Henry B…caucasian = “whities like me”
The Boston Red Sox are one case study. After Jackie Robinson broke Baseball’s color line, the Bosox tended not to hire black players. As a result, they stunk, until they changed their ways.
Your description of discrimination is right on the money, monstro. However, I don’t agree that government lassez-faire is the problem. Many groups encountered discrimination (though not as severe as black racism) and overcame it without government help. It took several generations, but Jews, Italians, and Irish now have higher than average earnings.
Government action han’t always been helpful. Southern state govevenments maintained Jim Crow. Of course, in the last 50 years, government has been on the right side. However, government always has its own agenda, as well – getting votes, gaining political power, etc. IMHO the Dept. of Education is promoting educational methods that disserve blacks; they may be a bigger threat today than the KKK.
I fully agree with you, monstro.
Still, if the blacks at a college are substantially less qualified * on average*, then blacks and whites both will be encouraged to see blacks as less qualified. AA as actually practiced at colleges haas produced large disparities.
You demean blacks with this statement. Blacks were making tremendous progress in the 1940’s and 1950’s, before civil rights legislation. There’s every reason to believe that they would have continued to make progress, even without civil rights legislation. In fact, America in Black and White, by Stepen and Abigail Threnstgrom, offers statistical evidence that civil rights progress got slower after the passage of civil rights legislation.
That’s how I read it. There was enormous, horrible racial discriminaiton in American society, but not at Harvard or most other non-Southern colleges. My wife and I entered college in 1960. Both our colleges were already making outreach efforts. (U. of Chicago and Wellesley)
pantom, I agree that Sowell’s argument doesn’t solve all the ills you see every day. Obviously AA hasn’t solved them, since it’s been in effect for a long time. However, if AA does more harm than good, we ought to end it.
[quote]
Henry B…caucasian = “whities like me”**
I am a Finn, (Finnish-Swedish), working and living in Russia.
Henry
Chanticleer, Member
Location: Indiana
Hmmm…, Indiana, aaah… an indian, maybe red like Marx?
Is Marxism a race? 
Henry again
I didn’t say that coporations “only hurt themselves” when they discriminate. They hurt themselves and do cause difficulties to those they discrimate against. But our system allows you to start your own company if you are discriminated against. Or boycot that company (as was successfully done in the early days of the civil rights struggle).
I have no problem with any individual getting redress from the gov’t for being wronged. However, to grant privilages, across the board, to some group of people because the gov’t hurt people of similar skin tone 30 yrs ago cannot be justified. And once you get your redress, I don’t want to hear from you again. Don’t tell me that “society” owes your great-great-great-grandchildren privilages because you weren’t allowed to vote in a 1940s election.
I’m not downplaying the wrong committed by denying someone the right to vote. It was wrong and those who did it should be punishsed.
Sure, but do you think black people would be making strides as fast as they have without government intervention? I’m just thinking of all the help the Little Rock Nine needed so they could step foot into their Arkansas high school. Even with the whole National Guard backing them up, those kids couldn’t catch a break.
Given enough time, anything could happen. Given enough time, skyscrapers will crumble into dust. Do we want to wait for the inevitable or do we want to speed things along by sending in the wrecking ball? Government intervention, not private citizens, was what ended slavery. Government intervention, not private citizens, ended its own practice of Jim Crow. I don’t believe those things would have simply fallen apart on their own, at least not when they did. And it took too long for them to fall as it is, so waiting for the “inevitable” seems (IMHO) as crazy as hell.
I disagree that non-South institutions of higher learning weren’t discriminatory. Is not the Ivy League of our own state–Princeton–famous for its long-time proscription against blacks? Besides, most blacks were and still are southern. What good is having a non-discriiminatory Harvard when the University of Every State Below the Mason Dixon Line doesn’t admit the coloreds?
(My alma mater didn’t start accepting blacks until the 60s. Women weren’t accepted until a few years before that. So I think your experience is really the exception, not the norm.)
You mentioned other minority groups overcoming discrimination without government help. Do you think there’s a difference between a group that loses its stigmitization after its children learn the language, henceforth becoming indistinguishable from the population at large, and a group that can’t lose its stigmitization because dark skin is an inheritable trait?
I think this is the nformation that we’re missing. To say that AA does more harm than good, we need to know what things would look like without AA, and this takes a whole bunch of speculation. One could look at the past and point to what happens when people are allowed to pick and choose hirees as they see fit. In that case, just about balancing program would do more good than harm. Or one would could propose an ideal world where people are selected strictly on merit, given a level play field and all that. But this world doesn’t exist and has never existed. That leaves your argument hanging, IMHO.
You make some excellent points, monstro. Yes, government has done much good in opposing racism. Still, they do a lot of harm, too.
John Mace’s post reminds me that excluded minorities have often succeeded by starting their own companies. One way to get a foot in the door is for minorities to undercharge the competition.
However, there are federal “prevailing wage” laws prohibiting lower wages on federal projects. These laws have the impact of keeping out minority businesses. According to the Wall St. Journal, that was their intent, too.
What if banks also discriminate against you too, preventing you from getting a small business loan? Are you supposed to start your own bank so you give yourself a loan so you can start up your own company? Surely you see the insanity of this logic.
What if those people were your parents or grandparents?
To flip the script, why is it fair for children to inherit their parents wealth when they didn’t nothing to earn it?
If someone robs your inheritance, do you not have the right to fight for compensation?
If society advocating beating me up in the streets, taking my job, keeping me in bad education and bad housing, as well as keeping me from voting, I guaran-damn-tee that I’d be wanting something special for my children to compensate for my second-class citizenship all those years. AA has only been around for one and a half generations, so I can only conclude you’re trying to obscure the issue by throwing in “great-great-great” whatever. I’m the first in my family’s history to be BORN FREE in the United States of America. Both of my parents were born during Jim Crow, when it was against the LAW for them to consider themselves just as good as everyone else. So please get a grip!
Guess what? The government DID IT. And guess who the government is? You can find the answer in the mirror.
Yes. Many ethnic groups have started banks and other financial arrangements to do just this. E.g., my parents were members of the Workmen’s Circle, a self help organization for immigrant Jews.
That has got to be the weakest answer I have ever seen.
december, I’ve very familiar with business owned and run by minority groups. But if I live in the Middle of Nowhere, USA and people think it’s alright to discriminate against my “kind” and I’m the only one of my “kind” around, I shouldn’t have to go through the long and expensive process of starting my own McDonald’s just to get a frickin’ Big Mac. It’s just not right and I don’t see how anyone can sit there and say that it is.
And PLEEEASE don’t tell me you’re all of a sudden in favor of self-segregating businesses. Not after you started that thread about self-segregrating dormitories and expressed how racist and bad they are.
Immigrants have a different history than imports. The kind of people that make the drastic decision to leave their homeland to make a new life in a different country are the kind of people that are going to succeed.
I’d be curious as to what “civil rights” got slower after the passage of the 1960s laws. Fewer blacks were allowed to vote? Fewer blacks were elected to office? (If it is economic status, not actual rights, then I suspect they are guilty of one of the biggest post hoc ergo propter hoc errors in history.)
Monstro:
If you get compensation from the gov’t for a wrong committed against you, it is your responsibility to use that compensation to help your children. That’s partly what it’s for!! Again, I am all in favor of specific compensation to specific individuals for specific wrongs committed.
The issue of banks discrimating is, I believe, a whole different topic. I don’t see where in the constitution it says that gov’t can force companies to do business with someone they don’t want to do business with. But this is a whole 'nother can of worms.
Can you honestly tell me, though, that a Black person today cannot get a loan from a bank without special help from the gov’t? If all the anti-discrimation laws were wiped off the books, would all those evil white bankers be just dancing for joy that they no longer had to loan money to minorities? Take some responsibiity for your own success and hapiness. As long as you rely on someone else to give it you, you’ll always be a begger.
Now, inherited wealth. It’s not the right of children to inherit the wealth, it’s the right of the parents to do with their property what they desire. I don’t have a “right” to one penny of my father’s dough. But he sure as hell has the right to give it to me if he wants. Can you agree with that?
C’mon, tomndebb. I know you understand the difference between regress and a slowdown in the rate of progress. Like a negative first derivative.
To satisfy your curiousity, I suggest you read the Thernstroms’ book. It has a great deal of information. I read the book several years ago. As I recall, after the civil rights laws of the 1960’s, progress slowed down in quite a number of areas. Of course, progress might have slowed down even without the civil rights laws. We can’t re-run history, although we ought not ignore it.
I think it’s important to note that various politicians and a few racialists like Jesse Jackson have been quick to claim credit that really ought to go to millions of black people.
What about indisputable inequality where there is not necessarily a single obvious, “smoking gun” wrong to point to? What if there is a minority group of, let’s say, 30 million or so people who earn 70 cents to the white man’s dollar?
I will ask you (and anyone else opposed to AA) one more time, and then I’ll assume you have no answer: how do you explain this if it is not entrenched racism, and what do you suggest to address it?
december, please provide some of the statistical evidence of a slowdown in the progress of civil rights that occurred post the passage of the 60’s civil rights laws. I am sincerely interested.
Bob:
If your hypothetical were true (especially if the std dev was low), then it would most likely be due to entrenched racism. If any laws were broken, then you have one hell of a class action suit to bring. I say, go for it! Boycot, sue, protest, picket, you’ve got lots of options.
Why do you need a special law to deal with this? Unless, of course, there is a law on the books that says “Employers must not pay that minority more than 70% of what whites make”. In that case, you need to fight to change the law. That should be pretty easy in this country, as it would be unconstituitonal.
Now, once the law is changed, is there some redress due? Good question. I’m not sure. But if it is, let’s make it a one time deal and not perpetuate it thru the generations, OK?
**John, this is not a hyopthetical. As I’ve stated several times in this thread, this is the most recent U.S. Census data. Do you agree now that this is a non-anectodal, indisuptable indicator of racial economic inequality? Do you agree that this is bad, now that you understand it’s not hypothetical?
**What if there were no obvious laws broken? Is it OK then?
**Because I think it’s bad.
OK, please explain to me the one-time magic wand you’ll wave that will instantaneously transform minorities to have the same education, the same advantaged socialization, the same opportunities that whites as a class have enjoyed, so that the disparity represented in the census data dissipates like the morning fog. I heartily endorse such a program and await only the specifics. As I said earlier in this thread, I would be happy to abandon AA as soon as someone provides a better alternative.
Since you and I are now in agreement that the current circumstance is obviously indicative of entrenched racism, then I’m just as sure you’ll agree that doing nothing isn’t an option. Please let me know how this one-time solution will be accomplished. But while I await your proposal, I’ll continue to support AA.
I may read their stuff some day, but I asked a fairly simple question: were they talking about a slowdown in the progress on rights (in which case they may be able to make a case–although I suspect that with the culmination of the 1964 and 1966 laws, there were not many more rights to be secured, so “progress” would have to slow down), or were they talking about progress in economic status, in which case they were almost certainly using selective history to demonstrate a logical fallacy. If it was the latter, I’ve already read enough bad statistical works demonstrating political agendas (c.f. Murray & Herrnstein 
) to satisfy my appetite for abuse for some time.
John Mace:
No, but blacks are more likely to be turned down for loans than whites, everything else being the same. As long as this is fact, the government should be acting as a watch dog.
http://www.sfbg.com/News/33/12/Features/oakland.html
http://www.dispatch.com/news/special/homeloan/721176.html
http://powerreporting.com/color/63.html
Blacks are also more likely to be victim to predatory lending practices.
What if we view AA as compensation, seeing as how many people who benefit were “wronged” in the past? Now is it bad?
The constitution says nothing about whether or not I can drop napalm on an entire neighborhood. Yet we all agree this would be bad behavior. The constitution doesn’t say a whole bunch of stuff. Fortunately, our government is flexible enough to not be bound by a piece of paper.
I’m hoping that’s a general “you”. Because I’m not begging for jack shit and I don’t need you telling me how to be responsible.
You’re not understanding my analogy. It doesn’t matter if you have no right to an inheritence, the fact is that you will inherit your parents’ productivity in some shape or form. If that productivity came about due to an unfair system, then some people will be unfairly disadvantaged while others will be unfairly advantaged, even when the obvious vestiges of racism are thrown down. Saying that what’s happened in the past is over and the playing field is equal isn’t going to change the fact that we’ve inherited what our parents and grandparents have gone through. “Equal” isn’t here yet.
Tell me: how are my parents (or my grandparents, if they were alive) supposed to get compensated for something like being discriminated against when applying to jobs, or being overlooked for a promotion, or being put in shoddy schools, or being called a “nigger” on their way to the voting box? How do you quantify that, especially in the absence of hard-and-fast evidence? And do you really think the government (and the American public) is ready to cut all of those checks?