Opponents of the Michigan Civil Rights Inititative are in the unenviable position of having to convince voters that the proposed ban on racial preferences would violate civil rights. It is a task made no easier by rhetoric such as the following:
“Any time in American history when you’ve given the American electorate the chance to vote for black equality or, conversely, to vote for white privilege, and you have a majority white state, white privilege usually wins out,” BAMN national spokeswoman Shanta Driver said.
But then what can you expect? BAMN believes that outlawing racial discrimination protects “white privilege.”
What the opponents don’t realize is that the “white guilt” of the 1960s and 1970s is pretty much dead. Most thinking folks in the caucasian community recognize that the actions taken during those two decades undid the systemic discrimination that existed in this country. We embraced Martin Luther King’s call for a colorblind society, even as we adopted short-term remedies that went against the creed of non-discrimination. Three decades later, we recognize that the time has come to disassemble these temporary support structures and insist that individuals of all races and ethnicities stand on their own two feet.
Yet the black community disagrees. what it wants is not “black equality”, but rather “black privilege”. Even as the Gratz case gave the blessing of SCOTUS to another quarter century of well-intentioned racial discrimination, we began to hear complaints that the time limit was too short. If America does not slay the beast of racial preference NOW, then in a quarter century we will find that there are latter-day activists insisting that the failure to preserve “black privilege” is nothing short of a return to Jim Crow. The time has come to enforce the 1964 Civil Rights act and the US Constitution and demand an end to government mandated racial discrimination in favor of minorities.
The Precinct Chair writes:
>>>We embraced Martin Luther King’s call for a colorblind society, even as we adopted short-term remedies that went against the creed of non-discrimination.”
Martin Luther King was ASSASSINATED, not “embraced,” and both the CRA of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were FAR from unanimous votes in the white majority Congress.
>>>What the opponents don’t realize is that the “white guilt” of the 1960s and 1970s is pretty much dead.”
Exactly WHICH whites felt “guilty” during the 60’s and 70’s? Certainly not Reagan, Rhenquist,William F. Buckley, Strom Thurmond, Lester Maddox, Bull Connor, J. Edgar Hoover, Jerry Falwell Bob Jones III or any number of other feral conservative figures.
>>>If America does not slay the beast of racial preference NOW, then in a quarter century we will find that there are latter-day activists insisting that the failure to preserve “black privilege” is nothing short of a return to Jim Crow.”
Hey, John Rosenberg himself said very clearly on another blog thread that he “doesn’t care” how people discriminate against others in education or employment, as long as race, religion or ethnicity isn’t involved. So exactly what would prevent the return of “diet race discrimination” tactics like, grandfather clauses, poll taxes, “literacy tests”, and any other host of insidious schemes? I suppose your team wouldn’t have a problem with it, as long as it doesn’t say “race” on paper.
The march for white privilege has been fully engaged by Gratz, Zarko, Connerly and the MCRI.
–Cobra
Cobra, believing everyone is out to get you is called paranoia, and paranoia is a medical condition. They have treatments for it. Consult your doctor.
“So exactly what would prevent the return of “diet race discrimination” tactics like, grandfather clauses, poll taxes, “literacy tests”, and any other host of insidious schemes?”
Er, the MCRI?
Notherbob2 writes:
>>>Er, the MCRI?”
LOL, please visit their website and point out where they address ANY of those issues in regards to African Americans, Hispanics, or Native Americans. You’d stand a better chance finding streaming video of Soul Train re-runs there.
–Cobra
Time to get tough, Cobra.
I’m gonna tell you again, that con job doesn’t work on me.
I for me getting, and you not getting.
You are for you getting and me not getting.
Stop the con job that you are doing this for some other reason beyond sheer individual greed.
What a con job, Cobra. Do you really think any of us honkies buy it any more?
If I can get over on you, I will. That’s because your entire MO in life is trying to get over on me.
Hide your money when you see me, Cobra. I’m out to get yours, just as you are out to get mine. Beware!
Cobra,
LOL, please visit their website and point out where they address ANY of those issues in regards to African Americans, Hispanics, or Native Americans.
I do believe you’ve left one ethnic minority out there. Again.
Cobra, do you not think that Asian-Americians are an ethnic minority at all? Or are they just “white” for your purposes?
Michelle writes:
>>>I do believe you’ve left one ethnic minority out there. Again.
Cobra, do you not think that Asian-Americians are an ethnic minority at all? Or are they just “white” for your purposes?”
I didn’t leave anything out. I chose to write about whom I felt like writing about. I’ve been a lot more fair to Asian Americans in this blog than white America’s historical treatment has.
Michelle, if you wish for me to document here reports of discriminations against Asian Americans, I can do so easily. The ball is in your court.
Stephen writes:
>>>Hide your money when you see me, Cobra. I’m out to get yours, just as you are out to get mine. Beware!”
Now, if the MCRI could post a streaming video of YOU doing a Soul Train line dance, I’d almost be willing to write a support check right NOW. :)
–Cobra
You’ve got to wonder how Cobra manages to always be completely wrong.
Since I’ve been married to an Asian-American for 14 years, I know the obvious. Asians are the most successful ethnic group in the U.S. They are the best educated, most financially successful and have the greatest success in family and marriage.
The reason: they don’t sit around and bitch that life is unfair all the time.
Ever thought of taking the hint, Cobra? You are your own worst enemy. I’m doing you a favor by refusing to be taken in by the con job. And, yes, you better watch your wallet. Since you don’t mind trying to stick your fingers in mine, I’ve got no compunction about sticking my fingers in yours.
Now, Cobra, take a hint from Asian-Americans. Stop the ridiculous bitching and try studying and working hard. You’ll be surprised. This works much better than scamming.
Cobra,
I didn’t leave anything out. I chose to write about whom I felt like writing about. I’ve been a lot more fair to Asian Americans in this blog than white America’s historical treatment has.
I don’t want to prevent your writing about whatever or whomever you like, obviously. I am, though, just a little curious why your interests here include African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, but not Asian-Americans. You say that you know what discrimination they have faced here, and I believe you. But you don’t, as I understand it, think that they should receive preferences in college admissions, though the three other groups you mention should. Why is that?
To put it more plainly, you’re more interested in the child of Mexican immigrants than in the child of Hmong immigrants, and seem to have no problem with the former getting preferential treatment and the latter not. Again, why is that?
You embarrass Cobra. You see, the Asians went out and made America work instead of joining in the coalition to work America. If Cobra’s concerns were really about discrimination, Asians would be included automatically. Since Asians are not part of the organized group hustle, Cobra resents including them. Asian success and refusal to be “victims” and join in the hustle screws up all of Cobra’s stereotypes of the effect of racial oppression.
Thank you for admitting, in effect, that you don’t care about discrimination against those of Asian descent. After all, if you were truly interested in racial minorities, you would have included them.
You are simply a member of the Klan With A Tan. I’m just curious, what color are your sheets, and what do you burn to frighten us uppity white folks?
Cobra,
As I had said before, you do not know what you are talking about. Nothing in this world will justify a preference, be it Bull Connor’s dogs, the insidious smirk of contempt at the sight of a black person or lynchings, rapes etc. Discrimination of any kind that gives an unfair advantage to anybody is simply wrong. I had often said to people that race prefrences are no different from legacy preferences or geographical preferences. They all cause injury. Even athletic preferences can cause injury. Instead of wasting your time believing in the garbage of race preferences being spewed out by hacks of the like of Gary Orfield, Lani Guinier, Chris Edley, patricia Gurin, lee Bollinger, Derek Bok and William Bowen , fess up to your errors. I doubt however that is something you will do . Let me reprise my knowledge about the nature of preferences. We all know that race preferences are discriminatory towards the poor, because rich blacks are the main beneficiaries of this particular preference. We all know that alumni legacy preferences are as rotten and vile ,demented and deprived as race preferences for obvious reasons.Private universities practice alumni preferences as a business solution to their financial problems something that should be very obvious to everyone, after all virtually private universities are nothing but business. There is no difference between Harvard, Stanford and a prostitute or your mom and pop store on the corner street. They are all businesses even if Harvard or Stanford tries to deny this. There is a guy named Roger Clegg who happens to be the co -chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity who claims that alumni preferences does not discriminate by race. This is utter rubbish. Let us take the example of Harvard. Harvard has admitted on record that 38 % of alumni legacies who apply to Harvard are admitted to Harvard . Only 9 % of Asian applicants who apply to Harvard are admitted. Overall only 11 % of applicants to harvard who have any ” preference tilt ” are admitted to Harvard. What that means is that of those who are not eligible for an alumni, racial,children of the famous, geographical, athletic,employee etc., only 11 % of them will be admitted.Depending on what source you believe, there is one source that says that 17 % of black applicants who apply to harvard are admitted, another source says that 48% are admitted. let me get a few things straight. Asian applicants to harvard have the highest average SAT scores and grades among the racial applicants. Blacks have the lowest average SAT scores and grades among the racial groups applying to Harvard. Everyone should see by now that Clegg is wrong , because alumni legacy preferences who are overwhelmingly white have on the average significantly lower average SAT scores and grades than Asian American applicants. Of course Clegg will or can dish out the nonsense that Asian legacies in the future will be eligible for alumni preferences at harvard. REally? but even that is not a justification for alumni preference. Not only that, 14% of the freshman class at Harvard are alumni legacies, whereas 8 or 9 % of the freshman class at Harvard are there because of a racial preference for blacks. What does the picture tell you ? It tells you that in the eyes of Harvard, it is necessary that 14 % of the freshman class of Harvard should be alumni legacies in order for Harvard to survive versus 8% for blacks. Sounds like a numerical qouta to me. It is saying that a certain number of a particular group of people is more important than a certain number of another group of people Sounds like discrimination to me.Two years ago, it came out in the papers that about 22% of the Princeton freshman class is composed of athletic preferences. The recipients of athletic preferences at Princeton and other Ivy schools are overwhelmingly white. Ivy schools are hardly paragons of athletic prowess compared to the public schools. Their athletic teams generally belong to NCAA Division 2 or Division 3. In other words, they belong to the basement of college athletics, nothing to write Mom home about.Pete Carrill ( is that his name? ) , the longtime Princeton basketball coach voiced his feeling that ” all these white rich ro middle class boys simply do not possess the same determination or toughness as the kids who grew up in the projects ( presumably black kids ) ” Do you see the point of this story ? Even the athletic preferences practiced in Ivy schools and liberal arts schools has not caused it to win NCAA pennants and has discriminated against both more deserving white and black applicants to these Ivy schools. Can you see now the error of all kinds of preferences Cobra?
BTW, ASian Americans do not need you to point out the discrimination against both in academia and in the business world.
are to a certain extent cause
Leo Cruz writes:
>>>Discrimination of any kind that gives an unfair advantage to anybody is simply wrong. I had often said to people that race prefrences are no different from legacy preferences or geographical preferences. They all cause injury. Even athletic preferences can cause injury”
Well, you need to debate John Rosenberg on that one, because he has adamantly stated time and time again on this blog that the ONLY discrimination he REALLY cares about:
>>>Really, the idea that all discrimination is fungible — equally good or equally bad — is ridiculous, or worse, as is accompanying argument that anyone who opposes racial discrimination who does not also oppose, say, preferences to athletes or musicians is a hypocrite. That might be true for someone who argues that academic merit should be the only criterion used for college admissions, but most thoughtful anti-preferentialists do not make that argument. All they, we, say is that colleges should be free to use whatever admissions criterial they want — except race, religion, ethnicity.
Now the Chronicle of Higher Education is trying to stir up this debate again. First in an article, and next in a “Colloquy” that begins Thursday, which looks at the practice (oh horrors) that many colleges give preferences to the children of professors.
In the description of the upcoming Colloquy, it asks:
Should critics of race-based affirmative action and “legacy” preferences be just as outraged by employee-based affirmative action? If not, why not?
Briefly, No. Somewhat less briefly, the Chronicle’s question notwithstanding, race-based preferences are not at all the same as legacy preferences. Nothing in the text, structure, or history of the 14th Amendment, or indeed nothing anywhere in our entire history, suggests any right to be free from discrimination based on where your parents went, or did not go, to college. Nor should it. Ditto for whether or not your parents are professors.”
–John Rosenberg
So your REAL argument is with John on this one, since you don’t deny any of the facts about white racism and discrimination going on in America I post.
John’s a pretty tough debator. Have fun with him!
–Cobra
I don’t recall fans making monkey calls at sporting events like what happened in Spain.
Is that minority-on-minorty racism?
Or are Spanish considered white?
I know what to do, everyone wears burkas and has a voice box.
Cobra,
Nevermine what the the Constitiution says or what John Rosenberg believes in. He can claim that the 14th Amemdment makes no mention of legacy preferences. He sounds like Roger Clegg and a lot of rightists who believes that alumni legacy are not racist like legacy preferences. I already made an explanation as to why they are exactly the same. This has been the case in every country in the world. I am not blind to the faults of the writers of the Constitution and the the modern day
commentators who try to butter up the fundamental errors that they have made.
I had said for a long time to people that alumni legacy preferences are vile, sick , demented and depraved . They are an abomination and a pestilence on the face of earth. They belong to the Age of the Dinosaurs. I know that there are whites who support this kind of garbage. I will tell you write know that they are the lowest form of life on earth. Trash of the lowest kind , lowlifes. I had seen their kind before in many countries. They represent what is worst in human nature ,they belong the gutter.
Bill buckley is one of them. And you know who the rest are. Derek Bok ( ex – prexy of harvard is one of them ). They like to claim that alumni money benefits the the fellow classmates of the alumni legacies. What kind of students ? The affluent students that is. Take the example of Harvard, only 9 % of the freshman class of Harvard in 2004 are eligible for Pell grants. As I said before Pell Grants are a measure of poverty. It tells you right away that the students of harvard are overwhelmingly rich and middle class. it would be better if that money given by the alumni would be given to nearby University of Massachusetts – Boston , where there are a lot more poorer students than Harvard. Of course harvard alumni would have none of that. They may claim that alumni donations are used to to finance medical research. Most of the money spent at the harvard medical school or Massachusetts General Hospital comes from the NIH. Why should public tax money in the first place should be used to fund research or student financial aid that practices all kinds of preferences. Using public tax money to fund private institutions generally creates conflicts of interests. Why should we give tax money to institutions that we don;t afree with> Why should my tax money be used to fund the Stanford Linear Accelator, when I know damn well Stanford practices alumni preferences. It is simply vile,evil and loathsome. Let public universities have that money to repair their facilities or for medical research. Why doesn’t the newspapers publicize that fact?. If Caltech practices alumni preferences, then we should tell David Baltimore and his wife Alice to cease and desist from accepting money from the Feds for research. I know very well that a substantial part of Caltech’s research budget comes from the Feds.So no postdoc apppointment for Jessie, john’s sister at Caltech. When black parents support the idea of alumni preferences like the parents at Morehouse and Spellman, they reduce themselves to the same level as these aforementioned white trash.
. These people claim that the money brought about by alumni donations.
,
Cobra,
Erratum,
What is really meant was that Roger Clegg has claimed that alumni legacy preferences are not racist like race preferences. I already gave an explanation that the two are exatly are the same. They both discriminate by race.
Leo, with the possible exception of Cobra when doing his impersonation of a southern preacher, most posters here are coherent. Your posts amount to repeating “them racist sonofabitches!” If you have something to say, say it. Calling people racists doesn’t add a lot to the discussion. Well, unless one does it artfully.
Leo,
You see, my friend? The anti-affirmative action types will sell you down the river just as fast as they will me. Notherbob has laid down the gauntlet. You’d better agree with every tennet of their manifesto or be attacked.
–Cobra
Cobra, Cobra, Cobra. It isn’t always “us” and “them”, even if that concept has been “seared, seared” into your memory. You think racism is a good thing, I don’t; we just disagree on that point. [sarcasm/humor alert] I am very much offended by your remark that I would “sell” someone, down the river or anywhere else. Slavery has been outlawed for many years and is today a crime. Your use of racially insensitive rhetoric (not to mention defamation) impugns the honor of my Scots-Irish forbears who fought enslavement by the English for centuries before coming over from the old sod. We have never bought or sold anyone. It is shocking to see that after so many years of decrying thoughtless, racist terms; to see them freely used in daily commerce is …shocking. This is not a casual reference, mind you, but a conscious attempt to ridicule the subject of the remark. Well, I think some sensitivity training and consciousness raising is in order. My, My.
Notherbob writes:
>>>You think racism is a good thing, I don’t; we just disagree on that point. [sarcasm/humor alert] I am very much offended by your remark that I would “sell” someone, down the river or anywhere else.”
I acknowlege the widespread racism that exists against minorities in America. You don’t seem to think it matters one bit. And I since I don’t really know your own personal “sales” history, I will take your cries of innocence under advisement. As that great anti-Civil Rights President, Ronald Reagan once said…
“Trust, but verify” (returning the sarcasm alert)
Geez, Notherbob, you should be hugging up on Leo Cruz. Here’s a minority who will bend over backwards to help anti-affirmative action types turn back the clock, and you fly off the handle and insult him. Leo stands to make alot of money in the new American white nationalism movement. As Ward Connerly, Shelby Steele, Linda Chavez, Michelle Malkin, James McWhorter and Armstrong Williams have repeatedly proved, white conservatives are willing to pay top dollar to get a dark skinned face to shill for them.
Hey, with Bush-o-nomics, I can see the temptation for selling out, but I won’t be joining them.
Didn’t Jesus once say, “What profiteth a man if he gains the entire world, yet loses his eternal soul?”
–Cobra
Cobra, you had better hope that none of those dark-skinned shills (I can’t remember, is this your use of the “brown bag” test here?) sees your comment. You never know, one just might. Is a dark-skinned shill worse than a white shill? Just asking. If you were to be consistent, you would be arguing for a preference for dark-skinned shills. If not, why not? Perhaps too close to home.
Notherbob2,
I had been saying the same things for a long time. I do not need you to tell me that I sound like a Southern preacher. If ” soonofabitches ” is a way to to describe race preferentialists like Guiniier, Edley, Kidder, bok, Orfield, Bowen, nancy Cantor or Patricia Gurin etc. then they are. But so are the many parents or white people like Buckley, Clegg or the Bushes and the Kennedys and so is everyone else in this forum who supports the idea of alumni legacy. I had often said to many people that alumni legacy preferences and race preferences, if they were a molecule would have the same DNA molecular formula , GATTACA so to speak.There is nothing in the constitiution ( forget about the US constitiution , it is worthless in defining the problems of preferences ) that talks about preferences. Roger Clegg, a Rice University alumnus, a rightist claims that there is nothing in the Constitution that says about alumni legacy preferences. That is also true about race preferences, geographical preferences, university enmployee preferences, athletic preferences and every other kind of preference. We do know however that alumni legacy preference are an obscene and odious impediment to every human being’s pursuit of “life, liberty and happiness “. But so are the other preferences that are mentioned above. got that? notherbob2?
Cobra,
I do not need the support of rightists of the ilk of Roger Clegg, James Mcwhorther or WArd Connerly or Linda Chavez or Curt Levey and specially Bill Buckley to justify the things that I had said in this forum.. NOthing that these people has said about the wrongness of race preferences that has not been said before in other countries, got that? Similarly nothing that Lani Guinier, Bill Kidder, the NAACP, Chris Edley , patricia Gurin or Michael Olivas or Aztlan or Martha Tienda has said in support of race preferences is new. They had all been said before in other countries.And the conclusion in other countries is the same thing, it is wrong. Let me tell you a story. A year ago, a group of Supreme Court justices from India was traveling in Washington
to take a look at the American justice system. The met with SC justice Sandra Day O’ Connor and a prof from Georgetown Law School. AT that time the nation was waiting for the SC decision on the Michigan cases. One of the Indian justices asked The Georgetown prof on his opinion about the forthcoming SC decision. As you all know, India has had a longer time in dealing with race preferences than the US..Sandra Day O’ Connor shot an icy stare at the Georgetown prof to prevent him from answering the question. The Indian justice opined that once race preferences take hold in a country, vested interests would vehemntly oppose any attempt to dismantle it because of the benefits that they incur from them.The Indian justice said that once preferences come into existence there is a tendency on its part to be perpetuated forever. Remember that in the SC Michigan decision, O ‘ Connor remarked that she hoped that preferences would no longer exist 25 years from now, good luck. This episode tells you something about the vile nature of preferences. Black race preferentialists will naturally oppose its dismantiling because because of the benefits that they incur from them. Similarly many white parents will appose the abolition of alumni legacy preferences because of the benefits that they incur from. I do not need your little spiel Cobra, it is rubbish.
she hoped t
I acknowlege the widespread racism that exists against minorities in America.
No, Cobra. You’re under the paranoid delusion that such exists.
If it really existed, then we wouldn’t be having this debate, because there would be no affirmative action programs to abolish. The very fact that they do exist refutes your point.
Of course there are a few isolated racists out there. People who don’t control schools, corporations, churches, or government. Powerless people with no influence on anything or anybody. Hardly “widespread.”
The 1960s are over.
There are no firehoses, grandfather clauses, poll taxes. Trent Lott had to beg for forgiveness on BET for saying something nice about a retiring Strom Thurmond because it could have been intrepreted as having racial implications.
I just wish you didn’t feel you had to play the victim all the time.
David writes:
>>>If it really existed, then we wouldn’t be having this debate, because there would be no affirmative action programs to abolish. The very fact that they do exist refutes your point.”
Let me ask you an open and honest question, David.
Exactly WHAT would I need to show you for you to agree with me that America still has widespread racism against minorities? Throughout my time on this blog I have posted PAGES of housing discrimination statistics, predatory lending studies, if not redlining, hate crime statistics, wage and hiring disparities, racial profiling investigations and factual surveys documenting the re-segregation of America. We’re only 40 years removed from the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, neither of which were UNANIMOUS DECISIONS. Please tell me what I need to show you.
–Cobra
You post many things showing statistical “disparities.” But statistical “disparities” are not the same as discrimination, so they certainly aren’t proof of racism. You certainly would have to show more than that.
But I’ll settle for you explaining the phenomenon I described. Just explain that, and I’ll concede the rest. That is: race preferences (what you call “affirmative action”) may or may not be legal, but they certainly aren’t legally required. If these schools, businesses, churches, media outlets, government institutions, etc., are all run by racists as you claim, then why are they promoting affirmative action when they don’t have to? Why aren’t they doing the bare minimum required by law? Why are they going out of their way, going the extra mile, to help minorities via affirmative action programs? Why would they fight the efforts of Ward Connerly et al. if they were racist and if his proposals would really help promote racism? Why wouldn’t they embrace him? And if they’re not racist, why on earth would they suddenly start acting racistly if MCRI passed, given that the law would continue to ban discrimination?
You act as if forty years is a short time. But it’s not. 162 million people in the U.S. — 58% of the population — are under the age of 40. You can’t let the 1960s go because you’re paranoid; most people can’t let the 1960s go because they never had the 1960s in the first place. They never had anything to let go of. Most of the people in the U.S. did not grow up with Jim Crow; they can’t be nostalgic for it because it never existed to them.
Dave writes:
>>>If these schools, businesses, churches, media outlets, government institutions, etc., are all run by racists as you claim, then why are they promoting affirmative action when they don’t have to? ”
I don’t claim that all institutions are “run by racists”, but that there is widespread racism. There’s a difference. I believe America has a serious problem with crime…it has the largest prison population in the world at over 2,000,000 inmates. Does that make EVERYBODY a criminal? No. Does that mean there is a serious problem? Yes. You miss the nuance, Dave.
You don’t want to believe disparities are a sign of discrimination. If you don’t believe in the physical evidence of racism, then I believe you’re holding out for some vast CONFESSIONAL…some wringing of the hands by millions of people about their internal biases. There are groups that openly do that…Christian Identity, Aryan Nations, the Council of Conservative Citizens, the World Church of the Creator, the American Nazi Party, the NAAWP, and of course various Klan factions. But that doesn’t end with those groups.
My explanation for the existence of Affirmative Action is simple. When looking at the big picture, the gross inequities and discrimination heaped upon minorities since this nation’s enception, and the prevalance of that same type of treatment during modern times, there were millions of white liberals and fair-minded moderates who decided that SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE to help rectify this issue. Affirmative Action isn’t a cure all. Affirmative Action wasn’t universally accepted, but if you believe that America presented the same opportunities for minorities as it does for white males, you’re being delusional. You’re asking me to provide an indictment of all whites, but I do no such thing. There are millions of whites in America who SUPPORT Affirmative Action out of a sense of fairness. They understand the nature of human reality coupled with the social reality of an American racial caste. And as you can see from this blog, there are many people, primarily white, who are doing everything in their power to destroy Affirmative Action, and bring back the system that existed in the past, where white male dominance was unchallenged. Groups like the MCRI are gaining popularity because of their ability to conflate terms like “fairness” with “racial preferences,” and to an ill-read public, the SCAPEGOAT mentality takes over.
“You can’t get a better paying job? It’s those non-deserving minorities and racial preferences!”
“You can’t get into the college you’re entitled to? Blacks are holding you back!”
“You’re not a shoe-in for those government contracts you always got handed to you? That’s anti-white racism!”
David, maybe you can find some apologistic, weak-kneed, “get-along” African American not to see the reich-like rise of white nationalism growing in America. Don’t look for that guy with me.
–Cobra
1. You’re asking me to provide an indictment of all whites, but I do no such thing.
No, I’m not asking you to do so; I’m saying that you already do so, and I’m asking you to back it up.
There are millions of whites in America who SUPPORT Affirmative Action out of a sense of fairness.
And those people run all major schools, corporations, governments, churches, etc. So what possible basis is there for claiming that this “sense of fairness” [sic] on their part will suddenly disappear if AA is abolished? Why would they suddenly become racist?
If you’re not claiming that they would, then what do you have to worry about if MCRI succeeds?
2. MCRI is not trying to “bring back the system that existed in the past.” They’re trying to bring in a color-blind system. That’s not the system of the past.
You’re the one who supports the system that existed in the past, Cobra. That system is one where individuals are treated as members of a racial group and the ones who have political power use it to favor certain groups at the expense of other groups. Sure, it’s a different group now on top — but it’s the same system.
3. As a Jewish person, I’m well aware of all the white supremacist groups you name. Combined they couldn’t fill a football stadium, and they’re all utterly useless losers with no power in society. (Which is why they feel the way they do.)
You don’t want to believe disparities are a sign of discrimination. If you don’t believe in the physical evidence of racism, then I believe you’re holding out for some vast CONFESSIONAL…some wringing of the hands by millions of people about their internal biases. There are groups that openly do that…Christian Identity, Aryan Nations, the Council of Conservative Citizens, the World Church of the Creator, the American Nazi Party, the NAAWP, and of course various Klan factions. But that doesn’t end with those groups.
My explanation for the existence of Affirmative Action is simple. When looking at the big picture, the gross inequities and discrimination heaped upon minorities since this nation’s enception, and the prevalance of that same type of treatment during modern times, there were millions of white liberals and fair-minded moderates who decided that SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE to help rectify this issue. Affirmative Action isn’t a cure all. ”
Cobra says,
” Affirmative Action wasn’t universally accepted, but if you believe that America presented the same opportunities for minorities as it does for white males, you’re being delusional. You’re asking me to provide an indictment of all whites, but I do no such thing. There are millions of whites in America who SUPPORT Affirmative Action out of a sense of fairness. They understand the nature of human reality coupled with the soc ial ….”
Cobra, you are the one who is delusional and do not know what you are talking about.
I know that that there will still be whites who will be racists till the the end of time. I am sure that there will be still be whites who believe in the righteousness of alumni legacy preferences till the end of time, even though such views obviously belongs to the gutter. That still does not justify the support of race preferences. As I said before there is nothing new that people like Guinier, Edley or Bok had said about race preferences that have not been said before in other countries. The same thing could be said for their opponents on the other side be they McWhorter or Clegg or Armstrong Williams. And I do not need an ignoramus like you to tell me that these hacks from the right are going to sell me down the river. A. Williams might have sold himself for money ) to Bushie for blurbs in support of the unsuccessful ” NCLB program ” or McWhorther got a PHd becuase of AA, but what has that got to do with ” selling me down the river ? ” I do not need them to say what I want to say, but neither do I need people of the ilk of Clegg or Linda Chavez.Whether millions of whites support or do not support race preferences for whatever reason has nothing to do with the justification for race preferences. The gross iniquities of American life is not a justification of race preferences. It is true that there are plenty of whites who get inside universities thru all kinds of preferences, I don’t have to have to mention the kennedy family, the Bushes , the Gores as the recipients of this obscenity, but that is not a justification of a race preference. I do not know if Roger Clegg got inside Rice University thru an alumni preference or if Linda Chavez” 2 sons got into college because of a race preference, I understand her 2 sons worked for her organization called the Center for Equal Oppotunity, and you know what that means. Kweise Mfume , the NAACP head was sacked because he made the girlfriend of his son the head of the youth affairs program of the NAACP. I know that many whites get breaks in employment and business not because of their talent but because of their whiteness ,but that is not a justification for race preferences for blacks. The same thing is true in the universities most specially in the private universities and liberal arts school of the sort of Stanford and Bryn Mawr.
Do you know that in the Ivies and the private schools the attitude of the authorities toward the white alumni legacies is the same as that as that of their attitude towards blacks admitted thru race preferences? They are treated like those who are in medical triage , in ICU that is that requires a great deal of help. To enable these white alummi legacy mediocrities to graduate, they are steered or encouraged to major in less demamding majors like English , the humanities or government in Harvard rather than the hard sciences. That is what happened to the the kennedy children or to Bush’s daughter at Yale. They are given breaks in their grading by their profs, remember the
“gentleman C’s ” Harvard? Now can you see that there is no difference between an alumni legacy and a racial preference Cobra?
Leo writes:
>>>And I do not need an ignoramus like you to tell me that these hacks from the right are going to sell me down the river. A. Williams might have sold himself for money ) to Bushie for blurbs in support of the unsuccessful ” NCLB program ” or McWhorther got a PHd becuase of AA, but what has that got to do with ” selling me down the river ? ”
Ignoramus? My brother, you still don’t get it, do you? You call me “delusional?” Hey, you can believe what you to want to believe. You can hug up to all these right winged white male advocacy movements you can get a free button for if you wish. You know what the bottom line is? You’re only welcome as long as you’re OBEDIANT, and judging from your blogs, you’re far too hostile to the white ruling class to be deemed useful. As a matter of fact, if you keep chatting up the evils of legacy and white patronage, these bloggers in here will target you as an “uppity minority.” You’ll be in the same boat as myself, the “ignoramous.”
How ’bout them apples?
David writes:
>>>And those people run all major schools, corporations, governments, churches, etc. So what possible basis is there for claiming that this “sense of fairness” [sic] on their part will suddenly disappear if AA is abolished? Why would they suddenly become racist?”
First of all, what did I spell incorrectly…”sense” or “fairness?” And why do you think liberals and moderates run everything in America? I know for a fact that the President of the US is against Affirmative Action. I know that at least 4 members of the Supreme Court are against it. I know that there are 508,000+ signatures from the MCRI that are evidence of the desire to eradicate it. No, I don’t fear the actions of white liberals and moderates if Affirmative Action is eliminated. It’s WHITE CONSERVATIVES, the historical enemy of minority progress to begin with, that bares their fangs in this movement.
>>>2. MCRI is not trying to “bring back the system that existed in the past.” They’re trying to bring in a color-blind system. That’s not the system of the past.”
The MCRI, IMHO is nothing more than a white male advocacy group out to restore unchallenged white monopolization of education and commerce. Nothing more.
–Cobra
Go on Cobra, i am not here to please any white
boy or gal. Your delusional nonsense continues to overflow.
leonardo jorge r. Cruz
You didn’t spell fairness incorrectly, Cobra; you used it incorrectly. That is, you applied it to racial discrimination.
More specifically, you said that because A was given racial privileges over B, X should be given racial privileges over Y simply because X looks like B and Y looks like A. And then you called it “fairness.”
The MCRI, IMHO is nothing more than a white male advocacy group out to restore unchallenged white monopolization of education and commerce. Nothing more.
Well, then, IMHO you’re delusional.
(I liked your claim that “at least” four members of the Supreme Court are against it. What, did a couple of the others forget to vote that way?)
You live in this fantasyland of racism, not realizing that everyone isn’t stuck in the 1960s as you are. If there are secret smoke-filled meetings where the white cabal gets together and discusses how they can put the black man down, I must have misplaced my invitation.