You want me to show that it isn’t bigoted by showing that it isn’t necessary? Well, I don’t know that that sort of argument is logical but let’s see what we can do.
Necessity
If a person is poor they may attend both public primary school and college for free already through the government. If a person is moderately poor (not poor enough?) hey must take out low-interest loans which are supposed to be payed back 6 months after stopping education. Even this may be delayed for financial reasons.
There is no necessity for private funds to funnel into racial minority OR majority groups. That’s why we made public education.
Bigotry
The definition of bigot is: “One obstinately devoted to his own church, party, state, or opinion.” Note “necessity” doesn’t matter, merely the high level of devotion.
So, we have funds geared toward minorities. I don’t know that this is much of a stretch, honestly. It gives the group a distinct advantage over other groups based on race (in this instance).
It isn’t 100% bigoted in the KKK or Nazi sense, of course, because they dont require one be of any particular race to gain assistance, but it is “geared” toward minorities.
Personal view
I have no problem with private groups geared toward aiding whoever they want. I also have no problem with shop owners refusing to hire whoever they want, firing persons without reason (provided the employee may also quit without reason). I have no problem with discrimination of any kind provided this discrimination is allowed to be both ways. It seems to be allowed.
I’m just a blakc and white guy (in the sense of legal absolutes) and I see this issue is floundering around.
“Bill gates recently established a fund for poor communities, strangely enough i haven’t seen a thread dedicated to how discriminatroy that is, oh well.”
Then here you go: it is discriminatory. It isn’t necessary. But who said it was bad?
I look for consistency in laws. Maybe its a pipe dream. Sorry it got a bee in your bonnet.
You misunderstood me, you provided evidence that blacks are poorer than whites. I was trying to get your conection.
I’m not aware of a free college education anywhere, care to enlighten me? I also seem to recall that you don’t want public education anyway. However, the grand majority of UNCF funds are used to cover the cost between existing scholarships, grants and so on, and the actual cost. In addition, you may have missed this, but at UNCF inception blacks were denied admission to higher education. You’ll have to contact the admistrators of UNCF to tell them it’s no longer neccesary. Good luck.
Thanks for the definition.
Uh…to correct a pre existing disadvantage.
So you don’t have to be a Negro to get funds, but since it’s in the name it’s bigoted. Kinda like Kwaanza, St. Patricks, Chinese New Years, Greek Week, etc.
Well the laws of the United States thankfully are in disagreement with you.
I’m apparently still missing something, what laws are you reffering to?
I’m with you, stuffnb. Maybe I’ll start a thread called Italian-Americans.
*Why, oh why, do Italian-Americans get to have there own parade? I mean, if we had a White American Parade, it be viewed as racist, right? Why is it ok to celebrate being Italian American, but not OK to celebrate being a White American?
All this crap in the name of being PC has got to stop. They get their own scholarships. How is that fair? What if someone had a White American scholarship fund? Then everyone would call it racist. Well I, for one, am sick of it all!*
I am so SICK of these damn threads! I try so hard not to open them. Some days I even avoid Great Debates altogether. Whenever the OP starts off asserting his non-racist :rolleyes: stance, I brace myself for some petty, myopic viewpoint. I wait for the notorious I’m-not-racist-either-but-I-have-a-problem-with-them-when-they-act-Black posters to show up.
Of course, this thread will magically turn into an Affirmative Action bashing thread. Why? Because we all know AA is single-handedly responsible for the current state of race-relations (ignoring the fact that a White male can benefit from AA, too).
There was even a thread titled Should White people feel guilty. I refused to open it.
And finally, what the heck is reverse discrimination? Discrimination is discrimination. Period.
[sub]As if I need to say it, I have no problems with Italian Americans nor with whatever they celebrate[/sub]
stuffinb, if I seem to contradict myself we’ll need to pause for station identification.
I am for equality under the law. Thus, no law should target any group. Thus, discrimination of any kind by a public entity is illegal.
I am not for making private discrimination illegal. This would allow social groups to form which help each other like churches or, one might guess, the UNCF or NAACP.
I would prefer that education be mainly public instead of private.
That said, when I enter into a debate with someone to argue their views I don’t assume my views, I assume theirs. Its easier to argue that way, no? Thus, if I disagree with your opinion I will assume your opinion and point out situations, ideals, etc, that people will find a problem with. So, in a thread which discusses funding of minority groups for education (for example) it isn’t worth arguing about whether or not public schooling should continue or if it is idealistically better to have a completely free market. That is not what the debate is about.
That said, I wish you would get your discrimination straight. When is it ok to discriminate?
Apparently exclusive holiday gatherings are OK in your book. Also, in cases of “necessity” which I have so far found lacking. So long as what we do about the discrimination is use it to dole out resources. Were this discrimination be used instead to keep resources we’re in trouble, I’m sure, as “Well the laws of the United States thankfully are in disagreement with you,” implies.
“Excuse me but I fail to see how a private program designed to get more blacks into college is bigoted…”
Let’s try,
“Excuse me but I fail to see how a private business designed to hire more white people is bigoted…”
some clarifications about the above three things.
1)Its possible and if not implimented completly then it is very close.
2) It is a shame that this practice does not allow for the freedom I think it should. This is why I do not mind that “seperate but equal” laws are not the way things are now.
3) This is not because I hate poor people or any other sort of gross misinterpretation that may come out of it.
Oh, don’t worry–I’m sure there are tons and tons of black-skinned people applying for and receiving Irish-American, Italian-American and Czech-American scholarships. :rolleyes:
I’d just like to compliment everyone on having such a great discussion on this topic. I’ve seen this question asked before and within 10 minutes a “you are racist/he/she/it is racist” battle ensues. This exemplifies what is so great about this website - intelligent discussion is natural here.
I don’t claim to know the answer to the OP questions but I do know that no one is lining up to help out all of the poor white kids in these so called “black” neighborhoods.
There is no “Poor inner city White kid college fund” but there should be.
There are more white kids living in the cities than Blacks.
Of course you have to admit that there is more to America than NYC, Chicago, Washinton D.C., Philadelphia, Detroit, Louisville and Talahasee to see this fact.
Your ignorance doesn’t make it any less true though.
The link I posted above gave percentage-based values.
Of course one would expect that there would be, quantity-wise, more poor white folks than any other color-group since there are more white folks period.
And the white-folks college fund is the same as everyone else’s: government loans. That is, provided we don’t discriminate. If we can discriminate then anything goes.
It’s a free country, and anyone can start whatever TV network they want to. If a bunch of people in north Idaho want to form WET, or create the miss White America contest, they have the same right to do so as the folks who created BET or Miss Black America. Thing is, whenever an organization is named “White (something),” there’s usually a racist group behind it.
I’m sure if Italian-Americans, Polish-Americans, German-Americans, or some other ethnic group with Eurporan roots wants to start “GET” or “PET,” they could. However, African-Americans, particularly in lower income groups, aren’t as assimlated into middle American culture (read: American, not necessarily “white”) as those whose roots originate in Europe and (increasingly) Asia. Thus, the separate TV networks, radio stations, beauty contests, and so on, will have a relatively large audience. Same thing with Univision and Telemundo – they appeal to Hispanics living in “Aztlan” that have limited exposure to mainstream American culture and unassimilated immigrants, but not to assimilated Hispanics.
BET is profitable (I think), but an IET showing nothing but hurling competitions and Riverdance-like jigs probably won’t garner much of an audience – Irish-Americans certainly have a distinctive subculture and a proud heritage, but overall they’re more assimilated into mainstream America than lower income African-Americans. IET won’t make any money, but BET certainly does.
Considering that a bunch of Nazis from Hayden Lake would probably behind the formation of said WET, probably so.
