Marriage is not irrelevant (I haven't read past this post yet so)
But what is relevant to the 'illegitimate' issue is the roots of siad 'illegitimacy' and they are directly attributable to a history only recently removed from slavery and institutionalized racism (the jim crow laws)
There are many famous articles which discuss this (all of which escape me right now in my fatigued state) but if you can not think historically about huge social conditions such as "illegitimacy" and you say that it is a fault only of the people as they are (sans historical situatedness) then you might just fall into that dreaded 'racism' territory
as far as I can tell the instances of people saying that it is racist to vote for someone who's base of support is mainly white is non-existant
but that never stops Trump from using it as a rallying cry for this that or the other
Back then (1993), quotas were the norm. I looked into sueing. 2 lawyers told me there was less than a 30% chance of me winning.
Quotas have been illegal since Bakke... That's about 30 years as of today! If quota systems were still the norm 10 years ago, that's news to me. What's puzzling is that you base your opposition to affirmative action on something that's been ruled illegal for years. Both the law and affirmative action advocates agree with you.
Quotas have been illegal since Bakke... That's about 30 years as of today! If quota systems were still the norm 10 years ago, that's news to me. What's puzzling is that you base your opposition to affirmative action on something that's been ruled illegal for years. Both the law and affirmative action advocates agree with you.
Quotas might have been illegal, that doesn't mean that they were not still used. I was told by a few different (in different State organizations) "administrators" that they were expected to hire/admit a certain number of minorities, or else. I have no idea what the or else was.
I do know that "quotas" (called by another name) were used by the Little Rock School District as late as 1986 (and we can thank the federal courts for that). I remember submitting a request to attend a specific high school in Little Rock and being told by the school board (a friends mom was on the board) that they could only transfer in blacks because they were required to have a certain "percentage" of blacks vs whites in the school. Sounds like a quota system to me.
I am opposed to AA based on principle. I believe that everyone should have the same access to jobs, education, health care etc.. I know that it is a utopian view, but...
No such thing in existence as ?race?, there is such a thing as racism, alas. (anti-semitism is one form of racism, among many others).
The word ?racism? is used for reasons of convention as well as convenience, although it doesn't describe with much precision what it names, the sames goes for the word ?anti-semitism?.
Thanks for clarifying. This was basically my opinion but I've been corrected many times. Either way I think the point is moot.
You're welcome.
This is an emotionally charged subject for many, and the confusions and misunderstandings are pervasive, hence many misconceptions.
It is common for some to arbitraily classify, and even define people according to some superficial inherited traits and call it ?race?. For many reasons of which I'll spare you the details, colours of the body and its parts play a larger part in this than say, mere height, or baldness.
Others yet would prefer to classify people according to the group to which their language belongs and call it ?race?; while more often than not (and contrary examples abound) people are likely to speak the language spoken by their parents, your speaking English (for example) is not inherited but learned.
Yet such approaches are certainly not racism, but mere idiocy.
We may agree or not, racism has real physiological roots. They are too obvious to deny. A black person doesn't look like a white one and unless we use this difference to humiliate one another or place ourselves above others, seeing the difference is not racism. Racism and chauvinism are based on primitive perception of the world. We should judge by actions and intentions, rather than by the colour of skin. However, don't forget that most people are either morons or prefer to act like morons. It is too hard for most of us to think abstract (in moral or psychological categories). It's far easier to make general "judgements" like: all black men are dumb, all white men are racists, all Germans are Nazis and all Jews are Zionists. This is, obviously, bullshit and is called racism. Racist actions are the direct consequence of such views and, therefore, racism, too.
On the other hand, I just cannot forget that I'm white, nor do I want to, nor do I need to. I'm perfectly comfortable with being white. It is not racism unless I get to believe that my being white is an advantage of any sort.
There are many good jokes based on racist and chauvinist prejudices. For example, there is a popular idea (at least, in Russia) that Russians drink like there's no tomorrow. There are really good funny stories made up about that. Being Russian myself, I often laugh at most of them. Is it racism? This is a trickier question. If I find something funny, can I laugh? I do laugh at myself and I do laugh at others only because we sometimes get very funny. If I happen to laugh at somebody who has a foreign passport and a different skin colour, am I necessarily a racist? To my dismay, some people do think so. They are as primitive as worst racists because they judge my actions based on the colour of my skin. By the way, quotas are an example of racism. Their absurdness is in the fact that racists use quotas to label others as racists.
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
That is not affirmative action!
That is an illegal quota system! I would sue their asses off.
Back then (1993), quotas were the norm. I looked into sueing. 2 lawyers told me there was less than a 30% chance of me winning.
Originally posted by bunge
Marriage is irrelevant.
Marriage is not irrelevant (I haven't read past this post yet so)
But what is relevant to the 'illegitimate' issue is the roots of siad 'illegitimacy' and they are directly attributable to a history only recently removed from slavery and institutionalized racism (the jim crow laws)
There are many famous articles which discuss this (all of which escape me right now in my fatigued state) but if you can not think historically about huge social conditions such as "illegitimacy" and you say that it is a fault only of the people as they are (sans historical situatedness) then you might just fall into that dreaded 'racism' territory
as far as I can tell the instances of people saying that it is racist to vote for someone who's base of support is mainly white is non-existant
but that never stops Trump from using it as a rallying cry for this that or the other
Originally posted by podmate
Back then (1993), quotas were the norm. I looked into sueing. 2 lawyers told me there was less than a 30% chance of me winning.
Quotas have been illegal since Bakke... That's about 30 years as of today! If quota systems were still the norm 10 years ago, that's news to me. What's puzzling is that you base your opposition to affirmative action on something that's been ruled illegal for years. Both the law and affirmative action advocates agree with you.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Quotas have been illegal since Bakke... That's about 30 years as of today! If quota systems were still the norm 10 years ago, that's news to me. What's puzzling is that you base your opposition to affirmative action on something that's been ruled illegal for years. Both the law and affirmative action advocates agree with you.
Quotas might have been illegal, that doesn't mean that they were not still used. I was told by a few different (in different State organizations) "administrators" that they were expected to hire/admit a certain number of minorities, or else. I have no idea what the or else was.
I do know that "quotas" (called by another name) were used by the Little Rock School District as late as 1986 (and we can thank the federal courts for that). I remember submitting a request to attend a specific high school in Little Rock and being told by the school board (a friends mom was on the board) that they could only transfer in blacks because they were required to have a certain "percentage" of blacks vs whites in the school. Sounds like a quota system to me.
I am opposed to AA based on principle. I believe that everyone should have the same access to jobs, education, health care etc.. I know that it is a utopian view, but...
Originally posted by bunge
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
No such thing in existence as ?race?, there is such a thing as racism, alas. (anti-semitism is one form of racism, among many others).
The word ?racism? is used for reasons of convention as well as convenience, although it doesn't describe with much precision what it names, the sames goes for the word ?anti-semitism?.
Thanks for clarifying. This was basically my opinion but I've been corrected many times. Either way I think the point is moot.
You're welcome.
This is an emotionally charged subject for many, and the confusions and misunderstandings are pervasive, hence many misconceptions.
It is common for some to arbitraily classify, and even define people according to some superficial inherited traits and call it ?race?. For many reasons of which I'll spare you the details, colours of the body and its parts play a larger part in this than say, mere height, or baldness.
Others yet would prefer to classify people according to the group to which their language belongs and call it ?race?; while more often than not (and contrary examples abound) people are likely to speak the language spoken by their parents, your speaking English (for example) is not inherited but learned.
Yet such approaches are certainly not racism, but mere idiocy.
But then again, racism does use idiocy for fuel.
We may agree or not, racism has real physiological roots. They are too obvious to deny. A black person doesn't look like a white one and unless we use this difference to humiliate one another or place ourselves above others, seeing the difference is not racism. Racism and chauvinism are based on primitive perception of the world. We should judge by actions and intentions, rather than by the colour of skin. However, don't forget that most people are either morons or prefer to act like morons. It is too hard for most of us to think abstract (in moral or psychological categories). It's far easier to make general "judgements" like: all black men are dumb, all white men are racists, all Germans are Nazis and all Jews are Zionists. This is, obviously, bullshit and is called racism. Racist actions are the direct consequence of such views and, therefore, racism, too.
On the other hand, I just cannot forget that I'm white, nor do I want to, nor do I need to. I'm perfectly comfortable with being white. It is not racism unless I get to believe that my being white is an advantage of any sort.
There are many good jokes based on racist and chauvinist prejudices. For example, there is a popular idea (at least, in Russia) that Russians drink like there's no tomorrow. There are really good funny stories made up about that. Being Russian myself, I often laugh at most of them. Is it racism? This is a trickier question. If I find something funny, can I laugh? I do laugh at myself and I do laugh at others only because we sometimes get very funny. If I happen to laugh at somebody who has a foreign passport and a different skin colour, am I necessarily a racist? To my dismay, some people do think so. They are as primitive as worst racists because they judge my actions based on the colour of my skin. By the way, quotas are an example of racism. Their absurdness is in the fact that racists use quotas to label others as racists.