Racial Double Standards

And that other option is?

Outlaw racism!

Hey! We already did that. Cool, looks like we are done.

 

...












*knee slapping*

*rolling along the floor*

 

Make it a law that when applying for things such as jobs, financial aid, or other things you cannot disclose your race, creed, sex, or age.

That goes out the window at a personal interview, but by the time you're there, it's all about presentation and merit anyway.

You said that AA is a way to bypass racism from people who don't know you and judge you up front, this woudl take care of that. They'd have you judged by your resume before seeing you, then they'd know you before meeting you.

 

*knee slapping*

*rolling along the floor*

That's all very witty, but ya gotta give me a little more to rebut.

 

I remember when I was playing ball in college.

I took a few years off to serve a mission with my church, and when I came back, our coach had been replaced with a black guy.

He was actually pretty cool, and we got along well.

HOwever, when I returned to the team, he looked at me and said, "hey, you're white!"

I said, "That's right."

He said, "There's no way I'm goign to start you...you have to be black to start for me."

Is that right?

Racism is alive and well, but I didn't hold my head down because of it. I worked harder and made him start me because I was better than the people he had recruited.

 

Asked about the impact of racism in their own lives, a startling 89% of black teens ((ages 12-17)) call it "a small problem" or "not a problem at all."
(TIME/CNN poll, 1997)

If 89% of black teens don't feel racism is a big problem in their lives, why should we attempt to compensate for racism they don't feel exists?

 

The chances for an average black american child to:

- receive a good education
- avoid drugs
- avoid crime
- earn a salary about the poverty level
- not be affected by violence and domestic violence

are disproportionally lower than an average white american child of the same age.

Since this unequal position needs, by the dictates of social conscience, to be rectified, some programs will need to be put into place that counter some of the disadvantages black children face as they grow up.

You don't need to counter the disadvantages. You need to identify the current root causes of them and correct those, and only then can you hope to mitigate the rest of the problem.

There are two factors that will correct most of the problems that you identified above. I'll give you a hint: neither is based in racism today. The first is education. We need to fix the education systems to help prepare students to succeed in life. That has to start at the earliest ages, and focus on the later ages in providing better remedial educational opportunities. You don't take someone who is not prepared and send them to Harvard just because Harvard graduates are more successful. Instead, you help prepare them as best you can, building them up until they are prepared.

Second, you need to strengthen their families. There is a strong correlation between how strong families are and domestic violence (inverse relationship), and many other social ills. There are a higher proportion of single parent families among minorities than among whites. That isn't caused by racism, but it is a major source for many social problems.

Correct the real causes of these problems, and stop blaming the boogeyman of racism.

Kimball Kinnison

 

You don't need to counter the disadvantages. You need to identify the current root causes of them and correct those, and only then can you hope to mitigate the rest of the problem.

Pure semantics, Kimball. By identifying and correcting the current root causes of disadvantage, you are countering disadvantage.

 

In addition, assuming that the psychological blow-back of slavery is still occuring today, what would be the most effective way to raise the morale of an entire group of people who feel the most affected?

It certainly isn't to lower the standards, in order to give that group a "pass."

Simply put, the surest way to raise morale in any group is to install a sense of accomplishment and self-worth.

If the passing score on a test for one group is 80%, and the score is then reduced for another group, what is the psychological effect of that practice?

I know if I was given a position that I didn't earn, simply because the requirements were lowered, I would feel less capable than the people who actually scored the true minimum. My self-worth would actually be diminished.

But if I was taught at an early age to meet those standards, and I earned the position with my own ability, my sense of self-accomplishment would be uplifted.

However, if the reducing-standard cycle was continued, when is the "raising up" goal achieved?

It perpetuates the mindset of reduced worth, while installing the mentality of "I deserve mine."

Again, setting aside one's opinion about the military, that's why the military traditionally leads the way with integration. The military sets the basic standard for achievement, and whoever meets the standard, regardless of race, etc. earns that title.

A white Green Beret isn't required to score 250, while a black Green Beret only needs a 200, simply because of skin color. It's been said that the military doesn't see skin color, only "green."

Just like Colin Powell indicated. He didn't sell out, nor was he a black general, or a white general. He was simply the best person for the job.

Who can ask for a better role model than that?

 

Pure semantics, Kimball. By identifying and correcting the current root causes of disadvantage, you are countering disadvantage.

There is a critical difference between correcting and countering, and it's not mere semantics.

Correcting fixes the actual problem It is a permanent condition. Once something is corrected, the problem is gone. Countering is a constant activity. It is a continual process.

Affirmative Action is all about countering the disadvantages that minorities face, but in reality it does absolutely nothing to correct them. It does nothing to address the underlying causes of the problem.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I'd like to see the source of that poll. It's unbelievable how so many can complain about black people 'blaming whites for everything' and then have the general consensus be that racism isn't a problem.

 

Suzuki_Akira posted on 2/10/05 5:10pm

---

I'd like to see the source of that poll. It's unbelievable how so many can complain about black people 'blaming whites for everything' and then have the general consensus be that racism isn't a problem.
[hr][/blockquote] Try [link=http://www.time.com/time/classroom/psych/unit7_article1.html]here[/link] for some details about the poll.

I'm trying to find an actual copy of the poll.

Kimball Kinnison

 

here is a discussion about the poll results:

TIME

in America--however, more than a third classify it as "a small problem." Asked about the impact of racism in their own lives, a startling 89% of black teens call it "a small problem" or "not a problem at all."

In fact, white adults and white teens are more convinced than black teens that racism in America remains a dominant issue.

Furthermore, black teens are more reluctant than others to blame racism for problems. Indeed, nearly twice as many black kids as white believe "failure to take advantage of available opportunities" is more of a problem for blacks than discrimination.

Sure enough, only a quarter of black teens surveyed said they had been victims of discrimination, whereas half of black adults say they have.

 

Too slow, 44. You need to type faster.

I posted the same link a whole 2 minutes before you did.



Kimball Kinnison

 

Yeah, well I provided an insightful and priceless abridgement to go along with my link...

 

Copied and pasted, I will point out.



Kimball Kinnison

 

Thank God. Now no one can say blacks blame everything on white people. You just made my day.

 

I can finally get back on...



Anyway, I read a lot of the posts, but it would just take far too long to read them all.

So I'm assuming the arguments break down like this:

White people posting: Believe racism was outlawed and doesn't occur anymore

Non-White people posting: Know for a fact racism occurs because they have gone through it.




White people posting: Believe everyone in the ghetto can be anything they want as long as they put their mind to it.

Non-White people posting: Know that if you grow up in the ghetto, it's a billion times harder to be what you wanna be.




Is this all correct?

 

By the way - another phrase for reverse-discrimination is positive-discrimination. I prefer that.

You might as well start calling racism "positive racism."

Never liked the term "reverse discrimination" anyway. Discrimination is discrimination.

Is this all correct?

Hardly.

No one denies that life in the ghetto is very difficult?but if some people can rise above it on their own merits, then others can too.

Two guys I used to work with come to mind. Both of them have been homeless for extended periods of time, both have sold drugs, but one of them is now happily married with a successful job, while the other is still drifting and unemployed. Their backgrounds were similar; one just decided to fight hard enough to succeed, while the other hasn't yet.

 

No one denies that life in the ghetto is very difficult?but if some people can rise above it on their own merits, then others can too.

So essentially what you saying is that blacks should perform up to par with whites despite their greater negative circumstances, and if they don't, it is because they are to lazy.

Thats a double standard if I ever heard one.

Its like starting one sprinter 5 meters back in the 100 meter dash. Sure, if that sprinter trains hard enough, he might be able to match the other's times. But that gives you no execuse to blame him for low dedication to training if he fails to match the average time.

 

You don't have to be black to be poor, or disadvantaged, or prejudiced against. Any number of factors can lead to any of those.

In my late teens, I had, without exaggeration, world-class acne. The prescription I took for it was Accutane, which since then has been repeatedly recalled because of its many side effects. Essentially, Accutane removes your zits by searing them off from the inside.

So I looked like a burn victim, covered in scabs. Did this hinder my job search? Did interviewers turn me away on the basis of looks?

At the time, I believed that they did. Maybe I was right, maybe not, but because I focused so much on that, I lost confidence in myself, and became content to lie down and fail, blaming what I looked like all the while.

Eight years later, the guy above me at work has a worse skin condition than I ever did.

You have very little control over the world around you, especially in regards to what you're born into. What you do have control over is yourself, and how you deal with that world. You may end up with more obstacles than someone else does, but lying down and complaining about those obstacles is not the way to overcome them.

It's usually a struggle, and you won't always win?but win or lose, you're better for the struggle.

At this point, someone's likely thinking, "But some people have to struggle harder than they should." Which is true?but that's in no way restricted to skin color.

Besides, it's insulting to lower standards or offer special exceptions based on race. It says, in essence, "You're not as good as the rest of us, but we'll take you in out of pity." It treats skin color as if it were some crippling disability, and casts an entire race of people as helpless victims.

Moreover, it tries to promote equality by promoting inequality?a basic contradiction if ever there was one.

 

Did you even read my example of the sprinter?

 

I answered it above; not everyone starts off under the same conditions.

I inherited my dad's horrible acne. Was it fair that I had to get so much work done on my face while everyone else didn't? Pfft. No. Is it the way it happened? Yes. Did letting it get to me, and blaming it for everything, serve any purpose or accomplish any goal? Not one.

People vary not only in their origins and backgrounds, but in talent, in drive, in dedication, and so on. Some people make it, and some people don't, often under identical circumstances.

When Tiger Woods plays golf, should they automatically stick him with a ten-point penalty to make it fair for the other players?

 

When Tiger Woods plays golf, should they automatically stick him with a ten-point penalty to make it fair for the other players?

So you would say that whites' average income being $15,000 dollars higher than blacks' average income is because whites have more talent?

 

Is that a yes or a no?

As for your question, I'd be interested to know what kind of jobs we're talking about. I imagine that statistic is heavily influenced by the billion-dollar salaries of top CEOs.

Now, if a black and a white person with identical jobs make different salaries, then the black person has a right to fight for equal pay?and there are ways to fight for that.