I personally believe that it really is necessary to have AA out there, not because I don't think they can't get their own jobs but because there are people out there who still base everything on the color of your skin.

------------------
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the weaponry to make the difference.

Yeah, I'm whining that I'm not being treated fairly. You know why? Because I'M NOT! Look at it this way:

Say my grandfather owned a business. Say he needs someone to do a job. Say a black man and a white man apply for this job, and that the black man is far more qualified. Yet, my grandfather hires the white man, simply because of his race. This would be called racism, no?

Now, say the tables are reversed. I'm applying for a job, for which I am well-qualified. A black person, not nearly as qualified, applies for the same job. The black person gets the job, simply because of his race. It's the EXACT SAME SITUATION, so why would you not call this racism as well?

First of Two: it should also be noted that those people who came up with "all men equal" also had no problem not abolishing slavery right then and there. And, er, Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner, no? I think what they meant was all white men are created equal, and we in more modern times have expanded that.

Please, Omega, do you have studies to back up what you're saying? And I don't mean, "Hi, I'm Frank, and I'm against Affirmative Action because some nigger got my job and we all know he don't know right from left, so it's unfair."

Look, I think you're under the mistaken impression that just because the Civil Rights Act passed, that all of a sudden minorities started being treated equally just sort of happened. It didn't! You think some CEO is going to start hiring black people just because some "damn libs" passed a law giving 'em equal rights? HELL no. So the Government went in, and said, "hey, buddy, listen up. This is whatcher gonna do, and yer gonna like it."

Affirmative Action has, for the most part, done it's job. Minorities are in positions previously held only by white males! I have yet to hear anything bad about AA that's not personal influence: "Well, they passed me up for the promotion and gave it to some woman 'cuz they needed to fill their quota." Well, can you prove that? Or are you just trying to cover up for your own inadequecies on the job? Got any reliable studies on this, Omega?

quote:

---

You libs out there don't seem to grasp this basic concept: the government's job is NOT to eliminate existing unfairness. The government's duty is to ensure basic rights, and treat everyone fairly itself. Beyond that, what I do is not any of its, or your, business. The basis of AA, the basis of "progressive" tax schemes, the basis of "slavery reperations", is always the idea that certain people need to be treated differently to obtain the same result. Well, fellas, that's called communism, and it don't work. Deal with it.

---

Can anyone?

*gets out his broadsword*
Omega, I hereby dub you unqualified to make blanket statements such as that.

Say a black man and a white man apply for this job, and that the black man is far more qualified. Yet, my grandfather hires the white man, simply because of his race. This would be called racism, no?

Now, say the tables are reversed. I'm applying for a job, for which I am well-qualified. A black person, not nearly as qualified, applies for the same job. The
black person gets the job, simply because of his race. It's the EXACT SAME SITUATION, so why would you not call this racism as well?

Unless there's some seeming underlying hidden 'Guns For All' message embedded in this, I'd have to agree. Not with Omega, but these sentences.

Your forefathers (And mine too, perhaps, even though I only have one), mistreated black peoples and violated human rights. Undeniable fact, assuming you're not a historical revisionist.

The Civil Rights movement, to the best of my knowledge, (Which isn't astounding, consisting of how to make cheese puffs, why frolicking naked in the rain is bad, and to stay away from the Man Train) was an effort to bring recognition of rights of minorities, to the majority (being the white man).

By equal, the assumption is made that decisions and such matters aren't to be made by racial distinction. Yet, apparently we do have work quotas and student quotas and any number of other quotas for any number of things.

I would argue that programs like Affirmative Action create special status for minorities and while I disdain using buzzwords, equal employment opportunities , in theory, are a tremendous practice. However, to use an example, Say I were running a business called SleepSheep, creating inflatable sheep novelty toys for farmers and Charles. I want to hire 10 people. I look at 10 resumes and pick the ten best applicants. They are all white. Or all Black. Am I racist? Should I lower the quality of my product by allowing the second-best candidates in, because they're black, or because they're white?

I would imagine that quality of the SleepSheep would be the top concern.

Equal Employment Opportunities to me, mean that the best people get the best jobs. Logical, I believe.

(I understand and am aware of the parallel argument to this; that of black children perhaps not getting proper education, due to their situation. That is another can, presumably filled with worms.)

Slavery isn't alive and well in the Free World today. Racism is, undoubtledly, but not as proficient as it was, and is, by all accounts, decreasing due to education and exposure.

There comes a time where it is unfair to cast blame on us, on our generation, far removed from those that committed atrocities in the past. We can never forget, but it makes little sense for us to atone.

------------------
"Instructed by history and reflection, Julian was persuaded that, if the diseases of the body may sometimes be cured by salutary violence, neither steel nor fire can eradicate the erroneous opinions of the mind."

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

------------------
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the weaponry to make the difference.

My Lineage is solidly German/Southern Russian, and knowing my Great Grandparents, I'd say the same thing if someone were to say that all Germans circa 1930 were Anti-Semitic, or something similar.

Putting disclaimers and qualifiers into work here would have made my post longer than this thread already is, and I all know how we love to read long flameboard arguments.

------------------
"Instructed by history and reflection, Julian was persuaded that, if the diseases of the body may sometimes be cured by salutary violence, neither steel nor fire can eradicate the erroneous opinions of the mind."

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

------------------
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the weaponry to make the difference.

It's amazing how upset people get about a program designed to attempt to right the inequalities of the past.

Another thing you've never understood: INTENTION IS IRRELEVANT. Effect is all that matters. You can't right inequalities of the past, because the people who were treated wrongly, and the people who treated them wrongly, are mostly DEAD. What would you think if we held all black people responsible for the actions of Shaka Kahn? Or all Asians for Mao? Because you're suggesting that we hold all white people responsible for the actions of a few, and that is wrong.

So the Government went in, and said, "hey, buddy, listen up. This is whatcher gonna do, and yer gonna like it."

So basically, the government took away the rights of the company to hire whomever it pleases. Thank you for admitting that. I'm collecting quite a file for future reference.

Minorities are in positions previously held only by white males!

And you have what evidence that this has anything to do with affirmative action?

Tom:

To which part do you refer? The US Constitution says that it's not the government's job. As for communism not working, pick up a history book some time.

*ignites lightspork*

Unqualified, am I?

Tec:

I know for a fact that not one of my relatives owned slaves.

Same here.

If you'd ever read Jefferson's writings, or studied the history of the Constitution and Declaration, you'd know that Jefferson very much wanted to end slavery, and attempted to add anti-slavery clauses to both documents, but was voted down because the Southern states wouldn't go along with it.

Jefferson was worried about the very thing that DID happen after the Civil War happening: Thousands upon thousands of just-freed slaves, uneducated, untrained for anything except manual labor, and unwanted, devolving into a second-class citizenry. He wanted slaves to be educated and trained in useful skills before they were freed, and hoped that the South would follow that example.

Unfortunately, they didn't, and even clamped down on those who DID try to educate and train the slaves, so when the Civil War finally came and the slaves were freed, nothing had changed and they were ill-adapted to take a place as equals, and so the power base in the South managed to oppress them for another hundred years.

But certainly early black leaders (and some less-popular of today's black leaders) always knew that the true key to success was education, training, and hard work.

Yes, I'm aware that the Founders put off abolishing slavery right then and there because they knew that if they tried to do it, half the colonies would leave. But for an individual to say that he opposed slavery, yet still owned slaves ... I don't see how that can be justified. I mean, it would be like me saying in public I think water should be the only legally acceptable drink to drink at any time, then going home and drinking milk.

Omega, that's why I think AA has run it's course and should be stopped. However, when it was first implemented, "people who treated them wrongly, [were] mostly" ALIVE. Honestly, do you even bother reading my posts? I mean this as a legitimate question. Did you read my posts, or just assume that my defense of AA in the past was a defense of it in the future? I'm curious.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
***
"I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.

I'll give you another example, one you should be intimately familiar with.

I don't like guns.
I think the gun is a cowardly, morally reprehensible weapon.
I don't want to own a gun.

But I do.

Why?
Because the people I don't trust to feel the same way as I do have them, and I'm keeping the playing field level. Because I believe that my personal and property safety is better insured by owning one.

If that were to change, if by some miracle all the weapons in all the hands of all the untrustworthy people were to magically disappear (and it would take magic), I'd get rid of mine, too. But until then,I'm keeping it.

See, people always assume that all slaveowners were 'Deep South', overseeing, hang-em-for-whistling bastards. And many of them were. And that is justly reprehensible and indefensible. But there WERE some cultured men like Jefferson, who kept slaves well-treated, with a fairly high standard of living... moreso than the average poor free black of the time. Jefferson's papers and letters indicate that while he found the concept of owning a person as property personally abhorrent, he felt that unless these people were trained and educated, they would actually fare better under his 'care' than they would if they were 'free.'

Now the fact of the matter is, freedom is better than servitude, all things being equal. But educated, trained freedom is better than uneducated, skill-less freedom. And when you compare educated, trained servitude, to uneducated, unskilled freedom.. things start to get fuzzy.

IF Jefferson had been listened to, if the entire country THEN had begun to make an effort to train and educate its black population, (and in fact, many in the North did just that.. look at the accomplishments of Frederick Douglass)instead of fearing them and retreating into the opposite social condition, things might have turned out much better than they did.

(Hmm, that sounds like an interesting "What If?" universe. Maybe I should call Harry Turtledove)

It's one thing to preach about educating freed people and disdaining slavery. It's another thing to educate property and disdain slavery. If he felt as he did, why not free his slaves and give them a choice in the matter?

There's no explanation for someone abhorring slavery as much as he claimed to and yet owning slaves. They're incompatible.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
***
"I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.