The point I was making and you clearly missed, was not about slavery, nor was it attempt to trump you nor anyone whose line suffered under the hand of tyranny, but to give a historical context which all Americans share; and offered the explaination why comparing ill treatment which ended 100s of years ago, with one that ended 40 years ago isn’t comparable; that’s it.
It was not a desire to have a pissing contest on who got it worst; it was as I explained in the posts before you responded, to explain what affirmation action was created to address and why had the freed slaves been given full treatment 100 of so ago; it wouldn’t have be needed.
The fact that you attribute it to me doing so because I’m the ancestor of slaves; with no proof save a point on historical fact which all Americans share; pretty much confirms what I expected of you.
Unless you think only the decendents of slaves, would have an interest in American history?
…and thus I end my contribution to what appears to be a highjack.
This is strawman bullshit, and you should be ashamed of yourself for trotting it out.
NO ONE has “insist[ed]” that the term is “meaningless” here–I’ve claimed that it’s definition could be clarified (so as to prevent false claimants), and so it can.
If you want to argue against some imaginary position that you can then demolish, could you please open your own thread in which you can do that to your heart’s content? Thank you.
By questioning whether you being of Hebrew descent could qualify you for African-American status strongly suggests that you think the term is so open as to make it basically meaningless, since all humans would qualify as AA’s using that logic. So, no, I’m not ashamed for “trotting it out”. Plenty of people on this board have said that the term is meaningless in past discussions, and it was clear I wasn’t just talking about you. I was making a general observation.
So can “women”. So can “Latino”. So can “disabled person”. So can just about any term you come up with that is used to distinguish one group of people from another. I take issue with your emphasis on African-American, when there’s nothing unique about it.
If you’re for legally clarifying all of these terms to prevent poseurs from procuring the vast number of fortunes available to members of the Oppressed Elite, then okay. It still strikes me as a silly issue to get worked up about, but at least you will be consistent.
My personal “claim” on Hebraic descent was, as I’ve said several times, absurd and only sustainable in order to be rejected by some court of law. It could only be applied, in my judgment, when there is NO attempt whatsoever to define the term “African-American,” and I still can’t quite believe that what’s on the books is no definition at all.
If you want to discuss the other terms you claim are equally ambiguous, please open a thread and see if you can generate a debate over them. In this thread, we’re discussing “African-American.” (There’s currently a thread discussing the status of transgendered women, I believe. Knock yourself out.)
Why can’t you believe that? Is there some crying need to define the term other than the way it is commonly used (which does vary somewhat from person to person)? Is there some backlog of AA cases crying out for a definition? Is there even one such case? If not, then what’s the problem? We’ll deal with it when we have to deal with it. So far, it hasn’t been a problem.
Why are you so concerned about “African-American”, when your objection applies to other groups? I think that’s on-topic question to ask, since you seem to be implying that there is something special about “A-A” with respect to this issue.
But, regardless, your insistence that the government has no established definition for “A-A” is wrong. The US Census Bureau defines an “A-A” as:
“A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as “Black, African Am., or Negro,” or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.”
How would you clarify this definition to preclude poseurs from taking advantage of the system?
It seems to me that this phrase – "It includes people who indicate their race as “Black, African Am., or Negro” – would allow the OP to do exactly what he suggested originally. Self-identifying as A-A is sufficient to be A-A, as far as the government is concerned.
As far as the government is concerned, we can self-identify as just about anything. If I went to the DMV tomorrow and told the person at the counter that I’m a white Catholic lesbian, nobody is going to ask me to prove it. I don’t know how I’d be able to prove it and I don’t really want to find out, either.
Au contraire. The whole thing is rather sloppily written, but if the second phrase were not an additional distinction, it would be redundant.
I’m talking about self-identification for purposes of affirmative action. I’m talking about self-identification in reponse to a query. The DMV does not ask the types of questions you mentioned.
That’s nice. Now, where does it say that “the entire justification for affirmative action was compensation for slavery.” That was a 1965 speech at Howard Univ, aimed for a particular audience.
That wording is *Not * in the Executive Order. If it was simply for “compensation for slavery” then why did the Executive Order apply to ALL minorities and women? :dubious:
The “entire justification” for affirmative action was then NOT compensation for slavery, as it wouldn’t have considered mostly those who never were enslaved. A small minority of those who benefited from AA had any link to American Slavery.
For purposes of Affirmative Action, you can self-identify as anything and no one demands proof. This is hardly limited to AfrAmericans. How many women have been asked to furnish proof of their gender? What’s stopping a guy from checking female on his college application?
Well, I’d say that’s a bit of a stretch, but it’s pretty damn close, so I’ll accept it. Certainly one of the main driving forces, and likely the main driving force.
I look pretty much like this guy, except where he has muscles, I have flab. Is it your contention that if I applied for a minority loan on the basis of being a woman, the loan officer would sail it right through? Or if I were assigned to a woman’s dorm in college no questions would be asked?
I have no idea what this hypothetical loan officer would do. He could reject it if only because he thought you were lying. Or he could accept it if only because he can’t prove that you are lying. My point is he’s not going to require you to prove anything. He can’t require you to do something than other applicants don’t have to do.
Since when is assigment to a dorm the same thing as Affirmative Action?
