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".
I used to think like you until the economic downturn in LA and the LA riots. Prior to that, from time to time, I would hear racist comments "outside the mainstream"; however, after those two events, I heard racist comments from 5 out of ten white people "in the mainstream". I was stunned. I learned that there is a thin veneer over this country's attitudes towards race and when that veneer is shattered, its not good at all.
"Working" to me means treating people fairly most of the time, and esp treating them as equal under the law, not having equal results.
Working to me means equal treatment under the law and an equal chance to move ahead for all races.
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.
I know you are not for it but that's the reality.
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.
Slightly lower.
Then can get in with worse grades and worse SATs then a white applicant that doesn't get in.
I've never seen the breakout on a freshman class but I doubt that a non white would get in with a worse record than a white kid who has been rejected by the school due to insufficient grades/SATs.
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.
It doesn't disallow it but it prevents the implementation of a true color blind 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.
What's your point here? Do you think blacks are athletically more inclined than whites?
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.
The tribal people from East Africa tend to be tall with long legs. Most tall people with long legs who like to run tend to be very fast.
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.
You sound like the black boxers on the Chris Rock show tonite. According to them, there can never be a good white boxer. Their comments like yours tend to be racist. There are genetic differences between people but there are not any significant genetic differences between races.
Often times what looks to be true is not true. For an example, its in their genes, that's why black men are better dancers than white men. Black men will tell you that, so will whites. Everyone knows black men dance better. But funny, you always see all these white guys in chorus lines. They're really good dancers.......but then someone tells you that those guys are gay. Oh right, white guys are not good dancers except if they are white and gay, then they are good dancers. So all those white guys in that chorus are gay....WRONG! There's at least a couple of the guys in the line who are white and straight and get all the girls because no girl suspects they are straight because they dance in a chorus line and everyone knows that all guys in a chorus are..........
My point is that things viewed anecdotally are not always what they seem to be. The things that make one group better than another group tend to be culture driven, not genetic.
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.
A lot of them........not all of them. Frankly, this is racist talk and its best you figure out why it is. This is the bs stuff we learn thru osthmosis from friends and parents and whatever.
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.
Trust me, you are.
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.
Tim this stuff has been known for decades...if you're interested, do a google search and read up on it.
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.
Yes, big time.
"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.
Its a simple fact that understates the problem. In 1870, the average black man had $10; now he has $20 so he's twice as rich.......big deal. It means nada. In the real world, $10 was piss poor in 1870 and $20 in 1960 is piss poor.
ted |
