challenge to urm's

[Jamie Stringer]

As to aa being or not being about discrimination, see above. So we should just deal with some level of discrimination? Until...?

I get the U in URM thing, but that just serves to further my point. I agree, the argument can be made for more aa down the line using the above, but that still isn't going to address the problem. Blacks and Latinos aren't held back by white people (anymore) and haven't been in at least a generation. Yet, despite all the aa, they're still not getting ahead and, if anything, are falling further behind. AA isn't the silver bullet to fix this problem, it's the garden hose for the forest fire. A serious internal dialog for the aforementioned cultures, on the other hand, is probably going to be the only viable answer. Only when they stop promoting counter-productive cultural values and start promoting productive ones can they fix the problem for themselves. Asians and (though not a racial group) Jews are both very small segments of the society, both groups have historically been discriminated against very hard, yet both groups surpass everyone else in academic achievement and general productivity because their cultures promote useful, productive values. I used to think NA Indians had a legit claim for aa (given that whole genocide thing), more than anyone else, but now I'm starting to think the same as above applies to them.

I do believe aa had a place once upon a time, but that time is long gone and now, all it's doing is causing us to waste time here.

1.  The bolded doesn't jibe with this quote:

Discrimination has always and will always exist. To pretend otherwise is to live in a fairy tale.

So really, it seems that your problem is that AA is a form of discrimination that you don't like and that doesn't benefit you.  Well, get over it.  I mean, if it's always going to exist, then why not AA as opposed to, say, disparate funding in public schools, systemic failings of communities of color, etc?

2. The italicized is patently false, at least with respect to Asians as an entire group.  I agree that East Asians as a general population have done exceedingly well, educationally.  Yet there are whole communities within the "Asian" category for which this doesn't hold -- many Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Hmong communities (not to mention Pacific Islanders who are usually lumped into that broad category) have significant barriers to academic achievement and, in fact, lag substantially behind East Asians.

3. It also seems like the italicized is saying that Black, Hispanic/Latino, and Native American cultures don't promote useful, productive values.  I certainly hope this isn't the case.

[Ninja1]

As to aa being or not being about discrimination, see above. So we should just deal with some level of discrimination? Until...?

I get the U in URM thing, but that just serves to further my point. I agree, the argument can be made for more aa down the line using the above, but that still isn't going to address the problem. Blacks and Latinos aren't held back by white people (anymore) and haven't been in at least a generation. Yet, despite all the aa, they're still not getting ahead and, if anything, are falling further behind. AA isn't the silver bullet to fix this problem, it's the garden hose for the forest fire. A serious internal dialog for the aforementioned cultures, on the other hand, is probably going to be the only viable answer. Only when they stop promoting counter-productive cultural values and start promoting productive ones can they fix the problem for themselves. Asians and (though not a racial group) Jews are both very small segments of the society, both groups have historically been discriminated against very hard, yet both groups surpass everyone else in academic achievement and general productivity because their cultures promote useful, productive values. I used to think NA Indians had a legit claim for aa (given that whole genocide thing), more than anyone else, but now I'm starting to think the same as above applies to them.

I do believe aa had a place once upon a time, but that time is long gone and now, all it's doing is causing us to waste time here.

1.  The bolded doesn't jibe with this quote:

Discrimination has always and will always exist. To pretend otherwise is to live in a fairy tale.

So really, it seems that your problem is that AA is a form of discrimination that you don't like and that doesn't benefit you.  Well, get over it.  I mean, if it's always going to exist, then why not AA as opposed to, say, disparate funding in public schools, systemic failings of communities of color, etc?

2. The italicized is patently false, at least with respect to Asians as an entire group.  I agree that East Asians as a general population have done exceedingly well, educationally.  Yet there are whole communities within the "Asian" category for which this doesn't hold -- many Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Hmong communities (not to mention Pacific Islanders who are usually lumped into that broad category) have significant barriers to academic achievement and, in fact, lag substantially behind East Asians.

3. It also seems like the italicized is saying that Black, Hispanic/Latino, and Native American cultures don't promote useful, productive values.  I certainly hope this isn't the case.

1. K? I have no problem with the fact I don't benefit from aa. I still landed where I want to be and it just means I need to work a little harder. In fact, I suspect the opposite; you argue for it because you are benefited by it. I mean, I don't know what you're GPA looks like, but that's a pretty good cycle for just a 171 (not that there's anything marginal about a 171, but your results certainly exceed what one should expect).

Discrimination against everyone is always going to exist, black, white, latino, and everyone else. What I'm saying is that aa seems to be predicated on the belief that we can wipe out discrimination over time by getting URMs into good positions, which is simply not the case.

2. Asians as a group stomp. I agree some segments don't, but as a whole, they do. Hence the lack of aa love for Asians. Large segments of the white community suck, but on the whole, the group still does good enough to be systemically discriminated against at all levels of society yet still maintain a marked advantage in terms of achievement.

3. The above don't promote useful, productive values by and large, and that's the main problem. Yeah, some parents and communities buck the trend, but most don't. As soon as blacks and latinos stop killing each other and being incarcerated at absurdly high levels compared to whites and asians, you might see some progress. NAs are stuck in more self destructive trends, though they seem to be slowly reversing that.

[Who?]

I'm not going to address how utterly insulting your post is as a whole, but rather, just point out a few flaws to you.

1. Poverty causes crime. Since minorities are disproportionately poorer than whites, they commit more crimes. They are not taught by their mommies and daddies that killing others is ok. This leads me to:

2. Although people like to throw around the phrase "meritocracy," it is actually rare in this country for people to advance their class status. Most people stay at the same level or do worse than their parents did. Thus, since blacks were poor when they were freed from slavery, it would follow that their children would be poor too. A cycle of poverty then develops...

[Kirk Lazarus]

I'm not going to address how utterly insulting your post is as a whole, but rather, just point out a few flaws to you.

1. Poverty causes crime. Since minorities are disproportionately poorer than whites, they commit more crimes. They are not taught by their mommies and daddies that killing others is ok. This leads me to:

2. Although people like to throw around the phrase "meritocracy," it is actually rare in this country for people to advance their class status. Most people stay at the same level or do worse than their parents did. Thus, since blacks were poor when they were freed from slavery, it would follow that their children would be poor too. A cycle of poverty then develops...

Poverty doesn't cause crime.

[mugatu]

desperation causes crime?

[Ninja1]

I'm not going to address how utterly insulting your post is as a whole, but rather, just point out a few flaws to you.

1. Poverty causes crime. Since minorities are disproportionately poorer than whites, they commit more crimes. They are not taught by their mommies and daddies that killing others is ok. This leads me to:

2. Although people like to throw around the phrase "meritocracy," it is actually rare in this country for people to advance their class status. Most people stay at the same level or do worse than their parents did. Thus, since blacks were poor when they were freed from slavery, it would follow that their children would be poor too. A cycle of poverty then develops...

Consider it insulting if you want. That's really the main cause of the problem. There's a difference between something being insulting and being honest but painful, and until the aforementioned communities realize that, the problem will perpetuate itself. 

1. As addressed above, poverty doesn't cause crime. There are many white and asian communities that are impoverished yet have reasonably low crime rates. The failing isn't the poverty, it's the attitude.

2. On the first half, of course it's rare for people to advance much beyond their class, if it wasn't, it wouldn't matter. Any single person still stands a better chance of making it here in America than anywhere else on Earth. Here, as long as you're reasonably intelligent, work hard, and obey the law, you'll be fine. On the second half, whites were poor when they got here (in fact, there wasn't really anything of note here at the time). Asians were even poorer and more recent arrivals to the country. Yet both groups have done remarkably well. Slavery isn't a legitimate excuse for the black condition and hasn't been in some time. If blacks can't break the poverty cycle in about 140 years, they probably never will without some serious internal dialog about why the failings persist. Virtually every other group has, in the time they've been here, broken the poverty cycle within 2-3 generations.

[Ninja1]

desperation causes crime?

No more than poverty causes crime.

[mugatu]

1. As addressed above, poverty doesn't cause crime. There are many white and asian communities that are impoverished yet have reasonably low crime rates. The failing isn't the poverty, it's the attitude.

2. On the first half, of course it's rare for people to advance much beyond their class, if it wasn't, it wouldn't matter. Any single person still stands a better chance of making it here in America than anywhere else on Earth. Here, as long as you're reasonably intelligent, work hard, and obey the law, you'll be fine. On the second half, whites were poor when they got here (in fact, there wasn't really anything of note here at the time). Asians were even poorer and more recent arrivals to the country. Yet both groups have done remarkably well. Slavery isn't a legitimate excuse for the black condition and hasn't been in some time. If blacks can't break the poverty cycle in about 140 years, they probably never will without some serious internal dialog about why the failings persist. Virtually every other group has, in the time they've been here, broken the poverty cycle within 2-3 generations.

ok, now that's just racist.  not even "kind of" racist.  just plain racist.

furthermore, other minority groups in the US have not had to deal with institutional racism, which ended not so long ago (probably less than 2-3 generations!  even!), let alone societal racism which stopped...oh, wait.  it hasn't.  as exemplified by you.

Seriously dude.  you make everyone look bad.  and give lawdog's rants some basis in reality.  ffs

[bl825]

I know I said that I was done here, but it's hard to stay away given what's being said. 

[Ninja1]

1. As addressed above, poverty doesn't cause crime. There are many white and asian communities that are impoverished yet have reasonably low crime rates. The failing isn't the poverty, it's the attitude.

2. On the first half, of course it's rare for people to advance much beyond their class, if it wasn't, it wouldn't matter. Any single person still stands a better chance of making it here in America than anywhere else on Earth. Here, as long as you're reasonably intelligent, work hard, and obey the law, you'll be fine. On the second half, whites were poor when they got here (in fact, there wasn't really anything of note here at the time). Asians were even poorer and more recent arrivals to the country. Yet both groups have done remarkably well. Slavery isn't a legitimate excuse for the black condition and hasn't been in some time. If blacks can't break the poverty cycle in about 140 years, they probably never will without some serious internal dialog about why the failings persist. Virtually every other group has, in the time they've been here, broken the poverty cycle within 2-3 generations.

ok, now that's just racist.  not even "kind of" racist.  just plain racist.

furthermore, other minority groups in the US have not had to deal with institutional racism, which ended not so long ago (probably less than 2-3 generations!  even!), let alone societal racism which stopped...oh, wait.  it hasn't.  as exemplified by you.

Seriously dude.  you make everyone look bad.  and give lawdog's rants some basis in reality.  ffs

Call it racist if you want, it still doesn't make it any less true.

I've already pointed out (some number of pages ago) that the disenfranchisement of blacks until the 1960s or '70s (depending on your perspective) is the best argument for why blacks are still down. Previous poster tried to make it about slavery, so I addressed that instead.