My Take on Trent Lott

I just ran across this article a few minutes ago. I thought it would be applicable to the discussion... please note that this article is written by a black man.

Here is a quote:
Secretary of State Colin Powell distinguished preferences from affirmative action in his autobiography. "Equal rights and equal opportunity . . . mean just that," said Powell. "They do not mean preferential treatment. Preferences, no matter how well intended, ultimately breed resentment among the nonpreferred. And preferential treatment demeans the achievements that minority Americans win by their own efforts.

Here is the link:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/le20021227.shtml

clint

 

As a matter of fact, I do. How about a society where people are judged not on the color of their skin, but the content of their character?

Sound familiar?


Bruce

 

Colin Powell experienced racism up close and personal. His book My American Journey: An Autobiography, besides being an excellent read, details how he was refused service at a fast-food restaurant while he was wearing his uniform as an officer in the United States Army.

Such an incident is shameful, but it hardly represents the current racial climate in the United States. I'm afraid that the mentioned incident has clouded Secretary Powell's judgement in matters of affirmative action, although I can't say for sure that I would forget such treatment myself.


Bruce

 

As a reluctant supporter of affirmative action policies since the 1960s I've often wished there could be some sort of sunset clause attached to them. They seem to me to me to be just and effective to the extent that they redress past discrimination and strengthen the black middle class, but to the extent that they become permanent it means they have failed.

Regards.
TommyK

 

This is my hope and prayer for America in the future. When all parties concerned will stop perpetuating the evil of racism, largely because it suits very subjective needs, then this country will enjoy the benefits of a colorless orientation.

Steven King

 

I agree with TommyK on the sunset clause.

As for the rest: I don't think there's anyone on this board who wouldn't want to see a colorless society. But we're not there yet, and while we're waiting for the problem to solve itself, entire communities of urban youth are living miserable, violent, and disproportionately short lives. Shouldn't we be doing something about this, to help new generations find good jobs and escape the self-sustaining dependency cycle our own government set up? Dr. King was a man of action, not complacency. I'm pretty sure that if he were here today, he wouldn't be sitting on his hands. I can understand why some people hate affirmative action. What I can't understand is why some folks aren't even worried about the problem. I ask again: If you could get rid of affirmative action, what would you replace it with?


Peace,

 

Tom,

You propose that AA is the solution to a problem. I liked your earlier analogy to war, but this scenario doesn't quite create the same sense of urgency. Believe me there is a problem with race in this country. I think there are people on this board who would NOT want to see a colorless society. However, AA is not the solution. It only hurts race relations in this country.

First of all, I don't know which problem you are referring to. You say that entire communities are living miserable and disproportionately short lives. How does AA help this?

AA will make the work force more diverse, and there is some good in that, but it is at the expense of other citizens. While some may think it is fair due to our history, others may think it is a crappy deal.

The key to improving race relations in this country is to help us to better understand each other. The strength in racisim comes from ignorance. Why is there less overt racism than there was in the earlier part of our history? Because we now have a better understanding of each other.

As far as providing more opportunity, The market should bear that out. Who would patronize an overtly racist company? Not many. Imagine if the McDonalds jingle went like this: "We hate blacks and don't hire them, but would love to take their money." This would not work because this country would not have it. This would devastate their bottom line. If not, it means the communities they are serving are racist. THat is a shared value, so where is the foul?

The problem that we have, at least in the black community is that our leaders attach so much to the past that it is difficult to move into the future. These leaders are black and white. They offer promises that seem pretty good but usually fail to deliver.

Consider the minimum wage issue:

Liberals always offer to raise the minimum wage, and condemn conservatives for not wanting to put more money in your pockets, all the while they neglect to mention that hikes in the minimum wage MUST result in loss of jobs or inflation on an aggregate level, or the small business will suffer profit loss. The result is no increase in buying power. So the entire point is superficial. It only sounds good.

AA is the same way. We have laws...ENFORCE them. AA hasn't saved black youth. if that is the case, then why are blacks proportionatley poorer than they were in the earlier part of the 20th century. AA will not get street thugs to quit their ways, or help ease inner city youth off of their dependence on public aid. The key is to provide the opportunity to do something. That is what was provided me, and it worked......How do I know? Because I NEVER put race on anything. I make my own destiny, and am offended by the notion that I still need white America to play on their knees so that I might have a better chance of winning.

I would rather you just stay out my way, because I have things to do. If you want to help me, do your part to make this country great and let me do mine.

 

I don't have an answer to Toms last question, I wish that I did. Issues like these seem to generate more questions than answers and unfortunately, the ones who ask these questions are sometimes labeled themselves because the questions are not always "PC." Here comes one:
Stipulated: We're not "there" yet and as a result, people are hurt.
Premise: Affirmative Action is a form of reparations that has helped some and not helped others.
Observation: Inner city schools suck (and the neighborhoods are often worse).
Question: Where does society's obligation end and the individuals obligation begin?
In my job, I work (as a co-worker) with a LOT of African guys. They are from Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria, you name it. They work 2 or sometimes three jobs, go to school, raise families and generally are driven to "succeed" in this country.
They have clearly taken responsibility for their own lives. They have overcome huge obstacles just to get here so they can bust their asses, like most immigrants to the US do. On a certain level I believe that this is an existential question, at what point do you become responsible for your own life? Affirmative Action is an "external" solution, one imposed by the law of society. What of the "internal" solution?
Jack

 

You are assuming a lot Tom, if you believe that anyone that disagrees with you doesn't care about the things that you care about.

You repeatedly demand that we give you a solution. Well, I don't have any facile solutions for you, and you don't have any answers either.

I do think that the ideal for this country is a society in which skin color is no more important than hair color. To reach that goal, we HAVE to stop obsessing about race. We have to stop accentuating racial divisions at every opportunity. We have to start placing our emphasis on things that we all share with one another, things that bring us together rather than drive us apart.

If some subset of African-Americans suffer from problems, the problems *have* to be identifiable separately from the sufferer's race. If they aren't, you have a tautological situation in which part of the meaning of "black" is "problem". But if problems can be identified without reference to the skin color of their sufferer, then why not address the problems directly?

Attempts must always be made to maximize opportunity. Despite the misfortunes of birth, circumstance or bad choices, people should always have a viable option readily available to improve their lives.

But eligibility should be colorblind. There is nothing radical or unprecedented about what I'm saying.

The advantages would be that needy whites would not be forgotten or contemptuously dismissed. And even more importantly, African-Americans would be freed of the stigma that says that they are completely unable to cope without the benevolent (and subtly arrogant) stewardship of whites.

Colorblind programs that are based not only on need, but on a demonstrated desire to change.

These would have to address people where they are at, by trying to get people to learn to read and write, complete a credible secondary education, develop the ability to hold a job, deal with drug and alcohol dependencies, avoid unwanted pregnancies, care properly for the kids they have already generated, avoid participating in crime and violence and so on.

These aren't exclusively black problems by any means, though some black communities are affected by them particularly severely.

But making jobs or university programs preferentially available to members of politically favored races does nothing at all for the communities that most need help and for the individuals who don't hold jobs or attend universities. Racial preferences are a symbolic gesture at best, one seemingly designed to build and reward the political coalitions of the left.

 

Darren --

I really don't think there are any overt racists among the regulars on this board. I could be wrong, of course (I've skipped a few threads), but I just haven't seen any. If an example comes to mind, please feel free to PM me.

As for minimum wage: most liberals do not support a minimum wage hiked into infinity, but rather have a very specific goal in mind: to keep the minimum wage at a consistent and fair practical value, taking inflation and cost of living into account. Most conservatives do not object to this. Where liberals and conservatives disagree is over the issue of what constitutes a consistent and fair practical value. The situation is necessarily adversarial. Liberals represent the lower-income folks who receive the minimum wage money while conservatives represent the businesses that have to pay for it. Both have valid concerns, and both are forced to compromise--which means that both concerns are inevitably represented in the final product. I like that scenario. It's one of those rare cases where partisanship brings practical benefits.

Jack --

I think you've hit the AA issue on the head. I favor an external solution because I feel that this is an external problem--the government created it, and the government should be held responsible for solving it. Jim Crow threw the punch, so Jim Crow should pay the hospital bill.

I'd agree that many external problems can be solved internally, but that does not necessarily alleviate external responsibility or make the internal situation a fair one. If I'm subject to torture, there are probably yogic disciplines that could prevent me from completely feeling the pain--but that doesn't mean that it's okay to torture me. I think we both do see the problem and want a solution, so we're on the same page philosophically. The practical issue of whether AA is an effective solution is less important, to me, than recognizing that the problem exists and making a conscious effort to solve it. I'm not at all sure that AA is a good idea; but I'm completely sure that the problem it was created to address should be addressed.


Cheers,

 

Tom - I think we agree far more than we disagree. I'm simply trying to point out that a solution that is ENTIRELY external won't work. There needs to be some concomitant internal solution at work.
Jack

 

That very nicely sums up a major reason why I despise A.A. I would be highly insulted if the government deemed me so inherently inferior that I required special set-asides and quotas in order to compete against people of other races. A.A. does nothing but create bad feelings all-around, and I think it's high time to admit it was a well-intentioned idea with horrendous execution, and put it to rest.


Bruce

 

Regarding Affirmative Action, there are some who have considered replacing it with something more like a recognition of a need for economic affirmative action. In other words someone impoverished in an inner city housing project, hungry, with bad schools and is African American probably has more in common with someone from Appalachia (spelling??) who is white, poor, hungry and with bad schools than upper class whites or African Americans. Why do the children of affluent African Americans from Atlanta need a hand up (or white kids in the same situation).

That is not to deny racism. It is an attitude that is being eroded with time. It exists everwhere. As an Anglo I have experienced it in a predominantly Hispanic area where I have been next in a store line and ignored in favor of Hispanics behind me (has happened to my wife as well who complained to store mgt). I had a Hispanic friend who said a person she knew in charge of hiring for a company did not like Anglos so he would advertise for bilingual/bicultural folks and that way he would not have to hire a bilingual Anglo man or woman. It is just a sad part of human nature.

What I do agree with is that in the area of presenting images of African Americans (and others) we need to continue to work on providing a broad spectrum of images. Last night on BET on Ed Gordon's program I heard an African American who said this image issue is partially the fault of African Americans who push forward those negative stereotypes (eg Gansta Rap). There is no doubt however, that there are those of European American extraction who harbor stereotypes and do discriminate. As I say that crosses lines. I have heard the most ridiculous anti semetic stereotypes from white racists but also African American racists (eg Jesse J). I rmember an African American Sgt in the Army who looked at the new car a Jewish E-4 had bought and said "Oh, you know those Jews, they all have money". Little did she know the guy was in hock up to his eye balls and no longer had disposable income.

Sadly, racism is a universal problem.

This is getting long but one of the more interesting PBS programs I once saw was on how Jewish folks dealt with racism. There was a time when no one would hire them in the 40's & 50's and they could not attend camps, or do residencies in hospitals and so to overcome this they founded their own kid's camps, hospitals, etc. Really remarkable (sad part of US history).

North

 

I agree with Bill Dayson that any affirmative action should be colour blind.

The ability to rise or fall in social class should relate to one's abilities, efforts and desires, regardless of colour.

Preferences granted on the basis of ethnicity do not affect the well entrenched half of the dominant culture.

The people who would suffer from affirmative action are the poorer members of the dominant cuture who are often no better off than the ethnic minorities, who are being helped.

Equality of opportunity is a must. Preferences based on ethnicity are just wrong.

North's post done while I was composing my reply details my concerns, a bit better than I did.

 

One more article

Here is another good article (in my opinion) about race in America. Some good food for thought...

Here are some excerpts:


"Blacks are much more than a label. They are rich and poor. And they rise and fall on their own merits. Perhaps it is time our civil rights leaders took notice of this fact. Instead of harping on the message of retribution, perhaps they ought to focus on what it takes to make it in this world."


"In fact, the Bush administration is studded with more black American than any previous administration. "

Read the whole thing at

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Armstrongwilliams/aw20021231.shtml

clint