think my experience is relevant, which is why I'm not basing arguments upon it. I don't think your experience is relevant either, which is why I'm not interested in arguments based upon it.

When we're talking about national policy--or at least these national policies--personal experience shouldn't enter the equation. If it does, it should be used to illustrate a conclusion drawn from data.

Where my personal observations run against what I can read in a book or on a Web Site, I have to either distrust my own senses or conclude that the book or site is wrong. My personal experiences matter to me. Yours should matter to you. Or as my scout master used to say, when the map and the terrain don't match, follow the terrain.

Where my personal observations run against what I can read in a book or on a Web Site, I have to either distrust my own senses or conclude that the book or site is wrong.

Untrue.

Your personal observations may be correct at the same time the other information is correct. Therefore, no contradiction.

In other words, I'm perfectly willing to believe Spelly has seen everything she claims to have seen. I just don't think it matters. Representative samples, and stuff.

It is no secret that blacks are known for abusing the welfare system and milking it for all it's worth.

Just as it is no secret that gypsies are thieves, jews are running a world conspiracy with the goal of global domination or that all Irish are drunks. I think we have here just seen a perfect example that racism is live and kicking and things need to be done.

The US is an extremely divided country, just the fact that even to this day a black and a white person having a relationship on TV is seen as something controversial the networks barely dares to show. That this is probably a mirror of how it is in the normal world makes it even sadder. The two times I visited the US I was shocked just how segretated everything was. I spent six weeks in North Carolina (the south I know but still) and you could drive for hours and not see a black person but if you then took a left turn you coudl drive for hours again and not see a white person. There still seems to be a whole lot of tension between dark and light skins.

Which is really quite sad and ridiculous. After years and years, have we still not realized that we are all the same? Britain has made really good progress on front, there is little, if any, kind of segregation here. All cultures and races mix without problems (relatively...)

Just as it is no secret that gypsies are thieves, jews are running a world conspiracy with the goal of global domination or that all Irish are drunks. I think we have here just seen a perfect example that racism is live and kicking and things need to be done.

Joa -- I am no racist -- as I made clear above in many posts -- there are many that abuse the system, not all. And I also pointed out that I have many black friends, who happen to agree with me on this issue. You confuse racism with a lack of sympathy -- but if you had used the latter term, you'd be right on.

AMaster -- Most of our society revolves around perception. Perception is intrinsically intertwined with opinion. I don't know of any people who check the stats first, to determine how they will feel about a subject -- until now. If you really believe what you're saying, then you must have a difficult time of it dealing with peers.

I am no racist

If you asked Michael Richards, Don Imus, or Dog the Bounty Hunter, you'd get the same answer.

I'm not saying you are a racist, Spelly (nor would any of your posts make me conclude that you are one). It's just that racists generally don't think of themselves as such.

Which is really quote sad and ridiculous. After years and years, have we still not realized that we are all the same? Britain has made really good progress on front, there little, if any, kind of segregation.
Barmy, one of us must be very drunk, because I had to read that three times before I figured out what you're saying. And I haven't been drinking. :p

If you asked Michael Richards, Don Imus, or Dog the Bounty Hunter, you'd get the same answer.

I'm not saying you are a racist, Spelly (nor would any of your posts make me conclude that you are one). It's just that racists generally don't think of themselves as such.


Barmy, one of us must be very drunk, because I had to read that three times before I figured out what you're saying. And I haven't been drinking. :p

Sorry, changed it a little bit. I made a few spelling mistakes. It's what happens when you can't be arsed to read a post before you submit it :P.

Prejudice is alive and well all over the world and is not just limited to Black vs White.

Here is a link to a summary of Affirmative Action with further links:

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmative1.html

As historian Roger Wilkins pointed out, "blacks have a 375-year history on this continent: 245 involving slavery, 100 involving legalized discrimination, and only 30 involving anything else."

Affirmative Action in the USA hasn't solved the Black, Indian, Chicano problem. But 45 years is a short time even in the history of the USA. I also contend that Bureaucracy perpetuates itself and also breeds like the wires in back of my computer.

A long life does not automatically bring wisdom or for that matter great experience. Education does not automatically bring wisdom or experience. What is printed in books is not necessarily true. Logic can be based on a false premise. Statistics are great if I want to set up a business or have an intellectual, formal debate.

Having said the above I admit that quoting statistics to me will probably cause my mind to go blank and shut down or just annoy me My personal experiences have a large influence on my personal choices including for whom and what I vote.

Experience may not be the best teacher but it is the one we tend most to heed. Since this is primarily a game board I will use this example: Statistics prove that game X is played by more people than game Y. So based on statistics I should run out and buy game X. But do I? No. I check what others think of the game. I ask here or in FAI what people think of the game. I base my decision on what game to buy based on my experiences and the experiences of those who like the same type of games that I like. Sure it isn't 100% accurate but it works for me.

Both statistics and experience have their place and are valuable but no one is going to get me like cauliflower just because 7 out of 10 people like it.

dmc's original post asks about Affirmative Action and the fact is that Affirmative Action has not worked the way it was originally intended to work. Although why we think we can solve a problem older than Methuselah in 45 years I do not understand.

Well said, Nakia.

even in the history of the USA

The USA has a history? :p

I understand what you're saying, Nakia, and for the most part I agree with it. But:
Having said the above I admit that quoting statistics to me will probably cause my mind to go blank and shut down or just annoy me My personal experiences have a large influence on my personal choices including for whom and what I vote.
The only problem with that approach is that statistics are the only valid basis for making decisions which are actually reflective of reality. For example, I have an aunt who was bitten by a dog when she was a child, and so she is terrified of dogs. Her experience tells her that dogs are dangerous. So if she were to rely solely on her experience, she would push for banning dogs as pets. And I doubt that most people would agree with that. (I know, this is getting off topic (which, ironically enough, was started from another off-topic discussion). Maybe another thread needs to be started.)

@Barmy:

:lol:

For example, I have an aunt who was bitten by a dog when she was a child, and so she is terrified of dogs. Her experience tells her that dogs are dangerous. So if she were to rely solely on her experience, she would push for banning dogs as pets.

But that's where our intellect plays a role. Her experience may tell her that a certain breed of dog is dangerous -- but she may not leap to the idea that all dogs are dangerous. I think, we as humans, blend experience with intellect and common sense -- that's what makes us who we are. There is certainly a place for facts -- but we are not robots or machines -- opinion and perception are a very real part of all of us.

But that's where our intellect plays a role. Her experience may tell her that a certain breed of dog is dangerous -- but she may not leap to the idea that all dogs are dangerous.You're missing the point. Just because a golden retriever bites someone doesn't mean that golden retrievers are dangerous. Just because a dog on a chain bites someone doesn't mean that dogs on chains are dangerous. More simply put, how many black people who are abusing welfare have you actually met? Whatever the number, it is utterly insignificant when extrapolated against the total number of black people who have received welfare. Your experience in dealing with .00000000001% of a group of people has a 99.99999999% margin for error. To call such a small sample statistically insignificant would actually give it too much credit. Your experience isn't just statistically insignificant; it's completely irrelevant.

I've started a new thread so this topic doesn't get derailed.

Well, it appears Nakia started one as well, so we'll go with hers:

http://www.sorcerers.net/forums/showthread.php?p=617250&posted=1#post617250

Generally, do people think that we need to take things as they are now, without going back 150-100-50-20 years (or whatever) to where there was pervasive and obvious racism?

Depends. No to affirmative action that lowers educational requirements. Perhaps, however, a yes to some affirmative action in urban development.

On the one hand, you have a present situation where there are laws (at least in the US) governing institutionalized racism. For example, you cannot refuse to rent an apartment to someone based on his race in most circumstances, nor can you refuse to accommodate someone in a retail establishment based on race, etc.

The problem with that is the fact that while in theory, they need to prove you reject them because of race. In fact, they'll have it proven unless you give some concrete grounds which will stand and hold their own under concentrated attorney fire. ;)

However, there is a whole undercurrent of racism that still exists according to many people.

I confirm. In the mind of many people, some forms of racism exist. Apart from those who see some races as superior and some as inferior, there are also those who are simply xenophobic, isolating, don't want to mingle, even if they don't dabble with superiority and inferiority.

Also, can we ignore the fact that, in general and looking at the black/white picture, blacks are significantly less educated and have less resources? It's a tough question, and it is the heart of affirmative action -- should we level the playing field and, if so, how?

In so far as the poverty is a hereditary circumstance starting from slavery some two hundred years ago, then yes, the society owes something to them. However, in so far as it is a voluntary rejection of educational and other chances, well... There are still some obligations, but that's mostly education. One of the protagonists of 19th century movements said there could be no liberalism without education... And I agree. With the people sufficiently educated, liberalism would be quite a fair game. It won't be a fair game with big educational differences as they exist now.

Generally, I am all for the idea that the best person qualified for the job/school slot should get the job/school slot

Well, yeah, from the point of view of the boss definitely so. From the point of view of the society and the state generally yes, as well, although something could be done to help the poor in getting a better education. But I say poor, not black, and some honest chance - not freebie points. Even cash for books is fine, but freebie recruitment points are not.

, but it brings to mind the troubling idea that those who have less resources to begin with are going to be kept in that situation because they simply do not have the education and background to make the leaps necessary to get to the next economic level (as a group -- obviously, on the individual basis you can always point to someone from a disadvantaged background who turned out to be a massive success or, equally, you can point to someone who comes from massive money who is a waste of space and resources and winds up in jail).

Yeah, that's my chief worry.

If it's your company that is being forced to hire what you feel is an underqualified person based on race or, more personally, if you don't get a spot at a university because there are a certain number of less educated (and perhaps less intelligent) people of another race who are taken for diversity reasons, then you are going to be ticked off.

To hell with the diversity PR. We do owe something to the poor. We do owe something to the cultures we had oppressed. But the whole diversity propaganda is overdone.

In the hills of the Carolinas, poor is poor, whether you are white, black, yellow or whatever (I like that, although I probably am not quoting it completely accurately). However, in the USA, while poor is poor, you are more likely to be poor if you are black than white. How important is it to continue to try to level the playing field?

I'd say, give the chance to those who want it. Educate them enough so they know if they want it. That's justice. If they don't take it, well, justice was served. If you want, you can give way to mercy and on that basis, help them. Even on the level of mercy rather than justice, I still say no freebies unless they serve a purpose or are life-savers (well, life or health or extreme poverty). People should contribute to the society.

Just because a golden retriever bites someone doesn't mean that golden retrievers are dangerous. Just because a dog on a chain bites someone doesn't mean that dogs on chains are dangerous.

Let's extrapolate this to pit bulls. You're correct if one person is bitten by a pit bull, it doesn't mean that the breed is dangerous. However, If one person meets another person that's experienced that, and then another and then another.....and then reads news articles on it, that perception will surely change. People's opinions are rarely based on one experience or event. As you age in life, it's compiled over a variety of experiences, conversations, etc., which ultimately comprises opinion.

As far as blacks abusing welfare -- if you had read my previous posts in the other thread, I made mention that whites do the same. However, in my experience (which helps to form my opinion), I have met many who have abused the system and willingly joked about it. If you think that doesn't have an effect on forming a person's opinion on something, then you are deluded. We are made up of a blend of fact and experience -- to suggest that experience is irrelevant is absurd.

Let's extrapolate this to pit bulls. You're correct if one person is bitten by a pit bull, it doesn't mean that the breed is dangerous. However, If one person meets another person that's experienced that, and then another and then another.....and then reads news articles on it, that perception will surely change. People's opinions are rarely based on one experience or event. As you age in life, it's compiled over a variety of experiences, conversations, etc., which ultimately comprises opinion.

As far as blacks abusing welfare -- if you had read my previous posts in the other thread, I made mention that whites do the same. However, in my experience (which helps to form my opinion), I have met many who have abused the system and willingly joked about it. If you think that doesn't have an effect on forming a person's opinion on something, then you are deluded. We are made up of a blend of fact and experience -- to suggest that experience is irrelevant is absurd.Addressed in the new thread.

Britain has made really good progress on front, there is little, if any, kind of segregation here.
Err.... are we talking about the same Britain here?

All cultures and races mix without problems (relatively...)
It really depends on how relative we're talking... :D

Seriously, while I will agree that Britain is less overtly racist than many, many countries I've been to (no, I'm not going to make a list and offend everyone :p ), it's no picnic either. Quite a few people on the streets are overtly racist, and many more have a more subtle kind of racism. I've experienced both a disturbing number of times (the last time 2 days ago), and reading Splunge's comment I am forced to agree: many racist people (especially the more subtle variety) genuinely believe they are not racist when they start ranting about "those pakis" or "those towelheads", spiced with a healthy dose of swearing and an overdose of broad and sweeping (and usually inaccurate) generalisations.

That's what worries me most - if people carry on being racist while at the same time having convinced themselves that racism is dead and gone, that undercurrent of more subtle racism will never go away.

Splunge:

I'm not saying you are a racist, Spelly (nor would any of your posts make me conclude that you are one). It's just that racists generally don't think of themselves as such.


Does that apply to blacks and Asians as well, or only whites?

Err.... are we talking about the same Britain here?

Well, Scotland is still a bit dodgy, but in England things are OK now. Have you been to London recently? :p It's the same round my area too, people of all creeds and races mixing without trouble. No 'Asians only' or whatever areas. I think we're pretty accepting as a country, especially compared with the rest of the world. Go places like Spain and Italy and you'll see quite open racism, and very few people who aren't white.

well, there are a minimum of 20 possible races on the census form however you would have to list jewish as "some other race" as it doesn't have its own listing

If it's your company that is being forced to hire what you feel is an underqualified person based on race or, more personally, if you don't get a spot at a university because there are a certain number of less educated (and perhaps less intelligent) people of another race who are taken for diversity reasons, then you are going to be ticked off.

I don't know how I missed this the first time. Unqualified candidates are not--typically--affected by Affirmative Action. AA draws from the pool of qualified candidates. No college admissions officer is going to repeatedly and deliberately admit unqualified candidates, because if they did, they'd lose their job. Ditto HR staff at ye olde corporation.

Just a quick comment for those who want figures to back up the bilking of the Public Assistance programs.

A person who has successfully taken improper advantage of Public Assistance is not going to appear in any statistics proving this.

well, there are a minimum of 20 possible races on the census form however you would have to list jewish as "some other race" as it doesn't have its own listing

Jews aren't a race strictly speaking. Proper races are three, the rest are mixes or ethnic groups. I suppose some people think you're white only if you're Anglo-Saxon and Protestant, but come on, weirdos are everywhere.

To be honest I don't know much about the current affairs with blacks in America, what I do know about is the situations with some of our national minorities most notably the Roma that have been here for hundreds of years a bit like the blacks in America. While they have never been enslaved, they have never been in a situation of acceptance in society and still plenty of white people see them as nothing but welfare bums and criminals. The view is not improved by the fact that there is a lot of drug abuse and unemployment amongst them (no proper statistics are available since racial branding for statistical purposes is illegal in Finland, however an organisation representing them openly accepts these problems so I think we can accept them as facts).

Now this is obviously a very difficult situation. On the one hand they are not fully accepted in society as equals and there is a lot of mistrust towards them, and on the other they themselves keep feeding this mistrust making it more difficult for those who want to integrate to do so. How can this vicious circle be broken? I'm not sure I even know the answer. They have had equal status for a hundered years in law, still they haven't managed to integrate, but there is also no doubt that the white population has not fully allowed this to happen. Which part is to blame of all this? In my opinion a bit of both but I the majority which is the white population has a bigger chance for change but it would need a major change of attitudes and I really don't know how that might be achieved. I also think that the minority needs figures that can raise their confidence and get them to participate in society much better, that's why I think Obama might be good for America, allthough I really don't know how the blacks really feel about him.

Untrue.

Your personal observations may be correct at the same time the other information is correct. Therefore, no contradiction.

I am talking about a case where my observations cannot be true if the data are true. In that case, either I am delusional, or the data are flawed.

But to take an example where both my observations and the statistical data are correct: The statistical information that very few people are ever bitten by dogs is of little comfort to me at the time if I am attacked by one.

I am talking about a case where my observations cannot be true if the data are true. In that case, either I am delusional, or the data are flawed.

Oddly enough, I've never encountered such a case. Have you?

Oddly enough, I've never encountered such a case. Have you?

Odd though it may sound, I have.

Splunge:
I'm not saying you are a racist, Spelly (nor would any of your posts make me conclude that you are one). It's just that racists generally don't think of themselves as such.


Does that apply to blacks and Asians as well, or only whites?

Any of them. And yes, I've met racists from all groups.

Here's one problem I have with affirmative action - that applying the practice destroys the spirit of what it is trying to accomplish.

Whether your talking about school admissions or employee hiring, the reason why affirmative action was implemented was that people were being excluded from being admitted or hired based on race. So to counter this, we institute a policy that requires an employer or school to admit/hire a certain number of students/workers based on race.

The counterintuitiveness of this practice aside - it raises two more questions for me. The first is the one that dmc points out - the possibility that someone less qualified is getting a spot ahead of someone more qualified. But there is another avenue in which to take that logic. Let's say a school has a policy in which 30% of the student population must be minorities. To meet this requirement, every year the admissions board select exactly 30% minorities into the incoming class. But what if minorities actually comprise 40% of the most qualified applicants? If the admissions board sticks to its policy, here affirmative action can actually hurt the very people it's supposed to help.

Poverty is heritable ... People who are born into poverty tend to remain there. People born with social advantages--'my parents went to college'--tend to inherit those.

I agree with this. There was a Newsweek article I saw about a year ago, and what it did was break down people into five groups called "quintiles" The first quintile represented those people whose salary was in the bottom 0 to 20th percentile of all wage earners. The second quintile was people whose salary was in the 20th to 40th percentile of all wage earners, and so forth up until the 5th quintile which represented the top 20% of all wage earners. An overwhelming majority of people (it was over 90% although I forget the exact percentage) tend to end up within one quintile of whatever quintile their parents were in. So if you are born in the bottom quintile, chances are you're never going to do better than the second quintile.

The second is that a disproportionately large number of blacks are impoverished. This is in large part a legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

WARNING - RANT TO FOLLOW: That I don't agree with. That's because there have been so many other groups that came to the U.S. in the post slavery years that have risen up from very humble beginings. My family immigrated to the U.S. in the middle of the 20th century. My father was the first American born member of my family. If you want to talk about having a hard time getting a job, imagine getting one when you don't speak English - which was a real problem for my grandparents when they first arrived. They eventually learned to speak English, but it took a while.

My grandparents didn't have great jobs. They were coal miners and manual laborers, because they didn't speak English, and minimal training is needed when the primary requirement of your job is to use a pick axe or a shovel. They were also poorly educated - many of them lacking the equivalent of a high school education. Yet their children (my parents) did get a high school education. My dad even got a college education. My siblings and I are all educated - all but one of us have graduate degrees (and the one that doesn't is the youngest one who is still in undergraduate school). One of my brothers is an emergency room doctor.

So I don't buy that the legacy of slavery is why blacks are still so disproportionately poor. At least they know how to speak English. Too many other groups (mostly from central and eastern Europe) have come to this country with just as many disadvantages and within a generation or two aren't poor anymore. My family, in the span of two generations, went from peasant Eastern European farmers to white collar professionals. Here's another surprising fact. Blacks who immigrated to this country post slavery tend to follow the trend of whites - they stay poor for a generation or two and then gradually improve. So there is something - culturally or otherwise - that is significantly different from blacks who came here willingly (i.e., are immigrants) versus those who were brought here unwillingly (i.e., decendents of slaves).

Three, Chev? I'm not sure what three you mean. Just off the top of my head I could easily come up with seven major racial groups (and many smaller ones): Caucasian, Oriental, Middle East (Arab nations and India region), African, Native Americans, Polynesians, aboriginies. Which ones do you cut in order to have three? I can see grouping Oriental and Native Americans; however, the two diverged over 12,000 years ago. The other races diverged even earlier in history. The Hebrews have been fairly insular for over 5,000 years -- how much time is necessary to make a race?

I will follow what Aldeth said by stating that prejudice and discrimination exist in the US (and the world for that matter). Although, in America, the primary prejudice is against poverty. If you are one of the 'have nots' you are discriminated against. I have seen people from all races milk the system, whether welfare, social security, food stamps, unemployment, etc.. Such actions are not universal to one group of people -- unless that group is the poor.

In poor areas (whether the inner city of Chicago or the hills of Kentucky) one common denominator is lower quality education. Many people, such as Aldeth's family, work to move up in life -- often that leads to living in better communities and their children receiving better education. A better education gives a greater chance of rising to the next higher 'quintile.'

More important than education is attitude. Often, a defeatist attitude seems to pervade throughout a family or even a neighborhood. 'Nobody makes it out of the projects' is an all to common theme. It those cases it appears to be easy to fall into the 'I'll get what I can' trap. People become at ease with a certain lifestyle and can maintain it with little effort (or at least familiar effort). Change is difficult -- change is stressful -- change means you must be willing leave friends and family behind.

I believe one of the most important things a parent can give their children is a positive attitude. One where the child knows it is possible to improve and that such improvements are worth risking. Spending $50,000 on a college education is a huge investment and risk. The child must have the vision to see long-term to know such investments will pay off in the long run.

Three. Black, Asian (referred to as yellow before, despite the fact some are whiter than whites), white.

What you mention is a list of ethnic groups.

The American Anthropoligical Association has a great statement about race. The last paragragh:

How people have been accepted and treated within the context of a given society or culture has a direct impact on how they perform in that society. The "racial" worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth. The tragedy in the United States has been that the policies and practices stemming from this worldview succeeded all too well in constructing unequal populations among Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of African descent. Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances.

It can be found here:

http://http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm

Chev: The old view of three races; 'mongoloids, caucasoids, and negroids' is quite simplistic and outdated. It was primarily developed by biologists. However, in 1758 a naturalist by the name of Linnaeus differentiated four biological groups: Asians, American Indians, Europeans, and Africans (some biologists grouped the first two together to give the three mentioned earlier). Most researchers since Linnaeus have accepted these four and added the Australian Aborigines, Pacific Islanders, and even others. Anthropologists, on the other hand, view race as a socio-political issue (at least the definition of race used by the average person). In these cases, race is further divided.

T2,

I agree with you that there a now considered to be more than 3 races. However, one that you mentioned - Middle Eastern - is not a race. Those who are Middle Eastern are white.

I was aware of five races - Caucasian (white), African (black), Asian (excluding the middle east who, as I said, are white), Native American (both north and south) and Pacific Islander. Other things that show up on census forms but technically are not races: Hispanic/Latino - these are considered a combination of Native American, Caucasian and Black.

Races are three and American Indians are in the Mongoloid race, although they can be noticeably different from proper Asians. And mixes are not races. Whoever classifies mixes as new races needs to revise his Mendel's.

As for inequalities, I wasn't talking about any matter of social status and I specifically said I didn't buy the crap that one race is better than another. However, ethnic and even racial groups exist and it's not a cultural thing that one person is black and the other is white.

Here's a couple of other questions to think about. Given that various areas have produced different races, is it possible that throughout human history there are even more races than we see today?

Secondly, with inter-racial marriages becoming more and more common, and people becoming ever more mobile and moving to different parts of the world, is it possible that racial issues will become less prominent in future generations, as more and more people will identify with more than one race?