Not looking to start an online fight but …

[jnc18]

man, julie can see light shining through from your other ear.  no one ever told you?

See you next Tuesday!

[jnc18]

as far as the poor white man and black man, i didnt mean to use economics...i only used "poor" because the previous poster used it...i mean, if u prefer, take everything i said ver batum and take out "poor" or any economic association...in other words, shouldnt the goal be that the white person be treated like the black person?  as far as chris rock...i saw that, i thought about that and i have to say my conclusion, i'd rather be him than the white bus boy...besides, it's comedy and i hardly take it seriously

Ahh, I see the point you were trying to make.  Hey, I can only respond to what you post, not what you were thinking.

I'd say Chris Rock would want to be himself too (and most people would).  But I think you understand what he was saying....

[lsatflunkie]

Manny- I do understand the meaning behind your questions- although one could perceive them to mean something differently, I truly do understand your question and your desire to understand. 

Having said that, I do have to point something out that you said that I completely disagree with -  on one of your posts here (I'm too lazy to quote you- so i'll paraphrase my perception of it- note keyword PERCEPTION)--  You said something to the effect of -- people shouldn't whine about having alcoholic or abusive parents on their personal statements b/c that does not show anything about how good of a law student they'd be--

I adamantly disagree with that notion.  One's personal life experiences do lead them to where they are today-- overcoming a horrific childhood can and is something that is looked at as being something of value or something triumphant.  If one takes the ratio of those who grew up with alcoholic or abusive parents- and measures their success against those who did not have that type of upbringing- I'd venture to say those in that horrific environment are usually less successful in life.  They more than likely became what they knew or learned- due to their lack of good parents and perhaps not having the abilities, resources, guidance to direct them in the better direction-  I'm not saying that if you were raised in a great childhood your likely to have a great future- I'm just thinking that such things as a horrific childhood would probably be something adcomms do consider.  Survival and overcoming obstacles is a grand quality--- taking yourself as far as you can go- with limited resources- is not only viewed positively, but it is also extremely admirable.

 

[BrerAnansi]

My question … my real question and the reason for my post is …. How long before we can all just be people and not separated into groups? Yes, for a world to exist there must be differences and groups. By why the HUGE gap? I’m not looking for a way to save the world and make up for a really long run of crappy ways our government has handled differences, I’m looking for a general consents that it needs to change.

Hey Manny..marry a white man or woman and have as many babies as you possibly can...you'll be [insert number of babies here] steps closer to a color-blind world. HTH

[lsatflunkie]

Lsat -- you said "with limited resources" -- do any of us really have limited resources anymore? I think its fair game out there. Ok, yes there are instances of discrimination absolutely. I whole-heartedly agree with that. I’m not making light of anyone’s situation but aren’t we at a point where it should be EXPECTED for people to overcome diversity? I don’t expect nor claim to be in a better position then anyone else in life and it would be great if the majority of everyone else out there to agree.

We should be expected as professionals to be able to overcome. I guess in a statement we should stress HOW but sooner or later there has to be a point that it is expected an applicant HAS overcome diversity and it shouldn’t be an issue anymore. There wont be personal statements anymore about how we overcome. It will be able what we see for our future bc the obvious conclusion is we all had overcome. All of us.

Why would anyone on this board be trying to pursue a career in law if we hadn’t overcome? It should be expected.

Overcoming a horrific childhood is not something everyone does.  It is something that is most certainly relevant to one's accomplishments.  That's all I was saying- nothing about race- simply correcting something you incorrectly stated earlier.

 

Did my boobs get less appealing?  lol

[BrerAnansi]

 Your right. I certainly will. And I wont teach my children hate. Unfortunately, its what society feeds to be hate. Not me. Sorry for trying to change that.

Well I'm glad that's decided...send me pictures...and I for one wasn't being facetious at all.  Make sure she can make rice and beans...then you'll eat good.  Good night.

[lsatflunkie]

You dont have any boobs anymore lsat!!

But no -- I dig the openness of your posts. I know we aren’t fighting … just sharing ideas. It's all I ever wanted here.

WOOHOOO-- I CAN GO BRALESS!!

[_BP_]

so, let's recap.

anyone?

I have, on occation, been following this thread.  The original intent of this post is an interesting look into the mind of a lonely person.  Part of me wonders why there is a separate BLSD, but I've posted on it, and I'm obviously white  , and no one has ever complained.  Then I realize that it is just a jealousy mechanism about the possibility of rejection by a community in which you are not a default member.  I get jealous of that sense of community as well, but I realize that we, as social animals, tend to form communities around common interests (LSD, sports, games, etc.) and common attributes (family history, ethnicity, culture, etc.)  and hopefully that community accepts new and different members as well as those it was set up to support (the community in question obviously does.)

Yeah, but I gritted my teeth at your audacity Mugatu, but then you started that BabyGotBack thread and I figured "hey, that's common ground if I've ever seen it"

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

Here's a little word on merit & preferential treatment that I think you should consider:


A Long History of Affirmative Action - For Whites

Many middle-class white people, especially those of us
from the suburbs, like to think that we got to where we
are today by virtue of our merit - hard work,
intelligence, pluck, and maybe a little luck. And while we
may be sympathetic to the plight of others, we close down
when we hear the words "affirmative action" or "racial
preferences." We worked hard, we made it on our own, the
thinking goes, why don't 'they'? After all, the Civil
Rights Act was enacted almost 40 years ago.

What we don't readily acknowledge is that racial
preferences have a long, institutional history in this
country - a white history. Here are a few ways in which
government programs and practices have channeled wealth
and opportunities to white people at the expense of
others.


Early Racial Preferences

We all know the old history, but it's still worth
reminding ourselves of its scale and scope. Affirmative
action in the American "workplace" first began in the late
17th century when European indentured servants - the
original source of unfree labor on the new tobacco
plantations of Virginia and Maryland - were replaced by
African slaves. In exchange for their support and their
policing of the growing slave population, lower-class
Europeans won new rights, entitlements, and opportunities
from the planter elite.

White Americans were also given a head start with the help
of the U.S. Army. The 1830 Indian Removal Act, for
example, forcibly relocated Cherokee, Creeks and other
eastern Indians to west of the Mississippi River to make
room for white settlers. The 1862 Homestead Act followed
suit, giving away millions of acres of what had been
Indian Territory west of the Mississippi. Ultimately, 270
million acres, or 10% of the total land area of the United
States, was converted to private hands, overwhelmingly
white, under Homestead Act provisions.

The 1790 Naturalization Act permitted only "free white
persons" to become naturalized citizens, thus opening the
doors to European immigrants but not others. Only citizens
could vote, serve on juries, hold office, and in some
cases, even hold property. In this century, Alien Land
Laws passed in California and other states, reserved farm
land for white growers by preventing Asian immigrants,
ineligible to become citizens, from owning or leasing
land. Immigration restrictions further limited
opportunities for nonwhite groups. Racial barriers to
naturalized U.S. citizenship weren't removed until the
McCarran-Walter Act in 1952, and white racial preferences
in immigration remained until 1965.

In the South, the federal government never followed
through on General Sherman's Civil War plan to divide up
plantations and give each freed slave "40 acres and a
mule" as reparations. Only once was monetary compensation
made for slavery, in Washington, D.C. There, government
officials paid up to $300 per slave upon emancipation -
not to the slaves, but to local slaveholders as
compensation for loss of property.

When slavery ended, its legacy lived on not only in the
impoverished condition of Black people but in the wealth
and prosperity that accrued to white slaveowners and their
descendents. Economists who try to place a dollar value on
how much white Americans have profited from 200 years of
unpaid slave labor, including interest, begin their
estimates at $1 trillion.

Jim Crow laws, instituted in the late 19th and early 20th
century and not overturned in many states until the 1960s,
reserved the best jobs, neighborhoods, schools and
hospitals for white people.


The Advantages Grow, Generation to Generation

Less known are more recent government racial preferences,
first enacted during the New Deal, that directed wealth to
white families and continue to shape life opportunities
and chances.

The landmark Social Security Act of 1935 provided a safety
net for millions of workers, guaranteeing them an income
after retirement. But the act specifically excluded two
occupations: agricultural workers and domestic servants,
who were predominately African American, Mexican, and
Asian. As low-income workers, they also had the least
opportunity to save for their retirement. They couldn't
pass wealth on to their children. Just the opposite. Their
children had to support them.

Like Social Security, the 1935 Wagner Act helped establish
an important new right for white people. By granting
unions the power of collective bargaining, it helped
millions of white workers gain entry into the middle class
over the next 30 years. But the Wagner Act permitted
unions to exclude non-whites and deny them access to
better paid jobs and union protections and benefits such
as health care, job security, and pensions. Many craft
unions remained nearly all-white well into the 1970s. In
1972, for example, every single one of the 3,000 members
of Los Angeles Steam Fitters Local #250 was still white.

But it was another racialized New Deal program, the
Federal Housing Administration, that helped generate much
of the wealth that so many white families enjoy today.
These revolutionary programs made it possible for millions
of average white Americans - but not others - to own a
home for the first time. The government set up a national
neighborhood appraisal system, explicitly tying mortgage
eligibility to race. Integrated communities were ipso
facto deemed a financial risk and made ineligible for home
loans, a policy known today as "redlining." Between 1934
and 1962, the federal government backed $120 billion of
home loans. More than 98% went to whites. Of the 350,000
new homes built with federal support in northern
California between 1946 and 1960, fewer than 100 went to
African Americans.

These government programs made possible the new segregated
white suburbs that sprang up around the country after
World War II. Government subsidies for municipal services
helped develop and enhance these suburbs further, in turn
fueling commercial investments. Freeways tied the new
suburbs to central business districts, but they often cut
through and destroyed the vitality of non-white
neighborhoods in the central city.

Today, Black and Latino mortgage applicants are still 60%
more likely than whites to be turned down for a loan, even
after controlling for employment, financial, and
neighborhood factors. According to the Census, whites are
more likely to be segregated than any other group. As
recently as 1993, 86% of suburban whites still lived in
neighborhoods with a black population of less than 1%.


Reaping the Rewards of Racial Preference

One result of the generations of preferential treatment
for whites is that a typical white family today has on
average eight times the assets, or net worth, of a typical
African American family, according to economist Edward
Wolff. Even when families of the same income are compared,
white families have more than twice the wealth of Black
families. Much of that wealth difference can be attributed
to the value of one's home, and how much one inherited
from parents.

But a family's net worth is not simply the finish line,
it's also the starting point for the next generation.
Those with wealth pass their assets on to their children -
by financing a college education, lending a hand during
hard times, or assisting with the down payment for a home.
Some economists estimate that up to 80 percent of lifetime
wealth accumulation depends on these intergenerational
transfers. White advantage is passed down, from parent to
child to grand-child. As a result, the racial wealth gap -
and the head start enjoyed by whites - appears to have
grown since the civil rights days.

In 1865, just after Emancipation, it is not surprising
that African Americans owned 0.5 percent of the total
worth of the United States. But by 1990, a full 135 years
after the abolition of slavery, Black Americans still
possessed only a meager 1 percent of national wealth.


Rather than recognize how "racial preferences" have tilted
the playing field and given us a head start in life, many
whites continue to believe that race does not affect our
lives. Instead, we chastise others for not achieving what
we have; we even invert the situation and accuse
non-whites of using "the race card" to advance themselves.

Or we suggest that differential outcomes may simply result
from differences in "natural" ability or motivation.
However, sociologist Dalton Conley's research shows that
when we compare the performance of families across racial
lines who make not just the same income, but also hold
similar net worth, a very interesting thing happens: many
of the racial disparities in education, graduation rates,
welfare usage and other outcomes disappear. The
"performance gap" between whites and nonwhites is a
product not of nature, but unequal circumstances.

Colorblind policies that treat everyone the same, no
exceptions for minorities, are often counter-posed against
affirmative action. But colorblindness today merely
bolsters the unfair advantages that color-coded practices
have enabled white Americans to long accumulate.

It's a little late in the game to say that race shouldn't
matter.



Copyright (c) California Newsreel, 2003
RACE - The Power of an Illusion

[Hybrid Vigor]

good post sands  ...while i agree with 90% of the point of that post, i do have one thing which may disagree/conflict with this...

as the post (article?) mentioned, granted briefly, the whites also tried to keep the asian-americans down as late as 1935, but we have been able to rise above and have been able to establish ourselves in the educational system as well as the social system, yet we probably have one of the lowest representations in the political system...thus we have less people "fighting" for our interests on a political level...i'm not speaking for the south or midwest or whatever, but in california asian-americans make up, by my rough guesstimate, about 25% of the UC system while we make up probably 15% of society while AA representation in the UC system is, i think, well under 10% despite there being far more AAs in CA...this makes me wonder why there is such a discrepancy between the cultures...

i personally suspect that the difference is due to the fact that, from what i've seen, asians seem to value education a lot more and tends to put more pressure on the kids to obtain an education and i just dont see other cultures' emphasis on education the way that asians tend to emphasize it...this leads me to wonder why that was?  why is it that the other minorities (not just AAs) dont seem to emphasize the importance of an education?  i know this sounds ignorant as #(@%, but i dont believe that there's no merit to it...

That is not uniquely Asian, it's immigrant. Immigrants from Africa/the Carribean also have children who do outstandingly well in higher education - the statistics you cited also apply to Nigerians and Trinis and Kenyans. Immigrants are a self selected group of very motivated people...if you head back to Korea, China, Jamaica, etc you will find plenty of slackers. Immigrants are a group who come to America with one objective, which is to find a better life for themselves and their children. Why does it surprise people that they often meet that objective?


And for the record, AAs do not devalue education - I am of AA descent and no one of the race has ever discouraged me from obtaining an education - quite the opposite. However, we do tend to be distrustful of almost every American institution and education is one of them...and considering how the system has failed even AAs who try...its not hard to see why. There is another thread elsewhere on the board about Teach for America - read it. Read about how kids who are smart and are doing well are scared to go to school for fear of violence. It's not as simple as, our culture values this and yours doesn't so therefore you guys don't do well. Really, if any of these things had simple answers/solutions they wouldn't be discussed literally hundreds if not thousands of times over on this board.