If I am an employer and do not hire the best person for the job, regardless of race, I am harming my corporation. Pretty basic. I am waiting for short people to sue the NBA.

Understood, however how much harm?
Enough to make a significant financial difference?

And to dispose of the college boy working at McDonald's. Employee turnover is a cost to businesses, you don't hire people who ain't going to stay.

Between 1960 and 1990, out-of-wedlock births rose fivefold, from 5.3 to 28.0 percent of all births. According to the House Ways and Means Committee's Green Book, between 1970 and 1990 the value of AFDC benefits to poor women fell nearly 45 percent. Contrary to what you're suggesting, these statistics would indicate that cutting welfare benefits increases out-of-wedlock childbirths!

There doesn't seem to be much of a case at all for supporting your claim, in fact. Consider the following:

• Mississippi has the second highest rate of children born out of wedlock in the country. It also has the lowest welfare and food stamp benefits for AFDC mothers in the country. According to a Report by the Institute for Research on Poverty, this correlation generally holds across the nation as well - states with higher-than-average AFDC benefits tend to have lower-than-average nonmarital birthrates.
  
  
  
  
• Harvard economists David Ellwood and Mary Jo Bane studied two groups of unmarried women: the first was eligible for benefits if they had children out of wedlock; the second was not. Even by limiting their comparison to states with high welfare benefits, they were unable to find any significant difference in either groups' rate of nonmarital childbirths.
  
  
  
  
• Researchers William Darity and Samuel Myers studied the relationship between female-headed households and the size of welfare benefits in specific geographical areas over nearly twenty years. Their results, published in the Journal of Marriage and the Family, showed that the higher the welfare benefits, the lower the rate of female-headed households.
  
  
  
  
• Some studies have found that white women may be more likely to have children out of wedlock if they live in states with higher welfare benefits, but, nonmarital births among black and Hispanic women are not significantly correlated with higher welfare benefits. This, again, is according to the Ways and Means Committee's Green Book.
  
  

It's also worth mentioning that in the mid-60's, 3.1% of all white children were born out of wedlock. Today, it is nearly 20%. While "illegitimate" births among blacks have increased by 275%, "illegitimate" births among whites in that same period have increased by 645%.

Finally, according to a Policy Briefing by the Brookings Institute:

While I can agree that there is a correlation between poverty and lower IQ's, higher crime rates, higher dropout rates, and higher rates of drug use and, while single-parent families are more likely to be poverty-striken, the evidence suggests that it is an error to attribute those ills to marital status and even more erroneous to link that status to welfare.

The problem with your arguments is ignores it the fact that there has been a cultural change produced by welfare. Children initially born out of wedlock are more likely to also produce children out of wedlock. Cuts in benefits does not substantially effect an individuals decision to have children out of wedlock. Someone does not go "Well, the benefits have been cut $25 a month, think I will stop having kids. What has happened is welfare programs subsidize illegitimate children. It is society saying not only are illegitimate children OK, we will pay you to have them. A welfare culture is created, a culture that will persist until welfare is completely eliminated. Even after that it will take a generation or more to eliminate the problems incurrred due to subsidizing sloth and illegitamacy.

Just curious, what happens to the kids of that generation or more it takes to eliminate the problems incurred due to subsidizing sloth and illegitimacy.

And what about children of divorced parents who have "delinquent dads?" Children of divorced parents often become divorced parents and delinquent dads. Are we subsidizing sloth in these cases also?

What do we do with the kids while the slothful and delinquent parents are learning?

Madtown

I think that the welfare culture is not so much that a calculated decision is made to have children in order to receive more benefits, but that the culture keeps people out of the workforce and in a sense, keeps them dumb. The low IQ or lack of mental development that accompanies a productive career manifests itself in poor decision-making.

I also think the rise in illegitimate children (in whatever class - white, black, Hispanic etc.) can be traced to the 60's overthrow of traditional values (you know Bill, the 'ole nuclear family and mind you, no pre-marital sex). Drug use and "free-love," (IMO) have had a negative side affect on society in terms of illegitimacy and health-related problems.

Mark

Madtown, private charities and family can take care of them kids.

Mark, welfare also subsidizes black market activities, such as prostitution and drug dealing. Liberal programs have been attacking the family, the basic economic and social unit, for a long time. There has never been such a thing as free love. Society is simply absorbing the burden of what should be rightly placed on the irresponsible.

Then read my post again. I know I clearly stated he was turned down because he was white. Why is this such a hard thing for you to believe? You'll believe MadMax when he said he was layed off for being white (you said he had a court case), why is it so hard to believe me?

whatever....



That had better NOT be an insult tword my friend's intelligence. You do NOT know him, NOR do you know me!. Try looking at the requirements for a 4 year chemistry degree sometime.



What does that have to do with anything? Do you have personal experience with EVERYTHING you have debated on these forums? You don't have to know someone who was executed to debate capital punishment. Your father doesn't have to be senator in order to debate the presidents actions. And I CERTAINLY don't have to have been turned away from college because of AA to debate it.



Yes, I did, see above. But like I said, it has affected friends of mine. Several of them. Because it affects them, it affects ME, because I care about them. Thats how I am.



I trust him implicitly, and do not believe him to be lying. Period. Think what you will, but do not accuse him of being a liar unless you are ready to show me proof of it. I can show you proof as to why I think he isn't.

--cheers

First, I hate the term "illegitimate" - like, an infant needs a man, of all things, to make it "legitimate"? I do agree with Mark, though, that the rise in children-born-out-of-wedlock (is there not a less awkward or judgmental way of describing the children of single parents?) is more due to the permissiveness and breaking down of societal barriers that went with the sixties than to the welfare state. On the other hand, I wouldn't necessarily describe "illegitimacy" as a "negative side effect" of the sixties - like headache, nausea, blindness, or death. I actually think it's a good thing that there is less of a social stigma attached to "illegitimacy" and that there are more women (and a few men) willing to take on the responsibility of raising children on their own.

The problem, as I see it (and this would have to do with the "health-related problems" which Mark also mentions), is not the overthrow of traditional values, but the triumph of ignorance: those who end up as single parents not because it was a choice, but because it was a mistake. And, yes, the welfare system may contribute to this ignorance. The solution, I would suggest, is not a dismantling of the welfare state nor a return to the superficial values of Ossie and Harriet; it is education.

Hugo's argument, to me, remains specious. There's much more "incentive" for a working family to have children than a single mother on welfare. A working family receives a tax deduction per child that is more than twice the monthly increase in AFDC payments for another child, plus tax credits to offset the costs of child care roughly equal to that deduction. In other words, each child of a working family is subsidized four times as much as those of welfare mothers. Society is actually saying not only are "legitimate" children okay, we will pay you 400% more to have them with a working husband. By Hugo's argument, working families should be reproducing like guppies.

The "incentives" for single parents on welfare to have more children are ridiculously inadequate and way too small to influence the behavior of potential parents, especially in a decision as life-altering and important as having a child. According to Welfare Reform: Analysis of the Issues, edited by Isabel Sawhill, ten major studies have been conducted on this issue in recent years and not one has found any connection between the level of payments offered and a woman's decision to bear children.

In one study by Child Trends Inc., the five states with the highest birth rates among 18- and 19-year-old women (Arizona, Arkansas, Mississippi, Nevada and New Mexico) all have AFDC benefits below the national median. The four states with the lowest birth rates among 18- and 19-year-old women (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Vermont) all have AFDC benefits above the national median.

Also, for what it's worth, the size of the welfare family has been declining over the decades - more rapidly than the size of the working family. In 1969, for example, the average AFDC family consisted of 4.0 people while the average working family was 3.6. By 1992, the AFDC family size had dropped to 2.9, while the working family size was only down to 3.2. Looks like all that tax subsidy for working families is having a minor impact - unlike welfare payments.

In short, while I've come across much to refute Hugo's opinions, I have been unable to find any evidence anywhere to support his "welfare culture" argument or his "subsidization of illegitimacy through welfare" theory. As Hugo himself fails to provide any data whatsoever to back up his argument, I must assume that such data does not exist and that his entire thesis is based on little more than prejudice.

As to his most recent wild claim that welfare subsidizes black market activities such as prostitution and drug dealing, I think I'll wait until he produces an iota of evidence before wasting more time proving him wrong. This thread is supposed to be about Fundamental Racism in partisan politics. Are Hugo's postings meant to be examples?

ROTFLMAO

"Attacking the family"?? What's been attacking the family, Hugo, is the culture of spouse abuse, incest, irresponsibility, and abandonment - all of which are born of the family. And the overwhelming majority of those guilty of physical abuse, mental cruelty, incestuous rape, desertion, infanticide, and neglect are white Protestants hiding behind a hypocritical mask of "traditional family values".

The biggest enemy of the family, Hugo, is THE FAMILY.

Of course, I have absolutely nothing to back any of that up, but - hey - that seems to be the way you like to debate. And, gee, this make-it-up-as-you-go-along stuff is really easy. Maybe I, too, should stop caring about posting credible opinions: it sure as hell saves a lot of time!

Yes, Wertz it is. Nice you chose to remind us of that after 11 paragraphs of being as off-topic as hugo. In fact, this thread has been ALL over the place and most of us are to blame.

HOWEVER--

I have discussed this Mike and we have chosen not to close this topic. Everyone here has been very civil in discussing a wide variety of topics and it would be a shame to close it just because it was off topic. A very nice "conversation" is going on here.

FYI - I will also be changing the name of this thread to, "Free-form Debate; f/k/a Fundamental Racism." I thought you all might want a little warning first

Play nice!

I thought it was only eight paragraphs.


Hurrah! I like free-form debate!

Now... back to Affirmative Action. Or was it Welfare Reform? Or, no - wait! something to do with Trent Lott??

I counted both posts...but I still counted wrong..10 paragraphs

I said that IF (if is an important word in this sentence) MM was fired because he was white he would have a court case. I can believe he/she is telling the truth because the South has a long history of offering the lesser jobs to the black people.

I do believe that your friend told you the manager said he would not hire him because he was black. However, I have a hard time believing the manager would be stupid enough to come right out and say that . I also said that perhaps the MANAGER was a liar. Maybe he just wanted to get your buddy stirred up.

I intended no insult to your friend, but I find it impossible to feel sorry that he didn't get hired at McDonalds. I'm sure he's very intelligent and that's my point. I'm sure he has the brain power to find another job. I could walk out of my house tomorrow and find a McDonald type job by the end of the day. By the weeks end I could probably find 4 jobs.

You mentioned in an earlier post that it's payback time for Afro-Americans, they're trying to get even. (not exact words) What you don't understand is this isn't about getting even, it's about getting a chance. And BTW, they could NEVER get even , even if they tried. They have been that wronged.

Of course you are not personally responsible for the racism and disadvantages suffered by Afro Americans over the years and neither am I. But we are where we are, and they are where they are because of it.
Conservatives are always talking about taking responsibility, but they never mention their (meaning white people ) responsibility for the racism and the treatment of Afro Americans that has existed in this country for three hundred years.

And you still don't know for sure if your friend was the best one for that type of a job.

Madtown

just a question on part of your post Madtown......



Aside from being good Americans and trying to make this country a better place, what responsibility do white people have, just by virtue that they are the same skin color as American slave owners 150 years ago?

This standard of responsibility could be applied to blacks and Arabs for initially starting the African slave trade, Britons for enslaving and murdering Scots and Irish, and on and on.

You did state that we are not personally responsible, but as a race what are we to do? Besides affirmative action, which is fundamentally flawed.

Believe me if slave owners and slaves were alive today, I would say reverse the roles and give them a taste.

Oh yes, that's right. EVERYBODY has family members with nothing to do but take care of their kids. And what private charities may I ask?

I do support getting people off welfare whenever possible though.

Madtown

The fact is public charity simply supplants, not subsidizes, private charities. How many homeless kids were there in 1950? Go to your local church, I will bet if they are not involved in charitable work that they know someone who can help.

yes, we conservatives often talk about responsibility...it goes something like this:

"Take responsibility for YOUR OWN actions"

I am not responsible for slave trading 300 years ago.

I am not even responsible for any racism for all 24 years of my life. So, I guess I just have to make it up to them anyway eh? oh I see now. All white people are responsible for racism? Heckuva generalization.

I should not pay a cent, or anything, because of what my ancestors did. Just like I won't expect my decendants to pay for my mistakes.

Any generalizations like what you just made, directed at any minority group, would be quickly labeled racist. But it's acceptable to generalize white people huh?

--cheers

Well now, fundamental racism...just what does that mean? Taking each word and giving it a definition seems to me to be in order....so I'll try. Fundamentalism means, as I undersand it, a philosophy...ism...of basic, primary, and foundational assumptions. These assumptions, regardless of the subject matter are based upon what is taught, assumed, and reacted to during a course of a life. Whether it is the life of a person, cat, dog, elephant, or any other animal that has the capacity with a central nervous system to form associative memories and recall. In the case of humans...which is what we are talking about...the evidence for the training of youth to the assumptions of what you call racism can be found if one examines the life of a child or of children to find that evidence. This is physical evidence that the history of the person is responsible for the behavior and not genetics, "free will", or any other so-called source. Watch kids play at a very young age and then watch what happens when they are left in the care of ignorant adults who haven't a clue as to how to train children. Racism then, is the reaction that humans have with the ignorance that they have been trained with. Call it training, education, directionalized assumptions, reinforced ignorance or whatever lable you wish. It amounts to environmental influences and nothing more.

DP says responsibility is the key. He doesn't understand just how comprehensive and all inclusive that term is the by-product of religious and therefore erroneous influences. The best response I can give to the notion of "responsibility" is suggesting that he read much more of the psychology of behaviorism. Beginning with Beyond Freedom and Dignity by the late B.F. Skinner is a decent start. Remembering that cultural language, mores, and interpretations about life and reality are essentially religious is extremely important. The language of science, experimentation and measure have little to do with religion and metaphysics. Trying to explain the measurable world to humans immersed in an ocean of ignorance is nearly impossible but every once in a while I find a drop of reason and reality is some people. Almost everyone one this planet is utterly uninterested in the reality of the measure of behavior so it is understandable that most would think this is all nonsense.

Simply stated, racism is a reaction to a kind of ignorance that infects the lives of billions of humans alive today...and, of course, of the billions of humans that have pasted on into history. Of course that ignorance has many other faces. It can be found in politics and well as religion, literature, psychology, and even most of the sciences. I'd like to reccoment another book called The Power of Words by Stuart Chase..a clear and understandable explanation of language and it's effects on interpretation.

No culture on earth has ever legislated sanity into a measurble reality nor legitimized unsanity to the same conclusion.

Bill,

I suppose that I will have to agree with you that the term "illegitimate" is unfair as far as the hapless child is concerned. Maybe we should substitute the phrase "Oh poo-poo, now what?" for illegitimate.

Mark

PS poo-poo is not my word. The moderator edited my original choice. Damn!

Actually, Mark, it's automatic. There are two words for which this happens. I think everyone can guess which two

We figure it is better to do a silly substitution than take time to deal with people reporting posts to us for this type of rule violation (yes, it does say no swearing - we have lots of minors who come in here)

Carry on!

As it's not online and I can't link to it and as it's not all that lengthy, I'm going to quote from Michael Moore's Stupid White Men on the topic of fundamental racism:



The slave trade in this country, Digital Patriot, did not end 300 years ago. It ended less than 150 years ago. Nice of you to try to distance yourself even further, though, in an effort to minimize the impact of slavery today. And slavery isn't the only issue here. I remember seeing "WHITES ONLY" signs myself as a child. I remember seeing seperate drinking fountains for "Whites" and "Coloreds". Segregation was legal and widespread in my lifetime - and the lifetimes of many who post here. As far as I can tell the only thing that's changed as a result of the civil rights movement is that those signs have come down. The attitudes of many whites - if this board is anything to go by - have not changed one iota. The level of resent here is all too typical - and it stinks.

Y'all think things have got better for blacks in this country? Levels of unemployment for blacks in the US have been roughly twice those of whites - since 1954. According to a Washington Post poll from 2001, up to 60% of white people think that the average black person has it as good as or better than the average white person. Wrong. According to a study conducted by economists Richard Vedder, Lowell Gallaway, and David Clingaman, the average income for a black American is 61% less than the average white income. That is the same percentage difference as 1880! Not a thing has changed in more than 120 years!

As Lyndon Johnson said at a commencement address at Harvard: "You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race, then say, 'you're free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates..."

Affirmative action penalizes no one; it is discriminates against no one. Affirmative action merely creates more competition - which I thought was one of the hallmarks of free enterprise.

Let us look at these stats. Household Income 2001 whites 46,305, Blacks 29,470, Asians $53,635, Sub-Saharan Africans <$2000.

What you notice is the ethnic group with the smallest families, the lowest rate of single parent homes and the highest average IQ makes the most money. Is anyone going to argue our society gives preferential treatment to Asians? Black conservative Thomas Sowell had an excellent column that showed how when whites and blacks with similar IQ's and education were compared economically that the differences in income were slight. He also did an excellent job of explaining how the 15 pt IQ difference is mostly related to factors individuals have control of, births to young teens and larger families. Sorry, a group with an IQ 15 points below average deserves a lower paycheck.

Oh the Sub-Saharan Africa figure, just shows current black Americans have benefitted greatly from slavery. Black Americans also live a quarter century longer than their Sub-Saharan kinsmen.

Wow Hugo, you better put on your flak vest and helmet for this comment:


Not that I disagree completely, blacks in America today are PROBABLY economically and physically better off than if they stayed in Africa.

But the other argument is going to be, that we can't ever know what those descendants might have accomplished for their tribes/countries had we left them alone.

I think this could be a whole other topic of debate: Are American blacks better off today as a result of being brought over from Africa?

But I would want to dig my foxhole before starting that thread.

You are the PERFECT Republican. You have not disappointed me.

Madtown

Keep going.....you're getting there

Madtown

I am a libertarian, not a Republican. I just stated a fact. Descendants of slaves in America are much better off than descendants of free Africans.

Well, you could pass for a Rep., a PERFECT on at that. I won't respond to the rest of your post which I find SICK

Madtown

Hey, don't blame me for that number. That was Madtowns number, not mine. I just used the same number in an attempt to make my point have a greater impact.

I KNOW when slavery ended, and I also know it wasn't 300 years ago. Next time, I'll correct an obsiously incorrect figure, rather than use it again

***********

Lastly, skin color doesn't determine a persons qualifications for a job, so he/she shouldn't be hired simply because of their skin color. If that is the only reason, to hire anybody, it's wrong. Black, white, brown, pink, purple or green....if you hire someone ONLY because of a physical trait, ignoring their credentials, it's wrong.

--cheers

More generalizations Madtown? Don't you ever get tired of grouping people together in little categories and slapping a label on them?

Republican != racist (!= PHP programming for: does not equal)

Not all Rebublicans are racist, not all racists are Republicans. In fact, there is no such thing as a group of people who ALL share EXACTLY the same belief or traits...especially when it comes to politics.

--cheers

What about taking responsibility for your NON Actions?

Once again I will try to explain to you that I am speaking of groups of people, not individuals.

As a member of the white group you have had privileges that were denied members of the black group. Therefore, your group has progressed, while the black group has been held back.

I think it is the responsibility of the white group to at least give the black group a CHANCE to catch up.

Since you don't agree and don't see yourself as a racist we might as well just agree to disagree.

Madtown

I never said a darn word about when slavery ended. This is what I said.


Conservatives are always talking about taking responsibility, but they never mention their (meaning white people ) responsibility for the racism and the treatment of Afro Americans that has existed in this country for three hundred years.


Madtown

I'm not going to argue that Asian-Americans are given preferential treatment, but their experience in this country has certainly been very different from that of the descendants of slaves. First, Asian-Americans are a relatively small minority - 3.2% of the population compared to 12% for blacks and 10% for Hispanics. With such a small sample, there are many factors which can skew the data. And that is the case when comparing the Asian experience to that of any other race in this country.

First, Asians have migrated to the U.S. voluntarily. The forced capture and transport of Africans means that the black population in the US is more likely to be a true cross section of African society, whereas Asians, who migrate voluntarily, tend to be self-selected - and they must be able to afford a trans-oceanic journey. Those who can afford such a trip tend to belong to their homeland's middle and upper classes.

Dr. Stephen Klineberg of Rice University conducted a thorough study of Houston's Asian-American population, which confirmed what sociologists have long known about the advantaged backgrounds of Asian immigrants. According to Klineberg, "The survey makes it clear that Asians have been relatively successful in Houston primarily due to the educations and middle class backgrounds they brought with them from their countries of origin. One of the key messages from the survey is that we have to discard the 'model minority' stereotype that is so often applied to Asians in America [which overlooks] the fact that a high proportion of Asian immigrants come from an occupational and educational elite."

In addition, US immigration policy has long been discriminatory, according to a research brief from the National Community Building Network, favoring immigrants with professional skills and higher education. This policy began as early as 1907, when President Theodore Roosevelt and the Japanese government negotiated an agreement restricting the exit of unskilled Japanese laborers to the United States. Asian immigration has been heavily restricted for most of this century, and has only recently become liberalized.

Before pursuing your IQ argument any further, Hugo, you might wanna take a look at my previous posting on intelligence testing and race in the What Makes a Racist? thread.

The only thing I will add to that posting is that, during the early 1900s, Asians (like Jews) scored much lower on IQ tests than native whites. Their tests scores improved over time as highly educated immigrants continued arriving in the US and those here became increasingly assimilated, both resulting in their social positions improving.

If you've read that posting, you can easily see where I would contend that "a group with a 15-point IQ difference" is totally irrelevant to your argument and, indeed, supports the argument for affirmative action. The Thomas Sowell column you cite is fallacious on a number of points, not only his specious accounting for lower IQs. For a start, blacks with educations and IQs which can match those of whites are already in an extraordinarily privileged position. As they represent the tiniest minority of African-Americans, it's not surprising that the salaries reflected are similarly rare. Do a bit of your own research, Hugo, then tell me that Sowell's conclusions aren't full of poo-poo, as they say around here.

Again DP.....please READ

I was commenting on this:Oh the Sub-Saharan Africa figure, just shows current black Americans have benefitted greatly from slavery. Black Americans also live a quarter century longer than their Sub-Saharan kinsmen.

I said NOTHING about racism.

Madtown

Thanks, Madtown - I didn't think I'd seen a statement to the effect that slavery ended 300 years ago in any of your posts. DP almost had me going there!

Wertz, yes Asians do have an advantage of being educated. Nothing prevents black Americans from achieving the same levels of education. Nothing prevents Asians from having children out of wedlock, besides individuals choosing not to engage in such behaviors.3.2% of 280,000,000 is also a very large sample size. The fact is black Americans with similar IQ's earn practically the same as whites. The fact is blacks from two parent households have practically the same IQ as whites. Nothing nullifies Sowell's assumptions. The major cause of black disparity is illegitimate children and larger families. Liberals will continue to attack the asian example. The fact is Asians have either avoided the welfare culture, or seen socialism in all its' glory, Communist China and Vietnam, and want no part of it. I do agree with you that yes a culture that values education has an advantage over those who come from a welfare culture.

I am still suffering because my Irish great-grandpaw did not get that job.

Hugo: Did you read the posting to which I linked above? Here it is again. Please check it out - you might find it illuminating. We're not supposed to post the same thing to two different threads here...

And, actually, there is much which "prevents black Americans from achieving the same levels of education" - but that's another story.







A footnote: the Asians in this country who are of Chinese or Vietnamese descent haven't experienced "socialism in all its glory" at all. Those who have emigrated from China since the early fifties or from Vietnam since the early seventies would have experienced a variety of communism. Those who emigrated prior to those dates, would've experienced varieties of imperialism and/or republicanism. Neither China nor Vietnam have ever had a socialist state. And Red China has never had much of a social welfare system - indeed, there is less welfare in China than in most European countries (including, by the way, Ireland).

Wertz, I do not disagree with the contention of your post that those facing discrimination tend to score lower on IQ tests. What I disagree with is the contention that these lower scores are either genetic or due to discrimination My thesis is that conditions due to government enforced slavery and government enforced Jim Crow laws left the black community succeptible to the government supplied welfare culture. Slavery and Jim Crow laws would never have existed in a libertarian society. The solution to the black underclass is not government, government got them where they are today.
The Chinese and Vietnamese have lived in a highly unsuccessful socialist state. They are changing that.

S[quote]o, we think all people are equal because we thought TJ said it? That's our reasoning, huh? [/quote]

The Straw Man distortion of the Declaration of Independence is a canard I hear quite frequently.

[quote]And now that you have stunned us with the truth that he didn't actually believe that, therefore, humans are not equal? That's not very sound logic, Fade.[/quote]

There is no such thing as "equality" between populations or individuals.

[quote]You're right, though Fade, people are not equal. [/quote]

Yes that is correct.

[quote]We are all born in unique configurations. [/quote]

There is no such thing as equality, thus no one should ever expect this ridiculous Utopian fantasy to ever be acheived.

[quote]Some people are beautiful. Some people are not. [/quote]

Beauty is a subjective concept.

[quote]Some people are geniuses. Some people are great natural athletes, or musicians. Some people are the fortunate sons, some are the children of the homeless and the destitute. [/quote]

Yes the only thing the world knows is inequality.

[quote]In all of these various configurations that make up humanity, and at all sides of every trait, there are people from Ireland, England, Germany, Mali, Burma, China, Zimbabwe, Australia, Brazil, Canada, gee, every place on earth, and people of every color.[/quote]

Do not equate "race" with "color." That is a ridiculous equivocation.

[quote]Your continued frothing about blacks[/quote]

I am personally sick of organizations such as the NAACP. I make no secret about that.

[quote]your hatred of Jews[/quote]

Do not get me started on the Jews.

[quote]your worship of Hitler and Napoleon[/quote]

You forgot King Richard and Cortez.

[quote]all these things tell us who you are, fade. [/quote]

I do not like democracy. I think it is sillyness to be honest, an idea that has outlived its usefulness.

[quote]But I hope I'm wrong. I hope you're just some guy playing a huge joke on all of us - I'll join you in laughing.[/quote]

I fail to see what the "joke" is.

[quote]But if you are really for real, you have got some serious thinking to do, my friend. Some serious thinking. [/quote]

My thinking is absolutely crystal clear. This is a long thread now. Looks like I have work to do!

[quote]The slave trade in this country, Digital Patriot, did not end 300 years ago.[/quote]

The "slave trade" to the United States ended in 1808 but was abolished by most states before then. Relatively few blacks were imported to the American Colonies in the context of the Western Hemisphere.

[quote]It ended less than 150 years ago. [/quote]

The "slave trade" as I pointed out was outlawed by Congress in 1808. The slave trade and domestic slavery are two different things entirely.

[quote]Nice of you to try to distance yourself even further, though, in an effort to minimize the impact of slavery today.[/quote]

Who in America has been a slave?

[quote]And slavery isn't the only issue here.[/quote]

Okay.

[quote]I remember seeing "WHITES ONLY" signs myself as a child. [/quote]

What magical force did these signs exert that has so hopelessly corrupted blacks beyond all repair?

[quote]I remember seeing seperate drinking fountains for "Whites" and "Coloreds". [/quote]

Surely the water that came out of these water fountains contained magical minerals that made whites smarter and inhibited blacks for all time. Allow me to roll my eyes. Let us take your average water fountain at LAX in Los Angeles. Let us suppose, that anyone is able to drink from this water fountain. Some choose to drink from the water fountain, while others do not. Let us suppose that blacks make up 12.5% of the American population, an arbitrary statistic, yet they make up 3% of all those who drink from the water fountain every day. Obviously the water fountain is therefore segregated. Should we adopt a quota system to boost the amount of blacks who drink from the water fountain? A monetary incentive maybe. A cash allowance. Perhaps they are "afraid" of the water fountain for it used to be segregated years before most blacks were ever born. Perhaps by giving them money the imaginary boogeyman will go away!

[quote]Segregation was legal and widespread in my lifetime - and the lifetimes of many who post here.[/quote]

Segregation is widespread today, people simply congregate in their own areas. In fact, it is BLACKS today that are the nation's foremost segregationists. Take a look at Black Entertainment Television, or Black History Month, or the Congressional Black Caucus. What is the problem with segregation?

[quote]As far as I can tell the only thing that's changed as a result of the civil rights movement is that those signs have come down. [/quote]

Why should anyone expect otherwise? Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps blacks might have a preference for associating with other blacks? That blacks might like to go about their own way of life and take pride in it? That the same is true of whites? What is the problem?

[quote]The attitudes of many whites - if this board is anything to go by - have not changed one iota. [/quote]

I think segregation was an absolutely superior form of society. It was blacks like Roy Innis who after the so-called Civil Rights act was calling integration a failure. Seperate, but Equal is the same standard we have always lived under. It is the same standard we live under today, de facto, just not de jure. I see no reason why we should ever expect otherwise. The same is true of most other nations. Take Brazil for example. The different populations in Brazil have concentrated in different areas of the country.

[quote]The level of resent here is all too typical - and it stinks.[/quote]

I think integration has been a total failure. I simply think that race is something taboo to talk about these days like sex or witchcraft used to be. I think the Multicultural Society of the John Lennon Credit Card generation sucks and is an absolute failure at all levels.

[quote]Y'all think things have got better for blacks in this country?[/quote]

In some ways yes and in other ways no. The Segregationists during the 1960s said that Integration would make blacks worse off. In many ways they have been proven right!

[quote]Levels of unemployment for blacks in the US have been roughly twice those of whites - since 1954.[/quote]

Have you stopped to consider what sort of effect massive immigration has had on the black population? How the Mexican underclass has increasingly displaced blacks out of jobs?

[quote]According to a Washington Post poll from 2001, up to 60% of white people think that the average black person has it as good as or better than the average white person.[/quote]

Of course they do, all blacks have to do is say the magic word "racism" and all of society will roll over and capitulate. The best example of this is the Lott Affair. Affirmative Action also goes a long way as well. Those government contracts redistribute a lot of wealth.

[quote]Wrong. According to a study conducted by economists Richard Vedder, Lowell Gallaway, and David Clingaman, the average income for a black American is 61% less than the average white income.[/quote]

Here are some facts:

The number of black families that are "affluent" (earning more than 50,000) went from one in seventeen in 1967 to one in seven in 1989.

Between 1972 and 1991, the number of black accountants shot up by 479 percent, the number of blacks lawyers shot up 280 percent, and the number of black professional computer programmers by 343 percent.

From 1950 to 1990, the black population of America doubled but the number of blacks in white collar jobs increased by more than ninefold.

In 1991, the hundred biggest black owned businesses in the country had revenues of $7.9 billion, a 10.4 percent increase over the previous year.

By 1950, black women college graduates already made 91 percent of the wages paid to white female college graduates. By 1960, they earned 2 percent more than whites and since 1970 the difference has grown even wider.

By 1979, all black women, whatever their qualifications, earned 8 percent more than white women with equal qualifications.

[quote]That is the same percentage difference as 1880! Not a thing has changed in more than 120 years![/quote]

Why do black women make more than white women? Is institutional racism against white women at work? What about comparisons between black females and black males? Why the disparity?

[quote]As Lyndon Johnson said at a commencement address at Harvard: "You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race, then say, 'you're free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates..."[/quote]

I fail to see why you are quoting Lyndon Johnson of all people. Was not that the charlatan who wanted to create the Great Society on the Mekong? Lyndon Johnson said a lot of stupid things and was responsible for a lot of stupid legislation, such as the 1965 Immigration Act, which has gone to hurt blacks as much as the disintegration of the black family in the '70s. This was is one of them.

[quote]Affirmative action penalizes no one[/quote]

Affirmative Action discriminates on the basis of race, it is therefore racist. I thought you told us you were not a racist in the other thread?

[quote]it is discriminates against no one.[/quote]

I thought Affirmative Action was labeled as "positive discrimination." If Affirmative Action is "positive discrimination" is in not inherently discriminatory?

[quote]Affirmative action merely creates more competition - which I thought was one of the hallmarks of free enterprise. [/quote]

Affirmative Action is a subsidy, it is an entitlement, and guarantees are the precise opposite of competition.

Affirmative action policies provide equal opportunity to those groups who have been systematically denied it. Affirmative action is not the source of discrimination, but the vehicle for removing the effects of discrimination.
Few reverse discrimination cases have been brought by white males, and even fewer have been found to have any merit. A recent Labor Department report found less than 100 reverse discrimination cases among more than 3,000 discrimination opinions by the U.S. District Court and the Court of Appeal, between 1990 and 1994. Discrimination was established only in six cases. The report found that, "Many of the cases were the result of a disappointed applicant... erroneously assuming that when a woman or minority got the job, it was because of race or sex, not qualifications." (S.F. Chronicle, March 31, 1995).

While some white men may feel they have been unfairly passed over, it is a myth that they are losing jobs to unqualified women or people of color due to affirmative action. While white men continue to dominate the upper levels of business, less-skilled white men, men of color and women are all losing jobs as corporations move overseas, down-size, hire part-time workers, automate and computerize.

Madtown

Ok, read. Your attitude said to me said "she thinks he's a racist" if that is not what you were thinking at the time, than that's my bad.

However, you apparently didn't read my post. I was commenting about all the generalizations and stereotypes you apply to people. Mostly negative.

1) Assumptions about how white people are so much better off because of our skin color
2) That...someone, cant' remember who...was a Republican. Full of sarcasm and negative connotations

Those are two I remmebered off the top of my head. I'm sure I could dig up more if I tried

THAT was the point of my post.

As the Butcher is currently under restriction, I won't bother replying to his response - his positions are indefensible enough without my attacking them in his absence. Unless, of course, there's anyone else here willing to espouse his opinions (and come up with some sources for his facts).

The 14th Amendment does require individuals be given "equal protection under the law". Affirmitive action programs must be carefully structured to remain within the bounds of the Constitution.

Butcher wrote:

Affirmative Action is a subsidy, it is an entitlement, and guarantees are the precise opposite of competition.


Affirmative Actions guarantees minorities a CHANCE....only a Chance.

Madtown

I agree. It would appear, though, that affirmative action legislation does adhere to equal protection rights. If it didn't, we would certainly have heard about it at the Supreme Court level by now. I think if actual quotas were in place, that would constitute a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. As affirmative action merely sets goals on the basis of the local population, it seems to be within constituional bounds.

One can't generalize this issue. I am positive there are people in either party who individually are racist. To get elected they spout togetherness and equality. It is what is in the mind of each man or woman that defines if they are a racist or not. I am a republican by ideas. Yet I renounce anyone in my party if they are racist. I do find a nasty streak in the attitudes of black leaders like radio host Tom Joyner, Al Sharpton, Loubut is Farrakhan. They totally disrespect conservative blacks like Clarence Thomas, JC Watts, Powell and Rice. Why? Because they are republicans. How hypocritical, to me that is just as bad as racism, disliking someone because they have different political views than you. Yet conservative blacks offer the best role models for young blacks by their hard work, belief in America.

I do find a nasty streak in the attitudes of white leaders like radio host Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, George W. Bush. They totally disrespect liberal whites like Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, Parenti and Zinn. Why? Because they are Liberals. How hypocritical, to me that is just as bad as racism, disliking someone because they have different political views than you. Yet liberal whites offer the best role models for young people by their hard work, belief in America.

I realized my view perfectly mirrored your own!

Quarkie: The part of Heather's posting which you quoted made my jaw drop - your response was perfect!