224674 Bullies, 3518 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 111 to 120 of 198
Page 12 of 20 FirstFirst ... 289101112 13141516 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. TheManchu is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    588

    Posted On:
    11/02/2005 7:46pm


     Style: luk chua bik da

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by katana
    Here's the problem. While an entitlement structure was maybe required in the beginning it has largely outlived its purpose now and is counterproductive.
    I disagree.

    The demographics of our society are changing and in a few decades the entire white guilt argument is going to mean nothing because the white vote will no longer be the majority.
    Which will be irrelevant, since the entitlement structure should reflect the relative populations of different groups. You know, x% mexican, x%black, etc. As that makeup changes, so should the entitlements. What you have proposed is an argument for an improvement in the system of entitlements, not the abandonment of it.

    On the white guilt point, this is absolutely false. Our democracy is not direct democracy, and districting and other issues affect it dramatically. Since black representation in government, and especially the two parties, is not on a par with the black population, since oftentimes even black politicians like to district blacks together in order to win elections, the increase in the population will not necessarily equal an increase in representation of blacks in government, and there is absolutely no correlation between minority hiring and minority population, and, in fact, a fairly well documented tendency of people to hire within their own race for positions of responsibility. Since whites hold an inordinate amount of management positions and inordinately higher representation in government to this day, this trend would continue, and at a faster rate without something like affirmative action to prevent it.


    You are going to have large groups of people who don't care about the black plight because they all have their own history of persecution in one form of another or simply don't think it's their problem.
    with

    Now you're arguing mob rules as opposed to what needs to be done. First, unless we enslave another race for three hundred years, we will never need to undergo the extent of entitlement as has become necessary now, as long as we finish what we started. Second, you already argued for the improvement of the entitlement structure, such improvement would necessarily include matching quotas to the population percentages of different groups. Third, if a company cannot find the percentage of qualified individuals to fill the necessary quotas, then obviously something is happening in the culture to prevent individuals of all races to achieve, which means affirmative action is all the more necessary.

    Since nothing in your argument answers the need to recognize that people hire within their own race and have been demonstrated to do so often, your entire idea on what needs to be done is like a well meaning program for racial dominance by whoever is at the top.

    When I look at the black culture today and see the ideals embraced that do not mesh up with that of mainstream America I get even more concerned.
    You mean like the ideals embraced in Zora Neal Hurston's stories?

    I'm sorry, but the development of a criminal underworld marks the rise of every ethnic group in the US, from the Germans to the Italians to the poles to the Irish. There is so much more to black America than that, and it is not entitlements that gangs thrive on, but desire, just like the mafia. I have already established that there is no one alive who is not influenced by the cycle of slavery to Jim Crow laws to segregation to white flight, it has benefitted white America and harmed black America, today mostly by a legacy of educational abuse that was purposeful and occured well after the Civil Rights Acts of the sixties. To counter this requires not a rollback of the laws that began to end it, but a reaffirming of them with even more seriousness.

    The entitlement runway is getting much shorter as each year passes and I think that the mindset that the governement owes you something is not preparing the newest generation for the day when nobody really cares about their history any more.
    First, this sentence nor the rest of the your post establishes in any way that entitlements don't work, or that you have any reason to believe that abandoning them won't be disastrous, and parts of your post support entitlement.

    Second, your last sentence doesn't actually mean anything except that you are less concerned with solving the problem than ending entitlements based off of your unsupported belief.

    Third, the entire of American history before the Civil Rights Act of 64 was an entitlement for whites, and the current solution is not an entitlement for blacks, but an attempt at eradication of that white entitlement. Whites still have entitlement galore, from a mass history of real education from generation to generation to an unearned representation in government and similar entrenchment in the business sector. You do not support eradication of entitlement, you, in a well meaning way, support a continuation of white entitlement.

    To see the result of such thinking, look at the eras between the end of slavery and the birth of Jim Crow laws, and then the era between the end of Jim Crow laws and the birth of segregation. These tyrannys don't simply end, and anyone who believes that is being naive: and since you clearly do not believe in entitlements at all, since they are almost the sole mechanism for undoing segregation, then I am curious what and how you think segregation ended, and if you truly understand what segregation was.


    Aside from all that, I'd say more quotas, not less, are necessary. For instance, political parties and their representatives should be denied federal funding for elections if the party does not fulfill racial quotas. Corporate management within the states should be required to be made up in such a way as well. If, in a whole race, the right person cannot be found, then the overall American culture must be at fault.
  2. Zendetta is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Posts
    2,681

    Posted On:
    11/02/2005 8:39pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: MMA, functional JKD

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by katana
    I think that the mindset that the governement owes you something is not preparing the newest generation.
    Manchu - this is a rock solid point. Don't let it get lost in the shuffle.

    THis is the fundamental point that so many liberals miss, in the same way that so many on the right are 'paradigm blind' when it comes to the issues of history and social context.
    "You know what I like about you, William? You like guns AND meditation."
  3. Zendetta is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Posts
    2,681

    Posted On:
    11/02/2005 8:43pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: MMA, functional JKD

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by TheManchu
    Aside from all that, I'd say more quotas, not less, are necessary. .
    You've suggested that quotas and entitlements would/should shift with demographic changes.

    I've noticed a dramatic proportional under-representation of white people on professional football and basketball teams, when compared with the overall poulation.

    Should this situation be rectified by hiring quotas and similiar affirmative action type policies?

    Why or why not?

    Perhaps more tellingly, what do you think would happen on the field/court for those teams that did enforce such quotas?
    "You know what I like about you, William? You like guns AND meditation."
  4. TheManchu is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    588

    Posted On:
    11/02/2005 10:01pm


     Style: luk chua bik da

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Zendetta
    Manchu - this is a rock solid point. Don't let it get lost in the shuffle.

    THis is the fundamental point that so many liberals miss, in the same way that so many on the right are 'paradigm blind' when it comes to the issues of history and social context.
    A lack of controlled entitlement of minorities lead to rampant uncontrolled entitlement of the white majority in two and a half out of every three centuries of US history. That criticism cuts both ways.

    To suggest that its influence on black culture is significant compared with recent segregation and educational abuse preceeded by varying degrees of non-citizenship and slavery requires flat out ignorance of the nature of segregation and white flight.

    Again, that point is an argument for improvement of affirmative action, not abandonment of it.

    It also assumes that entitlements can be eradicated from government, but what is the course for this? Where is a working government with no subsidies?

    Which has created more equality, affirmative action or segregation? Clearly affirmative action.

    What is the only mechanism the US has ever had to prevent segregation? Affirmative action.

    Did blacks ever have closer to equal rights in the US before 64 as they did after? No. What happened in 64? Civil Rights Act, affirmative action, et al.

    What is in existence in the US now to prevent segregation from ever happening again? Affirmative action, the Civil Rights Acts, the whole "entitlement" package that is actually an inocculation for the white dependence on their own entitlement, and only as a byproduct an entitlement for blacks and other minorities.

    Most blacks are not on welfare, most blacks get jobs on their own, but most people hire based upon their own race, this is known, and the one mechanism to stop this we have is affirmative action.

    Quotas do not necessarily mean unqualified individuals gain position, only that the hiring company has a method for ensuring that who is hired is not being based on the race of their HR people or the company's officers. I have yet to see anyone complain about college quotas who didn't fail to get money/acceptance to a college based on their own performance. There is tons of school money out there, if one works hard a looking for it, one can get all one needs, and I say this as someone who has had to do so. The party that most bitches about entitlements votes in farm subsidies like there is no tomorrow, pork barrel programs, etc.

    Again, the main problem with affirmative action is that it is not often enough enforced at the very top: the two parties, corporate management, etc.

    Arguments for the eradication of affirmative action must begin with the basic premise that there is a tendency for those in influence in politics and business to give authority to their own race, because this is how the world works, sadly enough. All of American politics is based on pitting flaws against each other, checking and balancing power. America, with its white majority and white history, will likely always be at risk for inordinately great power to settle into the hands of whites without some mechanism to prevent this. Republicans and Democrats proposed this course as the check, one evil to fight another. The problem with current Republicans is that they propose dismantling the mechanism without any alternative to prevent the same problems from recurring.

    Again, the periods of US history in which blacks had anything close to equality were consistently merely periods between tyranny, tyranny that was impose legally and politically by a vacuum of political opposition to them. The one mechanism that prevents this from being simply another such period are the full powers of the Civil Rights Acts, and conservatives and liberals recognized this forty years ago.

    If entitlement is not preparing us for the future, then we should first reduce the entitlement of the group most entitled, which is exactly what affirmative action has been doing. If that group still has inordinate control on politics and business due to issues of legacy, then what is needed is more, not less, affirmative action, greater enforcement, and time, until the playing field is actually equal.
  5. Hedgehogey is offline
    Hedgehogey's Avatar

    Tsun-Derrorist

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    5,330

    Posted On:
    11/02/2005 10:10pm

    supporting member
     Style: ^_^

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Leodom
    Now in regards to Hedgehogeys posts about terminology, is there a "white" analagous term for "Uncle Tom"? If there is not, does that say anything about racism?
    I proudly call myself a race traitor.


    "The only important elements in any society
    are the artistic and the criminal,
    because they alone, by questioning the society's values,
    can force it to change."-Samuel R. Delany

    RENDERING GELATINOUS WINDMILL OF DICKS

    THIS IS GOING TO BE THE BEST NON-EUCLIDIAN SPLATTERJOUST EVER

    It seems that the only people who support anarchy are faggots, who want their pathetic immoral lifestyle accepted by the mainstream society. It wont be so they try to create their own.-Oldman34, friend to all children
  6. TheManchu is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    588

    Posted On:
    11/02/2005 10:14pm


     Style: luk chua bik da

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Zendetta
    You've suggested that quotas and entitlements would/should shift with demographic changes.

    I've noticed a dramatic proportional under-representation of white people on professional football and basketball teams, when compared with the overall poulation.

    Should this situation be rectified by hiring quotas and similiar affirmative action type policies?

    Why or why not?

    Perhaps more tellingly, what do you think would happen on the field/court for those teams that did enforce such quotas?
    Actually, whites are overrepresented in the QB position.

    The effect of an overall society of enforcement of affirmative action throughout the US would dramatically shift the makeup of teams.

    First, by forcing companies to actually actively hire minorities into upper management positions, middle management, etc, a culture would be created in which the main goals offered in the media for blacks would no longer be football players and other high profile fame oriented, but more education oriented, jobs.

    Like most middle and upper classes, the goal would be more pragmatic, more likely to yield returns, with some people still making it into such industries as sports and entertainment, but fewer due to the lure of many more realistic alternatives than may be available to them today.

    There would still be blacks in football, but more would be QB's. However, teams would quickly realize that the ideal football team would be a mix of giant Scottsmen, Samoans, blacks, and kickers from the orient.

    What would happen to such a line? You gonna knock a samoan down? You do know the Chinese invented kicking, right?

    I won't even go into what a Scot can do to a man when he's been sheep deprived.

    Of course, the reason there aren't such diverse teams is not that the races I've listed aren't capable of it, but because they aren't interested. My point is that organizations that pander to specific races, like, say, NASCAR, can either engage the culture or die in my America, because there is no other option. Since this would start in colleges, the colleges would seek more diverse recruitment, which would then provide a wider base of players, which would make a better game. Just as desegregation of sports made modern football superior to white man only football and baseball, my America's samoan-scot ball would ultimately be superior to modern football.

    Since sports can be a microcosm of a society, variety and a wide base of talent will always be superior to a narrower talent pool, and while the black talent pool would become smaller due to many blacks having more alternatives, the overall talent pool would be vastly larger. So, initially football would go through some growing pains, but eventually it would be much better because it would have global appeal.
    Last edited by TheManchu; 11/02/2005 10:56pm at .
  7. Hedgehogey is offline
    Hedgehogey's Avatar

    Tsun-Derrorist

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    5,330

    Posted On:
    11/02/2005 10:53pm

    supporting member
     Style: ^_^

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Leodom
    Is this really commonplace? Please provide links to credible sources where this has happened within the last 10 years. Anytime I have seen anything remotely similar, it has been in the context of "Let's kill this racist bastard, did you hear what he said!!!!"
    I'm reffering to the whole "white power" movement. Of course, the actual, real killing of black people due to their race is also pretty common.

    "massacre" of blacks in NOLA?? Damned racist hurricanes? Those who perished during the hurricane were not victims of racism. They may have been victims of poor economics, but not racism.
    Oh come on. Don't


    Actually, racism is the belief in the inherent superiority of one race over another. The common usage is more akin to bigotry, a preference of one race over another. Enforcement is in no way related to this definition. To enforce it, you avoid the race you are bigotted against.
    That's one form of minor, passive enforcement. I'm sure you can guess the forms of active enforcement whites use to maintain their place at the top.

    you can speculate all day long about this. I believe that anyone who advocates the killing of any group of people merely because of their association with that group would be (should be) villified.
    For the last time, i'm not defending him. I'm riffing on how people's reactions throw their own white privilege into sharp relief.

    I am assuming that you are asking for terms for white people with power who advocate the extermination of the black race.

    Please provide a current example and we'll come up with something.
    No. I'm saying that whites and blacks can both be bigoted, but it is almost always only whites who have the ability to make that bigotry have real consequences.

    My first attempt would be "idiot", and I am sure most of the rest of us crackers would agree.
    I would say "white person" works well enough.

    Has anyone paid any attention to the actions of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe? He has much power and he is using it against whites with little to no media coverage.
    He is appropriating the property of people who got it through force and monopolize the resources of their country. In other words, he is attempting to undo the effects of imperialism. Go Mugabe-sama! ^_^


    "The only important elements in any society
    are the artistic and the criminal,
    because they alone, by questioning the society's values,
    can force it to change."-Samuel R. Delany

    RENDERING GELATINOUS WINDMILL OF DICKS

    THIS IS GOING TO BE THE BEST NON-EUCLIDIAN SPLATTERJOUST EVER

    It seems that the only people who support anarchy are faggots, who want their pathetic immoral lifestyle accepted by the mainstream society. It wont be so they try to create their own.-Oldman34, friend to all children
  8. Judah Maccabee is offline
    Judah Maccabee's Avatar

    Bullshido Wikipedia Delegate

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,325

    Posted On:
    11/02/2005 11:02pm

    supporting memberhall of fameBullshido Newbie
     Style: Krav / (Kick)Boxing / BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    He is appropriating the property of people who got it through force and monopolize the resources of their country. In other words, he is attempting to undo the effects of imperialism. Go Mugabe-sama! ^_^
    And turn that country from a grain exporting country to a grain-needing one almost on par with North Korea.

    "Hello! Half my people need grain aid! But I will not specifically ask for it. However, if you want to send it, that is fine! Just, no GMO's if you please! - Mugabe."
  9. Olorin is offline
    Olorin's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,055

    Posted On:
    11/03/2005 2:43am

    supporting memberhall of fame
     Style: Judo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by hedgehogey
    Given the COMMON (not dictionary) definition of racism being prejudice+the power to enforce it, in what context could a black person be racist? If you do not hold societal power, how do you enforce your prejudice?
    I do not agree with you use of terms. Racism is the belief that one “race” is superior to another. As far a common definition of racism, we do not know as each individual defines the term the way they want too. What you are using is the Reverend Jesse Jackson’s definition. He said that African Americans could not be racists, as they do not have the power to enforce their beliefs. I think that it is best to stick to dictionary terminology to avoid confusion, so that we can have this discussion on the same page, and avoid a postmodernist argument about language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Osiris
    However, the major European powers have clearly been down with that. Consider the scramble for Africa in which Europe conspired to enslave the continent. Consider the invasion of Cuba, which was in part to prevent the "Africanization" of the island….Every single Africa nation has been invaded by European powers, conspiring together….Conspiracy is not wild conjecture, but historical fact. The question is not whether or not there is a conspiracy, but whether or not it is still policy and whether or not its goals have been completed.
    I cannot agree with this either. Europe did not conspire the keep Africans down. The rush for empire in the 19th century had more to do with the internal struggle for continental dominance that marked late 19th century Europe. European powers invaded African territory as a way of keeping up with their rivals. Even if a piece of land was not worth anything to them, they took it so that another nation could not have it. They did the same thing in Asia.

    Therefore European nations did not conspire together, they were in a competition with each other. This competition for empire was a major factor in creating the secret alliances that lead to World War I. When Kiser Wilhelm II said that Germany deserved its “place in the sun,” he was referring to empire.

    The invasion of Cuba by the United States in the Spanish American War (1898) was not he result of racism. First, most Americans at the time did not even realize that the majority of Cubans were of African decent. Yellow Journalism stoked the fires of this war and convinced the government to get involved in what was an internal affair of the Spanish Empire. It was not about race it was about William Randolph Hurst’s, and other Yellow Journalist’s desire to sell papers through sensationalism. This is why the United States became involved in Cuba.

    Quote Originally Posted by Osiris
    How did blacks become an enslaved class in the United States? They didn't come here as slaves. It was through the legal system. The precedent for slavery was set when a black indentured fled and was captured. He was sentenced to a life of servitude on account of his blackness.
    They came here as nineteen indentured servants to Jamestown Virginia in 1619. For a while the mostly European system of indentured servitude worked economically for the colony of Virginia. After Bacons Rebellion in 1676, the government of Virginia decided that indentured servitude was a major cause of the uprising. Therefore, over many years colonial governments replaced indentured servitude with African slavery. Racism, as I have defined it, was not linked to slavery until well after the American Revolution. Only in the 19th century did white slave owners begin to consider Africans inherently inferior and therefore destined for slavery. Before the abolitionist movement, most people considered slavery a very natural thing, which had existed since the dawn of time, and was common in the Bible. Europeans did not invent slavery, nor did they enslave Africans, they purchased Africans who were already enslaved, and transported them to the New World. Slavery did not arise out of racial hatred of Africans it came from the economic need of the sugar islands in the Caribbean and the tobacco plantations of the south. It only took on the mantel of racism later.
    Last edited by Olorin; 11/03/2005 2:55am at .
  10. katana is offline

    Capitalist Pig

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,368

    Posted On:
    11/03/2005 3:32am

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ, no-gi, boxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by TheManchu
    Which will be irrelevant, since the entitlement structure should reflect the relative populations of different groups. You know, x% mexican, x%black, etc. As that makeup changes, so should the entitlements. What you have proposed is an argument for an improvement in the system of entitlements, not the abandonment of it.
    Entitlements build resentment after a certain point. You can't keep punishing people by favoring somebody else forever and not expect to get backlash. It cuts both ways.

    Now you're arguing mob rules as opposed to what needs to be done.
    No I'm arguing to let the market take its course because when you stop giving people things for free they appreciate it more and respect the value of the effort used to achieve their goals.

    First, unless we enslave another race for three hundred years, we will never need to undergo the extent of entitlement as has become necessary now, as long as we finish what we started. Second, you already argued for the improvement of the entitlement structure, such improvement would necessarily include matching quotas to the population percentages of different groups. Third, if a company cannot find the percentage of qualified individuals to fill the necessary quotas, then obviously something is happening in the culture to prevent individuals of all races to achieve, which means affirmative action is all the more necessary.
    I have in no way argued for improving the entitlement structure. I think it should be 100% eliminated immediately. We've had 40 years since the passage of the Civil Rights Act. That's two generations of blacks receiving extensive entitlements and pandering and the situation has gotten worse. Inner city schools are in shambles. Teenage mother births have increased and single mother households with children from multiple fathers are common. Gang violence is pervasive and accepted. The entitlement scheme has had 40 years to work and it has worked in some areas but failed miserably in many others. It's time to acknowledge that it has served its purpose and we should seek out other alternatives.

    Since nothing in your argument answers the need to recognize that people hire within their own race and have been demonstrated to do so often, your entire idea on what needs to be done is like a well meaning program for racial dominance by whoever is at the top.
    You have no idea what it means to run a business. As a business owner my first and foremost goal is to make money so I can feed myself and my employees. If I have to hire a Nigerian-Chinese-Korean-German-African-American to do that then I will and I'm not alone in this sentiment.

    Secondly, quotas build resentments in your workforce. I'm not talking about petty office party arguments. I'm talking your good people quitting type problems. It's obvious you haven't been exposed to this situation because you so blindly accept that quotas still work.

    So let's lay out some situations for you that I've seen personally and heard from other business associates who actually run real companies and don't simply sit around reading liberal politcal philosophy from the intelligentsia all day.

    You run a company and your quota says you need to hire people from a particular race. You do so. Now your quota also says you need to have X% of your managment force be from this race too. So you promote some people, they may not be qualified, but hey we're one big happy family right? And everyone should be treated fairly even if they aren't qualified. So what happens in the office:

    - In The Manchu's world people sit back and say: "Wow that's great that this person was promoted to a manager over me and got a big raise. I know they're not qualified and in fact always do bad work, but his ancestors were enslaved nearly 150 years ago so that's good enough for me!"

    - In the real world your employees get pissed off and your good employees get really really REALLY pissed off because they were passed over because of race. In the real world they don't give a **** about your quotas. What they now do is polish up their resume and begin sending it out looking for a new job because they think this type of promotion will keep happening (and they may be right). Now you start to lose good employees so you can promote the unqualified ones.

    Second scenario:

    - In The Manchu's world you go and hire some unqualified people because you have a quota to meet. These people do lousy work and nobody wants to work with them. You don't fire them though because you're a nice guy and heck, they are filling your quota and quotas are great.

    - In the real world these unqualified employees force my other workers to do extra work. Perhaps they screw up some projects so bad you need to pay people to do it over. Or perhaps the projects never meet any deadlines at all. Your good people see the flaming incompetence and begin to quit but don't worry because the unqualified people start hiring in some of their other unqualified friends too. Now you have an entire department of people unqualified to do the work and are costing your a fortune in lost business and payroll. Even worse, if you confront these workers about their incompetence they threaten you with EEOC complaints or discrimination lawsuits for unlawful termination.

    Do you see where I'm going with this? It's one thing for someone who has never run a company to go around and tell people who they should and should not hire and it's another thing entirely when YOU'RE THE ONE PAYING THE BILLS and need to operate a tight ship with competent people to succeed.

    Personally I don't think anyone should be telling business owner's how to hire employees until they've run a business themself and gone through the aggravation of seeing bad hires wreck a working team.

    I don't care what race you are when you work for me. You either do the work competently or you leave. I don't have time messing around and training people to do their jobs and my employees don't have the time either. I've fired more white guys than I have any other minority by the way.

    You mean like the ideals embraced in Zora Neal Hurston's stories?
    I mean ideals carried on by every white trash redneck and two-bit ghetto rapper: Using violence to solve disputes, no motivation to get educated, not taking responsibility for your children and blaming other people for your problems.

    I'm not the only one saying this. Here is a recent column by Walter Williams who has been beating this drum for years in the black community:

    http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...26/172901.html

    "In 1960, only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent. If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. The weakening of the black family structure, and its devastating consequences, have nothing to do with the history of slavery or racial discrimination."

    I'm sorry, but the development of a criminal underworld marks the rise of every ethnic group in the US, from the Germans to the Italians to the poles to the Irish. There is so much more to black America than that, and it is not entitlements that gangs thrive on, but desire, just like the mafia.
    Most gang violence could be stopped immediately if we stopped the War on Drugs and legalized, taxed, and regulated all narcotics in this country.

    This is an example of one of the alternatives to entitlements that I have in mind. Another would be the extensive use of school vouchers to allow parents to remove their kids from poorly run inner-city schools and put them in a private school that expects results. This idea is heavily endorsed by the Republicans and not by Democrats BTW.

    I have already established that there is no one alive who is not influenced by the cycle of slavery to Jim Crow laws to segregation to white flight, it has benefitted white America and harmed black America, today mostly by a legacy of educational abuse that was purposeful and occured well after the Civil Rights Acts of the sixties. To counter this requires not a rollback of the laws that began to end it, but a reaffirming of them with even more seriousness.
    Look around you. The social policies of black entitlement is a failure. The problem is being made worse each passing year. It's time to explore other options.

    To see the result of such thinking, look at the eras between the end of slavery and the birth of Jim Crow laws, and then the era between the end of Jim Crow laws and the birth of segregation. These tyrannys don't simply end, and anyone who believes that is being naive: and since you clearly do not believe in entitlements at all, since they are almost the sole mechanism for undoing segregation, then I am curious what and how you think segregation ended, and if you truly understand what segregation was.
    I'm going to recommend a book for you that I hope you'll find some time to read. It challenges many of the commonly held beliefs about slavery, black education, and the origins of white Southern culture that has such a huge negative influence over black culture today:

    Title: Black Rednecks and White LIberals
    Author: Thomas Sowell

    http://www.tsowell.com/

    Now he is a black economist and says some really nasty things about the do-gooders of the world who are really hurting blacks in America. His other books on race relations and the damage of Affirmative Action are also excellent. He makes a very strong and historically supportable case but perhaps you can mail him some Oreos and ignore it all.


    Aside from all that, I'd say more quotas, not less, are necessary. For instance, political parties and their representatives should be denied federal funding for elections if the party does not fulfill racial quotas. Corporate management within the states should be required to be made up in such a way as well. If, in a whole race, the right person cannot be found, then the overall American culture must be at fault.
    Perhaps you missed the thread about a year ago when I relayed my experience of being denied a job at two different police departments many years ago because I was white. Whenever I see a black officer in those departments my first thought is "He was hired because he's black, not because he's qualified." This may or may not be accurate but you can't prove otherwise because this was (and still is??) an accepted practice in the departments and I think it's rather sad.

    Now let me ask you something. Do you think those officers who were hired would want to know that they were hired because they are black or because they are qualified? Which answer do you think would make them feel better about themselves? That is the problem with quotas. Quotas force the competent and incompetent into the same mix. It removes the value of hard work and education and replaces it with the soothing ideals of laziness and mediocrity.
    Last edited by katana; 11/03/2005 4:45am at .
Page 12 of 20 FirstFirst ... 289101112 13141516 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.