Race relations/affirmative action

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I would be receptive to the problems of the oppressed white minority in China? 

I guess here is the fundamental difference.

I don't considered African Americans an OPPRESSED minority. 

Oppressed minorities don't have representation at the highest levels of government.  Such as President or Justice of Supreme Court.

Oppressed minorities have legal barriers to their success.  (e.g. segregation)  Not granted legally mandated favoritism (e.g. affirmative action)

Rosa Parks had a legitimate complaint.  You don't.

Sorry, but when Obama was elected you lost the what little right still had to call yourself an oppressed minority.     

[Fau Teixeira]

Sorry, but when Obama was elected you lost the what little right still had to call yourself an oppressed minority.     

other than the fact that blacks get arrested at a much higher rate for the same crimes as whites do .. or that black defendents receive on average harsher penalties for the same convictions than whites .. other than you know .. facts .. you're right

[Spider-Dan]

Oppressed minorities don't have representation at the highest levels of government.  Such as President or Justice of Supreme Court.

So then, why did you pick November 2008 instead of October 1967 (when Thurgood Marshall was appointed to the Supreme Court)?

Oppressed minorities have legal barriers to their success.  (e.g. segregation)

Can you explain how segregation is a legal barrier to success?  Specifically, the "separate but equal" kind.

Rosa Parks had a legitimate complaint.  You don't.

Why do you consider Rosa Parks' complaint legitimate?  Does the bus not take all of its occupants to every destination?  What does it matter what part of the bus you are sitting on?

Sorry, but when Obama was elected you lost the what little right still had to call yourself an oppressed minority.

I suppose we can also repeal the Civil Rights Act now, as racism has been eradicated?

The idea that the election of one man negates millions of people still being harassed by police because of the color of their skin is rather silly.  Furthermore, as Obama is not Hispanic, do you believe (as you claim you did prior to 2008) that affirmative action is still A.O.K. for non-black races?  Or are we supposed to believe that Sonia Sotomayor means that Latinos also live in a post-racial society, but Thurgood Marshall didn't mean the same for black people in the 1960s because ...?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

So then, why did you pick November 2008 instead of October 1967 (when Thurgood Marshall was appointed to the Supreme Court)?

Very significant reason. Thurgood was not elected by the masses.  Nor was his election private.  If we still lived in a society where the majority of whites claimed not to be racist but were in fact private were, then Obama would have won lost the election (even if he won the exit polls) as people could have privately not voted for him while still claiming to be color blind.  That didn't happen.  Plus one justice out of nine isn't the leader of the country.  President is.

Can you explain how segregation is a legal barrier to success?  Specifically, the "separate but equal" kind.

There never was separate but equal.  

Why do you consider Rosa Parks' complaint legitimate?  Does the bus not take all of its occupants to every destination?  What does it matter what part of the bus you are sitting on?

Rosa Parks wasn't told to sit in another section of the bus.  She was required to stand in the back of the bus.  

I suppose we can also repeal the Civil Rights Act now, as racism has been eradicated?

While I am not calling for that.  I think we could.  If the CRA was repealed I doubt very many restaurants would bar blacks from sitting at counter etc.  Maybe a handful would, but it would be very few.

I never said racism had been eradicated.  It still exists.  I have said that AA once helped reduce it, now it fuels it.  And therefor AA should go away.

Furthermore, as Obama is not Hispanic, do you believe that affirmative action is still A.O.K. for non-black races?  Or are we supposed to believe that Sonia Sotomayor means that Latinos also live in a post-racial society, but Thurgood Marshall didn't mean the same for black people in the 1960s because ...?

I don't think we should have ever had affirmative action for Latinos in the first place. Blacks were a special case because of slavery and segregation.  If Latinos deserve AA then so do the Irish, (Irish need not apply),  the Italian (WOPS), the Jews (many colleges had policies of excluding Jews, etc), and Asians.  Latinos haven't had it any worse, in fact they have had it easier then most other immigrant groups.  There was no ESL for my grandparents.    

[Spider-Dan]

Thurgood was not elected by the masses.  Nor was his election private.  If we still lived in a society where the majority of whites claimed not to be racist but were in fact private were, then Obama would have won lost the election (even if he won the exit polls) as people could have privately not voted for him while still claiming to be color blind.  That didn't happen.  Plus one justice out of nine isn't the leader of the country.  President is.

You're the one that just said that "oppressed minorities" don't have representation on the Supreme Court.  So if Supreme Court justices are appointed and don't count, why did you bring them up?  Did blacks cease to be an "oppressed minority" when Marshall made it to the Supreme Court, or not?

There never was separate but equal.

Can you explain how that is a legal barrier to success?
Is it because of the poor treatment?  Or maybe the inferior facilities?

Rosa Parks wasn't told to sit in another section of the bus.  She was required to stand in the back of the bus.

Other people were already standing on the bus.  Does the bus not still take its occupants to every destination?  How is her complaint legitimate?

I never said racism had been eradicated.  It still exists.  I have said that AA once helped reduce it, now it fuels it.

How does AA fuel racism only now?  Whites were being excluded to make room for more minorities since the start of AA; that is its function.  So if you believe that giving a minority candidate a leg up at the expense of a white candidate engenders resentment today, you should have believed that well before November 2008.

I don't think we should have ever had affirmative action for Latinos in the first place.

So you don't believe that non-black minorities suffered from the effects of racism, then?

If Latinos deserve AA then so do the Irish, (Irish need not apply),  the Italian (WOPS), the Jews (many colleges had policies of excluding Jews, etc), and Asians.

First off: Asians did benefit from AA, just as Latinos, Native Americans, Arabs, etc. did.
Second: I'm amazed I even have to explain this, but it's a lot easier for a person with caucasian appearance (e.g. Irish, Polish, Russian, many Jews and Italians) to pass as "white" than it is for most blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

The rest of your post of both this is just bullshit and already addressed you know it.

But this point is worth responding to.

First off: Asians did benefit from AA, just as Latinos, Native Americans, Arabs, etc. did.
Second: I'm amazed I even have to explain this, but it's a lot easier for a person with caucasian appearance (e.g. Irish, Polish, Russian, many Jews and Italians) to pass as "white" than it is for most blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.

So it is your stance that anti-antisemitism is different than racism, because a Jew can change his name, cease going to shul, join a Christian church and likely avoid the discriminate effect by ceasing to be Jewish. 

That is saying that http://skinlighteningcreamlabs.com/lightening-cream-for-african-american-and-asian-skin-types/ will solve any remaining race issues.   

[Spider-Dan]

The rest of your post of both this is just bullshit and already addressed you know it.

Not really; it's just inconvenient to your position.

You claim that the kinds of conditions that resulted from discrimination (e.g. inequal treatment by law enforcement, inferior public facilities) were a "legal barrier to success" when explicitly codified into law.  But when they are not codified into law, but still enforced in practice (under different rationale), suddenly they are not a big deal and people should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps?

I can make the same kind of argument for Jim Crow: "The law doesn't say that blacks can't vote... it just says that if you had a relative that could vote before 1860, then you can vote without having to take a poll test.  That's not race specific!"

I'm not saying that things are anywhere near as bad today as they were prior to the CRA; they are not.  But I don't understand your reliance on 11/4/08... either conditions across the country were still bad enough to warrant AA on 11/3/08, or they were not.  The election of one man does not instantly mean that kids being stopped in their own apartment buildings and being forced to prove they live there is now OK.

So it is your stance that anti-antisemitism is different than racism, because a Jew can change his name, cease going to shul, join a Christian church and likely avoid the discriminate effect by ceasing to be Jewish.

Well, yes.  That's how some Jews during the Holocaust were able to survive; by passing as Christian.  Of course, not all Jews had this option; some had language barriers, while others appeared too ethnic to pass as "Aryan."  Asians can't exactly grab a Bible and pretend to be white.

That is saying that http://skinlighteningcreamlabs.com/lightening-cream-for-african-american-and-asian-skin-types/ will solve any remaining race issues.

I'm pretty sure that skin lightening cream doesn't change your hair, nose, lips, or eyes, nor is it passed on to your children.

It seems like you're saying that Irish/Italian/Jewish people in segregated America had to use the Colored facilities and go to Colored schools.  Is this your claim?  If not, you're really just wasting your time; the fact that there was discrimination between different caucasian groups doesn't really prove anything.  The defining line in this country was "colored" and "white"; while there were still hierarchies within those groups, the lowest white group was still above the highest colored group.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I can make the same kind of argument for Jim Crow: "The law doesn't say that blacks can't vote... it just says that if you had a relative that could vote before 1860, then you can vote without having to take a poll test.  That's not race specific!"

Bullshit.  A law based on your rights prior to 1860 is based on race.  Give me one example of a law that substitutes for race in such matter that is still on the books or was on the books in the last 30 years.  Stop living in the 1950s.

I'm not saying that things are anywhere near as bad today as they were prior to the CRA; they are not.  But I don't understand your reliance on 11/4/08... either conditions across the country were still bad enough to warrant AA on 11/3/08, or they were not.  The election of one man does not instantly mean that kids being stopped in their own apartment buildings and being forced to prove they live there is now OK.

The need for AA has been declining for quite some time before 11/04/08.  But that was a watershed moment and proof positive things have changed. 

Hypothetically: Let say tomorrow congress repeals CRA and on Tuesday the MLB announces it is up to individual teams if they wish to be all white, all colored or mixed there is no requirement regarding if a team owner discriminates or not.   

Do you think we would go back to the days before Jackie Robinson?  Or do you think that baseball teams would draft and play players based on their talent? 

That is the difference.  The majority of people (not all, but most) judge people based on their skills and character not color.  That was true in October of 2008, but unproven, in Nov it was proven to be true

It seems like you're saying that Irish/Italian/Jewish people in segregated America had to use the Colored facilities and go to Colored schools.  Is this your claim?  If not, you're really just wasting your time; the fact that there was discrimination between different caucasian groups doesn't really prove anything.  The defining line in this country was "colored" and "white"; while there were still hierarchies within those groups, the lowest white group was still above the highest colored group.

Actually I am not.  I think AA had a purpose for blacks, native americans and women, but the country has moved past it, because we did at one time have specific laws against them.    But there was never had legitimate purpose for Hispanics.

[Spider-Dan]

Bullshit.  A law based on your rights prior to 1860 is based on race.

But a law that gives different sentences for crack cocaine vs. powdered cocaine is not?

Hypothetically: Let say tomorrow congress repeals CRA and on Tuesday the MLB announces it is up to individual teams if they wish to be all white, all colored or mixed there is no requirement regarding if a team owner discriminates or not.  

Do you think we would go back to the days before Jackie Robinson?

No, but given that baseball voluntarily integrated well before the CRA, that seems a particularly poor example. 

In contrast, do I think that businesses that have to at least appear to have non-racial guidelines in hiring could feel free to completely abandon them... to summarily discard any resume that has an ethnic-sounding name, or has an address in the wrong part of town (without even the pretense of a reason)?  Why, yes, I do.

That is the difference.  The majority of people (not all, but most) judge people based on their skills and character not color.  That was true in October of 2008, but unproven, in Nov it was proven to be true

Do you know what percentage of people even vote in this country?  And of those, how many voted against Obama?

Obama received 69,498,516 votes in a nation of >300 million.  Of those ~70 million votes, over 28 million were from non-whites.  The majority of whites voted for McCain, 55% to 43%.  And these facts PROVE that AA is no longer needed?

Do the majority of Americans judge others based on the content of their character?  Yes, I believe so.  But if you're telling me that 51% of police believing that Hispanics are just as innocent as anyone else is good enough?  That's absurd.  A simple majority is not even close to enough.

When we stop having policies that disproportionately target blacks and Hispanics, then I can believe that the playing field has been leveled.  Whether or not Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court is irrelevant.

I think AA had a purpose for blacks, native americans and women, but the country has moved past it, because we did at one time have specific laws against them.    But there was never had legitimate purpose for Hispanics.

So again, you believe that Hispanics were not impacted by segregation?

You just said that Rosa Parks had a "legitimate complaint."  Had Rosa Parks been Hispanic, the outcome in her scenario would have been exactly the same.  So which one is it?

[Spider-Dan]

An interesting article that I read today that actually makes the opposite argument of Hoodie's (racial division has become more prevalent since Obama's election):

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/2/5671792/race-and-obama

The article presents several examples of poll results from Democrats vs. Republicans on six racially-charged topics.  These three are pre-2008:



And these three are post-2008:



Another interesting graph is this one, which tracks the opinion of self-identifying Republican voters on interracial marriage and affirmative action:



If Obama's election proved that this country has moved past the oppressing racism of yesteryear, why has there been such a sharp increase in racial division since Obama's election?  The argument that this is solely driven by resentment towards affirmative action does not explain the sharp uptick in sentiment against interracial marriage; that fact also deflates the idea that the cause is a sharp leftward turn by liberals (instead of a sharp rightward turn by conservatives).

[Dave Gray]

^ I don't think that's a fair graph, because it breaks down specifically Republicans and Democrats.  But I'd argue that the makeup of the GOP is very different now than it was just 10 years ago.  It's a fringe party for the most part and those that were part of it 10 years ago probably are identifying as independents.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

If Obama's election proved that this country has moved past the oppressing racism of yesteryear, why has there been such a sharp increase in racial division since Obama's election?  The argument that this is solely driven by resentment towards affirmative action does not explain the sharp uptick in sentiment against interracial marriage; that fact also deflates the idea that the cause is a sharp leftward turn by liberals (instead of a sharp rightward turn by conservatives).

What is that inter-racial dating question asking anyway, it is ambigous?  "If we should amend the constitution to overturn Loving?" or "would your prefer your son/daughter go out with some one of the same color?"  or something in between.  If it is former the numbers seem high if the later the number seems low.  If the wording of the question change in the surveys and hence the difference. 

Actually an right-wing up tick in being less than thrilled with Loving might have little to do with race, but right wingers being up set with Loving being an argument for the doing away with the requirement that married people have different  genders. 

I am not surprised that there is an up tick in white opposition to AA and in general worsening race relations.   Only one of which has to do with Obama.   It is easy for me to see a need for AA in the 1960/70s.  Not so much when the President is black.

But the second reason is if you look at the chart, increases in opposition of AA matches a decline in the economy.  If you are a white male working for a company in a growing economy you are unlikely to be bother that a new employee coming in is black or female because of AA.  However, in a declining economy if a company is laying off equally qualified white males and keeping the blacks and women because they fear a risk of a discrimination suit if they lay off a black but a free to lay off a white, then resentment become quite strong. 

[Spider-Dan]

I am not surprised that there is an up tick in white opposition to AA and in general worsening race relations.   Only one of which has to do with Obama.   It is easy for me to see a need for AA in the 1960/70s.  Not so much when the President is black.

This is the foundation of the issue.

If one believes that Obama's election proves that racism has been mostly eliminated, is it any wonder that one would also dismiss the racial aspects of the Zimmerman homicide, or downplay the significance of Sterling's comments, or feel that a movie about slavery is dredging up old, irrelevant problems?

This isn't happening in a vacuum.  Assigning such a value to the election of one man and using that specific event to infer immediate, sweeping changes to society as a whole directly leads to the kind of disconnect on race that is shown in those charts.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

This is the foundation of the issue.

If one believes that Obama's election proves that racism has been mostly eliminated, is it any wonder that one would also dismiss the racial aspects of the Zimmerman homicide, or downplay the significance of Sterling's comments, or feel that a movie about slavery is dredging up old, irrelevant problems?

I don't dismiss the racial aspects of Zimmerman.  I am certain if it had been a white on white or black on black shooting it would have never gone national.  Had it been black on black which one would Obama declare could have been his son?

Sterling's comments are racist.  But not any worse than Jessie Jackson calling NYC Hymietown.  Clearly there is a racial aspect to the different reception those comments got. 

Holding the opinion that Gravity was the best picture of 2012 is not racist.  Just like holding the opinion that The Fugitive was the best picture in 1993 is not antisemitic. 

[Phishfan]

The thing that gets me about the Zimmerman discussion is that people still leave the word Hispanic out of the discussion and insinuate or outright say it is a white on black crime. George Zimmerman refers to himself as Hispanic but misleading news reports still have Americans ignoring that.