quote:

---

Originally posted by: Unsure
"Uh, what is your point? I guess you could be pointing out the fact that there are "micro" issues of self-inflicted problems that are separate from the "macro" issues of inequitable opportunity, but that is reading pretty deeply."

---

The point is that a prominent black man is acknowledging that some of the problems in the black community are entirely the fault of the individuals experiencing those problems, not someone else.  This is a rare thing to be acknowledged, especially for an entertainer.

  "The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one"s real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink"

                          George Orwell

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Unsure
"I am not opposed to the post existing on this board, but was trying to understand the motivation.  It is indeed a free speech board, so anything is an ok topic.  My intent was to gather some background information, so as not to label the poster a bigot without providing an opportunity to provide explanation.  After the follow up posts it seems quite clear that we have another bigot in our midst.  I can only hope the DR stays off this topic.  Not PC - my opinion is that your post provides nothing of value.  You are suggesting either (a) that Bill Cosby is the first minority to point out that individuals are responsible for doing their best no matter their circumstances or

I said that?  Where?

 

 

(b) that self-determination (or lack thereof) is the only factor involved in the state of relative ethnic achievment in America.

I said that?  Where?

 

 

  If (a) you need to do some investigating, as Bill's comments come as no surprise to anyone involved with community service work in America's inner-cities.  There exist many fine people working quite hard with residents of inner-cities to improve the environment and education that leads to the issues Bill was, quite callously, lamenting. 

So you feel Bill's comments were WAY off?

 

If (b) you need counseling along with education.  If you truly believe that the relative achievement levels in America are the result of a fair game and that their is not pervasive white privilege which explains the macro-level situation, then you have serious issues. 

Please list the numerous specific examples of "white-priviledge" that I am sure you have at your fingertips.

 

 

What will help your analysis (if that is possible) is to try to separate macro and micro analysis.  The state of any one individual can largely be explained by their own actions. 

Not really.  It's by actions within circumstances.  For example, if I get struck by a car as I stroll down the sidewalk and the result is life-long paralysis,  my state isn't explained by my own actions.  "State" is really irrelevant.  We are all dealt a different hand.  The direction we choose to take given the "state" we are in is what matters.

 

 

 The state of communities at large are affected by overarching influences.

The "state" is the collective condition of the individuals, but again, the direction of that community based on individual actions is what matters.

 

  It is not a federal issue to fix micro problems, but it is one to fix the macro-influences that tilt the playing field.  

It is not federal issue to "fix" macro-influences as if the individuals are some pawns within a science experiment.  That's social engineering.  The federal influence is to correct injustices by providing and enforcing just laws that eliminate unjust events experienced by individuals.  Federal social tampering that is directed at a particular group of people will undoubtedly discriminate against another group of people.  The playing field must be level, with all being viewed equally in the eyes of the law.  If this is pursued at all levels, justice will prevail and all will have an equal chance to better their situation, but not an equal starting point which can never be guaranteed.

 

So when I ask "what is your point?" it is because acknowledging that people are responsible for their actions really has no influence on a discussion of how to solve America's equality problems. 

Actually, 40 years of social engineering has failed to solve the problems.  But that may have been Mr. Cosby's point.  The problems may not be ones of "equality" but of personal responsibilty. 

When a government takes the position that a certain group can't make it on their own without some intervention of federal subsidizing, after awhile, that group may actually believe that it is true.

 

Hence, I wondered what your motivation was."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: The monster under the bed
" Sorry for being a snot, I misunderstood your motivations. As for equality in america, this will never happen. At the risk of sounding like a marxist imaginary monster, a capitalist society cannot function without haves and have nots. Remember Lyndon Johnson's Great society? Nevermind, I think its like this. Baby boomers as a generation will never tire of the need to get and stay rich. I also think, ( I'm gonna get clobbered here) that racism is human nature. Right along with tribalism, clanish behavior, even high school cliques. Please understand I am not using the word racism as a synonym for hatred. How come there are not any whites joining the crips and bloods? They won't have any. Only people will allways band together under like thought. The us and them  and again the haves and have nots. So when you clobber me ,as you must. Remember I'm just a imaginery monster.  Good Night"

---

Actually, you made more sense than Not PC, so no clobbering.

Not PC - a nicely phrased excuse for doing nothing.  Though, in an effort not to disagree when there are so many variables that we have not defined, I will suggest that it is exactly what you are referring to, the equality under the law, that I am referring to when I talk about macro-issues.  Equality under our laws does not exist on a macro-level, exacerbating existing inequality.  This is not to be ignored with some "you get what you deserve" mentality.  It is to be acted against.  Your attitude would have left us a colony of England! 

To answer some of your questions (if I can remember) I clearly did not say you said (a) or (b), I indicated that your statements reasonably led to either conclusion when faced with your lack of clarification as to motivation.

White privilege.  I will post an article for you.  But one of the most influential examples arose out of the initially government sponsored and then (and still now even in NJ) surreptitious housing discrimination.  The vast majotiy of wealth disparity was created this way.  Here is an excellent site for you to peruse.  I will post one article for you.

http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm

One request - remember the micro-marco difference!  I am white, which does not matter except so I can point out that I realize the need to make the effort to read without being overcome by your self-defense mechanisms.  Nothing in the article is taking anything away from you.  That is micro-thinking.

A Long History of Racial Preferences - For Whites

Many middle-class white people, especially those of us who grew up in the suburbs, like to think that we got to where we are today by virtue of our merit - hard work, intelligence, pluck, and maybe a little luck. And while we may be sympathetic to the plight of others, we close down when we hear the words "affirmative action" or "racial preferences." We worked hard, we made it on our own, the thinking goes, why don't 'they'? After all, it's been almost 40 years now since the Civil Rights Act was passed.

What we don't readily acknowledge is that racial preferences have a long, institutional history in this country - a white history. Here are a few ways in which government programs and practices have channeled wealth and opportunities to white people at the expense of others.

Early Racial Preferences

We all know the old history, but it's still worth reminding ourselves of its scale and scope. Affirmative action in the American "workplace" first began in the late 17th century when European indentured servants - the original source of unfree labor on the new tobacco plantations of Virginia and Maryland - were replaced by African slaves. In exchange for their support and their policing of the growing slave population, lower-class Europeans won new rights, entitlements, and opportunities from the planter elite.

White Americans were also given a head start with the help of the U.S. Army. The 1830 Indian Removal Act, for example, forcibly relocated Cherokee, Creeks and other eastern Indians to west of the Mississippi River to make room for white settlers. The 1862 Homestead Act followed suit, giving away millions of acres - for free - of what had been Indian Territory west of the Mississippi. Ultimately, 270 million acres, or 10% of the total land area of the United States, was converted to private hands, overwhelmingly white, under Homestead Act provisions.

The 1790 Naturalization Act permitted only "free white persons" to become naturalized citizens, thus opening the doors to European immigrants but not others. Only citizens could vote, serve on juries, hold office, and in some cases, even hold property. In this century, Alien Land Laws passed in California and other states, reserved farm land for white growers by preventing Asian immigrants, ineligible to become citizens, from owning or leasing land. Immigration restrictions further limited opportunities for nonwhite groups. Racial barriers to naturalized U.S. citizenship weren't removed until the McCarran-Walter Act in 1952, and white racial preferences in immigration remained until 1965.

In the South, the federal government never followed through on General Sherman's Civil War plan to divide up plantations and give each freed slave "40 acres and a mule" as reparations. Only once was monetary compensation made for slavery, in Washington, D.C. There, government officials paid up to $300 per slave upon emancipation - not to the slaves, but to local slaveholders as compensation for loss of property.

When slavery ended, its legacy lived on not only in the impoverished condition of Black people but in the wealth and prosperity that accrued to white slaveowners and their descendents. Economists who try to place a dollar value on how much white Americans have profited from 200 years of unpaid slave labor, including interest, begin their estimates at $1 trillion.

Jim Crow laws, instituted in the late 19th and early 20th century and not overturned in many states until the 1960s, reserved the best jobs, neighborhoods, schools and hospitals for white people.

The Advantages Grow, Generation to Generation

Less known are more recent government racial preferences, first enacted during the New Deal, that directed wealth to white families and continue to shape life opportunities and chances today.

The landmark Social Security Act of 1935 provided a safety net for millions of workers, guaranteeing them an income after retirement. But the act specifically excluded two occupations: agricultural workers and domestic servants, who were predominately African American, Mexican, and Asian. As low-income workers, they also had the least opportunity to save for their retirement. They couldn't pass wealth on to their children. Just the opposite. Their children had to support them.

Like Social Security, the 1935 Wagner Act helped establish an important new right for white people. By granting unions the power of collective bargaining, it helped millions of white workers gain entry into the middle class over the next 30 years. But the Wagner Act permitted unions to exclude non-whites and deny them access to better paid jobs and union protections and benefits such as health care, job security, and pensions. Many craft unions remained nearly all-white well into the 1970s. In 1972, for example, every single one of the 3,000 members of Los Angeles Steam Fitters Local #250 was still white.

But it was another racialized New Deal program, the Federal Housing Administration, that helped generate much of the wealth that so many white families enjoy today. These revolutionary programs made it possible for millions of average white Americans - but not others - to own a home for the first time. The government set up a national neighborhood appraisal system, explicitly tying mortgage eligibility to race. Integrated communities were ipso facto deemed a financial risk and made ineligible for home loans, a policy known today as "redlining." Between 1934 and 1962, the federal government backed $120 billion of home loans. More than 98% went to whites. Of the 350,000 new homes built with federal support in northern California between 1946 and 1960, fewer than 100 went to African Americans.

These government programs made possible the new segregated white suburbs that sprang up around the country after World War II. Government subsidies for municipal services helped develop and enhance these suburbs further, in turn fueling commercial investments. Freeways tied the new suburbs to central business districts, but they often cut through and destroyed the vitality of non-white neighborhoods in the central city.

Today, Black and Latino mortgage applicants are still 60% more likely than whites to be turned down for a loan, even after controlling for employment, financial, and neighborhood factors. According to the Census, whites are more likely to be segregated than any other group. As recently as 1993, 86% of suburban whites still lived in neighborhoods with a black population of less than 1%.

Reaping the Rewards of Racial Preference

One result of the generations of preferential treatment for whites is that a typical white family today has on average eight times the assets, or net worth, of a typical African American family, according to New York University economist Edward Wolff. Even when families of the same income are compared, white families have more than twice the wealth of Black families. Much of that wealth difference can be attributed to the value of one's home, and how much one inherited from parents.

But a family's net worth is not simply the finish line, it's also the starting point for the next generation. Those with wealth pass their assets on to their children - by financing a college education, lending a hand during hard times, or assisting with the down payment for a home. Some economists estimate that up to 80 percent of lifetime wealth accumulation depends on these intergenerational transfers. White advantage is passed down, from parent to child to grand-child. As a result, the racial wealth gap - and the head start enjoyed by whites - appears to have grown since the civil rights days.

In 1865, just after Emancipation, it is not surprising that African Americans owned only 0.5 percent of the total worth of the United States. But by 1990, a full 135 years after the abolition of slavery, Black Americans still possessed only a meager 1 percent of national wealth. As legal scholar john powell (sic) says in the documentary series Race - The Power of an Illusion, "The slick thing about whiteness is that whites are getting the spoils of a racist system even if they are not personally racist."

But rather than recognize how "racial preferences" have tilted the playing field and given us a head start in life, many whites continue to believe that race does not affect our lives. Instead, we chastise others for not achieving what we have; we even invert the situation and accuse non-whites of using "the race card" to advance themselves.

Or we suggest that differential outcomes may simply result from differences in "natural" ability or motivation. However, sociologist Dalton Conley's research shows that when we compare the performance of families across racial lines who make not just the same income, but also hold similar net worth, a very interesting thing happens: many of the racial disparities in education, graduation rates, welfare usage and other outcomes disappear. The "performance gap" between whites and nonwhites is a product not of nature, but unequal circumstances.

"Colorblind" policies that treat everyone the same, no exceptions for minorities, are often counter-posed against affirmative action. But colorblindness today merely bolsters the unfair advantages that color-coded practices have enabled white Americans to long accumulate.

Isn't it a little late in the game to suddenly decide that race shouldn't matter?

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Not PC
""Unsure" , when you can speak from your own mind and not simply copy-paste from articles written by others, you'll get a response from me.  I can sit here and paste in articles all day long that paint a very different picture.  What would be the point.  This is a forum where we express our thoughts in our own words, I suggest you do the same and avoid the temptation to let others speak for you."

---

Not PC - I have been using my own words and thoughts (as opposed to copy/pasting out-of-context quotes from entertainers - where'd you pick up that one Rush Limbaugh?).  My own words now are for you to start educating yourself.  I have given you two ways to do that.  One, by reading my words, and two, by following through with some background research.  It is the fact that people like to pretend that they know something when they have zero education on the full topic that is the sad truth.  I am not tempted to let anyone speak for me because I fully educate myself from all angles to speak authoritatively on my own.  You should get tempted to increase your understanding of these issues before posting quotes with no personal interpretation.  I took from your last post that you would like the discussion to end.  I am not surprised, as I am quite aware that you will have little to add.  Hence, I suggest you do the research I suggest, starting with the pbs site (the material in the posted article is not a left-right issue, it is essentially inarguable fact from an academic and real-world standpoint).  Will you step out of your "the world is perfect because I say it is" comfort zone and educate yourself?  I have my doubts, but as you can see because I have engaged in this conversation this long, I find my self hoping nonetheless.  I honestly wish you good luck, and do not expect nor require a response.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: The monster under the bed
"  "Go away we don't want you" Don't work in the real world babe."

---

 

Maybe you should tell that to Mr. Maiers, monster.  He uses that phrase all the time.  Although maybe it works for him because he always adds on those funny swear words.