AllyWork
Helping White people fight White Supremacy
Recent Comments
- Dawn Reed on Racism Prevention 101: Parenting With the Natural Healing Process
- ben on Why There is a BET and There isn’t a WET
- ben on Why There is a BET and There isn’t a WET
- TheRightChoice on Why There is a BET and There isn’t a WET
- SFAlly on Unlearning Racism Pt.3: Just Lists
- Learner on Unlearning Racism Pt. 2: getting to know ourselves
- M johnson on Why There is a BET and There isn’t a WET
Archives
The Realities of Affirmative Action
Published by rachels | Filed under Affirmative Action Reparations, Common Myths, Government, Uncategorized
In a recent post about affirmative action in India we had a relatively good discussion going in the comments section, but what I realized is that most people don’t have a real understanding of what affirmative action is and how it is actually implemented. Of course, the reason most people don’t know what it is or how it is used is because most people have never sat on a university admissions committee, or they have never been responsible for making hiring decisions in a corporate or educational setting. Having been involve in a few hiring decisions and having been on an admissions committee, I have a little experience, I thought I would share a little about how these committees work. One of the first things that people should know is that affirmative action is used not only for race. Other factors such as national origin, gender, veteran’s status, and age. (For the sake of brevity, I’m only going to discuss hiring, and not admissions.)
When most universities (not all but most) hire faculty members, they asked that job candidates send their resumes directly to the head of the search committee or the head of the department. Once applications are received candidates are sent a small postcard asking about their basic demographic information, including race and gender (and often a few other questions—like how did you hear about the job, are you a veteran and so on). That card is then sent back to the human resources department or affirmative action compliance office on campus. The search committee does not see this card, and the race and gender of candidates is never given to the hiring committee.
In the mean time, the hiring committee reviews applications. In both of the committees I have been on there was an initial screening that weeded out unqualified candidates and less qualified candidates. How did we decide who was qualified? It depended on the particular search, but several key issues were—did they have the right area of study, could they teach the classes we were looking for, were they committed to research (at the research school), did they have publications, and would they be done with their dissertation or at least very close to being done. At this stage race and/or gender were not discussed much at all because it was evident that the candidates were not qualified for the particular position described. Once we had a “long short list,” which consisted of our top 10 (or so) candidates. We went through their files more thoroughly to look for other possible problems or prospects that may have been overlooked. In one case, we ended the search because we only had 1 candidate who we thought was qualified for the position. This person was a person of color, but we knew that bringing in one person would not pass the muster with the compliance office or the higher level administrators. There is a strong expectation that at least 3 candidates be brought in for an interview, and there were not 3 in the applicant pool who were qualified. In both cases we did discuss race once we had a long short list (The were not many substantive discussions of gender, as women candidates were well represented in the departments.) Both departments had a severe underrepresentation of racial minorities—one department had all Whites, the other had 3 people of color. People on the committee did not agree about how much of a factor race should play, but it was unanimous on both committees that it would be “good” if we ultimately hired a person of color since the department was not diverse.
But there was a major obstacle when it came to considering race; we did not know the race of the candidates. For the most part it is easy to figure out what gender people are from their applications, so it would be untrue to say that the process is gender blind. Race can sometimes be determined from a close look at the application, and in some cases a references letter would let people know the race of the candidate. In the committees I was on, many people thought they knew the race of the candidates but were wrong in several cases. I say this because I have met some of the candidates after the fact since the world of sociology is relatively small. (I suspect this would not be the case in corporate settings where resumes and applications are significantly shorter and have significantly less information. It is not unusual to have applications that are over 30 pages, including references, teaching evals and so on.) So unless it was readily apparent from the application, we could not determine race, which makes it very difficult to use race as a factor in the hiring process.
Once the top candidates are announced, their names are passed on to the university’s affirmative action compliance or human resources office. The office checks the race and gender of the applicants based on the cards returned to them—many of these are not returned and they are optional. The compliance office usually approves the search. The final candidates might not be approved if the department has a long history of not bringing in diverse applicants. If a search is not approved, the compliance office may ask the department to try to increase the diversity of the applicant pool by extending the search or advertising in other outlets. If the department still doesn’t get a diverse group of candidates, then the search could continue as is or be extended. The whole process of revising a search is rare, but not unprecedented.
Once candidates get to campus they go through a long interview process (which I think is the part of the process that is most opened to racism or sexism). I can say that some people in the interview process strongly believed that if two candidates were equally qualified that candidates from underrepresented minority groups should be offered the position. However, few people thought two candidates were equally qualified. After the interview, most people had a clear favorite candidate, and the department ranked candidates 1-2-3 and decided if they were hirable. It is very difficult get people 20 some people to agree so this part of the process is very difficult. The reason I think the part of the process is most opened to racism is because race seems to dramatically impact how candidates are viewed face to face. But people are allowed to have their biases and do not have to give any particular reason as to why they oppose a candidate. Since the particular hiring committees, I was on didn’t result in hires, I can’t say exactly how the process would have played in those particular cases.
This is actually why I think affirmative action is not particularly powerful at ending discrimination. It is very limited in its scope. In the cases I have seen the only real stop gap on discrimination is the compliance office. This office also does a very good job at tracking hiring trends, which lets a school know if there is a pattern of exclusion, but as far as the decisions, people are pretty much left up to their own devices to decide on which candidates that they like, which of course means that they still have their biases.
I give this very long drawn out discussion to let people know how affirmative action in hiring actually works in at least one real life case. There are no quotas and no hiring requirements. In fact, quotas have been illegal since 1978, when the US Supreme Court ruled that quota based affirmative action was not constitutional (See University of California Regents v. Bakke 1978). So what constitutes affirmative action? Here are a few examples taken from sociologist Barbara Reskin’s book The Realities of Affirmative Action:setting goals and time tables, identifying under utilized talent, using recruitment methods that reach the whole pool of candidates, fully utilizing employees skills, forging alliances with school and community groups to increase pool of possible workers, monitoring sex and race differences in hiring and promotions, self evaluation, advertising as an equal opportunity employer.
What is fascinating about most of these techniques is that they have little or nothing to do with the application review process. Instead they focus more on reaching the full applicant pool, and monitoring overall trends in recruitment. The notion that White applicants or male applicants are put at the back of the pool or ignored is incorrect. Additionally, the idea that women, Blacks, Latinos, or American Indians are put at the front of the pool and some how treated better is also incorrect. In fact, many of the biggest supporters of affirmative action are White business owners and educational leaders, who are mostly male. Most businesses have voluntary affirmative action programs. There have never been laws passed or executive orders issued requiring any type of affirmative action in hiring or promotions for private companies. The reason big businesses want affirmative action is because they benefit tremendously from a diverse workforce, and the impression (often false impression, but image counts) that they do not discriminate. If affirmative action was harmful to Whites, why would White business owners institute affirmative action policies on a voluntary basis.
Having been involved in a few hiring committees and one admissions committee I can assure people that affirmative action doesn’t exclude Whites, especially those highly qualified Whites. In fact, my personal sense is that the very limited scope of most affirmative action programs allows discrimination to remain firmly entrenched in the hiring and promotions process. But it is important for people to know exactly how a hiring process works in order for htem to understand the realities of affirmative action.
June 3rd, 2006 at 9:19 am Very interesting. Thanks for this.
June 4th, 2006 at 6:37 am Thanks, IP. I just wanted to give people a senses of how this process actually works.
June 5th, 2006 at 10:50 am What about Minority set-aside programs? With immigration going through the roof and many of these immigrants being racially preferred under these programs the problem is that this will create more resentment or the white majority.
The whites will start acting increasingly like other minorities in pressing their racial demands in the political marketplace.
On top of that, as information from the Human Genome Project becomes public, it will bring up some very contentious political issues in the increasingly near future. The social impact could be grave if we do not begin to face reality in many matters
June 5th, 2006 at 2:06 pm Unlisted:
"With immigration going through the roof and many of these immigrants being racially preferred under these programs the problem is that this will create more resentment or the white majority."
You seem to be saying that racial tension is inevitable and allowances should be made for that. Or am I misunderstanding you?
If I'm reading you right, I have to disagree: the way to tackle racial resentment is to educate people about racism, not to pander to that resentment.
--IP
June 5th, 2006 at 2:44 pm I'm saying that one of the most unappreciated forms of racism is anti-white racism.
As more and more minorities come in and they automatically receive a protected status even after whites are less then 50% of the population, resentment will automatically grow and the very thing we are trying to fight (white supremacy) is be ripe to spread. This is already starting to happen. Conditions on the ground must change.
One of the biggest mistakes that I see those who are anti-racism activits make is the fact that many of them deny the very existence of race.
Also, they don't seem to want to denounce the rabid anti-white blacks that are often in their camp. So it smells of hypocrisy to many whites.
On the one hand we must accept racial differences and know that people are different and have different talents, tendencies, and even react differently to the same conditions.
On the other hand we should reject the racists by not generally implying differences meant people/races were "inferior" or "superior" and by rejecting racial nationalism. This includes black supremists and even new (here to America) the brown supremists.
Right now the landscape is dominated by two extremes: the "racial realists" like David Duke who are in fact racists and on the other side the race deniers who deny every difference amongst peoples. A third and balanced way has been taken by the likes of Steve Sailer and others that reject white supremecy but recognize that there are differences in people.
What does this have to do with the topic?
Everything!
When you have a bunch of different people never interacting with one another, even speaking different languages and having seperate cultures, how can you possible expect there to be harmony? Much less UNITY. The country will be "Balkanized"
We need to understand every citizens needs. And that includes the blue collar white guy
June 5th, 2006 at 5:20 pm "I’m saying that one of the most unappreciated forms of racism is anti-white racism."
That's because it's not nearly as significant as anti-people-of-colour racism
"As more and more minorities come in and they automatically receive a protected status even after whites are less then 50% of the population"
White isn't the same as non-immigrant, but non-immigrants *do* have protected status, so I'm not too sure what your point is here.
"One of the biggest mistakes that I see those who are anti-racism activits make is the fact that many of them deny the very existence of race."
!!???
"On the one hand we must accept racial differences and know that people are different and have different talents, tendencies, and even react differently to the same conditions."
At present, there isn't scientific evidence to conclude that talents, tendencies, or reactions are innately racially contingent.
"race deniers who deny every difference amongst peoples."
The two are not synonymous.
"We need to understand every citizens needs. And that includes the blue collar white guy"
White supremacy is not a need, nor is it something to be accepted.
--IP
June 6th, 2006 at 6:44 am IP:
You are equating looking out for lower class whites with white supremecy. That is a straw man. Would you not also say that the black supremecy displayed amongst many black "anti-racists" is just as bad?
As for *concrete* scientific evidence of racial talents, tendencies or reactions then that may be true, but evidence is emerging and there is other evidence right in front of our eyes that point in that direction. If only we would recognize it.
Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen have highlighted the relationship between IQ and the purchasing power parity of nations in their book "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" that is quite telling.
Let me ask you this:
- What makes a large group of men think that they can get rid of AIDS by having sex with a young girl???
- Why has Zimbabwe gone from being a net exporter of food when the farms were run by whites to a net importer when the whites were run out?
- Why did Nigeria not colonize Europe?
- If it were found that a certain race or population had a greater tendency to violence, or were less intelligent, should this be announced (so that something can be done about it via genetic engineering) or kept secret in the name of fighting racism?
The idea that races have different temperaments was propagated by the Greeks, The Arabs, the Chinese, in ancient times.
Human beings are among the most diverse species on the planet, next only to other domesticates (like dogs). Their tempermants, athletic abilities, intelligence, susceptibility to disease, ad infinitum vary WIDELY. (You are no doubt aware of W African descendents' complete domination of 100 meter run)
And finally, what is probably most tragic about race preferences is how it highlights group differences rather than attenuating them.
Say, hypothetically, that we have a group of 50 whites and 50 blacks applying for admission to law school. A total of 10 will be accepted. The top ten scores break down like this:
White--178, white--176, white--176, black--174, white--171, white--171, black--170, white--169, white--168, white--166.
Thus 8 whites and 2 blacks should get in. In this environment, the blacks and whites would perform about the same. There would be fewer blacks in this case, but the performance disparity between blacks and whites would be almost nonexistent.
However, the school has a quota policy mandating that the black/white proportion be equal. So, the last three whites (scoring 169, 168, and 166) are dropped in favor of the next three blacks who scored 161, 158, and 153. See what happens now?
The blacks, on average, have now become less capable than their white peers. The five whites will find that a couple of the blacks are roughly equal to them intellectually, but that the other three are less capable. Thus, the whites will become more inclined to believe that blacks are not as smart as whites. The last three blacks, who are BY NO MEANS dummies based on their scores (assuming this is the LSAT), are likely to struggle immensely and eventually fail out. They would have been much better served in a less rigorous environment where they could have been near the top of the class. This is also brutally unfair to the three whites who were rejected. And it does nothing for the truly disadvantaged blacks who scored in the 120s and 130s.
Minority Preferences are not only inefficient and unfair--it is also ineffective
Everything can't be placed at the door of racism.
As James Collier (himself a black man) noted: "It is distressing to hear Black leaders accuse authorities of devaluing Black victims of crime, while at the same time lamenting the plight and disproportion of Black males in prison"
We can solve some problems once we start to recognize the differences
June 6th, 2006 at 9:52 am UL: “I’m saying that one of the most unappreciated forms of racism is anti-white racism.”
IP: That’s because it’s not nearly as significant as anti-people-of-colour racism
UL: “We need to understand every citizens needs. And that includes the blue collar white guy”
IP: "White supremacy is not a need, nor is it something to be accepted.
–IP"
unlisted, IP is right in saying that individual traits are not contingent on race.
The differences ARE being recognized; and have been legally used to discriminate for the past few centuries.
Are you saying that it is ok to discriminate on the basis of race for one reason or another?
If you are, I disagree.
Also, the 'middle ground' you speak of sounds like a lukewarm compromise between two specious positions.
IP,
I disagree with this: “it’s (the racism of non-whites/anti-white racism) not nearly as significant as anti-people-of-colour racism"
For example:
The violence perpetrated against people of color during the peak of Jim crow in the Southern United States is child's play when compared to the violence perpetrated against People of color BY people of color in Rwanda during the late spring and summer of 1994.
In fact, it was the white man Lt. Gen Romeo Dallaire (commander of UNAMIR) who begged the person of color Kofi Annan for permission to strike the Hutu extremists in a letter on January 11th 1994.
The letter said that according to an informant in the Interahamew militia that the Hutus had started registering all the Tutsi in Kagali for extermination. Lt. Gen Dallaire signed the letter "where there's a will there's a way, Let's go".
in the intro to Dillarire's book Shake Hands With The Devil, Samantha Power said "Annan's response was firm. Dillaire was not to confront the extremists".
In that case, the indifference and racism of people of color was FAR more important than the influence of 'white supremacy' and 'white racism'.
June 6th, 2006 at 1:35 pm Racism is the idea that one race is superior to another. I don't get it, because I see only one race, the human race. Malcolm X said, "no laws can force brotherhood", but affirmitive action has helped many get jobs, they would have been denied without it.
June 6th, 2006 at 2:09 pm Douglass:
No I am not saying that because groups are different that we should discriminate. We should use this information and recognize that by shipping in a more competent lower skilled workers to compete against lower skilled workers that are already citizens it will create conflict.
Engineers, Doctors, Journalists and other educated individuals will be able to make their way just fine, but these lower skilled individuals will have a harder time. So it makes no sense to import more competent lower wage employees to compete with blacks and low skilled whites.
It will create conflict, especially when there is no assimilation going on.
We can't turn this country into a smorgasbord of languages and regions.
When one travels a few dozen miles in any direction in India, for example, one will find a totally different culture and different language.
This impeads the country and creates conflicts.
Japan, S Korea and China are more homogeneous and relatively free of conflict.
France and Germany, for example have imported minorities that are incompatible with their culture and having conflicts as a result.
Likewise that will be the case here in America, if we continue this path
June 6th, 2006 at 2:14 pm Mary:
You statement is exactly the starry-eyed egalitarianism that I am speaking of. Yes, we are all human beings, but groups of people are different. By pretending that this is not the case, it is only magnifying the differences
June 6th, 2006 at 4:58 pm Unlisted, I see that you are talking about the impact of immigration on AA.
Now, Yes, if a person from..say, Burkina Faso comes to the US and collects on AA benefits intended for the progeny of Black slaves...that is problem... but because I am opposed to discriminating on the basis of Race in the first place, I am pleased with the role of that problem in the overall success of that discriminatory program of reparations.
In fact, I think that ANY program rooted in the spirit of reparations is an invalid program.
But,
I am opposed to restricting immigration into the United States.
That's just one of those things that makes America special; our willingness to accept immigrants and give them a chance to start a new life here.
On what grounds do you suppose that the people currently living in America deserve the prize of citizenship over other people?
June 6th, 2006 at 5:03 pm Also, Unlisted, what's the deal with your disrespect towards Mary?
'starry-eyed'???
That’s not cool.
It's cowardly to try to assassinate a person's character instead of taking their argument head on.
June 6th, 2006 at 5:49 pm Firstly, I meant no disrespect to Mary and I hope that she was not offended by that, but denying racial differences is keeping one's head in the sand. I would be glad to take on any race-denier as the facts increasingly are on the side of realists and not those who dismiss it as a TOTAL social construct.
Douglass, the fact that we are born here. I don't think people in the UK or Germany owe me citizenship to their country.
So you believe that any and everyone should be able to come to this country without any restrictions? Do you know what would happen if every single person who wanted to come to the US were allowed? Would we be able to take on the millions that would pour into this country? Many of whom would have little to offer to this country economically. The country would collapse at some point because we can't afford to pay for all the services they would no doubt demand.
If you have ever been to a third world country (as I have) then you know that giving money to a begger can be dangerous. The other beggers will mob you. One lady saw me and chased me begging for money because she saw I was a tourist.
Now, under the open borders argument, what are we to do with people of that mentality in the event many of them make it over here somehow?
We can do immigration, but we need to bring those who are the best and brightest and help to make this country better for those that are CURRENTLY citizens. However, I will admit to you that I am for restricting immigration and even trying to get many of those from Muslim countries to go back home. Pay them if we have to
June 6th, 2006 at 9:10 pm UL: "Douglass, the fact that we are born here. I don’t think people in the UK or Germany owe me citizenship to their country. So you believe that any and everyone should be able to come to this country without any restrictions?"
Perhaps nationalism is a disease inasmuch that it devalues the lives of people that live outside the borders of a particular nation.
Human capital is the #1 resource of the American nation.
UL: "Do you know what would happen if every single person who wanted to come to the US were allowed?"
Yes, there would be more Americans.
UL: "Would we be able to take on the millions that would pour into this country?"
I welcome the millions.
UL: "Many of whom would have little to offer to this country economically. The country would collapse at some point because we can’t afford to pay for all the services they would no doubt demand. you have ever been to a third world country (as I have) then you know that giving money to a begger can be dangerous. The other beggers will mob you. One lady saw me and chased me begging for money because she saw I was a tourist.Now, under the open borders argument, what are we to do with people of that mentality in the event many of them make it over here somehow?
Say, unlisted,
Mentioning the third world, do you ever wonder why the abundance of material riches (for example in Togo, Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso and elsewhere) rarely translate into societal development and tend to invite conflict?
(psst: human capital)
UL: "We can do immigration, but we need to bring those who are the best and brightest and help to make this country better for those that are CURRENTLY citizens"
Immigrants don't owe the natives something because the natives were there first.
That's Balkanized thinking, Unlisted.
UL: "However, I will admit to you that I am for restricting immigration and even trying to get many of those from Muslim countries to go back home. Pay them if we have to"
OK, unlisted, It’s your right to have that opinion, and I think it's honest of you to admit that.
But,
Muslims are just as human as the people you know.
They have rights, too, such as the freedom to worship in whatever form they may please.
June 7th, 2006 at 5:27 am Douglass:
///Mentioning the third world, do you ever wonder why the abundance of material riches (for example in Togo, Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso and elsewhere) rarely translate into societal development and tend to invite conflict?
(psst: human capital)///
Those countries don't have enough people with education to extract those riches. Also things like iron deficiency and poor diet are having negative effects on IQ which has brings its own problems. What good are bodies when noone is smart enough to do anything. The same spplies to your unrestricted immigration argument. You don't think that we would import the problems of the third world? Those people have TOTALLY different mentalities and ways of looking at the world. And with no assimilation they will create ghettos in the image of their own home countries.
Do you think that the people of Germany or UK owe you citizenship?
As for Muslims, American Muslim converts and those born here can, should and DO have the right to worship as they please. Don't get me wrong. But send back the immigrants or at least stop taking them.
Finally I ask you to give me an example of a country today with an open borders policy that is doing well. Compare the lack of conflict in such homogenous places like S Korea, Japan and China with countries who has taken in dissimilar people that DID NOT assimilate such as Germany and France.
So which glass of kool-aid are you asking us to drink from?
June 7th, 2006 at 9:58 am “Equality is not the empirical claim that all groups of humans are interchangeable; it is the moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group.”
-Steven Pinker
June 7th, 2006 at 11:55 am Unlisted,
your adhominems are worthless.
Anyway,
"Those people have TOTALLY different mentalities and ways of looking at the world. And with no assimilation they will create ghettos in the image of their own home countries."
Criminals and debtors were the main contingent of the first groups of English immigrants to settle in Australia.
Is Australia a criminal nation today?
Do you think that people living in the third world are inherently inferior to those living in the 1st world?
June 7th, 2006 at 12:58 pm Douglass:
I wish you would answer some of my concerns instead of asking more questions. There is much about Australia that would make both of us uncomfortable
June 7th, 2006 at 4:06 pm Ok, unlisted
could you outline those concerns?
Right now they seem intertwined with emotional appeals to blood and soil.
June 7th, 2006 at 7:16 pm Here are some:
- You seem to think that America owes citizenship to everyone on the planet who wants it. Do you likewise feel that Germany and UK owe me or you citizenship to their countries or do you feel that only the US should allow everyone who wants to come in come in?
- Please give me an example of a country today with an unrestricted open borders policy that is doing well. Compare the lack of conflict in such homogenous places like S Korea, Japan and China with countries who has taken in dissimilar people that DID NOT assimilate such as Germany and France
- I mentioned to you that in your scenerio you would have so many different people with so many different mentalities that there would be no melting. How do you think this would be solved?
- How would we pay for all the services that they would demand? Would the services not be lost for all?
And to answer your question about people in the 3rd world, no I don't think they are inherently inferior, but they think differently and have different outlooks on life. Can you image what it would be like if suddenly 1 million Dinka tribesmen showed up in the US?
Here are some of the other questions I found above not directly related to immigration, but relevant to the overall scheme:
- What makes a large group of men think that they can get rid of AIDS by having sex with a young girl???
- Why has Zimbabwe gone from being a net exporter of food when the farms were run by whites to a net importer when the whites were run out?
- Why did Nigeria not colonize Europe?
- If it were found that a certain race or population had a greater tendency to violence, or were less intelligent, should this be announced (so that something can be done about it via genetic engineering at some point) or kept secret in the name of fighting racism?
June 7th, 2006 at 7:38 pm unlisted - i'm confused, you start off by calling racial realists extremist and racist, but a few comments later you state that the evidence is in their favor. Are you pretending to be something you are not?
u: "When you have a bunch of different people never interacting with one another, even speaking different languages and having seperate cultures, how can you possible expect there to be harmony? Much less UNITY. The country will be “Balkanized”"
The most segregated group of people in the US are White people. We are less likely to have an interaction with a persyn of another race than any other group of people. So if the nation is balkanized, then it seems to be largely the work of White people.
u: "We need to understand every citizens needs. And that includes the blue collar white guy"
But we can completely ignore the needs of non-citizens and wimmin? I agree that the White working class is getting screwed, but its not people of color who are fucking them over.
u: "So, the last three whites (scoring 169, 168, and 166) are dropped in favor of the next three blacks who scored 161, 158, and 153. See what happens now?"
Now who's making straw man arguments? Did you not read Rachel's post? If so, you would realize that this is not how affirmative action works. This is how scared White people and White Supremacists believe it works.
u: "What makes a large group of men think that they can get rid of AIDS by having sex with a young girl???"
I don't know, unlisted, what makes a family in Kansas think that they can get rid of AIDS by protesting the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq? Are you implying that the fucked up beliefs of a small group of men are telling of an entire race?
d: "the indifference and racism of people of color was FAR more important than the influence of ‘white supremacy’ and ‘white racism’."
On the surface, perhaps. But why were the Hutus slaughering the Tutsis? There is a history to that story and it come back to White people (the Dutch to be exact). And nations such as the US, France, the Netherlands and others were asked for help, but refused. In fact, i believe it was the French who supplied the weapons for the Hutu army. And are you saying that Black people were being racist against Black people (which i could agree with, but this, again, points back to White people and the creation of horizontal racism) or are you saying that Black people were being racist towards White people (in which case i don't understand). by the way, its nice to see you back, douglass:)
d: "It’s cowardly to try to assassinate a person’s character instead of taking their argument head on."
yes it is. and if this behavior comes up again, i'll not hesitate to ban the perpetrator. this is a place for open dialogue. if you want to attack, attack an idea, not a persyn. this goes for everyone.
u: "Now, under the open borders argument, what are we to do with people of that mentality in the event many of them make it over here somehow?"
i think this is another straw man argument. show me proof of this economic leech argument and then we can have a discussion.
u: "I will admit to you that I am for restricting immigration and even trying to get many of those from Muslim countries to go back home. Pay them if we have to"
So you would rather pay people to leave than pay for social services? "go back home". i'm sorry, but for many Muslims, this is their home. and why Muslims? Why not Christians like Arnold Schwarzenegger?
d: "Perhaps nationalism is a disease inasmuch that it devalues the lives of people that live outside the borders of a particular nation."
damn, douglass, quote of the day.
d: "Mentioning the third world, do you ever wonder why the abundance of material riches (for example in Togo, Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso and elsewhere) rarely translate into societal development and tend to invite conflict?"
Ooh, ooh, pick me! Is it because people of color are stupid? Or because people with guns like to exploit?
u: "You don’t think that we would import the problems of the third world?"
I'd say we created many of those problems. So why not bring the war home? Why not focus on the root causes of those problems instead of continually hacking at the branches of effect?
u: "And with no assimilation they will create ghettos in the image of their own home countries."
People have survived for centuries without the saving grace of the White man. Ghettos come only when their option is to assimilate or parish. There are other options. And this goes back to the discussion of assimilate into what? Whiteness? White ideals of education, family, success, etc? Why? Because White people are superior and know what's best for everyone?
and to make you happy, unlisted, i'll answer your questions.
"Do you think that the people of Germany or UK owe you citizenship?"
I don't really care about Germany or the UK. And i don't think that what we do here should be contingent on what they are doing. We can be better. We can lead. We are our own people. Ideally, yes, i think that Germany and the UK should open their borders a little more, too. But its not just about opening borders. Open borders alone won't stop global inequity, injustice, and exploitation.
"Finally I ask you to give me an example of a country today with an open borders policy that is doing well."
I don't know what news sources you watch or read, but there are MASSIVE conflicts in South Korea and China. And are you implying that Germany and the France aren't doing well? Cuz they might disagree. But i don't think that has anything to do with their border policy (and i think it depends on your definition of 'doing well'). Persynally, i haven't seen an example of a country with the borders that i speak of. When i do, i'll give you my opinion.
Now please answer my questions.
June 8th, 2006 at 7:02 am Vegankid: "unlisted - i’m confused, you start off by calling racial realists extremist and racist, but a few comments later you state that the evidence is in their favor. Are you pretending to be something you are not?"
OK, Let me explain. The people that have traditionally (and fraudulently) called themselves “racial realists” were racists. This forced many to accept the fashionable moniker that “race is simply a social construct”. The REAL racial realists, like Steve Sailer, reject the supremacy of any race, but also believe that it is a real construct.
Now, again, here in America, race CAN largely be a social construct as there are people walking around this country with a greater European bio-mixture than W African calling themselves ‘black’. That is because the history of this country is unique.
V: "The most segregated group of people in the US are White people. We are less likely to have an interaction with a person of another race than any other group of people. So if the nation is balkanized, then it seems to be largely the work of White people"
Firstly, that is because whites are the majority. You do not have vast areas of blacks or Latinos like you do whites such as Wyoming or Utah. Blacks and Latinos are largely in the urban areas of the country.
Secondly, I am not saying that whites are just hurrying to go out and hug a minority. They are looking at the crime stats and want to be safe. This segregation is a result largely of that and other factors like wanting a better education. Even liberal whites in places like San Francisco are sending their children to almost exclusively white private schools. Not because the school is white, but because it is the best.
Thirdly, ever seen the Spanish language super-enclaves in S California?
Multiculturalism mean MANY CULTURES!
If you bring all types of people together, then we are not all going to agree on the basics of social organization and want to live under the same rules. That’s not a problem. It's what separate countries are for.
Fourthly, why are they separating Latinos and blacks in the jails in California? I’ll tell you. Race riots
Why do many Black Americans oppose mass immigration?
This is America. I will not apologize for feeling that the needs of Americans (of all colors) should be looked after first.
Finally, one of the problems I see with people on your side of the debate is that you all superimpose your American way of thinking on the rest of the world. In other words, you all tend to be open and hard working, but there are billions of people who do not share our outlook on life. They like being who they are and will want to stay that way. That is not a problem. Again, that is what different countries are for.
v: “But we can completely ignore the needs of non-citizens and wimmin?"
I never said women don't deserve services. Those that are here legally can, do and should get legal services. If by needs of non-citizens, you mean every other person on the planet, then it is simply not humanly possible. We would all love to end world hunger and have everyone on the planet live a middle class lifestyle. Sounds wonderful, but we just can’t do it.
V: Now who’s making straw man arguments? Did you not read Rachel’s post?
Yes I did, and I found that while the goals do indeed help people of all colors, including white men, under my scenario this is how it would work.
In any event, affirmative action is no longer a strategy for moving large numbers of blacks or Latinos up the social ranks. Even blacks are saying that this program has run its course and the attention needs to turn to solving the academic achievement gap that persists between black children and children of other races.
u: “What makes a large group of men think that they can get rid of AIDS by having sex with a young girl???”
v: I don’t know, unlisted, what makes a family in Kansas think that they can get rid of AIDS by protesting the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq?
As silly as the action of groups like ‘God Hates Fags’ may be, I don’t think that they believe that they are actually curing AIDS. On the other hand, large numbers of sub-saharan African man believe that by having sex with a young virgin girl that they will cure themselves. So much so that they have had to have a program in some countries trying to correct this misconception.
Are you implying that the fucked up beliefs of a small group of men are telling of an entire race?
Small group? It is epidemic. I’m not saying that everyone is doing it, but enough do it that it is significant. I am saying that the average teenager in this country would tell you that that is asinine to believe such a thing. When you couple that with the other factors we see in that area, and couple that with the fact that some of the lowest IQ scores are from there, it is very telling. I am not saying that they are inherently inferior. I am saying that things like iron deficiency and poor diet are probably contributing to poor cognitive health for millions that may lead to this kind of poor thinking. I mean look at the fact that even after throwing out the all evil white man, Zimbabwe has gone from net-exporter of food to a net importer of food. Sub Saharan Africa never invaded Europe or anyone else and has never developed a major civilization in spite of having massive resources. So to blame the white man in nonsensical.
Now one may point out that Timbuktu and Ghana are sub-saharan and were civilizations. I will counter by pointing out to you that both of those places were Muslim empires, and those places were only uplifted after the Arabs converted them to Islam and intermarried with the natives. Then (and only then) did a civilization arise. Civilization was brought to them via the Arab Muslims (who by the way had a magnificent civilization at one time. I will explain my views on Muslim immigration below) Other than that we see no examples of a sub-saharan empire. Now that could be because of the harsher environment in Africa, but the fact is the fact. But I will also note that only after European colonialism did the vast resources of Africa begin to be used. We now have Sub-Saharan Africans dying trying to get to Europe because they are not building a strong country for themselves.
This is not racist. These are the facts. For one to point this out is not racist. The politics of today have deemed that when one points these facts out, then they are racist.
But why were the Hutus slaughering the Tutsis? There is a history to that story and it come back to White people (the Dutch to be exact).
Sub-Saharan Africa was filled with warring tribes and disputing factions long before the whites arrived. The Arabs historically noted it when they arrived there long before the whites.
Did the Dutch take advantage of and exacerbate this situation? Yes. Did they CREATE it? No. So you can’t lay all the blame at the feet of this all evil white man. Indeed, some of these arguments imply those of European lineage are inherently evil and took advantage of the inherently good blacks and other colored people. There are enough evil actions to go around here for everyone, but it is politically incorrect to recognize what whites have brought to the modern world.
Secondly, as Hutus and Tutsis go. They are indeed two different races. They all have dark skin, but they are different. A Somali is different from a Nigerian. Both black; but different races. Some prefer to call them “clines”. Whatever the case, they are different.
d: “It’s cowardly to try to assassinate a person’s character instead of taking their argument head on.”
yes it is. and if this behavior comes up again, i’ll not hesitate to ban the perpetrator. this is a place for open dialogue. if you want to attack, attack an idea, not a persyn. this goes for everyone.
I have already apologized to Mary. That is the way I talk. I can assure you that no offense intended, and I was not trying to assassinate anyone’s character, but I will tone it down on this forum. Charge it to my head and not to my heart.
v: i think this is another straw man argument. show me proof of this economic leech argument and then we can have a discussion.
Sure,
This is from the Stanford Review
In August 2004, the Center for Immigration Studies released a landmark study on the tax behavior of illegal immigrants. The study revealed that, in 2002, households headed by illegal aliens received $26.3 billion in government services, while paying a total of $16 billion in taxes. It doesn’t take a budget analyst to comprehend the significance of a $10 billion loss over one year. And with the rate of illegal immigration increasing from 2002 to 2005 to virtually no change in government policy, federal losses are inflating rapidly.
In 2004, the Washington Times reported that California’s 3 million illegal immigrants sap the state government of $10.5 billion annually. The largest contributor to this sum is the $7.7 billion cost of educating the children of illegal immigrants, who make up 15% of California’s total student population. Undocumented aliens pose a greater budgetary threat to state governments, which do not employ expansive methods of illegitimate resident tax collection such as the Individual Tax Identification Number system.
While there are many illegal immigrants paying their taxes, (so please don’t accuse me of saying that they are not paying taxes) there is a net loss for the gov’t services. This has forced the closing of hospitals do to financial constraints.
Outside of America, rich Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have many government services such as free health care that would draw some of the poorest people you would ever care to see begging on the streets. I have been there and seen it with my own eyes. They come with the purpose of begging (and to steal). It is very sad to see that human beings are reduced to an almost animalistic survival nature. At any rate, they become a drain on the services there and therefore, they ship them out.
Can you imagine if a million Dinkas suddenly showed up in New York City? It would be a massive drain on the city, because relatively few of them would be able to work and be productive. The vision in my head is of what I saw in the third world: Lines of people begging in the streets. And I can just see how the white man would be blamed for not caring enough.
In the third world, it is well known that it is dangerous to give too much money or you will be mobbed by others and chased down the street. If one wanted to destroy America, all they would have to do is drop a few million of these people at the border as soon as America implemented such a policy of unrestricted immigration.
Don’t you know that if an unrestricted borders policy was implemented, that many of these countries would immediately ship their poorest (and trust me, much poorer than the average American knows) and most unskilled directly to us to deal with them instead of them. All they’d have to do is ask “who wants to go to America” and millions of people would be on their way. We would not be able to deal with those kinds of problems and differing mentalities. The country would break down into anarchy within months. Not to mention that the more productive elements, in this situation would make their way to Europe, Australia or Canada.
v:So you would rather pay people to leave than pay for social services? “go back home”. i’m sorry, but for many Muslims, this is their home. and why Muslims? Why not Christians like Arnold Schwarzenegger?
How about the threat of terror? It would be expensive, but worth it in the long run. The American born Muslims, such as converts can stay because they have no place to go. I also think that we should pull out of Iraq and leave it for the Iraqis and the Muslim world to deal with and put the billions into securing our own country. I hope that you would agree here that we need to protect ourselves from terrorists that come from these ranks. If many Austrians were Aryan followers, then I would make the same argument for sending them home if they were a threat to the lives of human beings.
d: “Mentioning the third world, do you ever wonder why the abundance of material riches (for example in Togo, Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso and elsewhere) rarely translate into societal development and tend to invite conflict?”
Ooh, ooh, pick me! Is it because people of color are stupid? Or because people with guns like to exploit?
If one of the above mentioned countries were given to whites, do you feel that it would become a world economic power within 50 years?
v: I’d say we created many of those problems. So why not bring the war home? Why not focus on the root causes of those problems instead of continually hacking at the branches of effect?
See above arguments. It would bring us all down in the end to bring them all here.
And this goes back to the discussion of assimilate into what? Whiteness? White ideals of education, family, success, etc? Why? Because White people are superior and know what’s best for everyone?
And what exactly is a “white” ideal? Is becoming a doctor, small business owner or the like a “white” ideal? Getting good grades? Speaking proper English?
Roland G. Fryer Jr. noted that excelling in school is thought to be a “white thing” in black schools. He quotes from Kareem Abdul-Jabbar who tells of when he was in fourth grade and was reading on seventh grade level "When the kids found this out, I became a target....It was my first time away from home, my first experience in an all-black situation, and I found myself being punished for everything I'd ever been taught was right. I got all A's and was hated for it; I spoke correctly and was called a punk. I had to learn a new language simply to be able to deal with the threats. I had good manners and was a good little boy and paid for it with my hide."
So this “white ideal” is a soft racism in my estimation that lowers standards for blacks. This white/non-white dichotomy puts people like the blacks on the fringes and makes them feel that success is “white” in other than “black” things like rap and basketball.
Many Asian Americans are following this so-called “white ideal”. You are also seeing that the children of white/Asian marriages are considered to be white more often nowadays. So Asians are in affect becoming ‘white’ via assimilation.
I would also note that the English speaking Latin women are making inroads into American pop-culture (i.e., Eva Mendes, Eva Longoria, Shakira, Salma Hayek et al).
As for assimilation, this means the values of that country and the language are accepted. It does not mean that ones cultural foods and other things are rejected. This is one of the things that makes America special. A melting pot of cultures, while having common things that bind us all together. This is our culture. Melting; not a smorgasbord of cultures that never interact or intertwine. A white, black or Asian person can enjoy Salsa, Jazz, Rap or Opera. We can intermarry and borrow and acquire from each others’ those good things that each brings to the table. I enjoy Enchaladas, Egg Rolls, Peanut Butter stew (an African dish), Curry Chicken, hamburgers, southern fried chicken and Lasagna. I have friends of all types of cultures. This is what makes America so great. But if we start to have “no go” zones where there is an Urdu speaking enclave here, and a Spanish speaking enclave there, many traditional Americans will not enter these enclaves very often and we will start to become strangers to one another. And strangers become hostile from misunderstanding.
As to language, if one says that Spanish should be given equal status, then one would have to argue that then you have to give Chinese, French, German Italian, Urdu, Arabic, Farsi and all other languages equal status as well. What would become of street signs? Education system? In the end, each language/ethnic group would cluster to form their own enclave. Those enclaves would become super-enclaves. The super-enclaves would become regional and the country would be split and have no unity at all. Each citizen would only be loyal to his ethnic group and not to the nation itself. Sounds a little like Iraq now doesn’t it?
v:I don’t know what news sources you watch or read, but there are MASSIVE conflicts in South Korea and China.
I am speaking of ethnic conflicts. Every country has their problems, but what MASSIVE conflict is happening in those countries? You are making me think they are on the brink of war.
And are you implying that Germany and the France aren’t doing well? Cuz they might disagree. But i don’t think that has anything to do with their border policy (and i think it depends on your definition of ‘doing well’).
I don’t think that many French will disagree that the N African and Sub-Saharan African immigrants are a massive problem for them.
Muslims and Europeans do not agree on values and it is creating conflict. This is nothing new. (See the Ottoman expansion into Eastern Europe) See also: the riots in France and conflict in Denmark and Germany. Those two places are time bombs with ethnic ghettos filled with potential terrorists. I agree with those who say to get them out. They love home so much? Send them there. And leave their homes. Talk has recently surfaced that Spain will start to import its indentured servant class from Latin America instead of Morocco for this reason.
I also remind you that 17 terrorists were arrested in Canada seeking to do harm to the country that took them in.
June 8th, 2006 at 10:57 am Vegankid:
[d: “the indifference and racism of people of color was FAR more important than the influence of ‘white supremacy’ and ‘white racism’.”
VK: On the surface, perhaps. But why were the Hutus slaughering the Tutsis? There is a history to that story and it come back to White people (the Dutch to be exact). And nations such as the US, France, the Netherlands and others were asked for help, but refused. In fact, i believe it was the French who supplied the weapons for the Hutu army. And are you saying that Black people were being racist against Black people (which i could agree with, but this, again, points back to White people and the creation of horizontal racism) or are you saying that Black people were being racist towards White people (in which case i don’t understand). by the way, its nice to see you back, douglass:)]
It’s interesting that you look at it that way. But your stance involves certain liberties in historiography with which I have a bone to pick.
VK: “But why were the Hutus slaughering the Tutsis? There is a history to that story and it come back to White people (the Dutch to be exact).”
Well there is a history to that story.
The Tutsis invaded the homeland of the Hutus in the late 1300s and early 1400s from Ethiopia and subjugated the Hutus.
In the case of Rwanda, the Belgians (not the Dutch, and the Belgians got it from the Germans) used the Tutsis to keep their tea and coffee flowing Just as the Tutsis used the Belgians to reinforce their position over the Hutus. You have to remember that the genocide happened in the middle of a Civil war, and was a political maneuver by the RGF against the Tutsi and moderate Hutu RPF. The strife experienced after the 1962 independence cannot be blamed on Belgians.
VK: “And nations such as the US, France, the Netherlands and others were asked for help, but refused.”
It the Belgians who were the first NATO power to offer troops to the UN peacekeeping Force in Rwanda.
VK: In fact, i believe it was the French who supplied the weapons for the Hutu army.
Yes, and Advisors, and troops (against the RPF in 1990-1991 and again in 1993).
VK “And are you saying that Black people were being racist against Black people (which i could agree with”
yes, I am saying that black people were being racist (that’s a euphemism that is inaccurate almost to the point of disrespecting the dead) towards others during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
VK: but this, again, points back to White people and the creation of horizontal racism
No deal vegan ‘David Irving’ kid
Your conclusion is only feasible if one ignores the import African history before European colonialism and then ignores the import African History after European colonialism in a deliberate attempt to slander the Euro-Americans by pretending that the imperial phase of Euro-American culture has the most influence on the world today.
VK: or are you saying that Black people were being racist towards White people (in which case i don’t understand)”
No, I wasn’t saying that, although post-apartheid South Africa, Zimbabwe and American Prisons are interesting cases.
June 8th, 2006 at 2:38 pm douglass - while i have a lot to say, i'm going to step back a moment. i will not dialogue with those that attack me as a holocaust denier. David Irving can rot in hell. and if you are going to compare me to him, so can you. as i said earlier, slanderous remarks on this site will get you banned. i won't fucking stand for it.
in the meantime, here's a document from the UN about the conflict in Rwanda.
unlisted - i'll probably reply to your comment tomorrow.
June 8th, 2006 at 7:51 pm Douglass, Let\'s save the debate about Zimbabwe, South African, and American prisons for another thread. The origins and causes of Black on Black violence need can and should be discussed in another thread, but right now we are getting away from affirmative action into immigration and other issues.
PS-\"No deal vegan ‘David Irving’ kid\" that was a low blow.
June 8th, 2006 at 7:53 pm This comment is for Unlisted.
1) You said, \\\"However, the school has a quota policy mandating that the black/white proportion be equal.\\\"
Quotas are not legal. I stated that in the original post. And having sat on a graduate school admissions committee I can assure you that there are not quotas, and this statement is patently false. In the original post I posted the link to the Supreme Court decision from 1978 that outlawed quotas. Minority set aside programs have also been dismantled, and I believe the case that lead to the is the Crowson case.
2) I also think you are missing the point of social constructionists. We believe in racial differences, and we believe that race is real. Something does not have to be biologically based to be real or have real consequences for people.
3) You said, \\\"If you bring all types of people together, then we are not all going to agree on the basics of social organization and want to live under the same rules. That’s not a problem. It’s what separate countries are for.\\\"
Unlisted we have been bringing diverse groups of people together in this country for hundreds of years, and I think it has worked relatively well. The idea that people who are racially different necessarily can\\\'t get along is absurd. Look at the conversation we are having here....myself VeganKid, Douglass, and you are all Whites, and we don\\\'t agree about how this country should be run and we are all White people. Duh!!
June 8th, 2006 at 10:54 pm r: Quotas are not legal. I stated that in the original post. And having sat on a graduate school admissions committee I can assure you that there are not quotas, and this statement is patently false. In the original post I posted the link to the Supreme Court decision from 1978 that outlawed quotas. Minority set aside programs have also been dismantled, and I believe the case that lead to the is the Crowson case.
Well I stand corrected on that point. However, I know that the government has goals and set asides for minorities. I know for a fact that city governments will not give major contractors a project unless they have the right amount of minorities (read: a few politically connected minority contractors)
r: 2) I also think you are missing the point of social constructionists. We believe in racial differences, and we believe that race is real. Something does not have to be biologically based to be real or have real consequences for people.
Are you saying that there is no biological difference?
r: Unlisted we have been bringing diverse groups of people together in this country for hundreds of years, and I think it has worked relatively well. The idea that people who are racially different necessarily can’t get along is absurd. Look at the conversation we are having here….myself VeganKid, Douglass, and you are all Whites, and we don’t agree about how this country should be run and we are all White people. Duh!!
OK, I see that my point is being missed here. Let me explain it this way:
I am not saying that people who are racially different cannot get along. I am saying that when you import people with different ways of thinking (including how to run a government) this will create problems.
The Saudis for example have a totally different idea of how to run a government than the average American has. You see what I mean now? Would you agree to a Saudi style government being imposed on America? Many Saudis would. This is why it is foolish to push Western values in the Middle East. Likewise there will be conflict here if their numbers increase
These are the types of differences that can't be reconciled
Even inspite of the situation in the 2000 election (whatever one thinks happened) the country did not break down into civil war. The difference between white Democrats and white Republicans and every other party (within the mainstream) is not significant enough to go to war over. Americans agree on a framework of government. They agree to elect their leaders and the one with the most votes win. America does not have a King for life that is above the law.
So people in this country, whites and otherwise, agree to debate within a framework
June 9th, 2006 at 9:28 am Vegankid.
Sorry.
My bad with choosing the Irving Analogy.
My Bad.
I was trying to compare you to a twister of history, and I went too far with Irving. It really came across horribly b/c of Irving's denial of the holocaust, so I retract that comparison and brand it as invalid and asinine.
Still, can you say in all honesty that you DONT skew or take liberties with emphasis in history as to make your political case against Euro American culture?
Rachels,
Why do you wait for my blood like a vulture?
I recall that I tried to avoid such a drift by sending you a (still unanswered) private email on this very topic a few weeks ago; not to mention that I was answering Vegan's question about white/black discrimination, not trying to 'drift' you.
On Irving, I don't want to insult vegan or anyone else. It was my mistake/asshattery that ended up in that asinine and inappropriate comparison.
But, I hope you enjoyed calling me out. (the figurative taste of my blood)
June 9th, 2006 at 3:17 pm Douglass, "Why do you wait for my blood like a vulture?" I don't. LOL!!. I fugured I was answering your question via the AA discussion on my blog, and I thought we could discuss Black on Black violence in another thread.
June 9th, 2006 at 3:37 pm Unlisted said, "Are you saying that there is no biological difference?"
There are biological differences between humans, but race is not a good proxy for looking at genes or biological differences. The notion of distinct biological races is a myth.
Unlisted said, "I am not saying that people who are racially different cannot get along. I am saying that when you import people with different ways of thinking (including how to run a government) this will create problems."
Most people who want to immigrate accept the American republican democracy system, and many of them are leaving these countries because they do not like they way they are run. While I think there are cultural variations in beliefs about power, I don't think it is at all fair to overgeneralize about immigrants. Many immigrants believe in the American dream more than American citizens--think about how many of us don't even vote and are fed up with our political leaders. (Which is a sign that we need some sort of reform in my view. But I think it is important to understand that we already are a country of people with diverse views, and immigrants having been bringing their ideas with them for centuries, and our country hasn't fallen apart. In fact, I think we have improved in many areas.
June 9th, 2006 at 5:20 pm Rachel:
It seems that you are slowly beginning to see my point. So the conflicts in France, Denmark, and Gemany stems from conflicting value systems that can not be reconciled.
Many of those that come from countries in the third world know that their countries are corrupt and feckless and that the economy is pitiful, so they chose to emigrate.
However, they still come with values that conflict with Western values. And it is manifesting itself in violent ways unfortunately for us.
For most of the history of this country, the immigrants came from Europe where certainly there were differences, but they had similar value systems.
Yes there are diverse views here, but if America continues to bring people outside of its values, then we will pay the price that France, Denmark and Germany are paying now
As for reform in the election system, I agree. Perhaps they need to make the election on a Saturday
June 10th, 2006 at 7:34 am Rachel:The notion of distinct biological races is a myth
Yes and no...
YES, in America the question of "race" is much more complicated with the mixing that has happened over the history of this country and more so in Latin America. There are blacks in this country with more European admixture than African. You have light skinned "blacks" (sometimes even having green eyes) in this country calling themselves and identifying as black, and darker African looking Latinos that identify as Latino, yet - socially speaking - the darker skinned Latino is socially "brown"
It is even more complicated in Latin America.
However, in the rest of the world, this has proven to be quite useful. We have to begin to think of race from the bottom up. Or as "clines" or "extended families". When looked at this way, scientists are indeed finding that one CAN correlate people and divide them by certain genetic markers into races/clines or whatever you want to call it. So the Hutus and Tutsis (mentioned above) ARE different "races". Hutus do indeed have certain traits that make them look a certain way, have certain susceptabilities to disease and so on. The same for other peoples.
There was a race of "pygmies" discovered in Indonesia, where the adults averaged 5' tall and were immune to almost none of the diseases that the rest of the world is
So it is junk science to lump an African pygmy, a Dinka tribesman (where it is not strange to see women near 7' tall) and a racially mixed "black" American and try to find some link. When none is found, they say it has no basis. However, now that each group is being looked at seperately, higher correlations are being found
So the problem with this is that many Americans think of race in the context of our own country and see it is largely social, and they are right to a large extent.
June 14th, 2006 at 12:16 am Unlisted: as you yourself have stated, the biological distinctions between races is blurry at best. However, I don't see how this furthers your point.
(Tangentially, it is not clear that Hutus and Tutsis are different "races". I seem to remember, although I am not certain, that it was the Dutch who designated the Hutus and Tutsis as different "races" on the basis of slightly different physical characteristics. But it's not clear that that was any more based in "race" than dividing Americans according to eye colour and calling people with blue eyes a different race from those with dark eyes.)
"So the conflicts in France, Denmark, and Gemany stems from conflicting value systems that can not be reconciled."
Cannot? Or *have not*?
Also, you seem to be implying that it's *immigrants* who are to blame for these conflicts. Don't the French and Danish and Germans have some responsibility for this too, in refusing to be open to new traditions and cultures? Or for being openly prejudiced and discriminatory towards immigrants, thus effectively segregating the population?
"then we will pay the price that France, Denmark and Germany are paying now"
What price is that? They haven't exactly fallen apart.
--IP
June 14th, 2006 at 9:55 am Irrational:
It only becomes blurry when people do not understand it and crudely groups people together.
Outside of the West, particularly in Africa, the Middle East, and SE Asia people look at things through the prism of extended family. This is why Americans have a hard time understanding the dynamics of Iraq and Afghanistan. Hutus and Tutsi are tribes, which are nothing more than extended families. They see themselves as different as a black man and a white man do here in the US. This may seem silly to us in the US, where the differences are much more pronounced and where a person can have ancestors from several continents, but this is very serious to them.
The Hutus and Tutsis were divided that way long before the Dutch arrived. Before the rise of nation-states in Europe, the same was the case with there as well. Anglos and Saxons mixed and became Anglo-Saxons, who became Anglish (English) and so forth. Then people from Europe came to the Americas, slaves were brought from Africa and the Native Americans were already here. Over the centuries, to one extent of the other, they mixed.
English, Scots, Irish, Germans, Italians etc, all mixed with one another to become pretty much a single white race. The average white person is mixed with several European nationalities.
However in much of the rest of the world, they still operate in a tribal frame of mind.
Throughout the Middle East, you have a series of tribes (extended families) that trusts the tribal members, does business with them and does not trust anyone else.
These people can be genetically linked because these tribe members share common ancestors. That is why I am calling them a "race"
What does this have to do with my point?
When you have people who see the world through a highly tribal prism and put them in a society that does not, it creates problems.
No the conflicting value systems CAN NOT be resolved. Muslims are violently opposed to things like homosexuality, legal prostitution, and other things you find in Denmark, for example, that the people in Denmark pride themselves on. There is no middle ground. They must have seperate countries. The Muslims like being Muslims and like their values and will want to bring them with them. They seperate themselves into enclaves and their values clash.
No, France, Denmark and Germany are not falling apart yet, but have you seen the mob violence that beset those countries?
Again: Multiculturalism Means...Multiple Cultures. They just don't agree, so they need to implement programs to persuade a large number of Muslims to exit Europe before there is more conflict.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:13 pm sorry it has taken me so long to get back.
douglass - no, i do not feel that i am twisting hystory. perhaps we are reading different textbooks. i wasn't around 700 years ago, so i don't know the truth. i only know what i read.
I do agree with Rachel in that this conversation has been GREATLY derailed. I have not been a good facilitator in keeping it on track. But since its already off, might as well ride it till it stops.
u: "The Hutus and Tutsis were divided that way long before the Dutch arrived"
yes, but not in the way that you are describing. The Hutus and Tutsis were not ethnic categorizations, they were social. They were more like classes. The Hutus carried out one form of work while the Tutsis carried out another. The work, however, was not necessarily hierarchical in nature (meaning one group did not have dominance over another). They were simply different categories within the monarchy. Like class, the categories were fluid. Unlike class in the US, it did not determine your power or privilege.
It was when the early explorers came that these groups began to be defined more rigidly. Explorers were the first to describe the groups as ethnicities (which is assumed to be a misinterpretation of the existing social groupings). They then exploited the existing divisions to essentially create ethnic identities out of the social identities.
It was colonization that created the hierarchy, putting colonizer on top, then Tutsi, then Hutu, then Twa. They conferred superior intelligence to the Tutsi and granted them privileges above the others. The colonizers then installed history textbooks in every school that "scientifically proved" the ethnic differences. It is believed that it was this systematic brainwashing that solidified the ethnic identifications in the minds of the Rwandans. In order to enforce this ethnic stratification, the colonizers had to create a mandatory identification card stating the holder's ethnic grouping. These cards were still in use during the genocide, and, in fact, played a vital role in identifying the "ethnic" identity of the victims.
Also, you seem to be blurring the lines between culture and race to meet your own definitions.
u: "Muslims are violently opposed to things like homosexuality, legal prostitution, and other things you find in Denmark"
This reminds me of a comment from one friend from Nepal who said "we don't have homosexuals in Nepal." Which was in great contrast the another friend from Nepal who is lesbian. I have met plenty of Queer Muslims to prove this sweeping generalization wrong. And if Muslims as a whole were so violently opposed to homosexuality (unlike the complete embrace that we experience from Christians), then why are there still Queer people in Muslim countries? The US government is obviously opposed to homosexuality, doesn't mean that everyone in the US is.
And unless i'm mistaken, the settlers who came to the US were escaping the same religious persecution that you are describing. We do have freedom of religion here.
u: "The Muslims like being Muslims and like their values and will want to bring them with them."
Unlisted, enough with the sweeping generalizations. From now on i ask that you only speak from persynal experience, not generalization. My experience is that there is just as much variety of thought within Islam as there is within Christianity.
u: "but have you seen the mob violence that beset those countries?"
yes. do you honestly believe that the violence started because Muslims are just violent people? Are you not familiar with what started the uprising in France? Two young Muslims were killed by cops. People were tired of being treated like second class citizens.
u: "Multiculturalism Means…Multiple Cultures. They just don’t agree, so they need to implement programs to persuade a large number of Muslims to exit Europe before there is more conflict."
So you are anti-multiculturalism and pro-segregation?
June 15th, 2006 at 7:02 pm VK:
Burn the textbook.
Seek primary sources.