A Supreme Court Ruling That Warms My Little Racist Heart

[Exsubmariner]

In typical fashion, I noticed you distorted things.

Here is an article in the San Francisco chronicle that sums up the case pretty well.

[ QUOTE ]
School boards in Seattle and Louisville said their race-conscious plans were necessary to prevent schools from turning into white and minority enclaves. They were sued by groups of white parents whose children were denied enrollment in their preferred schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, somebody felt they were losing out, somehow. Otherwise, there would have never been a case. Your characterization makes out like the poor benevolent schools were set upon by a group of vicious white supremicists. I noticed it took about 24 hours for the liberal spin machine to get up to speed on just how to distort the facts in a self serving eqivolency kind of fashion.

[Exsubmariner]

Positive Discrimination....heh.... I like that.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At least I admit it though and don't hide behind some euphamistic baloney.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, affirmative action is a positive thing, it is trying to redress an injustice, not creating a new one! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

That is, unless you are directly affected by the newly created injustive. Like, say, if your white child is getting bussed to a really crappy school.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm happy to see that society is beginning to accept the premise that racism goes all ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for conservatives to admit that racism comes from their direction AT ALL.

But while I'm waiting, it's good to know you're gonna finally get a handle on that "black racism" problem. The black man has been keeping the white man down for far too long anyway. Hopefully, this decision will be a first step toward integrating white students into the better schools currently reserved only for black children. Who knows, we may now live to see white children going on into medicine, law, the sciences -- areas once reserved only for the children of black elites. Yep, thank goodness the iron fist of black racism is finally starting to crumble, so that white children can finally stand on an equal footing with Black America.

(Now, pardon me while I step through this looking glass.)


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that all men should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Reading what you wrote, I don't think you believe that.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for liberals to admit that racism comes from their direction AT ALL.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP



[/ QUOTE ]

NH - See that Wiki article about Clark....

[ QUOTE ]
"It took me 10 to 15 years to realize that I seriously underestimated the depth and complexity of Northern racism. ... In the South, you could use the courts to do away with separate toilets and all that nonsense. We haven’t found a way of dealing with discrimination in the North."


[/ QUOTE ]

[andyfox]

There's another way to look at it. Proponents of affirmative action would argue that if there is a situation where blacks are underrepresented in a certain population---say, admissions to a university--then discrimination must be at work to some degree. By allowing the use of race as one factor in determinating admission, use of that factor in actuality reduces discrimination. Levels the playing field, so to speak. I believe Lyndon Johnson may well have used that metaphor in his landmark speech on the matter.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And, now one type (or form) is better/worse than another

[/ QUOTE ]

exsubmariner is asserting "equivalence" that flies in the face of reality and all of American history.

Furthermore, that assertion of "equivalence" is patently self-serving. It's only purpose is to say "well, yes, my side is racist but if I say everyone else is racist too, then everyone is equivalent and we can just ignore the racism question".

Hint: you don't have institutional segregation when all sides are "equivalent".


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I'm sorry. I can't tell the nuanced differences between one sort of racism and another. I guess I'm not enlightened enough. Please share with me how a school system determining what school a child has to go to based on the fact that they are white is any different than deciding what school a child has to go to because they are black?

BTW, you don't have institutional segregation when children go to schools in their own communities that are paid for with the taxes of their parents. Here's a hint: people of similar race tend to like to live around other members of their race. This is true about whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, etc.. Are you going to decide where people have to live, next?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, somebody felt they were losing out, somehow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which I conceded. Read what I wrote earlier:

[ QUOTE ]
In Seattle, something along the lines of 100 black children were displaced from their "first-choice" schools, which of course contradicts the notion that this policy was some kind of policy wrought from white-guilt to punish pale children. There were black students who were also bearing the brunt of the malevolent effects of these plans.

[/ QUOTE ]

So yes, again, obviously someone didn't like this policy, and felt harmed by it. But it wasn't just white people.



[ QUOTE ]
Your characterization makes out like the poor benevolent schools were set upon by a group of vicious white supremicists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, what? I said nothing, nor even hinted at anything of the sort. It was your characterization that demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of the facts of the case. Here's what you said:

"BTW, the case involved the bussing of white students into a predominately black school. So, the people being discrimanted against in this case were the white kids, who would be bussed away from better schools."

Again, these are nothing but canards:

1) "White kids" weren't discriminated against; racial classification was occurring, no doubt -- but it certainly wasn't "against" white students, unless of course you think making white students attend school with black kids is somehow causing them harm.

2) The case (at least in Seattle) didn't involve "busing white students into predominantly black schools" because their plan was such that THERE WERE NO PREDOMINATELY BLACK SCHOOLS. Hence why it was an integration plan. The school board controlled student placement so that schools in the district were racially integrated. That you think it involves busing white students into black schools demonstrates you have a limited understanding of the actual facts of the case.

3) All of the schools are theoretically of equal quality, since they're all in the same district and share the same resources. So there was no effort to "bus white kids away from better schools".

But yes, I'm the "spin doctor" for doing nothing more than pointing out the falsehoods of your 'white-victim' narrative. Seriously, given your complete lack of understanding, I think VayaConDios was spot on earlier when he characterized your post this way: "I don't know anything about the law or the Supreme Court but I hear they're keeping some black folks down so it's okay by me." At the very least, he was correct in noting you don't seem to have even a rudimentary knowledge of what happened or what got ruled.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Proponents of affirmative action would argue that if there is a situation where blacks are underrepresented in a certain population---say, admissions to a university--then discrimination must be at work to some degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only thing is, they aren't really making a whole argument with that, it's more like they're making an assertion. It's an argument if one unquestioningly presumes the underlying premise is true, but they're trying to convince people who question the premise. Therefore in order to make an actual argument to the other side, they need to do more than merely assert based upon their own self-suggested premise.

[Exsubmariner]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, NewTeaBag.

I don't think it is a question of scale, I think it is a question of time and assimilation.

I know what you mean about the guy whose job it was to piss you off. And you're right, you'd jump in to help your buddy.

Your neighbor, however, is not your shipmate. Your lives don't depend on each other, he hasn't been through the weed out process, the schools, displayed competance, proved himself in any way or manner similar to what you have. The comparison is completely not equivalent.

Your baseball example is a good case of how people of different ethnicities develop bonds and common ground and begin to interact and assimilate with each other. Left on their own, however, they are going to live in different neighborhoods and practice their own cultures. Those cultures will not necessarily be compatable.

I submit, based on research cited previously in this thread, that forced integration actually reinforces racial stereotypes. At a young age, children do not have the emotional intelligence to empathize with someone who is not like themselves. Empathy is what leads to understanding between people from different backgrounds. This is why everyone who was ever on a boat had to prove themselves through training. That way, they were all assimilated into a common culture (submarine culture, for what it is) and that made ethnicity irrelevant.

The original purpose of the public schools, according to Ben Franklin was to make Americans. You can't make Americans by creating a situation that will lead to reinforcement of differences.