You Forgot AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, Michelle. What About THAT Racism ?

[protectionist]

How do you remedy it?

Pure fucking magic apparently because you can't be unfair to anyone just because for centuries you were unfair.

Nobody living today was unfair "for centuries" (or unfair at all, anytime)

Why do you say this stupid shit, when it's so obviously untrue?

I'm beginning to think you are just incredibly STUPID. OK, I'll spell it out for you. If a white person who was born in 1965, he is now 50 years old. His entire life has been AFTER the time of slavery and Jim Crow. He never played a part in either. And you're going to say this guy was "unfair for centuries" ? He has only lived for 1/2 of a century, and all that was AFTER Jim Crow and slavery. Got it now ? Sheeeesh.

Whitey was unfair for centuries you dumbass. And that will be with us,..............................................wait for it,...............................................for centuries.

And 100% of the people living today had nothing to do with that. And even 95% of the people back than had nothing to do with it. But you go around pretending that it is today's Whites who are to blame, just so you can immorally benefit from an immoral system, like the one you bitch about. Dirtbag.

 

[cnm]

That's an interesting idea, that citizens of a country have no responsibility for their country's actions before they were born. That would mean any debt owed to the US that was incurred before one was born was not one's responsibility and could therefore be defaulted on.

I'm starting to like where you're coming from.

 

[protectionist]

In her commencement speech at Tuskegee University, in Alabama, Michelle Obama might think she covered just about all the little aspects of racism that pertain to Black people in America. WRONG! She forgot the most important one. The one that pertains to Blacks (and whites, and other races) more than anything else, over the past 51 years. >> AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

This racial discrimination scourge has probably reduced the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of White people and other non-Blacks, far more than any of the questionable things Michelle was talking about. One would think that if someone as high profile as the First Lady would give a speech, and that speech was about racism, that it would include the BIG ONE. Well, it didn't, and maybe that was a chunk of racism, right there. To give a speech like that and omit something as huge as affirmative action, is tantamount to giving approval to that long-lasting, abomination of liberal hypocrisy.

So now, Michelle, you could atone for that. Just make a public statement against affirmative action, and lend some sympathetic word to the massive number of victims, whose lives have been marginalized by it. And suggest a nationwide ban on ALL racial discrimination, affirmative action included. But I said you "could" do that. I didn't say you would do that.

I can only claim that some form of affirmative action for the least wealthy Must be made available to the extent the Establishment continues to indulge the moral turpitude of bearing False Witness to a recognized federal Doctrine and our own State laws regarding the concept of employment at will in our at-will employment States.

OK. I'll go along with SOME FORM OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, but that would be one based on economic class (financial need) NOT RACE.

 

[protectionist]

That's an interesting idea, that citizens of a country have no responsibility for their country's actions before they were born. That would mean any debt owed to the US that was incurred before one was born was not one's responsibility and could therefore be defaulted on.

I'm starting to like where you're coming from.

Apples and oranges. Not even a nice try.

 

[syonidv]

I think it's going to blow up in society's face regardless of any vain attempts to "remedy" it. So no. No, it's not going to surprise me.

Well 'vain attempts' of course will be in vain. Civilised societies can work these things out with good will. I accept that is not a given in a large part of the US, the defensive guilt is too much.

As to a generation being exempt from the sins of its forefathers, that's usually the argument of those whose forefathers have sinned and where those descendants are reaping the profits.

I don't see that white Americans are 'reaping the profits'. I think white America is dealing with the fallout, the same as everybody else.

Moreover, if we subscribe to the notion that present-day policy should compensate for past deeds, logically the descendants of abolitionists who fought and died in the US civil war, or who risked severe criminal penalties for granting safe haven to escaped slaves, ought to be favourably compensated for the sacrifices of their forebears.

Personally I find that idea just as absurd as the idea of holding a race accountable for ancient moral debts.

Affirmative Action was an idea conceived with the best of intentions, and it bears some good fruits. Even so, as a social policy it is fundamentally flawed, it doesn't reach the root of the problem it's intended to address, and it ultimately causes more harm than good. That's the bottom line.

 

[cnm]

So I guess that means whites alive when Jim Crow laws were passed bear responsibility for reparations for the apartheid inflicted on blacks affected by those laws. I suppose that has a certain twisted logic.

In that case a surtax must be charged to anyone resident in the former Jim Crow states at the applicable time in order to fund reparations for the damages inflicted.

 

[cnm]

I don't see that white Americans are 'reaping the profits'. I think white America is dealing with the fallout, the same as everybody else.

The US wealth, from which blacks were excluded, was built on cotton.

 

[cnm]

Apples and oranges. Not even a nice try.

Consistency of principle not your strong suit, eh? What a surprise.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"You Forgot AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, Michelle. What About THAT Racism ?"

Affirmative Action is not 'racism,' only an ignorant, racist moron would make such an 'argument.'

And measures authorizing affirmative action are Constitutional if properly composed and narrowly tailored (Grutter v. Bollinger), and not Constitutional if improperly composed (Gratz v. Bollinger); jurisdictions are therefore at liberty to enact affirmative action policies provided the provisions of those policies conform with the case law.

 

[syonidv]

I don't see that white Americans are 'reaping the profits'. I think white America is dealing with the fallout, the same as everybody else.

The US wealth, from which blacks were excluded, was built on cotton.

I think you may be oversimplifying a tad.

More importantly, you're making two erroneous assumptions:

1. that modern US infrastructure (built from the proceeds of the proceeds of the proceeds ... of the proceeds of cotton harvesting, now 6+ generations removed) presently benefits white Americans more than black Americans
   
   
2. that modern US infrastructure wouldn't exist had colonial white Americans not resorted to slavery (rather than e.g. paying for labour)

I reject both assumptions, and I defy you to prove either one.

In that case a surtax must be charged to anyone resident in the former Jim Crow states at the applicable time in order to fund reparations for the damages inflicted.

And if you think that's a good idea, knock yourself out selling it to the public.

While you're at it, see if you can't sue Britain for damages sustained during the US war for independence.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Pure fucking magic apparently because you can't be unfair to anyone just because for centuries you were unfair.

Nobody living today was unfair "for centuries" (or unfair at all, anytime)

Why do you say this stupid shit, when it's so obviously untrue?

I'm beginning to think you are just incredibly STUPID. OK, I'll spell it out for you. If a white person who was born in 1965, he is now 50 years old. His entire life has been AFTER the time of slavery and Jim Crow. He never played a part in either. And you're going to say this guy was "unfair for centuries" ? He has only lived for 1/2 of a century, and all that was AFTER Jim Crow and slavery. Got it now ? Sheeeesh.

Whitey was unfair for centuries you dumbass. And that will be with us,..............................................wait for it,...............................................for centuries.

And 100% of the people living today had nothing to do with that. And even 95% of the people back than had nothing to do with it. But you go around pretending that it is today's Whites who are to blame, just so you can immorally benefit from an immoral system, like the one you bitch about. Dirtbag.

I'm whitey, asswipe, and my family owned *******. Try again.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In her commencement speech at Tuskegee University, in Alabama, Michelle Obama might think she covered just about all the little aspects of racism that pertain to Black people in America. WRONG! She forgot the most important one. The one that pertains to Blacks (and whites, and other races) more than anything else, over the past 51 years. >> AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

This racial discrimination scourge has probably reduced the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of White people and other non-Blacks, far more than any of the questionable things Michelle was talking about. One would think that if someone as high profile as the First Lady would give a speech, and that speech was about racism, that it would include the BIG ONE. Well, it didn't, and maybe that was a chunk of racism, right there. To give a speech like that and omit something as huge as affirmative action, is tantamount to giving approval to that long-lasting, abomination of liberal hypocrisy.

So now, Michelle, you could atone for that. Just make a public statement against affirmative action, and lend some sympathetic word to the massive number of victims, whose lives have been marginalized by it. And suggest a nationwide ban on ALL racial discrimination, affirmative action included. But I said you "could" do that. I didn't say you would do that.

I can only claim that some form of affirmative action for the least wealthy Must be made available to the extent the Establishment continues to indulge the moral turpitude of bearing False Witness to a recognized federal Doctrine and our own State laws regarding the concept of employment at will in our at-will employment States.

OK. I'll go along with SOME FORM OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, but that would be one based on economic class (financial need) NOT RACE.

Yeah, well, the KKK vote doesn't count, bitter old man.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

On the other hand, today's Whites really HAVE suffered, because of affirmative action, and should be paid reparations to compensate them, for their losses, imposed by AA and its racist pushers.

LOL!!! Fuck, just go burn a cross and show those uppity ungrateful (for slavery) ******* what a great big whitey god of a man you are.

You don't have to go burn a cross. You can just sit back and live of the fat of the affirmative action.

I live off what a do for a living, which I charge by the hour for. I never needed AA, that was for the non-whiteys who got fucked by whitey. Had you treated them as equals, it wouldn't have been required.

 

[cnm]

More importantly, you're making two erroneous assumptions:

1. that modern US infrastructure (built from the proceeds of the proceeds of the proceeds ... of the proceeds of cotton harvesting, now 6+ generations removed) presently benefits white Americans more than black Americans
   
   
2. that modern US infrastructure wouldn't exist had colonial white Americans not resorted to slavery (rather than e.g. paying for labour)

I reject both assumptions, and I defy you to prove either one.

Those are your assumptions. I'm not talking about infrastructure, I'm talking wealth. Which derived from cotton in the US, and from which blacks were excluded.

Was slavery the engine of American economic growth?

Was slavery the engine of American economic growth The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

In the pre-Civil War United States, a stronger case can be made that slavery played a critical role in economic development. One crop, slave-grown cotton provided over half of all U.S. export earnings. By 1840, the South grew 60 percent of the world's cotton and provided some 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Thus slavery paid for a substantial share of the capital, iron, and manufactured good that laid the basis for American economic growth. In addition, precisely because the South specialized in cotton production, the North developed a variety of businesses that provided services for the slave South, including textile factories, a meat processing industry, insurance companies, shippers, and cotton brokers.​

 

[cnm]

While you're at it, see if you can't sue Britain for damages sustained during the US war for independence.

Well I suppose if you're saying you fought a war against blacks and they're a conquered subject nation that would fit your policies.

 

[syonidv]

More importantly, you're making two erroneous assumptions:

1. that modern US infrastructure (built from the proceeds of the proceeds of the proceeds ... of the proceeds of cotton harvesting, now 6+ generations removed) presently benefits white Americans more than black Americans
   
   
2. that modern US infrastructure wouldn't exist had colonial white Americans not resorted to slavery (rather than e.g. paying for labour)

I reject both assumptions, and I defy you to prove either one.

Those are your assumptions. I'm not talking about infrastructure, I'm talking wealth. Which derived from cotton in the US, and from which blacks were excluded.

Was slavery the engine of American economic growth?

Was slavery the engine of American economic growth The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

In the pre-Civil War United States, a stronger case can be made that slavery played a critical role in economic development. One crop, slave-grown cotton provided over half of all U.S. export earnings. By 1840, the South grew 60 percent of the world's cotton and provided some 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Thus slavery paid for a substantial share of the capital, iron, and manufactured good that laid the basis for American economic growth. In addition, precisely because the South specialized in cotton production, the North developed a variety of businesses that provided services for the slave South, including textile factories, a meat processing industry, insurance companies, shippers, and cotton brokers.​

Indeed, it was an engine, responsible for a large share of export earnings 175 years ago. So go find the direct inheritors of plantation owners, select the ones where all eight subsequent generations hoarded their wealth rather than spending it, and take up your case with whoever's at the end of the chain. I guarantee you whoever's there doesn't comprise a fiftieth of white America.

While you're at it, see if you can't sue Britain for damages sustained during the US war for independence.

Well I suppose if you're saying you fought a war against blacks and they're a conquered subject nation that would fit your policies.

You were the one suggesting that the South, the last bastion of the Jim Crow laws, should be taxed to repay the descendants of the abolitionists (overwhelmingly concentrated in the North) for a bloody war to abolish slavery. I think the idea is madness.

 

[protectionist]

So I guess that means whites alive when Jim Crow laws were passed bear responsibility for reparations for the apartheid inflicted on blacks affected by those laws. I suppose that has a certain twisted logic.

In that case a surtax must be charged to anyone resident in the former Jim Crow states at the applicable time in order to fund reparations for the damages inflicted.

You guess WRONG. Probably 99% of Whites during Jim Crow years, had nothing whatsoever to do with Jim Crow. The only reparations needing to be paid now, are to White victims of any of the past 50+ years of Affirmative Action. (which should be paid by the supporters/pushers of AA, not the taxpayers)

 

[protectionist]

I don't see that white Americans are 'reaping the profits'. I think white America is dealing with the fallout, the same as everybody else.

The US wealth, from which blacks were excluded, was built on cotton.

US job wealth, from which Whites have been excluded, was created by by Affirmative Action.

 

[protectionist]

Apples and oranges. Not even a nice try.

Consistency of principle not your strong suit, eh? What a surprise.

Ability to respond to posts, not your strong suit, eh? What a surprise

 

[protectionist]

"You Forgot AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, Michelle. What About THAT Racism ?"

Affirmative Action is not 'racism,' only an ignorant, racist moron would make such an 'argument.'

And measures authorizing affirmative action are Constitutional if properly composed and narrowly tailored (Grutter v. Bollinger), and not Constitutional if improperly composed (Gratz v. Bollinger); jurisdictions are therefore at liberty to enact affirmative action policies provided the provisions of those policies conform with the case law.

Oh wow. Look at that. Court suits. Oh gosh. Want to mention Ricci vs DeStefano, 8 states that have bans on affirmative action, and the Supreme Court's recent (2014) 6-2 decision upholding Michigan's ban on AA ?
(Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action) Do you enjoy coming in here and making a fool out of your self ?