|
cunninglinguists -
First of all, hilarious username.
I've watched "The Color of Fear" we were required to do that in High School. I found it funny how some of the most educated and well-mannered, hardworking people were so worried about being racist.
Your professor's research study is very interesting. What results (if any) have they found with using an Asian accent?
I don't deny that there is a lot of racism in this country. Race is only one of many factors that I use to pre-judge someone (and don't tell me you don't pre-judge). I'm not really arguing that one. What I'm arguing is that the ideology of self-entitlement is harmful, because it hinders progress. I think the Black leadership needs to realize this (especially a person like Gates).
I also just read the blurb on Wiki on the model minority self-selective immigration hypothesis. It's interesting, because that's the conclusion I drew for myself on why Asian-Americans do so much better on average. It still shouldn't affect my argument. Just as a self-imposed view of self-entitlement is harmful, a externally imposed view (like the "model minority myth") is harmful. I think they are just the same phenomena working in different ways. We all should think of ourselves as individuals first, and then race should be a whole lot further down on the list of how we identify ourselves.
|
The rant is probably also just as rationally unjustified as self-entitlement, but you also have to understand, the best thing to do when you're frustrated is to rant and let it out. According to my view of history, history happens in bursts - nothing happens gradually. There needs to be some sort of strong reaction/ranting to get this flawed system fixed.
this is the exact type of strong reaction for which you criticize others. i agree that many things in history happens in bursts, but behind especially effective bursts, are calm and rational minds.
strong reactions without some sort of rationality gives way to radical groups.
|
On July 24 2009 14:10 dasanivan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 14:06 Saddened Izzy wrote:
The officer was being a dick by not seeing the ID if that is true.
Gates is being a dick if he lied or if he resisted arrest only proving the point of his arrest.
Either way blah blah blah. Wouldn't it be more of racial profiling if they didn't arrest him because he didn't look like a thug. Last point Obama should not weigh in on something that he only has heard from others. He just should concentrate on his already full plate. obama is the president. it would be bad for a president's image not to weigh in on an issue about which even starcraft enthusiasts debate.
this doesn't make sense, have you seen some of the debates on TL? not exactly president appropriate:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=98126
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=77748
just to show a couple. point is, the president's job is not to weigh in on EVERY issue, especially one so insignificant to his political career. In fact, topics such as these that are extremely sensitive and provide little political gain are the exact situations he should stay away from. as somebody said earlier he already has enough on his plate
|
Osaka27114 Posts
Please don't post titles all in caps.
|
On July 24 2009 14:15 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 14:05 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 13:57 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2009 13:55 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 13:52 Aegraen wrote:
Yes, the race card gets played far, far too often. It's often a one way street. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. They hurt the black community so much.
We'll never have a honest debate about race in America as long as blacks call you a racist if you even dare to bring up the current state of affairs. (Out of wedlock / single mother births, crime statistics, % on entitlements, median income, drop out rates, culture, etc.)
In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism). Affirmative Action, Educational Pell Grants, etc.
Martin Luther Jr. King would be appalled at the state of the black community today. He wanted an America in which we were judged by our character, by the individual; Today we have it reversed. Sad, indeed. yeah and the klan isn't lynching anyone anymore either! dang black people have it so easy these days I wish I was black He specifically stated he was talking from a perspective of preferential treatment by the government. Last time I checked the KKK wasn't a branch of the US Government. It isn't but he says "preferential treatment from the government" as if it's sufficient to overcome the crappy socioeconomic situations a large percentage of black people are born into. As a white middle-class person, the fact that I lived in an area with a tax base that could support a modern school with good teachers probably meant more in terms of government assistance than the pittance given to those mired in inner city or rural poverty. "Preferential treatment" doesn't make up for living in an area devoid of social services and economic opportunity. My parents were both state employees and they made far much more money doing productive work for the state than could ever be gained from entitlements programs that for some reason rich people seem to think are a lot of money. TL has a policy of not reading into what someone did not say. He didn't say that blacks have it easy because the government treats them well. He simply talked about how the government currently treats them. Blacks certainly don't have it 'easy' overall.
"In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism)"
So there are two cases here: either black people have it 'easy' or they don't.
If they have it 'easy', this can be laid at the feet of 'preferential treatment by the government', and said preferential treatment could be pointed to as evidence that black people should be more successful on average than they are.
If they do not have it 'easy', 'preferential treatment by the government' does not have a tangible effect on one's ability to be successful.
If you are saying that he is saying blacks don't have it 'easy', why would he bring up the preferential treatment in the first place? "Preferential treatment for black people is a sufficiently significant benefit to bring up as a reason they should be more successful" and "black people do not have it easy" are contradictory arguments
|
United States24502 Posts
On July 24 2009 14:25 zeppelin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 14:15 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2009 14:05 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 13:57 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2009 13:55 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 13:52 Aegraen wrote:
Yes, the race card gets played far, far too often. It's often a one way street. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. They hurt the black community so much.
We'll never have a honest debate about race in America as long as blacks call you a racist if you even dare to bring up the current state of affairs. (Out of wedlock / single mother births, crime statistics, % on entitlements, median income, drop out rates, culture, etc.)
In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism). Affirmative Action, Educational Pell Grants, etc.
Martin Luther Jr. King would be appalled at the state of the black community today. He wanted an America in which we were judged by our character, by the individual; Today we have it reversed. Sad, indeed. yeah and the klan isn't lynching anyone anymore either! dang black people have it so easy these days I wish I was black He specifically stated he was talking from a perspective of preferential treatment by the government. Last time I checked the KKK wasn't a branch of the US Government. It isn't but he says "preferential treatment from the government" as if it's sufficient to overcome the crappy socioeconomic situations a large percentage of black people are born into. As a white middle-class person, the fact that I lived in an area with a tax base that could support a modern school with good teachers probably meant more in terms of government assistance than the pittance given to those mired in inner city or rural poverty. "Preferential treatment" doesn't make up for living in an area devoid of social services and economic opportunity. My parents were both state employees and they made far much more money doing productive work for the state than could ever be gained from entitlements programs that for some reason rich people seem to think are a lot of money. TL has a policy of not reading into what someone did not say. He didn't say that blacks have it easy because the government treats them well. He simply talked about how the government currently treats them. Blacks certainly don't have it 'easy' overall. "In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism)" So there are two cases here: either black people have it 'easy' or they don't. If they have it 'easy', this can be laid at the feet of 'preferential treatment by the government', and said preferential treatment could be pointed to as evidence that black people should be more successful on average than they are. If they do not have it 'easy', 'preferential treatment by the government' does not have a tangible effect on one's ability to be successful. If you are saying that he is saying blacks don't have it 'easy', why would he bring up the preferential treatment as if it was supposed to make them have it easy?
I really don't understand the logic that you are trying to use, but I'll just sum up again what I believe is a reasonable stance to interpret from his post.
1) Blacks receive the best preferential treatment by the government.
2) Receiving the best preferential treatment by the government does not ensure that you have it easy, although it can relieve some of the burden of having it 'difficult'.
3) Blacks don't necessarily have it easy overall even though in one particular category they might be at an advantage.
You seem to be making assumptions that are not valid.
|
On July 24 2009 14:24 jonnyp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 14:10 dasanivan wrote:On July 24 2009 14:06 Saddened Izzy wrote:
The officer was being a dick by not seeing the ID if that is true.
Gates is being a dick if he lied or if he resisted arrest only proving the point of his arrest.
Either way blah blah blah. Wouldn't it be more of racial profiling if they didn't arrest him because he didn't look like a thug. Last point Obama should not weigh in on something that he only has heard from others. He just should concentrate on his already full plate. obama is the president. it would be bad for a president's image not to weigh in on an issue about which even starcraft enthusiasts debate. this doesn't make sense, have you seen some of the debates on TL? not exactly president appropriate: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=98126http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=77748just to show a couple. point is, the president's job is not to weigh in on EVERY issue, especially one so insignificant to his political career. In fact, topics such as these that are extremely sensitive and provide little political gain are the exact situations he should stay away from. as somebody said earlier he already has enough on his plate
that is why i said "which even starcraft enthusiasts debate," rather than "which only starcraft enthusiasts debate." The difference between this issue and others is that the president is looked upon by a large portion of America to weigh in. regarding irrelevant topics, of course, the president is not advised to comment.
though a president does have to be cautious about sensitive topics, for the president not to have opinions about them in general defeats the purpose of having a political party.
|
On July 24 2009 14:29 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 14:25 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 14:15 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2009 14:05 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 13:57 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2009 13:55 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 13:52 Aegraen wrote:
Yes, the race card gets played far, far too often. It's often a one way street. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. They hurt the black community so much.
We'll never have a honest debate about race in America as long as blacks call you a racist if you even dare to bring up the current state of affairs. (Out of wedlock / single mother births, crime statistics, % on entitlements, median income, drop out rates, culture, etc.)
In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism). Affirmative Action, Educational Pell Grants, etc.
Martin Luther Jr. King would be appalled at the state of the black community today. He wanted an America in which we were judged by our character, by the individual; Today we have it reversed. Sad, indeed. yeah and the klan isn't lynching anyone anymore either! dang black people have it so easy these days I wish I was black He specifically stated he was talking from a perspective of preferential treatment by the government. Last time I checked the KKK wasn't a branch of the US Government. It isn't but he says "preferential treatment from the government" as if it's sufficient to overcome the crappy socioeconomic situations a large percentage of black people are born into. As a white middle-class person, the fact that I lived in an area with a tax base that could support a modern school with good teachers probably meant more in terms of government assistance than the pittance given to those mired in inner city or rural poverty. "Preferential treatment" doesn't make up for living in an area devoid of social services and economic opportunity. My parents were both state employees and they made far much more money doing productive work for the state than could ever be gained from entitlements programs that for some reason rich people seem to think are a lot of money. TL has a policy of not reading into what someone did not say. He didn't say that blacks have it easy because the government treats them well. He simply talked about how the government currently treats them. Blacks certainly don't have it 'easy' overall. "In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism)" So there are two cases here: either black people have it 'easy' or they don't. If they have it 'easy', this can be laid at the feet of 'preferential treatment by the government', and said preferential treatment could be pointed to as evidence that black people should be more successful on average than they are. If they do not have it 'easy', 'preferential treatment by the government' does not have a tangible effect on one's ability to be successful. If you are saying that he is saying blacks don't have it 'easy', why would he bring up the preferential treatment as if it was supposed to make them have it easy? I really don't understand the logic that you are trying to use, but I'll just sum up again what I believe is a reasonable stance to interpret from his post. 1) Blacks receive the best preferential treatment by the government. 2) Receiving the best preferential treatment by the government does not ensure that you have it easy, although it can relieve some of the burden of having it 'difficult'. 3) Blacks don't necessarily have it easy overall even though in one particular category they might be at an advantage. You seem to be making assumptions that are not valid.
I can only go off what he explicitly said: "Face it, the black community is keeping themselves down. No one else is hindering them."
Points 2) and 3) seem to be only your assumptions, not his, and on those points I agree with you completely.
|
On July 24 2009 14:23 dasanivan wrote:Show nested quote +
The rant is probably also just as rationally unjustified as self-entitlement, but you also have to understand, the best thing to do when you're frustrated is to rant and let it out. According to my view of history, history happens in bursts - nothing happens gradually. There needs to be some sort of strong reaction/ranting to get this flawed system fixed.
this is the exact type of strong reaction for which you criticize others. i agree that many things in history happens in bursts, but behind especially effective bursts, are calm and rational minds. strong reactions without some sort of rationality gives way to radical groups.
I think there is a strong rationality behind why feelings of self-entitlement are detrimental. While the solutions seem difficult, no change comes from everyone keeping hush hush about sensitive issues. The benefits from the thinking provoked by ranting as above outweighs the evils of self-entitlement. That was one of the main complaints I had - there's so much stigma against bringing up any racial issue involving the black community. It would be a dream if this blog could get the cogs going in one of TL's numerous calm and rational minds.
In accordance to your comment "strong reactions without some sort of rationality gives way to radical groups.", would you agree that Obama, in his comment of calling the way the Cambridge police acted "stupidly", had a strong reaction without some sort of rationality?
|
exactly what preferential treatment to african-americans receive from the government? a lot of the public schools i tutored at in DC were massively underfunded, understaffed, badly in need of renovation, and badly in need of up-to-date textbooks and other teaching resources
|
On July 24 2009 14:33 benjammin wrote:
exactly what preferential treatment to african-americans receive from the government? a lot of the public schools i tutored at in DC were massively underfunded, understaffed, badly in need of renovation, and badly in need of up-to-date textbooks and other teaching resources
There are generally more grants available for higher education and of course hiring quotas that many people complain about. My point and the point of others in the thread is that they don't offset the systematic disadvantages the poor are born into.
|
On July 24 2009 14:25 zeppelin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 14:15 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2009 14:05 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 13:57 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2009 13:55 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 13:52 Aegraen wrote:
Yes, the race card gets played far, far too often. It's often a one way street. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. They hurt the black community so much.
We'll never have a honest debate about race in America as long as blacks call you a racist if you even dare to bring up the current state of affairs. (Out of wedlock / single mother births, crime statistics, % on entitlements, median income, drop out rates, culture, etc.)
In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism). Affirmative Action, Educational Pell Grants, etc.
Martin Luther Jr. King would be appalled at the state of the black community today. He wanted an America in which we were judged by our character, by the individual; Today we have it reversed. Sad, indeed. yeah and the klan isn't lynching anyone anymore either! dang black people have it so easy these days I wish I was black He specifically stated he was talking from a perspective of preferential treatment by the government. Last time I checked the KKK wasn't a branch of the US Government. It isn't but he says "preferential treatment from the government" as if it's sufficient to overcome the crappy socioeconomic situations a large percentage of black people are born into. As a white middle-class person, the fact that I lived in an area with a tax base that could support a modern school with good teachers probably meant more in terms of government assistance than the pittance given to those mired in inner city or rural poverty. "Preferential treatment" doesn't make up for living in an area devoid of social services and economic opportunity. My parents were both state employees and they made far much more money doing productive work for the state than could ever be gained from entitlements programs that for some reason rich people seem to think are a lot of money. TL has a policy of not reading into what someone did not say. He didn't say that blacks have it easy because the government treats them well. He simply talked about how the government currently treats them. Blacks certainly don't have it 'easy' overall. "In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism)" So there are two cases here: either black people have it 'easy' or they don't. If they have it 'easy', this can be laid at the feet of 'preferential treatment by the government', and said preferential treatment could be pointed to as evidence that black people should be more successful on average than they are. If they do not have it 'easy', 'preferential treatment by the government' does not have a tangible effect on one's ability to be successful. If you are saying that he is saying blacks don't have it 'easy', why would he bring up the preferential treatment in the first place? "Preferential treatment for black people is a sufficiently significant benefit to bring up as a reason they should be more successful" and "black people do not have it easy" are contradictory arguments
why are there only two cases? this is a common logical flaw called the either-or fallacy,
the OP isn't saying black people have it easy, he's saying that many black people have a sense of entitlement (promoted, or at least not helped, by government preference) that causes many to blindly blame the government, white people, etc. instead of realizing that life is unfair and they should do something about it
|
On July 24 2009 14:35 zeppelin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 14:33 benjammin wrote:
exactly what preferential treatment to african-americans receive from the government? a lot of the public schools i tutored at in DC were massively underfunded, understaffed, badly in need of renovation, and badly in need of up-to-date textbooks and other teaching resources There are generally more grants available for higher education and of course hiring quotas that many people complain about. My point and the point of others in the thread is that they don't offset the systematic disadvantages the poor are born into.
oh, well, QFT
|
On July 24 2009 13:36 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 13:31 dasanivan wrote:
"Why is it that Asians and Jews (one of the most historically hated minorities) make more on average and are more economically successful than Blacks?"
possibly because neither Asians nor Jews had the status of being enslaved and treated like animals for half of America's history. Well it may not have been during both America's tenure, but both Jews and many Asians have been enslaved for long periods of time in the past. ItsYoungLee: Jews and Asians (aside from WW2) have had reasonably equal legal rights in the USA for far longer than blacks. It's not fair to simply compare how much they make or something like that.
It's not enslavement but during WWII Americans of Japanese heritage were put into camps weren't they?
|
On July 24 2009 14:35 jonnyp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 14:25 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 14:15 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2009 14:05 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 13:57 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2009 13:55 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 13:52 Aegraen wrote:
Yes, the race card gets played far, far too often. It's often a one way street. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. They hurt the black community so much.
We'll never have a honest debate about race in America as long as blacks call you a racist if you even dare to bring up the current state of affairs. (Out of wedlock / single mother births, crime statistics, % on entitlements, median income, drop out rates, culture, etc.)
In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism). Affirmative Action, Educational Pell Grants, etc.
Martin Luther Jr. King would be appalled at the state of the black community today. He wanted an America in which we were judged by our character, by the individual; Today we have it reversed. Sad, indeed. yeah and the klan isn't lynching anyone anymore either! dang black people have it so easy these days I wish I was black He specifically stated he was talking from a perspective of preferential treatment by the government. Last time I checked the KKK wasn't a branch of the US Government. It isn't but he says "preferential treatment from the government" as if it's sufficient to overcome the crappy socioeconomic situations a large percentage of black people are born into. As a white middle-class person, the fact that I lived in an area with a tax base that could support a modern school with good teachers probably meant more in terms of government assistance than the pittance given to those mired in inner city or rural poverty. "Preferential treatment" doesn't make up for living in an area devoid of social services and economic opportunity. My parents were both state employees and they made far much more money doing productive work for the state than could ever be gained from entitlements programs that for some reason rich people seem to think are a lot of money. TL has a policy of not reading into what someone did not say. He didn't say that blacks have it easy because the government treats them well. He simply talked about how the government currently treats them. Blacks certainly don't have it 'easy' overall. "In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism)" So there are two cases here: either black people have it 'easy' or they don't. If they have it 'easy', this can be laid at the feet of 'preferential treatment by the government', and said preferential treatment could be pointed to as evidence that black people should be more successful on average than they are. If they do not have it 'easy', 'preferential treatment by the government' does not have a tangible effect on one's ability to be successful. If you are saying that he is saying blacks don't have it 'easy', why would he bring up the preferential treatment in the first place? "Preferential treatment for black people is a sufficiently significant benefit to bring up as a reason they should be more successful" and "black people do not have it easy" are contradictory arguments why are there only two cases? this is a common logical flaw called the either-or fallacy, the OP isn't saying black people have it easy, he's saying that many black people have a sense of entitlement (promoted, or at least not helped, by government preference) that causes many to blindly blame the government, white people, etc. instead of realizing that life is unfair and they should do something about it
I wasn't talking about the OP, I was talking about the person who said "Face it, the black community is keeping themselves down. No one else is hindering them." and railing against "preferential treatment" from the government (implying that black people are not disadvantaged solely because of said preferential treatment)
|
United States24502 Posts
On July 24 2009 14:32 zeppelin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 14:29 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2009 14:25 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 14:15 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2009 14:05 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 13:57 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2009 13:55 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 13:52 Aegraen wrote:
Yes, the race card gets played far, far too often. It's often a one way street. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. They hurt the black community so much.
We'll never have a honest debate about race in America as long as blacks call you a racist if you even dare to bring up the current state of affairs. (Out of wedlock / single mother births, crime statistics, % on entitlements, median income, drop out rates, culture, etc.)
In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism). Affirmative Action, Educational Pell Grants, etc.
Martin Luther Jr. King would be appalled at the state of the black community today. He wanted an America in which we were judged by our character, by the individual; Today we have it reversed. Sad, indeed. yeah and the klan isn't lynching anyone anymore either! dang black people have it so easy these days I wish I was black He specifically stated he was talking from a perspective of preferential treatment by the government. Last time I checked the KKK wasn't a branch of the US Government. It isn't but he says "preferential treatment from the government" as if it's sufficient to overcome the crappy socioeconomic situations a large percentage of black people are born into. As a white middle-class person, the fact that I lived in an area with a tax base that could support a modern school with good teachers probably meant more in terms of government assistance than the pittance given to those mired in inner city or rural poverty. "Preferential treatment" doesn't make up for living in an area devoid of social services and economic opportunity. My parents were both state employees and they made far much more money doing productive work for the state than could ever be gained from entitlements programs that for some reason rich people seem to think are a lot of money. TL has a policy of not reading into what someone did not say. He didn't say that blacks have it easy because the government treats them well. He simply talked about how the government currently treats them. Blacks certainly don't have it 'easy' overall. "In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism)" So there are two cases here: either black people have it 'easy' or they don't. If they have it 'easy', this can be laid at the feet of 'preferential treatment by the government', and said preferential treatment could be pointed to as evidence that black people should be more successful on average than they are. If they do not have it 'easy', 'preferential treatment by the government' does not have a tangible effect on one's ability to be successful. If you are saying that he is saying blacks don't have it 'easy', why would he bring up the preferential treatment as if it was supposed to make them have it easy? I really don't understand the logic that you are trying to use, but I'll just sum up again what I believe is a reasonable stance to interpret from his post. 1) Blacks receive the best preferential treatment by the government. 2) Receiving the best preferential treatment by the government does not ensure that you have it easy, although it can relieve some of the burden of having it 'difficult'. 3) Blacks don't necessarily have it easy overall even though in one particular category they might be at an advantage. You seem to be making assumptions that are not valid. I can only go off what he explicitly said: "Face it, the black community is keeping themselves down. No one else is hindering them." Points 2) and 3) seem to be only your assumptions, not his, and on those points I agree with you completely.
He said that after I originally criticized your post. Therefore, I can only be wrong via expost facto XD
On July 24 2009 14:33 benjammin wrote:
exactly what preferential treatment to african-americans receive from the government? a lot of the public schools i tutored at in DC were massively underfunded, understaffed, badly in need of renovation, and badly in need of up-to-date textbooks and other teaching resources
Plenty (in number, not necessarily in effect). What you are identifying doesn't invalidate the claim that blacks receive benefits from the government, rather, it simply identifies that some groups of people who are predominantly black are at a disadvantage compared to the average person.
On July 24 2009 14:35 jonnyp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 14:25 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 14:15 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2009 14:05 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 13:57 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2009 13:55 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 13:52 Aegraen wrote:
Yes, the race card gets played far, far too often. It's often a one way street. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. They hurt the black community so much.
We'll never have a honest debate about race in America as long as blacks call you a racist if you even dare to bring up the current state of affairs. (Out of wedlock / single mother births, crime statistics, % on entitlements, median income, drop out rates, culture, etc.)
In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism). Affirmative Action, Educational Pell Grants, etc.
Martin Luther Jr. King would be appalled at the state of the black community today. He wanted an America in which we were judged by our character, by the individual; Today we have it reversed. Sad, indeed. yeah and the klan isn't lynching anyone anymore either! dang black people have it so easy these days I wish I was black He specifically stated he was talking from a perspective of preferential treatment by the government. Last time I checked the KKK wasn't a branch of the US Government. It isn't but he says "preferential treatment from the government" as if it's sufficient to overcome the crappy socioeconomic situations a large percentage of black people are born into. As a white middle-class person, the fact that I lived in an area with a tax base that could support a modern school with good teachers probably meant more in terms of government assistance than the pittance given to those mired in inner city or rural poverty. "Preferential treatment" doesn't make up for living in an area devoid of social services and economic opportunity. My parents were both state employees and they made far much more money doing productive work for the state than could ever be gained from entitlements programs that for some reason rich people seem to think are a lot of money. TL has a policy of not reading into what someone did not say. He didn't say that blacks have it easy because the government treats them well. He simply talked about how the government currently treats them. Blacks certainly don't have it 'easy' overall. "In fact, today blacks have it better off than any other minority when it comes to preferential treatment by the government (Otherwise known as preferential discrimination or racism)" So there are two cases here: either black people have it 'easy' or they don't. If they have it 'easy', this can be laid at the feet of 'preferential treatment by the government', and said preferential treatment could be pointed to as evidence that black people should be more successful on average than they are. If they do not have it 'easy', 'preferential treatment by the government' does not have a tangible effect on one's ability to be successful. If you are saying that he is saying blacks don't have it 'easy', why would he bring up the preferential treatment in the first place? "Preferential treatment for black people is a sufficiently significant benefit to bring up as a reason they should be more successful" and "black people do not have it easy" are contradictory arguments why are there only two cases? this is a common logical flaw called the either-or fallacy, the OP isn't saying black people have it easy, he's saying that many black people have a sense of entitlement (promoted, or at least not helped, by government preference) that causes many to blindly blame the government, white people, etc. instead of realizing that life is unfair and they should do something about it
This conversation wasn't about what the OP was saying.
On July 24 2009 14:37 madnessman wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 13:36 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2009 13:31 dasanivan wrote:
"Why is it that Asians and Jews (one of the most historically hated minorities) make more on average and are more economically successful than Blacks?"
possibly because neither Asians nor Jews had the status of being enslaved and treated like animals for half of America's history. Well it may not have been during both America's tenure, but both Jews and many Asians have been enslaved for long periods of time in the past. ItsYoungLee: Jews and Asians (aside from WW2) have had reasonably equal legal rights in the USA for far longer than blacks. It's not fair to simply compare how much they make or something like that. It's not enslavement but during WWII Americans of Japanese heritage were put into camps weren't they?
Yes, which was obviously a horrible thing but for a relatively short period of time. I'm not saying the effects weren't lasting though.
|
On July 24 2009 14:37 madnessman wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 13:36 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2009 13:31 dasanivan wrote:
"Why is it that Asians and Jews (one of the most historically hated minorities) make more on average and are more economically successful than Blacks?"
possibly because neither Asians nor Jews had the status of being enslaved and treated like animals for half of America's history. Well it may not have been during both America's tenure, but both Jews and many Asians have been enslaved for long periods of time in the past. ItsYoungLee: Jews and Asians (aside from WW2) have had reasonably equal legal rights in the USA for far longer than blacks. It's not fair to simply compare how much they make or something like that. It's not enslavement but during WWII Americans of Japanese heritage were put into camps weren't they?
That's why he said aside from WW2. It means that besides the situation you speak of he's saying Jews and Asians have had more rights.
Actually is that true? I'd like to see some stuff on that, I've always been under the impression tolerance for Asians and blacks went together. ( I left out Jews, cause its hard to tell, especially if they don't practice.)
|
United States24502 Posts
On July 24 2009 14:40 randombum wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 14:37 madnessman wrote:On July 24 2009 13:36 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2009 13:31 dasanivan wrote:
"Why is it that Asians and Jews (one of the most historically hated minorities) make more on average and are more economically successful than Blacks?"
possibly because neither Asians nor Jews had the status of being enslaved and treated like animals for half of America's history. Well it may not have been during both America's tenure, but both Jews and many Asians have been enslaved for long periods of time in the past. ItsYoungLee: Jews and Asians (aside from WW2) have had reasonably equal legal rights in the USA for far longer than blacks. It's not fair to simply compare how much they make or something like that. It's not enslavement but during WWII Americans of Japanese heritage were put into camps weren't they? That's why he said aside from WW2. It means that besides the situation you speak of he's saying Jews and Asians have had more rights. Actually is that true? I'd like to see some stuff on that, I've always been under the impression tolerance for Asians and blacks went together. ( I left out Jews, cause its hard to tell, especially if they don't practice.)
This conversation actually got me thinking about what % of Jews in the USA have fairly recognizable Jewish-sounding names.
|
On July 24 2009 14:36 benjammin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 14:35 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 14:33 benjammin wrote:
exactly what preferential treatment to african-americans receive from the government? a lot of the public schools i tutored at in DC were massively underfunded, understaffed, badly in need of renovation, and badly in need of up-to-date textbooks and other teaching resources There are generally more grants available for higher education and of course hiring quotas that many people complain about. My point and the point of others in the thread is that they don't offset the systematic disadvantages the poor are born into. oh, well, QFT
I want to add that this really should be more of an issue of class than an issue of race, but it just so happens that urban poor are overwhelmingly black.
Rural poor are another issue altogether and depending on where you go in the country you can find rural poor whites, blacks, hispanics, and natives all in equally hopeless situations. Rural poor are a good bit more spread out and have much less cultural impact than urban poor, but they are in many ways even worse off since they can't take the bus to more prosperous areas to work or study.
The son of a white coal miner in Appalachia is just as bad off as the son of a black farmer in Mississippi or a black dockworker in Baltimore.
|
United States24502 Posts
On July 24 2009 14:42 zeppelin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2009 14:36 benjammin wrote:On July 24 2009 14:35 zeppelin wrote:On July 24 2009 14:33 benjammin wrote:
exactly what preferential treatment to african-americans receive from the government? a lot of the public schools i tutored at in DC were massively underfunded, understaffed, badly in need of renovation, and badly in need of up-to-date textbooks and other teaching resources There are generally more grants available for higher education and of course hiring quotas that many people complain about. My point and the point of others in the thread is that they don't offset the systematic disadvantages the poor are born into. oh, well, QFT I want to add that this really should be more of an issue of class than an issue of race,
I guess it depends on what you are talking about exactly, but sometimes it is about race rather than class.
When someone explained to me years ago about a University's policy of more freely admitting minority students because they were at a disadvantage, I immediately asked that someone if they meant the University would admit people from a poor socioeconomic background, which usually ended up being a minority.... and they said "No, a rich black or hispanic kid would get the same exact benefits" and I was like "duuuuude..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
