[jjbrr]

Chas_P, on 2017-November-17, 12:39, said:

I guess it is weird since this thread is supposed to be about Confederate Statues. But Barry brought it up.

No it's fine. It's just ironic that a poor choice of words is what you believe sunk Hillary, and maybe it did. Apologies for the whataboutism; it doesn't promote any discussion. I just enjoy reading it.

Quote

“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”

[Chas_P]

Zelandakh, on 2017-August-24, 00:28, said:

The rest of your post is so overtly racist that I thought initially it was some quote from the 19th century rather than your own words. It is precisely this kind of attitude - all blacks are murderers and school dropouts, without the level of humanity to hold a family together - that needs to be eradicated. That you posted this sh!te lowers my opinion of you greatly and I hope you will now distance yourself from the views. Writing that you are "not condeming just blacks" afterwards does not make your post any less offensive, nor you any less of a racist.

I thought the following from Jason Riley (a black man) writing in the WSJ was especially appropriate on the 50th anniversary of Dr. King's assassination:


After remarking on disproportionately high inner-city crime rates, King told a black congregation in St. Louis that “we’ve got to do something about our moral standards.” He added: “We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world too. We can’t keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves.”

King’s successors mostly ignore this advice, preferring instead to keep the onus on whites. Where King tried to instill in young people the importance of personal responsibility and self-determination notwithstanding racial barriers, his counterparts today spend more time making excuses for counterproductive behavior and dismissing criticism of it as racist.

[kenberg]

Chas_P, on 2018-April-04, 19:03, said:

I thought the following from Jason Riley (a black man) writing in the WSJ was especially appropriate on the 50th anniversary of Dr. King's assassination:


After remarking on disproportionately high inner-city crime rates, King told a black congregation in St. Louis that "we've got to do something about our moral standards." He added: "We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world too. We can't keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves."

King's successors mostly ignore this advice, preferring instead to keep the onus on whites. Where King tried to instill in young people the importance of personal responsibility and self-determination notwithstanding racial barriers, his counterparts today spend more time making excuses for counterproductive behavior and dismissing criticism of it as racist.

There was a segment on the PBS Newshour last night, I believe that there will be a continuation. It was pretty decent. Not great but pretty decent. We have a problem that has defeid a solution so far.

https://www.pbs.org/...ts-stands-today
Here is something from one f the speakers (Vann Newkirk):

Quote

Connie actually hit the nail on the head there talking about the black and the white communities. I think there's a difference in the ability to wall oneself off. There are folks who can have a white community.They can go to work. They can never interact with black people. They can go home and never see black people.

Black people don't really have that luxury. When black people go to work, they go to work mostly to work for white folks. They have to figure out how to exist in integrated spaces.

And while segregation is still heavy in housing and school, there is still just a difference in that ability. And I think that filters in our understanding of the civil rights movement.

If you asked, I imagine, a sample of 10 white Americans and 10 black Americans who the civil rights movement was for, you get differing answers on whether it was for America or for black people.

It was for America. And it was always framed by the leaders of the civil rights movements as being for America, for black folks, for laborers, for workers, for people in the lower class. King spoke a lot more — about a lot more than just black people.

I think I see things roughly the same way, perhaps phrased a bit differently. It's in the best interests of everyone that we all have an opportunity for a decent life. If a neighbor's life goes badly, this is bad for him of course, but it is also bad for me. Especially if several neighbors lives are going badly, and especially especially if the division between a life that is going well and a life that is going badly is heavily linked to racial (or other) groupings. So we all stand to gain by increasing opportunity for all. This seems totally obvious to me. We do not need elaborate theories of social justice to understand this, it seems obvious. Exactly what do do can be argued about, but I think the starting point that should have wide agreement could be that we are all better off when everyone has a decent shot at a good life. A cliche? Maybe, I suppose, but sometimes we forget. I am no authority on MLK but I think, and I gather Newkirk thinks, that this was an important part of what King was getting at.

Here is part of the problem, as I see it. Changing a policy so that a person with black skin is no longer required to sit on the back of the bus is easier, once the old policy is seen as not only unfair but ludicrous, than turning an ineffective school system into a strong one. But this latter change is very much needed.

[barmar]

Chas_P, on 2018-April-04, 19:03, said:

After remarking on disproportionately high inner-city crime rates, King told a black congregation in St. Louis that “we’ve got to do something about our moral standards.” He added: “We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world too. We can’t keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves.”

King’s successors mostly ignore this advice, preferring instead to keep the onus on whites. Where King tried to instill in young people the importance of personal responsibility and self-determination notwithstanding racial barriers, his counterparts today spend more time making excuses for counterproductive behavior and dismissing criticism of it as racist.

That doesn't mean there isn't a huge amount that needs to be done about whites. It's not either-or, and I have a feeling that the problem of white attitudes towards blacks is more of a problem than the problems within the black communities. And some of the latter problems are caused by the former -- the fact that black communities have more crime, domestic violence, poverty, single-parent families, etc. is because it's so hard to escape that community, which has been held down by whites for generations.

[Winstonm]

Chas_P, on 2018-April-04, 19:03, said:

I thought the following from Jason Riley (a black man) writing in the WSJ was especially appropriate on the 50th anniversary of Dr. King's assassination:


After remarking on disproportionately high inner-city crime rates, King told a black congregation in St. Louis that “we’ve got to do something about our moral standards.” He added: “We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world too. We can’t keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves.”

King’s successors mostly ignore this advice, preferring instead to keep the onus on whites. Where King tried to instill in young people the importance of personal responsibility and self-determination notwithstanding racial barriers, his counterparts today spend more time making excuses for counterproductive behavior and dismissing criticism of it as racist.

Although there is truth to Riley's statements, they are not the entire story. People are not groups, but individuals, and within groups of peoples there is a great amount of variation among those individuals. But when an entire group of people is not offered the same opportunities as everyone else, there is bound to be different responses to that problem. Some will tend to blame themselves; some will tend to blame others; some will react passively; others will react violently; some will try to change the world; others will try to change the community. People, after all, are only people, regardless of skin color.

Until the barrier of skin color is demolished, there will be anger, desperation, acceptance, violence, and all other manners of human emotions by those affected both within their communities and from within their communities.

To tell someone who in reality is the same as anyone else that they cannot be hired because they are more prone to discrimination lawsuits and that is their fault is simply wrong.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2018-April-05, 08:51, said:

To tell someone who in reality is the same as anyone else that they cannot be hired because they are more prone to discrimination lawsuits and that is their fault is simply wrong.

This is one of the reasons we need civil rights laws prohibiting such discrimination in hiring. That's a perfectly rational, non-prejudicial attitude for a business owner to take: you're not likely to run into sexual harassment or racial issues in the workplace if you don't have women or people of color, so it's good fiscal policy.

We've decided as a society that the freedom of everyone to work where they would like is more important, and businesses will need to deal with the interpersonal problems that might result. And the result will that diversity becomes normalized, so the problems should decline over time. Growing pains are normal, we put up with them.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2018-April-06, 08:58, said:

This is one of the reasons we need civil rights laws prohibiting such discrimination in hiring. That's a perfectly rational, non-prejudicial attitude for a business owner to take: you're not likely to run into sexual harassment or racial issues in the workplace if you don't have women or people of color, so it's good fiscal policy.

We've decided as a society that the freedom of everyone to work where they would like is more important, and businesses will need to deal with the interpersonal problems that might result. And the result will that diversity becomes normalized, so the problems should decline over time. Growing pains are normal, we put up with them.

Yes, but try explaining that to those who think that any such action to level the playing field constitutes discrimination against whites.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2018-April-06, 09:49, said:

Yes, but try explaining that to those who think that any such action to level the playing field constitutes discrimination against whites.

Perhaps a Turing-test arrangement for applicants? The biggest problem might be finding ANY kind of intelligence...

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2018-April-06, 09:49, said:

Yes, but try explaining that to those who think that any such action to level the playing field constitutes discrimination against whites.

yeah, I know.

I finally came to the conclusion that affirmative action is not reverse discrimination. That conclusion assumes that organizations (e.g. colleges) are somehow able to rank all their applicants objectively, and simply accept all the applicants at the top of the list to fill the available spaces.

But evaluating applicants is hardly so tidy. What they most likely do is just split the applicant pool into a small number of groups, e.g. really great, good, OK, unacceptable. Then they make offers to some number of applicants from the more acceptable groups (people from "good" and "OK" might get offers to allow for the possibility that the evaluation criteria isn't perfect). Once they've decided to accept N applicants from a particular group, affirmative action can be used to diversify how they choose people.

So it's not the case that a better applicant was passed over to take a minority -- they're all considered equal on technical merits, but they can't all get spots.

[barmar]

Also, I think that diversity has been shown to benefit the organizations, so affirmative action is not only a leg-up to the discriminated class.

[jjbrr]

barmar, on 2018-April-07, 11:33, said:

Also, I think that diversity has been shown to benefit the organizations, so affirmative action is not only a leg-up to the discriminated class.

If it doesn't necessarily benefit an organization, it doesn't hurt it, and it almost certainly benefits society in whole.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2018-April-07, 11:33, said:

Also, I think that diversity has been shown to benefit the organizations, so affirmative action is not only a leg-up to the discriminated class.

Affirmative action wouldn't be needed if you had to hire while blindfolded.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2018-April-07, 21:25, said:

Affirmative action wouldn't be needed if you had to hire while blindfolded.

Sure it would.

Suppose 20% of the qualified candidates are minorities. If you hire blindfolded, only 20% of the hires will be minorities. If you're trying to get more equal representation, you haven't succeeded.

Remember, the reason why there are so few of those candidates is that history and society have stacked the deck against them, and AA is trying to make up for that. So it's not good enough to hire at the same ratio as the candidates in the pool, because that just perpetuates the problem.

Hiring blindfolded is a solution to bias against minorities (which would cause the hires to be even less than their representation in the candidates), but that's not the only problem that needs solving.

[ggwhiz]

An extreme case may be South Africa in 1997.

They had a brand new constitution (modeled after Canada's) and a bench full of old white racists who were misogynists too by and large. My wife at the time ran a shuttle of top Canadian legal talent to help with workshops and seminars to bring the local talent (who were previously denied the opportunities so there was a real skills gap) up to speed but it was still called affirmative action.

It was much slower and more subtle in the private sector but this was really needed and fast.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2018-April-08, 18:33, said:

Sure it would.

Suppose 20% of the qualified candidates are minorities. If you hire blindfolded, only 20% of the hires will be minorities. If you're trying to get more equal representation, you haven't succeeded.

Remember, the reason why there are so few of those candidates is that history and society have stacked the deck against them, and AA is trying to make up for that. So it's not good enough to hire at the same ratio as the candidates in the pool, because that just perpetuates the problem.

Hiring blindfolded is a solution to bias against minorities (which would cause the hires to be even less than their representation in the candidates), but that's not the only problem that needs solving.

I meant that as a little snark how we still look at color instead of seeing only fellow humans. We need affirmative action because we don't live on the bridge of the Enterprise.

[Winstonm]

Why won't Trump rename military bases named after Confederate soldiers? Why would he keep a white supremacist in the White House as a senior adviser? Same reasons.

Let's recall what those names represent: the confederate states, who made war against the United States, and whose vice-president, Alexander Stephens, said this:

Quote

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Yes, there were deplorables in 1861 - and their progeny lives on. But only a racist wants to celebrate that fact.

[thepossum]

Winstonm, on 2020-June-13, 07:23, said:

Why won't Trump rename military bases named after Confederate soldiers? Why would he keep a white supremacist in the White House as a senior adviser? Same reasons.

Let's recall what those names represent: the confederate states, who made war against the United States, and whose vice-president, Alexander Stephens, said this:



Yes, there were deplorables in 1861 - and their progeny lives on. But only a racist wants to celebrate that fact.

Since you revivied the thread and nobody else commented I would love to add a few thoughts. I just read most of the thread and realised its been going for years so apologies. And I will try not to buy into American local issues.

However as an outside observer (and inside observer given my history from the UK and Australia) it is a rather important thread.

Firstly I am somewhat interested in history of the Confederacy and slavery in the USA (purely by way of understanding my own history). It is fascinating though, is it not, that in those days it was southern democrats fighting to protect slavery and their way of life. And these days the Democrats love having a go at the other team. Thats as an outsider

Secondly I really am fairly ignorant of much of my country's history and colonial history all over the world regarding slavery. However, I have something of an out that in those days my family were mostly working in fields or holes in the ground and not part of the class that did it. But my lack of knoweldge is shameful.

Thirdly, I may not be popular in Australia for saying this, but links between UK ruling and merchant classes (eg East India company etc), colonialism, South Africa, Australia, Canada, USA etc and the terrible things that happened, under our name, but arguably not under the name of my class (apologies); is widely lacking and unacknowledged. I will not be popular in my adopted home for raising the issue of the White Australia policy, our own segregation here, attitudes to anyone non-white basically, links with other similar white colonial countries etc

Fourthly The issue of statues and the recent movement to demolish or at least challenge those of racists/slave owners did raise some interesting issues as to how far things should be demolished that were based upon questionnable historial policies and exploitation. I don't think much would be left standing around the world. And I mean anywhere throughout human history.

Fifthly, apropos of the left and racism and slavery; I have been very concerned at some tendencies by some on the left during the recent pandemic economic crisis to ignore the inequality around the world, to look at their privilged back yards and lives, to actually reimpose very unequal policies bordering on permanent exploitation of certain groups in society while the elites sit around happily debating the sorry state of the world at their dinner parties

Kind regards P

[Cyberyeti]

ggwhiz, on 2018-April-08, 20:31, said:

An extreme case may be South Africa in 1997.

They had a brand new constitution (modeled after Canada's) and a bench full of old white racists who were misogynists too by and large. My wife at the time ran a shuttle of top Canadian legal talent to help with workshops and seminars to bring the local talent (who were previously denied the opportunities so there was a real skills gap) up to speed but it was still called affirmative action.

It was much slower and more subtle in the private sector but this was really needed and fast.

Quotas were put in place in the SA cricket team - and what happened ? Many of the promising white players who were overlooked for black players of lesser ability went to play in English domestic cricket rendering them unavailable for South African selection (known as Kolpak players, they did not count against the allowed number of overseas players, this loophole may disappear once Brexit fully cuts in). This didn't immediately affect the first team, but did mean that many of the injury replacements weren't there, and has particularly hit them with one player (Simon Harmer) because in SA you only need 0-1 spinners in your team, but playing on the Indian subcontinent you need 2-3.

[hrothgar]

thepossum, on 2020-June-30, 03:55, said:

Firstly I am somewhat interested in history of the Confederacy and slavery in the USA (purely by way of understanding my own history). It is fascinating though, is it not, that in those days it was southern democrats fighting to protect slavery and their way of life. And these days the Democrats love having a go at the other team. Thats as an outsider

FWIW, I don't really that using US political parties identification is a useful way to predict policy preferences.

The US has gone through multiple massive political realignments in which the policy platforms of one or more political parties has shifted dramatically.

The New Deal in the US was one such event
Civil Rights reform in the 1960s was another
The Reagan Revolution in the 80s was a third
"Trumpism" (if it survives) might be another

Given the amount of flux that we see in policy preference, I am starting to believe that a better way to look at various administrations is a governing coalitions between different political tribes and identifying the set of tribes that holds power is more useful in predicting policy than ® or (D)

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-June-30, 04:27, said:

Many of the promising white players <...> went to play in English domestic cricket rendering them unavailable for South African selection

So players like Basil D'Oliviera, Tony+Ian Greig, Chris+Robin Smith and Allan Lamb?