Affirmative action, helpful or harmful?

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm a separatist. I believe that in a free country you should be able to live with the people you want to live with. Blacks can't live on their own however. They need white people to hire them, white people to create housing and great neighborhoods, white people to create educational systems, white people to create safe environments.

It's one of the reasons why black Americans are the only race in the world outside of those with religious or territorial issues that strive to move away from their own kind. Blacks don't even want to live with each other if they can help it. Do you ever see whites, Asians, Hispanics try to move into black neighborhoods?

So getting back to the topic, what is AA? AA is a dependency on whites to survive. And blacks are more than happy to be such dependents.

I'm a separatist too. I believe that in a free country you should be able to live with the people you want to live with. Politicians can't live on their own however. They need average people to hire them, average people to create housing and great neighborhoods, average people to create educational systems, average people to create safe environments.

So, what is government? Government is a dependency on average people to survive. And politicians are more than happy to be such dependents.

If you’ll support my right to live without politicians imposing themselves into my life, I’ll support your right to live without black Americans imposing themselves into yours. Deal?

Uhhhh, yeah.

I have no idea WTF you're talking about or what kind of comparison you're trying to make. Whatever it is though was an utter failure.

Of you have a problem with blacks move out of Cleveland get into you truck and drive until you find some all white town in Montana.

Well, that's the problem; too many whites ran instead of fighting back. Mostly liberal whites, but whites nonetheless.

I guess that's black America. If you don't appreciate the crime, the filth, the noise, just find someplace else to move. We are here now and we are hell bent on destroying everything whitey created. So just move. But give it time, and after we destroyed where you lived, we will move to where you live now and destroy that as well.

This is part of East Cleveland which is 93 prcent black.

Here is a picture of a home in a white part of Cleveland.

The entire city of Cleveland went down because of a decline in manufacturing j jobs.

But let us read what another Cleveland citizen who is not a racist piece of shit has to say about this.

When I arrived in April of 1968 the city’s population was about 750,000. The 1970 U. S. Census established that figure. It had been 876,000 in 1960.

Our decline, already in progress, since has been precipitous and severe. And damaging. And painful.

I believe the period I observed had a dramatic and lasting impact on what happened to Cleveland in the past 45 years. It has been a period pockmarked with selfish schemes that put profit ahead of community betterment.

What were some of the causes?

There were the causes that most cities encounter of urban sprawl, the construction of highways through city neighborhoods and the desire for newer housing and, of course, better schools. All aided urban flight.

In Cleveland, however, I think other civic decisions had an instrumental effect on the city, its decline and ruinous state.

I can say that in the 45 years I’ve been here it seems that the main thrust of civic life — directed by those with power — has been to revive downtown. Little attention has been paid to the rest of the city. The University Circle also got attention. Downtown to city leaders — most of whom don’t live in the city — IS the city. That, I imagine, is because they look at the city primarily in commercial terms. Downtown has been a place of business and commerce.

I’ve continually observed this attitude of selfishness of the Corporate Elite. It has revealed itself over and over again.

More.

In 1966 the U. S. Civil Right Commission held hearings in Cleveland. Some of what they found even shocked blacks.

For example, between 1960-65 — as I and a CWRU professor wrote in The Nation — “the number of poverty families in every Negro planning area increased, and the median income slumped. In Hough, median income skidded from $4,732 to $3,966, and two other areas with 60,000 Negroes, had median incomes lower than Hough’s.”

Other figures from the Rights Commission study revealed disturbing facts of discrimination. The building trades, for example, had 13 Negroes among 11,500 workers in five major construction trades; only 43 Negroes were among the 1,350 apprentice trainings in federally sponsored programs in 1965; unemployment among young Negro males was at 58 percent. Racism raged as demands for change rose.

Yet the policies pursued by Cleveland leaders simply added to the problems. In particular, the vast urban renewal program pushed by the private sector and spurred by foundation funds made matters worse by causing a forced movement of blacks without adequate replacement housing. The city embarked on six major urban renewal projects, with a major effort downtown called Erieview. Ironically, Erieview still is not completed.

Cleveland leaders didn’t understand or likely care about the plight of blacks. They pursued urban renewal that exacerbated the severity of urban problems. Further, they didn’t care much about the Cleveland school system. Indeed, the segregation of schools intensified just as the civil rights movement here began to move. It made for nasty times here.

Decisions in this period, I believe, created the Cleveland we have today. And its problems.

More.

James C. Davis, managing partner of Cleveland’s second largest law firm – Squire, Sanders & Dempsey – gave a speech to assess Cleveland’s problem. I doubt if it was helpful.

Without a touch of irony, Davis blamed white ethnics for Cleveland’s racial problems. His speech to the Cleveland Bar Association in 1967 was entitled “Cleveland’s White Problem – A Challenge to the Bar.” He packaged the speech in a 13-page pamphlet. It was given wide distribution.

There was not a word of criticism in the Davis speech about Cleveland corporate or civic leaders No acknowledgement of mistakes. No self examination. Davis instead pitted whites against blacks. There was more than a touch of politics in this. White ethnics were typically Democratic. Davis was Republican.

Davis wrote, “Another frequent comment among white people is, why should the government spend the taxpayers’ money for handouts to Negroes? We – and ‘we’ frequently refers to Americans of Irish, Italian, Polish, Hungarian or others of the heterogeneous ethnic backgrounds which abound in Cleveland – we were poor – we had nothing – we did not need Government handouts to succeed – we educated ourselves – we worked our way out of poverty to find a satisfactory life in America. Why shouldn’t we expect the Negro to do the same?”

Davis wasn’t wrong about the biased feelings of whites toward blacks. However, he made it a fight between Cleveland’s white ethnics and its blacks. No bluebloods to criticize.

He didn’t mention, for example, who controlled the many jobs where discrimination kept blacks unemployed. He didn’t mention how the real estate industry helped to keep Clevelanders segregated. Or the school administration, which business leaders controlled, kept school segregated.

ROLDO: Cleveland's Decline From the 1960s - CoolCleveland

As usual the racist piece of shit ignores what really went on to blame blacks for conditions created by whites. Do us a favor Ray, STFU.

What year did you get those East Cleveland pictures from? Trust me, I've made many deliveries to EC. Here is what 95% looks like today:









Many years ago EC was one of the elitist places to live. Look at it today. Try walking down one of their streets at night today.

 

[IM2]

Affirmative Action and laws like it are bad because they put government in charge of our personal decisions. Moreover they target certain opinions for suppression. It's not illegal, for example, to fire someone - it's illegal to fire them for reasons the state doesn't approve of.

First of all thank you for answering my question and explaining things as well as you have. The thing is though our government is not legislating thoughts or opinions, it's legislating harmful and unconstitutional behavior.

Again, individual behavior is not a Constitutional concern. The Constitution is a set of rules for government, and only government can violate it.

Actually individual behavior is, but those like you want make up a constitution to suit your beliefs.

Actually, it's not. You're wrong. Ask a judge. Or anyone who had a high-school civics course.

Actually it is. The court system is written into the constitution for just this very reason.

 

[protectionist]

Let me know when you can accurately explain the parameters of the policy.

when ? I can explain it now....last year.....41 years ago.

 

[WEATHER53]

At the end of the day, and all these years later: whether it was intended or not affirmative action was about giving a race an advantage with race as the determining factor

 

[IM2]

I'm a separatist too. I believe that in a free country you should be able to live with the people you want to live with. Politicians can't live on their own however. They need average people to hire them, average people to create housing and great neighborhoods, average people to create educational systems, average people to create safe environments.

So, what is government? Government is a dependency on average people to survive. And politicians are more than happy to be such dependents.

If you’ll support my right to live without politicians imposing themselves into my life, I’ll support your right to live without black Americans imposing themselves into yours. Deal?

Uhhhh, yeah.

I have no idea WTF you're talking about or what kind of comparison you're trying to make. Whatever it is though was an utter failure.

Of you have a problem with blacks move out of Cleveland get into you truck and drive until you find some all white town in Montana.

Well, that's the problem; too many whites ran instead of fighting back. Mostly liberal whites, but whites nonetheless.

I guess that's black America. If you don't appreciate the crime, the filth, the noise, just find someplace else to move. We are here now and we are hell bent on destroying everything whitey created. So just move. But give it time, and after we destroyed where you lived, we will move to where you live now and destroy that as well.

This is part of East Cleveland which is 93 prcent black.

Here is a picture of a home in a white part of Cleveland.

The entire city of Cleveland went down because of a decline in manufacturing j jobs.

But let us read what another Cleveland citizen who is not a racist piece of shit has to say about this.

When I arrived in April of 1968 the city’s population was about 750,000. The 1970 U. S. Census established that figure. It had been 876,000 in 1960.

Our decline, already in progress, since has been precipitous and severe. And damaging. And painful.

I believe the period I observed had a dramatic and lasting impact on what happened to Cleveland in the past 45 years. It has been a period pockmarked with selfish schemes that put profit ahead of community betterment.

What were some of the causes?

There were the causes that most cities encounter of urban sprawl, the construction of highways through city neighborhoods and the desire for newer housing and, of course, better schools. All aided urban flight.

In Cleveland, however, I think other civic decisions had an instrumental effect on the city, its decline and ruinous state.

I can say that in the 45 years I’ve been here it seems that the main thrust of civic life — directed by those with power — has been to revive downtown. Little attention has been paid to the rest of the city. The University Circle also got attention. Downtown to city leaders — most of whom don’t live in the city — IS the city. That, I imagine, is because they look at the city primarily in commercial terms. Downtown has been a place of business and commerce.

I’ve continually observed this attitude of selfishness of the Corporate Elite. It has revealed itself over and over again.

More.

In 1966 the U. S. Civil Right Commission held hearings in Cleveland. Some of what they found even shocked blacks.

For example, between 1960-65 — as I and a CWRU professor wrote in The Nation — “the number of poverty families in every Negro planning area increased, and the median income slumped. In Hough, median income skidded from $4,732 to $3,966, and two other areas with 60,000 Negroes, had median incomes lower than Hough’s.”

Other figures from the Rights Commission study revealed disturbing facts of discrimination. The building trades, for example, had 13 Negroes among 11,500 workers in five major construction trades; only 43 Negroes were among the 1,350 apprentice trainings in federally sponsored programs in 1965; unemployment among young Negro males was at 58 percent. Racism raged as demands for change rose.

Yet the policies pursued by Cleveland leaders simply added to the problems. In particular, the vast urban renewal program pushed by the private sector and spurred by foundation funds made matters worse by causing a forced movement of blacks without adequate replacement housing. The city embarked on six major urban renewal projects, with a major effort downtown called Erieview. Ironically, Erieview still is not completed.

Cleveland leaders didn’t understand or likely care about the plight of blacks. They pursued urban renewal that exacerbated the severity of urban problems. Further, they didn’t care much about the Cleveland school system. Indeed, the segregation of schools intensified just as the civil rights movement here began to move. It made for nasty times here.

Decisions in this period, I believe, created the Cleveland we have today. And its problems.

More.

James C. Davis, managing partner of Cleveland’s second largest law firm – Squire, Sanders & Dempsey – gave a speech to assess Cleveland’s problem. I doubt if it was helpful.

Without a touch of irony, Davis blamed white ethnics for Cleveland’s racial problems. His speech to the Cleveland Bar Association in 1967 was entitled “Cleveland’s White Problem – A Challenge to the Bar.” He packaged the speech in a 13-page pamphlet. It was given wide distribution.

There was not a word of criticism in the Davis speech about Cleveland corporate or civic leaders No acknowledgement of mistakes. No self examination. Davis instead pitted whites against blacks. There was more than a touch of politics in this. White ethnics were typically Democratic. Davis was Republican.

Davis wrote, “Another frequent comment among white people is, why should the government spend the taxpayers’ money for handouts to Negroes? We – and ‘we’ frequently refers to Americans of Irish, Italian, Polish, Hungarian or others of the heterogeneous ethnic backgrounds which abound in Cleveland – we were poor – we had nothing – we did not need Government handouts to succeed – we educated ourselves – we worked our way out of poverty to find a satisfactory life in America. Why shouldn’t we expect the Negro to do the same?”

Davis wasn’t wrong about the biased feelings of whites toward blacks. However, he made it a fight between Cleveland’s white ethnics and its blacks. No bluebloods to criticize.

He didn’t mention, for example, who controlled the many jobs where discrimination kept blacks unemployed. He didn’t mention how the real estate industry helped to keep Clevelanders segregated. Or the school administration, which business leaders controlled, kept school segregated.

ROLDO: Cleveland's Decline From the 1960s - CoolCleveland

As usual the racist piece of shit ignores what really went on to blame blacks for conditions created by whites. Do us a favor Ray, STFU.

What year did you get those East Cleveland pictures from? Trust me, I've made many deliveries to EC. Here is what 95% looks like today:

View attachment 186041

View attachment 186042

View attachment 186043
View attachment 186044
View attachment 186045

Many years ago EC was one of the elitist places to live. Look at it today. Try walking down one of their streets at night today.

This is part of the Buckeye Shaker community- a black community in Cleveland.

Woodland Hills

Bedford Heights

All these are black communities in Cleveland. Ray you are full of sht. You will be shown this every time. Your racism is going to be consistently dismissed. So like Is aid earlier, if you don't want to be around backs put your racist whites ass in your truck leave Cleveland,, and don't stop driving until you find an all white town in Montana and live there.

 

[IM2]

At the end of the day, and all these years later: whether it was intended or not affirmative action was about giving a race an advantage with race as the determining factor

At the end of the day, from July 4th, 1776 until now whites have given themselves an advantage with race being the determining factor.

 

[protectionist]

No, people do not come into the world with equal opportunity, and writing it down on paper in Washington doesn't make it so. Fairness is not a right. Not being discriminated against is not a right, no matter what the "law" says. Law does not grant rights; it's a misuse of the term. Law only creates a false justification for punishment to make immoral people feel better about their immorality. Since when does law dictate what's right and wrong?

Every person has the natural right to associate, or not associate, with whoever they choose, for any reason. If you want to hang a sign on your barber shop that says "No Chinese" then so be it. You are not committing an act of aggression and infringement upon the Chinese. To force that barber to accept Chinese clients, however, DOES aggressively infringe upon the barber. It's a fundamental freedom issue. You don't get to initiate violence over it. Not if you're a reasonable moral human being, that is. Discrimination is stupid and wrong, but it's not a matter of rights, and it's less wrong than violent coercion, which is a matter of rights, and is precisely the nature of civil rights law. THAT is why any AA legislation would be wrong, not simply because it's "not fair".

It looks like I might have to put you on ignore (which I rarely ever do-I've only ignored 3 people in 5 years in this forum) But your posts are just too preposterous to even be dignified with a response. Looks like talking to you would be a waste of time and data.

 

[protectionist]

At the end of the day, from July 4th, 1776 until now whites have given themselves an advantage with race being the determining factor.

1776 until 1966. Not until "now"

From 1966 to now, some whites and some blacks (by affirmative action), have given blacks the advantage, with race being the determining factor.

 

[protectionist]

That's a weak argument. Trying to make a nexus between Freedom of association and applicants seeking employment or admission to a university is a stretch.

You're attempting to place personal choice over administrative perogatives. And SCOTUS has, over the last 50 years, ruled favorably on
both sides of the equation. . The 1978 Bakke vs University of California decision defanged AA by removing quotas. Yet, the spirit of AA was retained by allowing goverment officials and associated civilian contractors freedom to use race to diversify their workforces or student bodies by actively seeking and recruiting qualified underrepresented applicants..That included white women, blacks of any gender, and any other minority.
The key word here is applicants. To me that implies a mandate to bring in qualified minorities to compete and nothing more.
Managers may feel that a qualified black person would enhance profitability in some locations. Universiites, for instance, may be contacted by employers to encourage the recruitment of qualified blacks to meet their objectives of foreign liasons or business operations in Africa or anywhere blacks live around the world.

And you think that's the all and the end of it, huh ?

EARTH TO JQP: Employers, universities, banks, etc use Affirmative Action acistly, rampantly to hire, grant loans, etc to ONLY blacks, whenever they just feel like it. This is called REALITY.

 

[protectionist]

What about the personal liberty of the non whites denied opportunity by racist white laws?

WHAT "racist white laws" ? And since when (after the 1960s) do laws have color on them ?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I can't "think little" about somebody I don't know or ever met.

Sure you can, you have made it patently clear what you think of black people - failures, criminals, self-sabotaging excuse makers for their failed lives caused by their own destructive behavior, no daddies, etc. etc. etc. I'm black so I am a member of the group of people that you believe to have all of these negative attributes and not one redeeming quality to let you tell it.

I am surprised however to hear that you still live in the same place where you grew up, is that correct? I grew up in Compton and south central Los Angeles and the make up of all of the neighborhoods that we lived in as kids have changed sure, it seems like it's just what happens. So are you sure that the change in your neighborhood might not have as much to do with race as it does with the level of poverty in the area? Why do you stay if it's so bad? Why would you live among people whom you dislike so much?

And you still haven't stated how you measure success.

So I'm a separatist. Can you blame me? Can you blame me for wanting clean and quiet streets? Can you blame me for wanting thriving businesses and stores? Can you blame me for not wanting decreased property values? Can you blame me for not needing to carry a gun just to go to the store? Can you blame me for not wanting unsafe violent schools where drug sales are common?

You just didn't have any of these problems when the community was white, and I would give anything to return to those days. Can you blame me?

Of course I can't blame you for wanting any of those things, they are the same things that any of us want but are you aware that there are white areas that have all of the exact same problems that you've listed? I grew up in Compton which was a predominantly black neighborhood when we were kids even though there were several white families as well but predominantly white when my parents first moved in. There were no shootings, rapes, murders, kidnappings, drug busts, etc that I recall. It was safe enough for us to walk back & forth to school from elementary until junior high and for us to camp out in our back yard and sleep in a tent from time-to-time and we lived on a corner lot so it's not like we were in a well enclosed backyard, anyone could have walked up but nothing bad ever happened to us in our "all black neighborhood".

It's very unfortunate that you've experienced some of the things that you have and it's obvious that those experiences have hardened your heart towards a segment of our society. I don't know what else to say except I do genuinely appreciate the time you've taken to discuss this with me (although I still would love to know how to measure success - I want to know how I measure up

 

[IM2]

At the end of the day, from July 4th, 1776 until now whites have given themselves an advantage with race being the determining factor.

1776 until 1966. Not until "now"

From 1966 to now, some whites and some blacks (by affirmative action), have given blacks the advantage, with race being the determining factor.

Like I said, until today. There is no law giving blacks any advantages because of race. Equal opportunity is not racial preferences.

 

[IM2]

That's a weak argument. Trying to make a nexus between Freedom of association and applicants seeking employment or admission to a university is a stretch.

You're attempting to place personal choice over administrative perogatives. And SCOTUS has, over the last 50 years, ruled favorably on
both sides of the equation. . The 1978 Bakke vs University of California decision defanged AA by removing quotas. Yet, the spirit of AA was retained by allowing goverment officials and associated civilian contractors freedom to use race to diversify their workforces or student bodies by actively seeking and recruiting qualified underrepresented applicants..That included white women, blacks of any gender, and any other minority.
The key word here is applicants. To me that implies a mandate to bring in qualified minorities to compete and nothing more.
Managers may feel that a qualified black person would enhance profitability in some locations. Universiites, for instance, may be contacted by employers to encourage the recruitment of qualified blacks to meet their objectives of foreign liasons or business operations in Africa or anywhere blacks live around the world.

And you think that's the all and the end of it, huh ?

EARTH TO JQP: Employers, universities, banks, etc use Affirmative Action acistly, rampantly to hire, grant loans, etc to ONLY blacks, whenever they just feel like it. This is called REALITY.

That's not reality. That's you being race pimped into stupidity.

 

[IM2]

What about the personal liberty of the non whites denied opportunity by racist white laws?

WHAT "racist white laws" ? And since when (after the 1960s) do laws have color on them ?

The psychosis is strong in this one.

 

[IM2]

Pretty much it starts with your claim of how it infringes upon a individuals freedom of association. You don't have a clue of what the policy is about.

If it's made into law, it infringes upon individual liberty. Please explain how not.

We have laws because people don't respect individual liberty. Racism infringed upon individual liberties of all who were not white.

Sure, when racism find it's way into legislation, it can infringe upon individual liberties. And when it does we should vigorously stamp it out. But that's not what we're talking about. You're equivocating. We're talking about laws dictating individual behavior, not state policy.

We are talking about laws stopping dictated local, state and national policies.

No, you're equivocating (lying by leveraging two different meanings of a word and swapping out definitions at your convenience).

Naturally, most everyone is opposed to government violating equal rights. But that's not what AA and most other anti-discrimination laws are about. They are prescribing individual behavior, not the actions of government.

You are pretty much ignorant to how things have gone and it's purposeful. Every racist law ever made created or enabled individual racist behavior.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Equal opportunity is not racial preferences.

Amen. You know what gets me though? Why would a people who were graced with God given superiority need to hedge their bets by instituting legislation that both gives them a legal advantage and at the same time legally hobbles the inferior folk? They wouldn't need all those advantages if they were truly superior right? Because if they were, all the opportunities and advantages in the world wouldn't be able to compensate for someone less inferior and less intelligent. That doesn't make any sense to me. UNLESS someone is telling a fib.

 

[protectionist]

The psychosis is strong in this one.

The ANSWER is not strong in this one (DODGE)

 

[protectionist]

You are pretty much ignorant to how things have gone and it's purposeful. Every racist law ever made created or enabled individual racist behavior.

AKA Affirmative Action

 

[protectionist]

That's not reality. That's you being race pimped into stupidity.

That's what YOU do.

 

[protectionist]

Like I said, until today. There is no law giving blacks any advantages because of race. Equal opportunity is not racial preferences.

Like you said WRONG. Law or no law, AA gives blacks advantages because of their race. AA is not equal opportunity. It is UN equal opportunity, with racial preferences granted to blacks. Hell of a way to go through life. They (and you) ought to be ashamed of themselves.