After reading the rest of this whole thread, I will add that I am not ready to condemn the whole Republican Party as being racist. I think a small minority are racist. I think a somewhat larger number are insensitive to issues of race (and class and gender) discrimination and historical inequities. And, I think, for the most part, they don’t have Blacks as one of their primary constituencies. It is also true that many Republican politicians have played the race card in order to hoodwink some white working class people into believing that their interests will be represented by the Republican party.
So, while I think the party generally has pretty bad stands on racial issues (such as affirmative action and civil rights enforcement), I do not think the party or the platform is itself racist.
Huh? If this were me, rather than Bricker in this bizarro world (and how bad is the economy that a very intelligent and insightful lawyer can’t get a job?), I would fully expect the Chicago Bulls to hire Jordan, as it would be to the severe detriment to all of society to have me play professional basketball. Also, the Bulls would quickly become a laughingstock, and would probably lose a lot of money, until they could no longer afford to pay me.
If the economy were in such a situation, tossing jobs around to unqualified individuals as a matter of charity would not exactly be the quickest solution to the problem. While I might desperately want the Bulls to do so in my case, I would not at all believe that they didn’t have the absolute right to act in their own best interest.
Also, it might be nice to argue about hypothetical scenarios that have some semblance of plausibility to them.
Well, before we let this lovely slugfest continue might I suggest we look at this in another–I’m hoping less inflammatory–way.
I’m thinking jshore and elucidator are trying to turn this ship around. Maybe the question we should be asking here are
Why do many mainstream racist groups (wow, there’s a phrase that boggles the mind) identify themselves as conservative or even Republican? Does the Republican party try to cultivate this support, or is it an unintended consequence?
Why are African-Americans particularly reticent to give any support to the Republican party? It has been argued that blacks tend to be more socially and economically conservative than the nation as average. What bridges have been burned between the Republican Party and black America?
Keep in mind that how you see it might be incorrect.
**
Rurual whites tended to vote Republican these past few years. Rurual whites aren’t often thought of as wealthy or elite.
**
I’m against affirmative action and hate crime legislation. Please tell me why you’d classify me as a racist?
**
So being against AA and hate crime legislation is even worse then actively promoting seperatism or the superiority of the white race? That seems rather odd to me.
Marc
Yeah, well it is challenging to come up with ones that illustrate my point. And, clearly, this bizarre one I tried out didn’t work real well, at least not for you anyway because you missed my point completely. I didn’t really mean for you to ask whether you or Jordan should get the job. I meant for you to wonder if it was perhaps unfair that you were left in a position where you were never given a decent enough education in basketball to compete against someone who was (and admittedly is also very gifted at it) and that turns out to be what your ability to eat crucially depends on (and also have nothing to fall back upon). Basically, it was to get at the analogy that Lyndon Johnson (?) made of the footrace where one person is given a big head start.
And, anyone who believes that affirmative action is about tossing around jobs to unqualified people has bought into a lot of propaganda on the subject.
What do the two have to do with each other? Affirmative Action helps white women, but it helps both black women and black men. Therefore, it is racially biased. Are you really too stupid to figure this out for yourself?
What misconception? That AA is racially biased? If you’re going argue against obvious facts, it’s rather ridiculous to call others ignorant.
Of course that’s not what affirmative action is about. It was, however, what your hypothetical was about. That would be why I was asking for one less outrageous.
The problem of systematic racism in our society (which is certainly shrinking) is not one that lends itself to simple solutions. The need for racial quotas, if it existed, is not something that could be shown through hypothetical situations unrelated to our present society. However, that would be a debate for another thread, where I would not want to participate, having never given the matter the serious consideration that it warrants.
So now that you have explained your hypothetical it still makes no sense. You apparently assume that with enough educational opportunity, Bricker would be able to learn how to play basketball well enough to match up with Michael Jordan. Does this mean that you don’t think people have innate abilities and skills that lead to success that can’t be duplicated in the classroom? Could Bricker be taught Michael Jordan’s drive and competitive streak. How exactly would he learn how to jump high enough to touch his head on the rim? At what point does he go through the class that makes his hand big enough to palm a basketball?
There is no way to give people an equal shot at a job based on equal skills, characteristics, etc. 2 people could show up as complete equals, but to think that you could mold one person into anothers equal represents a lovely little leap in logic.
What’s the deal with the inflammatory remark? That was a bit unnecessary. At it’s core Affirmative Action is minority based, not racially based. It is viewed by it’s supporters to be a tool to help remove the roadblocks of race and gender discrimination.
No Juanita…what they are bellyaching about is that they think AA is biased against white guys. Because that appears to be the only people that aren’t covered by AA. Of course it doesn’t matter that white guys don’t need AA or that white guys aren’t the reason that we do need AA.
I also happen to agree with Jshore…the Republican party must be commended for convincing a bunch of working class white people that AA has held them back. Doesn’t sound very in line with their other policy of “personal responsiblity” though does it? Just another one of those “conservative” policies that just don’t seem to make sense to me. Along with abortion and the death penalty.
If you’re referring to income taxes, then virtually any income tax cut will ‘benefit the rich’. This is because 90% of income tax dollars collected comes from the top 50% of wage earners. This means that the bottom 50% of wage earners pay virtually nothing in income tax (comparatively) so tax cuts have little effect on their wallet. For a more precise breakdown of numbers see Who Pays What?
No, AA is also biased against Asian males. If I recall correctly, the chief beneficiaries of the ending of racial admission preferences at Berkeley (am I remembering the correct college?) were Asians, not whites. That’s fine by this particular white male. If an Asian is most qualified for admission, he does not deserve to be excluded in favor of a less qualified white, a less qualified black, or anyone else less qualified.
Try again, please. The point was made about Strom ‘who says he represents the South’, and answered by pointing out that he’s a Senator and has been legally paid to ‘represent’ at least one southern state for decades. and you respond by pointing out that Hillary was just elected? :rolleyes:
Hillary was elected to represent that state, recently. But Strom’s biography includes: 1933-38 State Senator, 1947-51, Governor, and 1954 to present, US Senator - a total of 55 years serving as a legal representative of the folks of your state. So, while there may indeed be a quantity of folks in the south, and specifically in South Carolina who don’t agree with him, the fact remains, that to cite him as a representative of the South, has merit.
Maeglin it means that the NY’ers didn’t elect hillary to represent them. They elected Hillary because of the publicity around her name. In south carolina people elect strong thurmond because its a tradition passed down from their great grandfathers:)
Also stating that south carolina is the represenative of the south is as big a stretch as believing that strom thurmond isint elected because of how long he has been around.
??? Gee, I’d have thought that NY’s DID exactly elect Hillary to represent them in the US Senate - at least a majority of them did, since she won. I’m sure they’ll be surprised and dismayed to learn that they merely elected her 'cause they knew her name.
Ditto for the SC’ers.
My point remained the same. Naming Strom as a ‘representation’ of the South has validity. No, he doesn’t ‘represent’ all southern views (no single person could do that, of course), nor all southerners, but certainly his longevity in elected office of the state of South Carolina would suggest that he does represent the views of a majority of those people in that state.
The GOP/Republicans are not overtly racist – as others have pointed out, that’s political suicide that only nutballs like David Duke would engage in.
On the other hand, it’s not inflammatory to say that the Republican platform tends to be a conservative one – that is to say, it believes in preserving the status quo, with a minimum amount of involvement from the government as possible. Given that traditional institutions in the United States have often been skewed towards privileged white males, a conservative/do-nothing/no interference philosophy would indirectly end up helping those selfsame privileged white males at the expense of everyone else.
So maybe what I’m trying to say here is that, while the Republicans are not overtly racist, the whole conservative philosophy tends to foster racism, by suggesting that we (as a society) do as little as possible to end it.