Sterling Gets NBA "Death Penalty" Banned for Life

[Saint3333]

Much better job reading that time. Thanks for correcting my spelling, that is usually a good sign the debate is over.

[Gonzo]

White-on-black racism obviously still exists. But openly racist white people are virtually a thing of the past. That's why it's international front page news that Sterling said what he said. We still see examples of police brutality and profiling, which in my opinion is it's own microcosm and doesn't really reflect the norms of the country as a whole (the business world etc).

Overall, things are looking good for African-Americans. There is a black man in the white house. White-on-black racism carries more stigma than anything else in the country, bar none, while black-on-white racism is it's own genre of comedy. From a pop culture standpoint "blackness" is the single most in-vogue quality out there, while people that can't dance or aren't too athletic are told they are "so white." In most states, kids of African decent can get into virtually any school they want with mediocre credentials. Is affirmative action still necessary? Maybe in some parts of the country. Apparently Michigan voters decided it is not.

Re systemic racism: That was the point of affirmative action. At least at the onset. The system was rigged for hundreds of years and that's why there are such a disproportionate number of poor black families. So now, to compensate for that disadvantage, you give those families a leg up. My only question is, if that were the goal, if that were really the reason for the policy, why not grant preferential admission standards on the basis of socio-economic status alone? What about all the poor people from other ethnicities? The fact is it ISN'T the reason. The reason is the same as the radical pop culture phenomenon: white people deserve to be punished for what their parents and grandparents did.

You have to strike a happy medium. You can't forget history and you can't pretend racism doesn't still exist. But you also can't drift so far in the other direction that you vilify the biggest single group of people in the USA because their ancestors may have been ignorant or oppressive.

[Gonzo]

Read what is written, at NO point have I defended that ahole, quite a leap to suggest such a thing.

If I were to teach someone what a classic straw-man argument would look like, I would link this thread.

[Gonzo]

Some of y'all really need to read this.

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/17230/

[Appftw]

So a black kid born dirt poor in the inner city who most likely only has access to sub-standard schooling and no real positive influences in his life, should "pick himself up by the bootstraps" like "our ancestors did"? Such a crock; apples to oranges comparison.

I'm not arguing for affirmative action, but it's clear that these people are disadvantaged. Acknowledging that and helping them does not "vilify white people" or "punish white people".

[Gonzo]

So a black kid born dirt poor in the inner city who most likely only has access to sub-standard schooling and no real positive influences in his life, should "pick himself up by the bootstraps" like "our ancestors did"? Such a crock; apples to oranges comparison.

I'm not arguing for affirmative action, but it's clear that these people are disadvantaged. Acknowledging that and helping them does not "vilify white people" or "punish white people".

What about a white kid born dirt poor in the inner city who most likely only has access to sub-standard schooling and no real positive influences in his life?

Like I said, if that's the angle, help them based on their status as poor people. We went to school in the Appalachian Mountains, one of the poorest regions in America. Most of those poor people aren't black. Programs that help people on the basis of race alone leave millions out to dry and reinforce perceptions that the races aren't in fact equal.

[Saint3333]

That isn't the point of the link.

I think everyone would love to give every child a chance in life, I know I would.

The point is people that were "privileged" shouldn't have to apologize. At some point in their families history someone sacrificed to provide for them. My grandparents certainly did, as did my parents to a lessor extent (due to their parents).

The problem isn't race that problem in America is parenting, and that crosses over all races.

I loved this line:

"It’s been made clear to me that education begins in the home, and the importance of parents’ involvement with their kids’ education—from mathematics to morality—cannot be overstated."

It is unfortunate that people of all colors don't get the attention, support, and critical lessons from their parent(s) that I did from mine. But that is the root of the problem, not the color of skin.

My daughters will start out ahead of 80+% of the population not because they are white, but because of the lessons we provide them daily. I would never ask them to apologize for that.

[Appftw]

So a black kid born dirt poor in the inner city who most likely only has access to sub-standard schooling and no real positive influences in his life, should "pick himself up by the bootstraps" like "our ancestors did"? Such a crock; apples to oranges comparison.

I'm not arguing for affirmative action, but it's clear that these people are disadvantaged. Acknowledging that and helping them does not "vilify white people" or "punish white people".

What about a white kid born dirt poor in the inner city who most likely only has access to sub-standard schooling and no real positive influences in his life?

Like I said, if that's the angle, help them based on their status as poor people. We went to school in the Appalachian Mountains, one of the poorest regions in America. Most of those poor people aren't black. Programs that help people on the basis of race alone leave millions out to dry and reinforce perceptions that the races aren't in fact equal.

Once again, an apples to oranges comparison. Think about it percentage wise. If you're born black, your chances of being poor and disadvantaged are much higher. Coincidence? No.

[HeffnerIV]

So a black kid born dirt poor in the inner city who most likely only has access to sub-standard schooling and no real positive influences in his life, should "pick himself up by the bootstraps" like "our ancestors did"? Such a crock; apples to oranges comparison.

I'm not arguing for affirmative action, but it's clear that these people are disadvantaged. Acknowledging that and helping them does not "vilify white people" or "punish white people".

What about a white kid born dirt poor in the inner city who most likely only has access to sub-standard schooling and no real positive influences in his life?

Like I said, if that's the angle, help them based on their status as poor people. We went to school in the Appalachian Mountains, one of the poorest regions in America. Most of those poor people aren't black. Programs that help people on the basis of race alone leave millions out to dry and reinforce perceptions that the races aren't in fact equal.

Once again, an apples to oranges comparison. Think about it percentage wise. If you're born black, your chances of being poor and disadvantaged are much higher. Coincidence? No.

Then what do you propose to do?

[Appftw]

Overall, things are looking good for African-Americans. There is a black man in the white house. White-on-black racism carries more stigma than anything else in the country, bar none, while black-on-white racism is it's own genre of comedy. From a pop culture standpoint "blackness" is the single most in-vogue quality out there, while people that can't dance or aren't too athletic are told they are "so white."

You're offended by common stereotypes to the point of calling them outright "racism" while also implying that only positive black stereotypes exist. 40 years ago Mecklenburg county was still segregated (Swann v. Mecklenburg '71). The hypocrisy is unbearable.

Saint3333 was right on when he said it was parenting and that's why affirmative action solves nothing, it's a Band-Aid. It's about education and teaching people to value said education.

[hapapp]

White-on-black racism obviously still exists. But openly racist white people are virtually a thing of the past. That's why it's international front page news that Sterling said what he said. We still see examples of police brutality and profiling, which in my opinion is it's own microcosm and doesn't really reflect the norms of the country as a whole (the business world etc).

Overall, things are looking good for African-Americans. There is a black man in the white house. White-on-black racism carries more stigma than anything else in the country, bar none, while black-on-white racism is it's own genre of comedy. From a pop culture standpoint "blackness" is the single most in-vogue quality out there, while people that can't dance or aren't too athletic are told they are "so white." In most states, kids of African decent can get into virtually any school they want with mediocre credentials. Is affirmative action still necessary? Maybe in some parts of the country. Apparently Michigan voters decided it is not.

Re systemic racism: That was the point of affirmative action. At least at the onset. The system was rigged for hundreds of years and that's why there are such a disproportionate number of poor black families. So now, to compensate for that disadvantage, you give those families a leg up. My only question is, if that were the goal, if that were really the reason for the policy, why not grant preferential admission standards on the basis of socio-economic status alone? What about all the poor people from other ethnicities? The fact is it ISN'T the reason. The reason is the same as the radical pop culture phenomenon: white people deserve to be punished for what their parents and grandparents did.

You have to strike a happy medium. You can't forget history and you can't pretend racism doesn't still exist. But you also can't drift so far in the other direction that you vilify the biggest single group of people in the USA because their ancestors may have been ignorant or oppressive.

I think most folks would agree that affirmative action should be broader than just race alone. I would wholeheartedly support socio-economic and geographic additions to that policy. And you are correct that there is less overt racism today than 50 years ago. However, we know there is still a great deal of institutional racism. We know in the criminal justice world that blacks and whites don't receive the same punishment for the same or similar crimes. The article I cited earlier in this thread reported on a number of experiments that demonstrated that blacks and whites were treated different under identical circumstances.

The focus has primarily been on white discrimination despite the fact that all races discriminate. Again, the difference is the effect of that discrimination. When you discriminate and have the power over those you are discriminating against, it has a greater impact. That doesn't excuse discrimination/racism at any time, but history suggests one side has been more victimized. The real difficulty is devising a way to deal with what and not perpetuate it or go too far in the other direction in pursuit of correcting the ill.

[hapapp]

Overall, things are looking good for African-Americans. There is a black man in the white house. White-on-black racism carries more stigma than anything else in the country, bar none, while black-on-white racism is it's own genre of comedy. From a pop culture standpoint "blackness" is the single most in-vogue quality out there, while people that can't dance or aren't too athletic are told they are "so white."

You're offended by common stereotypes to the point of calling them outright "racism" while also implying that only positive black stereotypes exist. 40 years ago Mecklenburg county was still segregated (Swann v. Mecklenburg '71). The hypocrisy is unbearable.

Saint3333 was right on when he said it was parenting and that's why affirmative action solves nothing, it's a Band-Aid. It's about education and teaching people to value said education.

If someone is given the chance to get an education that they might not otherwise have been given then perhaps it is the next generation that benefits. Most of us on this board know that our children have an advantage over many of their peers because we were given the chance to gain an education that provided us with the ability to understand what would most benefit our kids. A college education is not a prerequisite for good parenting but we know it certainly adds to the successful formula.

[Gonzo]

So a black kid born dirt poor in the inner city who most likely only has access to sub-standard schooling and no real positive influences in his life, should "pick himself up by the bootstraps" like "our ancestors did"? Such a crock; apples to oranges comparison.

I'm not arguing for affirmative action, but it's clear that these people are disadvantaged. Acknowledging that and helping them does not "vilify white people" or "punish white people".

What about a white kid born dirt poor in the inner city who most likely only has access to sub-standard schooling and no real positive influences in his life?

Like I said, if that's the angle, help them based on their status as poor people. We went to school in the Appalachian Mountains, one of the poorest regions in America. Most of those poor people aren't black. Programs that help people on the basis of race alone leave millions out to dry and reinforce perceptions that the races aren't in fact equal.

Once again, an apples to oranges comparison. Think about it percentage wise. If you're born black, your chances of being poor and disadvantaged are much higher. Coincidence? No.

We've established how it got that way. People are poor for a lot of reasons. If we want to help them because they're poor, let's help them because they're poor, ie not because they're black.

It's an apples and apples comparison if the true goal is to help the poverty-stricken. Now you might disagree because deep down you know the real reason is punitive.

[Appftw]

So a black kid born dirt poor in the inner city who most likely only has access to sub-standard schooling and no real positive influences in his life, should "pick himself up by the bootstraps" like "our ancestors did"? Such a crock; apples to oranges comparison.

I'm not arguing for affirmative action, but it's clear that these people are disadvantaged. Acknowledging that and helping them does not "vilify white people" or "punish white people".

What about a white kid born dirt poor in the inner city who most likely only has access to sub-standard schooling and no real positive influences in his life?

Like I said, if that's the angle, help them based on their status as poor people. We went to school in the Appalachian Mountains, one of the poorest regions in America. Most of those poor people aren't black. Programs that help people on the basis of race alone leave millions out to dry and reinforce perceptions that the races aren't in fact equal.

Once again, an apples to oranges comparison. Think about it percentage wise. If you're born black, your chances of being poor and disadvantaged are much higher. Coincidence? No.

We've established how it got that way. People are poor for a lot of reasons. If we want to help them because they're poor, let's help them because they're poor, ie not because they're black.

It's an apples and apples comparison if the true goal is to help the poverty-stricken. Now you might disagree because deep down you know the real reason is punitive.

Everything was not magically equal when the civil rights act passed. You can't disregard 300 years of racist slavery and another 100 of discrimination by simply saying "Well, everyone is on an even playing field now" because when you look at demographics and statistics even today, blacks have disproportionate amounts of destitution and bad public schools. Recognizing that punishes white people how?

[Gonzo]

You're still missing the point. If affirmative action etc is supposed to be functional, it needs to reflect that function. If we're helping people because they're poor, they should be evaluated on "poorness." The minute you start talking about the history or how they got that way, you're off track.

And it becomes punitive when your son is on fringe of being accepted to Michigan's law school, but ultimately isn't because the school felt pressured to fill that spot with someone else with much lower credentials. Or when the media is too busy talking about what an old ignorant racist was secretly recorded saying to give the light of day to two hate-beatings that occurred in the last few weeks.

[Appftw]

As I said, I'm no proponent of Affirmative Action, but failing to acknowledge that blacks are disproportionately at a disadvantage and that it's because of history, is exactly how we got to our present point of institutionalized racism (actual racism, not pop-culture stereotypes or rap lyrics).

[Maddog1956]

Some of y'all really need to read this.

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/17230/

If you want to sound believable don't quote anecdotal evidence from a stated "right-minded" campus blog copied from another right wing blog (the Princeton Troy). At least try to back it up with some non-bias resource.

Overall, things are looking good for African-Americans. There is a black man in the white house.

I guess you've never seen pictures of the POTUS with looking like a monkey or with watermelon.

White-on-black racism carries more stigma than anything else in the country, bar none, while black-on-white racism is it's own genre of comedy.

It's comedy because it's taken as a joke, because it's almost nonexistence. If it was a real issue no one would be laughing.

In most states, kids of African decent can get into virtually any school they want with mediocre credentials

Prove it, total BS - this is true only in the mind of certain white people, almost all studies have disproved this. I hate to break it to you but if you didn't get in a school you wanted you can't blame it on black people. As a matter of fact, "males" actual receive a "break" at most school, I know they do at APP.

The system was rigged for hundreds of years and that's why there are such a disproportionate number of poor black families.

This is true, so you think the fair thing to do is just to say "sorry but the system was rigged against you for 400 years, so now that you're really at a disadvantage we want to start playing fair. We'd really like to give you a leg up, but that might take away something from all the white people that had the advantage for all those year."

Wouldn't that be a little like a bball team playing with ineligible players be told "we would like to punish you for playing unfairly, but then you would be paying for the sins of your forefathers. So instead we're going to treat you equally to every other school this year." This would put you in agreement with everyone else that nothing should happen to UNC.

You might not believe it but your grandparents received that advantage that they then passed on to your parents that then passed it on to you. Unless of course you went to an all black school and worked for an all black business, in a town run by all black leaders, with an all black police department.

I understand where you're coming from however, you fear not achieving what you want in life because some "race" may take your spot. Having lived 50+ years however I've never felt that way or seen any evidence of it in my life. I hear plenty of anecdotal stuff however so I can see how some people can be afraid, but almost 100% of the time when someone failed it not because they lost out to some "legged-up, handout-taking bogeyman" but some bad decision or other failure in their own life.

Can't we just put to rest the feeling that "Some (fill in your race here) person is going to take my....(fill in the blank)."

[Gonzo]

Side note: I've been accused of being both a left-wing hippie and a right wing conservative on this board over the last few days and I think that is a wonderful thing.


(I'll have to wait till tomorrow to respond further to this thread)

[wataugan03]

A couple things that I think deserve mentioning:

(1) Normally racism is defined as a belief in an inherent hierarchy of races. The examples of reverse racism I'm hearing involve anger or hate, which may be bad, but they aren't racism. There is a difference.

(2) Affirmative action is nearly dead and in all likelihood will be dead soon. The Supreme Court has struck major blows regarding when and how it can be implemented; and it is likely to strike more blows soon. In some corners there has been resistance to actually following the law (just as there was resistance to Brown v. Board of Education for over 20 years), but everyone is slowly falling in line. Good or bad that's where we're headed its as much a foregone conclusion as gay marriage.

(3) As mentioned above Charlotte's schools didn't integrate until 1971! And that was only done by court order against a very hostile county. The majority white people in Charlotte at that time clearly believed blacks were inferior to whites. Most of the people in positions of great power today were alive at that time. Donald Sterling was an adult at that time. So were all of his friends who (based on what he says on the tape) are clearly more racist than he is. Damning statements and email come out in housing and employment discrimination suits all the time . . . again because many of the people who run the world believe blacks are inferior. Obama may be president, but only because he owned the minority and youth votes. He can't buy a vote from a white male over the age of 50. And its not because he's so radical - he is clearly less of a leftist than John Edwards who had no problem getting votes from old white people in this state.

[wataugan03]

You're still missing the point. If affirmative action etc is supposed to be functional, it needs to reflect that function. If we're helping people because they're poor, they should be evaluated on "poorness." The minute you start talking about the history or how they got that way, you're off track.

Actually, race-based affirmative action in public schools is no longer allowed for the purpose of helping the poor. Its only allowed for the purpose of creating a diverse environment where the leaders of tomorrow can learn to work with people of different races and backgrounds. This has been the law since about 2005. Schools are not allowed to assign points to race either, if they use a point system, it can only be one plus factor among many. Last year's big case, Fisher, said that colleges can only use race as a plus factor in admissions if there is no other realistic alternative to get a diverse student body.

It takes time to get new cases to court, but I can promise you that under the new standards federal courts all over the country are going to start striking down whatever affirmative action policies there are that haven't already been abandoned.