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.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6033
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
Yes, and what you will find is that in the same school kids of different demographic groups will perform differently. The order of performance usually goes like this:
2nd generation Asians-1st
Whites and 3rd generation and greater Asians-2nd
Hispanics-3rd
African-Americans-4th
Immigrant blacks often perform as well or better than whites. While African-American females outperform African-American males.
All this points to the family environment and culture as the leading causes of academic success and failure.
It helps if the kid has two active and involved parents.
No, it doesnt.
it says that we select immigrants. You cant just come to this country, those who make it here are the best of the best.
The civil rights movement is where credit is going & it goes without saying, the movement is still a necessary part of a healthy democracy.
The libertarian philosophy was/is impotent in addressing civil rights. It's an incomplete ideology, lacking in important areas, civil rights being just one.
People are 'watchdogs' to ensure problems are solved, even or especially those created by government. 'My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; & if wrong, to be set right.' (Carl Schurz)
How did the libertarian philosophy handle Jim Crowe laws? How did it address 'separate but equal' dogma?
Jim Crow laws are anti-libertarian...they're laws. That's what I meant by crediting the government for solving a problem it was to blame for in the first place. One group wanted to use the law to harm blacks, and when there was already enough support to change those laws, they were "outlawed" or repealed. Now people will credit the repealing of already anti-libertarian laws to the government and act as if libertarians would have kept Jim Crow in place. They wouldn't have supported it to begin with.
The movement itself was what changed society, not the laws. The law follows popular societal beliefs. The separate but equal crap was combated through social movements and changing people's ideas of what should be acceptable behavior. The only thing the law did was force the remaining bigots to associate with people they didn't like, which is anyone's right even if it makes them a jerk. I might be a jerk for not helping my cousin move into a new apartment, but I shouldn't be forced to by law. Same principle applies to any interaction with any person.
People just aren't principled at all. You have to be consistent. If you don't like me, even for a stupid reason like my skin color or my hair or my taste in music, I shouldn't be able to force you to interact with me. (Although I do understand the temptation to break that principle for what is seen as a good cause)
Jim Crow laws are anti-libertarian...they're laws. That's what I meant by crediting the government for solving a problem it was to blame for in the first place. One group wanted to use the law to harm blacks, and when there was already enough support to change those laws, they were "outlawed" or repealed. Now people will credit the repealing of already anti-libertarian laws to the government and act as if libertarians would have kept Jim Crow in place. They wouldn't have supported it to begin with.
The movement itself was what changed society, not the laws. The law follows popular societal beliefs. The separate but equal crap was combated through social movements and changing people's ideas of what should be acceptable behavior. The only thing the law did was force the remaining bigots to associate with people they didn't like, which is anyone's right even if it makes them a jerk. I might be a jerk for not helping my cousin move into a new apartment, but I shouldn't be forced to by law. Same principle applies to any interaction with any person.
People just aren't principled at all. You have to be consistent. If you don't like me, even for a stupid reason like my skin color or my hair or my taste in music, I shouldn't be able to force you to interact with me.
"If you don't like me, even for a stupid reason like my skin color or my hair or my taste in music, I shouldn't be able to force you to interact with me."
& how is that not the underlying or root cause of Jim Crowe laws?
Some folks didn't want to interact with other folks based on the color of their skin.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, regarded as controversial at the time of passing, desegregated much of the federal bureaucracy and public accommodations at the state and municipal level in addition to eliminating poll taxes and literacy tests used to disenfranchise minorities in the southern United States. None of these stipulations are controversial from a libertarian perspective per say. Public facilities, funded by money acquired through forceful acquisition, should be open to those who have no other choice but to fund them. The existence of these public institutions is what tends to irk libertarians.
The problematic aspects of the Civil Rights Act come down to Title II and Title VII which outlaw discriminatory hiring and selling practices by private employers. Such an egalitarian mandate, admittedly, sounds wonderful from a social engineering perspective. If your idea of what constitutes a just society is one where everyone treats all races and genders equally, how better to accomplish such a utopia then literally forcing people to behave accordingly with threat of monetary penalties and imprisonment?
it says that we select immigrants. You cant just come to this country, those who make it here are the best of the best.
You seem to have focused on only one part of my post. Why do African-American females dominate when compared to African-American males the higher echelon of test scores unlike practically every other racial/ethnic demographic?
No, that means the problem is leadership, not the fact that it is a public school itself.
Inadequate availability of a quality education in public schools is a decades-long problem. What hope will there ever be that public school "leadership" will ever get their act together?
Quote:
if the problem was public schools, then they all would be failing.
Let's recap...
U.S. public schools educate only 26% of all public school students to even basic grade-level proficiency in math, 38% in reading, by 12th grade.
In what world is adequately educating only 26% and 38% of all students, respectively, not "failing?"
And that in and of itself is bad enough, but pay very careful attention to the much lower basic proficiency percentages for Black students.
Black students' basic math proficiency percentage by 12th grade: 7%
Basic reading proficiency percentage by 12th grade: 16%
Are Blacks inherently less intelligent than everyone else? I don't think so. Or are Democrats insisting on keeping them trapped in subpar public schools to keep teachers unions happy?
Again, think very carefully about how Dems only care about teachers unions' donations and votes, and don't give a sh*t about kids and their future, and ask yourself why youconsistently come down on the side of dumbing-down our country's kids.
Jim Crow laws are anti-libertarian...they're laws. That's what I meant by crediting the government for solving a problem it was to blame for in the first place. One group wanted to use the law to harm blacks, and when there was already enough support to change those laws, they were "outlawed" or repealed. Now people will credit the repealing of already anti-libertarian laws to the government and act as if libertarians would have kept Jim Crow in place. They wouldn't have supported it to begin with.
The movement itself was what changed society, not the laws. The law follows popular societal beliefs. The separate but equal crap was combated through social movements and changing people's ideas of what should be acceptable behavior. The only thing the law did was force the remaining bigots to associate with people they didn't like, which is anyone's right even if it makes them a jerk. I might be a jerk for not helping my cousin move into a new apartment, but I shouldn't be forced to by law. Same principle applies to any interaction with any person.
People just aren't principled at all. You have to be consistent. If you don't like me, even for a stupid reason like my skin color or my hair or my taste in music, I shouldn't be able to force you to interact with me. (Although I do understand the temptation to break that principle for what is seen as a good cause)
So folks who fought the Civil Right movement were fighting for their libertarian right to be a jerk?
The Civil Rights movement changed peoples' thoughtviews. The laws followed. The rest we are living.
Legislation on labor (here in US) tended to change how people feel about labor.
Legislation on immigration (here in US) tended to change how people feel about immigration.
Legislation on business (here in US) tended to change how people feel about business.
Legislation on the institution of slavery (here in US) tended to change how people feel about slavery.
Legislation on sexuality (here in US) tended to change how people feel about sexuality.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, regarded as controversial at the time of passing, desegregated much of the federal bureaucracy and public accommodations at the state and municipal level in addition to eliminating poll taxes and literacy tests used to disenfranchise minorities in the southern United States. None of these stipulations are controversial from a libertarian perspective per say. Public facilities, funded by money acquired through forceful acquisition, should be open to those who have no other choice but to fund them. The existence of these public institutions is what tends to irk libertarians.
The problematic aspects of the Civil Rights Act come down to Title II and Title VII which outlaw discriminatory hiring and selling practices by private employers. Such an egalitarian mandate, admittedly, sounds wonderful from a social engineering perspective. If your idea of what constitutes a just society is one where everyone treats all races and genders equally, how better to accomplish such a utopia then literally forcing people to behave accordingly with threat of monetary penalties and imprisonment?
Yes, the same point Goldwater made along with questioning the constitutionality of those sections. Libertarians generally believe that governments should not be able to discriminate, but individuals, including individuals who own businesses should be. I personally would not want to eat in a restaurant where interracial couples, such as myself and my wife, are despised. Nor would I eat at a restaurant or shop in a store where the shop owner was interested in any color but green. Libertarians have more faith in the free market than you do. Remember segregation was often enforced by laws (i.e. Jim Crow). The segregationists rightfully feared the power of the free market.
What percentage of businesses do you believe would turn down African-American customers today if those Title II and Title VII were suddenly repealed? Of course it will not happen. A Libertarian President would not be able to enact his will any easier than a Republican or Democrat President. In fact, he would probably have a more difficult time. Repealing those articles is not a high priority for most libertarians. You would most likely do get a softening of penalties for drug crimes which would disproportionately help African-Americans.
"If you don't like me, even for a stupid reason like my skin color or my hair or my taste in music, I shouldn't be able to force you to interact with me."
& how is that not the underlying or root cause of Jim Crowe laws?
Some folks didn't want to interact with other folks based on the color of their skin.
Jim Crow laws enforced segregation. Libertarians are against forcing people to interact OR preventing them if they want to interact.
Yes, the same point Goldwater made along with questioning the constitutionality of those sections. Libertarians generally believe that governments should not be able to discriminate, but individuals, including individuals who own businesses should be. I personally would not want to eat in a restaurant where interracial couples, such as myself and my wife, are despised. Nor would I eat at a restaurant or shop in a store where the shop owner was interested in any color but green. Libertarians have more faith in the free market than you do. Remember segregation was often enforced by laws (i.e. Jim Crow). The segregationists rightfully feared the power of the free market.
What percentage of businesses do you believe would turn down African-American customers today if those Title II and Title VII were suddenly repealed? Of course it will not happen. A Libertarian President would not be able to enact his will any easier than a Republican or Democrat President. In fact, he would probably have a more difficult time. Repealing those articles is not a high priority for most libertarians. You would most likely do get a softening of penalties for drug crimes which would disproportionately help African-Americans.
And yet, the social views on discrimination and segregation didn't happen automatically. They happened because we passed laws that eventually changed social views. Without the Civil Rights Act we may still have widespread segregation. There still is segregation in housing because it's harder to police.
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.
