history flipping

Post Reply New Topic

With the next election coming on, and Hillary Clinton and the PC police being chosen to win by the big boyz, you might already have started to notice an alarming "PC" trend..... Where now, because of history, because of things that happened 200 yrs ago, white males are being denigrated and condemned. "Affirmative action" is a horrible process, now what it is **supposed** to do is good, but what it **ends up** doing is flipping the script and making white males the victims of discrimination..... I think it needs to be replaced with an entirely new system that guarantees equal employment for all people, no matter what color, no matter if theyr majority or minority.
Factor illegal immigrants who get hired because they'll work for peanut wages too, which citizens are unable to keep up with. Now, I'm not racist in the least, I've got black and hispanic friends but I'm not so PC to place them beyond equal questioning or criticism as I would a white male, if anything the double standard of this PC trend that if lets say a black man does something wrong, whites have to turn our backs and look the other way or otherwise we're "racist", that's racist against us (whites).
I'm not gonna support David Duke or white nationalist hate groups, because then I'd be no better than the PC idiots who would flame me for this post. As I stated, I am not racist, and just like I have no control over white racists, I know they've got no control over their racists. Racism is racism is racism. Same for sexism, these feminazi groups out there too that demonize all men as the root of all evil without taking a look at themselves. There is a difference too between a femiNIST and a femiNAZI.
Point of this post, reverse discimination is just discrimination, it is no better or worse. And systematic condemnation of white males is not "progressive", it's a step in making the same mistakes we have made before, but in a different flavor. I am not responsible for things that happened 200 yrs ago, or even things that other white males might be doing today. And it is unfair to put me in the same category as those evil people.

I agree that reverse discrimination is generally wrong, but I think you are not accurately describing affirmative action.

Affirmative action was not put in place for something that happened 200 years ago - it was put in place in response to things that happened in our lifetime, and which still sometimes happens.

Affirmative action can only have quotas in response to a proven act of discrimination. If a police or fire department had a policy of intentionally not hiring minorities, they might be ordered to start hiring a large number of minorities to make up for that. If a school was shown to have an admissions quota that limited minorities, they can come under a court order to admit minorities in proportion to their numbers.

For most situations, affirmative action is composed of outreach. It includes things like advertising jobs in media outlets that are more likely to be read by minorities, or mentoring programs that link new hires with upper-level types to help them understand the corporate culture. And (depending on the company) these programs often benefit people across all groups - I know of a person from a rural, relatively poor background who was fostered in a mentoring program, even though he is not a woman or a racial minority.

Most companies follow a policy of Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity with respects to employment. Companies have a legitimate interest in both hiring the most qualified employees, AND in having diversity among employees. Having people that speak foreign languages to deal with customers is a good thing. Having people that connect to different segments of the community is also good. Having people with different experiences and different backgrounds is a good thing.

Reverse discrimination is still discrimination. End of story.

Not end of story if affirmative action does not include reverse discrimination.

So why don't the colleges just stop asking for an applicant's race during the admissions process? That seems an easier way to handle the problem than worrying about whether you're accepting the right number of minorities. When my older sister first went off to college, a black friend of hers who went to the same school and who had lower grades and test scores got TONS more scholarship money than my sister did. Racism in one direction is no different than racism in the other direction. I hate the KKK, neo-nazis, etc. But I also hate the Black Panthers and other reverse racist groups.

And what type of scholarship money was it?? In my state, there is fund from the lottery that provides scholarships. Race has nothing to do with it. Gender has nothing to do with it. There are tiers, which depend on your test scores and high school gpa. Higher performance = most of tuition is covered. Second tier, 75% of tuition cost is covered. Average performance? 50% paid by the state fund.

If Joe Millionare wants to establish a scholarship for people of Lithuanian descent who are less than 5 foot tall at age 18, that is perfectly legal (even though it discriminates against anyone who is tall or non-Lithuanian). If the Catholic church wants to raise money for scholarships and only dispense that to Catholics, that is within the law (even though they are discriminating against Protestants and Jews and Hindus and Muslims, etc). And if people or corporations want to contribute to the group that advertises 'a mind is a terrible thing to waste' then those people can have their own scholarships.

Black Panthers aren't racist, the New Black Panthers are racist. Theyr two totally different organizations, although the New Black panthers did grow out of fringe elements of the Black Panthers.

I believe it was some type of minority scholarship. This was at a private university, out-of-state, but my point was that most people see scholarships as a way of making our social system more meritocratic- if you are smart enough, you can go to college cheap. My state offers very little support for residents to study here. I would pay MORE at a nearby state school than I would at many private schools. The reason I dislike minority scholarships is because it sends a negative message about the minority. For example: the PSAT serves as a qualifying test for the National Merit Scholar program. If you are in the top 0.5% (I think) in your state you are able to compete for scholarship money. However, they also fund the National Achievement Scholarship program. This is exactly the same as National Merit except that it is only open to blacks and it has lower standards. I would consider that to be offensive, because what they are saying with that program is that blacks can't compete with whites on a level playing field, so we need to give them special advantages. I don't believe that's true. I'm smarter than the vast majority of whites, but there are certainly plenty of blacks out there who are smarter than me. The concentration of melanin in your skin has no effect on intelligence, or really anything else. Treating everyone as an individual and ignoring racial distinctions is the ONLY way to overcome bigotry. As far as your comments about being able to establish scholarships for whatever group you want, I'm not sure to what extent that is true. My friends and I, bitter about being excluded from certain scholarship opportunities because of our race and gender, have joked about establishing a scholarship fund open only to middle-class white males. Do you think I could establish such a scholarship without being slapped with a dozen lawsuits? Now, the only reason I would ever do such (if I had the money) would be to incite the lawsuits so I could point out the hypocrisy- I don't actually want a scholarship that's only for white males.

Again, I dislike bringing special attention to minorities to show how great they are. Every February, I have to listen to people go on about how a black guy invented the traffic light. I always wonder what the reaction would be if I bragged about how a white guy invented the car. I try to view people's achievements independently of their race. George Washington Carver was not impressive because he was black. He was impressive because he was a freakin' genius and found a way to solve the South's agricultural problems of soil nutrient depletion without cutting into the profit and usefulness of the land. Seriously- realizing the peanut in a crop rotation would solve the nitrogen depletion issues and also coming up with all those new products to create a demand for peanuts, making the whole system feasible- that's amazing, regardless of his race. MLK is impressive for his ability to unite and lead people and work for social change, and also for being a positive force for peace in a violent era. These were great men, and would be great whether white or black. I don't see why we have to focus on them being black; they have great value simply as human beings.

In previous decades, it was much easier to go through school on government scholarships. The cost of education has gone up, and per student government spending on scholarships and grants has slipped.

It is unfortunate that many people see scholarships from private donations as inherently a way of making society more of a meritocracy. That has never been the case. There are scholarships to Ivy league schools that require that a person have been born (or graduated from high school) in a particular state. This is because the donor was from that state. It has nothing to do with who is the best student or who is most deserving. Other private scholarships come from other donors that want to support someone that they identify with, or someone they think needs encouragement. Are you saying that these donors should not be able to say where their money goes? And what about athletic scholarships?? That has nothing to do with academic merit, yet many thousands of students get full scholarships for volleyball, golf and lacrosse and other silly games. Shouldn't we all be up in arms about the discrimination against non-athletes??



The National Merit Scholarship Corporation is a privately funded corporation. If they wish to direct some of their money to groups that they define as historically disadvantaged, that is entirely their call. If they have decided that they want to make a social investment in a particular group, and that group happens to have lower test scores, then that's the way it is. If their test scores were equal to (or higher than) most other students, then they would no longer be considered disadvantaged.

No one has a right or entitlement to their scholarship money. You can complain that it sends a negative message about blacks or Hispanics or other minorities, but the simple fact is that people are making a charitable contribution to help those minorities get a college education.

Do you extend the principle of your objections to teaching black history to all history?? Maybe we shouldn't teach American history? The Haymarket riots or Tammany Hall really aren't that exceptional as far as events go .... aren't they being taught because we are biased in favor of American events?? After all, we don't teach American biology or American mathematics - we just teach biology and math. Lets just focus on a time period, and not on any geographic favoritism or national prejudices?? Let the Haymarket riots compete with everything else that happened in 1886. No need for teaching themes in history.

And what happens to the other workers? They can only keep so many. Where do the non-minorities go?

The point was that by focusing on "black" history vs. history the rest of the year, racial distinctions are perpetuated and even strengthened. It's fine to talk about stuff like Haymarket or Tammany hall if we're in a discussion of US history- in many ways US history is separate from what may have been going on in other places at the time, so it becomes incoherent if we look only at a time period. History is broken up not just into time periods but also differentiated by political and geographic units. People like MLK fit naturally into any regular discussion of US history in the 1960s because he was a major figure in that time period who made some significant contributions. So it's not necessary to take him out of his historical context and focus on him just because he was black. In fact, I'm pretty sure MLK may have preferred that such distinctions NOT be made.

I know people who pay for scholarships can do whatever they want with their own money, but I regret that so many have chosen to spend in a certain pattern. And some minority/gender based scholarships exist at state institutions, funded by taxpayer money. And we know there is TONS of money for athletes at state universities, which entirely disgusts me. I'm not saying it's wrong to offer ANY athletic scholarships, or that it should mean nothing in admission, but it is way out of proportion.

By the way, I'm pretty sure there are no geographically-based scholarships to Ivy League schools. The Ivys ONLY offer need-based aid so that anyone who is able to get in will be able to afford it.

I am not aware of any previous court orders to fire people in the name of affirmative action - the courts have typically ordered that the remedy be for new hires. And this has been for an extremely small fraction of 1% of all positions.

Last edited by monty on 06 Jan 2008, 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, in terms of the Ivy League spending their own money, they have a policy of needs based scholarships, grants and tuition discounting (not merit based). But there are definitely foundations that give scholarships for people to attend ivy league schools based on geography:



There are other scholarships from private donations that specify that the money be given to students of a particular gender, from a particular state, attending a particular prestigious east coast university... I believe Harvard is named in several such grants from foundations independent of Harvard.

I'm not quite sure what you're on about here... the Rhodes scholarship is for American students to attend Oxford University... which is NOT Ivy League. The only merit-based aid I'm aware of for Ivy schools is the Questbridge, which is accepted at Columbia, Princeton, Yale, and several prestigious non-Ivies. However, you can't apply for the Questbridge unless you are dirt poor, so it is still heavily need-based.

Orwell pointed out something here I've been trying to get across for a long time, particularly among left wingers..... It seems that they define an individual human being by their skin color if they are a minority, this takes away from that person's individual identity, and it is in this way racist against minorities, yet the PC followers do not even recognize it.
MLK, Malcom X, George Washington Carver, they were great people, great INDIVIDUALS who each just happened to be black........ And then the left goes on in the mindset that minorities are always right JUST because theyr minorities, which in some ways is starting to mirror the social attitude towards disability as well, as it is condescending of them and treats them with kid gloves..... "Oh, tyrone just robbed a bank, better not punish him, after all, robbing banks is part of being black" That's about the impression you get from far left "PC" nut jobs.
All I'm saying is people should not be so categorical of themselves or others, people must learn to treat one another as individuals, not stereotypes or labels. And the same legal and sociological rules and expectations should apply to everyone, reguardless of their race or nationality or what not. We all bleed the same color, we're all humans, but we're all individuals. One black man is not the same as the next black man, one white man is not the same as the next white man, etc.

Ridiculous. Carver might have done exactly what he did regardless of his race. MLK and Malcolm X could not have done so; their greatness is defined by their struggle against a racist society.

There are wing-nuts on both sides of the spectrum; by definition, they are extreme and/or nutty. But "the left" does not approve of black people (or anyone else) robbing banks. The left has repeatedly pointed out that blacks tend to do more time for the same crime compared to whites - that is an injustice.