If you’re quite done with namecalling and taking offense where none is intended (I have no intention of self-describing as “African-American” for an AA/EOE-advertised position, but would be interested in combating the complacency that encourages me to hire a white person in those circumstances), it’s hard for me to know where to draw lines on someone if the term “African-American” is left as vague as it is. Would you like to define it so we can agree on who is and who is not African-American, and make it easier for me, or are you content to leave it as ill-defined as it is, and make it easier for someone to game the system?
As I say, someone gaming the system isn’t necessarily being a jerk–he may be trying to make it harder for recent Nigerian immigrants to qualify for governmental help (which would make it easier for slave-descended African-Americans to qualify) or he may be seeking to have the Bible declared inadmissible as a historically valid document, or have any number of non-jerkish motivations, with which you may not agree but which disagreement doesn’t designate someone as a jerk.
If you’re NOT trying to call yourself an African American, then I’m not calling you a name. The “you” in my post was directed towards anyone who would do such a thing. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
It isn’t ill-defined to me. Although I’m sure there are people out there who are trying to game the system by claiming black heritage when they have none, I’m also sure that 99 times out of 100, most people are not doing this, that their African ancestry is apparent and that in those rare circumstances where it isn’t obvious, documentation can be provided (like a birth certificate). I have cousins who are phenotypically white, but no doubt have “B” stamped on their certificates. So I guess my definition would be “If you have “B” stamped on your birth certificate, you are black”. But there are some jurisdictions that don’t put race on birth certificates, so I don’t know what you would do in that case.
Frankly, I don’t care about people gaming the system. People will game the system regardless of what the system looks like. I feel that all this talk about people “gaming” the system is an attempt to obsfucate the real beef: Affirmative Action as a policy in general. IMHO, Affirmative Action has a number of reasonable criticisms, but the fact that people can “game” the system by claiming racial identities that they don’t own is not one of them.
Who makes those distinctions? Are you telling me that every small business loan, every college application, every job application, is put through that catechism? I am talking real world application of affirmative action. Government bureaucracy. Is there form that has to be filled out that spells out the reasoning behind the justification of the status?
Affirmative Action is not reparations for slavery, nor is it just about compensation for past discrimination.
No one does. You are the one that claimed that any definition that included a second-generation Nigerian was “over-broad”–I am trying to figure out why you think that, and I think it’s only over-broad if you think treatment of your ancestors is part of the justification for afirmitive-action style policies. Since you don’t think past treatment is relevant, I don’t understand why you think including a Nigerian immigrant in the definition of “African-American” is overly-broad.
“I don’t care about people gaming the system. People will game the system regardless of what the system looks like.”
This is a reasonable position, or it would be if I were actually asking you to do something about possible abuse of the system. But I’m not. I’m asking IF THIS IS GOING ON whether there are any ways to monitor and prevent abuse.
You don’t care? Really? How about if I could show that much more than 1% of such funds is going to lily-white gamers of the system? (I’m pulling that number from the same place you’re pulling yours, namely my butt.) Or if I could show that a certain gross percentage of the funding is going to Nigerian scam-artists out to drain AA monies away from deserving A-A folks so they could return to Nigeria with it? In other words, I’m on what I presume is your side, to see that A-A monies are distributed as you would like see them distributed, and to increase the amounts, in part by demonstrating that there is very little gaming of the system going on, and what gaming there is is punished by specific statutes, etc.
The reason I find your lack of concern to be reasonable, btw, is that demagogues, like Ronald Reagan on the campaign trail in the 1980s, would decry “welfare queens” as a basis for doing away with welfare. There were plenty of reasons for overhauling welfare, but IMO gaming the welfare system was only a small part of it. OTOH, I don’t know if I’d feel comfortable claiming that I flat-out didn’t care that people were getting rich collecting multiple weekly checks in different names from the government.
I think it is not only releveant, but essential. See my response to Monstro above. It is quite clear that the entire justification for affirmative action was compensation for slavery.
In the deep and distant past some of my ancestors were Huguenots, and had to leave France in a hurry.
Others were Irish - the Potato Famine was pretty rough.
On the basis of that I expect ‘compensation’ from the French and UK governments.
I’ve nothing against subsidizing smart kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, in the UK we used to have something called Direct Grant schools, they were part fee paying but had a lot of ‘assisted’ places.
I went to one for a few years, and was interested to observe that the assisted kids were demonstrably in the upper quartile. Not surprizing as they were ‘selected’ - but it would have been a real waste if they had not been there.
I approve of ‘talent spotting’, but to do so on the basis of ones skin colour or distant ancestors is - well a product of what is called in the UK ‘The Race Relations Industry’
The argument against compensating you goes something like this, I think:
Shit happens, and most of the time, it’s just shit. Deal with it. But on special horrifiic, the shit is so terrible (Holocaust, U.S. slavery) that survivors and their families warrant special compensation for the suffering. Everyone on the planet can point to some grievances, real or imagined, in his or her family’s past–very few of these sufferings have been designated as deserving compensation of any kind. Specious claims to the contrary offend these designated compensees in that they equate all historical human suffering to their special egregious cases.
When it comes to minority set-aside requirement for government contracts, a common scam is to appoint a black to be the titular head of your company long enough to get a contract under the minority set-aside requirement. The black figurehead gets a nice pay check while the rest of the money goes to white people. I suspect that using racial quotas to game the system is much more common than you think. And in any case, racial quotas enforced by the state are morally wrong in the first place.
Yes, well, I have no intention of being held responsible for the misdeeds of my brothers, let alone those of my father or distant ancestors.
I also reckon that the bare faced cheek of anyone demanding compensation /to them/ for something that happened to their ancestors is pretty amazing. No sweat for someone who suffered - but to their kids ?!
Money in Swiss Bank accounts is Ok, return of ancestral land is very dubious as it means material discomfort to the current inhabitants.
I don’t object to ‘talent spotting’, rather I strongly approve of it.
At the beginning of this thread, I was not sure, but now I am certain that any references to racial origin should be proscribed. It is just a lever for self interested do gooders to get their snouts in the trough.
You make the common mistake that most people make when considering this issue, they believe that every ended with Slavery or that compensation is directly tied to Slavery.
It’s my opinion that if the US government allows the newly freed slaves protection and the ability to be a part of American society as full citizens after they were freed; we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Problem is, the government didn’t. Instead it wasn’t until 1964/1965, that’s 40 years ago; not that much time at all considering the amount of people that are living in the US between the ages of 40-85.
That’s a hell of lot of folks who have lived in a US where segregation was the law of the land and of course it didn’t just end with a swipe of pen on a piece of paper…but that’s another thread.
Compare that to your Huguenots and the Irish who suffered during the potato famine…not a pretty good comparsion is it?
Okay, Monstro has pointed out that women benefit more from affirmative action than blacks. Can you explain why an upper class woman of whatever race, who already has a comfortable if not privileged life, should be a beneficiary of affirmative action?
I would if that was my point. It wasn’t. I merely wanted to point out to FRDE who may not be an American and aware of our history, that comparing what happened to his family in France and Ireland, doesn’t translate well to what happened in the US. It’s a common misconception that compensation stems directly from slavery, when it’s more directly tied to Jim Crow…in my opinion.
Well, classic “affirmative action” is dead and gone. Next- “affirmative action” also applied to any minority- Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and even Females (depending on the job).
It started in 1965 "The Johnson administration embraced affirmative action in 1965, by issuing U.S Executive order 11246, later amended by Executive order 11375. The order, as amended, aims “to correct the effects of past and present discrimination”. It prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, skin color, religion, gender, or national origin. The order requires that contractors take affirmative action to ensure that “protected class, underutilized applicants” are employed when available, and that employees are treated without negative discriminatory regard to their protected-class status.
The order specifically requires certain organizations accepting federal funds to take affirmative action to increase employment of members of preferred racial or ethnic groups and women. " Note “religion, gender” which have nothing at all to do with slavery.
Thus, it can hardly have been “entire”. :rolleyes:
Dunno, my ancestors who did not survive got killed - or starved.
I presume that your ancestors were slaves, well nobody actually /wanted/ them to die - not necessarily for compassionate reasons, but still nobody wanted to kill them.
I trump your ancestral whines with malice and malicial neglect.
If you think long hard about any term applied to people, you can find the same problem.
What’s a Latino, for instance? Latinos are eligible for Affirmative Action, too. Should a white person with a Mexican-American grandfather call themselves Latino, even if their last name is Smith?
What’s an Asian-American? Are people from Iraq “Asian-Americans”? I don’t see why not, since they are from Asia. Yeah, we tend to call them Middle-Easterners, but still…
Should a transgendered woman be eligible for AA? Why not? Is the legal definition for woman status spelled out in law? I don’t think so. It’s all so ill-defined and willy-nilly, isn’t it? I just don’t know what to do with myself, I’m so overwhelmed with it all.
:rolleyes:
What I find most amusing in these recurrent debates about “African-American” is that despite people’s insistence that the term is meaningless and vague and confusing, in any other type of thread about this ethnic group, amazingly everyone seems to know exactly who is being referred to. How can this be, if the term is so dasterdly ambiguous? In this thread, “In which I pit aspects of the African American culture of today”, notice how crystal clear everyone appears to be on who the subject of the thread is. If minds were all a-fluster with the confusion of it all, I certainly can’t see it. It seems like it is only when the subject of conversation is about ridiculing a term that is no more confusing than any other ethnic identifier that suddenly no one can figure out who an “African-American” is. It’s truly a bizarre and fascinating phenomenon.