Federal Gov't: Whites need not apply

[spartan5782]

I refuse to pay for the sins of people who are generations dead. If we can't let go of the past, then we're all doomed.
DW

Of course I can't speak to Canadian historical practices, just US, but we had a Civil Rights Act passed in 1875 by Congress which was overturned and ruled Unconstitutional by our Supreme court that same year. Our next passed Civil Rights Act was in 1964. Within those 90 years, several "Jim Crow" laws and practices (segregation and discrimination) were instituted and supported by our Government and Court system. Again, I can't speak on Canadian History, but our two countries "generally" follow the same time-lines? So, when you say "generations dead", certainly within my lifetime there was Government supported discrimination. Should you, DenWa, have to pay for that...no.

And, if the passing of that law ended all discrimination from that moment on, we wouldn't be having this discussion...but it didn't. Over 100 years since the end of slavery, here's a group of people that were denied jobs, housing and most importantly..education. White employers said "Fine, I'll hire Blacks..as long as they can pass my test for employment"..."What, no education..sorry about your luck". Didn't discriminate because they were Black...they just couldn't pass the reading, writing and arithmetic tests like the White applicants. YEAH, NO SHIT! So, this goes on for several years with a Government struggling to find answers.

Fair Housing Act is passed in 1968, but by this time Blacks had witnessed the assassination of 3 of the perceived leaders for the cause..JFK, MLK and RFK (yeah, I know...KKK) riots and a great division. Scratching their heads, Government officials realize that without education, passing laws on jobs and housing was pretty moot. Concluding that K-12 education was lacking for Blacks with no quick fix...the last 30 years have been filled with Affirmative Action mixed with quotas, fines, preference in contracts...etc.

Sorry for all the history, but necessary for two reasons. First, to show that we aren't talking about something that ended 200 years ago...it's very recent history. Second, before we all jump on our respective Governments...ask the question. What would we do if sitting in the hot seat? I've read the responses above and on other threads....pretty smart group!! But, if given the responsibility of equalizing a past injustice by your Nation's own Government, a problem that won't cure itself in any foreseeable future without action...what action do you take? Let it ride out for the next 100 years? 200 years? 40 years ago we had a segment of our Nation so frustrated, intent on burning the Country down. How the hell do you change the attitudes of a Nation, Black and White?

Solution, force "qualified" minorities into the workplace. Yes, you can argue the "more qualified" stance, but contrary to popular belief, we are not talking about "unqualified" minorities. So, by forcing them into the educational system and workplace, the hope is to ease the tension (yes, more on the minority side), allow the Whites to see that a qualified, educated minority is no different other than "looks" (yes, some won't give a shit..but for most it might help to abate the stereotype) and to "quickly" make amends for past injustices.

There are pros and cons to every solution and for those who feel the cons outweigh the pros in this situation...fine, come up with a better solution. Pass it on to your public officials or run for office yourself. But, if you don't think there was/is a problem so no solution is needed, you've led a fairly sheltered life. If you feel "That was then...it's over now", either sheltered or naive. If you feel there is no solution so why try, that could be why you aren't in Government office...Thank God!!

Personally, I don't like quotas. I wish Affirmative Action wasn't necessary. I like walking into an interview, feeling on top of my game...the best in the business at what I do, and knowing that if anyone beats me out...I've found one of the four people in the fuckin Country that's better than me. That's confidence and helps keep my drive alive for the next one. However, I've been openly discriminated against in the past on a promotion and I know it's alive and well as we speak. I don't have a better solution, so before someone suggests ending what we have..my question is "Replace it with what?".

 

[spartan5782]

continued

That being said, and to the point "WHITES NEED NOT APPLY", that's total "BULLSHIT"!! Accept all applicants, work your way down to the qualified applicants..all of whom are worthy of hire, and make your selection, one criteria at this point being diversity. You almost have to "want" to hire someone who looks different than you to erase the tendency to give preference to "your kind". The Government just needs to give that incentive. Penalize if found guilty of breaking the laws and reward if found positively moving in the direction of equality. But there is no such thing as "Reverse Discrimination"...simply "Discrimination". And "WHITES NEED NOT APPLY" is "DISCRIMINATION"!!

If you made it through all that....Thanks for listening

Sparty

 

[Wired For Sound]

The kids in the ghetto in Detroit are not getting into U of M or Harvard because of these programs. They are still in the ghetto, and nobody really cares. Every single black student I knew at U of M, EVERY single one, was there on scholarship and came from just as well-to-do of a family as mine. That's not helping the downtrodden, that's not helping the ghetto - it's simply a way for middle class people to abuse the system because they happen to be black, or Mexican, or whatever.

Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institute has made similar observations about affirmative action when it was implimented in the 1960s. Of course, we can also conclude that many of them may have got there without affirmative action. Moreover, from what I've read, the quota method leads to a lowering of academic standards so as to allow Black students to enter the Universities in the United States. This is wrong.

I refuse to pay for the sins of people who are generations dead. If we can't let go of the past, then we're all doomed.
DW

I totally agree. The zeitgeist of the bad ideas (along with the good) of the 1960s are still with us, they're now firmly entrenched in the Universities. I believe this has to do with the fact that Rousseuian philosophy was the primary influence on the budding wordsmiths of the time. Martin Luther King Jr's beautiful dream of -- judging a person by the content of their character NOT the colour of their skin -- has been betrayed by the very activists that fought along side him. Dr King had contradictory thoughts and his predecessor's have chosen to use these to destroy his dream. It's a shame. If you haven't already you may want to read Dinish D'Souza's book THE END OF RACISM he goes into detail about this.

 

[spartan5782]

Moreover, from what I've read, the quota method leads to a lowering of academic standards so as to allow Black students to enter the Universities in the United States. This is wrong.

The quota method was not intended to lower the standards, the academic standards still had to be met. It did allow for those who met the minimum standards a chance to gain access. If a University's standard was 80, then yes, other factors were "allowed" to come into play for the student that scored 85 to be placed over a student that scored 92. Still within the standards...just saying the "score" is not the only criteria.

Well, we can all point to segments of a Government policy and say it was wrong. The Government sponsored Jim Crow..Separate but Equal...White only policies that lasted 100 years after Reconstruction were certainly wrong. Government instituted policies of Affirmative Action in the 60's such as the Civil Rights Act, Voter's Rights Act, Fair Housing Act...all to "try" and make up for past injustices and bring about equallity...that was wrong?? These laws not only included Race, but Religion, Sex, Color and National Origin. Later to include the Disabilities Act, etc. It was an effort to end discrimination, which the Government helped fuel. A way of saying "Boy did we ever fuck up...what do we do to fix it?"

You don't like the plan...fine. Think it's wrong...ok. But this is not a sideline critique. Offer up a better plan...aside from, "Everything will be ok in time". Easy to say if you're not on the receiving end. Any perceived progress can dissipate very quickly if left unchecked. We all can kick back and dream...quote Philosophers and cite ambiguity in the past. Our Government officials don't have that luxury.

You're a smart guy Wired, as is DenWa (aside from being a Wolverine instead of a Spartan..I cum Green and White). I think you know better than to say "Racism and Discrimination is DEAD"? Our Government's goal was fairness, not to "Reverse" the trend. It was to say.."If they meet the scholastic standards...give them a chance at higher education". "If they meet the qualifications of the job, give them the chance at earnings". "If they meet the financial criteria, give them a chance at loans and housing". With limited space in schools, limited spots in the workplace and limited funds for loans and housing, might you loose some that qualified higher...yes.

Help our poor Government officials out. They are no different from you or I, except it's their job to come up with answers and solutions to problems and to institute them in laws and policies to better our respective Nations. I can't think of a better solution. Of course I'm a Spartan and not a Wolverine. Perhaps a superior intellect such as Alien (<>..<>) could help?? lol. But seriously, the challange is you gotta do more than say "That ain't right" or "We've proven that doesn't work". Answers, solutions...the problem won't go away. Whatcha got?? Give us whatcha got!! Remember, if we can change attitudes, and really know educators and employers and loan officers, etc. won't discriminate because they know it's just plain wrong...then we are there. No need for additional laws and policies. How do we get there? And if it takes laws and policies to get there...which ones would suit us best?

Good Luck
Sparty

 

[Wired For Sound]

Putting Kiarra to The Test

My house is an open house to all from any races, religions and even sexual preference which is more then I can say for most.
Kiarra

Really? Strong claim. So you have no problem with Muslim extremist children (or adults) proselytizing to your children about Sharia Law and the evils of Western culture? Or having a house party where Christian fanatics talk about the sins of homosexuality? Or having Palestinians discuss the glories of homicide bombing to your children? Or East Indians that discuss the glories of the old caste system that existed in India? Or someone whose sexual preference would include having sex with your chldren? As you seem to imply: Do you teach them to *morally* respect *all* these ideas (because you are, as you said, open to *all*)? BULL SHIT!

 

[The Real Deal]

The belief is that you can still respect someone as a human being even without agreeing with everything they say or do. Which would of course lead to less racist actions, comments and views about race, sex and religions.
Kiarra

So what you’re saying is that you would respect someone like, say, Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein regardless of their beliefs or actions just because they're human beings?

I’m thinking that the race card gets played too many times in society nowadays to the point that the lines of discrimination have become distorted.

I feel that your previous statement can be interpreted in various ways to the point that you almost seem to be defending your open door policy lifestyle.

Racism exists, that’s a fact but so does reverse discrimination.

At one time I was discriminated against by the Bob Ray government cause they were only hiring minorities and there was a hiring freeze on white males. Go figure! I didn’t make the decisions years earlier to pass over minorities for jobs, yet I was now I was being the fall guy for these earlier hiring practices. Did that make me pissed? You’re damn right it did! Since then I’ve formed strong views on minorities and yet some might consider my views racist but I simply see it as a reaction to my experiences in life that moulded my views.

Do ya think that Sept 11th and the crap in the Middle East isn’t going to cause people to form strong views and opinions about the people or the cultures involved?
I you’re answer is no, than I suggest you’ve got you head in the sand.

 

[Wired For Sound]

how can you say bullshit. First I never said the ideas, I said people. You can respect all people regardless of thier ideas.

People have ideas, ideas don't exist without people. I think it's morally contemptable to claim *all* people should be respected. So Paul Bernardo deserves respect? Ok, that's someone who acted on his ideas, how about a supporter of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc, they're welcome in your home and deserve moral respect?

Now anything can be openly discussed in my home, why not. I can however reserve the right to state my opinion which might be in disagreement to some of the subjects you have listed.

I agree that ideas should be freely discussed, however, I think we ought to show moral judgement about the kind of people we share our time with. This is especially important when it comes to parents of children.

You are also going to the extremes in your claims. You speak of fanatics and so on, which does not have to be the people needed to discuss those types of issues.

True. But, when you invite people in your home your children see this as you moral sanctioning the people to the extent that you will associate with them. I agree that people disagree on alot. This happens alot at house parties, etc. Yet, the distinction I mean to point out, is that you need to exercise moral judgement about the kind of people that you let into your home.

Also, I would not endanger my children in anyway which includes limiting conversations to the capacity which they can handle emotionally and mentally. You can teach people to "morally" respect all people, but you don't have to agree with the idea or actions of those people. That is why it is an idea not a belief. The belief is that you can still respect someone as a human being even without agreeing with everything they say or do. Which would of course lead to less racist actions, comments and views about race, sex and religions. Kiarra

You are confusing the moral and the political. I give respect to the latter (with regards to ideas and actions insofaras they don't initiate force on me), and not the former. You destroy the meaning of the concept "respect" by saying that all people deserve *moral* "respect". Why? Why should I morally "respect" Clifford Olson? Some behaviours are so morally reprehensible that it's a judgement about their entire character. You cannot morally respect all people because all people don't respect the values necessary to survive. Values are necessary for survival. Reason is better for humanity than faith. Persuasion is better than force.

Ironically, it's the Nazis that were moral relativists like yourself, Kiarra. You leftist moral relativists are the problem NOT the solution. Your postion leads to moral agnosticism on the nature of evil. You cannot pronounce moral judgments at all. Why is racism wrong? Based on whose moral standard? Yours?(Since you advocate racist views it's hard for you to defend) Since you jettison objective morality in favour of subjective moral relativism -- where moral respect goes to good and evil -- your very statements of disgreement leaves you at the mercy of no logical defense against anti-life, thus immoral people.

 

[The Real Deal]

GOD I completely agree with your statement.

Unfortunately, people like Kiarra have made it politically incorrect for people like us to voice our opinions in the public forum without the risk of being labeled a racist.

The tree hugger, open the border to everyone, multicultural activist attitudes have overwhelmed society to the point that there is never going to be a cure to social problems. I think because the risk takers in this country that are capable of making serious changes are nowadays shamed into keeping quiet for fear of being labeled as one thing or the other. Why else do activists at a protest look like a bunch of cattle standing in a field with that dumb look on their face chanting ridiculous songs, Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho! Don’t people work anymore?

 

[The Real Deal]

Kiarra, don’t get me wrong if that’s your outlook on discrimination and racism that’s fine but it seemed like your were trying to take the moral road on this issue at the start of the thread, that’s all. Don’t feel you can’t ever call though! (lol)

P.S. Don't swear

 

[cuttlefish]

Well I will Kiarra. He's a bigot.

 

[The Real Deal]

Well I will Kiarra. He's a bigot.

Bigot,

I just proved my point, once someone has a opinion that is not politically correct the name calling starts.