| theprof00 said: I never said they were a part of the protests, and I never agreed with Garofolo at all, but instead said that maybe only 20% of those people are actually racist. And this is what I mean by racist. If any decision is made, in a negative way, based on a person's skin color. Imagine you are a manager hiring new applicants and you have 4 qualified people's resumes on your desk; 2 are white 2 are black (people). Say you still need to cut at least one more person from the list due to standard practices. If you cut a black person because you think that either a) they get enough help already from AA or b) hiring a black person will not help their stature in life due to... "wealth". Then you have just decided something using a racist bias. I was merely saying that at least 20% of those people were like that, and might possibly also carry a problem with a black person in an authority position. The mind is a tricky thing, and just thoughts like, "black people are poor because they do not come from old money", can subtely become reasons for dissent. I was arguing against a point that less than 1% of people are racist, which simply isn't true. @kasz, citing journal articles tries my patience, I don't like to spend all my time reading pages upon pages of articles, especially at work where my internet connection is like 2bs per sec... I kind of got off topic, but I really think you should understand that racism is not an overt practice. It is covert and subtle, and people will dress it up as anything else in order not to get in trouble over it. In response to the transitive assets idea. I understand what you guys are trying to say. But what you don't realize is that it is just a rebranding of the word slavery. Transitive assets are the houses and money brought over from europe, and early companies set up in the 17-1800's. Black people have had almost no rights until the 60's and have had no opportunity to develop these assets. Transitive assets might as well have been illegal as far as the discussion is concerned. Taking away AA in lieu of TA is a terrible reason. That is all I'm arguing here. I just want you guys to know that there hasn't been much backlash against the president's color. There should be. In this day and age, there should be a lot more, but we don't hear about it. That's because it's being similarly rebranded as something else. We need to be vigilant of motivations like these, and that requires both sides playing devil's advocate and really trying to prove our own sides wrong before we buy into them. |
Even if this were the case. It would show up in the statistics. It doesn't. When you account for wealth black and white people roughly end up at the same level. Drop some poor immigrants from Slovenia in the same neighberhood as a poor black kids... and they're going to end up at about the same places in life.
Not quite. Actually transitive wealth is an issue that largely came about AFTER slavery. Before the Civil Rights era. The biggest transitive wealth factor was the Homestead Act passed by Abhram Lincoln... sure it happened during slavery but the majority of the claiming came afterwords. The other big ones mostly happened under FDR. Though he helped out black people... he helped out white people substantially more. Also... once again. That is racism in the past. Before this White people had relativly few transitive assets as well outside of a small minority. These acts increased white wealth across the board, making the poor white richer.
The effects of racism in the past if still felt today. The effects of modern racism however aren't statistically relevant.
It's as if White and Black people were each one person... and up until the Civil rights era... the black person was poisoned.
The effects of the poison have effected the development of the body... but the poison isn't there anymore. Things like Affrimitive Action try and treat current poison. Which isn't around anymore. You can pour all the antitidote you want down the body... it isn't going to fix anything. You need to adjust the structural damage that was done.
You need an equivlent "Black Homestead act". Of course you just can't have black people walking around saying "This is my house now". A black homestead act though allowing them to buy houses with government assistance. Would of been a better use of the Bailout money then most of the stuff obama is using it on. Would of revitalized the realestate market. Maybe even the construction market.
There isn't much backlash about the presidents color because... there aren't that many people that are truley racist. Some people might of said "A black president i'm not sure about that..." but after they heard the speeches. It was based soley on the merit of his ideas.
