Its funny after 3 pages no one brought up Asians needing AA. But of course blacks, Mexicans, and islanders need AA
I forgot about eastern Indians don't need AA neither. All covered now proceed with this thread.
.: FireVortex the Browser Extension for VWVortex :: Download now for Firefox & Google Chrome :: Powered by etivite
.: Features: Full Ignore a Member :: Thread Previews :: Kill Threads :: Products Search :: Quick Menu (favorite forums, subscribe topics, recently viewed) :: Custom Emoticons :: Quick Reply :: Full Screen Mode :: MyPage :: Kill Quoted Images :: Kill Quotes in Sigs :: more...
While I agree that racism is, and probably still is, holding black people back, I don't see why I should be the one to pay for it. I'm not racist. My family never benefited off of it. Neither have I. Why do I have to deal with the cost of it?
Last edited by PolskiHetzen; 10-10-2012 at 04:14 PM.
My wife works as an architect. Here in Texas, believe it or not, we have to deal with HUB (Historically Underutilized Businesses) requirements not present in a lot of other states. As a female, she qualifies as a HUB. So would a firm owned by a black male. Both compete for the same job. All other things being equal, who wins the contract?
Are white women less oppressed than black men? Please support your answer.
But when I see a Russian or a German person, my mind doesn't click over and think that they owe me something. They weren't there. Neither was I. They're not hauling me off to die some where, so they're cool with me. If I saw a guy who worked a concentration camp, I might feel otherwise.
I guess the problem here is you don't know who is racist. But if we're talking benefiting from slavery/racism in this country, then there is no way anyone in my family is in that group yet we're treated as if we were.
Who cares which group is more or less historically and currently oppressed? You seem to think that such a program should isolate to the penny the exact impact that these things have had on each group or each individual, and then give them a benefit worth only exactly that much. It's impossible to value the disadvantages (or advantages) of this sort so precisely.
I don't remember a female equivalent to Emmett Till.
Then again, what about the oppression black woman faced compared to black men or white women?
I will say the most fascinating thing I learned in legal history was that when women were seeking the right to vote, there were two main gripes by women.
1. They didn't want black women to vote
2. They were like, "hey, if we let stupid immigrants from Southern Europe vote and we let black men vote, WTF, how come us intelligent, beautiful white women can't vote?"
Look, before this thread gets locked I don't have skin in this thread because I was born in Eastern Europe.
The AA was drafted and well written to cover pretty much anyone that wasn't white. Keep in mind it was written in a dark time in America for Blacks and Mexicans because they were the majority of the minority.
Others that immigrated to the States didn't need AA because family's pushed and taught kids the value of education. Thus Asians, Dot Indians, and other skin or facial feature people never or have a need for AA because there education is on par or better then there peers.
AA was good and it did its purpose but now it's holding students with good grades and test scores back across the board..
The reality is that alleviating historical and present-day disadvantages faced by certain classes of people is a program that benefits everyone, just like you paying for other peoples' kids' educations.
Think about that. The color TV was popular before minorities were allowed to go to schools with white kids in nice neighborhoods without protest.