Discriminations

I think, John, your idealism blinds you to reality on this subject of diversity. Ironic for someone of my political slant to say that to someone of your politic stance, but true nevertheless.

You said: "Funny. I know an awful lot of Republicans by now. I’ve read and listened to just about everything there is on this subject, and I can’t recall a desire to preserve everything for white men ever appearing (or even lurking) anywhere as a reason for opposing the state bestowing its benefits and burdens based on race."

I can cite comments on this blog that express the sentiment you claim you can't recall hearing or reading.

And that's to say nothing of the Conservative Citizens Councils, Rush Limbaughs, and Sean Hannitys of the world. Your statement appears to be clouded by your wish for Republicans and Conservatives to be other than what they are stereotyped to be (racist hegemons). Unfortunately, some people live up to stereotypes and Republicans and Conservatives are not immune to that.

You go on to discuss how vapid you think diversity as practiced in this country is: "what matters about a poor rural black son of a sharecropper from Pike County, Alabama; a hip-hop homey from the ghetto; the daughter of two black surgeons from Brookline; or a black Kenyan is that they’re all black. It’s good for the rest of us to be exposed to any one of them, doesn’t really matter which one."

This strikes me as the typical conservative argument: Diversity, as practiced isn't diverse enough, so screw it, let's get rid of it.

I would think the answer to your complaint would be to strive for greater, "truer," diversity. But, for some reason, this option of striving for truer diversity never comes to the table for Conservatives (unless, of course, they are arguing for greater inclusion of Republicans, Christians, and white males, aka themselves).

Gaps in reasoning like the aforementioned, lead those of us who oppose your point of view to believe that many of you are not arguing in good faith, which then leads us to the conclusion that your friend articulated, "the white men have evrything and they damn well are going to keep it. However some of their best friends are ...."

Under White European-American Male supremacy NonWhite NonEuropean people are genetically inferior to White European-Americans - & White European-American Males are genetically superior to Women that is why Affirmative Action is needed to give qualified people an opportunity to participate in society despite Sexism against Women & Racism against People of Color- Some say Dr. Condoleeza Rice is still a N Woman even though she is a conservative - some say
Wardell Connerly is still a N Man even though he is a conservative

"This strikes me as the typical conservative argument: Diversity, as practiced isn't diverse enough, so screw it, let's get rid of it."

No, Hull, you attempt to transform other's points of view into something that at least agrees with yours "in principle", thereby legitimizing your rationalization for praciticing racial discrimination.
Those who support the Civil Rights Intitiatives point out correctly that "Diversity" supporters are, by their own admissions (as you supply in your comment), not interested in diversity but in employing its neutral meaning to excuse racial and gender discrimination against others.
Diversity is not the goal of "diversity advocates". If it were we would see instances and calls to action that "unintentionally harmed" minorities and women by the Diversity advocates. We don't because Diversophiles aren't stupid enough to buy their own bullsh*t. They want the right to discriminate against "the other", plain and simple.
Conservatives and the larger group of CRI supporters don't need to call on Diversity, as you laughingly state. They can rely on that tired old racist axiom that humans deserve to be treated according to the content of their character, as individuals, and not according to the color of their skin (with a nod to that "tired old racist" Martin Luther King, who made the words famous).

Looks like my 5/18/07 7:00 pm message about White European-American male supremacy over Women & People of Color was censored
Rev Dr King wasn't old - He was assasinated at 39 years old -
The Racist Memphis, TN city government would not allow Black Afrikan garbage workers to form a Union - Rev. Dr. King was assasinated to support that social justice cause
Because of Sexism against Women & Racism against People of Color the US needs Affirmative Action
Rev Dr. King was not a racist - He did support Affirmative Action

The desire for 'diversity' presumes that there are fundamental differences between demographic groups, a certain je ne sais quoi. As practiced, diversity supremists presume that 100% of the members of a given group possess that je ne sais quoi. No need to probe any further into an applicant's aptitude to determine whether a particular woman actually thinks like a woman and not like a man. No need to find out if an Asian-American has the je ne sais quoi of the Asian-American group.

That is 100% pure unadulterated stereotyping. If Al Sharpton is to be believed that “Just because you are our color, doesn’t make you our kind”, why aren't diversity candidates probed further to make sure that they aren't "Oreos" and that they truly "think like a black person"?

Until diversity supremists go beyond mere race as a proxy for their constituent racial je ne sais quoi, the diversity argument is nothing more than a scam.

freeman - This is not the first time you've charged censorship when one of your comments didn't appear, and this is not the first time I've explained that I don't censor (except, very rarely, for foul language or over the top ad hominem attacks). This site is inundated with tons of spam, most of which automatic filters catch but many of which I have to look at one by one and delete. Often there are lots of those, and on occasion, in deleting a range of spam, I"ve made the mistake of deleting a legitimate comment. That is why I've asked everyone (you are not the only one who has been a victim of my errors) to email me if a comment doesn't appear, giving me the post, subject, and time. If you do this soon enough I may be able to find it in a "trash" folder before it is automatically emptied, as, in fact, I've just found and posted your "censored" one.

But, as I've said, I've told you this before, and your memory appears to be about on a par with the analysis in your comments. Thus, be on notice that the next time you, or anyone, accuses me of censoring a comment I will in fact delete that comment.

"Rev Dr. King was not a racist - He did support Affirmative Action"

Ya gotta love the logic in this. Only a racist would not support racial discrimination!!

Well, I have proof that the Southern Democrats were not racist. They did support Jim Crow!

MLK was very clear, at least in public, about the principles that guided him. Freeman (and Cobra) seem to feel that MLK was a phony, their kind of phony. Saying one thing in public but admitting to like minded racists that his stated principles were for public consumption only.
So much of what America has admired about MLK seems to be under attack by the new masters. May their efforts go the way of all racial bigotry, in the trash heap of history.

Mikem - It is immoral to quote Rev. Dr. King out of context to pretend that he did not support Affirmative Action -
Affirmative Action supporters are morally correct because they recognize the Sexism against Women & Racism against People of Color historically & currently - with no additional efforts to assist Women & People of Color - they would always be the underclass because of White European-American Male supremacy

Pretend? He is quite clear in denouncing racial discrimination. If you think his message of a color blind society can be said to be taken out of context, then so is "all men are created equal", repeatedly, by right minded people for centuries.
What is immoral is racists like you and Cobra trying to change MLK's words to something that allows you to judge according to skin color.
What is laughable is Freeman telling commenters on John's blog who and how they are allowed to quote. Get off your high horse. The time of the black supremacists' power is long gone. All that remains is the type of tolerance that Americans allow for little children screaming to be noticed. You are a disgrace to MLK's memory. Get used to being marginalized. It is the way of progress.

Since I'm being spoken for in absentia, please allow me to clarify my position.

First of all, Dr. Martin Luther King was feared, loathed and hated by most most white conservatives when he was alive.

Second, he was persecuted and imprisoned by white politicians and law enforcement, and eventually murdered for his beliefs.

Third, he supported Affirmative Action.

Proof?

>>>"The exploitation of King's name, the distortion of his teachings for political gain, is an ugly development. It was Dr. King himself, as chair of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), who initiated the first, successful, national affirmative action policy in the U.S.-- "Operation Breadbasket."

In Atlanta, Philadelphia, Chicago, among other cities, King staffers gathered disparity data on corporations doing business in black communities. King was so encouraged by early affirmative action efforts, he wrote: "At present, SCLC has Operation Breadbasket functioning in some twelve cities, and the results have been remarkable ... 800 new and upgraded jobs several covenants with major industries.''

King was well aware of arguments against affirmative action. Even in 1964, in Why We Can't Wait, he wrote: "Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic."

Dr. King -- who launched Operation Breadbasket in 12 American cities -- supported affirmative action because he never confused the dream with American reality. As he put it, "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro" to compete on a just and equal basis.

In 1965 King compared affirmative action to the GI Bill. "Within common law we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs ... And you will remember that America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans after the war." (Affirmative action for veterans is still in place today, and many qualified women are often passed over by male vets on the basis of "veteran preference").

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/king2.html

No honest person reading the facts on this matter can claim that MLK was AGAINST Affirmative Action.

--Cobra

MLK supported Affirmative Action. It is not certain that he *would have* supported what now passes for AA -- preferences given to recent immigrants, or upper middle class black Americans, or white women, or Hispanics. It is also not obvious that he would have supported the discrimination against Asians that so often follows on the back of AA.

FreeMan -- "Dr. King was assasinated to support that social justice cause." I started to correct this, and then I realized you probably meant exactly what you wrote.

Hull, I wouldn't use Limbaugh and the others as typical examples of consesrvatives, just as I wouldn't use Sharpton as a typical democrat.

Mikem - Yes when people quote Dr. Rev. King's "I Have a Dream Speech" Anti-Affirmative Action Supporters misquote that speech - They always leave out the beginning when Rev. Dr. King states that the freedom promised to Black Afrikans by the US Constitution 14th Amendment Equal Protection 1868 is worthless
that argues morally the US should do more to insure social equality for Black Afrikans than merely treating everyone equally in a White European-American Male Supremacist society
"all men created equal" Does not apply to Women or People of Color Dred Scott 1857 Decision US Supreme Court
Progress equals White European Supremacy 1 World Government/Order - Beast
Thanx Cobra - Why We Can't Wait Rev. Dr. King's book proves he supports Affirmative Action
Anti-Affirmative Action Supporters can think anyway they want - but if they seek the TRUTH - Dr. Rev. King supported Affirmative Action
Finally Mikem you are demonstrating White European-American supremacy comparing "little child screaming" with my complaint about Sexism & Racism in the US - Black Afrikans are considered subhumans in a White European-American supremacist system

A question for those who believe it is appropriate to practice racial preferences as a remedy for past discrimination:

If a black person "A" was unfairly discriminated in the past, will discriminating against a white person "B" even things out or is the result merely twice as much unfair discrimination?

"First of all, Dr. Martin Luther King was feared, loathed and hated by most most white conservatives when he was alive."
This is the perfect introduction to the type of "character" required by those who would slander Martin Luther King. Cobra transforms history and the black experience so that it was Southern Republicans and not Southern Democrats who enslaved blacks and introduced Jim Crow. No shame.
But that is par for the course for you, isn't it, Cobra?

Martin Luther King was firmly opposed to racial discrimination. But Cobra, to his further discredit, would have us believe that MLK's message was actually one of racial profiling, of racial quotas, of judging a man precisely by the color of his skin. Cobra wants Americans to believe that MLK's dream was not of a color blind society but one where everyone BUT blacks would be discriminated against. Either Cobra is up to the same dishonesty he is already famous for here, or MLK was a phony. My money is on Cobra being himself and MLK's memory as a civil rights leader being fully intact.

Cobra:
To quote Freeman himself, It is immoral to quote Rev. Dr. King out of context to pretend that he supported racial discrimination.

Just thought I'ld save Freeman the trouble of spanking you for your disrespect.

Mikem - You are using deception - I wrote,"It is immoral to quote Rev. Dr. King to prove that he did NOT support Affirmative Action -" (Emphasis added)

I'm just shocked, shocked I say, that Freeman doesn't get it.

But what should I expect from someone who considers Martin Luther Kings most famous words to be "out of context".

The racialists (a polite term for racists) just twist themselves into pretzels trying to justify their bigotry and hatred.

Dear Eddy - Anti-Affirmative Action programs are Immoral & Undemocratic - they discriminate against the US' Majority population - Women -
Also it is moral for the Strong - White European-American Males to bear the infirmities of Weak Women & People of Color - because White European-American Males are the dominant in US society - they should be able to take some "discrimination"

Also it is moral for the Strong - White European-American Males to bear the infirmities of Weak Women & People of Color

I don't know what circles you run in, but they're obviously quite different from mine. The women and blacks I know are not at all the poor, infirm, weak sisters you describe.

Perhaps you could get in touch with the sponsors of the new Equal Rights Amendment and request they add a provision requiring men -- no, make that white men, since in your view black men also are in need of assistance -- to open doors, give up their seats, etc., for the ladies.

"Anti-Affirmative Action programs are Immoral & Undemocratic - they discriminate against the US' Majority population - Women"

Ask Jennifer Gratz.

Proposal 2 Effective in Michigan 11/06 Bans Affirmative Action Programs to benefit Women & When Jennifer Gratz appeared on Television & Radio Ads to cause people to vote to ban Affirmative Action she never said that the Affirmative Action Ban Affected Women! Deception!

FreeMan -- I believe you and others suffer from the mischaracterization that discrimination, whether malicious or compensatory, should be viewed from the group rather than individual basis. Discrimination doesn't hurt groups as much as it hurts individuals.

If we needed to raise $1,000 from one thousand people isn't it better to get one dollar from everyone rather than to extract the whole $1,000 from a single person? Such is the case with compensatory discrimination. Raising $1,000 from one thousand people doesn't sound like an onerous collective burden unless a single person ends up saddled with the whole obligation.

Contrary to popular opinion, we white males don't maintain a co-op fund that may be accessed by white male victims of compensatory discrimination. We suffer individually just as you would suffer alone from malicious discrimination.

If you want to extract your pound of flesh from white males, you won't get it as modest scrapings from many. It will be from one individual whose only fault is being a member of the wrong group.

You can't rationalize compensatory discrimination by claiming that, as a burden, it is a small percentage of a large group, because the price is not equally shared by the whole group.

If you claim that it is morally fit to discriminate against white male individuals, you undercut the argument that it was wrong to discriminate against blacks and women to begin with.

Groups don't count, individuals do. Don't marginalize the damage of compensatory discrimination by claiming that by standing way back, it looks so small compared to the whole group. Try to see the forest for the trees.

"...you are demonstrating White European-American supremacy comparing "little child screaming" with my complaint about Sexism & Racism in the US..."

No, you said it was immoral to quote MLK's words. I told you to get off your high horse and quit acting like a child.
Understand now, little one? Or are you just playing the victim out of habit?

Mikem - you are demonstrating your White European-American supremacy - I am an adult because you are White European-American you believe that you are genetically superior to me -
Anti-Affirmative Action supporters have support from the Ku Klux Klan - Are you a Klan sympathizer?
Mikem I am a victim of White European-American supremacy look at how you just disrespected me - Did you know that White European-Americans called Black Afrikan men "boys" no matter how old they were? - that is a racist practice that you continue -
Eddy - Maybe White European-Americans suffer as individuals - but Women & Black Afrikans suffer as groups - Dred Scott case 1857 US Supreme Court "they" (Black Afrikan slaves)"had no rights which the (W)hite man was bound to respect." p 407

Go Freeman Go!

Sing the songs of paranoid fear all the live long day. May your days and nights be filled with your passion.

FreeMan -- I guess I wasn't aware that women and Black Afrikans were wired so fundamentally different from white males. I thought discrimination was felt solely by the individuals subject to the actual discrimination and not transfered through some unrecognized medium to others in their same demographic group.

I do recall an unsettled feeling in the mid-1970's about the time Alan Bakke was denied med school admission because he was white. But at the time, I wrote it off as possibly a transitory case of indigestion.

If indeed women and Black Afrikans do possess a mysterious interconnectiveness similar to the Borg of Star Trek fame, I might have to rethink my doubts about the qualitative benefits that spring forth from 'diversity'. I suppose my white privilege totally clouded my mind. Thanks for the 'heads-up'!

I've been in Maryland the past few days on business (great crabcake sandwiches!), so I missed most of the fun.

Eddy writes:

>>>"Contrary to popular opinion, we white males don't maintain a co-op fund that may be accessed by white male victims of compensatory discrimination. We suffer individually just as you would suffer alone from malicious discrimination...

Eddy also writes:

>>>"If a black person "A" was unfairly discriminated in the past, will discriminating against a white person "B" even things out or is the result merely twice as much unfair discrimination?"

I focus on these quotes to illuminate my viewpoints on these matters.

Apparently Eddy, you just don't know how GOOD white people seem to have it in America.

A. Mortgage Lending

>>>"African-Americans and Latinos are 30 percent more likely to receive higher rates for home loans than white borrowers despite similar credit scores and risk factors, according to a study published Wednesday by The Center for Responsible Lending."

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/31/news/mortgage_study/index.htm

B. The Equality Index

>>>"1. Economics - Still the largest divide, black economic status measures 57 percent of white counterparts, an equality gap 20 percent wider than any other category. Black unemployment remained stagnant at 10.8 percent while white unemployment dropped to 4.7 percent, making black unemployment more than twice that of whites.

2. Health - Black health status is 76 percent of whites. Obesity rates for blacks are increasing faster and the life expectancy rate for blacks is 72 years vs. 78 years for whites.

3. Education - Black education status is 77 percent of whites. Teachers with less than 3 years experience teach in minority schools at twice the rate that they teach in white schools.

4. Social Justice - When measuring sentencing, enforcement and victimization, black vs. white equality under law is 68 percent of whites (5 percent less than 2004 the worst decline overall.). Blacks are three times (3X) more likely to become prisoners once arrested and a Black person s average jail sentence is six months longer than a white s for the same crime; 39 months versus 33 months.

5. Civic Engagement - Blacks out-measure whites in the area of civic engagement (voter registration, volunteerism and government service) at 1.08. However, volunteerism is declining for both blacks and whites, due to an upsurge with the 2004 elections.

Total Equality Index states that Black status is 73% of their white counterparts"

http://www.nul.org/PressReleases/2005/2005PR185.html

C. Salaries and wages

>>>"At the beginning of the 1990s, black men working in the most highly paid private sector jobs earned 20 percent less than similar white workers, a racial disparity far greater than in lower paid jobs, according to a recent study by Eric Grodsky and Devah Pager, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

“The Structure of Disadvantage: Individual and Occupational Determinants of the Black-White Wage Gap,” published in the August issue of the American Sociological Association's American Sociological Review, found that while on average black men earned nine percent less than otherwise similar white men in the private sector, the percentage difference in earnings between blacks and whites was smallest in the lowest-paid occupations and greatest in the highest-paid occupations. For men working in the public sector, on the other hand, the average difference in earnings between blacks and whites in the same occupation was only 5 percent. The size of this gap did not vary consistently across occupations in the public sector.

“This should be a wake up call for those who believe that increases in occupational mobility will automatically lead to racial earnings equality,” the authors note. “Black men have made inroads into the most highly paid occupations, but once they get there they find they still don't earn as much as equally qualified white men.”

http://www.asanet.org/cs/08162001

Eddy, these quotes weren't from 1954, or during Reconstruction. These are MODERN DAY REALITIES. Why would you depict discrimination against blacks as "past" in your statements given the facts and statistics presented?

Does it have something to do with a recently researched MINDSET?

>>>"How important is your racial identity to you? Researchers long thought it wasn't that crucial to whites. But a groundbreaking new study on whiteness and race relations by University of Minnesota sociologists shows that whites in the U.S. are far more conscious of being white--and the privileges it brings--than was believed.

The survey is packed with fascinating findings, some surprising (a stunning proportion of whites--77%--say their race has a distinct culture that should be preserved) and some less so (whites view their role in the social hierarchy more benignly than blacks and Hispanics do). Whites are more likely to say prejudice and discrimination put blacks at a disadvantage than to say those factors contribute to white advantage. And they are much less likely than nonwhites to attribute inequality to bias in the legal system.

What to make of all this? Though whites in the U.S. believe there remain advantages to being white, they don't necessarily link those advantages with blacks' disadvantages. This hinders racial reconciliation, says co-author Douglas Hartmann: "Whites have invented subtle ways to convince themselves that race isn't a problem in America." Blacks do see more racism in society than whites but, contrary to stereotype, seem disinclined to blame the system for their disadvantage. In fact, they are more likely to attribute it to individual causes like a lack of hard work--77% did so, compared with 62% of whites. "We think of U.S. minorities as less engaged in American individualism," Hartmann says, "but they are maybe more so."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531296,00.html

--Cobra

Cobra, seriously, you do realize that research consists of more than just finding a URL that you can quote from out of context and keep posting over and over again, no matter how many times it has been debunked, right?

The conclusions Hartmann draws from his surveys don't really follow at all from the surveys. (Didn't John debunk this one already?)

The Center for Responsible Lending Ssudy simply ignores massive factors that affect mortgage rates -- like the amount of money people have (!) I know I've pointed that one out to you numerous times on this blog. (To be sure, it's better than the Boston Fed study which didn't even take into account credit rating or down payment.)

In any case, you don't address Eddie's point at all. If I get denied a job because of pro-black racial discrimination, the fact that some other white person got a job because of pro-white racial discrimination doesn't balance it out. People are not fungible based on skin color. One white person's opportunity is his personal opportunity, not all white people's opportunity.

David writes:

>>>"In any case, you don't address Eddie's point at all. If I get denied a job because of pro-black racial discrimination, the fact that some other white person got a job because of pro-white racial discrimination doesn't balance it out. People are not fungible based on skin color. One white person's opportunity is his personal opportunity, not all white people's opportunity."

White opportunity has been the history of America. Why are you still in denial about this? If you don't like the studies I present, where are the studies that show whites, particularly white males, aren't in control of the VAST MAJORITY of wealth, power and land in America?

I know it's an oft-used strategy by conservatives to constantly depict white males as underdogs and victims beseiged by Affirmative Action on one side and brown-skinned immigrants on the other--a circle the wagons tactic where white Republican millionaire politicians and pundits how hard it is out there for them.

All this grandiose double-speak about meritocracy, yet the Bush Administration managed to hire 150 students from that "ultra-competitive" Regent University (can you say, Monica Goodling?)
http://www.regent.edu/general/about_us/facts.cfm

You might want to try to sell that "white guys have it worse than anybody" stuff on talk radio. You'll have less opposition there.

--Cobra

You might want to try to sell that "white guys have it worse than anybody" stuff on talk radio. You'll have less opposition there.

And you might want to stick with college campuses if you want to spread the "Woe is me everyone is picking on me" meme; they're probably very receptive to it there, but a majority of people in three liberal states, including 58% of voters in Michigan, just rejected it.

Cobra, I'm sorry your application to work in the Bush Administration got rejected, but your entire response is a non-sequitur. No, the history of America is not "white" opportunity. (And the key word, of course, is "history.") You still keep doing it, treating all white people as an inseparable mass. Bill Gates owning Microsoft is wonderful for Bill Gates (and for Melinda), not for "whites" or "white males." I assure you that I don't get handed special White Male Stock in Microsoft.

David writes:

>>>"And you might want to stick with college campuses if you want to spread the "Woe is me everyone is picking on me" meme; they're probably very receptive to it there, but a majority of people in three liberal states, including 58% of voters in Michigan, just rejected it."

You meant to say--"a majority of WHITE people" just rejected it. Population demographics are changing, David.

--Cobra