Since Screaming Jesus’ comment was quashed on another thread, and while I do not disagree with everything he says (the alternative, censorship, is even less attractive), I would like to start one here regarding reparations to be paid to descendants of Black slaves in America.
I personally disagree that any reparations should be paid to Blacks in America because how do you determine who was a slave? So for example, if a White and Black Southerner get married and have children, do they get reparations? What about Blacks who immigrated to the States later? What percentage of black blood would one have to have to get reparations? Why should northerners pay when they were not only opposed but fought a bloody war sacrificing their sons and fathers and brothers lives to end slavery?
And I will repeat Screaming Jesus’ comments (and why exactly are they politically incorrect?), if Blacks are to be paid reparations for the damages caused by slavery 150 years ago, should Blacks be forced to pay reparations for the much higher crime rates existing in their communities? Should they have to pay damages for the various race riots that have occurred, mostly recently the one in LA in 1992 when KOREAN shops were most targeted? Will the Black community then have to pay reparations to these shop owners? Where does this begin? Where does it end? How should all the welfare, affirmative action, etc. programs be taken into account?
I for one am sick of the whole ethnic/racial Balkanization in America. We are too diverse and too mixed up (bloodwise) for this kind of stuff anymore. That is why I think all federal forms should take off any questions regarding racial, ethnic or religious status. We are AMERICANS.
I agree. It’s even worse in Canada. I believe that ethnic and racial differences should manifest themselves primarily on the dinner table, and in skin tone, not in school applications or job interviews. Unfortunately, that’s not a very popular school of thought in Canada right now…
Since every thing I say on topics like this offend the delicate sensitivites of those living to play the “race card”, I ain’t makin’ no comments. I’d like to, I sure would, but it just isn’t worth it.
Well, OK, just one comment, suffice it to say that I favour personal accountability and a minimal amount of Gov’t involvement in one’s life.
You are basically rejecting all forms of blanket reparations on grounds of ill definition of scope or perhaps a time-out. That’s not saying much.
But what do you believe in principle? If somebody can prove all of his/her ancestors who could have been slaves were slaves and can prove some white guy’s estate had its earnings from the work of those slaves (say all of his ancestors who were slaves worked on the same plantation), what do you say? I mean if the implementation can be resolved, are you still against reparations in principle? Seems like it.
BTW, slavery is the not the same as high crime rate. Those committing crimes or disturb the peace with race riots faced their day in court already. And those Korean store owners technically have the right to sue for civil damages, no? So that’s a bunk argument.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think monetary reparation addresses the issue its advocates claim it addresses at all. Therefore I am against it. However, the OP’s arguments against it are retarded.
[edit: okay, I see what you are saying now. yes. they should sue in court if they want. agreed.]
I would also support changing affirmative action to being income based rather than race based. The point was to help PEOPLE. Now, we have lots of students getting in with low grades based on the color of their skin who come from rich families. If this is changed to income based, it will be a much fairer system since all ethnic groups have people who have shown great initiative in overcoming their backgrounds. THEY should be rewarded for doing so even though they may not have the economic means to pay for Harvard or Yale. Also, we have to be careful since many elite universities have found that you cannot just pluck a certain number of downtrodden individuals and throw them into a pool with some of the most ambitious best educated people in America. The failure rates of many of these affirmative action candidates is such that it might have been better off to put them into a second or third-tier university where they would have a better chance of graduating than a top-tier school where their either flunk out or “exceptions” have to be made for them in order to graduate them.
Or, as the Grateful Dead used to describe their approach to any one band member leading the band… they each preferred to lead with or by a “dynamic benign neglect”…
Or, as Laodz said… “govern a country the way you fry a small fish”.
No one to my knowledge is allowed to sue anyone for criminal or property damages against those who harmed their ancestors. If this is allowed to occur then where does it end. Many Whites could go to factory owners where their grandfather lost an arm or leg and say that he was not given satisfactory compensation.
Exactly, and anyone who can prove that you say regarding slavery could just as equally file a claim in a court. Though no court, to my understanding, would ever hear a trial against someone for damages committed 150 years ago.
Then there is the whole issue about blacks in the North. Do they then pay reparations to Blacks who lived in the South?
No, it wasn’t. Affirmative action was designed to address a race issue out and out.
I also think it should instead be income based. You should say “the point SHOULD BE to help people.”
But in fact those who are using affirmative action to get into elite universities are often from successful families. These are children of lawyers and doctors and business executives. How does their getting into Harvard with a 2.7 GPA and 1100 SAT help Blacks? How does this help redress the problem of discrimination (total nation) and slavery (which ended in the South 150 years ago?)
I have read the same thing, in particular some black Law students who can’t make it through the top school, but would most likely have done well at middle range schools. Maybe they wouldn’t have had a Harvard degree, but they woulkd have become lawyers. Wasn’t that the point?
Afirmative Action based on financial need only sounds good to me too. In upstate NY there are many many families with kids who do well in school, but can’t afford car paryments, much less tuition fees.
The ideal is that we are all human beings and everyone is equal, but in reality, racism is still prevalent in this world. As long as people still resist hiring someone because of race or skin color, affirmative action is still needed. Hopefully, we won’t need it someday.
But is racism still prevalent in America? It seems to me that everyone in the US is not innocent until proven guilty but forced to prove their innocence in order to stave off possible class-action suits. I think that if you want affirmative action programs to continue they should also be looking at incomes, not just race.
I agree. It’s even worse in Canada. I believe that ethnic and racial differences should manifest themselves primarily on the dinner table, and in skin tone, not in school applications or job interviews. Unfortunately, that’s not a very popular school of thought in Canada right now…[/quote]
Ya, it sure sucks to be a white male in Canada when applying for Government jobs. You could have a degree in basket weaving, but if you were an Eskimo lesbian in a wheelchair with a lobotomy, you would be welcomed by the Liberal apparatchiks with open arms. Ah, the legacy of Trudeau
I hope when Harper gets in, the first thing he does is modernize the civil service, so it brings back an element of meritocracy into the selection criteria. The UK’s selection system for its civil servents is much better because it doesn’t rely soley on the stupid “standardized tests.” Question on race are included, but they are optional. You don’t have to fill them in.
Ya, it sure sucks to be a white male in Canada when applying for Government jobs. You could have a degree in basket weaving, but if you were an Eskimo lesbian in a wheelchair with a lobotomy, you would be welcomed by the Liberal apparatchiks with open arms.[/quote]
My best friend from high school couldn’t get into medical school in Ontario. However his marks were good enough that he qualified for a full scholarship (tuition, rent, books, living expenses) from the University of Munich. Very strange…
[quote=“jdsmith”]I have read the same thing, in particular some black Law students who can’t make it through the top school, but would most likely have done well at middle range schools. Maybe they wouldn’t have had a Harvard degree, but they woulkd have become lawyers. Wasn’t that the point?
[/quote]
Again, affirmative action was created to address a race issue, namely to create a black intelligentsia; in that respect even if their black parents were rich the affirmative action program will create more (probably less qualified) Harvard black grads, for instance, who would spread the education ethic to the next generation. Or whatever. I don’t think it works very well, but that was the idea, I thought. Or maybe it was to create a black middle class. The calculation is for long term benefit to the country. It works (as in it helps a nonzero amount) but there are better ways to help minorities.
Yes. It’s not in obvious ways, but I’m sure it is a big disadvantage to be black. Opportunities are everything. Having said that, I’m sure it is a big disadvantage to be ugly, too. Some things in life you just can’t change.
I think the problem with affirmative action is it is too passive. It is supposed to be a temporary measure, yet the medicine isn’t being administered at the source of the problem.
Ya, it sure sucks to be a white male in Canada when applying for Government jobs. You could have a degree in basket weaving, but if you were an Eskimo lesbian in a wheelchair with a lobotomy, you would be welcomed by the Liberal apparatchiks with open arms.[/quote]
My best friend from high school couldn’t get into medical school in Ontario. However his marks were good enough that he qualified for a full scholarship (tuition, rent, books, living expenses) from the University of Munich. Very strange…[/quote]
It all has to do with socialized education. In Canada, with the exception of a few programs (Dalhousie for law, University of Western Ontario for MBA etc), every Canadian university is the same. A bachelor of commerce from UBC or a BBA from U of C doesn
