quote:"Dealing with race is about educating white folks." Howard Dean seems to have said this. That'll bring in those Southern pickup guys! They love being singled out for 'education'! ... Yes, Dean was apparently pandering to Boston Globe columnist Derrick Z. Jackson. But that's hardly an excuse.
So, does he think that will get him elected, does he really believe that the solution is that simple, and does he care that I now, sadly, think he's an idiot?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
This is a perfect example of why Dean will not win a national election. He is an out of the closet "progressive"(i use this term to avoid the usual carping about the definition of liberal). Most of the democrat party is made up of progressives. This is why Dean is so popular with the voters in democrat primaries.
Dean is exposing exactly how most progressives feel about issues like race, international relations, economics, etc. Look how at home and relaxed Al Gore looked when speaking with Dean. He had dropped the sham of centrism and embraced his true beliefs.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Is he wrong?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Is he wrong?
If you are referring to Dean, yes. Any solution that doesn't deal with the problem is wrong. Educating white people (the presumed source of the current problem) will not increase black test scores, improve black neighborhoods, or start black businessmen on their way.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Twinky, yeah. Racism is alive and well and must be dealt with and eradicated, but it is by no means the sole source of misery and the only solution to changing the situation.
In other words, it is also emasculates and strips the impoverished of any power. It's saying that their fate is completely, entirely, and utterly in someone else's hands, and for the situation to change, they just need to kick back and wait for everyone to be educated enough to finally hand over the keys to the kingdom.
It's incredibly insulting, and it's simplistic. It raises the question of whether he has the ability to lead - if he doesn't know where the problem is, how can he possibly help fix it?
One thing that Clinton did do right was his attitude toward race while he was in office. Not the pandering bits (location of office in Harlem after taxpayers objected to funding two floors in downtown Manhattan - the most expensive real estate in the world - for an ex-president to run his wife's campaign), but the quotes mentioned on Slate. I actually like that.
[ January 02, 2004, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
It's easy to pick out one-liners and call them simplistic. How about you examine his views on racial inequality in toto? I'm sure he's said more on the matter than this.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
"He/They didn't/don't really mean that." is my new favorite way of not allowing facts to disctubr opinions.
In other words, if you are asking if he has said somthing completely different when talking to a different audience, I've no doubt that he has and he would. But then, that's disturbing in and of itself.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Actually, I'm rather proud that Dean's honest about his positions. Look at Bush -- his positions suit the political climate of the time, and I seriously doubt he has any real principles that interfere with his crusade to funnel money to the rich. Does anyone really question Bush's corruption? Isn't it refreshing to have a leader who's honest about his beliefs, and isn't afraid to voice a mistake rather than regurgitate boiled circumlocution that doesn't actually say anything?
I still can't get over how the Bush administration is now denying that they led the American public to believe that Iraq had WMD.
(Examples of positions taken, though preached against, include the tariff on steel and the war against Iraq, to pre-emptively strike the coming question.)
Dean may not be entirely right -- prejudice is found on both ends of the political spectrum -- but he is right insofar as I have yet to hear of many cases of black people keeping the white man down. Curing racism is about integrating the establishment with the oppressed, and I most of the reluctance I've seen to integrate comes from the establishment. Though I'm sure the white rush to suburbia wasn't influenced by a desire for segregation.
I agree that Dean's making a subtle mistake here. Dealing with race may be about getting rid of white ignorance, but it's also important to provide education to blacks and Hispanics -- the way to deal with race isn't about, as Dean seems to believe from this probably-out-of-context quote, educating only whites. But shame on you, Kat. To complain that Dean's an idiot for risking political points by accurately identifying the primary cure for race relations is poorly performed political propaganda at its worst.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Lalo, you're like that series of Onion articles about Bush.
Bush on Economy: We Must Attack Iraq. Lalo on Dean: Bush is Evil.
He didn't say primary solution, and he didn't say most important solution. He said it is the solution. He's either pandering shamelessly, or else he's an idiot.
[ January 02, 2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think he’s right, although I would have said “dealing with racism,” not “dealing with race.” Dealing with race involves all sorts of issues like the ones raised earlier – test scores and disintegrating neighborhoods, etc. But racism is (I believe) primarily a white problem. The fact that we (those of us who are white) tend to think of it as about minorities instead of about ourselves is a way to push off responsibility for dealing with it.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
quote:"Dealing with race is about educating white folks," Dean said in an interview Tuesday on a campaign swing through the first primary state where African-American voters will have a major impact. "Not because white people are worse than black people about race but because whites are in the majority, and therefore the behavior of whites has a much bigger influence on hiring practices and so forth and so on than the behavior of African-Americans."
Are you of the honest opinion that taking that soundbite in context makes no difference at all? Even including the next sentence makes a world of difference. Do you need me to point out how?
[ January 02, 2004, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: ae ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Bush's lack of any ideological core doesn't make Dean's position any less wrong. This all returns us to same tired accusations and counter-accusations about who and what is the cause of racism, etc. Dean clearly thinks that all white people are the cause of racism.
The biggest part of this problem is encouragement of victimhood by the current black leadership. No one is responsible for one's self, there's always someone or something to be blamed. When this cancerous attitude can be purged from the exploitative black leadership, progress can begin.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
*thinks*
Yes, that I can agree with. Racism is a problem for the people who are subject to it and can fixed only by the people who practice.
For the subject of race, though, and all those issues, Dean's statement is wildly simplistic and short-sighted.
I guess the question is, if he's not an idiot, which part of the above statement did he not mean?
I'm sure there will be a retraction of some sort soon.
ae: The expansion of the quote doesn't help. It still means that the entire onus for solving all of a population's problems are everyone except the population itself. It's depriving those with problems themselves to say that.
[ January 02, 2004, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
quote:He didn't say primary solution, and he didn't say most important solution. He said it is the solution. He's either pandering shamelessly, or else he's an idiot.
Really? One slightly inaccurate statement (see dkw's post) makes someone an idiot? Do you see any irony in this, you of the excluded middle?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
The expanded version of the quote further explains that it wasn't an isolated, misspoken statement. It's entire philosophy. he expanded that the cure of problems with race rest entirely with education of the majority.
That doesn't address the test scores, family situations, crime rates, or any of the other issues. He either doesn't see a need for action in those areas, thinking education would cure it all (short-sighted), or else doesn't see any reason to talk about it if he does (bad leader).
I'm serious. There are many things I like about Dean. But this quote is a problem.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
quote:The expansion of the quote doesn't help. It still means that the entire onus for solving all of a population's problems are everyone except the population itself. It's depriving those with problems themselves to say that.
Or it means that Dean's focusing on a particular aspect of the problem, i.e. discrimination. The logical conclusion is he's using the term "race" inaccurately; what he really means, as dkw says, is "racism". Alternatively, he really is blissfully and entirely unaware of the problems of test scores, crime, etc. Does this seem to be the most likely explanation to you? Well, apparently so, but why?
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
I'm baffled. I'm genuinely baffled. It's easier for you to conjure all this than (provisionally) accept the explanation that where he says "race", he really means "racism"? Really?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:He didn't say primary solution, and he didn't say most important. He said the only solution. He's either pandering shamelessly, or else he's an idiot.
Where did he say "only"? And you have yet to provide this quote in its context -- do you have it, or are you believing the worst you can convince yourself to believe?
By the way, this was an absolutely brilliant way to deal with ae's question:
quote:It's easy to pick out one-liners and call them simplistic. How about you examine his views on racial inequality in toto? I'm sure he's said more on the matter than this.
"He/They didn't/don't really mean that." is my new favorite way of not allowing facts to disctubr opinions.
In other words, if you are asking if he has said somthing completely different when talking to a different audience, I've no doubt that he has and he would. But then, that's disturbing in and of itself.
First you completely rewrite what Nick said, then go on to declare that Nick's asking what Dean's said to other audiences. All he's asked for his a summary of Dean's stance on race relations, and how this quote relates to Dean's stance overall.
Providing the speech -- or hell, even the paragraphs surrounding -- this quote came from would go a long way from changing your stance as wild-eyed conservative anxious to "prove" Dean's racism to giving (or removing) your claim any solid footing.
[Edited to remove a paragraph that wasn't worth writing.]
[ January 02, 2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Lalo ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:"Dealing with race is about educating white folks," Dean said in an interview Tuesday on a campaign swing through the first primary state where African-American voters will have a major impact. "Not because white people are worse than black people about race but because whites are in the majority, and therefore the behavior of whites has a much bigger influence on hiring practices and so forth and so on than the behavior of African-Americans."
Wow. What a difference context makes.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
That's what I thought too, but what do I know? Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
What difference? It didn't change the original statement.
All objections still hold true - he places the entire onus of changing the situation on everyone else. It's still simplistic, it's still pandering, and it's still short-sighted. There are just more words.
[ January 02, 2004, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Can you please define "the situation"? Because if you're including things like test scores in there, I think you're being intellectually dishoenst, because as I've pointed out, the simplest explanation is that he's using the word "race" imprecisely, nnot that he's entirely ignorant that problems such as test scores exist.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I mean lower test scores, high poverty rates, higher illegitimacy rates, the current NEED for affirmative action, all of that.
If you change the word "race" to "racism", the quote makes a semblance of sense. You can do that if you like.
That could be a fun game, though. Let's replace the words we don't like with words we do of our favorite politicians, and claim that's what they actually meant.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
1) Are you saying there aren't times when that's not what they actually meant? How ever do you make sense of Bush?
2) I don't know Howard Dean from Adam. All I know is that half the US residents I know online crea—erm, are all excited over him, and the other half think he's the devil.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Well, that's a pretty simplistic view itself, don't you think? That the only reactions you have ever found about a politician with no power is enthusiasm and hate?
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
It isn't any sort of view at all. It's a bland description of what I've seen.
You know what's missing from your post, by the way? A "blatant point-dodging" smiley. Hatrack really needs one of those.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I think Dean's wrong if he really meant that as it is. The country as a whole has already been educated more than enough on the issue of race - you can hardly avoid it if you wanted to! I think the problem is almost the opposite sort of thing - we need to learn to think LESS about race. A person's race should not be a factor that immediately comes to mind when getting a first impression of someone. Achieving this is not a matter of education; it's a matter of time.
Having said that, I think I've already made myself clear on why issues like these aren't all that relevant in this particular election. I think eliminating affirmative action is important, but we can take care of that easily enough once we deal with more important matters - matters that could undermine the country itself, such as the erosion of civil rights and the provokation of anger, hatred, and terrorism by the foreign policy of the Bush administration.
[ January 02, 2004, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:If you are referring to Dean, yes. Any solution that doesn't deal with the problem is wrong. Educating white people (the presumed source of the current problem) will not increase black test scores, improve black neighborhoods, or start black businessmen on their way.
Yes it will. If you don't understand why, ask yourself are the educators, the leaders in test scores, the people in the better neighborhoods, and those who start the most successful businesses.
Granted, this is only part of the solution, but without white America, there is a certain extent to which black people have a blind leading the blind problem. Then once you take out athletics and entertainment as legitimate industries-- and there are a few very good and a few very bad reasons to do this-- that leaves industries dominated by white people who like giving the good cushy jobs, their wisdom, and second opportunities to their friends and family members and friends of friends, without honestly registering that this is what is going on. It does a good job of eating away at the black middle class.
Here is the original article that puts the story in context. Did it really take that much digging to put find it? Especially considering that it was linked to the page.
quote:For all the fire of that moment, Dean said the Democrats cannot run away from a blunt, if gently blunt, discussion about race...."Dealing with race is about educating white folks," Dean said in an interview Tuesday on a campaign swing through the first primary state where African-American voters will have a major impact. "Not because white people are worse than black people about race but because whites are in the majority, and therefore the behavior of whites has a much bigger influence on hiring practices and so forth and so on than the behavior of African-Americans." It is unknown whether Dean's style of education will have a big influence on either white or African-American primary voters at the expense of, say, Wesley Clark's experience with affirmative action in the military or John Edwards's Clintonesque folksiness. While the Republicans have baldly capitulated to racism in modern presidential campaigns, such as appearing at Bob Jones University and claiming we are so close to a "colorblind" society that affirmative action programs can be dismantled, the Democrats have struggled to find a message that attracts swing white voters and loyal voters of color at the same.
[ January 02, 2004, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
How will educating white people improve test scores of black kids?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
No matter what you might think of his statement, Javert, politically, I think he just won many, many black votes with that statement. The only reason politicians do things are for votes and to stay in office and to get elected. Period. Logic has nothing to do with anything. Truth has nothing to do with anything. You are running as the person your voters want you to be. In this case, since Dean is running in the Democratic primary, which is determined by not a few black votes, he has made a very bold, very politically savvy statement that will further help him to get the nomination.
There are two kinds of campaigns that Democrats can run at this point, ones that cater to the center-right, or ones that cater to the left. Now, Bush has been campaigning to the center-right and appears to pretty much have a lock on it. If this is the case, why fight him over votes that you're probably not going to get anyway? I mean, Bush has actually given people money for their vote. It's really amazing when you look at it. Last year's rebates were nothing but the biggest, fattest chickens the world has ever seen for people to put in their pots.
Who is Bush not campaigning to? The left. Again, looking at the numbers, Democrats stay home at much higher ratios than Republicans. So, the theory is that all people have to do is vote the way they did in 2000, but the Democrats can bring in a few more votes, and they will win. If you look at how voters rate Bush and how they say they're going to vote, this theory seems to be legit. It is striking to note that Republicans are almost all going to vote for him and Republicans are almost all going to vote against him.
More Democrats stay home than Republicans. Despite this fact, Democrats almost won the White House last year. So, a winning strategy is to 'energize you base' so to speak by letting them know that you really are a 'liberal'. The theory is that you will encourage them to vote for you.
The spin that Dean is some 'extreme left' candidate a la OSC is just that, spin. The only people Dean is extreme to are people like OSC who, contrary to his opinion of himself, are no more 'real' Americans than I am. The things Dean is saying (barring the conversational 'Soviet Union' type gaffes) are solidly Democrat. The positions he is taking are those that a Democrat will often take. Nothing new about Dean other than the fact that he's not hiding the fact that he's a liberal and he's not campaigning for the center.
edit: I am really tired. Sorry for all the bad grammar.
[ January 02, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Okay. So Dean will win the primary and lose the election.
It's still a dumb thing to say. And not flattering that you think he has to say it to get elected.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It wasn't meant to be a concise analysis, it was meant to be a soundbite. I happen to agree with the basic sentiment, not particularly oddly.
If he were asked to write a paper on the subject I don't doubt his position would be quite complex. You don't write papers in interviews.
Furthermore, one thing I quite like is he actually ventures forth something that seems like an opinion, rather than a bleh, meaningless statement. Here's Bush on racism: "In terms of being a president that says there's no place in racism it starts with saying there's no place for racism in America....And that's what leadership needs to do. Leadership needs to stand up and say, and condemn racism and condemn prejudice and hold people accountable as an individual, not as a group."
Which boils down to racism is bad, and we shouldn't punish groups because of it. Bleh, bleh, bleh.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Hatrackers on Dean: Bush is Evil/Dumb.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
That he will lose the election is your opinion and remains to be seen. I'm just laying out to you what I think his thinking is. And ALL politicians say what they think will get them votes. I just don't put Dean on a pedestal like some people put Bush on a pedestal, I guess. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Kat: I know lots of educated black people (not surprising, I'm at a college in a widely black city). I also know lots of black people who are poorly educated, and lots of white people. I've met many of them while taking food to the homeless. The problem with education in this country is not one of race, imo, it is one of poverty.
I think Dean was quite correct on what will result in the end of racism. And even if we end racism, the poor black people will still be the poor black people, in the majority, and their eduction will still suck, mostly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Lalo said: Does anyone really question Bush's corruption?
Yes. There are many people who do not think Bush is corrupt. Dean’s comments on NAFTA show how he blows with the political wind.
quote:Lalo said: To complain that Dean's an idiot for risking political points by accurately identifying the primary cure for race relations is poorly performed political propaganda at its worst.
He has not identified the primary cure for race relations. Anyone who thinks the government is capable of “educating” the general public in such a way as to change deeply help perceptions and philosophies is naïve. Anyone who thinks it is desirable is scary.
What do you propose? National ad campaigns: “Don’t be a racist.” “Acknowledge your deeply held racist attitudes.” “The following announcement is aimed at white audiences. If you are not white, please turn the channel because you don’t need to become a better person.”
Dagonee
[ January 02, 2004, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Fugu, from the quote and the context, it doesn't look like he was talking solely about racism. If he was, then yeah - racism is a problem I believe education can fix.
He wasn't though - he was talking about "race" in general. I suppose the wiggle area is what you think he meant when he said race. In that sense, it was a marvelous quote. Some people can assume he meant merely racism, and other can assume he meant all the problems that seem to go with race, and everyone's happy.
Well, except me. I think he's an idiot for saying it. It isn't practical, and I love ideals, but leaders need a plan to change ideals into action that would work.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Dagonee, you ever hear of the Bush 'kiss of death' on a government program?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I don't know if you have ever improved your standardized test scores. But I did by a truly absurd amount, and I did it by consciously casting off slang and learning traditional english vocabulary and sentence structure. I don't regret my choice because there is a sort of confidence that comes with speaking well. Had I made this decision earlier and with more commitment, I doubt I would be such a mumbler today.
The problem of test scores is a problem of vocabulary and communication. The other side standardized testing, math, will come with general academic acquity, but the most pressing problem is english, plain and simple. The problem is not knowing what a word means in a reading and comprehension sample, or in an analogy section, then not having your parents know, not having any of your friends know, and not ever hearing a reference made by any of your friends or family so it's not even in the deep recesses of your brain. And then it's a problem of your teacher not realizing or having the resources to address your ignorance, and the voters saying that since you failed this test, you are stupid anyway, and we aren't going to waste our hard-earned tax-dollars trying to introduce you to a word that everybody, in their circles, anyway, knows.
The most frustrating part of tutoring the SAT is watching kids fail question after question because of vocabulary. And I can imagine that the most frustrating part of teaching interviewing techniques is watching good people get passed over because of non-mainstream communication and diction. And educating white people will stop the bull in the china shop which is the influential white person who spends his capital, time, wisdom and energy in accordance with his racial preferences yet doesn't realize that he is doing so. These are the people who are numerous and scary. The ones who say that they aren't "racist," but could never imagine themselves selling to, renting to, investing time into, buying from, or hiring a black person, unless that person is over-qualified.
The problem isn't in the racial sentiments, it's glossing over of the fact that those sentiments cause huge public problems.
But then again, one of the perks of being white, ensconced in privilege and discrimination, is that you don't have to listen to a word I say. It's a problem of freedom and the degree to which white people's ignorace of their own individual or institutional biases suffocate black people's ability to perform public business. ___________________
There is another analogy to card games. There is a saying about how you should never sit-down to play a card game for money unless you know all of the rules. There is nothing more frustrating than thinking you win the pot, and all of the sudden another rule pops out. Well, it's kind of like that. Now to the host of the game, the rules are elementary. He has been playing this game since he was young, and it is so natural that when he explained the rules to his guest, he may have elided over some of the finer points. But to be sure, when the cards are all played and some of the more obscure rules are inforced, the host finds it his duty to inforce them, and true, any less dilligence in following the rules, all of the rules, would be unfair to the game and to the rest of the players. But then you have the guest, who bet his entire wad because according to his knowledge he had a winning hand, but he is now penniless, and so distraught, he leaves the party early. Now later on in the evening, over the game and a few jugs of wine, the remaining players start talking about stock tips.
[ January 02, 2004, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Storm Saxon, please enlighten me on the Bush kiss of death.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't think Dean, or much of anyone else, believe race itself is a problem. I don't think his suggestions could "solve race" in any conceivable way it could be considered a problem, so I am forced to conclude he meant racism, particularly as the rest of his quote is clearly a solution for racism.
Could you show me firstly, what race problem Dean may have been alluding to, and then how his proposed solution would have any bearing on it whatsoever? I simply don't see a way to assume he meant anything other than racism. I don't even really know what a race problem would be, unless one was a rather rabid racist.
And if we're going to consider all politicians on the exact words out of their mouths, I assume you will not be voting for Bush, the king of stumblers? I think its a silly reason, myself.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:I don't know if you have ever improved your standardized test scores. But I did by a truly absurd amount, and I did it by consciously casting off slang and learning traditional english vocabulary and sentence structure.
Yes, I have. I retook the GRE last fall and improved my scores in verbal and analytical by a whopping amount.
No idea how I did it, though. My first thought was a lowered opinon of the test. Suspect practicing how to do a computer test instead of a paper test helped immensely.
In that case, I was not cognizant of the method of taking a computer test. The solution was to educate me as to how to take a computer test.
In your above scenario, I completely believe you improved your scores. It also sounds like you did it by learning a wider vocabulary. In that case, your education improved your test scores. Not the education of the people who gave the test.
A better education is needed, but it's needed for everyone. Informing (white) teachers that their kids may not encounter these words at home may help bring their awareness, but it's still just an intermediary step to the kids' education.
In this case, better education for the kids' would improve test scores. If Dean had mentioned that, he would have some of my respect. Clinton, on this issue, does, because it looks like he did mention it.
quote:I don't think his suggestions could "solve race" in any conceivable way it could be considered a problem, so I am forced to conclude he meant racism,
That's because the quote itself makes him sound like a simple-minded idiot, so supporters must assume he didn't actually mean it. You can do that.
[ January 02, 2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
You know, I don't understand how people can complain about Dean being too wishy-washy on issues while simultaneously claiming he is not wishy-washy enough to win the national election.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Who's doing that, Tres?
I don't think he holds too strong of an opinion to be a good leader. I think he holds a wrong one.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:How will educating white people improve test scores of black kids?
It depends on what you think the reason is for black kids getting lower average test scores. If you believe that having teachers who are both good educators and also believe that people of all races are capable of learning, then educating white people may help improve black kids' test scores. If you believe that having a stable home with a decent income helps test scores, then you might think that having employers who do not discriminate may help improve black kids' test scores. However, if you believe that teachers and employers are already doing fine at that, then continued education of white people may not be particularly useful.
--------------
Here's a strange dilemma I have. If race in America is really not that big a problem anymore, that is, if teachers put the same faith in all students, if employment really is a meritocracy, if university acceptance really is a meritocracy, in short, if people really are colorblind and educated about race, then why are African- and Latin-Americans, on the average, worse off than Caucasians? Now, clearly, not everyone arguing against things like affirmative action or whatever think that we have achieved such a widespread state of enlightenment, but my impression has been that some people do. If things really are equal (or if minorities have the advantage because of affirmative action), then the fact that minorities tend not to fare as well in our society would seem to imply that they truly are inferior. But I know nobody is suggesting that, so what alternative am I missing?
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
So, let me make sure I understand you correctly: it is your belief that that one sentence indicates that Howard Dean does not know that blacks have lower test scores than whites (among other things); either that or he thinks that educating whites will close the gap. Is this an accurate representation of your opinion?
(Edit: This to kat.)
[ January 02, 2004, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: ae ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*snort*
So you think both Dean and Bush are simple-minded idiots, because both have said stupid sounding things? I'm pretty certain you don't think that for Bush, and perhaps you should read some of Dean's policy statements:
Maybe it's a matter of starting farther behind. If everyone is improved across the board, those that are behind stay behind?
----
Personal theory, derived from a private point of view, TIFWIW:
I lived in Detroit for a while aways back, and I was floored by the lack of men.
Everywhere. We'd go to people's homes, and there'd be four generations of women doing their level best, and the only males around were under sixteen. Where the heck were the men? I talked to my DL (who'd been there several months longer), and it was like an Abbott and Costello routine.
"Where are all the men?" "I know!" "I mean, these are families that came from somewhere. Where are they?" "I know!" "Dang it, I'm not commenting, I'm asking!"
In answer, many are in prison, many are dead, and many are, seriously, just walking around the city.
I don't have any experience with Latino culture, so I won't venture any kind of opinion, but I seriously think that a major component of any child's preparation for the world is a stable family with a mother and a father who are dedicated to providing their kids with a home they can count as a haven from the world and an education that can use to build a better world.
For what it's worth, in my opinion, that's what's missing. It's hard to concentrate on school when there's chaos at home. It's hard to conceive of another world when the one around you says the fate of young black men is prison, death, or eternal poverty. It's hard to concentrate on school when your culture says that those who care about grades are traitors to their race.
That is CRAP. The above problems are real, if they were fixed many of the current woes would at least be comparable to the rest of Americas, and NONE of the above would be fixed by WHITE education.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and I might point out he spends quite a while talking about means improving equality of educational opportunity.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:Here's a strange dilemma I have. If race in America is really not that big a problem anymore, that is, if teachers put the same faith in all students, if employment really is a meritocracy, if university acceptance really is a meritocracy, in short, if people really are colorblind and educated about race, then why are African- and Latin-Americans, on the average, worse off than Caucasians? Now, clearly, not everyone arguing against things like affirmative action or whatever think that we have achieved such a widespread state of enlightenment, but my impression has been that some people do. If things really are equal (or if minorities have the advantage because of affirmative action), then the fact that minorities tend not to fare as well in our society would seem to imply that they truly are inferior. But I know nobody is suggesting that, so what alternative am I missing?
You forgot to factor in that it takes time to adjust to equality. I am not giving my opinion on the status of minorities, but workplace and educational equality are much closer to where they should be than they have been in the past. Consider the situation of Irish immigrants in the later 1800s and early 1900s. They were a despised minority and faced overwhelming, systematic discrimination. As times and attitudes changed and new laws were passed, their situation got better and their socio-economic status improved. However, it was a gradual process, not an overnight change.
Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
Dean's statement on educating white people is actually of a discussion that has been in colleges for years now, I'm rather surprised that it hasn't come to the national front till now. Now, everybody is required to have US History classes in high school, or perhaps even a Western History course (if their school provides it), but there is no African American history course, there is no Asian history course, or a Latino history course. That's why quite a few colleges (such as Emory University) have been debating on making African American courses part of the basic requirements. This in itself isn't just about test scores, it's about social equality.
Javert: in itself, it will not directly attack the problem of minorities testing lower, but instead I see it as going to the source of the problem, because whites test better in standardized tests such as the SATs because they are centered around what white middle class students know, but as people learn of cultures and histories other than their own, the problems of equality in schools and testing will aleviate themselves. Satyagraha
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
What about expanding the US history course to cover, you know, everyone involved in US history?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I personally feel excluded because there is no history course covering exclusively brown-eyed historical figures.
[ January 02, 2004, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The above problems are real, if they were fixed many of the current woes would at least be comparable to the rest of Americas, and NONE of the above would be fixed by WHITE education.
So your presence and instruction didn't do any good? Everyone you visited was just as bad off as before you visited, and would have been just as bad off had you stayed, and furthermore, you aren't better equipt to go back to Detroit after your initial eduacational experience.
Javert, if you read the article, when Dr. Dean talks about the education of white America, he doesn't mean that you learning Latin will solve racism, he means that you going in to Detroit and learning from, teaching, then you going out and shaping policy, telling your friends or family who may not notice that they only hire white people for executive positions, then going back in and learning more and teaching and reading to these kids who may not know the virtues of the written word. You are charged with wiping out and a long and awful legacy that you didn't individually have a part in. It's not fair, but I'm not going to stomach any cries about it because it's still a lot better than the alternative.
______________________________________________
quote:because whites test better in standardized tests such as the SATs because they are centered around what white middle class students know,
There is an incredible amount of truth to this phrase. Though, I do believe that there should be a predominance of Western Civilization in history and English classes, if for other reason than there is a fantastic account and legacy of the human condition in the books written by and about dead white guys. I studied philosophy and read exclusively dead white guys, with an occasional twentieth century woman, and I'm a better person for it. I studied music and played some of the most difficult and telling music in the westen tradition, written by dead white men,l and I am a better person for it. And not only am I a better person for it, I'm a better agent in 21st century America for my knowledge of western civilization.
For me, the purpose of education is simple. To create curious minds who are given the tools to endure that arduous process of figuring out how the world truly opens up to them, and to do this without endure and relish that process without relying on someone to do the thinking for them. Then, once you figure out how the world itself up to you, and if you aren't struck dumb by the singularity and awesomeness of your vision, then you can help other people build their minds to figure out honestly and truly how the world opens up to them, knowing that the manifold of differences stem are substantial, but you and the next person are both human.
I think that's what a good politician or teacher can do.
[ January 02, 2004, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: but there is no African American history course, there is no Asian history course, or a Latino history course.
But I am certain that they have AMERICAN history courses. This idea of having "seperate but equal" history courses that deal with each racial minority is as insulting as it is dangerous. Are we not trying to STOP people from seperating people out by race? The important events of American history should be covered because they are important to understanding our country, and knowing where it comes from. If a college wants to have a seperate black history course, fine. But lets not confuse such a course with Overall American history. BY seperating the achievments of minorities from those by whites, you destroy any chance of having a non-racist society.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I'm not in the slightest bit unaware of my obligations.
But whatever teaching and help might have occurred because of me, any benefit to the lives of people I met had little to nothing to do with me and everything to do with the people who listened.
It isn't that MY education is a bad move - it is just supremely not the only one. It doesn't matter in the slightest how educated the teachers are if the kids are not willing/in a position to learn.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: because whites test better in standardized tests such as the SATs because they are centered around what white middle class students know
This is not true. How are math, logic, and vocabulary problems slanted toward whites?
In fact, the SAT is slanted in favor of blacks. The SAT is ment to predict the standing of a student after his/her first year of college. In fact, the SAT over-predicts the ranking of black test takers.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While this is an interesting diversion, I'd be interested in at least hearing if you still thought Dean was an idiot after reading through some of those position statements, and if you think Bush isn't an idiot despite his numerous idiotic public statements, Kat.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Oh, don't worry, I'm pretty sure most politicians are idiots. I just had higher hopes for Dean.
[ January 02, 2004, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Practicing medicine is about the communication of accurate information.
That is the red thread to pluck out, the crux of the matter, the core of the enterprise.
Sure, it's also about knowing physiology, pharmacology, and anatomy; and it's about understanding the construction of a differential diagnosis; and there's a good deal of psychology involved, too; and one has to be skilled in certain techniques (like draining abscesses, stitching up a wound, reviewing statistical analyses, and what have you); and, and, and ...
And still, the crux is about communicating accurate information. But that simple sentence packs in it a broad set of prior assumptions (e.g., learning how to assess which information is correct). It also is the best phrase to summarize the point because it is upon this that the important outcomes are predicated.
Perhaps to achieve the outcomes of lessening the disparity of resources, improving test scores, and strengthening interpersonal relationships, Dean believes he has to go through educating white people first?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:How are math, logic, and vocabulary problems slanted toward whites?
Robespierre, it sounds like you have your mind made up. Do you really care?
______________________________________________
quote:Oh, don't worry, I'm pretty sure most politicians are idiots. I just had higher hopes for Dean.
I'm a politician, Javert. I make mistakes, but I think you would be hard-pressed to find a reasonable test which would classify me as an idiot.
[ January 02, 2004, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Care about what? I care about solving the problem of racism. And I see that constant victimization is not going to achieve this end. I am honestly asking you to explain to me, what you see that is unfair about the questions on either the SAT or the ACT, and how that unfairness translates into better scores for whites.
The problem is not with the test. The problem is with the students taking the test. As you stated before, if they don't know the vocabulary, they have little chance of passing. Instead of changing the vocabulary of the test, why not actually teach this vocabular to everyone? Why hold our punches for inner-city students who underperform? Why give a free pass due to economic situations? This is the same as giving up on a kid and just passing them along. Accountability is a big part of the problem.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Yeah, that was flippant. Okay, I'll be slightly less passive-aggressive.
Bush is another topic entirely, and since by position and power, he inspires more passion than Dean (note how many times he has been brought up during this thread), there's no reason to discuss him in this thread at all. It is only distracting, which I suspect may be the point.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:As you stated before, if they don't know the vocabulary, they have little chance of passing. Instead of changing the vocabulary of the test, why not actually teach this vocabular to everyone?
I never wanted to change the vocabulary on the test, Robespierre. 1) I'd like the administrators to articulate the purpose of having vocabulary be a determining factor on the test. (When an analogy test becomes more about understanding the terms than understanding the relationships between the terms, something is not being explained. If we were speaking in terms of the Princess Bride, "I do not think this test tests what you think it tests." 2) Go about the business of teaching the vocabulary. ____________________________________________
If we go back to my card game analogy on the other page, I don't want to change the rules of the game, rather, I'd love a clear and cogent explanations of the rules to all of the new players. I'm sure that there is a reason that hoopty will not be on the SAT while abject will. I'm even sure that it's a good reason.
______________________
CT, communication is the silver bullet. Writers, politicians, parents, teachers, preachers, diplomats, doctors, businessmen, and lawyers all say the same thing. It's about communication. It's why God is speaking to the world in Genesis, and why John is opens the New Testament expounding on the virtues of the Word.
[ January 02, 2004, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
After consulting UrbanDictionary, I have determined that my grandfather drives a hoopty.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
You had to look in a dictionary? After peepin' you hella sideways for not knowin', the last kid I tutored could have learned you without trippin'.
The problem is that she didn't know what gamut, abject, or salacious meant. The issue is figuring out why it's more important that children learn the definition of "askance" rather than knowing what a "buster" is, then we have to go about the business of communicating why learning what "askance" means is a good thing.
[ January 02, 2004, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Kat, have you read the Dean statements I pointed you at? He explicitly supports a number of the things you assert he has idiotically ignored with that sound bite. If you're going to complain about him for not supporting them (on essentially no evidence) perhaps you'd care to compliment him for supporting them?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Recent studies have revealed that there is a huge gap between white's perceptions of racism and black's perceptions. If the overwhelming majority of whites believe that racism is no longer a problem in the US, then in a democratic society where the majority sets the agenda, racism will not be dealt with in any meaningful way.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: If the overwhelming majority of whites believe that racism is no longer a problem in the US, then in a democratic society where the majority sets the agenda, racism will not be dealt with in any meaningful way.
This would be true if we lived in a direct democracy. We do not however. The majority cannot make rules which hamper the minority(in theory). A state religion may not be established simply because 66% of the people wish it to be so.
The same goes for the media. The media is not bound by what everyone wants to hear. Read the NewYork Times and tell me their editorial positions and their slant on news reporting represents the majority of people in this country. The few are protected from the tyranny of the many by the bill of rights. Sometimes the few need to remind the many of what those rights are, but all in all, the system seems to work somewhat well.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Rabbit's "Recent Studies" sums up my two years in the Midwest.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Irami:
I did have to look it up. I didn't have the foggiest idea what it might have meant. Same with "peepin'", although I can guess from the context. *consults urbandictionary.com*
quote:peep verb To view or inspect something for the purpose of determining it's use.
Okay.
Most of the words used on the GRE and similar, I didn't hear every day either. Like most Hatrackers, I got them from books. I don't think I've ever heard salacious used in a sentence outside of a classroom, but I didn't get all my vocabulary solely from the words spoken around me. I don't think the GRE DOES reward the vocabulary picked up in conversation - it rewards the vocabulary picked up from books.
Personally, I think that's why vocabulary is measured so often on standardized tests, and why it is seen as an indicator of school performance. It doesn't measure on how smart you are or the education level of the person who says hello to you when you come home from school - it measures how much you read.
Fugu, I haven't, but I will. Thank you for posting the links.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No problem .
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
quote:It's easy to pick out one-liners and call them simplistic. How about you examine his views on racial inequality in toto? I'm sure he's said more on the matter than this.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Javert, you talk about where the solution starts. It starts with you, a white woman, using your considerable knowledge and gumption to walk into a house and say, "Where are all of the men? I think there is something wrong here, and we have to sit down and talk about it." and it ends with one of the little boys in the house growing up to be a good father.
It begins with the outsider with all of the answers, well, at least a few of them. It does in Rousseau, it does in the Constitution, and it even does in SFTD. In everyday dialogue, no one is omniscient so if you can get people to put off the demands of incessant poverty to ask the right questions, then that's not so bad of a start.
[ January 02, 2004, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Exactly. The key point there is the kid growing up to be a good father.
MY education is barely a beginning. The kid growing up to be a good father is the actual solution.
[ January 02, 2004, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It's the beginning. The first step is only a step, and usually it's a stumble, but the last step doesn't happen spontaneously, it happens because of the first step. If anything, Dean's statement was a statement of pragmatism.
[ January 02, 2004, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
He spoke of it as an end in itself.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Why are you still here posting messages instead of reading the links fugu provided? Are you so utterly convinced that that soundbite is the be-all and end-all of Dean's policy that no amount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:This would be true if we lived in a direct democracy. We do not however. The majority cannot make rules which hamper the minority(in theory). A state religion may not be established simply because 66% of the people wish it to be so.
True but entirely irrelevant since programs to mitigate the adverse effects that Jim Crow laws, slavery, segregation etc. have on modern day African Americans are not constitutionally mandated.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: programs to mitigate the adverse effects that Jim Crow laws, slavery, segregation etc. have on modern day African Americans are not constitutionally mandated.
This is very correct. There is indeed no constitutional basis for affirmative action. For this, and many other reasons, it should be abolished.
[ January 02, 2004, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:He spoke of it as an end in itself.
Javert, he spoke of it as what it's "all about." That can mean it is the end of the endeavor, or it can mean it is the eye of the needle that must be gone through first.
quote: If the overwhelming majority of whites believe that racism is no longer a problem in the US, then in a democratic society where the majority sets the agenda, racism will not be dealt with in any meaningful way.
[ January 02, 2004, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: I don't think I've ever heard salacious used in a sentence outside of a classroom
You're hanging out with the wrong people . . . Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
How long has "hoopty" been in use? "Buster", at least as what I hear it currently means?
"Abject" may be obscure, but it's been around plenty long enough for the tests to include it without changing every year.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Fixing the problem of racism does rest in the education of White folks. See, white people are born with the priviledge of being born white. We don't have to worry about our race and culture. We just ARE. We don't have to worry at traffic stops about the cops taking an offense to our color and attitude and choosing to make our lives miserable. We don't have to think of race as a factor in getting a job. We have to qualify. Often, minorities have to overqualify. The education of white people isn't about book learning. It's about realizing the priviledge we're born with and using that to combat rampant racism.
Many posts in this thread have concentrated on victim blaming. That it's the fault of the minorities that they're in their current situation. They aren't working hard enough at school. They aren't working hard enough at work. They aren't trying to succeed. They aren't learning how to speak proper English.
We ask them to give up their culture and live in a White world. That's racism. White culture is the majority culture, so we assume that it's the proper culture and that the minorities, if they want to succeed and end racism, they should want to acculturate to us.
That's crap. If we expect others to acculturate to US, that's racism. We're assuming that their culture isn't decent enough and they should better themselves.
And about American history being taught in class? Are we looking at the history of the Native Americans and their trip across and down into North and South American hundreds if not thousands of years before the first White people came to the Americas? Right now, American history classes mostly teach the majority culture's history--the White history of America.
It's racism to shout down from our pedestal and tell the minorities that they should get over their racism and try harder.
It's hard to stand up with someone standing on your back.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
It's hard to stand up also when you depend on other people standing for you.
I'm NOT blaming. However, if you're in a hole, letting the people up there KNOW you are in a hole and they need to throw a rope doesn't do squat if you don't grab the rope and climb.
quote:You're hanging out with the wrong people . . .
No kidding. How can smart and sincere people be so judgemental and boring at the same time? I want to move to Hatrack. I'm irritated with my options here.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote: Right now, American history classes mostly teach the majority culture's history--the White history of America.
Then change the history class to encompass ALL history.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: The education of white people isn't about book learning. It's about realizing the priviledge we're born with and using that to combat rampant racism.
The basic problem of this discussion is that the results of what people proclaim are most often totally intangible. Is it enough for me to say that I am not a racist, and that I tolerate no racism in my presence? I would think it is, but I have a feeling that this is not what you want.
The continued oppression of blacks in this country is being perpetrated by the black exploitative leadership and whites who accept the guilt implied by this sort of rhetoric. The message from the black leadership is that there is no chance of success in this country if you are black, without government help. That it is okay to enslave others in exchange for some government help.
No one in this discussion or any other on hatrack(to the best of my knowledge) has claimed that there does not exist racism. Racism comes in various forms and degrees from all people. The question becomes one of a final goal. What would you like see as the end result of your ideas, mackillian? Should there be a guarantee of outcomes in life? Should we make it impossible for people to fail?
(spelling)
[ January 05, 2004, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: We ask them to give up their culture and live in a White world. That's racism.
Firstly, what is "white" culture? When you define "American Culture" as white culture, you systematically exclude all other races from any contributions to the culture, and embrace what you proclaim is wrong.
Secondly, who is asking anyone to give up their culture?
quote: Right now, American history classes mostly teach the majority culture's history--the White history of America.
This is as far from the truth as I can imagine. The last thirty years has seen a massive swing in the prejudices displayed by history courses. They started out glossing over the crimes of western civilization, but have moved to a sort of multicultural worship that distorts people's understanding of history. This is why there exist people like the fellow who wrote the article about Lord of the Rings , claiming it was racist. This man had no understanding of history, and demonstrated that readily in his meandering rant. History should be taught as best we understand it, not to highlight minority achievements above all others.
(spelling)
[ January 05, 2004, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
If you live in a country, you will have to face that country's culture. If you want to be a part of a subculture within that country, you can, but it will impact the way people view you, especially first impressions. This has been true since as far as history has been recorded in nearly every human group, large and small. If you are hoping we can somehow change this fact now, it is not going to happen.
There is no white culture. There is an American culture, and most Americans are white, but this does not mean the culture is by definition for whites. I have known many friends who were of different races and yet adhered to American culture just as much as my white friends did, and apparently did not find anything wrong with being a part of the dominant culture. They didn't feel that because their skin is black their culture should include BET instead of MTV.
What's more, I know a couple white folks who are a part of what people might describe as "black" culture. They grew up in an environment where that subculture was dominant, and it belongs to them no less than it belongs to any dark skinned friends of theirs. I strongly suspect that, because of the way they dress, speak, and act, they face many of the same problems black folks of the same subculture face.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I grew up in a very multi cultural area of southern CA. (I was the only white kid in the neighborhood other than my brothers for quite a while).
I still remember going to college in Oklahoma and having the black guy I happened to sit next to on the first day of school, go into shock that I was talking to him.
What is interesting, but not discussed much is the plight of the multi-racial children. They are alternately accepted and rejected by "white" or "black" cultures depending on where they came from and what their interest was. Particularly nerdy kids. Nerds have their own set of social difficulties but are often reviled far more in black society than white society. I have multiple friends who have struggled with this, including Steve, who I have been with for four years. Steve was the token white kid when he lived in a black neighborhood, and the token black kid when he lived in a white neighborhood. I just realized that where we bought a house he is likely the only black guy in the neighborhood.
On the college campus that I went to things were very polarized between the two cultures, because of the prevalence and strength on campus of both historically black, and historically white fraternities and sororities. I was actually asked if I was interested in joining a black sorority, and I was extremely honored at the request, although I didn't join. The problem is that a black girl who chose to go into a traditionally white sorority would be shunned by her black peers has having sold out to whitey rather than praised as making a groundbreaking stride forward. Things are very parallel with males.
The nerds make their own way in the world. However I think it is often more difficult for the black nerds compared to everyone else. White people understand that nerds can end up like Bill Gates. Where is the black Bill Gates equivalent? Maybe it is in the next generation, I don't know. There are "bill gates"ish role models in other racial groups, but it is much harder to find them among blacks.
Maybe it will be my friend Kendrick. I have fond memories of my friend Kendrick Bailey walking around campus in a kilt of his clan colors. The Bailey name came from an Irish great great grandfather, but he'd get some strange looks as he, a tall black guy with nerdy glasses would go trotting around in said kilt. He was great to hang out with though and would have fit in well at hatrack!
AJ
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: he'd get some strange looks as he, a tall black guy with nerdy glasses would go trotting around in said kilt
AJ, that's a great image! Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:We ask them to give up their culture and live in a White world. That's racism. White culture is the majority culture, so we assume that it's the proper culture and that the minorities, if they want to succeed and end racism, they should want to acculturate to us.
What culture would they be giving up? I don't get this one, Jamie.
In many an inner city community, unwed teens giving birth is completely acceptable. Even anticipated. Wes went on a run to a pregnant 18 year old and actually heard the child's mother comment that it was about time she finally was having her first child. At 18, she was considered old to be bearing her first baby.
Now, in some places in the world, that's normal. But here in America, having children as young teens and not finishing your education is not a recipe for success. That goes for white, black, hispanic, whatever. It's not about a white way of life, but a successful way of life.
There are communities of white people in America that suffer the exact same ills as an inner city project populated solely by minorities. They were born with the privilege of being white and it hasn't apparently done them much good.
I have known teens that came out of extreme poverty and earned college scholarships and become very successful in life. Or that finished high school, got a job and through a great work ethic are now business owners and worth millions. The opportunities they took advantage of were in place for their peers as well. It wasn't a matter of it not being possible, but rather a matter of the others not wanting it. Why?
That's the question to be answered. Why do so many people ignore the opportunities in front of them and instead settle for a life of poverty? How can that be changed? I can educate all the people around me and we can pour all kinds of money into programs that help inner city youth but if the kids don't show up - it accomplishes nothing.
Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
It's weird but the people I'm around seem to find Racism as a joke. They find it as a way to classify a person. For us, Racism is only harsh on the parents right now. Not that many people make ssuch a big deal out of it around us but whenever it comes to segregation we're always dreading it. Friends are torn apart because of it. Oh well, I guess that's just reality.
Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
quote:Why do so many people ignore the opportunities in front of them and instead settle for a life of poverty? How can that be changed? I can educate all the people around me and we can pour all kinds of money into programs that help inner city youth but if the kids don't show up - it accomplishes nothing.
There is always the matter of competition. Some people are not encouraged to do things because there are always better people. Like my math club, there are only 2 blacks and about 5 whites. The rest are Asian and its a big club. In another club there are probably only 4 Asians. People don't take opportunities where it seems that none of their "race" is in and won't do well in. They settle for a lower life because they don't believe they coudl ever match up to those 'above' them.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Belle is on the opposite end of the "Who Needs to Change" spectrum from Dean's statement. I don't agree that all currently have equal opportunity and it's their fault for not taking those opportunities.
[ January 05, 2004, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:However, if you're in a hole, letting the people up there KNOW you are in a hole and they need to throw a rope doesn't do squat if you don't grab the rope and climb.
What ropes are they being handed?
quote:Then change the history class to encompass ALL history.
I completely agree. Instead, everything is separated into different histories if the other histories are offered.
quote:Is it enough for me to say that I am not a racist, and that I tolerate no racism in my presence? I would think it is, but I have a feeling that this is not what you want.
What racism has appeared in your person that you have not tolerated? What actions did you take so that you made it not tolerated?
quote:The continued oppression of blacks in this country is being perpetrated by the black exploitative leadership and whites who accept the guilt implied by this sort of rhetoric.
How? Examples, please.
quote:The message from the black leadership is that there is no chance of success in this country if you are black, without government help.
What mysterious black leadership? I'm also not just addressing the black minorities...there are others around as well. And the message would be that there is no chance for black success in this country without the help and support of the majority, instead of the majority blaming the minorities for their own problems.
quote:That it is okay to enslave others in exchange for some government help.
Unpack that, please.
quote:What would you like see as the end result of your ideas, mackillian? Should there be a guarantee of outcomes in life?
I think for people to take responsibility for their own roles in racism, whether conscious or unconscious and take steps forward from there.
quote:Firstly, what is "white" culture? When you define "American Culture" as white culture, you systematically exclude all other races from any contributions to the culture, and embrace what you proclaim is wrong.
See, that's the bugbear right there. White people don't even have to think about what their culture is, because it's just there, the majority, and for most of their lives, aren't outnumbered by a different culture. And right now, American Culture IS primarily white culture because whites are the majority and the united states is not the melting pot it proclaims to be.
quote:Secondly, who is asking anyone to give up their culture?
We are, by demanding that minorities pull themselves up out of what we see as the mire of their culture and join ours, to think as we do.
quote:This is as far from the truth as I can imagine. The last thirty years has seen a massive swing in the prejudices displayed by history courses. They started out glossing over the crimes of western civilization, but have moved to a sort of multicultural worship that distorts people's understanding of history.
What distortions are you naming? Adding in other cultures that also were in American besides the Europeans distorts true historical fact?
quote:History should be taught as best we understand it, not to highlight minority achievements above all others.
Who is we? As who understands it? As the majority understands it? History is most always written by the victors.
Adrian, I can't quote your entire post. The thing is, what you wrote is the assumption of many people, that the poor, inner city, bad ways of life minories is the culture of the minorities. That isn't true.
The enthnicity with the highest percentage of people on welfare?...Whites.
Part of Latino culture is that a child does not look an adult in the eye. Only when that child reachs adulthood can the person look an adult in the eye. Also, a child is not an adult until marriage.
See, being able to pull yourself up by your bootstraps is the American ideal. Anyone can do it if they REALLY REALLY try. But statistically, it isn't true. We only read about the few success stories.
Did you know that women make only 75 cents for every dollar a man makes? Why hasn't that changed? How can it be changed? Are women too complacent as a minority to step up and do something about it?
They won't be until men realize what's happening, care enough to take steps to fix it, and figure out their own roles in allowing it to happen.
I know that as a woman I work my ass off in the workplace. But statistically, it's the men who will end up in the higher administration, higher paying jobs. Even in a field dominated by women.
Ethnic minorities function in much the same way--they beat their heads against a glass ceiling that the majority says doesn't really exist.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: Did you know that women make only 75 cents for every dollar a man makes? Why hasn't that changed? How can it be changed? Are women too complacent as a minority to step up and do something about it?
They won't be until men realize what's happening, care enough to take steps to fix it, and figure out their own roles in allowing it to happen.
I really tried to stay out of this discussion, but I can’t let this pass. Why is it “men” who have to do something to fix this? Why isn’t it society as a whole? It seems to avoid making any sweeping stereotypes about women that might explain this gap, we have to make sweeping stereotypes about men keeping women down. Why is it acceptable to make that stereotype?
Dagonee
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Is isn't a stereotype, it's a statement of the majority. The minority can do all it wants, but it can't make great gains without the support from the majority.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You think a majority of men spend time thinking of ways to keep women making less than them? SOrry, that just doesn't happen. There is no majority that meets in secret to set the salaries for women each year. If it does, I haven't gotten my invitation yet.
I agree with Scott Adams on this one: Men don't rule the world. It's possible that some men rule the world, but the vast majority of men are no better off because of it.
Dagonee
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:You think a majority of men spend time thinking of ways to keep women making less than them? SOrry, that just doesn't happen. There is no majority that meets in secret to set the salaries for women each year. If it does, I haven't gotten my invitation yet.
No. It's unconscious. It's the status quo that makes up life. If that unconscious sexism didn't exist, then the wage parity wouldn't exist, either.
It isn't fair to tell the minories they must take steps to pave their better future if the majority can't look at themselves and their position instead of shouting from a pedestal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I agree that telling minorities to just get over it and pull themselves up is unfair. This idea of "unconscious" prejudice really bothers me, however. There's no way to refute it because the person making the charge can just say, "Of course you don't see it. It's unconscious."
Even if it's true, it's seldom useful to get people to change by saying, "Here's why you're a bigot." Even if the speaker doesn't mean it that way, that's how it will be heard.
Dagonee
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:Here's why you're a bigot." Even if the speaker doesn't mean it that way, that's how it will be heard.
That's what you heard because you are defensive about it. That is not what I said.
With being the majority, you get power and priviledge. If the status quo needs changing, the majority could lose that power, so it's very hard to change. If the majority didn't want, in some way, an ism to exist, it wouldn't. The majority has the power and the priviledge to make dramatic and sustained change. It hasn't happened yet, and it isn't because minorities don't want it to.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: How? Examples, please.
Lets take Jesse Jackson as an example. He uses the strategy of monetary shakedowns to blackmail businesses into giving preferential treatment to minorities. The NFL being the biggest example of this. They have setup "diversity committees" and enacted a racist bylaw that requires teams which are searching for a new headcoach to interview at least one black applicant. Rev. Jackson has the power to threaten businesses through the willing media who will jump at the chance to show his Rainbo coalition clowns picketting anything on tv and give him national air time.
quote: What mysterious black leadership?
The above mentioned Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Qwasi Imfume(spelling?), Donna Brazil, et al. They are not very mysterious, they get quite a lot of media attention.
quote: And the message would be that there is no chance for black success in this country without the help and support of the majority,
Exactly what we want to avoid, placing the well being of some in the hands of others. The individual is as far as that responsibility should go.
quote: Unpack that, please.
By "the enslavement of others" I mean placing restrictions on people's freedoms in the interests of "diversity". Burdening some, with the financial well being of others. There is no provision in the consitution for redistribution of wealth or well being. And before anyone runs to claim the "general welfare" clause, first consider that this clause was intended to mean the welfare of ALL, as in general population, not those of a specific group at the expense of another group.
quote: I think for people to take responsibility for their own roles in racism, whether conscious or unconscious and take steps forward from there.
Personal responsibility is right on the money. What "steps forward from there" do you suggest? That is the open door you leave for oppresion of the many in the interests of the few.
quote: And right now, American Culture IS primarily white culture because whites are the majority and the united states is not the melting pot it proclaims to be.
Our legal system is based on the British system. Our economic system likewise, with additions of more personal freedom. The vast majority of people living in this country emmigrated from european counties. If you can define the sum of all these things as white culture, go for it. But I would put forth that there is no white culture. The cultures of Europe are not shared amongst one another. For your idea to be true, white people everwhere would have to be part of this culture. If you want to say that American culture is rooted in European culture, I will agree with you.
quote: We are, by demanding that minorities pull themselves up out of what we see as the mire of their culture and join ours, to think as we do.
Who is demanding this? I certainly am not. If a persian wants to move to this country, and live according to persian culture, while obeying our laws, I would take no issue, it is this person's right. If you would like to exempt people from our laws based on their race, then we need to have another, more serious discusion.
quote: What distortions are you naming?
There seems to be major ommissions in many realms of history, not just US history. One major issue is the diefication of FDR. This is a president who destroyed what was remaining of the economy with his central planning and works projects. But he unleashed a nasty surprise on southern blacks in promoting minimum wage laws and compulsory unionism. The minimum wage made unskilled labor not worth employing by raising its price to that of skilled labor. This caused massive cutbacks of mainly unskilled black laborers, over 600,000 in fact. The unions, which fought to raise wages above market value, also banned blacks from membership. This is but one example of important history that is typically left out of most history classes at all levels, excpeting a few college courses.
A major example of non-US historical amnesia is that of the muslim conquest of the christian world from 700ad onward. It is often forgotten and left aside to spend undue amounts of time on the christian cruisades. While no one would excuse the cruisades as anything but brutal blood letting, it is important to place such events in context with the muslim conquest of the iberian and Balkan penninsulas. Not to mention Egypt, Tripoli, Syria, Lebennon, Iraq, and Turkey, all of which were christian countries until around 700ad.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Mack, when I was a young teenager my family complained that I hummed at the table and told me to stop. Trouble was, no matter how hard I tried I couldn't hear a thing. Since there was no way for me to tell when I was doing it, there was no way I could stop. (Perhaps it had something to do with my vocal chord problems; I really don't know.)
If a bias is really unconscious, how in the world can we ever do anything about it? We really can't fix what we can't tell we're doing. And, of course, if other people have to tell us there's no way we can be sure if they're sincere or lying to exploit us. For these reasons I resist the whole concept that there can be a truly unconscious bias.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
This is why education of white people can help them see the unconscious biases.
Actually one of the easiest places to see it, is your local grocery store. Look at the people walking the aisles. How many of them are minorities? How many of the checkers are minorities. How do the checkers treat the minorities vs. everyone else. How are Asian minorities treated. Even though we often view them as "upper" class, often they aren't treated well either.
If there aren't any minorities at your grocery store than you live in a geographically white area, and of course you have no idea of whether you have any predjudices (conscious or unconscious) or not, because there is no test data for you to pull from. At that point you have a choice, you can choose to believe those of us who have "been there" who say there is unconscious predjudice or you can say we are out of our minds. If you choose to reject the data given by trustworthy people, as impossible because you haven't seen it yourself, then the world is flat and the moon is made of green cheese as well.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
To tie in to Maccabeus example, even though you couldn't hear the humming, you WERE humming. That is exactly what an unconscious bias is. And you were at least aware when you were at the table that you MIGHT be humming even if you yourself couldn't hear it. That is the beginning of the education process. While I realize you have vocal chord issues, if you were humming you should be able to put your hands on your face or throat and feel the vibrations, even if you couldn't hear them. That is how Beethoven composed once he went deaf!
AJ
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Okay, this goes back a little in the thread, but I want to revisit it.
I conducted an informal survey of friends and family to find who knew what "hoopty" meant.
Dad: No Grandpa: No 55-year-old aunt from Houston, no religion: No White, 45-year-old, Catholic co-worker: No 27-year-old Mormon schoolteacher at inner-city school: Yes 30-year-old Mormon male living in Logan Utah: No 27-year-old Baptist co-worker from Dallas: Yes 24-year-old Mormon friend from Dallas: Yes 26-year-old Mormon friend from Idaho: No
So, those from Dallas, vraious religions: Yes Those from Utah, Idaho, and Houston and the Catholic: No
It's a cultural word. The same people were questioned as to what a "home teacher" is, and that split completely down religious lines. It's also a cultural word. "Home teacher" will never appear on the SAT, and I don't believe it should. It's not part of the nation's literature, except for a small and inbred Mormon lit group that doesn't get read outside the group.
That was revelation number one.
Revelation number two:
Where you take the SATs will affect your score. If you take the same test and answer the same way in rural Texas and in Dallas, Texas, your score will be higher if you take it in Dallas, Texas. Considerably.
As much as I hate to admit it, this explains my GRE score. I live in a sketchy part of town, and I took the test from a testing center in a poor neighborhood, and I KNOW I didn't answer all the questions perfectly. I got a perfect score anyway.
That's the answer to the cultural bias. The scores for the SATs are curved based on where you take the test.
I found this out from the previously mentioned schoolteacher friend, who was instructed to instruct her students to be sure to take the test in Dallas instead of the outlying areas.
[ January 06, 2004, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yes Javert, when you said "home teacher" I thought you just meant a homeschooler, because my mother has called herself that for years. Then I thought and I realize in the LDS context it is more someone who comes to your house and conducts an in-home Bible study (or something like that?)
AJ
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Yes. Your home teacher is one of two guys in the ward assigned to you and your family. A home teacher typically has 3 - 10 families on his roster, and he visits each every month, delivers a message, and generally sees if they need anything.
If you need something from the ward - and this changes with the ward (in singles' wards, it is most often help with moving) - your home teacher is the person you call and he talks to the leadership and takes care of the rest. It's a way for the leadership to take care of everyone without having to do it all in person. It's also supposed to cover the "comfort those who stand in need of comfort" and the "feed my sheep", "take care of each other" parts of the gospel.
It's great. I love my own home teacher, had him for most of the time I've been in Dallas, and he's a complete sweetie who gets things done for me and gives me help when I need it. We are not really friends - i.e., we don't hang out - but he's wonderful and even withstood me going through a three-month period of standing him up.
Great word. Will NEVER appear on the SATs.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Wow. I can't believe Hatrack has NO comments on the scores on the SATs being dependent on where the test was taken.
Nothing about where you were sitting changing your score?
My opinion? Well, since you asked...
My first instinct was complete outrage. The heck? HOWEVER, most students do not apply out of state. Most students who go to college go to a college in their state, and often within their city.
If you take the test in Dallas, you get a higher score, but you are almost certainly going to be a attending one of the fifteen colleges and universities within Dallas, so you are competing against other people who have an artificially inflated score. It cancels itself out. As for those who DO apply out of state and to colleges where a handful of points on the SATs mean the difference between getting or not, more power to them. It does fix some of it.
The only people that are being treated completely unfairly by this are, well, those like me, who got a much higher score than I surely deserved by taking it in Dallas, and who plans (maybe - I think) on applying out of state.
-----
Fugu, I listened to Dean this morning talk about fiscal responsibility and the impossibility of paying for everything, and I'm back on the fence.
[ January 07, 2004, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Heh, can't say I'm not glad to hear it.
As for the location mattering thing, I do consider that a very bad thing, sort of. Its a private company, so it can do what it wants. Of course, its also used by almost every major US university in determining admission -- essentially, its a way for the universities to have need based admission without having need based admission. I deplore the strategy being used, but I see nothing inherently wrong with a university having need based admission (that is, poorer people get in easier). There are a number of strong arguments for it improving the economy, increasing the median standard of living, and reducing homelessness and poverty.
However, I hope the increasing unreliability of the already remarkably subjective SATs will result in a move towards more subject oriented tests, which I feel better demonstrate learning aptitude -- if a person has done well on even one subject test, its a strong indicator they could do well on others provided the proper motivation, whereas teh SATs subject matter is so narrow it can easily downgrade swaths of people who are really into, say, biology, but find neither math or english particularly appealing.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I actually guess my surprise was, Kat that you didn't know that already.
I lived in a dorm with over 100 people that "aced" the SAT. The ONLY thing in common was that these people all read books (it was where I was introduced to OSC). However when you start comparing actual scores, the state you come from makes all the difference. Why? Because National Merit Scholars are the top 1/100th of 1% of the PSAT takers by state. This means that in my year I had to score nearly 30 points higher in CA to get the "National Merit" designation than my friend who was from Kansas did. As I recall that year the CA cut off was 218ish, and the Kansas cuttoff was 190ish.
Another thing they do there is that they separate the minorities out and make them "National Achievemnent Scholars" rather than "National Merit Scholars" The standards are lower for the "Achievement" mark. The problem is that if you are non-white and check the box saying so, you will NEVER get awarded a straight National Merit title, even if your score was there fair and square because they won't do it.
That was why we thought it was a joke, though we weren't complaining that we got free rides for filling in some circles correctly.
I don't know exactly how things change on the GRE but I think it is the same people administering the test, and knowing what goes on with the SATs it doesn't suprise me at all.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Oh yeah and doing it by state, to equalize public school systems doesn't matter either since the high scorers in lousy education states (like CA) mostly went to private schools.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
fugu the problem with requiring subject tests is that many states are using the SAT IIs for that... same company so they can skew grading once again however they want to.
AJ
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
How did everyone know this already?
No wonder test scores are such a joke! Not only do they only measure how well you can take a test, the results are fudged based on what little circles you can fill in.
I don't know for sure that the GRE does this, but it does make sense. And it clears up a mystery.
What can they be replaced with? If test scores are a joke, I can't begin to talk about grades. This same friend who told me this was also informed that despite most of one of her classes getting 30% or less average for the semester's work, she was only allowed to fail a couple students.
[ January 07, 2004, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Maybe everyone doesn't know. But the pattern was obvious to us so-called "smart" people once we put our heads together and compared data. Maybe because we were looking for it, unlike the types who score the same as us and choose to pay to go to an Ivy-League school rather than taking the free ride at a state school like U. of OK. They probably want to believe in the veracity of the test more, because they are going to more "elite" institutions. Either that or they know it was money that got them in, because grandma has made a donation and has a wing of some building named after her. Though that is only a hypothesis I have no proof!
AJ
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I got my free ride to a state school because of a test as well, but it wasn't the SAT.
*sigh* I think I was barely in this world in high school. I didn't know the PSATs even existed, so I never took them. I do remember the day everyone got their scores back, and wondering if that was important. It worked out, though. Fools and children get taken care of.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Banna, my tendency is not to think that people who report unconscious bias are out of their minds, but to suspect they are trying to pry inappropriate favors out of the system. I suppose that in itself could be suggested as bias, but I think much the same thing of anyone who reports perceiving something I can't, unless they have some kind of special equipment--my first guess is that they have some kind of ulterior motive.
In this case, what you suggested is also problematic. I seem to have difficulty telling what feelings are expressed by people's body language and expressions, except for the most blatant, and frequently suspect I am being looked down on or teased when I am not. I will try to take note, though.
As a matter of fact, I did grow up in an area that tends toward open racism; Marshall County, KY, is virtually 100% white. (There are some Asians, and recently some Hispanics have begun moving in.) Though I have heard some disparaging comments about the latter, almost all of the bias is focused on blacks, who are virtually absent and have been since the Depression. (Sometimes it saddens me, but I can see the progress over the course of my life.) But the thing is, when I tell this to other people, they are always startled and horrified. I find it difficult to believe that anything remotely resembling this is present in the nation at large (as opposed to in some communities like mine); surely outsiders would simply nod their heads knowingly or something like that. "Yeah, it's like that all over the place, just not quite so much."
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Macc I would say your situation is extremely common for most of the country, away from urban population areas. Of course this is based on my own personal experience. I could probably google up population facts to support at least the population density and diversity distributions though away from major cities.
AJ
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I think there is a difference between racism based on ignorance and racism based on... whatever racism is based when it takes place in places where people see and work with each other.
The one based on ignorance seems more easily eradicated.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Also Macc, I have no reason to "pry favors out of the system". I am a well paid engineer (though possibly less than a man in the equivalent job) and have a college degree. I also am (in skin tone) as white as white can be, with blond hair and blue eyes. Other than being female in my profession I shouldn't be discriminated against, and walking down the street most certianly not, unless someone is envious of blondes in general.
However, what makes me different is that I was raised as a minority in a predominately Hispanic culture. I KNOW what it is like to be different because of your skin tone, because I was. I was more than occasionally looked at askance because I didn't "fit in" with the way everyone else looked, in places like the supermarket or the blockbuster. I was the outsider and if they didn't know me personally, unconsciously the group whether children or adults would close ranks and leave me out.
I was truly appalled at the amount of de facto segregation I witnessed when I went to school at the U. of Oklahoma. And Oklahoma is one of the more live and let live states in that region, because of their large Native American community. Even with the "large" native american community, when you went to the grocery store, even in the University town where there was more diversity because of international students etc, mostly everybody was white. I went into culture shock, because of all the white people, and didn't realize it was actually where I "fit in".
I didn't realize how strongly I, myself, identified with Hispanic culture, because at home I was always the one on the fringe as the little white kid. There was a hispanic guy on my floor from south Texas, who was a Mariachi trumpeter. I walked passed his dorm room one day and heard him practicing, and started crying from the homesickness. I hadn't heard mariachi trumpet in months, but where I came from hearing it drifting out to the street was a way of life.
But in Oklahoma very few white people would be caught dead at a mariachi concert. There was a large anual event on that campus called Stompdown, that brought in thousands of people and groups from other schools in traditionally black fraternites. It was a performance and a contest, where they all stomped to various rythyms and coreography. You would have thought that such a large event (it took up the basketball stadium) would have had a cross section of campus attending just for the entertainment. But no, I went with one white friend and one black friend. We were two of only a handful of whites in the audience. I view the fact that no other white people were there as a tragedy of enormous proportions for a campus that is supposed to be over its predjucies and biases.
Understand, the black people that were there, were extremely highly educated. They could speak "correctly" or in slang, which ever they felt like at the drop of a hat. They were the ones going to college and graduating. If education was all they needed then why weren't the whites interacting with them? It was rediculous. These were the people that were suceeding in living the American dream and yet their artistic expresions were still completely cloistered and isolated away from the rest of the community at large.
And then as I've said before, it is the multi racial kids who really have it hard, especially if they choose to embrace both their heritages. Black people look on them as having "sold out" and tend to reject them, and for the whites they end up being the "token black" friend, which may or may not actually be friendship.
Steve, my bf though half black (ancestors arrived in New York via Cuba and Jamaica so they never had the American South experience), was never socially accepted by any other black people on campus except the nerds who were themselves ostracized, because his skin was so light that he could basically pass for white as long as he wears a hat. He is also the sort who wont ingratiate himself with anybody so his attitude has always been if they don't like me screw them. But, he shouldn't have had to develop that attitude as a defense mechanism to begin with!
Was really interesting, a couple of months ago, when my neighbor that I grew up across the street from Giovanna, came out to Chicago because she is a cellist. Her father is Guatamalan, mother is white, with Castillian features. Father has the curly "African" hair and darker skin though he is techically Latin American, and has no idea if his ancestors were ever in Africa.
She married a guy named Kevin, who is black for at least the most recent couple of generations, but has blue eyes. He also has the curly hair. When you saw Giovanna, Kevin and Steve sitting near each other, an racially unaware person would have asked if they were siblings since their skin tones and hair are all approximately the same. Yet if you actually look at their facial features you could not be more shocked at the differences. I was sitting there with them, realizing that once again, I was the "different" one. And also realizing that if they are the faces of what the world will become if all the bloodlines homogenize, that there is still an infinite amount of variety within the human genome.
Being of white skin color has always been over-rated in my experience, based on sunburns alone!
AJ
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Thanks for the clarifications, Banna. And I hope you understand I wasn't accusing you of anything; I'm just a naturally suspicious person.
You're right...white skin can be a pain, literally. I could tell you about the time I was dozing in a paddleboat with some friends for a few hours without considering that my sunscreen had washed off....but there's not much to it. I can't tan at all.
(Reminds me of a science-fiction tale I read years ago about a message to humanity from aliens. Humans were the descendants of colonists long ago, but the colony had collapsed because of a peculiar disease that had disrupted their society. "If any of you are still white, we can cure you.")
I don't know about your mariachi tale. It's amazing how popular rap is in my hometown, and not just because of Eminem. I have a hard time seeing cultural art or other preferences as racist, even if it leads to occasional embarrassment or isolation as with your friend. Why should people who have never been exposed to mariachi music care for it? For my own part, I eat mostly southern food--fried, generally, with lots of meat and bread--and almost never eat foreign foods, not (so far as I know) because of bias but because I have a really sensitive digestive tract. Spicy foods upset it, and I haven't yet found any foreign cuisine unspicy enough to let me feel good afterwards. Yet some people seem startled that I won't eat Mexican with them, as though they think I'm biased against Hispanic culture.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I don't handle spice well either, actually. I wasn't saying that everyone should like Mariachi, I was using that more as an example about myself. I was suprised about no white people being at Stompdown, because the music, while loud was pretty mainstream.
All of the stuff that I've discribed, and a multitude of other things, like the fact that if I did have a child with Steve, it would be multi-racial, make me very passionate on the subject though.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: I think there is a difference between racism based on ignorance and racism based on... whatever racism is based when it takes place in places where people see and work with each other.
The one based on ignorance seems more easily eradicated.
I'll take your last statment first, by saying fear of the unknown is one of the more powerful fears we have. If the unknown wasn't fearful in a way, no religions would exist.
The racism that happens in places where multiple races see and work with each other is based on ignorance too, possibly more so than someone who works in an homogenous environment. People who do that will use stereotypes as excuses "Mexicans are lazy" for example, which probably doesn't even apply in their own work atmosphere, much less anywhere else. If anything it is laziness on the part of the person making the stereotypical statment because nine times out of ten they can't acutally give you a specific instance of it happening, they've just assumed the stereotype and never bothered to check it against reality.
Everyone is going to have someone that they work with that they don't get along the greatest with. That is also part of "community" in the greater sense though and has nothing to do with the actual color of the skin involved.
And to tie in back to the original statment, what is going to get white people to overcome their fears and laziness other than education? The fear that a higher educated non-white might take their job is probably justified in some cases, particularly if the person is a lower educated white person to begin with.
AJ
[ January 07, 2004, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I heard something similar this morning on the radio, AJ.
I purposely set my alarm clock radio to a conservative AM news station so I wake up and get pissed off in the morning and will get out of bed.
Anyway, the announcer commented on Bush's Human Immigration Plans and was incredibly pissed off about it. He commented on the politically correct change from the nomenclature of "illegal aliens" to "undocumented workers." He said it was horrible that these illegal aliens (he refused to say undocumented workers) would be allowed to contribute to retirement funds and pay into social security and recieve benefits at retirement.
...but both of those benefits COME from a lifetime of working. You have to work to get social security when you're old.
He also commented these illegal aliens are taking away jobs from Americans. He said that any American that claims the workers take jobs that Americans wouldn't do has no right to complain about unemployment or work leaving the US for other countries. That it was high and mighty of those Americans to be unwilling to pick lettuce. Then he said he would be politically incorrect and said, "You're all saying that migrant work is SPIC work and unfit for Americans."
Obviously, I turned off the radio and got up at that point.
Migrant workers DO fill jobs that Americans won't do. If Americans did them, then the undocumented workers wouldn't be.
The tirade also talked about how Americans that are IN American need the jobs and that immigrants should stay out.
Obviously he's forgotten that unless you're Native American, you're descended from immigrants to America.
Anyway.
I find the SAT stuff horrid. The test is largely unreliable and colleges are beginning to move away from using it for entrance requirements.
quote: I think there is a difference between racism based on ignorance and racism based on... whatever racism is based when it takes place in places where people see and work with each other.
The one based on ignorance seems more easily eradicated.
Katie, you're absolutely right. There IS a difference and realizing that there is a difference is very hard to do. I think it's why most people get angry and defensive when you mention unconscious bias and/or racism, because they automatically think of the outspoken, vehement and ill-intentioned racist folks.
Unconscious racism is quite and institutional. It is hard to grasp at first and hard to change, but generally people who are ignorant of their own unsconscious bias are also the most well-intentioned people, and that's where the hope is. That once these people get past being defensive, realize their priviledge and power, and use that to institute change in their majority group, steps can be made.
It is the majority's responsibility.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
...to make the institutions welcoming. It's the minority's responsibility to walk in.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Javert/Kat I think you misinterpreted my comments on page 2. I do not blame the minority kids for not taking advantage of programs. It's not a matter of blame.
My point is that in many an inner city community trying to get an education is looked down upon, wanting success outside of the status quo around you means you are somehow "selling out"
I asked the question "why?" That is what I think needs to be changed, much more so that then education of the "white folks". Somehow the attitudes of young minority teens need to be changed. I don't know how, but I think there is where the focus should be and not on blaming others.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
But they can't walk with us standing on them. Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
And sadly, I think this is where the Democrats have missed the boat and lost the next election.
When we talk of race issues in America, it is purely about black and white. The Democrats still work on this side of the equation, striving to meet the needs and requests of what they perceive to be the black community. Locked into this, they haven't done very well addressing the wants and needs of other minority groups.
When was the last time you heard the Democrats working to strengthen their times with the Asian-American community? Or the Eastern European-American community? Or most tellingly, the Hispanic/Latino community within America?
The Republicans seized on some important issues early on. Firstly, the Hispanic community is the largest minority in the United States, especially counting immigrants legal and illegal, as well as naturalized and natural-born citizens. It is a strong and powerful voting block. It is also an economically important one. The Hispanic community is also one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy.
What did the Republicans do? The new policy dealing with illegal immigrant workers was a step in that direction. Numerous candidates who speak Spanish fluently (Pres. Bush included) and continued broken relations with Cuba (which is a strong point with Cuban residents of Florida who see Castro as an evil man).
The Republicans also looked at the numbers in many key, Democratic, states. Florida, Texas, New York, New Mexico, Arizona and California all have large numbers of Hispanic voters.
Had the Democrats been more attentive to Hispanic voters on the local, state and national levels, the last presidential election would have turned out quite differently.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Actually, Sopwith, the Democrats have been doing right by Hispanics for some time. It's the Democrats who fight for bilingual education, and against the installment of English as a national language. The Democrats are more willing to allow looser borders and it's the Democrats (if I remember correctly) who allowed the children of illegal immigrants, provided they were born in the US, to become citizens. Right now in California, the Dems are even pushing for a law to allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses (in hopes of them subsequently buying insurance and avoiding that many more hit-and-run accidents).
That's not to say the Republicans haven't made some flashy moves -- the nomination of that suit Estrada to the courts was brilliant, demonizing the Democrats for shooting down a horrible candidate by making it look like they're shooting down a Latino. But while the Republicans definitely have a wider understanding that they're trying to get Hispanics, as far as I've seen, the Democrats are the only ones who put any substance behind their efforts to recruit Hispanic voters.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Lalo said: it's the Democrats (if I remember correctly) who allowed the children of illegal immigrants, provided they were born in the US, to become citizens.
Actually, that was the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." If anyone gets credit that would be Republicans, but clearly not the current batch.
quote:Lalo said: the nomination of that suit Estrada to the courts was brilliant, demonizing the Democrats for shooting down a horrible candidate by making it look like they're shooting down a Latino.
Why exactly was Estrada horrible?
Dagonee
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Right now in California, the Dems are even pushing for a law to allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses
This is a major reason why the dems will keep losing important elections.
quote: Democrats are the only ones who put any substance behind their efforts to recruit Hispanic voters.
Too bad most people realize that this type of pandering is detrimental to our country. Making laws that weaken our security and economy to get votes from a special interest group is seen as counter-productive to most americans.
The whole issue behind this is supposedly racial sensitivity. We come to the same point as we do when discussing black americans. Laws passed to benefit the few, at the expense of the many, are not the way to decrease racism. The constitution applies to all citizens equally, it doesn't give special opportunities to minorities, or majorities to violate any of its amendments.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Lalo, what about Bush's current plan to give illegal aliens/undocumented workers legal status?
I remember when this was first an issue, before September 11. One of the reasons Vicente Fox was elected was because of his promise to change the current situation with immigration into America, and Bush was enthusiastic about helping him.
Some have labeled the move as an attempt to go after Hispanic votes. I don't deny that it is; every move is political, but I do beleive reform is needed and this move is not out of character with Bush's actions as governor of Texas.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"If Americans did them, then the undocumented workers wouldn't be."
Let me put that a different way: if Americans were willing to do these jobs at the low salary and without the federally-mandated benefits that they currently demand, "undocumented workers" would not.
But because "undocumented workers" are coming from situations that pay even less and offer even fewer benefits, and believe that getting out of their country makes up for almost any hardship, they're willing to work under conditions that American workers aren't actually legally able to endure, because we don't treat our citizens that way. Businesses take advantage of this, naturally, to keep the bottom line down.
This means that "undocumented workers" are exploited, wages are kept low, and Americans lose jobs. On the other hand, prices for certain goods stay slightly lower.
IMO, "undocumented workers" by their very nature should not be entitled to ANY benefits. No driver's license. No education. No Social Security. Not a single tax dollar should be spent on their benefit.
This sounds harsh -- harsher even than the Republican position on the issue. And it may sound xenophobic. But I assure you that I'm not frightened of the "Other," or reacting irrationally to "foreigners stealing our jobs." But the simple economic fact is that the rate of illegal immigration is exceeding the growth of new jobs, which both increases legitimate civilian employment and depresses wages across multiple industries. Since most of these illegal aliens are not paid living wages and are forced to live in substandard conditions, without health care, most of them add a substantial cost to society (and taxpayers) that exceeds the value of their individual labor. And when you start considering SPECIAL costs for these workers -- ESL classes, bilingual hiring, outreach -- the numbers just don't make sense.
It's all very well to say that we should throw open our borders, but if that's going to be our approach, we should literally just throw them open and let anybody in. By letting people SNEAK in, and then forcing them to hide from authorities and work in jobs that do not meet federally or state-mandated standards -- jobs about which they feel they cannot complain, or risk being kicked out of the country again -- we burn the candle at both ends.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Too bad most people realize that this type of pandering is detrimental to our country. Making laws that weaken our security and economy to get votes from a special interest group is seen as counter-productive to most americans.
The whole issue behind this is supposedly racial sensitivity. We come to the same point as we do when discussing black americans. Laws passed to benefit the few, at the expense of the many, are not the way to decrease racism. The constitution applies to all citizens equally, it doesn't give special opportunities to minorities, or majorities to violate any of its amendments.
You realize that this statement, taken within the context of the current visa proposals which only apply to Mexican immigrants, is a little ironic. Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: is a little ironic.
Agreed. I would point out though, that the current proposal is a weak attempt to gain middleground voters, and hopefully not a trend in republican policies. Democrats have a long and storied history of using the issue as a club.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Economically, there are essentially two options: we either give the illegal workers the same protections/benefits citizens get as workers, or we lock them out completely (this is assuming the current system for citizens remains the same).
This is true because the current protections act as a depressant on the labor market, and while there are a certain number of jobs that could be filled at lower wages without changing the wages for higher waged jobs at all, there are also jobs that must be done, period, but which would locate much lower on the wage scale if it were not for our protections -- a key thing to note, its the protections that are causing this to happen, not just the presence of the illegal workers. So if we want this to not happen, we need to give illegal workers the same protections, and then they'll be part of the same labor market, or we need to lower the protections (I'm in favor of a combination of both; certain protections are necessary and warranted, others aren't).
Tom's statements about flooding the labor market are sort of true. Workers are a resource. However, one of the wonderful things about resources is they're also an incentive to produce more, provided other resources are not limiting factors. In the short term there would be "too many workers" but in 6 to 10 years (rough guesstimate, could be less, wouldn't be more) our economy would be greatly strengthened, because we do have the resources to take advantage of a much larger number of workers. Unfortunately, I think I can count the number of times the US government has looked at least 10 years ahead on my fingers.
Of course, keep in mind what happens if we do lock the illegal workers out of the system. Companies with resources from the US go to Mexico and other places, taking large amounts of those resources with them and combining them with the large labor resource in Mexico. This reduces, at least temporarily, the job market in the US, particularly in areas like manufacturing, as well as other resources that have been taken abroad, but will greatly invigorate the Mexican economy (provided the government there is smart enough to set up free trade areas where they want the economy stimulated and such).
So its ironic really, what's costing US workers jobs isn't the presence of illegal workers, but that those workers aren't given the same protections as US workers.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The problem, of course, is that illegal aliens don't get the same protections as citizen workers for three reasons:
1) They are willing to work for much less, since it is an improvement on their old conditions, and do not always comprehend why this is a bad decision in the long term.
2) They do not understand what these protections are, and would not think to demand them.
3) They are afraid to complain, for fear of repercussion.
NONE of these are easy to logically address. A full amnesty for all illegals might soften #3 a bit, removing some -- but not all -- of that fear, but will otherwise do nothing to address the issue of illegal workers undercutting American labor.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
A personal anecdote on the labor situation. My company built a plant down in Mexico several years ago. They are now realizing that it was a bad economic decision. Because the US engineers are separated from the direct production lines the quality of the parts have gone way down, and they are spending more fixing the parts than they would have leaving the entire plant here in the first place. But they aren't willing to just chuck their investment either because then they are losing even more money. So they are now bringing many of the small crucial sections of the work back to the US in order to get the quality they need.
AJ
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Why are we even considering this point? If we can muster the resources to give these people driver's liscences, why cannot we locate and deport them? Would immediate deportation of illegals be wrong? I say no. The working conditions of people in other countries are the concerns of those other countries. It is not our responsibility to spend the money of the american people to provide these people with healthcare and a competitive wage. Deportation is the best policy.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Another personal anecdote:
My family's business hires a lot of immigrants, and they always check for paperwork, but when I was talking with my dad about this yesterday, he expressed some skepticism about the veracity of the documents. He thinks Bush's idea is marvelous, and will help both the immigrants and the people who hire them.
Why do they hire mostly immigrants? It's salary. Labor is far and away the most expensive bill, and it's killer. There are razor-thin profit margins in the anodizing business, and there is simply an upper-limit to the hourly wage the business can pay. Adult Americans will not deign to work for it.
Where's the solution to that? If the hourly wage goes up, the price goes up, and it's suddenly cheaper to ship everything to China. The workers aren't taking jobs from Americans; they are taking jobs from Chinese.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: There are razor-thin profit margins in the anodizing business, and there is simply an upper-limit to the hourly wage the business can pay.
Is automation not an option?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The workers aren't taking jobs from Americans; they are taking jobs from Chinese."
I hear this a lot, but I'm not entirely sure it's true. Moreover, it seems to ignore the cost of encouraging "under-the-table" employment and the sub-standard lifestyles that result (and which must then be propped up by taxpayers.)
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
No, by the nature of the work, automation is not an option. It would be lovely if it were.
Well, Tom, you're welcome to your doubts, but do you want names and specifics? We get outbid on a regular basis by companies that outsource the labor to China.
There's no under-the-table, working conditions are fine and safe, and there's stuff set up for everything from tuition if you want it to health insurance. That's part of why hourly wage is low. There are about 80 employees, and 32 have worked there for five years or more. They recently threw a party for the five years or longer employees at some swanky place downtown. The business can withstand whatever scrutiny you wish to throw on it, but starting wage is still $8.35 per hour. Americans don't stay.
[ January 08, 2004, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The situation you describe -- in which workers' papers are checked, they can purchase medical and educational benefits, work with a company for years, and start considerably above minimum wage -- is not typically the one discussed when people talk about abuses of immigrant labor.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There are jobs that are being taken from those in China, and there are jobs that are being taken from those in the US. Some jobs are those that would not otherwise be done in the US, and some jobs are those that need to be done in the US.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:is not typically the one discussed when people talk about abuses of immigrant labor.
And Americans still won't stay. I can't even imagine how much prices would have to go up to bring the rest up to speed.
Not that it isn't worth it, but it simply isn't going to happen. At least with this, there is some documentation and protection.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Okay, I'm going to pop in here with a stupid question -- and maybe Kat (is that Javert Hugo?) can answer this -- simply because I'm not around or involved with illegals anywhere that I know of.
My question is -- what is keeping these illegals from simply applying to become LEGAL? How hard is it to enter as a LEGAL immigrant as opposed to an Illegal? Why don't they just file the paperwork and lose the illegal status?
FG
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That's not to say the Republicans haven't made some flashy moves -- the nomination of that suit Estrada to the courts was brilliant, demonizing the Democrats for shooting down a horrible candidate by making it look like they're shooting down a Latino.
What's one difference between a Republican and a Democrat?
When a Republican nominates a minority for something, that person is an Uncle Tom. (Colin Powell).
When a Democrat nominates a minority for something, they're "doing right by that minority".
Yeah, you don't hate Dubya Eddie, like I don't hate root canals:)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Habitual nitpicking aside...
Surely we can all agree that there is more than one single step necessary to cure racism. Insofar as it can be cured. What I mean is that for racism and its symptoms to be largely a thing of the past, more than one step is necessary. Racism and bigotry will never be wholly expunged from humanity. Just when we do, we'll probably meet the Kilrathi or the Klingons or the Jawas or something, and they're all well-deserving of contempt after all
But the single biggest roadblock in dealing with racism-or as I'm more fond of terming it, unconcious racism, is the majority. This is simple logic. If anyone agrees that racism or some form of economic prejudice exists in America today, and it's a widespread problem (this is not to say it's not getting better), then logically the most expedient route to resolve the problem is to alter how the majority behaves.
There are two measures of equality, I think, in any civilization. Equality of opportunity and equality in the present. The first measures the fairness of opportunity to people of all backgrounds. The second measures things like percentages of minorities vs. majorities in highest-paying jobs, college educations, etc.
I know y'all know this, but I'm only saying it so that it's clear which definitions I'm using. Might clear up any disagreements before they start.
I personally believe that there isn't a minority-member in America who doesn't have the chance to do just as well economically and socially as a white Judeo-Christian background male. However, along with that belief is another belief: that almost universally, a minority-member will have to work at least a little harder, and usually a great deal harder to get there.
This can be observed by the distribution of high-paying jobs and college educations in America. Obviously a disproportional percentage of minorities in America do not do things like go on to get a degree in college, and thus the numerous opportunities for good-paying jobs with stability and benefits.
There are really only four basic reasons to believe that this happens (it cannot be reasonably argued that it doesn't happen). One is that racists and bigots are right: non-whites are stupider (is that even a word? I swear I feel...well, stupid...using it) and simply incapable of doing as well as whites in any arena, except perhaps sports. Second is that there really is a widespread problem of bigotry and active racism in America, with whitey trying to keep a brother down. Third is things are getting better, but there still remains work to be done, or else things are getting better but all the necessary changes have been made, they just take time to implement. Fourth is that there is an unconcious form of racism, the kind where white people, having been primarily born, raised, educated, and working with other white people, are simply more likely to choose other white people to live near, school with, and work with, just for an unconcious familiarity.
Does anyone think there's another broad explanation for the disproportionate percentage of minorities who, broadly put, don't achieve success as well as white Americans? If so, lemme know-might also clarify any other disagreements.
Given my mingled belief in three and four, it is obvious to me, at least, that any steps taken to "cure" racism will meet with utter failure if they do not include a large amount of "educating white folks" (Dean is not to be praised for his choice of phrase here). Either that, or it's wait a few score more years for the minorities to simply scrabble up the incline by their fingernails, losing some in the process, to equality in the present.
I also believe that for any cure to be workable, it's necessary to educate minorities away from any tendancies to feel like victims until whites get their act together. Our best civil rights leaders, men like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were very proactive in that regard, and rightly so. But given that minorities make up a good deal less than thirty (I think it's actually twenty, but the figure escapes me) percent of America's population is white, obviously this isn't the biggest part of the solution.
I am not fond of Dean, and think he would be a disaster for America in even more ways that Dubya has been, but I think he is right, even though I think he was unwise in his phrasing. I also cannot help but find it ironic that while Dubya, so frequently lambasted as a babbling idiot for putting his foot in his mouth, Dean faces no such criticism to my knowledge. Ironic, but unsurprising. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Rakeesh I believe as you do that it is mostly a mixture of 3 and 4. However, I think there is still enough of option #2 around to cause worry in some places. Often the people who really believe #1 and #2 argue for #3 that the problem is already fixed, which causes more of #4.
AJ
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's not to say the Republicans haven't made some flashy moves -- the nomination of that suit Estrada to the courts was brilliant, demonizing the Democrats for shooting down a horrible candidate by making it look like they're shooting down a Latino. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's one difference between a Republican and a Democrat?
When a Republican nominates a minority for something, that person is an Uncle Tom. (Colin Powell).
When a Democrat nominates a minority for something, they're "doing right by that minority".
Yeah, you don't hate Dubya Eddie, like I don't hate root canals:)
Wow. Jeff, I know you're not this shocking an idiot -- we've been friends too long for me to be wrong about your intelligence. So where the hell did this come from?
Estrada is a suit. When he got up in front of the Senate, he essentially refused to give them any real answer to his positions or policies -- he was meant to be cut. Nominating Estrada didn't do Latinos any good, no more than nominating Clarence Thomas did any good for black people. No more than nominating O'Connor did any good for white people.
Democrats, though, as I've said, have done right by the race, instead of doing the black-person-on-stage-at-every-GOP-convention lip job principle Bush applied with Estrada. I provided examples -- did you miss them?
quote:Actually, Sopwith, the Democrats have been doing right by Hispanics for some time. It's the Democrats who fight for bilingual education, and against the installment of English as a national language. The Democrats are more willing to allow looser borders and it's the Democrats (if I remember correctly) who allowed the children of illegal immigrants, provided they were born in the US, to become citizens. Right now in California, the Dems are even pushing for a law to allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses (in hopes of them subsequently buying insurance and avoiding that many more hit-and-run accidents).
Don't be such an antagonistic jackass. You've been in that mode far too long, and if it weren't for your damnable likability I doubt we'd still be friends. Cut it out.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Lalo, what do you think of Bush's proposed policy for undocumented workers/illegal aliens?
How does this affect your opinion of the Republican treatment?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hey, Ed, I like you fine. I'd hang out with you, if geography permitted, and would be glad of the opportunity.
That said, cut the victim act, wouldja? I'm not about to play nice when you don't just because you feel insulted.
quote:Estrada is a suit. When he got up in front of the Senate, he essentially refused to give them any real answer to his positions or policies -- he was meant to be cut. Nominating Estrada didn't do Latinos any good, no more than nominating Clarence Thomas did any good for black people. No more than nominating O'Connor did any good for white people.
This is exactly my point. Clarence Thomas's political opinions didn't fit in with what you've already decided is "good for black people", therefore he's not doing blacks any good, or he's an Uncle Tom at worst (to be fair, you have not said this yourself).
This is what I'm talking about. You've shown you don't really care what skin-color a nominee is, only if their policies support your policies. Therefore my observation is right. A Democrat nominates a minority, they're doing right by minorities. A Republican nominates a minority, the nominee is either irrelevant or an Uncle Tom.
Your examples were pretty anectdotal, incidentally. Nonetheless, I admit that when it comes to expanding freedom to minorities, Democrats are the better party-sometimes, however, at the expense of the freedoms and rights of the majority, and often at the expense of endorsing a mentality of victimhood amongst minorities (hello Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton).
Why is looser borders a good thing, exactly? The borders we already have are quite loose. Why is permitting illegal immigrants driver's licenses a good thing, exactly? You say that they'll be more likely to buy auto insurance that way, but you and I can safely agree that most illegal immigrants are so poor as to make auto insurance an impossibility.
I have nothing whatsoever against illegal immigrants. In fact, I welcome them-for both idealistic and selfish reasons. Idealistically, I know it's a part of the American Dream (one wonders whether or not you'll scoff at it) that most illegal immigrants are, simply put, grateful to have. I'm not saying illegal immigrants owe citizens anything-far from it. The selfish aspect of it is the jobs they take, jobs that simply put American citizens simply don't want. That part more than pays back the opportunity America as a whole gives them via the American Dream.
I stand by my opinion that you hate George W. Bush. You've said, on more than one occasion, that he's stealing from the poor, dislikes minorities, is a warmonger who doesn't care which GI his decisions kills, stole the Presidential Election of 2004, and that you're deeply afraid of him. You've also said he's sometimes utterly stupid, a puppet of people like Cheney, or a Machiavellian mastermind. Oh, and you routinely condescend to and insult people who support him.
So no, Ed, after much careful consideration, I've decided not to "stop being an antagonistic jackass"-although that was a stirring attempt to get me to change my ways .
Oh, and concerning Dubya's illegal immigration policies, he'd probably say it's the equivalent of an Estrada, or at best doing a half-assed right thing just to pander to minorities.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lalo said: it's the Democrats (if I remember correctly) who allowed the children of illegal immigrants, provided they were born in the US, to become citizens. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, that was the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." If anyone gets credit that would be Republicans, but clearly not the current batch.
Isn't my face red. I've been under an understanding that allowing the children of illegals -- not just immigrants -- is a fairly new practice, though. Am I incorrect?
quote:Lalo, what about Bush's current plan to give illegal aliens/undocumented workers legal status?
I remember when this was first an issue, before September 11. One of the reasons Vicente Fox was elected was because of his promise to change the current situation with immigration into America, and Bush was enthusiastic about helping him.
Some have labeled the move as an attempt to go after Hispanic votes. I don't deny that it is; every move is political, but I do beleive reform is needed and this move is not out of character with Bush's actions as governor of Texas.
As far as relations with Fox go, Bush essentially destroyed Mexican good will by threatening to "discipline" Mexico if Vicente Fox didn't support Bush for the Iraq invasion.
If you're referring to the plan to give illegals a three-year work permit, I'm actually fairly excited about it. It's about time. Though I can see some fairly major problems with it -- if these workers are raised to minimum wage, employers are going to go after undocumented immigrants who won't need minimum wage. Where does that leave these now-documented immigrants? Few have the education or linguistic capabilities to take on any other jobs but the work they're already doing -- and employers for field work and painting and such will, as I said, target undocumented immigrants.
I'd couple it with some sort of English training and definitely some kind of permit to attend a community college, their tuition depending on their taxes. But I'm glad Bush has done this much -- I think it's the first issue he's acted on that I've agreed with. If Bush weren't such a plutocratic totalitarian, I think I might be more swayed toward voting GOP. Do you know if any Democrats have taken up a similar stance on immigration? I doubt it, myself -- they're too often trying to woo the other side's xenophobes and bigots over to their platform -- but I'd love to see them take up this kind of stance. If they'd grow a backbone and quit trying to sap away from the conservative bloc, I could see them doing this.
Hmm. Here's what Dean has to say on the matter.
quote:Respecting Immigrants' Vital Role In Building The American Community
America is an immigrant nation. As President, I will recognize and respect the vital role immigrants have played in building the American community.
Candidate Bush promised that he would be a different kind of Republican, supportive of immigrants and their desires to achieve the American Dream. Candidate Bush promised to revamp the naturalization process so that immigrants who met the requirements could obtain their citizenship in six months or less. In 2001, President Bush said he would work with President Fox of Mexico to develop a new immigration policy that recognized the economic contribution of immigrants, particularly those from Mexico, and that would respect the human rights of these migrants.
Unfortunately, President Bush has not kept these promises.
While he made these promises and invited mariachis to play at the White House, his Attorney General, John Ashcroft, was deputizing local police authorities as junior INS agents to track down undocumented immigrants. Instead of exercising leadership to achieve comprehensive immigration reform, President Bush has turned his back on Mexico and other Latin American countries. He has ignored the dreams of millions of immigrants to become a legitimate part of our society, and not simply its unseen workforce. Instead of revamping and streamlining the immigration agency and its processes, the President has allowed the agency to be swallowed up into the Department of Homeland Security, where immigrants are routinely treated as terrorists until proven otherwise.
We need a White House that will lead Congress to enact real immigration reform. As President, I will work tirelessly to achieve that goal.
I will work to ensure that people who work hard, pay taxes, and otherwise obey the rules can become full participants in our society, including becoming citizens.
I will work to regularize the inevitable future migration of labor in a way that makes economic and humanitarian sense. Deaths in the desert do neither.
I will propose reforms that ensure we can meet our economy’s need for workers at all skill levels, without pitting foreign workers against U.S. workers and while respecting workers' rights including the right to organize.
I will work to forge stronger partnerships with countries from which immigrants migrate -- especially Mexico -- so that in the long run, fewer people will be driven by desperation to break laws and risk their lives for basic opportunities that every human being deserves.
I will work to ensure that immigrants who are detained by the Department of Homeland Security are afforded their basic civil rights and that our concern for national security does not become another excuse for racial profiling.
I will build on our country’s long history of welcoming immigrants in ways that reflect our need for security but do not sacrifice the basic ideals upon which this nation was founded.
While it sounds pretty, I'm unhappy that there's no real plan there. Give me some hard proposals, Dean.
[ January 09, 2004, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Lalo ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If Bush weren't such a plutocratic totalitarian, I think I might be more swayed toward voting GOP. Do you know if any Democrats have taken up a similar stance on immigration? I doubt it, myself -- they're too often trying to woo the other side's xenophobes and bigots over to their platform -- but I'd love to see them take up this kind of stance.
And I'm an antagonistic jackass. Or maybe I am. Who else on the `Rack would categorize Dubya as any sort of totalitarian?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Here's a letter I just fired off to Dean's campaign:
quote:I'm a fairly liberal Mexican-American, and Bush's plutocratic totalitarianism frightens me -- it was difficult enough for the country to recover from the the first McCarthy, and I don't intend to allow a second.
But Bush has recently put out a proposal regarding illegal immigration that sways even me. I've read your page on illegal immigration, and while it sounds pretty, give me some hard proposals. Give me a plan. At least match Bush's -- three-year permits for illegals are damn overdue. But while Bush's plan has some serious economic weaknesses (such as how it will only serve to drive employers toward undocumented illegals and leave the newly documented immigrants in the cold), it's still a very appealing plan to Hispanics. Don't forget, these are our families and friends who are screwed over by this slave labor system. You need to come up with a proposal that holds a similar attraction to Hispanics, but makes economic sense -- it's the only way a white man from Vermont's going to win the Latino vote away from a Texan, no matter how incompetent or tyrannical that Texan is. I don't mean to disparage my ethnicity, but it's a fact -- Latino concerns lie in the Southwest, and Bush's origins give him a huge leap in credibility, however undeserved.
Slave labor has shifted from black niggers in the South to Mexican wetbacks in the Southwest. Reform the system. End slave labor. The first and best way to do that is to help make Mexico and other Latin American countries better places to live -- a promise Bush made, but never lived up to. Come up with an industrial base you're going to help raise in Mexico, like oil, and you'll have come a long way toward stemming illegal immigration. You'll not only court the Latino vote by proposing such a deal, but white xenophobes and bigots will also be swayed by the idea of keeping us out of "their" country -- while I doubt you'll bring about the white bigot vote (which reflects well on Dean), you'll at least loosen the Bush bedrock.
And if I haven't emphasized it enough yet, come up with a way to help current illegal immigrants. Work permits are good, but ultimately futile if there's still a flow of illegal immigration to the country -- you need to come up with a permit plan compounded with the raising of a Mexican industry to humanitarianly alleviate the problem.
I intend to vote for Dean, but you need to give all Hispanics a reason to. This is key. You stand to lose the Southwest if you don't act on this issue, and act on it forcefully. Don't give me rhetoric, give me proposals. Latinos and Catholics are quickly becoming swing votes in this country, and by courting Latinos you would court both. Do right by us.
I'm portraying myself as more Mexican than I am -- every Mexican-American aspect of my family that's in the US is here legally, and while I'm acquaintances with many illegals, I can't call myself a friend or confidant. I have no finger on the Latino pulse. But I'm fairly sure I'm accurately diagnosing the problem and the solution for Dean, regardless of how gringo my white ass is. Hope he pays attention.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Lalo, from what I remember (though I'm not in CA now) It was CA, under Pete Wilson, when the idea was circulated where that wanted to revoke citizenship to the babies of [illegal] Mexican immigrants, because since the babies were US citizens and CA citizens they then had a right to the state-subsidized welfare and health care systems,(and were putting a strain on the $$ budgeted) even if their parents were here illegally. The parents would then use the kid to leverage their own citizenship. However I don't think they could actually revoke the citizenship, because it would require a US constitutional ammendment not a state ammendment.
Maybe they were talking about this in other border states like AZ too, but as far as I know the way the law reads now, if a mother makes it across the border, and the baby is born in the US border patrol shack it is still on US soil and therefore a citizen.
AJ
[ January 09, 2004, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote: regardless of how gringo my white ass is
Hobbes Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Candidate Bush promised that he would be a different kind of Republican
Lol. I had not realized that the Dean people referred to Bush as 'candidate' Bush. I approve. Good spin. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sure it is. It is if you on one hand endorse judicial activism on social issues, but criticize judicial overstepping (as it is viewed concerning Dubya and the election by many Democrats) when it goes against your grain.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Er. Storm, read the whole thing.
quote:Candidate Bush promised that he would be a different kind of Republican, supportive of immigrants and their desires to achieve the American Dream. Candidate Bush promised to revamp the naturalization process so that immigrants who met the requirements could obtain their citizenship in six months or less. In 2001, President Bush said he would work with President Fox of Mexico to develop a new immigration policy that recognized the economic contribution of immigrants, particularly those from Mexico, and that would respect the human rights of these migrants.
Unfortunately, President Bush has not kept these promises.
Dean's referring to pre- and post-election Bush as candidate and President Bush, respectively.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Lalo said: Isn't my face red. I've been under an understanding that allowing the children of illegals -- not just immigrants -- is a fairly new practice, though. Am I incorrect?
Yes - any person born in the U.S. is a citizen; this has been true since the passage of the 14th amendment. There have been some cases of illegal parents being deported and taking thier children, and the child coming back when s/he turns 18.
It's the reverse side of this that has caused problems - a child adopted from somewhere in Asia when he was a baby was convicted of some juvenile crime and deported when he was 17, even though he only spoke English.
Dagonee
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Okay, it looks like the Howard Dean/racism issue is not going away. Al Sharpton decided to steal some of Dean's thunder by accusing him of not appointing any minorities to his cabinet as governor of Vermont.
In my opinion, this pretty much sums up the liberal position on race. Al Sharpton knows just as well as anybody else that blacks make up less than 1% of the population of Vermont. The only reason he was able to make an issue out of this, is because Dean let him. Dean should have told Sharpton that he got the best people for the jobs, period. Instead he is in defense mode and creating cover for himself. He won't just come out and say that there were no blacks in the state of vermont that were qualified to serve in his cabinet.
The whole idea that every gathering of people in the united states must represent minorites at or above their equivalent population level is obsurd. Why are people MORE concerned with race than they are with qualifications? Is that not what the whole issue is really about? I say yes.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh yes, the liberal position on race. Which clearly explains why Braun, another African-American liberal who happens to be running for President, backed Dean up on that.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Which clearly explains why Braun, another African-American liberal who happens to be running for President, backed Dean up on that.
The point of this is that all of those candidates have roughly the same position on race. They all spout the ideals that race is more important than qualifications. It was Sharpton who pointed out, unintentionally, that it is impossible to get both a racially diverse cabinet and a qualified cabinet while in vermont. Thus exposing all of their positions as race baiting lip-service.
Braun has her own motives for the tactics she used, however she is right along side of sharpton and dean and all the others when it comes to preferring race to qualifications.
[ January 13, 2004, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dean preferred race to qualification? How strange, as he had an all white cabinet (in a by far mostly white state, as you noted). The evidence seems to rather suggest he didn't let lip service to diversity influence his decisions there.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: he didn't let lip service to diversity influence his decisions there.
Of course not. Yet he travels around the country telling people that we need to educate white folks about racism, claiming that there's a subconcious racism everywhere. He spouts the position that race is of over-arching importance. Yet it takes Al Sharpton to point out(again, unintentionaly) what kind of stupidity is behind a position like that.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You seem to be conflating some rather diverse opinions into one.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: You seem to be conflating some rather diverse opinions into one.
It does seem that way, doesn't it? Diverse indeed. You've even picked up the code words.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, I was using a word diverse in the same grammatically correct manner it has been used for several hundred years.
Also, I doubt there were no blacks in Vermont qualified to serve on Dean's cabinet, its rather more likely there were none who applied who were qualified. And there were certainly many, many more whites who applied.
Dean's position on race is very different from Sharpton's position is very different from Gephardt's position. To suggest they are all the same position doesn't make much sense at all.
Furthermore, its not all about qualifications, regardless of whether or not you think thats stupid. For instance, if I can't work well with someone, even if they test well, hiring them to work with me would be a mistake. Of course then the logical choice would be to create an environment where people dissimilar in the way we are could work better together. Of course then the logical course of action would be to take actions which educated the one of us with the problem working with the other about the other.
Of course, I'm sure you can see the analogies with racism, particularly in a society where equally qualified black people earn less money.
But of course, that entire idea is ridiculous.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Dean's position on race is very different from Sharpton's position is very different from Gephardt's position.
How are they different? They all use the same code words, they all use the same race-baiting tactics.
Perhaps you can contrast their beliefs for me.
quote: Furthermore, its not all about qualifications, regardless of whether or not you think thats stupid.
You're right. Even though part of being qualified is being able to do the job asked of you. That is not what the democrat candidates are pushing. They want race to be a factor when hiring people.
What I am saying here is that these democrats are the ones pushing racism as a way of life.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Rob, Republicans use the exact same race baiting tactics. Don't play stupid. For instance, the way the Estrada block was spun, you would think that the Democrats were doing it because they hated hispanics, or they didn't like hispanics who didn't know their place. These things were said by many different conservative commentators, despite the fact that they have zero basis in truth.
Republicans also use race baiting tactics in how they promote their own social agenda. School choice is often touted as the best way to help minorities out of the ghetto, and Democrats only oppose it because they want to keep blacks in their place, etc.
This is not a liberal issue. It's a political bullshit issue.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Rob, Republicans use the exact same race baiting tactics. Don't play stupid
Of course, I will point out to you that I have not claimed that republicans don't abuse the race issue. I myself am not a republican, and have no interest in defending them as a group.
However, in the interest of sanity, I will also point out that the democrat cadidates talk about race in almost every forum in which they speak. The democrat party has made race baiting an official plank of their platform. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Carol Braun are not republicans. These three comprise an axis-of-racism that is firmly in the democrat corner.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
You're hanging out with the wrong people . . . ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)