SMU shuts down bake sale w/ race-based prices

[AKA_Monet]

Originally posted by bethany1982
If there are indeed societal issues designed by whites to hold back certain races, why don't these same designers hold back all minorities?

35 years ago, that is exactly what was going on--until Martin Luther King was assasinated...

All that most of us are seeing now is the fallout from the sins of our forefathers... Residual effects... Eventually, your utopia that you espouse might come into fruition... However, do not be so foolish to think it will not come out of bloodshed...

[bethany1982]

Originally posted by AKA_Monet
35 years ago, that is exactly what was going on--until Martin Luther King was assasinated...

All that most of us are seeing now is the fallout from the sins of our forefathers... Residual effects... Eventually, your utopia that you espouse might come into fruition... However, do not be so foolish to think it will not come out of bloodshed...

Bloodshed? Interesting. Is this literal bloodshed? Race wars? Do you espouse such ideology? The sins of whose forefathers, white or black? Perhaps both...

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by Rudey
Most immigrants come and start families here or bring very young children here. And why doesn't culture apply to them? Why don't they all turn out to work at 7-11's and drive cabs simply because that's what culture says? Is it an internal culture then? Who is responsible for that if it's internal??

-Rudey

I think that if you're raised in one culture, then introduced to another at, say, age 18, your chances of sticking with the values of the original culture are much higher than your chances of adopting the second. Of course, the longer you stay immersed in the second culture, the more of it you will probably come to adopt. That's why those who move here when they're two will, in general, be more susceptible to the pressures of American culture than those that move here when they're 30 and already have a culture to call their own, so to speak.

Of course all this is in general terms and there are exceptions.

But that's really getting into another whole issue entirely.

The reasons that some minorities fail to achieve are either innate or society-based (i.e., back to the old nature/nurture debate). I don't think anyone is arguing that minorities are innately set up to fail. So that means it must be society-based. But then what?

For example, it's been established that alcoholism is a much bigger problem among Native Americans than among other races. There's speculation that Europeans gave Native Americans alcohol (sometimes in exchange for goods) because they liked watching the Native Americans (who had no alcohol tolerance) get drunk -- perhaps so that, while they were drunk, the Europeans could take advantage of that fact and trade with them, getting the better end of the deal. There's also speculation that alcoholism became an issue because of the pressures of living on reservations and the problems that Native Americans faced. So what came first, the discrimination or the alcoholism? Similarly, did "black American culture" develop the way in part due to discrimination, or did discrimination result from the way whites viewed "black American culture"? It's another one of those things where it's impossible to tell and a hard cycle to break.

There is a tendency to simplify racial issues way too much. None of our actions exist in a vacuum, and they never have.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally posted by bethany1982
Bloodshed? Interesting. Is this literal bloodshed? Race wars? Do you espouse such ideology? The sins of whose forefathers, white or black? Perhaps both...

Hey, given the fact that some of my own forefathers fought and died in the Civil War as officers, seems to me that many of the lines are beginning to blur...

Given the fact that some of my own forefathers may have owned and raped some of my own foremothers suggests that the point of anger and humiliation does not change...

Without struggle, there is no progress... Frederick Douglas...

Originally posted by sugar and spice
There is a tendency to simplify racial issues way too much. None of our actions exist in a vacuum, and they never have.

EXACTLY...

My issue is that the stuff has to be straightened out by the next generation... Like our grandkids will have to pay for this war in Iraq...

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by bethany1982
If there are indeed societal issues designed by whites to hold back certain races, why don't these same designers hold back all minorities?

Because not every racial group has had the same experiences in American history. American slavery was limited, for the most part, to blacks. American Indians had to deal with relocation and the fact that, with reservations, they are held to different laws and standards than other Americans. Japanese-Americans had the concentration camps. Many times the races clustered in certain parts of the country when they first imigrated, due to choice or necessity (blacks in the South, Asians on the west coast, Hispanics in the Southwest) and the waves of immigration came at different time periods (the biggest wave of Hispanics has been relatively recently, as opposed to the biggest influx of blacks during slaver). All of this leads to racism and thus to culture developing in different ways. And all groups bring a mix of cultures from their previous homes that add to the differences too.

If Asian-Americans are stereotyped as being "good at school" and African-Americans stereotyped as being "good at sports," these can become self-fulfilling prophesies.

[bethany1982]

Nice Douglas quote. I once had that on my mirror. Does struggle mean bloodshed?

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by bethany1982
I see no hatred directed towards any individuals by their actions. They were trying to make a statement about a policy. Hell, I would have only paid 50 cents for one of their cookies. In reality, many affirmative action programs do indeed examine the issue of race, granting points or preferred status to certain individuals. To me, race/gender based quotas are offensive. I guess those individuals who are offended by Affirmative Action should simply keep their non-politically correct opinions to themselves.

You missed my point, ace - and I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, so sorry if this has already been addressed, but let me restate:

Their right to voice dissenting opinions on ANYTHING - whether it be politics, racial equality, sports, or the heliocentric theory of the solar system, should always be protected.

"Protected" here should be read as, "allowed to exist, as long as it is limited to stating an opinion."

My point was that this portrayal didn't even get to the point of the issue, and thus didn't represent any sort of dissenting opinion on actual Affirmative Action policy - their example did NOT, in my opinion, fit what they were trying to fight.

Affirmative Action scenarios seek to promote diversity equivalent to the overall population distribution - if you want to euphemize this as "giving minorities advantages," you're missing the point, to my mind, but you're free to play semantic games all you want. It's just that - a semantic link. It is not a literal advantage; it is merely (IDEALLY) the partial elimination of a disadvantage. While these sound equivalent, you should be able to see that they are not.

When you then set up a scenario in which you give literal advantages based on race, you are now two steps removed from the policy you are attacking. This is NOT an effective way to convey your anti-AA point.

And what would be a more direct way? How about only a certain number of cookies could be sold to white kids before one must be sold to a black kid, and another number for an asian kid, etc, reflecting the distribution of society. Here, you're hoping to have a huge line of white kids waiting for cookies, proving somehow that they are being left behind - and even then, I'm not sure it holds water, but it's a lot better than "You pay less because you're black."

It's a tenuous link - but at least it addresses the frigging topic.

YES - AA programs generally suck in many ways.

NO - these guys did not prove that.

Protect speech - don't protect stupidity, there are actual important battles available to fight. I'm not saying these guys shouldn't be able to do this sort of example - I'm saying they did it poorly, and I wanted you to realize you're defending retards.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally posted by bethany1982
Nice Douglas quote. I once had that on my mirror. Does struggle mean bloodshed?

I dunno?

But for some, baptism with the blood of Jesus, who make folks white as snow, works...

For me... That just makes another person dead...

Then again...

If you don't have something to die for, what reason do you have to live?

Forgot who said that...

[bethany1982]

Originally posted by AKA_Monet
I dunno?

But for some, baptism with the blood of Jesus, who make folks white as snow, works...

For me... That just makes another person dead...

Then again...

If you don't have something to die for, what reason do you have to live?

Forgot who said that...

LOL@ the Jesus reference...

[librasoul22]

Question:

Is everyone saying that the system that we had in place BEFORE AA was better?

That is, rampant and blantant discrimination based on race/sex/etc.

All those who are arguing against AA are essentially arguing FOR the system we had before it.

Please outline pros of this argument so proponents of AA may better understand. Thanks.

[bethany1982]

Originally posted by librasoul22
Question:

Is everyone saying that the system that we had in place BEFORE AA was better?

That is, rampant and blantant discrimination based on race/sex/etc.

All those who are arguing against AA are essentially arguing FOR the system we had before it.

Please outline pros of this argument so proponents of AA may better understand. Thanks.

Your logic does not stand. Rejection of AA does not mean an automatic acceptance of discrimination. AA is discrimination. The system should be based upon ability and performance.

[librasoul22]

Originally posted by bethany1982
Your logic does not stand. Rejection of AA does not mean an automatic acceptance of discrimination. AA is discrimination. The system should be based upon ability and performance.

So what DOES it mean then? Was the system ever based on ability and performance? Come on, give me something better.

[bethany1982]

Originally posted by KSig RC
You missed my point, ace - and I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, so sorry if this has already been addressed, but let me restate:

Their right to voice dissenting opinions on ANYTHING - whether it be politics, racial equality, sports, or the heliocentric theory of the solar system, should always be protected.

"Protected" here should be read as, "allowed to exist, as long as it is limited to stating an opinion."

My point was that this portrayal didn't even get to the point of the issue, and thus didn't represent any sort of dissenting opinion on actual Affirmative Action policy - their example did NOT, in my opinion, fit what they were trying to fight.

Affirmative Action scenarios seek to promote diversity equivalent to the overall population distribution - if you want to euphemize this as "giving minorities advantages," you're missing the point, to my mind, but you're free to play semantic games all you want. It's just that - a semantic link. It is not a literal advantage; it is merely (IDEALLY) the partial elimination of a disadvantage. While these sound equivalent, you should be able to see that they are not.

When you then set up a scenario in which you give literal advantages based on race, you are now two steps removed from the policy you are attacking. This is NOT an effective way to convey your anti-AA point.

And what would be a more direct way? How about only a certain number of cookies could be sold to white kids before one must be sold to a black kid, and another number for an asian kid, etc, reflecting the distribution of society. Here, you're hoping to have a huge line of white kids waiting for cookies, proving somehow that they are being left behind - and even then, I'm not sure it holds water, but it's a lot better than "You pay less because you're black."

It's a tenuous link - but at least it addresses the frigging topic.

YES - AA programs generally suck in many ways.

NO - these guys did not prove that.

Protect speech - don't protect stupidity, there are actual important battles available to fight. I'm not saying these guys shouldn't be able to do this sort of example - I'm saying they did it poorly, and I wanted you to realize you're defending retards.

I missed your point. The sponsors of the bake sale miss the point of AA. No one seems to understand the issue, except perhaps, you. Calling these individuals idiots based upon a disagreement is ridiculous, ace.

[bethany1982]

Originally posted by librasoul22
So what DOES it mean then? Was the system ever based on ability and performance? Come on, give me something better.

I did not say that the system has ever been based upon ability. Are you saying a system based upon ability and performance would not be better than one based upon special preferences?

[librasoul22]

Originally posted by bethany1982
I did not say that the system has ever been based upon ability. Are you saying a system based upon ability and performance would not be better than one based upon special preferences?

Based on tradition and history do you HONESTLY think this is possible?


BTW, I am with sugarandspice in wondering how a study like the one UCLA/Loyola conducted would be possible? And no matter what kind of questions were asked on the survey or whatever method they used, I would question the validity until I saw demographics, and sample pool. All that aside, I really don't think the affect diversity has on someone or hundreds of someone's can be tangibly measured.

Rudey can you please cite the study from UCLA so I can take a gander? Thanks.