Wouldn't it be great if we could end the racist liberal program called Affirmative Action?
You can understand why liberals like it, they see everything on the base of race, income and age. In their minds they MUST divide people based on these guidelines.
Why should a white student get bumped out of the school they want to go to simply because someone else is black?
If the minority student is qualified they will still get into school.
Liberals don't understand how much their programs hurt minorities.
First, people get into college who do not have the skills to be there, and they drop out. If they were told they need to start off at a junior college or at least told what level they actually were at, maybe they could have worked their way up. Throwing someone to the lions doesn't seem like a good idea to me...
Also, here is another program that tells minorities that they are not good enough to make it on their own, and they need the government to give them everything. The problem is that this mentality of entitlement and a lack of personal responsibility is the reason they did not work hard in school, do homework, study for tests and gain the skills necessary to be legitimately accepted into college with appropriate skills.
I would like to know the percentage of students who get into college because of the color of the skin ever graduate. I was told that 0% of MPS students who have to start college in remedial classes graduates. If that is true, then what good are we doing giving spots to people who are not capable of handling the level of work necessary to graduate and taking them away from people who don't expect anything from the government except to be treated fairly and equally. With affirmative action, that does not happen. If there are minority students who want to go to college but do not have the skills, teach them the skills and work ethic they need, don't just throw them to the wolves.
P.S. Those liberals who want to say that this commentary says that minority students are not smart enough to get into college, that was never said. I said that students with the skills should get in, regardless of race. Students should not be given seats because of the color of their skin, if they do not have the skills...that is what I am saying. How can you argue with that? How can you say it is good to take away seats from kids who can succeed and give them to students who end up failing and dropping out? It doesn't make sense, but neither to any liberal programs.
Again, stop teaching them that they are entitled to be given everything for free because they are not white, and maybe after a few generations you might have a few more kids that understand what hard work and personal responsibility are all about.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Affirmative action in UW System, state contracting targeted
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
43 comments:
I think what happened here is philip, for a second, saw that his liberal policies actually hurt the people he thinks he is helping...that got him mad and made him go on an emotional tyraid trying to make himself feel better...
Philip, I know you and other liberals mean well, and you want to help people...but the fact is that all liberal programs of today keep poor people poor and content, looking for the next hand out, making the chance of the next generation to get out of poverty even harder...they have learned to stay where they are, never learning the skills or personal responsibilty they need to be successful...the truth is the truth, and the truth is they NEED conservatism to chance their lives for the better, not another liberal program
philip--
The Republican Party was created for the explicit reason of eradicating slavery. This legacy continues today, as George W. Bush has the most diverse cabinet in American history. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, was responsible for the war of southern treason, putting activist judges on the bench that made racist decisions, and reimposing segregation in the federal government (Wilson). The Democrats even have former KKK members in the US Senate (Robert Byrd) to this very day!!!!
The cries of racism by the left are used as a rhetorical device to make people sympathetic to SOCIALISM, an evil against the classical liberalism of the Republican Party, along with the spirit of the Enlightenment in which this great Republic was founded.
Very many black leaders think that socialism is the way forward to correct past wrongs and help blacks as a group catch up to whites as a group. While such a view may have made sense in the 1960s, we now have almost five decades of empirical evidence showing that the USSR-style policies we pursue in our inner cities lead to counterproductive results. I've been trying to get your comrades to examine this issue empirically and not emotionally, though I confess if they were logical people, they wouldn't be Democrats.
It is also helpful to remember all the stories of those who started with nothing and made good, whether they came from other countries or from our own ghettos and slums. The most important factor was the individuals' own motivation, perseverance and determination. What a concept!
"The Republican Party was created for the explicit reason of eradicating slavery. This legacy continues today"
I wonder if you are really that stupid, or if you think that I'm that stupid.
True, the Republican party was formed BY LIBERALS for the explict reason of eradicating slavery.
However, the racist Democrats split off from the party in 1948 and formed the Dixiecrats. Later, Goldwater and Nixon came up with the "Southern Strategy" to regain control over the south by welcoming the racists into the Republican party with open arms.
Remedial history lessons provided free of charge.
The Democrats even have former KKK members in the US Senate (Robert Byrd) to this very day!!!!
Yes, former KKK members who have renounced racism.
Your party, on the other hand, gave us David Duke. Even today, your "party of inclusion" presented us with Mr. Macaca, George Allen - that close friend of the Council of Conservative Citizens.
Philip,
That old canard about David Duke finding a home in the GOP is not true. Duke fourisned in the Democrat party until he got forced out. He never was welcome in the GOP, nor supported in the GOP like he was supported in the Democrat party.
You have a very twisted slant on history.
The UW system needs a house cleaning of Liberals and a balance restored to teaching. Crackpots like the jerk that teaches 9/11 was a Bush plot need to be fired and his teaching certificate pulled.
That old canard about David Duke finding a home in the GOP is not true. Duke fourisned in the Democrat party until he got forced out. He never was welcome in the GOP, nor supported in the GOP like he was supported in the Democrat party
You are so full of it.
His first three primary campaigns were as a democrat. He got spanked each time, receiving less than half the votes of his opponent. In 88, he ran in the Dem presidential primary and recieved 4% of the vote.
He then switched to Republican and ran in the State Representative race, where he promptly won.
And what about your silence on George Allen and the CCC? or Haley Barbour and the CCC? or Trent Lott and the CCC?
Sorry, but that bullshit don't fly.
Philip,
You are the manure spreader. Allen wasn't the racist you are. Liberals are racists to a great degree. They focus on skin color to grant rights an privileges. That's racism pure and simple.
You have given Robert "Grand Wizard" Byrd a pass. He says the N word all the time.
Cynthia McKinney and the Clown, McGee are racists. Why don't you condemn them?
All supporters of Affirmative Action are racists. You believe that the poor minorities are incapable of anything without your helping hand, quotas and set asides.
I explained it. You are too much of an Democrat nutroot to accept that you are a racist.
As for Byrd, read the Congressional record. He's in there saying it. He doesn't care. He uses the word just like a "gangsta rapper".
You are a nutroot because you go to a single extreme to try to prove a broad point.
I see you have neglected to discuss the numerous ties between the Republican party and the CCC or the electoral success that David Duke had as a Republican, as opposed to his utter failure to win as a Democrat, or the Nixon/Goldwater "southern strategy".
I guess when the facts are not in your favor, you just resort to calling names ("All supporters of Affirmative Action are racists") and changing the subject("Cynthia McKinney and the Clown, McGee are racists. Why don't you condemn them?").
Philip,
I made an accurate observation. You can't see anything beyond skin color. You assign rights and privileges by your skin color quota. THAT makes you a racist.
You like to call names and condescend yourself. You aren't winning any points, so, in frustration, you are resorting to the low road.
Let's see. Democrats campaign in Black churches yet rail at Robertson, Falwell, etc. What a hypocrite you are.
You call the soouthern strategy racist, but you ignore the racism practiced by the Democrat party. What is the highest appointed official and elected miniority in the Democrat party and then for the GOP, Philip?
You can't see anything beyond skin color.
How can you say that? You don't even know me. You don't know anything about me other than the fact that I am a democrat.
You don't know, for instance, that I went to state finals in forensics Oratory competition with a speech against affirmative action.
You also don't know that I am part black, part hispanic and part chaldean and that my wife is white.
So, yeah, you sound pretty stupid when you call me a racist.
What is the highest appointed official and elected miniority in the Democrat party and then for the GOP, Philip?
I never said that Bush was a racist. I don't even think that most Republicans are racists. However, it is an unavoidable truth that most racists are Republicans.
I hope that last didn't confuse you too much.
You like to call names and condescend yourself. You aren't winning any points, so, in frustration, you are resorting to the low road...You are too much of an Democrat nutroot to accept that you are a racist...All supporters of Affirmative Action are racists...What a hypocrite you are.
It's like I'm talking to two different people. I shall call you Sybil from now on.
wow, none of this is about affirmative action, the racist liberal policy..and yes philip, you and most liberals see EVERYTHING in color...
So, game, how would you have addressed the generations-long self perpetuating gap in college participation rates between whites and blacks?
Let me guesss "You minorities just need to WORK HARDER! Perserverance and determination is all you need to dig out of the whole that you were thrown into"
Am I right?
Meanwhile, you say nothing about the forms of affirmative action that don't benefit minorities like the special preference given to
children of alumnis (overwhelmingly white), children of university donors (overwhelmingly white), athletes (overwhelmingly male), rural students (overwhelmingly white), etc.
My own opinion about affirmative action is that it should deal much less with race and much more with access to education. The children of a black doctor who have attended top private schools are not in need of affirmative action, whereas the children of white high-school dropouts living in the middle of nowhere are.
So quit with your asinine assumptions about what I believe and whether I am a racist.
Philip--
The Republican Party has always been a liberal party in the classical, international sense of the word. The Republican Party supports free enterprise, federalism, Rule of Law based on the Constitution, and liberal democracy abroad. This is very much in the spirit of John Stuart Mill and John Locke. What is now called "liberalism" in the United States grew out of the progressive movement inspired by the ideas of Karl Marx, and is called *socialism* everywhere else in the world.
Eisenhower used federal power to desegregate schools, and Nixon was responsible for broadening the scope of Affirmative Action. Hell, Goldwater was a co-founder of the NAACP in his state. A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats -- Al Gore Sr for example voted against it. Yet fools brainwashed by the media, hollywood, and braindead academics continue to call us racist, an article of faith impervious to the historical record.
The antidote to this, of course, is a reasoned look at the facts.
Now, all of the rabid racist charges in the world will not refute the claim that the USSR-style policies that we have pursued in our inner cities are directly responsible for the decay seen there. The Great Society did something centuries of slavery and segregration could not-- destroy the black family by creating a perverse system of incentives. The sooner we roll back government largesse and embrace market-based solutions the sooner we'll make progress toward racial equality in this country.
I agree with the majority of your post, however is is dishonest to deny that the Atwater-Goldwater-Nixon "southern strategy" was a cynical deal with the devil to accept the racists into the party.
I also agree that the current and especially past welfare programs did utilize operant conditioning to induce patterns of dependence and a lack of self reliance in the poor.
The problem is not government programs per se, but the way that they were implemented (handouts rather than rewards for desired behavior
The sooner we roll back government largesse and embrace market-based solutions the sooner we'll make progress toward racial equality in this country.
That is a naive viewpoint. Remember, it was "market-based solutions" that created the problems of slavery in this country.
Phillip, you said:
"That is a naive viewpoint. Remember, it was "market-based solutions" that created the problems of slavery in this country."
It is very naive of you to believe the technoligical avances and market forces coming into play at that time would not render slavery obsolete. And of course you never really addressed Jason's theory that market-based solutions will benefit minorities.
Also you said:
"The problem is not government programs per se, but the way that they were implemented (handouts rather than rewards for desired behavior)"
I'm afraid it is dishonest of you to deny that handouts were a cynical plan of the Socialist controllers of the Democratic party to create a whole class of people dependent upon the party, to hell with the actual consequences to minorities.
It is very naive of you to believe the technoligical avances and market forces coming into play at that time would not render slavery obsolete.
Slavery was not rendered obsolete by "techno-ligimacal" advances, as you claim. Sure, technological advances automated many of the tasks that slaves performed, but obviously there are menial tasks that need to be performed in any technological age, and if the free market practice of slave trading hadn't been abolished by the power of the state (i.e. regulation of the market) we would have slaves today cleaning the homes of the wealthy, picking produce, working in construction and menial service jobs instead of illegal immigrants.
you never really addressed Jason's theory that market-based solutions will benefit minorities.
market based solutions caused the problem, why shouldn't they be able to address it? I just don't see the motivation of the free market, which is primarily concerned with profit, to act altruistically
I'm afraid it is dishonest of you to deny that handouts were a cynical plan of the Socialist controllers of the Democratic party to create a whole class of people dependent upon the party, to hell with the actual consequences to minorities.
Your tin foil hat goes very well with that shirt.
James,
Thank you for the reasoned comment sans insults. Although I respectfully disagree.
It is impossible to have slavery against other human beings, or to even have segregation, without the force of government. True. However, there would be no need for slavery without an unfettered free market. Government enforcement of discrimination is always at the behest of the free market or religion.
when we look at American Muslims, we see a few characteristics-- they value family, and they value study and education. Are you seriously comparing the past 10 years of discrimination against Middle Easterners to the 400 years of slavery and discrimination that American blacks experienced?
I think its easier to understand if we look at an analogy and examine "American Privlege". As citizens of the greatest country on the earth, we have a huge number of advantages over citizens of virtually every other country on earth. Almost every citizen here has the basic necessities of food, clothing, and shelter regardless of their contribution to society. Virtually all of us (including those we consider "poor") have the ability to earn enough money to afford many luxuries that people in other countries cannot even imagine.
If we have the attitude that we are "superior" to people from other countries, or think that "it's their own fault" that they don't have the same advantages that we do, that isn't right. We have institutional advantages that are exceedingly difficult to overcome without help. On the other hand, however, we don't need to feel "guilty" for being Americans, either. It is basically just luck that you were born here, rather than in the wilderness of Siberia or the slums of Indonesia.
Similarly, with race issues (and I hope the analogy is clear), White people don't need to feel guilty for being white. People do need to realize that (even in this day and age) there are institutional advantages to being white. Society as a whole makes life easier for white people in innumerable little ways.
Affirmative action was created to solve a social injustice. Before affirmative action, minorities were being excluded from participating in many fields. Our representatives decided that since there were so many people making decisions about hiring and admissions that were subtly racist, why not just come up with institutional methods to insure greater participation by minorities.
The idea of white privlege acknowleges that in the past, due to racial discrimination, white people have had more advantages passed on to them.
Due to racial discrimination, black people your age today have parents and grandparents that were less likely to be able to pass the skills for success in today's society down to them. Studies show that certain characteristics of parents have a positive correlation to success of children. This puts children of minorities at a disadvantage. To argue that affirmative action is inherently unfair is to argue that there is no harm in institutional racism.
You have to admit that part of your success in life comes from the foundation provided by your ancestors. Obviously, if your ancestors had been persecuted in the same way that black people have been over the centuries, the foundation that your ancestors would have been able to provide would not be as effective at insuring success. To reduce the scale of this argument, let's consider a black person (Jim) growing up during the days of institutional racism.
Ever since he was a child, Jim was told that he was not as good as white people. He was called stupid, lazy and uncivilized, beaten and dehumanized over and over again by people of authority until he had internalized these beliefs. Now Jim is a dad. Do you really think that he is going to be as able to prepare his kids to be successful in society as someone that had never experienced the harms of racial discrimination?
That is what affirmative action is all about- undoing the harms of our country's racist history.
Slavery and the Jim Crow laws had the effect of damaging the self-worth of an entire race. In addition, the effect of these brutal policies was to create a sense of inferiority in the people. This discrimination, spanning generations, reinforced the idea that there was no place in society for them other than the roles of manual laborer or caretaker of white children. These ideas were carried down through generations as a strategy for survival. Black people during this (400 year long) period did not survive by aiming for financial prosperity, gaining academic knowledge, or trying to elevate their position in society. They survived by not drawing attention to themselves, being submissive and not trying to disturb the status quo. These lessons were passed down to children as a means for (literal) survival.
This, not the number of people killed, is what caused the breakdown in family structure that necessitates A.A.
This is important: it's not the people that were killed that suffered the greatest harm. The people who survived and had their desire to excel beaten out of them were damaged more. The people that suffered violence anytime they tried to improve their station in life, the people who were brainwashed into believing that they are worthless because of the color of their skin, the people who were forced to become 'invisible' in society in order to survive. These are the subconscious lessons that are passed to children without even knowing it. They are the reason that black people are figuratively running uphill in order to achieve the same level of success that a white person views as normal or expected.
I know that someone reading this will look at all of the exceptions to the processes that I’ve described. The fact that these success stories are “exceptions” proves my point. For the vast majority of our nation’s history, a black person becoming a successful member of society was extraordinary, a real case of someone “beating the odds”. Affirmative action is society trying to “even the odds”, so to speak.
Sorry for posting the novella. Please read it with an open mind.
Philip,
You have a closed mind and brook no differences. If you were in charge, America would be destroyed.
philip--
I appreciate your argument, and once believed it at one time. There is a lot of evidence I wasn't taking into account then.
For example, from 1890 to 1940 the census data shows that a slightly higher percentage of black adults married that whites. And before 1890 where there is no data, there is a lot of contemporary observations of the desperate attempts of freed black men to find their lost mates, children, and family members. In 1940 only 14% of all black children were born to unmarried women. Even at 1950 72% of black men and 81% of black women had been married. In every decennial census from 1920 to 1960 at least 60% of all black males 15 and up were married, a number that never differed from whites more than 5%. Most of this information can be found in Thomas Sowell's Vision of the Anointed.
Now, given we would expect blacks coming from countries with a legacy of slavery to do poorly in the United States (they don't), and given we would expect Muslims to have a difficult time after 911 (they don't), we need to look for other explanations of why the native black community struggles. I'm not going to make up bullshit and say there is no racism in America. All I'm saying is that there is more to the story-- the evidence correlates family breakdown strongly with the incentives socialist do-gooders created in the 1960s, given racism never destroyed the black family under the worst of previous conditions. We need to be honest about this too.
Socialism fails everywhere it is tried-- Russia, Zimbabwe, North Korea, the suburbs of Paris to the inner city of Detroit -- stupid social policy does not discriminate based on skin color.
We still live with the legacy of slavery, and I do not deny that racism is experienced today. If we are to be true to the facts, we must acknowledge that racism in itself is not responsible for the transformation of the black Husband and Wife into "Baby-Daddy" and "Baby-Momma." The Great Society is squarely to blame for this, along with feminism and the prophets of free love.
Hillary Clinton's almighty socialist "village" is the problem, and bringing back Mom and Dad is the solution.
Philip
Jason’s reply pretty much says it all. This is not new news, the evidence is overwhelming.
So I ask again, why would libweenies continue to support destructive policies? There aren’t but a few answers to that question.
the evidence correlates family breakdown strongly with the incentives socialist do-gooders created in the 1960s, given racism never destroyed the black family under the worst of previous conditions.
Correlation does not equal causation. One could argue that targeting of minorities by law enforcement and the racially biased execution of the "War on Drugs" had a greater impact on the destruction of the family structure in the black community.
You are putting the horse before the cart. Social programs were an admittedly flawed response to the breakdown of the inner city culture.
The problem was there first. Social programs were instituted to solve the problem. You can't say the solution caused the problem when it came afterwards.
And for those that don't know, Socialism isn't welfare or affirmative action. Socialism is the government control of the means of production.
Many people on this blog automatically assume that ANY non military government program is "socialist".
That is lazy thinking.
bringing back Mom and Dad is the solution. That is a cop out. You can't "bring back mom and dad if dad is in prision and mom is working two minimum wage jobs to pay rent.
Philip,
Save your canned cunnards. You take stereotypes out of the Racist Liberal play book and expect us to roll over. We don't do that here, Phil.
Why don't you live in the real world, not in Hollyweird scripts?
Well, Sybil, I prefer my "cunnards" fresh, never frozen or canned. Preferably grilled with a side of STFU.
philip--
One is never going to have the strict causation we observe in physics observed in social phenomena. However, the rules of logic still apply. The White Privilege hypothesis of urban decay entails things that don't exist (subordinate status for Chinese, Indians, Middle Eastern Americans) and is refuted by states of affairs that do exist (black immigrants doing better than native whites). On this basis, the theory should be rejected.
I demonstrated unequivocally above that the black family was well intact up to 1960. Social(ist) programs were created in the inner cities during the 1960s because leftwingers wanted to correct the economic inequalities due institutionalized racism by the method of expanding government. But in trying to do this, they created a host of interconnected problems, including family breakdown, juvenile deliquency, and rampant drug abuse, all which were exacerbated by the teachings of counter-culturalist morons in our media and our schools. These consequences were unexpected and unintended, as is usually the case when collectivist-liberalism fails.
The White Privilege hypothesis of urban decay entails things that don't exist (subordinate status for Chinese, Indians, Middle Eastern Americans) The economic and cultural stability of those groups is disanalogous to American blacks or whites. You are comparing the a self selected group of the most wealthy, entrepreneurial, motivated individuals on one hand (immigrants who are motivated enough and wealthy enough to come to America) to the general population of Whites and Blacks.
and is refuted by states of affairs that do exist (black immigrants doing better than native whites) Once again, comparing immigrants to the general population of whites is not valid. A better comparison would be between the the highest performing sector of Whites vs Blacks vs Immigrants.
I am willing to concede that the welfare regime as implemented in the 60's and 70's was not helpful over the long term. However, it was the implementation of the social programs, that caused the problem.
There is no reason to believe that tying welfare benefits to successful completion of job training, graduated phase out of welfare benefits upon gaining employment, child care assistance and other, smarter forms of assistance would have caused the problems we see from welfare.
leftwingers wanted to correct the economic inequalities due institutionalized racism by the method of expanding government.
Since the unregulated free market was perpetuating and reinforcing those economic inequalities, something had to be done.
But in trying to do this, they created a host of interconnected problems, including family breakdown, juvenile deliquency, and rampant drug abuse No, those problems were created by the economic inequality due to institutionalized racism and reinforced by the free market. Those were the exact problems that the social programs were created to solve (although they did make the problem worse).
These consequences were unexpected and unintended, as is usually the case when collectivist-liberalism fails.
Are you saying that the consequences of extreme laissez-faire capitalism (perpetuation and reinforcement of economic inequality) were expected and intended?
Please understand- What you are advocating as a superior solution to the problem is precisely what caused the problem in the first place. How can free market solutions be better than government social programs when the free market is what caused the problems that the government social programs were created to solve?
Regarding your comment on the other thread- I would say that the lower graduation rates for blacks and hispanics is better addressed by improving secondary school education, not by shunting them off to second class colleges.
Philip said,
"How can free market solutions be better than government social programs when the free market is what caused the problems that the government social programs were created to solve?"
I would answer that because attitudes are different than when the free market caused the problem originally. In other words, despite the fact that racism exists, it doesn't exist at the same level. Most of those with the jobs of offer nowadays are looking for the best, not the best white guy. So the taint of racism doesn't impact the free market influence as it did in the past. It wasn't the free market that caused the problem, it was a free market populated by a lot more racists than exists today.
On an earlier point you were making regarding the effects of institutionalized racism, you description of the problem suggests that AA wouldn't make much difference. If the institutionalized racism provoked and impressed a self image of unworthiness and failure, how could AA handouts (and by that I mean the handout of a leg up, as it were) suddenly overcome that negative self-image? Wouldn't a reversal of the brow-beating be more of an answer, and haven't we been hearing such encouragements toward black pride for a few decades? I submit that there must be at least a few areas where young black people rarely come into contact with whites who might attack their self image, while television and radio present uplifting messages for them. But if hearing it from "their own" won't make a difference, I can't see how getting higher up the ladder knowing it happened with government assistance will dampen that negative self image. (I'm not sure if I'm properly articulating my thoughts here.)
Philip,
When you can't dazzle us with your canned and recycled "brillance," you then move on to where you are now, trying to baffle us with your Barbara Streisand.
The immigrant comparisons are valid. If discrimination based on skin color was as rampant as Democrats believe it is, then all blacks, including black immigrants, should be what Democrats call "disadvantaged."
The main damage is not from racism that exists TODAY, but the remnants of discrimination as I explained above. Also, as I said earlier, immigrants who are motivated, entrepreneurial, and wealthy enough to come here are going to be the "cream of the crop" of their respective populations. They are going to be the best equipped to overcome any remnants of racism and they are also immune from the "legacy" effects of racism that have been carried on thru generations as I discussed above.
if there are a disproportionate amount of Jews among entrepreneurs (which there are), it would be a mistake to think like progressives and conclude that there is Jew Privilege in American society.
That is correct. There are other types of power besides economic power. Whites have used their political power, the power of numbers to enforce "cultural" power, and economic power to not only prosper, but to prosper at the expense of others.
That is why a market-only solutions will not work to solve SOCIAL problems. The free market is essentially amoral. It is not concerned with good or bad, only profit. A pure capitalist has no problem profiting at the expense of others which is why it will never produce the equitable outcomes that our sense of fairness demands.
business cannot make you do anything without the force of government. In many instances, business uses "the force of government" as a tool to achieve its own ends.
Suppose a businessman engages in racist behavior by hiring or selling to people of a certain race This is not the most common form of racism. A racist businessman can hire minorities, but only for the most menial, low paying jobs. He can sell to them, but only the lowest quality products and at the highest price (ever been shopping in a supermarket in the ghetto? It is an amazing experience) You can't reasonably argue that those consumers want to buy the lowest quality food products available at prices that would put Whole Foods to shame.
laws forcing corporations to be segregationist would be not only unnecessary, but incomprehensible.
Those laws had the support of the business community. Many of them voluntarily enforced racism. In fact, it took the FORCE OF LAW to end discrimination in the marketplace. You are making the classic capitalist mistake of assuming that the conditions required for a free market exist-namely that actors are rational and always act in their best interests. There are countless examples that disprove that.
the desire to maximize profit, i.e. the "greed" the left deplores, entails colorblindness.
More often, it entails exploitation of those without the political or economic power to stop it
Philip,
When you can't dazzle us with your canned and recycled "brillance," you then move on to where you are now, trying to baffle us with your Barbara Streisand.
Boy, Sybil, what a great contribution to the discussion. That was a well reasoned argument backed up with supporting examples and evidence to support your point.
Phil,
An accurate observation does not need a URL from Think Progress or an article by the Nation for support.
That was my smart-ass way of saying that your ad hominem attacks were adding nothing to the lively, thoughtful, reasoned discussion that we grownups were enjoying.
philip--
Again, you are merely repeating without evidence the claim that capitalism reinforces white privilege and perpetuates the racism of the past.
We all agree this racism was much, much worse in the past. If capitalism is the cause of the rampant drug abuse, family breakdown, and violence we see today among homegrown American blacks, then your ***very own theory** predicts we should have seen these evils among blacks at the same or greater rates when much more severe forms of racism existed. We do not. Moreover, capitalism isn't causing these effects in other communities today. We do see it, to take an example, where USSR-style government housing exists.
While institutionalized racism backed by the force of government created economic inequality, the evils we see today are directly correlated with the great society. I demonstrated this with a mountain of evidence in a previous post above in this thread. This is not accidental, given the worldwide failures of socialist State worshippers.
And it isn't like immigrants are simply overcoming racism. Many groups are making 20K more than the average American. This certainly cannot be what you mean by White Privilege, capitalism empowering whites to use power at the expense of others, and so forth. Perhaps you are using the word "racism" is a special sense I do not understand. I doubt it-- what seems true likely is the truth: you are repeating leftwing dogma without thinking very much about what your beliefs entail.
I lived in the near-west side for two years, which is 25.3% white, 52.9% black, and 9.51% latino. I bought my food at the "ghetto" Jewel-Osco on Ashland and Roosevelt, which has a majority of black shoppers. Nothing out of the ordinary ever happened, besides one of my naive Hindu friends getting robbed walking to there alone at 2300 on a Saturday night.
No defender of liberalism in its traditional formulation ever says that people always act rationally. Liberal economics does imply that those who act irrationally pay a price for doing so, putting themselves at a disadvantage to competitors. In the long run they get weeded out. And I'm using liberal in terms of classical-liberal, not collectivist-liberal.
Socialism in contrast ossifies things. Look at social progress in the People's Republic of Chicago. The Democrats have run things forever. When you believe in a philosophy of socialism and state power, you'll never be able to get rid of the racist union thug not fixing the potholes in the black neighborhoods, or the tenured incompetent teaching your kids, government officials doing special favors for their own family, and so forth. But hey, if you're happy with 5 decades of failure, keep supporting the Democrats.
Philip,
Liberals are not grown up, but immature spoiled brats in adult bodies.
Liberals are not grown up, but immature spoiled brats in adult bodies.
And your comment (along with your inability to provide any cogent arguments..EVER) proves that you have a bad case of projection.
Sybil forgot to take her adderall again today
Post a Comment