What is White Supremacy?

[protectionist]

But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.

You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its 'anti-WHITE' discriminatory nature. As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.

I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.

FALSE! SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University ONLY blacks received assistantships. 2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.

Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.

Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will. I could not degrade myself that way. It is something for people with no self-respect.

When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.

What year was this at Memphis State that "only blacks" received assistantships?

Interestingly, the current population of the city of Memphis is over 60% black, yet Memphis States current faculty is about 15% black.

It was 1977, ...as for your "stats",

Interesting how you say that "Memphis States current faculty is about 15% black". I guess you didn't bother to check that THERE IS NO Memphis State current faculty, because in 2020, there is no Memphis State. Hasn't been since 1992.

Yes there is. Now stop trying to play games with words.

Aren't you the guy who said

1. he was " done arguing" ?

2. Who I asked if you were a US military veteran ?

3. Didn't answer my question ?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.

Agreed. Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......

My racist bullshit doesn't exist. When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?

The problem is that your "speaking out against," is always ad hominem attacks, and does not parse the arguments with reasoned counter arguments. You are typical of the black people on the internet in that you have learned a few all-purpose shut-down comments that you think mean you win the argument.

You aren't getting anywhere - no white person is changing their mind about the intelligence of black people, because of your participation here. You are the typical stupid black that needs to be banned for trolling.

 

[MizMolly]

There is no proof that white women have benefitted from AA

While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women. Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.

70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were never going to get anyway because they're NOT QUALIFIED for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.

Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.

Same can be said of black women or black men.

How so? According to you all, all we have to do is be black and quality jobs which none of us are qualified for fall into our laps like manna from heaven.

Also if the same can be said of black women & women, that allegedly (or presumably) all or some were never going to get the job anyway, then what the hell are you all complaining about when stating that white men are getting screwed out of jobs? Either black people are not getting jobs that they never were going to get anyway (that you all should be okay with) or we're taking all of the jobs and thereby screwing white people out of 'their' jobs.

There is no proof that white women have benefitted from AA

While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women. Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.

70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were never going to get anyway because they're NOT QUALIFIED for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.

Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.

I went back and got a degree when I was 50. Nobody handed me anything and I never complained about it. I worked hard, studied hard and earned every damn thing I ever got.

Well good for you, that's certainly something to be proud of. And when women of color do the same thing, either earlier in life or later in life such as yourself, they are not entitled to use that degree that they worked so hard for to obtain a coveted job that helps them with upward mobility without being accused of screwing white people out of jobs?

Bullshit. I went back and got my degree where there were many black women who did get the jobs they applied for after getting theirs. You ASSume too much. I didn’t get the fist jobs I applied for after graduating either.

 

[MizMolly]

I'm done arguing with these racists about AA and white supremacy. Rockwell is a white supremacist, I've shown that twice. AA has not hurt whites, in fact it has increased white family income. That's a fact that cannot be changed how much protectionist hollers to the contrary. Molly has benefitted more from AA than anyone in this conversation. That to is a fact that will not changed because 3 white losers at USMB whine about having to compete for jobs.

More lies. Can you prove i have benefitted? Of course not, because I haven’t. Everyone has to compete for jobs. There were more black women in some if my classes than white women. No preferential treatment.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Did you read the first two posts in the OP?

I did and I just went back and read them again. What did I miss?

My bad. I was focused on another thread... the one I started. I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.

Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO. When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.

My position is that I don't see anything different from either side. BOTH sides are being duped. At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.

Unless I'm mistaken, because I'll admit I haven't read a significant enough portion of your posts to be 100% certain, it's not the statements you made, it's the implication which I got the impression you not only agreed with, but would further as an agenda if possible.

For example while the truth of the following statements are the same, the message they convey is quite different:

"America was founded by white people for white people"

versus
​

"America was founded by white people for the sole benefit of white people"​

The first statement implies what the second statement unequivocally states - that America was founded, by whites, was meant for whites and that all others have no place here, except in a subservient capacity. And both statements are different than even this statement

"The people who settled America were white and intended that the nation be established for their sole benefit, that of other whites and all of their decedants"
​

This last statement reads like something in a history book. It's giving an accounting of an event and it's significance.

The reason I asked how you can make the statement you did and not feel that it comes across as racist or as a white supramacist is because it was not a stand alone statement, you had it coupled with your comments about the displeasure that so many white males apparently have towards affirmative action and the belief that because of AA "white men are getting screwed out of jobs".

Believe me I know how contentious this topic is which is why I tried coming up with the merger analogy that might make sense if one is viewing the topic as a business problem that a company/employer has to resolve fairly, however the fact remains that the distribution of opportunites was never fair to begin with, white males have dominated the job market for centuries. What their true gripe concerns in actuality is having to share, or as I have had it explained to me is the fear and anxiety that accompanies a perceived loss of power as women and minorities enter domains which have traditionally been exclusively theirs.

If people really care about what another poster thinks, they should ASK them. The real deal is, only whites could be citizens and in most early state constitutions you had to be white and Christian in order hold elective office.

OTOH, people from all over the world poured into the United States in order to take advantage of economic opportunities willingly offered. You cannot criminalize Liberty. You cannot (constitutionally) force any employer to hire any particular employee. We don't owe the black people jobs or anything else. We are a free market economy.

If anybody is owed anything from race, it is white people, who should get $$$$$$$ in reparations, to compensate them for 6 decades of discrimination mistreatment in affirmative action.

This should not be paid from the govt though. It should be paid from the private pockets of those guilty of pushing and supporting AA. Example: katsteve, IM2, NVM.

LOL

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.

You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its 'anti-WHITE' discriminatory nature. As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.

I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.

FALSE! SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University ONLY blacks received assistantships. 2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.

Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.

You're mistaken

Civil Rights Laws Cover All Ethnic Groups, Court Says
By DAVID G. SAVAGE
May 19, 1987
12 AM
Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON —

Expanding the scope of the nation’s civil rights laws, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that Jews, Arabs and others who suffer discrimination based on their “ancestry” are protected under statutes barring racial discrimination.

In two unanimous decisions, the justices concluded that Congress in the original 1866 Civil Rights Act intended not only to protect blacks but also immigrants and others who suffer because of their nationality or appearance.

Lawyers for Jewish and Arab groups, who filed common appeals to the high court, praised the rulings as an enlightened attack on social discrimination.

But, in practical terms, the rulings’ main beneficiary may be Latinos, the nation’s second-largest minority group. Courts have been divided over whether Latinos are covered by all federal civil rights statutes.

The 1866 law said that its coverage applied to those who were not “white citizens,” and a federal appeals court covering the Western states had ruled that light-skinned persons of Mexican ancestry were not protected because they are “white.”

“This Supreme Court ruling puts that issue to rest,” said Antonia Hernandez, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund in Los Angeles. She predicted that the law will be especially valuable in challenging discrimination related to the new immigration law.

“We see this as a major victory that greatly expands civil rights protections for Hispanics,” Hernandez said.

The two cases before the high court stemmed from the spray-painting of anti-Semitic and Nazi slogans and symbols on a synagogue in Silver Spring, Md., and the loss of tenure by a professor at St. Francis College of Loretto, Pa., who was a U.S. citizen born in Iraq.

In the first case, a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., had dismissed the congregation’s civil rights suit against the men who desecrated the synagogue on the grounds that Jews are not a separate race. In the second case, an appeals court in Philadelphia allowed the suit by the Arab professor, Majid Ghaidan Al-Khazraji, after concluding that he may have suffered from discrimination based on his ancestry.

Justice Byron R. White, writing for the court, pointed out that the term “race” in the 19th Century was more akin to what today might be considered “nationality.” During the 1866 debate, lawmakers referred to the “German race,” the “Scandinavian race” and the “Anglo-Saxon race,” he noted.

“Based on the history of Section 1981 (of the Civil Rights Act), we have little trouble in concluding that Congress intended to protect from discrimination identifiable classes of persons who are subjected to intentional discrimination solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics,” White wrote.

Dilemma for Jews

Lawyers for Jewish groups said that the case posed a dilemma because they do not want to foster the myth that Jews are a separate race.

“The court has clearly vindicated the right of Arabs and Jewish plaintiffs to seek relief under federal civil rights laws, without crossing the lines to declare they are members of a separate race,” said Gregg Levy, an attorney representing the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith.

Abdeen Jabara, president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said the decision “recognizes that Arab-Americans have been subject to a certain degree of racism in the U.S. This case is so important because it says that racism directed at any individual because of his ancestry, religion or origin is as odious as racism based on his skin color.”

The cases are Shaare Tefila Congregation vs. Cobb, 85-2156, and St. Francis College vs. Al-Khazraji, 85-2169.
Civil Rights Laws Cover All Ethnic Groups, Court Says

​

Well, what a great article. Trouble is it's irrelevant to what I said. What the creeps at Memphis State did had nothing to do with law. It was just a result of how they chose to dispense assistantships. All to blacks, and no one else.

This is common.

The article contradicts what you said and is current case law.

Well, it looks like you wouldn't qualify for a job that requires intelligence.

Every position I've held in the last 30 years of my career requires intelligence among other specific skillsets.

But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.

You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its 'anti-WHITE' discriminatory nature. As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.

I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.

FALSE! SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University ONLY blacks received assistantships. 2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.

Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.

You're mistaken

Civil Rights Laws Cover All Ethnic Groups, Court Says
By DAVID G. SAVAGE
May 19, 1987
12 AM
Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON —

Expanding the scope of the nation’s civil rights laws, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that Jews, Arabs and others who suffer discrimination based on their “ancestry” are protected under statutes barring racial discrimination.

In two unanimous decisions, the justices concluded that Congress in the original 1866 Civil Rights Act intended not only to protect blacks but also immigrants and others who suffer because of their nationality or appearance.

Lawyers for Jewish and Arab groups, who filed common appeals to the high court, praised the rulings as an enlightened attack on social discrimination.

But, in practical terms, the rulings’ main beneficiary may be Latinos, the nation’s second-largest minority group. Courts have been divided over whether Latinos are covered by all federal civil rights statutes.

The 1866 law said that its coverage applied to those who were not “white citizens,” and a federal appeals court covering the Western states had ruled that light-skinned persons of Mexican ancestry were not protected because they are “white.”

“This Supreme Court ruling puts that issue to rest,” said Antonia Hernandez, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund in Los Angeles. She predicted that the law will be especially valuable in challenging discrimination related to the new immigration law.

“We see this as a major victory that greatly expands civil rights protections for Hispanics,” Hernandez said.

The two cases before the high court stemmed from the spray-painting of anti-Semitic and Nazi slogans and symbols on a synagogue in Silver Spring, Md., and the loss of tenure by a professor at St. Francis College of Loretto, Pa., who was a U.S. citizen born in Iraq.

In the first case, a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., had dismissed the congregation’s civil rights suit against the men who desecrated the synagogue on the grounds that Jews are not a separate race. In the second case, an appeals court in Philadelphia allowed the suit by the Arab professor, Majid Ghaidan Al-Khazraji, after concluding that he may have suffered from discrimination based on his ancestry.

Justice Byron R. White, writing for the court, pointed out that the term “race” in the 19th Century was more akin to what today might be considered “nationality.” During the 1866 debate, lawmakers referred to the “German race,” the “Scandinavian race” and the “Anglo-Saxon race,” he noted.

“Based on the history of Section 1981 (of the Civil Rights Act), we have little trouble in concluding that Congress intended to protect from discrimination identifiable classes of persons who are subjected to intentional discrimination solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics,” White wrote.

Dilemma for Jews

Lawyers for Jewish groups said that the case posed a dilemma because they do not want to foster the myth that Jews are a separate race.

“The court has clearly vindicated the right of Arabs and Jewish plaintiffs to seek relief under federal civil rights laws, without crossing the lines to declare they are members of a separate race,” said Gregg Levy, an attorney representing the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith.

Abdeen Jabara, president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said the decision “recognizes that Arab-Americans have been subject to a certain degree of racism in the U.S. This case is so important because it says that racism directed at any individual because of his ancestry, religion or origin is as odious as racism based on his skin color.”

The cases are Shaare Tefila Congregation vs. Cobb, 85-2156, and St. Francis College vs. Al-Khazraji, 85-2169.
Civil Rights Laws Cover All Ethnic Groups, Court Says
​

Well, what a great article. Trouble is it's irrelevant to what I said. What the creeps at Memphis State did had nothing to do with law. It was just a result of how they chose to dispense assistantships. All to blacks, and no one else.

This is common.

The article contradicts what you said and is current case law.

Well, it looks like you wouldn't qualify for a job that requires intelligence. As I just told you, all that article does is say who can be eligible for AA, not who has to be. If the administrators wish to define their program to include certain groups within those the article cites, they may do that.

The article really just says certain groups CAN be included. That's all. Doesn't contradict anything I've said. You get a lot of things wrong. Hope you're not working in any kind of civil defense occupation, or fundamental utilities.

Your comment above serves as proof of your lack of understanding of how our laws and legal system works. While prior to this ruling the courts had been divided on whether or not ethnic groups were covered by the various civil rights statutes, the Supreme Court settled the question when in it's ruling stipulated that ethnic groups ARE covered. They always had been, going back to when the law was first passed however the question of whether or not they were was unsettled until the Supreme Court weighed in with this ruling.

And it doesn't matter how many things I get wrong, I still get more things right than you ever will if for no other reason than when I fail at something that is important to me, then I keep trying until I get it right or at least improve. Unlike you, who simply gives up and then spends the rest of your life crying, whining and blaming your superiors for your lack of opportunities and miserable existence. I've never seen anyone make so many excuses and blame so many other people for the things that they've been unable to achieve in life.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

1) I do not consider myself a white supremacist and only an idiot would. As I've pointed out China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, and Zimbabwe - and maybe a dozen or so other countries are homogeneous countries. NONE of you pretending to be concerned about white supremacists give a rat's ass about that. You will buy products from those countries and never give them a second thought

None of those countries you've mentioned are white so why did you mention them instead of nations that are predominantly white? I don't see any connection between your first statement and purchasing products from other countries as it pertains to white supremacy.

2) IF you had faithfully studied my objections to the 14th Amendment, you would understand by now that the 14th Amendment promised a false kind of forced "equality" between the races.

The 14th amendment was passed to rectify the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court. Even though the slaves had been freed they had no legal rights as this decision ruled that as people of African descent they could not be citizens

When the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868 —150 years ago this Monday — it closed the door on schemes that aimed to make the U.S. a white man’s country. It was a victory that was a long time coming.

The ratification of the 14th Amendment in July 1868 transformed national belonging, and made African Americans, and indeed all those born on U.S. soil, citizens. Isaiah Wears, a veteran of the abolitionist movement, explained shortly after its passage the rights that he and other African Americans expected to thus enjoy: not only the right to vote and to select representatives, but also “the right of residence.”

The right of residence — to remain unmolested in the territory of the nation — was urgent in Wears’ view. How was it that a right that today many Americans take for granted was so urgently sought in 1868? Black Americans had lived for nearly half a century in a legal limbo. No law defined the rights of people who were no longer slaves. Freedom did not guarantee rights, nor it did not make them citizens. Caught in a debate over their status, they lived under the threat of colonization, a scheme that sought to remove them from the nation.

By the 1820s, the forces against them were formidable. Colonization societies organized to pressure black people to relocate, to Africa, Canada or the Caribbean. So-called black laws imposed restrictions on daily life, regulating work, family and sociability. The overall objective was removal — or what was variably termed self-deportation, exile or banishment. Black political leaders explained in 1831 they were under threat “by every artifice to render their situation intolerable here, as to compel them to emigrate.” Many state legislatures, north and south, were at work making the U.S. a place where black people had no future.

Removal relied upon coercion. Oppressive laws aimed to pressure African Americans to resettle elsewhere. Some lawmakers went further and proposed removal by force, threatening former slaves with re-enslavement and compulsory exile if they refused to relocate. Such was the case in 1832 Maryland when legislator Octavius Taney, brother of Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney, proposed a statute that would “facilitate the removal of the free persons of color from our state, and from the United States.” Taney assumed that black people were not citizens, and thus without rights to resist removal.

You may unsubscribe from email communication at any time. See our Privacy Policy for further details.
African Americans took such threats seriously, and with good reason. Proposals for their removal looked a lot like the Indian Removal of the 1830s. Black activists understood that tens of thousands of Native Americans had been forcibly relocated from the southeastern U.S., sent west to Indian Territory. During an 1831 convention, they explained how proponents of colonization stood “in the same attitude toward our colored population, as Georgia does to the Cherokee.” If state authorities could relocate Native peoples, the fate of black Americans might very well be the same.

Court rulings only added to a sense of urgency. Most notoriously, the 1857 Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford had declared that no black person could be a citizen of the U.S. At stake was Dred Scott’s freedom and whether he could sue for it in a federal court. He could not, Chief Justice Roger Taney concluded. But Taney went further, holding that the Constitution included no protections for free African Americans, thus leaving the individual states at liberty to regulate such people as they saw fit. This gave further license to removal schemes, forced and otherwise.

But on one point black activists agreed: They were citizens, as a matter of birthright.
At the 1855 National Colored Convention, delegates gathered as “American citizens asserting their rights on their own native soil.” They insisted upon birthright: “By birth, we are American citizens; by the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are American citizens; by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, we are American citizens; by the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are citizens.” This refrain was repeated, in conventions, in the black press and in pamphlets. Black activists promoted birthright as the standard by which their belonging should be measured.

Dramatic events made it possible for birthright to gain a full hearing. The Civil War and the emancipation of some four million slaves moved the issue to center stage in Congress. There, lawmakers worked with a long view in mind, asking who African Americans would be before the Constitution going forward. The first answer came in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which provided: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” Birthright citizenship became law.

More, however, was necessary. Some worried that a mere act of Congress was vulnerable to future lawmakers who might rethink the question and amend the law. Others opined that Congress might not have the authority to define citizenship at all. The remedy for these uncertainties was a constitutional amendment, proposed by Congress and ratified by the individual states that provided for birthright citizenship. The result was section 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified in July 1868 and guaranteeing to black Americans — and all people born or naturalized in the United States — the constitutional protection against removal.

Just months later, in January 1869, Isaiah Wears spoke on behalf of African American political leaders from across the country, heralding the advent of an era in which the “right to residence” would be protected. There were many struggles ahead for black Americans over civil and political rights. But one matter was settled. Gone were schemes that proposed to force their removal from the nation.

African American struggles of the 1800s bequeathed to those born in the 21st century the basis for the right to be free from removal, exile or banishment. The terms of the very same 14th Amendment are also today the subject of a new debate, one that asks whether birthright doesn’t too generously extend citizenship to all those born in the U.S. This pre-history of the Amendment reveals how, in the 19th century, when citizenship was loosely defined, racism could determine who enjoyed constitutional rights. Thousands of black Americans were left to live under an
ever-present threat of removal. The story of their fight for the “right to residence” is a cautionary tale for our own time.

How the 14th Amendment's Promise of Birthright Citizenship Redefined America​

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If people really care about what another poster thinks, they should ASK them. The real deal is, only whites could be citizens and in most early state constitutions you had to be white and Christian in order hold elective office.

If I asked you if you are a white supremacist would you say that you are? Because your comments indicate that you are whether you're able to see that or not. What other reason is there for you continuing to go back to the statement that only whites could be citizens and your feverent objection to and declaration that the 14th Amendment was never lawfully ratified if not due to the fact that you object to non-whites having been granted citizenship and having the same U.S. Constitutional rights and protections as citizens that whites enjoy? I can't fathom another reason for this although I will acknowledge that you seemed to point to a comment made by another poster that the term "white supremacist" is considered a deragatory term and that white supremacists are considered pretty much a fringe element.

OTOH, people from all over the world poured into the United States in order to take advantage of economic opportunities willingly offered. You cannot criminalize Liberty.

What economic opportunites were willingly offered to people African descent? And do you think the lawful denial of liberty does to people?

You cannot (constitutionally) force any employer to hire any particular employee. We don't owe the black people jobs or anything else. We are a free market economy.

So how are white men getting screwed out of jobs if they were never entitled to them in the first place under the free market system?

And affirmative action doesn't force companies to do anything other than to "disregard" race, national origin, religion, etc. in hiring and other areas of employment (promotions, etc.). In other words it provides a statutory cause of action for discrimination based on any protected class violations. This isn't a volation of the U.S. Constitution although a company could possibly be in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause

The Equal Protection Clause is a clause from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

A primary motivation for this clause was to validate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all citizens would have the guaranteed right to equal protection by law. As a whole, the Fourteenth Amendment marked a large shift in American constitutionalism, by applying substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War.

The meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate, and inspired the well-known phrase "Equal Justice Under Law". This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that helped to dismantle racial segregation, and also the basis for many other decisions rejecting discrimination against, and bigotry towards people belonging to various groups.​

WOW! Is this what your liberal fake news media has been feeding you ? This is incredible. You display a total lack of knowledge of what AA is.

AA is exactly the Opposite of what you said it is. NO, AA most certainly does not "disregard" race. It regards it, makes choices based on who is of what race. I can't believe you don't know that, or that your head is so twisted, that you could actually believe what you just said.

As for Equal Protection of the Law, that is exactly what AA does NOT do. It is what AA violates, by placing one race ahead of another.

Man, people in this forum are messed up, whether they are lying or actually believe anything they hear. Liberals are crazy.

The extent to which you are unaware of how ignorant and uneducated you are is simply mind-boggling. Your legal analysis on both affirmative action and the 14th amendment is grossly inaccurate.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Stupid question.
In any area that has a substantial number of minorities, there will be a large majority of them working in any govt agency, despite them being small in number relative to whites.

If you pick a place that has few or no minorities living there, then of course in that place there would be few minorities employed. Duh!

None of that excuses the fact that in many, if not most, VA hospitals, minorities are grossly overrepresented among staff. Dark doctors. Light patients.

There is no such thing as a stupid question. Is that how to talk to your music students or all they all white with the same mind set and perspectives as you?

My question was to illustrate that you constantly make statements, without qualifiers, that are patently untrue.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women. Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.

70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were never going to get anyway because they're NOT QUALIFIED for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.

Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.

PREACH!

There is proof white women benefitted from AA. Funny how white people will declare how it's certain that every black person has benefited from AA, but when it's shown how whites have there is no proof or "Hispanics" continually post fact less bullshit about how it's a very small number. Numerous studies and years of labor statistics show that 100's of millions of white women have benefitted from AA. Opinions from dementia addled fake Hispanics and white women who have benefitted from AA doesn't change this reality.

Absolutely no proof. I never said blacks benefitted most. EVERYONE should get what they want through hard work, not based on race or gender.

What do you consider proof? Because you have made this statement numerous times before and I have personally provided you with U.S. Department of Labor reports & statistics that show how they gathered and tracked the number of women and minorities in mangerial positions after the passage of affirmative action. They also gathered data from discrimination lawsuits instituted after affirmative action provided a statutory cause of action (right to sue)

So if you don't consider goverment reports and documentation, stats culled from lawsuits, etc. as proof, what exactly constitutes acceptable proof to you? And what's your degree in?

Reports & stats are only as reliable as the honesty and objectivity of the reporters of them. Many are totally fraudulent, reflecting the bias of the reporters. This easily can include govt reports, as many govt reporters are biased.

By far, the most reliable evidence is your eyes and ears. If a report says a community is economically healthy, but you see poverty shacks and homeless people everywhere you look, your eyes deliver the correct conclusion, not the fraudulent written report.

Likewise, one can easily, visually ascertain the AA racial discrimination in VA hospitals, and other govt agencies.

Wow, you're stupid and obviously know nothing about working with data or business intelligence. And you all will go to any lengths to discount hard cold facts when they are not in your favor while stretching the thinnest shreds of innuendo or other unsubstantiated nonsense and holding it up as proof.

On the other hand, eyewitness testimony (eyes & ears) is notoriously unreliable. Photographs, audio, video and electronic documentation can all serve to bolster eyewitness or first hand testimony.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

There is no proof that white women have benefitted from AA

While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women. Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.

70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were never going to get anyway because they're NOT QUALIFIED for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.

Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.

Same can be said of black women or black men.

How so? According to you all, all we have to do is be black and quality jobs which none of us are qualified for fall into our laps like manna from heaven.

Also if the same can be said of black women & women, that allegedly (or presumably) all or some were never going to get the job anyway, then what the hell are you all complaining about when stating that white men are getting screwed out of jobs? Either black people are not getting jobs that they never were going to get anyway (that you all should be okay with) or we're taking all of the jobs and thereby screwing white people out of 'their' jobs.

There is no proof that white women have benefitted from AA

While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women. Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.

70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were never going to get anyway because they're NOT QUALIFIED for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.

Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.

I went back and got a degree when I was 50. Nobody handed me anything and I never complained about it. I worked hard, studied hard and earned every damn thing I ever got.

Well good for you, that's certainly something to be proud of. And when women of color do the same thing, either earlier in life or later in life such as yourself, they are not entitled to use that degree that they worked so hard for to obtain a coveted job that helps them with upward mobility without being accused of screwing white people out of jobs?

Bullshit. I went back and got my degree where there were many black women who did get the jobs they applied for after getting theirs. You ASSume too much. I didn’t get the fist jobs I applied for after graduating either.

Bullshit what? What do you have to complain about? And why on earth do you think you're entitled to get the very first job that you apply for, just because you obtained a degree? Particularly at your age with age discrimination being what it is?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

More lies. Can you prove i have benefitted? Of course not, because I haven’t. Everyone has to compete for jobs. There were more black women in some if my classes than white women. No preferential treatment.

You still haven't stated what field your degree is in so why is it worth mentioning that in some of your classes there were more black women than white women? Is that something you view as a negative?

 

[IM2]

Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.

Agreed. Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......

My racist bullshit doesn't exist. When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?

The problem is that your "speaking out against," is always ad hominem attacks, and does not parse the arguments with reasoned counter arguments. You are typical of the black people on the internet in that you have learned a few all-purpose shut-down comments that you think mean you win the argument.

You aren't getting anywhere - no white person is changing their mind about the intelligence of black people, because of your participation here. You are the typical stupid black that needs to be banned for trolling.

You can't handle the truth.

 

[IM2]

More lies. Can you prove i have benefitted? Of course not, because I haven’t. Everyone has to compete for jobs. There were more black women in some if my classes than white women. No preferential treatment.

You still haven't stated what field your degree is in so why is it worth mentioning that in some of your classes there were more black women than white women? Is that something you view as a negative?

This man is an idiot. Students pick classes and we all know that.

 

[IM2]

I'm done arguing with these racists about AA and white supremacy. Rockwell is a white supremacist, I've shown that twice. AA has not hurt whites, in fact it has increased white family income. That's a fact that cannot be changed how much protectionist hollers to the contrary. Molly has benefitted more from AA than anyone in this conversation. That to is a fact that will not changed because 3 white losers at USMB whine about having to compete for jobs.

He is a white supremacist and youbare racist against whites.
No better than him.

Except I am not racist against whites. Only a simple minded retard thinks pointing out racism by whites is racist against whites. And that's what you are.

That isnt all you do. But you have proven time and time again you have the awareness if a dead fly

I respond to the racism directed at me appropriately.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I'm done arguing with these racists about AA and white supremacy. Rockwell is a white supremacist, I've shown that twice. AA has not hurt whites, in fact it has increased white family income. That's a fact that cannot be changed how much protectionist hollers to the contrary. Molly has benefitted more from AA than anyone in this conversation. That to is a fact that will not changed because 3 white losers at USMB whine about having to compete for jobs.

He is a white supremacist and youbare racist against whites.
No better than him.

Except I am not racist against whites. Only a simple minded retard thinks pointing out racism by whites is racist against whites. And that's what you are.

That isnt all you do. But you have proven time and time again you have the awareness if a dead fly

I respond to the racism directed at me appropriately.

And you are consistent.

Bullshit all the time.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

More lies. Can you prove i have benefitted? Of course not, because I haven’t. Everyone has to compete for jobs. There were more black women in some if my classes than white women. No preferential treatment.

You still haven't stated what field your degree is in so why is it worth mentioning that in some of your classes there were more black women than white women? Is that something you view as a negative?

This man is an idiot. Students pick classes and we all know that.

MizMolly is a man? Had no idea. Still doesn't explain the denial, resentment and bitterness.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I'm done arguing with these racists about AA and white supremacy. Rockwell is a white supremacist, I've shown that twice. AA has not hurt whites, in fact it has increased white family income. That's a fact that cannot be changed how much protectionist hollers to the contrary. Molly has benefitted more from AA than anyone in this conversation. That to is a fact that will not changed because 3 white losers at USMB whine about having to compete for jobs.

He is a white supremacist and youbare racist against whites.
No better than him.

Except I am not racist against whites. Only a simple minded retard thinks pointing out racism by whites is racist against whites. And that's what you are.

That isnt all you do. But you have proven time and time again you have the awareness if a dead fly

I respond to the racism directed at me appropriately.

I'm watching Hidden Figures again and each time I do it keeps reminding me of things that others took for granted that black people have always had to fight for.

Progress is being made IM2, just a little longer. In some respects, it's already been won.

 

[IM2]

I'm done arguing with these racists about AA and white supremacy. Rockwell is a white supremacist, I've shown that twice. AA has not hurt whites, in fact it has increased white family income. That's a fact that cannot be changed how much protectionist hollers to the contrary. Molly has benefitted more from AA than anyone in this conversation. That to is a fact that will not changed because 3 white losers at USMB whine about having to compete for jobs.

He is a white supremacist and youbare racist against whites.
No better than him.

Except I am not racist against whites. Only a simple minded retard thinks pointing out racism by whites is racist against whites. And that's what you are.

You aren't racist against whites? All anyone has to do is disagree with you and they become Hitler incarnate. Dude, you're the most racist individual I've ever come across and I knew people like Hosea Williams, Al Sharpton, David Duke, Tom Metzger and many others PERSONALLY (like sit at the table and argue this stuff face to face personally.) NONE of them could hold a candle to you.

You have shown yourself son. You are a white supremacist. There are others here who have disagreed with me but they are not racists. You have tried to defend a claim of America was founded by whites, it is only for whites and that blacks for example, exist here illegally as they aren't citizens. You have not said that to Sharpton. And your claim is the definition of racist. I know those like you want to place a false symmetry on the arguments blacks make against white racism, but you can't. It is not possible. There is a difference between reacting or responding to something than initiating it. What you call racism is a response to the racism we have endured as blacks. The fact you and others call it racism means that you believe we are just supposed to accept white racist behavior because that is our place. That belief in and of itself is a belief in white supremacy.

 

[IM2]

More lies. Can you prove i have benefitted? Of course not, because I haven’t. Everyone has to compete for jobs. There were more black women in some if my classes than white women. No preferential treatment.

You still haven't stated what field your degree is in so why is it worth mentioning that in some of your classes there were more black women than white women? Is that something you view as a negative?

This man is an idiot. Students pick classes and we all know that.

MizMolly is a man? Had no idea. Still doesn't explain the denial, resentment and bitterness.

I thought you were talking about unprotected. MizMolly is a white female. You know, the people who have benefited the most from AA.