One more follow up.
Which Nation do Hispanics belong to, again?
From the US government’s standpoint, they are a category. A social construct for the purpose of collecting data. (I assume you went through the document I linked to.)
So then why did you classify them as a separate race?
Now please, since you do insist that people can be “biologically white” and “biologically black” explain what are the “biological” differences between this guy:http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/7852223/Giancarlo+Esposito+18452374.jpg
and this guy: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/05/07/timestopics/manny190.jpg?
If your claims that race is actually a useful biological classification and these two are of different “races” then this shouldn’t be a difficult question to answer, though you’ve repeatedly failed to answer it.
Please do so this time.
Similarly, please explain why you think that this person http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2010-05/53587201.jpg
and this person http://static.wix.com/media/1c94c5_857665be93294a85fe810819a959e26f.jpg
are of the same “biological” race.
What is your cite for this. It’s a pretty sensational idea, but does it hold water?
Emphasis mine. Phenotype, of which general intelligence or the g factor is one factor in intelligence, is a result of a complex set of influences. Genes alone do not determine intelligence, and we all know that race isn’t an accurate representation of one’s genes.
The g factor does not encompass all aspects of intelligence. In fact, it has only been shown to account for about 50% of a score on an IQ test. So factoring in that genetics accounts for (and I am being generous here) 1/3 of general intelligence, which in turn is only 50% of one’s IQ, then genetics only accounts for about 17% of intelligence, as measured by standardized tests. So almost 83% of our intelligence is a result of nurture, opportunity, and pure luck in where and to whom we were born or raised by.
For someone who has claimed they were from the Middle East this is a really odd question.
Are you saying that “Arabs” aren’t a nationality. That Kurds aren’t and that until the founding of Israel Jews weren’t a nationality.
Anyone you were the one who labeled Hispanics a race and is now desperately trying to claim it was the US government that classified them as a race when that is patently false.
It’s not my fault that your idiotic, pseudo-scientific beliefs have been exposed as being well idiotic, pseudo-scientific beliefs.
Perhaps this can be explained by white kids, with more potential opportunities, choosing not to make the very bad bet of shooting hoops instead of studying as kids. It should be obvious that the tiny set of outliers making up NBA players says nothing about the general characteristics of any larger set of people.
It also doesn’t explain why “blacks” in America seem to be fantastic sprinters and basketball players while “blacks” in Brazil, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba aren’t.
Granted, he’d insist, “those people aren’t blacks, they’re hispanics!”
Duh. They become baseball players, which might be their supposed path to success.
Or, in Brazil, soccer players.
BTW, my wife worked with a woman who was classified as Hispanic for EEO purposes. She was born in Vienna, and married a guy with a Hispanic name - so she counted.
When did he claim he was from the Middle East? He’s from Pakistan.
My mistake. Thanks for the correction. I thought I remembered him saying he was from a Muslim Middle Eastern country which is why I found his questions regarding nationality quite odd.
Which is considered part of the Greater Middle East.
I’m a liberal who doesn’t support Affirmative Action; it served its purpose in its time, but I don’t think there’s a need for it anymore. And it causes “reverse discrimination” against more-qualified white candidates.
Because we haven’t already thrashed out all of Chief Pedant’s arguments ad stupidum over the summer, so we need another 27 pages trying to get him and his fellow travellers to stop mixing genotype, phenotype, socio-cultural groupings and geographical populations willy-nilly.
And while I think AA is a terrible idea, I don’t have a better one.
But is doesn’t. This is a common misconception and myth about AA. Point me out one instance where this was proven to be the case, and I will amend my statement.
As I have already cited
What’s wrong with affirmative action programs that don’t take race into account? For example, a university may give preferential treatment to applicants from low-income households, single-parent households, children of non-college-graduate parents, etc. What’s so bad about this approach?
Well that’s the thing, isn’t it? Affirmative action is a real tangible thing with real tangible benefits to certain groups. If this were not the case, then the whole exercise would be pointless. So, people are always going to be looking to see if they come out ahead or behind with AA.
And with AA, we will always have some racism, because the whole thing is racist by design. This was the compromise. In order to get results fast, certain groups needed to be explicitely helped, and the groups to be helped were determined by their race (or gender, or whatever). In fact, for the rest of my post, I’m just going to call it X-ist, so we don’t get into the whole “is it a race” question. The whole point is that AA favors some groups, so waiting until no group is favored before removing AA, is tantamount to saying that AA, like a diamond, is forever.
In fact, this is indicative of the problem. Not only are we sitting around trying to decide what’s a genotype and phenotype and so on, but politicians and lobbyists and judges and beaurocrats are also doing this fruitless exercise. Who’s ahead? Who’s behind? Who do we protect? The whole point of our system of government is to limit how much central authorities get involved with exactly these types of questions. We’re supposed to be big boys and girls and manage to sort things out ourselves, and only in very specific cases should the government get involved. We are, of course, very very far away from this original ideal, but AA is practically a slap in the face of the limited powers concept.
He does not have to point to any specific case, because the discrimination is built into the system. A certain group is getting certain benefits by design. Of course this means another group is relatively worse off. This is no accident or sad side-effect. This is the whole point of AA. In order to quickly get certain groups more tightly integrated with society, they were and are given special treatment.
Nothing. In fact, this is exactly the approach that I would suggest. Most of the people who support AA tend to cite the disadvantaged situation as the main reason these groups need help. So why insist on using a one-off criteria to get help to those who need it most?
I am definitely in the camp of those who agree with the original goal of AA and I also agree that it was definitely the right tool for the job. In fact, that’s an important semantic: AA is not a solution, but a tool. In fact, I would compare it to a medicine.
The nation was definitely sick in the 50’s and 60’s. We had entire populations who were not integrated fully into society. The violent demonstrations, while reprehensible, were also integral to showing that America was not healthy. AA was a shock medicine to try to attack the pathogins of X-ism running through the country. Fifty years later, we’re no longer so sick, but we’re still taking the medicine; and, it’s having nasty side-effects. We all know that the germs of X-ism are still there and always will be. It’s time to go off the medicine and see if the normal safety systems in our culture can handle them.
It doesn’t address the very real, pervasive and often subtle or “imperceptible” negative impacts of not being white in Western societies.
Things like a good portion of the country, upon running across a black guy in a hoodie in some alley, assuming consciously or unconsciously that he must be a petty criminal ; whereas the same assumption isn’t made of a white guy in the same hoodie. Things like pressures to achieve and keep achieving because falling back down would be “letting down/setting back the race” or somesuch nonsense. Things like people implicitly trusting the guy called “Stephen” is more likely to be a good, dependable, punctual, hard-working employee than the guy called “Malik” even when that’s literally the only data point they have on these two. Things like young black children, presented with two dolls by sociologists, being something like 65% (number pulled half out of my ass - I don’t recall the exact one, but it was in that ballpark) more likely to describe the white one in positive terms and the black one in negatives, even though 90% readily identify with the black one. Things like being twice as likely to be bothered by the police, even when half as likely to actually present a reason for them to post facto (see: DWB).
So, things like that, that have nothing to do with income, family structure or education etc.. ; and everything to do with the social construct of race.
As has already been pointed out on several occasions, neither of these statements are accurate.
(And, again, it is interesting how often certain posters fixate on “race” in this discussion when the parameters for AA so often have nothing to do with race.)
No, because the basis of that is individuals dividing up America into two sides - “us” and “them” - and worrying about whether “their” side is doing better than “our” side.
Racism will be truly dead and affirmative action will no longer be needed when people stop thinking this way and realize we’re all part of the same side and there are no competing groups. We may still recognize that people have different skin color but it’ll have no more social significance than the recognition that people have different eye color or different blood types.
Loius CK “Being White”
NSFW language
2-1/2 minutes or so…
Um…what? We know what genotypes and phenotypes are. “Politicians and lobbyists and judges and bureaucrats” have nothing to do with deciding what they are. What they are is not in dispute.
One of us is clearly confused here, because your response has nothing to do with what I said.