Debate: White Supremacy Vs. Self Accountability/Responsibility

[Billy Ocean]

@Take It In Blood, we waiting on your response. You setting your self up for that next ban for spreading alt-right drivel, children touching cac fakkit.

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

I ain't googling all those name. Name a law, what it does and how you think it undermines black people. Then we can move forward from there.

I also don't think requiring ID to vote is racist. It just makes sense

Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity, and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.

Sealioning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mowgli]

It's easier to be a bum ass nikka

 

[Take It In Blood]

Sealioning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

i disagree with your generalization but keep on keeping on



simply asked you to break down a single law and how u think it holds us back so we all could partake in the conversation

that way things would be much easier to tackle and we aren't just making broad generalization back and forth at eachother.

 

[Tair]

I'm not an economics professor but I agree the wealth gap is a real thing

is racist white people the cause? I don't know.

America in general has a class issue that affects ppl of all backgrounds, Capitalism is the problem imo.

But you admitted earlier that in regards to racism being done upon Black people:

"Are black people still currently suffering and dealing with the consequences of those past injustices?

or course."​

(I assume you meant "of course" but I didn't want to alter your words)


If racist white people caused those past injustices and are now changing and acting upon certain laws/policies (or not acting on certain policies and neglecting the needs of Black people) to further disenfranchise Black people or keep us on the bottom, how are you uncertain whether they are the cause or not of our current predicament?
There is some level of accountability that Black people must have, that I agree with, but to completely deny that white supremacy is a primary function of Black dysfunction and being a bottom-caste in America - given what I posted and what you admitted to - comes off as disingenuous.

Also Dr. William Darity is a well accomplished and distinguished economist and researcher. His book, "From Here to Equality" should be required reading.

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

i disagree with your generalization but keep on keeping on

You're a clown who does nothing but dismiss/downplay anti-Black racism.

 

[Take It In Blood]

But you admitted earlier that in regards to racism being done upon Black people:

"Are black people still currently suffering and dealing with the consequences of those past injustices?

or course."​

(I assume you meant "of course" but I didn't want to alter your words)


If racist white people caused those past injustices and are now changing and acting upon certain laws to further disenfranchise Black people or keep us on the bottom, how are you uncertain whether they are the cause or not of our current predicament?
There is some level of accountability that Black people must have, that I agree with, but to completely deny that white supremacy is a primary function of Black dysfunction and being a bottom-caste in America - given what I posted and what you admitted to - comes off as disingenuous.

Also Dr. William Darity is a well accomplished and distinguished economist and researcher. His book, "From Here to Equality" should be required reading.

There were definitely laws in the past that held us back. Theres no denying that

But in this current climate I feel like laws have since changed for the better

to the point where we can actually have lower scores on admission test and still get in a university over someone who isn't black who had a higher score. (this is why asians are currently upset at us)

All things considered equal, same skill set, same level of intellect and drive and we are actually in a far better better position to succeed than your average white person right now (this is why the trailer park types are currently angry and shooting up sh1t)

The only downside is we aren't lucky enough to benefit from alot of that inherited wealth that often gives whites a head start from the cradle.

You're a clown who does nothing but dismiss/downplay anti-Black racism.

I disagree

Ad hominems also aren't neccessary

 

[Billy Ocean]

You're a clown who does nothing but dismiss/downplay anti-Black racism.

That cac has been banned several times for the same shyt he's doing in here and also for pedo shyt. He's gonna get banned again soon.

 

[Billy Ocean]

All things measured equal, same skill set, same level of intellect and drive and we are actually in a far better better position to succeed than your average white person right now

Bookmarked.

 

[Tair]

There were definitely laws in the past that held us back. Theres no denying that

But in this current climate I feel like laws have since changed for the better

to the point where we can actually have lower scores on admission test and still get in a university over someone who isn't black who had a higher score. (this is why asians are currently upset at us)

All things considered equal, same skill set, same level of intellect and drive and we are actually in a far better better position to succeed than your average white person right now

The only downside is we aren't lucky enough to benefit from alot of that inherited wealth that often gives whites a head start from the cradle.

The AA policy helps white people more than it helps Black people.

In fact, if you think about it, AA helps white men through helping white women. White women marry and have white kids (boys and girls) with white men. So their family wealth ends up rising due to white women securing higher paying jobs/positions which allow for their children to attend better schools, etc... It is a con game, really, and makes Black people the face of a policy that isn't as beneficial to us as other policies would be.

In fact, Thurgood Marshall pointed this in his dissent of UC Regents vs Bakke

---

Justice Thurgood Marshall's emphatic dissent helped crystallize the black-white prism through which the case is viewed. His opinion begins, "I do not agree that petitioner's admissions program violates the Constitution. For it must be remembered that, during most of the past 200 years, the Constitution as interpreted by this Court did not prohibit the most ingenious and pervasive forms of discrimination against the Negro. Now, when a State acts to remedy the effects of that legacy of discrimination, I cannot believe that this same Constitution stands as a barrier."

The strange thing about this framing of the case is that African Americans not only weren't the only beneficiaries of the minority quota that University of Davis Medical School established, they weren't even the primary beneficiaries. As Justice Powell explained, in 1971 Davis increased the medical school class size from 50 to 100, and "from 1971—through 1974, the special program resulted in the admission of 21 black students, 30 Mexican-Americans, and 12 Asians, for a total of 63 minority students. Over the same period, the regular admissions program produced 1 black, 6 Mexican-Americans, and 37 Asians, for a total of 44 minority students."

Two things are notable about these statistics. First, almost 50% more Mexican-Americans than African Americans were admitted under the affirmative action/quota program.

Second, out of 400 students in four years, under regular admissions 37 Asians were admitted, or almost 10% of the class. At the time, Asian Americans were about 2.5% of California's population. Despite Asians being present well above their demographic percentage in the class via regular admissions, 12 additional Asians were admitted under the minority quota. Regardless of whether one's rationale for affirmative action is "diversity" (as Justice Powell pioneered in his Bakke concurrence) or recompense for exclusion from educational opportunities due to historical and current discrimination, it's hard to see the legal rationale for "Asian preferences" given their strong representation among the student body without such preferences.

In the Court's various opinions, meanwhile, the words "Negro" or "Negroes" appear dozens of times; Asians and Mexicans are barely mentioned. Justice Powell's opinion does have a footnote addressing the Asian anomaly: "The University is unable to explain its selection of only the four favored groups—Negroes, Mexican-Americans, American-Indians, and Asians—for preferential treatment. The inclusion of the last group is especially curious in light of the substantial numbers of Asians admitted through the regular admissions process." But that's about it.
​

source: An Interesting Historical Note About the Bakke Case

---

​

This is further exemplified in my post with all the links to other coli threads showing how Black people are often not hired even though we may have the same qualifications, etc... But, other races are hired over us under an AA policy.

 

[Take It In Blood]

The AA policy helps white people more than it helps Black people.

In fact, if you think about it, AA helps white men through helping white women. White women marry and have white kids (boys and girls) with white men. So their family wealth ends up rising due to white women securing higher paying jobs/positions which allow for their children to attend better schools, etc... It is a con game, really, and makes Black people the face of a policy that isn't as beneficial to us as other policies would be.

In fact, Thurgood Marshall pointed this in his dissent of UC Regents vs Bakke

---

. . . today’s judgment ignores the fact that for several hundred years Negroes have been discriminated against, not as individuals, but rather solely because of the color of their skins. It is unnecessary in 20th-century America to have individual Negroes demonstrate that they have been victims of racial discrimination; the racism of our society has been so pervasive that none, regardless of wealth or position, has managed to escape its impact. The experience of Negroes in America has been different in kind, not just in degree, from that of other ethnic groups. It is not merely the history of slavery alone but also that a whole people were marked as inferior by the law. And that mark has endured. The dream of America as the great melting pot has not been realized for the Negro; because of his skin color he never even made it into the pot.

These differences in the experience of the Negro make it difficult for me to accept that Negroes cannot be afforded greater protection under the Fourteenth Amendment where it is necessary to remedy the effects of past discrimination. . . .

It is because of a legacy of unequal treatment that we now must permit the institutions of this society to give consideration to race in making decisions about who will hold the positions of influence, affluence, and prestige in America. For far too long, the doors to those positions have been shut to Negroes. If we are ever to become a fully integrated society, one in which the color of a person’s skin will not determine the opportunities available to him or her, we must be willing to take steps to open those doors. I do not believe that anyone can truly look into America’s past and still find that a remedy for the effects of that past is impermissible.
. . .
I fear that we have come full circle. After the Civil War our Government started several “affirmative action” programs. This Court in the Civil Rights Cases and Plessy v. Ferguson destroyed the movement toward complete equality. For almost a century no action was taken, and this nonaction was with the tacit approval of the courts. Then we had Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Acts of Congress, followed by numerous affirmative-action programs. Now, we have this Court again stepping in, this time to stop affirmative-action programs of the type used by the University of California.​

---

​

Thurgood Marshall also pointed out that UC was accepting more Asian and Hispanic applicants than it was accepting Black applicants, but AA was/is seen as a Black policy. This is further exemplified in my post with all the links to other coli threads showing how Black people are often not hired even though we may have the same qualifications, etc... But, other races are hired over us under an AA policy.

I don't understand how affirmation action helps white women

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

There were definitely laws in the past that held us back. Theres no denying that

But in this current climate I feel like laws have since changed for the better

to the point where we can actually have lower scores on admission test and still get in a university over someone who isn't black who had a higher score. (this is why asians are currently upset at us)

All things considered equal, same skill set, same level of intellect and drive and we are actually in a far better better position to succeed than your average white person right now

The only downside is we aren't lucky enough to benefit from alot of that inherited wealth that often gives whites a head start from the cradle.

Perhaps one of the biggest misconceptions about affirmative action is that it gives Black and Latinx applicants an unfair advantage. But affirmative action-style policies can be used to increase diversity in more than just racial terms. (And class-based affirmative action programs can also increase socioeconomic diversity in schools.) Many have argued that white women have historically benefited significantly from it.

Though some may believe otherwise, the use of affirmative action doesn’t mean that universities blindly accept unqualified applicants simply to fill some specified quota. In fact, in 1978 the Supreme Court ruled that using racial quotas in college admissions is unconstitutional. But it is legal to consider race (or another minority status) as one of many factors in an admissions decision. “It’s looking at the whole student,” Cookson says. “You can look at their background, their essays, all the things that people put into their applications.It’s a process of making a judgment about who will be successful and who will fit into the school.” For example, he notes, admissions officers may also consider things like special skills (such as musical or athletic ability) and even academic specialties as factors when admitting applicants to make up a diverse student body.


And that plays into what Cookson thinks is another misguided belief relating to affirmative action: that GPAs and test scores should be the only criteria used to evaluate applicants. For example, in the case of the Asian American applicants represented in the lawsuit (which was filed by the nonprofit Students for Fair Admissions) against Harvard, they may have had higher grades or test scores than some other BIPOC students who were accepted, but that doesn’t mean they were the most qualified or the best fit for the school. “A university is in large part defined by those intangible ‘qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness,’” Justice Kennedy wrote in the Supreme Court majority opinion in Fisher’s case. “Considerable deference is owed to a university in defining those intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission.”

Cookson emphasizes that point as well. “Standardized tests don’t really explain much of...what it takes to be successful in college,” he says. “I’m not saying they’re not important, but there are many other things that matter: determination, grit, background. If you look at kids who come from low-income families who do get into college, often they’ve overcome tremendous odds to get there and they have all kinds of personal characteristics that are [valuable] not only to college but also...to society. So I think we need to broaden the discussion about that and what makes for a really healthy, diverse, inclusive, intellectually stimulating student body.”

Asian-American Groups Split Over Affirmative Action Complaint

<b>While one set of advocacy groups is demanding a federal investigation into Harvard's admissions practices, another has rebuked the complaint and defended affirmative action.</b>

www.buzzfeednews.com

Betty Hung, policy director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice in Los Angeles and the author of the open letter supporting affirmative action, disagrees with Espenshade about the implications of his research. She said the error of the Harvard complaint lies not in decrying discrimination against Asians, but in identifying affirmative action as the culprit. The complaint accuses Harvard of applying de facto racial quotas, but "affirmative action does not constitute quotas," Hung said. Instead, "it's simply taking account whether a candidate has overcome racial adversity and discrimination" in so-called "holistic" reviews of applicants. Hung also pointed to a recent survey by her organization that found that 69% of Asian-Americans support affirmative action in higher education. Other polls have shown similar levels of support overall, but that support varies among different Asian-American subgroups.

Most Asians support AA as well. Matter of fact, the single individual driving the push to destroy AA and exploiting Asian-Americans is a racist white man named Edward Blum.

Meet Edward Blum, the Man Who Wants to Kill Affirmative Action in Higher Education

Shelby County v. Holder - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How a Pivotal Voting Rights Act Case Broke America

In the five years since the landmark decision, the Supreme Court has set the stage for a new era of white hegemony.

www.theatlantic.com

So it all comes back around to racist white people working to undermine Black interests.

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

I don't understand how affirmation action helps white women

Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone | TIME.com

Their successes make the case not for abandoning affirmative action but for continuing it

ideas.time.com

 

[Take It In Blood]

Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone | TIME.com

Their successes make the case not for abandoning affirmative action but for continuing it

ideas.time.com

thanks, bookmarked and will digest it later

 

[Tair]

I don't understand how affirmation action helps white women

Some history

---

Sex discrimination protections were not included when affirmative action policy was initially institutionalized in the 1960s.

The National Labor Relations Act in 1935 was one of the first federal documents to use the term "affirmative action" to correct unfair labor practices. While the Public Works Administration temporarily followed racially proportional hiring practices (which were dismantled at the end of World War II), it wasn't until President John F. Kennedy issued an executive order in 1961 requiring affirmative action to counter employment discrimination among federal contractors, with specific attention to race, that affirmative action was institutionalized.

In some ways, the narrow focus on "race" and "color" was the government's response to the demands of the burgeoning civil rights movement that brought racial discrimination front and center in America.

However, affirmative action was ambiguous, referring, at the very least, to federal contractors taking a step or gesture in opposition of discriminating against groups of people, but one of the limits of the order was that penalties were not enforceable.

Kennedy created a President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity to monitor the order, chaired by then–Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson.

However, it was not until October 1967, following pressure from the surging Women's Movement, that President Johnson amended an earlier order to include gender provisions. Further actions would be taken in 1973 and 1974 to address anti-discrimination protections for people with disabilities and Vietnam veterans, respectively.

---

How white women benefit

---

But the battle to erase race from the application review process for admission comes with an interesting paradox: "The primary beneficiaries of affirmative action have been Euro-American women," wrote Columbia University law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw for the University of Michigan Law Review in 2006.

A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.

A 1995 report by the Department of Labor found that 6 million women overall had advances at their job that would not have been possible without affirmative action. The percentage of women physicians tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.

Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.

---

Source: White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents