Yep. (BTW, I hope I lose. I believe in meritocracy. Don’t think I will lose, though.)
It’s been a while since I saw a paragraph that made my head hurt so much.
-
You make a blanket reference to “white people” as “you all” and proceed as if all white people were the borg, with one mind that guides all of us. There are many different white people, each having thoughts and making decisions independently.
-
In responding to a statement opposing affirmative action, you talk about legislation inspired by Martin Luther King. Affirmative action was not inspired by Martin Luther King. It was created by Richard Nixon for purely political purposes; Nixon believed that blacks were inferior in a number of ways. (As it happens, Slate today has an excellent article on the topic: The Massive Liberal Failure on Race)
-
“Why not support Malcolm X?” Because of his racism and violent rhetoric, for starters. There’d be no shortage of reason to not support Malcolm X, even if he were alive.
-
“Why pretend you wanted blacks to sit at the table of brotherhood, when, in fact, you don’t?” This is poisoning the well.
-
“Moreoever, why is that when programs/policies (e.g voting rights, affirmative action, federal revenue sharing) are successful you want to dismantle them.” You lump together three different programs that need to be treated separately. Affirmative action has not been successful. The Voting Rights Act was successful; the Supreme Court overruled a small part of it after no one could find any evidence that that small part was still necessary. Revenue sharing has no relevance to anything in this thread.
:rolleyes: indeed.
Thanks for the link. A pretty devastating analysis there.
I just want to make sure I understand you here.
U.S. Citizen #1 and U.S. Citizen #2 are traveling, separately, between Point A and Point C.
Citizen #1 can stop at the town located at Point B and refuel his car, use the restroom, buy food, etc. with no problem.
Citizen #2, by virtue of his skin color and nothing else, cannot stop at the town located at Point B and refuel his car, use the restroom, buy food, etc. without, at the least, being refused service, or at the most, imperiling his well-being.
And you’re perfectly OK with this?
Back to the original premise of this thread…what I’ve been wondering (and trying without success to learn so far) is how the fellow’s restaurant in Enid has been doing since his remarks gained national attention.
I know his Facebook page has been hacked and disparaging (and often very funny) comments have been left on Yelp, etc.
But how is his business these days? If I had to bet, I’d put my money on his regular clientele showing up en masse to support him and shouting to the heavens about what a great guy he is, and how unfair all this national attention has been (while having a few choice words for all those who have dared to say mean things about him).
My guess is that his business is better than ever — though I hope I’m wrong.
Take a motrin.
Yes, I know, this was wrong of me. We all know that white people are not like the borg at all, they are more like the Nords of Skyrim; a hardy, industrious people who continues the practice of Talos worship despite deep reservations by the tanned-people of Cyrodiil.
Uh, Affirmative Action did not originate from the Nixon Administration. Affirmative Action along with the Civil Rights Act are part and parcel of the Civil Rights Movement. These were gains fought for by millions of people and dismantled right after he died. To decouple those gains from MLK is, frankly, insulting. Affirmative Acton is not a failure by any means though if you’re a white male or didn’t get into the ultra-competitive business school you applied to, I can see why you’d think it is a failure or would want to use it as a scapegoat.
As for the liberal-conservative angle, I would point to the speech Mr. Joseph Rainey (1871), the first African-American to be elected to the House of Representatives. It’s long, but worth it. I’ve bolded the relevant parts at the end of the passage.
[QUOTE= Mr. Joseph Tainey, 1871]
… **If the Democrats are such staunch friends of the Negro, why is it that when propositions are offered here and elsewhere looking to the elevation of the colored race, and the extension of right and justice to them, do the Democrats array themselves in unbroken phalanx, and vote against every such measure? **You, gentlemen of that side of the House, have voted against all the recent amendments of the Constitution, and the laws enforcing the same. Why did you do it? I answer, because those measures had a tendency to give to the poor Negro his just rights, and because they proposed to knock off his shackles and give him freedom of speech, freedom of action, and the opportunity of education, that he might elevate himself to the dignity of manhood.
Now you come to us and say that you are our best friends. We would that we could look upon you as such. We would that your votes as recorded in the Globe from day to day could only demonstrate it. But your votes, your actions, and the constant cultivation of your cherished prejudices prove to the Negroes of the entire country that the Democrats are in opposition to them, and if they [the Democrats] could have sway our race would have no foothold here. Now, sir, I have not time to vindicate fully the course of action of the colored people of South Carolina. We are certainly in the majority there; I admit that we are as two to one. Sir, I ask this House, I ask the country, I ask white men, I ask Democrats, I ask Republicans whether the Negroes have presumed to take improper advantage of the majority they hold in that State by disregarding the interest of the minority? They have not. Our convention which met in 1868, and in which the Negroes were in a large majority, did not pass any proscriptive or disfranchising acts, but adopted a liberal constitution, securing alike equal rights to all citizens, white and black, male and female, as far as possible. Mark you, we did not discriminate, although we had a majority. Our constitution towers up in its majesty with provisions for equal protection of all classes and citizens. Notwithstanding our majority there, we have never attempted to deprive any man in that State of the rights and immunities to which he is entitled under the Constitution of this Government. You cannot point me to a single act passed by our Legislature, at any time, which had a tendency to reflect upon or oppress any white citizen of South Carolina. You cannot show me one enactment by which the majority in our State have undertaken to crush the white men because the latter are in a minority.
I say to you, gentlemen of the Democratic party, that I want you to deal justly with the people composing my race. I am here representing a Republican constituency made up of white and colored men. I say to you deal with us justly; be charitable toward us. An opportunity will soon present itself when we can test whether you on that side of the House are the best friends of the oppressed and ill-treated Negro race. When the civil rights bill comes before you, when that bill comes up upon its merits asking you to give civil rights of the Negro, I will then see who are our best friends on that side of the House.
I will say to the gentleman from New York that I am sorry I am constrained to make these remarks. I wish to say to him that I do not mind what he may have said against the Negroes of South Carolina. Neither his friendship nor his enmity will change the sentiment of the loyal men of that State. We are determined to stand by this Government. We are determined to use judiciously and wisely the prerogative conferred upon us by the Republican party. The democratic party may woo us, they may court us and try to get us to worship at their shrine, but I will tell the gentleman that we are republicans by instinct, and we will be Republicans so long as God will allow our proper senses to hold sway over us.
[/QUOTE]
Amen. Amen. Amen. Given that yesterday’s Republicans* are now today’s Democrats, blacks today have kept in line with Mr. Rainey’s speech over a hundred years ago. Blacks know liberals don’t do much for them but, unlike Republicans, liberals aren’t trying to roll back the Civil Rights Movement at every election cycle nor are they falling over themselves to apologize or rationalize racist behavior.
*Check out the very first sentence of his speech; it encapsulates the Republican attack on Civil Rights that has persisted since the 50’s and 60’s!
He was uppity?
So you do want blacks to sit at the table of brotherhood?
Whoosh.
- Honesty
I’ve gone to lots of private parties in restaurants - they post a sign saying private party. That has nothing to do with anything. If someone rents out the lunch counter for a private party for the day, I don’t suspect many would protest or sit in.
I think cops are smart enough to figure out that if five white guys are sitting eating and not trespassing and five black guys, not acting up, are being refused service and being accused of trespassing, trespassing is not the issue.
Especially if there is a “No Coloreds Served” on the door.
Extreme libertarians seem to claim that everything the government does - collect taxes, give speeding tickets, stop pollution - is done at gunpoint. So I guess forcing the bigot to serve beer at gunpoint is a valid way of looking at it.
In any case, back 50 years ago the racism was not as subtle as it is today.
I’ll cover the rest of that action. $80 from you to my selected charity if he gets drafted – $80 from me to yours if he does not. Agreed?
Terr, don’t enable him!
How do I get in on this?
I remember reading (not too long ago, a few months) about a hot new start up that allowed you to post a bet on a proposition, and depending on whether or not they agreed with your odds and money, someone would take you up on it. Sort of like a matchmaking service for people who wanted to bet on things. Does anyone know of the site? I can’t remember its name, and Google just assumes I want to gamble indiscriminately.
Done.
Seriously, can we do another $50? 
He’s getting drafted somewhere.
You snooze you lose 
Nah I think $100 is enough.
What you are missing is that without the CRA, the law defaults back to the whole “We may refuse service to anyone” for any reason including racist reasons.
So, our bigoted lunch counter owner may invite the public in. When white customers come, he may serve them. When black customers come, he may refuse service to them and ask them to leave. At the moment they have been asked (read: told) to leave, and they remain anyways, they are guilty of trespassing.
When the cops show up, it doesn’t matter if five white guys are eating, and only the black customers have been asked to leave. The fact that they were asked to leave and did not is the very definition of trespassing.
I think you guys are arguing the same thing: Without the CRA business will discriminate based on race and the market will not force them to stop.
Market doesn’t “force”. It encourages/discourages. If it is unprofitable to discriminate based on race, it will discourage discrimination.
-
Affirmative action existed on a small scale in a few places before Nixon. Nixon was responsible was making a nationwide, mandatory thing. I’ve already linked to this article, which establishes that fact.
-
Your claim that affirmative action was “dismantled right after he [MLK] died” is the exact opposite of the truth. MLK died in 1968, and Nixon created affirmative action in 1969.
-
You say that the Civil Rights movement “fought for” affirmative action; can you provide a cite?
-
You say that affirmative action is “not a failure by any means”, while completely ignoring the article I already linked to. Here’s another one: The Painful Truth about Affirmative Action.
The single biggest problem in this system – a problem documented by a vast and growing array of research – is the tendency of large preferences to boomerang and harm their intended beneficiaries. Large preferences often place students in environments where they can neither learn nor compete effectively – even though these same students would thrive had they gone to less competitive but still quite good schools.
So affirmative action hurts blacks. Sounds like a failure to me.
Yeah, says you.
Is this your way of indicating that you don’t really want to be taken seriously?
That is naive and hopeful for the market.
If a merchant fails to discriminate and word goes out that he or she “tolerates” “those” people, he or she may very well lose the business of the majority in a way that will cause his or her business to fail. Such a scenario is somewhat less likely to happen, today, than 60 years ago, but without the CRA, it is probable that it would resume in the future. Perhaps not to blacks–it might be toward “Middle Eastern” looking people or some future despised group. For that matter, while it might not happen nationally, it is quite possible that even today it would happen locally for blacks, American Indians, Asians, or Middle eastern peoples.
Yeah, 1950s called. They want their scenario back.
And of course you need that bunker buster to hammer that nail in.