Bush's Comments on racial quotas

subtilis · Jan 22, 2003

lovedoc,

that was one of the most useless posts ever. i mean really useless. granted there was some misunderstanding, but it didn't need that kind of response. you are wasting all of our time.

garibaldo,

throughout your posts you seem to indicate that a lack of resources for predominantly URM primary and secondary schools is at the heart of this problem. you've come up with a bunch of different ways in which this could have been accomplished. you then go on to implicate the complete ineptitude of "democrats and blacks" for failing to get such measures passed. i'd like to point out that the "democrats and blacks" who have been in favor of such measures have rarely had the kind of political clout that is necessary to get such legislation through. clearly, there is strong opposition to such proposals and it makes things more difficult than simply brainstorming an idea.

you also contend that people don't prefer people who look similar to themselves and i'm pretty sure that every psych study on the planet done on the subject disagrees with you, even with regard to the most tolerant of people. where's your evidence?

anyway, so i was wondering if you think that signficant inequality of races in professional careers is something less than desired? if you don't think that's the case, then that's a simple bottom line, a respectable personal preference, and we don't have to waste any more of our time discussing things. if you do think that there's something wrong with significant inequality, i'm wondering what you think should be done about it...clearly, public school reform is the key to future generations but what should we do for the current geneartion of potentially up-and-coming professionals?

like i've said before i think that aa is a good basis for the solution. now i think that perhaps the boost for a particular race should be less than that for someone who comes from a tough socioeconomic background, and both should be significantly less than say a 1600 on the SAT. but i think that as long as you don't accept people who can't do the work then there's no problem. i mean, assuming the mcat and gpa indicate that a person can do the work, then from the perspective of a medical school, what's the harm in taking race into account to try to work toward remedying inequalities in medicine (please see the iom's Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care ), any more than taking into account the place where a person was born/raised?

-subtilis

LoveDoc · Jan 22, 2003

MANY LOSERS/1 POST

+pissed+

Garibaldo · Jan 22, 2003

Originally posted by subtilis
lovedoc,

that was one of the most useless posts ever. i mean really useless. granted there was some misunderstanding, but it didn't need that kind of response. you are wasting all of our time.

garibaldo,

throughout your posts you seem to indicate that a lack of resources for predominantly URM primary and secondary schools is at the heart of this problem. you've come up with a bunch of different ways in which this could have been accomplished. you then go on to implicate the complete ineptitude of "democrats and blacks" for failing to get such measures passed. i'd like to point out that the "democrats and blacks" who have been in favor of such measures have rarely had the kind of political clout that is necessary to get such legislation through. clearly, there is strong opposition to such proposals and it makes things more difficult than simply brainstorming an idea.

I disagree. Remember, the Democrats have had control of the Senate for the last several years and Clinton was in power. It's common knowledge that the black caucus within congress has quite a bit of influence when they want to. Also, wasn't Clinton known as the "first black president"? There's a reason for that. With the Democrats in control, the influence of this caucus and Clinton in power, a lot more could have been done.

you also contend that people don't prefer people who look similar to themselves and i'm pretty sure that every psych study on the planet done on the subject disagrees with you, even with regard to the most tolerant of people. where's your evidence?

My main evidence would be admission rates in California after prop 209. The admissions of blacks dropped when the law required race to be taken out of the equation. Doesn't this imply that the admission committee had previously favored certain races despite the fact that they didn't have to (since quotas are illegal)? Why would they do that if their tendency is to reject these races based on their differences? Similarly, with the UMich case, why does a primarily white admissions committee go on TV and vociferously defend their policy on the basis that they feel that minorities add a key element to the mix? When you say "people", who are you referring to? My problem with this is the implication that it refers to most people in society, which I don't believe is true. People may prefer people who look similar if you break it down on a very primitive level, but I don't see that reflected necessarily in society where people can control those urges with a rational mind. I'd prefer to have sex with every hot chick that passes my path, but I resist Surely, you can see that the vast majority of us have friends of many different races. This instinct can been trained quite easily. Perhaps you can present the study and we can critique it. Let me just say that I think that RACISM IS SOMETHING THAT IS LEARNED AND NOT INNATE. It's a manipulation of these primal fears by groups that mistakenly believe one race must be set against another for it to survive.

anyway, so i was wondering if you think that signficant inequality of races in professional careers is something less than desired? if you don't think that's the case, then that's a simple bottom line, a respectable personal preference, and we don't have to waste any more of our time discussing things. if you do think that there's something wrong with significant inequality, i'm wondering what you think should be done about it...clearly, public school reform is the key to future generations but what should we do for the current geneartion of potentially up-and-coming professionals?

Well, I was recently listening to Ben Carson on the Charlie Rose show:
http://www.neuro.jhmi.edu/profiles/carson.html
He had several interesting ideas (excuse me if I seem like I'm ripping him off). He suggested that we need to shift the focus in society away from celebrities (mainly sports stars) and towards academics (scientists, engineers, writers, philosophers, etc). We also need to see that reflected in a change in the amount of scholarships we see available for sports and how much we see available for straight A students. In the interview, he also mentioned the effect it would have to show black students the multitudes of inventions blacks have created and their importance in society. He went off listing a lot inventions and the black inventor tied with those inventions. He said if we open their eyes to the potential of other blacks who lived under even more oppressed condition, it would be inspiring.

I did a google search and found some of his comments here:
http://www.black-collegian.com/issues/2ndsem00/carson2000-2nd.shtml
(The Charlie Rose interview was better, but this will do)

I think it's basically a matter of shifting the focus of the media and the classroom (to some extent), reorganizing funding from sports to academics and setting the bar much much higher to the point where it seems unreasonable. This is in addition to the several points I mentioned before. Also, I think there is too much cultural emphasis on the importance of government and black politicians as the ONLY way to make progress as opposed to grass roots efforts. I seriously doubt Jackson, Sharpton, etc are going to lead the black community to equality. They just promote the idea that the black community is helpless to the racism and inequality in society rather than making the best of what is there.

like i've said before i think that aa is a good basis for the solution. now i think that perhaps the boost for a particular race should be less than that for someone who comes from a tough socioeconomic background, and both should be significantly less than say a 1600 on the SAT. but i think that as long as you don't accept people who can't do the work then there's no problem. i mean, assuming the mcat and gpa indicate that a person can do the work, then from the perspective of a medical school, what's the harm in taking race into account to try to work toward remedying inequalities in medicine (please see the iom's Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care ), any more than taking into account the place where a person was born/raised?

It depends on how much emphasis you plan to give to race. Most graduate schools already give points (or whatever) for a disadvantaged background. So, given what DAL has said about the multitude of ways in which diversity can come into medicine, I don't see why MORE points need to be given for race on top of a disadvantaged status.

Garibaldo · Jan 22, 2003

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/july-dec99/carson_9-7.html

Here's another link to an interview Dr. Ben Carson did with PBS. Notice his history and what he describes as a victim mentality.

pathdr2b · Jan 22, 2003

Originally posted by Garibaldo
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/july-dec99/carson_9-7.html

Here's another link to an interview Dr. Ben Carson did with PBS. Notice his history and what he describes as a victim mentality.

Question: How many black men grow up under the conditions (ghetto) like Dr.Carson to become a doctor?

According to AMCAS, only about 10% of black doctors come from homes with incomes of <20,000K/year. Dr. Carson's achievements, while commendable, are an outlier to the experience of most people from disdavantaged backgrounds. Perhaps you should use someone else to illustrate your points.

Garibaldo · Jan 22, 2003

Wow, it's stunning how you completely missed my point, pathdr2b. Perhaps this discussion is pointless because it seems that people have taken their sides and refuse to recognize the points others are making. If you actually read the links I posted, you'd see that he's unique because of his upbringing and his attitude, not because he was lucky. How did you completely glaze over that point?

Also, you haven't addressed any of the changes I've suggested. You've only made a three sentence arguement that sounds very reactionary. I think it was obvious to everyone and thier dog that he was exceptional and I made it quite clear that he was. It's funny that you think of successful people who beat the odds as inconsequential. Perhaps because they often serve as a good counter-arguement to AA. I, on the other hand, see a perfect opportunity to study the means by which blacks can overcome their plight. Perhaps Ben and I are the only ones who agree with my point. I'm sorry you couldn't see that.

pathdr2b · Jan 22, 2003

Originally posted by Garibaldo
Wow, it's stunning how you completely missed my point, pathdr2b. Perhaps this discussion is pointless because it seems that people have taken their sides and refuse to recognize the points others are making. If you actually read the links I posted, you'd see that he's unique because of his upbringing and his attitude, not because he was lucky. How did you completely glaze over that point?

I didn't glaze over your points, Dr,Carson is the exception not the rule a point YOU fail to address.

Originally posted by Garibaldo

Also, you haven't addressed any of the changes I've suggested. You've only made a three sentence arguement that sounds very reactionary. I think it was obvious to everyone and thier dog that he was exceptional and I made it quite clear that he was.

The fact is that people exceptional at the level of Dr.Carson are rare in the projects and in the suburbs.

Originally posted by Garibaldo
It's funny that you think of successful people who beat the odds as inconsequential. Perhaps because they often serve as a good counter-arguement to AA. I, on the other hand, see a perfect opportunity to study the means by which blacks can overcome their plight. Perhaps Ben and I are the only ones who agree with my point. I'm sorry you couldn't see that.

I obiviously missed the point where I said people who beat the odds are inconsequential. I agree with Lovedoc's comment, you're going to have some issues in the verbal section of the MCAT.

And for the record, not only did I read the links, I've read ALL of his books and met him on 2 occasions too. Have you? And since you probably haven't met the man, how do you know he would agree with your point? Like Dr.Carson, I believe that hard work AND opportunity will get ANYONE far in life.

Opportunity, now there's a thought.........................................

subtilis · Jan 22, 2003

pathdr2b,

i believe garibaldo's right in asserting that he is against affirmative action and is instead for "compassionate action" (socioeconomic-based aa)...at least based on what he said in those interviews.

garibaldo,

regarding political control, while its true that there was time in the 90s when the democrats had the executive branch and the senate, they still lacked the house. while the senate and presidency can be used to generate a lot of pressure, the house is still a limiting factor and strong opposition to something as sweeping as "better public schools for URMs" would be a little difficult to get through. but that's beside the point because such sweeping education reform is really the domain of the states, not the federal government, as provided for by the constitution.

in terms of prop 209, i look at the data you provide and come up with the exact opposite conclusions. i see affirmative action, particularly in the early 70s as having had a critical role in creating this sort of sweeping pro-diversity mentality. the subsequent decrease in URM enrollment was then mostly a reflection of disparities in merit, but perhaps also has to due with the in-group bias theory that i mentioned earlier. numerous studies have supported this theory for example the park and rothbart study from 1982 among different sororities or sherif's robbers cave study...i could give the details of any of numerous studies but i think that a persual of a variety of different social psych textbooks would be more persuasive. while this bias likely played a very small role in the changing racial make-up of california schools, i think that without the previous pervasive aa mentality, the bias would have meant many fewer blacks in higher education in california (regardless of merit). ...while most of my friends are not of my race, and while you seem to have many friends who are not of your race, i don't know think that that is the norm in American society.

so i think aa was important in helping minorities (regardless of their particular merits) to get their feet in the door. the prez. of u mich. details this to some extent in a piece he wrote in 2001:
http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporter/april01/view.htm
my main point is that aa has had value, and while ben carson is an incredibly intelligent guy i think that aa was a reasonable way to fight the embedded mentality of racism after the civil rights legislation of the late 60s (and helped create a culture where carson's merits would be valued). but, indeed, purely race based aa has had its peak, it should be on its way out within the next generation or so, but i don't think that the switch should just be flicked off without a waning period. i want medicine to get better in america, and i think that unfortunately, in today's america, a fundamental part of improving that has to do purely with the racial make-up of a hospital staff.

-subtilis

care bear · Jan 22, 2003

Perhaps Ben and I are the only ones who agree with my point. I'm sorry you couldn't see that. [/B]

'Ben' and you??

--If all else fails, they resort to the arguement that blacks have gone through centuries of oppression and this is simply payback.---

i don't think its a 'last resort' argument at all. i think it's central. and many of these discussions-from both sides- miss that point.
the american gov't perpetuated discrimination of the utmost cruelty until our parents were children and teens. now, the american gov't realizes that it created a debt it must seek to rectify.

Garibaldo · Jan 23, 2003

Originally posted by pathdr2b
I didn't glaze over your points, Dr,Carson is the exception not the rule a point YOU fail to address.

I didn't fail to address it. I addressed it and said that we can learn why he is the exception to the rule.

The fact is that people exceptional at the level of Dr.Carson are rare in the projects and in the suburbs.

Why are you making this point again? I explained in my last post that he was an exception and the reason for his success was not an abudance of opportunity, a high socioeconomic status, lack of racism, etc. So, he would make a good case study. Try addressing the alternatives I gave to AA.

I obiviously missed the point where I said people who beat the odds are inconsequential. I agree with Lovedoc's comment, you're going to have some issues in the verbal section of the MCAT.

You said:
Dr. Carson's achievements, while commendable, are an outlier to the experience of most people from disdavantaged backgrounds. Perhaps you should use someone else to illustrate your points.

This suggests that his experience has no bearing on this arguement. I'm saying that since his starting point is worse off than the average black youth and his end point is much better, his experience is at the heart of this discussion.

And for the record, not only did I read the links, I've read ALL of his books and met him on 2 occasions too. Have you? And since you probably haven't met the man, how do you know he would agree with your point? Like Dr.Carson, I believe that hard work AND opportunity will get ANYONE far in life.

This is hilarious. I guess what he said in the interviews I've listened to is a moot point since you were physically in his presence, right? Good arguement. What special opportunities was Dr. Carson given early in life that make him unique?

Also, note that he was raised in a time when the racism blacks experienced was much worse than it is now.

Subtilis, thanks for being civil in this debate (unlike others). There was a study conducted at UCSB recently that looked at this issue. See the link below:
http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/pitts21_20011221.htm

I see the continued use of AA policies in the UC system (as a case study) as a positive point. There is no quota of black students that must be admitted, so why would an inherently biased admissions committee favor blacks if they didn't have to?

Also, can you list some of the measures that the Democrats passed during the late 90s to help blacks that were rejected by the House?

LoveDoc · Jan 23, 2003

Originally posted by pathdr2b
Question: How many black men grow up under the conditions (ghetto) like Dr.Carson to become a doctor?

According to AMCAS, only about 10% of black doctors come from homes with incomes of <20,000K/year. Dr. Carson's achievements, while commendable, are an outlier to the experience of most people from disdavantaged backgrounds. Perhaps you should use someone else to illustrate your points.

Path,

You brought back a memory of mine that I thought I would share. I knew a guy that was a convicted felon (fraud, bad checks, etc) and he looked at me one day and told me, "I could be a doctor if I wanted to. Any person in my family could." I deep down inside really believe that he did not have it in him to pursue that route. His brother is also in prison.

My point is that the "potential" to be a doctor is not enough. A person needs willpower, money, educational support, moral values, etc. I don't necessarily think he was a victim of society but the choices he made in life has destroyed his efforts to ever be somebody - he is an arrogant womanizing loser. Oh, and he had no idea who his biological father is and when he buys 'hot' electronics from people his mother buys it from him - go figure--- so that may have had an impact too.

LoveDoc · Jan 23, 2003

Originally posted by alphabeta53
Diversity comes from taking people from different socio-economic levels as opposed to people from different races.

You couldn't be more wrong. Webster states:

One entry found for diverse.

Main Entry: di?verse
Pronunciation: dI-'v&rs, d&-', 'dI-"
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English divers, diverse, from Old French & Latin; Old French divers, from Latin diversus, from past participle of divertere
Date: 14th century
1 : differing from one another : UNLIKE
2 : composed of distinct or unlike elements or qualities

pathdr2b · Jan 23, 2003

Originally posted by LoveDoc

My point is that the "potential" to be a doctor is not enough. A person needs willpower, money, educational support, moral values, etc.

I agree 1000%

DAL · Jan 23, 2003

Originally posted by LoveDoc
You couldn't be more wrong. Webster states:

One entry found for diverse.

Main Entry: di?verse
Pronunciation: dI-'v&rs, d&-', 'dI-"
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English divers, diverse, from Old French & Latin; Old French divers, from Latin diversus, from past participle of divertere
Date: 14th century
1 : differing from one another : UNLIKE
2 : composed of distinct or unlike elements or qualities

Your definition perfectly defines people who are from different SE backgrounds as well as people of different race and people who differ in thousands of other ways. If you believe diversity only constitutes people of different color then you're saying all whites are the same, all blacks are the same, etc.

pathdr2b · Jan 23, 2003

Originally posted by Garibaldo
[What special opportunities was Dr. Carson given early in life that make him unique?

Also, note that he was raised in a time when the racism blacks experienced was much worse than it is now.
[/B]

The "special opportunity" that Dr.Carson had was a parent that while poor and uneducated, was interested in his future and encouraged him to do better. Do you really think ALL parents are like that or have you never heard of thge terms child abuse and neglect?

Also, who says racism is better now than it was then? Are you a member of a group that in this country has expereinced racism? Or, are you assuming that it must be "all good" because MTV had a show called "Yo, MTV Raps?

DAL · Jan 23, 2003

Originally posted by LoveDoc
My point is that the "potential" to be a doctor is not enough. A person needs willpower, money, educational support, moral values, etc.

I agree that it takes willpower, educational support, moral values, and many other factors. But I don't think becoming a doctor requires money. I don't have a dime, never have, but I still believe becoming a physician is within my reach.

LoveDoc · Jan 23, 2003

Originally posted by DAL
Your definition perfectly defines people who are from different SE backgrounds as well as people of different race and people who differ in thousands of other ways.

I believe you understood the definition. Case closed.

LoveDoc · Jan 23, 2003

Originally posted by DAL
I agree that it takes willpower, educational support, moral values, and many other factors. But I don't think becoming a doctor requires money. I don't have a dime, never have, but I still believe becoming a physician is within my reach.

Well when I tried professional school in 1996, I had no money. Now I make a considerable salary and have a job that pays for all my classes and I paid for my TPR class with my money. Less stress - higher scores...money sure makes things easier.

The application process isn't cheap either.

Garibaldo · Jan 23, 2003

Originally posted by pathdr2b
The "special opportunity" that Dr.Carson had was a parent that while poor and uneducated, was interested in his future and encouraged him to do better. Do you really think ALL parents are like that or have you never heard of thge terms child abuse and neglect?

Also, who says racism is better now than it was then? Are you a member of a group that in this country has expereinced racism? Or, are you assuming that it must be "all good" because MTV had a show called "Yo, MTV Raps?

His mother was not "special" in the sense that she had any opportunities that others were denied. She just made the best of what she had. Why can't you see the link here? Parents have an option to lament their situation and become a victim, which passes on to their children, or reject that mentality as his mother did. That's the solution. Cut out all of this victimization because you're enculturating blacks to become victims and most of society doesn't want to play along anymore (as evidenced by the huge opposition to AA). Victims don't take control of their future, they hand over control to politicians and leaders who don't really give a rat's ass about them.

I'm not even going to answer your second question because it's so stupid and acts as a perfect example of the "victim mentality". You refuse to recognize the opportunities in front of you, the gains you've made, etc etc. I guess MLK and all those civil rights activists of the 20th century didn't improve racism at all, eh? Go ahead and believe this.

pathdr2b · Jan 23, 2003

Originally posted by Garibaldo
I'm not even going to answer your second question because it's so stupid and acts as a perfect example of the "victim mentality". You refuse to recognize the opportunities in front of you, the gains you've made, etc etc. I guess MLK and all those civil rights activists of the 20th century didn't improve racism at all, eh? Go ahead and believe this.

Does this mean you DIDN"T like "Yo, MTV raps"? :laugh:

I agree to disagree with what ever the hell it is you're trying to say

subtilis · Jan 23, 2003

garibaldo,

that was an interesting study you posted. although i don't think it's completely conclusive. i suppose neither were the studies that i mentioned to you. i guess i just think that there are many pressures in this society to push people of the same race toward each other: there are lots of examples in the media, for example, it's taken me years to finally find an interracial couple in an advertisement. to what extent this has had an effect is debatable, i just doubt that it is completely insignificant. anyway, so i think the admissions committee favored blacks because nationally it had become the nice-benevolent-pc thing to do, and i attribute that mostly to aa being entrenched in america for as long as it had been.

in terms of measures rejected by the house i don't know of any specifically and i wouldn't think there would be. first of all, political leaders have a finite amount of energy and resources to dedicate to any measure and i'm guessing they knew it had no shot in hell so they focused on things with a better chance like universal health coverage...and second, like i said before, i think that the redistribution of resources for education is really the domain of the states so the kind of legislation we're discussing would likely be unconstitutional.

i guess we're getting to an agree to disagree point (and i'll try to do so more respectfully than one previous poster), and i really do understand and see value in a lot of the arguments that you've made. i think we can both agree, though, it's clear that change is necessary, but it's gonna be hard to figure out what and how...

-subtilis

MacGyver · Jan 23, 2003

Originally posted by cbpremed
I agree with sarah_viola, and would like to remind everyone that it is very easy to debate the AA in a hypothetical since, because many of you don't have to actually experience racism on a daily basis. I know people are going to try and pull the argument that once they were treated bad in a minority neighborhood etc., but many of you don't know how it is to be conscious of your color constantly. I have already been treated differently during med school interviews by many other applicants who assumed I had lower stats and/or looked at me or questioned me about how I got there. Many of you need to open your eyes and realize that at the MOST there are about 5-10% African American students in each med school class....if that, so if anything it's they are not the ones stealing your seats because of lower performance, but other majority students...which sometimes do have lower stats and do get accepted. I said I wasn't going to get into this debate, but I had to share my opinion, because I am tired of anti-URM, racist posting on SDN.

Oh thats just brilliant. Basically you want to establish a framework whereby anything whites ever say about AA that is not supportive is de facto racist.

LoveDoc · Jan 23, 2003

Did anyone watch the Town Meeting in Jasper, TX hosted by Ted Koppel on PBS Thursday night?

Two comments were made that may enlighten this dying thread:

a) To be born white in America is to be born with an innate advantage.

b) White people have never said "I'm sorry" for the injustices imposed on Black people in the past.

Not only are we not receiving apologies, but today in 2003 President Bush is wiping away the slight advantage URMs ever had to right the past and present wrongs.

Seems like Ms. White is winning the card game after all.

MacGyver · Jan 23, 2003

Originally posted by LoveDoc
I do not agree with his decision because it is apprarent he is making decisions for a society which he has and never will understand.

Oh but let me guess you are totally in touch with society huh? I bet he understands a larger part of the population than you do, considering that you can only relate to the 12% of the US population which is black. After all, this is a "black thing you wouldnt understand" right?

Perhaps his words would be more understood if I *saw* examples of him trying to see how the 'other side' lives and then use that insight to color his decisions.

Because obviously you know so much about the "other side" right? What you really meant to say was if he totally supported the african american agenda you would support him. Why the hell should he do that, it would only give him 12% of the vote anyways. I doubt bush got a single black vote in the 2000 election, so why should he give a damn what the "other side" thinks?

Garibaldo · Jan 23, 2003

Subtilis, I think that it's a poor excuse from the Democrats that the legislation might not pass. The black caucus has a responsibility to their community to address these issues no matter what their party is focusing on or what their chances of winning might be. I agree that we should agree to disagree.

Originally posted by LoveDoc
Did anyone watch the Town Meeting in Jasper, TX hosted by Ted Koppel on PBS Thursday night?

Two comments were made that may enlighten this dying thread:

a) To be born white in America is to be born with an innate advantage.

b) White people have never said "I'm sorry" for the injustices imposed on Black people in the past.

Not only are we not receiving apologies, but today in 2003 President Bush is wiping away the slight advantage URMs ever head to right the past and present wrongs.

Seems like Ms. White is winning the card game after all.

I just finished watching the townhouse meeting and I find it strange that those were the two things that you came away with. Don't you find it strange that you took the two most negative comments from the same speaker (the black reverend on the left side) rather than drawing from the dozens of different speakers who were there?

Point A is what we've been debating. Point B is a mistake.

Let me quote Robert Tracinski:

"An apology for slavery on behalf of the nation presumes that whites today, who predominantly oppose racism, and never owned slaves, and who bear no personal responsibility for slavery, still bear a collective responsibility. It's a guilt they bear simply by belonging to the same race as the slave-holders of the Old South. Such an apology promotes the very idea at the root of slavery: racial collectivism.
Those who owned slaves were certainly guilty of a grave injustice. But by what standard can other whites (many of whom are not even descendants of the slave-holders) be held responsible for their ideas and actions? By what standard can today?s Americans be obliged ? or even authorized ? to apologize on the slave-holders? behalf? The only justification for such an approach is the idea that each member of the race can be blamed for the actions of every other member, that we are all just interchangeable cells of the racial collective."

Let's not pretend that welfare and affirmative-action are not a symbolic apology from the nation. Also, don't forget the tens of thousands of Union soldiers who died fighting their brothers to free the slaves.

LoveDoc · Jan 23, 2003

oh you would be surprised. i work in a senior position in a fortune 500 company and work with 99.9% non-URMs. So believe I can relate. I know how to live in both worlds.

Bush received 9% of the black vote.

And lastly, do not patronize me with what you believe is slang, i am a professional and reject your words.

LoveDoc · Jan 23, 2003

Originally posted by Garibaldo
the two most negative comments from the same speaker (the black reverend on the left side) rather than drawing from the dozens of different speakers who were there?

funny you would call his comments negative and not that of the 'new black panther' or the woman that said 'black people have attitudes.

again...don't patronize me.

an apology is not needed. we will just continue to have a breakdown in communication, resentment, and some plain hatred between races....im sure you'd prefer that.

Garibaldo · Jan 24, 2003

Originally posted by LoveDoc
funny you would call his comments negative and not that of the 'new black panther' or the woman that said 'black people have attitudes.

again...don't patronize me.

an apology is not needed. we will just continue to have a breakdown in communication, resentment, and some plain hatred between races....im sure you'd prefer that.

Wow, you didn't read my post at all. Do you really think that a breakdown in communication, resentment, and some plain hatred stem from a lack of a "we're sorry" speech? Why do you conveniently ignore the tie between hatred and resentment and racism, economic division, and a lack of opportunities? By suggesting that an apology is an answer or even a start to addressing these problems, you've demonstrated your inability to comprehend the bigger picture or even to understand human behavior. If George W. Bush got up and said America is sorry, we'd have just as many problems (if not more) than we had before the speech.

Some people like you will never be able to open your mind to the ideas that I've presented. You've been trained to vociferously defend AA by repeating the same tired arguements and ignoring every valid counter-arguement. I suggested that an apology would cause a sense of racial collectivism, which would promote racism, and you did nothing to address that. Instead, you give the same negative sarcastic crap you've always given me. Half-arguements, sarcasm, hostility...I don't need it. Be gone.

SistaKaren · Jan 24, 2003

Originally posted by Garibaldo
Let's not pretend that welfare and affirmative-action are not a symbolic apology from the nation. Also, don't forget the tens of thousands of Union soldiers who died fighting their brothers to free the slaves. [/B]

Welfare???? In no way was the current welfare system in place to specifically help blacks. The current welfare system comes from the New Deal that FDR did to help revitalize the country after WWII. NOT to specifically help blacks. That is a gross misrepresentation. It was geared towards helping the poor.

And the Union wasn't fighting some great fight to free the slaves...they were fighting to rejoin the Union and the Confederacy. Freeing the slaves was a tactic to economically cripple the south.

youngjock · Jan 24, 2003

Bush, without his parents, he could never get into Yale! he is just not that smart.

if he wants people to ignore race for college admission, then he should first abolish the preference admission for rich people!

Garibaldo · Jan 24, 2003

Originally posted by SistaKaren
Welfare???? In no way was the current welfare system in place to specifically help blacks. The current welfare system comes from the New Deal that FDR did to help revitalize the country after WWII. NOT to specifically help blacks. That is a gross misrepresentation. It was geared towards helping the poor.

And the Union wasn't fighting some great fight to free the slaves...they were fighting to rejoin the Union and the Confederacy. Freeing the slaves was a tactic to economically cripple the south.

It doesn't matter what the intent of welfare was. The fact of the matter is that a large portion of the funding has gone to blacks in this country.

That was a nice bit of revisionist historical crap you just spew forth, Sista Karen. Did your liberal friends assure you that nobody died to free the slaves so you and other pro-AA supporters could claim that nobody has sacrificied in your name? The fact of the matter is that the Republican party under Lincoln ran on an anti-slavery platform. His victory in the election drew outrage from Southerners and was an impetus towards the war. Why do you think the war started in the first place? Many people who currently support the waiving of the confederate flag in the South will tell us that the civil war was a war over states' rights and not slavery. What rights were they fighting for? Specifically, the Southern states feared that the government would force them to abolish slavery. Lincoln only pretended that the war wasn't about ending slavery, which would have crippled the Southern economy, because he wanted to retain some of the loyal Southern states and preserve the union. Lincoln envisioned that the spread of slavery would be halted and that slavery could be abolished within the context of the union. He did not want the issue resolved over bloodshed so he couldn't completely free the slaves to please the abolitionists and he also couldn't turn his back on them either. However, when the war broke out, there was no question what the root of the war was.

Why do you think slavery didn't just continue in its former form in the South after the war if it wasn't about slavery? Why did Frederick Douglas and Harriet Tubman rally to the cause? Why did Lincoln pass the emancipation proclamation? Why were some black soldiers allowed to fight?

It's too bad you and the rest of the liberals have so much hatred of whites that you have to attack their motives and actions even in some of the prouder moments of history. How ironic that confederate flag waivers are making the same arguement you are with regards to the civil war. They also argue that the war was not about slavery. However, at least they'll often admit that slavery was the spark that started the war.

LoveDoc · Jan 25, 2003

Originally posted by Garibaldo
Wow, you didn't read my post at all. Do you really think that a breakdown in communication, resentment, and some plain hatred stem from a lack of a "we're sorry" speech? Why do you conveniently ignore the tie between hatred and resentment and racism, economic division, and a lack of opportunities? By suggesting that an apology is an answer or even a start to addressing these problems, you've demonstrated your inability to comprehend the bigger picture or even to understand human behavior. If George W. Bush got up and said America is sorry, we'd have just as many problems (if not more) than we had before the speech.

Some people like you will never be able to open your mind to the ideas that I've presented. You've been trained to vociferously defend AA by repeating the same tired arguements and ignoring every valid counter-arguement. I suggested that an apology would cause a sense of racial collectivism, which would promote racism, and you did nothing to address that. Instead, you give the same negative sarcastic crap you've always given me. Half-arguements, sarcasm, hostility...I don't need it. Be gone.

LoveDoc · Jan 25, 2003

Originally posted by SistaKaren
Welfare???? In no way was the current welfare system in place to specifically help blacks. The current welfare system comes from the New Deal that FDR did to help revitalize the country after WWII. NOT to specifically help blacks. That is a gross misrepresentation. It was geared towards helping the poor.

And the Union wasn't fighting some great fight to free the slaves...they were fighting to rejoin the Union and the Confederacy. Freeing the slaves was a tactic to economically cripple the south.

The fact that "G" boy even said welfare is an apology for slavery shows where his head is. SisKaren...I refuse to respond to another one of his posts. Mr Berkely/Harvard is definitely misinformed.

Garibaldo · Jan 25, 2003

Originally posted by LoveDoc
The fact that "G" boy even said welfare is an apology for slavery shows where his head is. SisKaren...I refuse to respond to another one of his posts. Mr Berkely/Harvard is definitely misinformed.

Do you promise?

Garibaldo · Jan 25, 2003

Originally posted by SistaKaren
Welfare???? In no way was the current welfare system in place to specifically help blacks. The current welfare system comes from the New Deal that FDR did to help revitalize the country after WWII. NOT to specifically help blacks. That is a gross misrepresentation. It was geared towards helping the poor.

And the Union wasn't fighting some great fight to free the slaves...they were fighting to rejoin the Union and the Confederacy. Freeing the slaves was a tactic to economically cripple the south.

The fact that "S" girl even said slavery had nothing to do with the civil war shows what kind of wackjob radical liberal influences she's had. God...I refuse to respect any opinion that comes out of her mouth. Mrs. wackjob ultra-liberal is definitely misinformed.

Biscuit · Jan 25, 2003

I can see it now.

Get rid of AA and only those who deserve to get into colleges or get that job they so richly deserve will. :clap:

Hell slavery ended a while back yeah some blacks were killed denied education but hell they are striving now!

Minorities period are doing well in the US just look at Colin Powell and Condelizza(sp?) Rice :clap:

Trent Lott was right, if Strom Thurman would have won the presidency, America would be a different place today.
Thank God George Bush is putting America where it should be. :clap:

He is working hard to overturn the Roe vs Wade decision,
turning America into the biggest terrorist cell on the planet, cutting back defense jobs and getting rid of AA. :clap:

Don't he make you proud?

Garibaldo · Jan 25, 2003

Originally posted by Biscuit
I can see it now.
Get rid of AA and only those who deserve to get into colleges or get that job they so richly deserve will.
Hell slavery ended a while back yeah some blacks were killed denied education but hell they are striving now!
Minorities period are doing well in the US just look at Colin Powell and Condelizza(sp?) Rice
Trent Lott was right, if Strom Thurman would have won the presidency, America would be a different place today.
Thank God George Bush is putting America where it should be.
He is working hard to overturn the Roe vs Wade decision,
turning America into the biggest terrorist cell on the planet, cutting back defense jobs and getting rid of AA.
Don't he make you proud?

Stupid liberals.

1. You haven't addressed any of the dozen or so arguements presented against AA policies. Sarcasm doesn't constitute an arguement. I know the liberal machine has taught you a series of one-line catch phrases, which you can spew out on the Yahoo chat boards, be we'd actually like to see something more than the typical ultra-leftist nonsense. How surprising that someone with a small brain would have to resort to an anti-AA=racist mentality. I guess the 27% of liberals that voted to ban AA in California are keeping in the tradition of Strom Thurmond. *****.
2. Bush will never overturn Roe vs. Wade because it would be a political disaster for him. Even liberal commentators on the news will agree to that (i.e. Bill Press, Alan Colmes, Crossfire liberals, etc). The only people who are pushing forward this lie are feminists, greenies, and democrats trying to get your vote. I'm glad your puppeting their propaganda. Maybe they'll send you a scooby snack! The only thing he'll be likely to ban is partial birth abortion, which is a disgusting practice only defended by the most barberic of people (read ultra-liberals).
3. America is the biggest terrorist nation? Why would you want to be part of a terrorist nation? Please go ahead and leave to one of the Middle-Eastern countries (Iran, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia would be glad to have you). I'm sure there is a big bag of pot waiting for you.

Again, I'm going to push for liberalism to be placed in the DSM-IV manual. This is good evidence for that.

mamie · Jan 25, 2003

Hey, the first person to guess how many times Garibaldini has said liberals, democrats, or the left in his myriad posts wins a box of Hostess Powdered Donettes.

pathdr2b · Jan 25, 2003

Originally posted by mamie
Hey, the first person to guess how many times Garibaldini has siad liberals, democrats, or the left in his myriad posts wins a box of Hostess Powdered Donettes.

Probably as many times as I've said 42T :laugh:

DAL · Jan 26, 2003

Originally posted by mamie
Hey, the first person to guess how many times Garibaldini has said liberals, democrats, or the left in his myriad posts wins a box of Hostess Powdered Donettes.

Keep your donuts. Yes, Garibaldo does cross the line at times but so has everyone else in these AA threads. I admire his passion and willingness to defend what he believes. I wish every American had such passion for our country.

mamie · Jan 26, 2003

Originally posted by DAL
Keep your donuts. Yes, Garibaldo does cross the line at times but so has everyone else in these AA threads. I admire his passion and willingness to defend what he believes. I wish every American had such passion for our country.

My word! I will keep by Powdered Donettes (not donuts), thank you very much. You would think people would be more receptive to some bakery fresh donettes.

Garibaldo · Jan 26, 2003

Thanks for the vote of confidence, DAL. I really get pissed off when someone suggests that we're a terrorist nation. Doesn't something feel wrong to you when your rhetoric is identical to Bin Laden's rhetoric, Biscuit?

SistaKaren · Jan 26, 2003

Originally posted by Garibaldo
The fact that "S" girl even said slavery had nothing to do with the civil war shows what kind of wackjob radical liberal influences she's had. God...I refuse to respect any opinion that comes out of her mouth. Mrs. wackjob ultra-liberal is definitely misinformed.

WHOA! When the hell did I say that? I'm actually pretty sad that you're not going to respect my opinions anymore, considering the amount of research I did to make sure that I wasn't crazy. Oh well! I'm going to defend my claims anyway.

I NEVER said that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War. I said that the Civil War wasn't fought with the express purpose to free the slaves. They are completely different thoughts, are they not?

Firstly, nothing you said in your earlier response to mine (before you decided to attack my character), really contradicts what I'm trying to say (except for one point, which I'll get to in a minute). I never denied that it was a cause. But I do deny that it was the main thrust of the war. I deny that the freedom of slaves is the main reason why Union Soldiers left their families to fight.

You say:

Lincoln only pretended that the war wasn't about ending slavery, which would have crippled the Southern economy, because he wanted to retain some of the loyal Southern states and preserve the union. Lincoln envisioned that the spread of slavery would be halted and that slavery could be abolished within the context of the union.

The point about perserving the loyalty of the remaining slave states is true. But I don't see how it can be denied that his main goal wasn't reunifying the Union, as Hine says in "An African-American Odyssey" (i know you're going to have a field day with that source!), "Lincoln's unwavering objective was to preserve the Union. Any policies that helped or hindered black people were subordinate to that goal."

Here is a quote made by former Confederate General about what he perceived to be the thrust of the war (found here: http://www.civilwarhome.com/gordoncauses.htm):

[i} Slavery was undoubtedly the immediate fomenting cause of the woeful American conflict. It was the great political factor around which the passions of the sections had long been gathered--the tallest pine in the political forest around whose top the fiercest lightnings were to blaze and whose trunk was destined to be shivered in the earthquake shocks of war. But slavery was far from being the sole cause of the prolonged conflict. Neither its destruction on the one hand, nor its defence on the other, was the energizing force that held the contending armies to four years of bloody work. I apprehend that if all living Union soldiers were summoned to the witness stand, every one of them would testify that it was the preservation of the American Union and not the destruction of Southern slavery that induced him to volunteer at the call of his country. As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union. [/i]

Furthermore, the North's stance (which can be challenged, I suppose, on the grounds that this guy was a confederate general):

The North, on the other hand, maintained with the utmost confidence in the correctness of her position that the Union formed under the Constitution was intended to be perpetual; that sovereignty was a unit and could not be divided; that whether or not there was any express power granted in the Constitution for invading a State, the right of self-preservation was inherent in all governments; that the life of the Union was essential to the life of liberty; or, in the words of Webster, "liberty and union are one and inseparable."

Now that we've talked about the causes of the war, I'll move on to the Emancipation Proclamation, which did have the effect of making freeing the slaves a central thrust in the war as well. And though Lincoln had considered freeing the slaves before he became president, emancipation was still largely unpopular (I mean, the man only got 40% of the vote). However, he issued the proclamation with the express purpose of ending the war. Which was my second point. He even wrote this IN the proclamation that it was "a fit and necessary measure for suppressing said rebellion". He didn't even free the slaves in the north with that proclamation. So that shoots down the theory that he did it for the sake of the slaves. He did it for the sake of the Union. Which isn't necessarily bad, because Lincoln's a shrewd guy and knows how to get what he wants done. He, himself, may have had altruistic motivations, but the fact is that he did it as a political move, as the original document itself states.

It is undeniable that slavery was a main factor in the Civil War. But freeing blacks wasn't the primary concern of the Union in the Civil War...it was reuniting the Union. I state this as fact, and not to promote any agenda.

As for why black people fought in the war: they largely weren't allowed in the Union army until after the Emancipation Proclamation. However, several volunteer units were made up of former slaves from the south. After the EP, several other black units were formed.

That was a nice bit of revisionist historical crap you just spew forth, Sista Karen. Did your liberal friends assure you that nobody died to free the slaves so you and other pro-AA supporters could claim that nobody has sacrificied in your name?

Actually, I'm against the retributivism theory of AA. (All pro-AA people aren't the same) But the emancipation of slaves wasn't an altruistic act as much as it was a political one and many Union soldiers fought to reunify the Union. That's a fact. It seems like you're the one revising history here, man. I'm not saying that Hine's the best source, so I look forward to seeing your arguments against what I've said here.

It's too bad you and the rest of the liberals have so much hatred of whites that you have to attack their motives and actions even in some of the prouder moments of history.

I don't hate white people. I think in your zeal you read too much into my argument. History is rarely as clear cut as it is often simplified to be. That is really all I was trying to say. I think the reunifying the Union is a worthy goal and something to be proud of. But I can't see how some of the underlying factors leading to the freedom of slaves can be denied.

Now, when you respond, can you please refrain from ad hominem arguments? Argue with my points...don't slander me in the process.

SistaKaren · Jan 26, 2003

Oh yeah...this deserves it's own post:

It doesn't matter what the intent of welfare was. The fact of the matter is that a large portion of the funding has gone to blacks in this country.

It does matter what the intent of welfare was. How can you then argue it as an example of the government taking care of black people? Most black people aren't poor enough to even be eligible for welfare. I won't deny that a disproportional about of welfare recipients are black. But to say that it was a government measure to aid blacks is disingenuous. Poor whites are the largest recipients of this type of aid.

Bush's Comments on racial quotas

Junior Member

Respect the Rhesus Monkey

Membership Revoked

Membership Revoked

Membership Revoked

Membership Revoked

Membership Revoked

Junior Member

pink fuzzy user

Membership Revoked

Respect the Rhesus Monkey

Respect the Rhesus Monkey

Membership Revoked

no thank you

Membership Revoked

no thank you

Respect the Rhesus Monkey

Respect the Rhesus Monkey

Membership Revoked

Membership Revoked

Junior Member

Membership Revoked

Respect the Rhesus Monkey

Membership Revoked

Membership Revoked

Respect the Rhesus Monkey

Respect the Rhesus Monkey

Membership Revoked

Displaced Tar Heel

Membership Revoked

Membership Revoked

Respect the Rhesus Monkey

Respect the Rhesus Monkey

Membership Revoked

Membership Revoked

Junior Member

Membership Revoked

Full Member

Membership Revoked

no thank you

Full Member

Membership Revoked

Displaced Tar Heel

Displaced Tar Heel

Similar threads