Why would color blind policies work in a society where race is very evident? Your comments make no sense. If people are not forced to look at people of other races, more likely than not they will blow the whole concept off.
Its about 25% color blind.
You apparently see the world and the US as full of rampant racism that will not get better without government force. I do not. Racism exists but it is to use a favorite phrase of yours, "out of the mainstream".
"3 - The argument was not "color blind policies will not work". But that color blind polices give white people an advantage. "
That's the equivalent of not working if the goal is to remove racial advantages in certain important aspects of a society.
"Working" to me means treating people fairly most of the time, and esp treating them as equal under the law, not having equal results.
Also you misunderstood my comment. In response to the article that you posted I said color blind policies do not give white people an advantage. You showed how using your definition of "work" color blind policies could be said to be "not working", however that doesn't show anything about the point in dispute, which is the claim that color blind policies give whites and advantage. Whether or not such polices "work" in the sense of eliminating other advantages that whites may have they do not themselves give any advantage.
" If you want to say that color blind policies do not erase preexisting advantages then I would agree, but they do not give anyone an advantage."
Yes, they do......a white male is free to choose a white male for a job, and if the majority of supervisors are white males than white males have an unfair edge. Tim, this is not rocket science.........I am not sure why you are refusing to see this basic concept but I am not about to repeat it again.
Its not rocket science but your flubbing it anyway. You point out a possible preexisting advantage (that more hiring managers might be white males and that they might be more likely to hire other white males) you are not talking about a new advantage but rather a preexisting one and as I said I would agree that color blind policies do not eliminating preexisting advantages. In any case what you are talking about (white males hireing only or predominatly other white males) isn't a color blind policy. You could call it "reverse affirmitive action". Its a way for whites to be favored over others. I am no more for that then I am for any other group being favored.
If they have poor grades and SATs, they won't get in period......AA or no AA.
That standard that gets them in is lower. Then can get in with worse grades and worse SATs then a white applicant that doesn't get in.
A good thing. Black people are not held back artifically just because they are already a larger percentage of the NBA.
Right.......and that's the goal of AA.......to encourage all public entities to develop that kind of policy.
AA directly disalows that type of policy.
"They didn't foreit their position. They where beaten out for many of the spots by more qualifed aplicants."
Bullshit......it became a less acceptable way for whites to move up in income and class.
Not BS. Simply the truth. Even if there where less white people trying to get in to the NBA there are more then enough white basketball players with enough talent to play Div 1 NCAA ball who would like to go to the NBA to fill the NBA. But there is a large pool of talented black players and only a small percentage of college players (white or black) that would like to play in the NBA have enough talent to beat out the competition.
Blacks are no more athletic than the rest of us but sometimes its the only way out of the ghetto and so they push hard for it.
I'm not sure that is 100% true, although I am sure that any overall statistical difference is not enough to account for the difference in NBA participation. I'm not talking as much about overall athleticism (although there could be a minor difference here) as much as specific types of abilities that fit specific situations. There are differences between people from different parts of the world (as a statistical average, individuals don't have to follow the over all trend). People from East Africa are better endurance runners then most other people on average, people from the West and their decedents are better sprinters on average. Perhaps Europeans and their decedents are 2nd at both I'm not sure. It would seem that there is an actual genetic reason for at least part of these differences but even if the reason is not genetic it is true that when you examine those with the best abilities in particular areas you find that these abilities are not evenly distributed by ancestral group. The differences are small enough that you can't predict how good an individual will be by using this information, but they are large enough to be significant when you look at the best achievers in each areas. For example almost all the major marathon winers (and 2nd place finishers and 3rd place finishers) are from East Africa or at least decdended from East Africans.
Yeah, you do......you don't know it because you've never been without it except for brief periods in your life. But if you want to find out how it feels......go down to a black neighborhood and live there for a couple of weeks. You'll then know what it feels like to have your white specialness stripped from you
I don't have any specialness to be stripped from me. A black person might sometimes experience racism, and a white person in an almost all black neighborhood might also experience racism, but that doesn't mean that I am getting some special bonus from being white.
People are individuals but they act and vote in groups.
There are statisitical trends that white people, or men, or hispanics or whatever are more likely to vote a particular way or have a certain political opinion, but each individual still determines his or her own opinion or vote. Even if people really did vote in groups they should still be recognized as and treated as individuals. The merits and demerits of other white people or other men are not on my sholders nor are their opinions likely to be the same as mine.
It may not have been the party's formal plank but it certainly was the party's informal plank.
Not in any consistant or wide spread way. Certain individuals might have opposed the aim of the civil rights act of 64 but most Republicans have been supporters of it for a long time (since before your "well in to the 80s" time frame). The party does oppose affirmitive action, but not equal oportunity or equal treatment under the law. In fact those last two ideas are important cornerstones of the Republican party.
Gaining their freedom took decades and a great deal of pain
and loss.......so stop rewriting history to make it look much nicer.
Stop rewriting my posts to make them look wrong. I never said it was easy or painless or quick. In fact pointing out that it started in the 1800s is a way of showing how it has been a long hard struggle.
"The typical black American in 1950 was a lot wealthier and more educated then the typical black American in 1866. Of course that is an absolute measure but its also true that relative to the average American, or the average White American, that there was a lot of progress even before Black people enjoyed full equality under the law and equal oportunity laws."
I give up. You have a fantastical view of history that has little bearing to reality.
That isn't fantastical. Its simple fact.
Tim |
