Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even more questionable is why Hispanics(or basically any non-black) deserve special treatment at all. They were never enslaved, and the Italians and Irish were treated far worse back in the day and yet got zero affirmative action help.
Though I would agree that Italians and Irish were treated with oppression when they immigrated to this countr initially, they were not treated "far worse" than blacks or hispanics to a degree. Black Americans especially were enslaved, no matter what many people here on CD believe, indentured servitude doe not equal enslavement. Want to also state though that many blacks in the beginning colonization years were indentured servants, but many of them were also enslaved upon the end of the servitude. Free blacks had a horrible time in early colonial time in regards to being able to prove their freedom. If they could not, they were easily enslaved. That did not happen to Italians or Irish. Also there were not as many state laws on the books in various states, especially in the south that limited the citizenship of Italians and Irish in this country. Many Irish especially lived in the south and made a good living. There were even well-to-do Irish plantation owners of slaves in the south who were afforded all the benefits of American citizenship even though they were foreign born, unike black Americans. Both of these groups could more easily navigate through our society, and their children especially had a much better existence than black Americans of the same generation as they could easily change their name and didn't have the accent that their parents brought from the old country. Blacks were always black, unless they could pass, and as such, they could not escape their oppression.
And FWIW, I'm sure many women of Irish and Italian descent have benefitted from affirmative action and other civil rights legislation. I believe there was a case brought forth by the NAACP legal defense fund for a woman, I believe her last name was Marietta and she was Italian. Cannot remember it offhand so may be mistaken, but they won the case for her in regards to labor rights in the work place for working mothers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
That is unsupported. Segregation was mandated through many state and local laws. That is illegal and a violation of liberties.
If you are talking "social" segregation, well... this does occur, but it happens due to individual choice. You will also find that it is not any specific race or culture that applies it. You see all types of communities that tend to have a stronger lean to a certain demographic. That said, you will not see mandates, nor do you see in these situations where it is a 100% consistent to such.
In order for segregation to come back, there would have to be laws (look up Jim Crow laws) applied and since that is not legal, there can't be any such mandated segregation.
Not all segregation was mandated through state laws, especially not in the northern and western areas of the country. It was just a systematic racism and oppressive tradition that denied blacks and hispanics and Asians access to certain neighborhoods, jobs, and schools. Jim Crow laws only applied in specific states. There was segregation in all major cities in our country, including NYC, Chicago, and LA that were not based on laws. Chicago especially comes to mind, as well as Philadelphia due to texts I have read regarding these specific cities and the plight of black people living there in the early to mid 1900s. Even Dr. King mentioned that when he went to Chicago he had to pay more money to live in a substandard tenement in the black neighborhood versus what a white person paid for a nicer living arrangement due to the traditional segregation of the city that started in the late 1800s. Chicago segregation was not enforced by law. Even here in Atlanta, I recently watched a snippet shown by the Atlanta History Center on our local PBS (this day in GA history) channel that spoke of the city parks here in Atlanta. Black people were not specifically denied access to parks via laws but it was "known" that they could not come to those parks. The snippet of history spoke of how two black individuals went to a park not to far from where I live - Bitsy Grant Tennis Center and when they went to play tennis there, they were told the park was closed lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterboy7375
Why would someone want to work for a buss that is made up of people that dont like them?
To make money. My grandma worked for a large car parts manufacturer in their office headquarters and was the only black person there for a long time, I believe 20 years. She worked in the office, not the factory, where blacks did work. She told me she endured lots of "soft racism" and prejudice during her time there but that she made good money and she did her job and threw it in their face that she was a good worker. She honestly believed they hired her because she was black and they didn't want to get in trouble with the law after the passage of the CRM, they tried to fire her at least 3 times she told me about telling her she had to meet some sort of new criteria - like get a 2 year degree, within a particular amount of time. She had to get the 2 year degree within 1 year. Everything ridiculous thing they told her, she did so they were never able to fire her. She made sure to retire early, she retired at age 55 just to get away from them and it was hilarious because she went and worked at Arby's after that because she liked working and wanted an easy part time job lol. FWIW, she like many older black people, did not have a good opinion of white people due to her interactions with them in the workplace. We were both born and raised in Ohio, not the south.
I asked you to explain how this is a race issue, in order to stay within topic. You provided no link to such. Your response would be better off in a thread that discusses capitalism rather than this one. I will not respond to your argument as it would further derail the topic.
I'm responding to this statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
I think liberty is best served by protecting an individuals right to be free to choose who they will work for and who they will hire regardless of the subjective factors they choose to apply.
History demonstrates that Americans working for corporations have real trouble hiring the most qualified candidates. And what they do in order to hire people whom look like them or entertain them or benefit them personally is choose employees based on what are called "soft" skills. Those soft skills are completely subjective. So, what you're suggesting is that you support bigotry in corporate hiring.
Last edited by The Homogenizer; 10-11-2012 at 08:23 PM..
Heres a great idea, lets get NBA commissioner David Stern to add affirmative action to their league. Since blacks comprise less than 20% of the US population no team can have more than 20% black players. It'll be a bunch of white players and we'll also force some teams to find some of the more uncommon US minorities such as Chippewa, Indian, Phillipino, and Polynesians for example. Every group must have representation. What? You say the quality of the product would suffer and that the players should be selected based on skill like it is now? Blasphemy!!
Sports are a meritocracy because the white men who own the teams know that employing the best players will make them the most money. Only a few men can play sports at an elite level. Not the same for lawyers, doctors, cops, cooks, teachers, etc.
We could use some affirmative action in the front office and the coaching ranks, however.....
Orange should be given a shot as well, if Orange meets the right credentials that I am looking for I will hire. I do not want an all orange, green, white, black or brown staff. You must have diversity and you must garner by equal level plane when hiring for your team.
History demonstrates that Americans working for corporations have real trouble hiring the most qualified candidates.
Invalid premise, unsupported, speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Homogenizer
And what they do in order to hire people whom look like them or entertain them or benefit them personally is choose employees based on what are called "soft" skills. Those soft skills are completely subjective.
Again, speculation and generalization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Homogenizer
So, what you're suggesting is that you support bigotry in corporate hiring.
Speculation of conclusion that is unsupported by even the invalid premises. They aren't even related. You go from a claim that is generalized, to another generalization and then without proper support make a conclusion that is not supported by either of your premises.
Honestly, I have seen some poor logical arguments, but this one is out there. It doesn't even have a relational structure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
