Quake3World

Reparation, what a bunch of horse shit.

Why is it the fault of the descendants? Why should they be punished?

Dave wrote: Affirmative action and special treatment? We've been down that road (at least partially) and it didn't seem to work

How so (the affirmative action "not working" bit)?

Please.. AA is like using a Band-Aid® to fix a crack in a dam. It doesn't do shit except make PC crazy people feel good about themselves. It doesn't fix the problem. It's unfair. It creates reverse descrimination. It rewards biology while ignoring merit.

Nice how you try to "put words in my mouth" by quoting a pharse I didn't use.

Affirmative action works. Especially when implimented in the corporate world. Just look at Jayson Blair.

mjrpes wrote:Affirmative action works. Especially when implimented in the corporate world. Just look at Jayson Blair.

rofl.. case closed

rep wrote:Why is it the fault of the descendants? Why should they be punished?

it's beyond "right and wrong" and "deserve punishment or not"

the idea is that due to the exploitation of blacks in the recent past, a host of benefits have accrued which whites are currently enjoying.

It's not about "punishing"

it's about helping out a segment of the community that is in need.

Kaziganthe wrote:The idea of handing out money to black people because of slavery instead of investing it in the ghettos and slums is lunacy. A proper education, even just up through high school, is hundreds of times more useful than handouts.

Kaziganthe wrote:Sure the US government should be held responsible. But instead of reparations, they should repay the black community through constructive funding in education and improving their housing etc.

I like this sort of thinking.

I think AA has definitely helped in some cases, but it doesn't address the subtle or overt racism that exists in the specific institutions where it would have been actually used.
Reverse discrimination is definitely a problem - don't know how widespread it would be - but I know there have been white, upper-middle class males who have been shafted because of AA.

The issue can frustrate me, because I don't have a simple answer. In one sense, the mere principle of AA seems to reinforce racism and racial stereotypes. I can only speculate on this - but I think I'd feel offended to have my race considered in a decision to hire me, or to get me into medical school, or whatever. It is the opposite of a color-blind society. However, I am sure that there are cases where AA has forced some institutions to stop some very biased practices of hiring or acceptance. For every qualified white male that lost out to a less qualified minority due to AA, there are going to be countless uncounted minorities who were very qualified but didn't even get considered due to their race (probably not the problem now that it was a number of years ago...but I am sure it still exists).

So, I have no answer other than to say I think AA has some real fundamental flaws, and that the fact that it probably has done SOME good makes it tough for me to completely discount it, even though it can fuck a lot of people over while helping others..

Dave wrote:Please.. AA is like using a Band-Aid® to fix a crack in a dam. It doesn't do shit except make PC crazy people feel good about themselves. It doesn't fix the problem. It's unfair. It creates reverse descrimination. It rewards biology while ignoring merit.

Nice how you try to "put words in my mouth" by quoting a pharse I didn't use.

Put words in your mouth? A compound of 'special treatment' and 'affirmative action' represents a 'road' we've (partially) gone done that hasn't seemed to work. I was simply asking you how the AA element has or hasn't 'worked'. Double please on you!

Normally when I put "things in quotes," it's to double supar sarcastically underline something someone said that was "really stupid". Partially was for special treatment because it's a vague and board category

[xeno]Julios wrote:

rep wrote:Why is it the fault of the descendants? Why should they be punished?

it's beyond "right and wrong" and "deserve punishment or not"

the idea is that due to the exploitation of blacks in the recent past, a host of benefits have accrued which whites are currently enjoying.

It's not about "punishing"

it's about helping out a segment of the community that is in need.

In need of what? There are plenty of African Americans in need financially for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with slavery. There are many whites in the same boat. Why should one of these 'segments' be helped out instead of the other? My answer is that both segments should be helped - in an ideal world everyone who is in need of something has access to services that address said need, and color of the skin has nothing to do with it.

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Kaziganthe wrote:The idea of handing out money to black people because of slavery instead of investing it in the ghettos and slums is lunacy. A proper education, even just up through high school, is hundreds of times more useful than handouts.

Kaziganthe wrote:Sure the US government should be held responsible. But instead of reparations, they should repay the black community through constructive funding in education and improving their housing etc.

I like this sort of thinking.

But why should the government only do that for African Americans?

I teach in an inner city school that has both the richest and the poorest kids in the city. And I can tell you that poverty and the slums are not unique to African Americans.

If the government is going to pay to clean up these slum areas, they should be ready to take care of ALL of them - white/black/whatever.

When it comes to college matriculation, what is wrong with basing special consideration on family income and high school funding, not race? Basing special consideration on family income and school funding indirectly becomes an Affirmative Action type measure, since students most likely to have lower families income and come from poorer schools are minorities. These are the students who have probably stuggled the most to do well in school and go to college, whether they be white or black and, since they come from poorer families, their parents are more likely not to be college educated. Why should a minority student who comes from a rich family, who is able to go to good public schools and take tutoring or whatever else is needed to do well on the SATs etc, be given special consideration? There must be something terribly wrong with proposing a solution like this, since racial profiling is still such a debated topic.

tnf wrote:
In need of what? There are plenty of African Americans in need financially for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with slavery. There are many whites in the same boat. Why should one of these 'segments' be helped out instead of the other? My answer is that both segments should be helped - in an ideal world everyone who is in need of something has access to services that address said need, and color of the skin has nothing to do with it.

So what's not ideal in our world to make this an ideal world? Is the link between low income and minorities not strong enough?

That 'link' means jack shit to the countless whites living in poverty as well.

mjrpes wrote:When it comes to college matriculation, what is wrong with basing special consideration on family income and high school funding, not race? Basing special consideration on family income and school funding indirectly becomes an Affirmative Action type measure, since students most likely to have lower families income and come from poorer schools are minorities. These are the students who have probably stuggled the most to do well in school and go to college, whether they be white or black and, since they come from poorer families, their parents are more likely not to be college educated. Why should a minority student who comes from a rich family, who is able to go to good public schools and take tutoring or whatever else is needed to do well on the SATs etc, be given special consideration? There must be something terribly wrong with proposing a solution like this, since racial profiling is still such a debated topic.

Poverty is a much more complicated issue than most here realize. There is a 'culture of poverty' - you should read a book by Ruby Payne called A Framework for Understanding Poverty. I read this during my master's in teaching training, and I did some volunteer work at a low-income school. The culture was not at all what I expected it to be.

But there is nothing wrong with addressing economic hardship when it comes to access to materials and whatnot. But you can't assume that because a student is poor, they will struggle in school or have a lacking support system at home when it comes to homework and whatnot.

mjrpes wrote:When it comes to college matriculation, what is wrong with basing special consideration on family income and high school funding, not race? Basing special consideration on family income and school funding indirectly becomes an Affirmative Action type measure, since students most likely to have lower families income and come from poorer schools are minorities. These are the students who have probably stuggled the most to do well in school and go to college, whether they be white or black and, since they come from poorer families, their parents are more likely not to be college educated. Why should a minority student who comes from a rich family, who is able to go to good public schools and take tutoring or whatever else is needed to do well on the SATs etc, be given special consideration? There must be something terribly wrong with proposing a solution like this, since racial profiling is still such a debated topic.

I think money is a fair metric for judging the quality of opportunity a student had in elementary and high school. It's color blind, money doesn't care who your parents are.

Kracus wrote:

Chupacabra wrote:Dave, do you or do you not agree that there is a class/income division between descendants of european immigrants and descendants of african slaves 200 or so years after they've come to America?

If you think its true that there's this division, why do you think there is one? Do you think its fair to the black community? If you do think its fair then *shrug* if you dont think its fair, do you think that a country as wealthy as ours should be trying to do something about it? If yes, what do you think we should do?

I'm not trying to corner you or your views or anything, just trying to get some opinions.

Well shit do you think an entire race of people that were litteraly slaves will just jump up and all become expert entrepreneurs all of a sudden? I know you're talking to dave but my opinion on the matter is that these things will take a lot of time. possibly thousands of years before things balance out if we simply behave with equality in mind.

Dave wrote: Reparations wont work because it's the equivalent to giving a man a fish. But if that guy over there gets a fish, I want a fish too... Where's my fucking fish? It's the Affirmative Action argument.

Giving people money isn't making an investment in the future. It's equivalent to giving a homeless person you know who is going to go by alcohol all the change in your pocket.

Most of the problem really isn't monetary, but since our culture assesses value in dollars and cents, everyone thinks it is. The money is a big problem sure, but it's only a small piece in the overall pie. The problem is that blacks and whites taken as a whole races don't really want to understand each other... Solve that problem and there's the solution.

I think you missed the whole point a little bit Kracus (unless I'm mistaken). Its pretty obvious that it will take a while for them to come up and out of the things slavery can do to a population. The whole issue is whether or not the U.S. should do something about it. I guess you say that we should do nothing, correct?

I take it Dave, that you think theres nothing really "practical" that we can do (unless you're saying that whatever solution there is, its not monetary)? Or maybe we should just try to mix more racially?

edit: well you also said this kracus so nm:

Kracus wrote:I don't think any generation should owe for the previous generations crimes.

Dave wrote:I think money is a fair metric for judging the quality of opportunity a student had in elementary and high school. It's color blind, money doesn't care who your parents are.

^^ this coming from a person who got fucked by the EFC stat and got laid off mid year last year and took at 50% cut in hours as a result. The EFC calculation is bullshit because it's based on the previous year's income. If you're like me, the previous year's income stays in the previous year...

tnf wrote: But there is nothing wrong with addressing economic hardship when it comes to access to materials and whatnot. But you can't assume that because a student is poor, they will struggle in school or have a lacking support system at home when it comes to homework and whatnot.

Although you can't assume, isn't there a general trend? Poor people are more likely to be minorities, even if a good portion of that might be white.

The only reason I can see for supporting affirmative action is if there exists specifically within minorities communities an overwhelming culture of ignorance and contempt for knowledge and education, such that the average minority will have a more difficult time doing well in school compared to a white person under the same economic conditions.

Chupacabra wrote:I take it Dave, that you think theres nothing really "practical" that we can do (unless you're saying that whatever solution there is, its not monetary)? Or maybe we should just try to mix more racially?

If you watched the interview, you can see they want money... not college funds, not health insurance funds. They want cold, hard cash. I'm having sudden visions of a corrupt class action lawsuit that makes a couple of croo.. lawyers a lot of money and a lot of black people still poor.

schlockey wrote:

Chupacabra wrote:do you think that a country as wealthy as ours should be trying to do something about it?

Wealthy? I hope you arent an american, because if you are you seem to have mis-placed your sign that says "We are 100 Trillion in debt and ravaged anally".

I am an American.

The debt is a pretty bad thing obviously but I still think we're (the US) is wealthy in a certain sense. Its a funny thing and you really have to think of who is in debt when you're talking about this stuff. We can still spend 200 billion dollars in Iraq even though we have a shitload of debt. We can subsidize farms and stuff even though we're in debt.

You cant completely correlate wealth and debt I think. Most everyone would say we're "richer" and "wealthier" as a nation than Gambia even though we have a shitload of debt. It's a weird thing.

I mean think about Donald Trump for a second. He was 900 million dollars in debt and he was flying around first class around the country. Eating at the finest restaurants in the world. If you consider his debt, you are more than 900 million dollars richer than he was at that time. Could you do those things he was doing?

Dave wrote:

Chupacabra wrote:I take it Dave, that you think theres nothing really "practical" that we can do (unless you're saying that whatever solution there is, its not monetary)? Or maybe we should just try to mix more racially?

If you watched the interview, you can see they want money... not college funds, not health insurance funds. They want cold, hard cash. I'm having sudden visions of a corrupt class action lawsuit that makes a couple of croo.. lawyers a lot of money and a lot of black people still poor.

I guess I kind of felt the topic swayed from that interview you were talking about, but I see what you're saying.

What do you think of the U.S. promising 40 acres and mule to every black family after the civil war and not delivering? Thats where the argument for reparations really starts from.