Yeah but when are they going to do something about the blatent discrimination against black hockey players?
so lazy white ppl sat around doing nothing but inventing stuff. something is funny about that statement.
Scientific logic to add some evidence.... Ok, allow me to add a small voice of reason to further explain some points previously made.... first off, the 'white people inventing things' comment.... from a genetic standpoint, the evolution of the different races have yielded different strengths and weaknesses, and since science does not take a liking to 'political correctness', here is the honest evolutionary truth; when a species exists in an environment, the individuals most adapted to surviving in their environment will have the greatest success surviving and thus passing on their genes which contain the 'successful' surviving traits. On the contrarty, those traits not most adapted to surviving in the environment usually either die or get bred out. These simple scientific Darwinian truths exist in the evolution of the human races as well as in nature. Like it or not, it is a fact that the African gene pool has evolved on the plains of Africa where tribal societies existed. Therefore, the African men who were the fastest, strongest, best able to survive in the harsh terrian (animals, heat, tribal warfare, etc), were the ones who 'made it with the ladies' and passed on the traits. High intellect, solving math equations, and designing molecular theory/writing music were not traits deemed appealing for the environment, therefore the African men with these traits usually died off because they were not fast enough or strong enough and therefore were not able to pass on these traits. For women of the African plain, having a high body tolerance for body weight and for childbearing/work were the dominant traits, and it was these women who were able to best rear their children on the harsh African plains of the past. On the flip side, the Western European societies reached states of industrializaiton and technologies far earlier than that of the African plains; therefore, in terms of 'survival of the fittest', qualities such as high intellect, business skills, money handling, schooling, etc. were what women looked for, so therefore men of that stock were able to procreate and pass on their genetics. Women of the old European societies were wanted to be small, pale, attractive show-wives, so therefore the strong, hefty women of the European stock had a hard time procreating, thus in a sence partially breeding out their genetics. To sum it all up, whether you like it or not, there will never be a fair playing field because of the different evolutions of both the 'black' and the 'white' genetic pools of our society. Not to say that there aren't exceptions or blatant disregards to these scientific ideas, but generally, black people are more athletic, darker skinned (duh), and stronger, while white people are generally smarter, scrawnier, and more business minded.... if this has offended anyone, I apologize, this is just the scientific approach to help people understand why there is such a difference between the races... someone had asked for research, well, here it is.
AA enforces stereotypes instead of ridding them... But beyond such, we must understand that while Affirmative Action might have a wonderful goal in mind, the path taken to reach this goal is flawed in its origin.... to simply say that we want to create equality by promoting disparities is hyporcitical in every since... Lets put this into a different light.. Sir Thomas Moore wrote a book entitiled Utopia and the premise of this book is what Affirmative Action is trying to accomplish... What occurs in Utopia is the creation of a perfect society... this is accomplished by bringing everyone to one level, a level of symbiance where everyone is the same. If you're faster than everyone, you are forced to wear weights to slow you down to 'everyone's' level, if you're smarter, you are given drugs to bring you to everyone's level.... in essence, for those who are below the average, or those above, measures are taken to ensure that all is equal. Affirmative action tries to enforce the same protocols simply based on the vast generalities of skin color. Don't you think that to black people Affirmative Action is an insult? To be told that you aren't good enough to get this job based on yourself, you have to have the govt. force the employer to hire you? And even if you get your job, don't you want to think that it is because you are good enough for it and not because you're black? We all talk of how this is 'reverse discrimination' to white people (which it is, holding someone back to build other's up), but no one talks of how BAD this is to black people. Ask any black guy on the streets and they'll tell you the same, "let me earn my job, don't give it to me just because I'm black." Because though as a white person I cannot agree to someone less qualified recieiving something that someone more qualified has tried for, but it must be absolutely horrible to be told, you can't do this on your own because your skin color makes you less than everyone else... so we'll engineer the system so you get benefits based not on the quality of your character, but on the color of your skin.... to both skin colors, affirmative action is an insult. Why not do as Martin Luther King Jr. said and hire/judge not on color of the skin, but on the quality of one's character and the merit of one's potential. How, in America, the land of equality, can we ever promote a social program that enforces stereotypes instead of ridding them?
do you think they actually tell the AA hiree that they were hired based only on their race? No way. If someone gets hired over another based on race its probably a handful of applicants with similar qualifications with race being the final determinant. Its not like its some bum off the street they will make a CEO simply cuz they need a black person for the position. its a lot greyer than that and when it comes down to a couple of people for any job, usually the person known or family referred that works for the company gets it. Its not like one person is so much more qualified in most any situation. I'm not stating I'm for or against AA, I am simply saying things aren't as black and white as it seems. (that wasnt intended)
First, rfalco1, I need to see science, not reason, for your statements. Show me the legitimate science that Africans are bigger, faster, etc, and that it has more to do with genetic makeup not social factors and environment, and I’ll believe you, but trust me, you will find very little legitimate scientific data to back up your statements. AA was never meant to allow unqualified individuals to get jobs over qualified individuals, and despite what some of you may say I have rarely ever heard of an unqualified individual given a job because of AA. The purpose of AA has never been to allow unqualified individuals to get jobs over qualified applicants. AA has never told anyone they are not able to compete. I don’t know who ya’ll talk to but most people who have benefited from AA programs don’t think of themselves as inferior, they just think of themselves as being given a chance they may not have otherwise had to show they were able to do a job. AA is supposed to be a helping hand, not a hand out. Where AA consists of hand outs and quotas I am against it. And speaking of quotas, in education whites have benefited from AA for years. At Ivy League schools they hold 20%-30% of their admissions for legacy students. If this is not affirmative action at its core let me know. Yet no one complains about this. Why is it okay to let GW in Yale over students more qualified (Even he admits this)? Let’s remember our own president has greatly benefited from AA (although to his credit I don’t think AA helped him become president, Gore did that) Lastly, one area where AA has been abused is college athletics. If we are all so serious about this let’s not let anyone into LSU who does not have the min requirements. At UGA I think now you need a min 28 ACT to get in, unless you are an athlete. Why do we not want to get rid of this form of AA? Why is it fair to allow athletes in who are not as qualified to be at university as other students? One of the mistakes we make when looking at AA is looking at in black and white. It is a very complex issue with many different components. It can even be argued white females have benefited most from AA programs (just look at women in the workforce and the jobs they hold now as compared to 40 years ago).
Kenyan runners have been tested and retested, and the testing proves his rant true...They are genetically inclined to have amazing stamina in long distance running. It comes from their background...But, then again, Irish are known for their drinking, and I think that was not as much genetic but more environment... In other words, it's Nature/Nurture. If Badminton were popularized by Kanye West and NAS and Wu-Tang and Jurassic 5, then badminton would grow in popularity in the inner city. It would rise up and become a prevalent sport in the hip hop community, and perhaps one day, with enough emphasis and a few entrepeneurs, a professional league would sprout. Then, with an avenue out of the hood, it wouldn't just be a part of the culture, it would be a path of escape, and young kids in the hood wouldn't just grow up hitting free throws in the snow...They'd grow up with a net, a small racket and the old shuttlecock. That has nothing to do with genetics. Just as basketball has nothing to do with genetics. Blacks grow up playing ball. That's what's in their community. You don't see too many black Tony Hawk's out there. You don't see too many black Little E's making the pass in the grass at the Talladega Super Speedway. Hell, Jimmy Rollins, the Phillies' dynamic shortstop said it best, "When I go back to the neighborhood, I have to remind them I play baseball..." Basketball was part of the inner city, and consequently, a part of the hip hop (read: black youth) community. That's why you see so many young blacks in the sport. The genetics argument is hollow...It has more to do with where you are, and what you grow up around, in my opinion. The genetics argument is a fancy schmancy way of giving us a regurgitated Jimmy The Greek flameout... Also...lottery...You're a fool... You say that the Holocaust was 5 or 6 million in 5 or 6 years, and that slavery was 200 million in 200 years... 5 or 6 million in 5 or 6 years is about a million a year.... 200 million in 200 years is about a million a year.... The difference is, we went on the defensive and saw the Germans for what they were-a country that was totally subservient while at their mighty wheel was some crazed ethnocentristic megalomaniacal wack job. He could have destroyed the world and subjugated millions. He could have ended the world. Period. Slavery was started by black people...They sold black people...and say what you want about them "having to" to defend themselves in some way. What can that say about the moral fibers and backbone of a race, when they are willing to sell out their own to further their own existence. That's like me and my dad running from Dracula, and me tripping my dad up and yelling, "He, Vladdy baby, Impale THAT goofy sumbitch, he's easier to catch!" and then hauling ass...It's morally unconcsionable, and there is no amount of rationalization you can make on ANY level that can alleviate the glaring irony of your defense of reparations and the despicable nature of our ancestors for taking part in the slave trade. The bottom line is that current day African Americans have more at issue with their own race than they do with Anglo Saxons and other caucasian descendents who took part in the slave trade of Africans with other African Americans at the top of the food chain on the supply end. Game, set, match...Go let your heart bleed somewhere else. We need real discourse here. Not blind blathering...
Clarification... I understand your point about the hollow nature of science, and i do concur that my little explanation was EXTREMELY generalized and by no means fully encompases the complex nature of races.... the only reason I presented what I did was because the minute validity that the argument contained was being skewed by the previous person who presented the idea so poorly (aka, something about white people sitting around inventing stuff)... so don't hate ;-) just going for clarification really... But I must say, in terms of the helping hand vs. handout argument, if you are given a step up because of the color of your skin, that doesn't sound like a helping hand to me. I know again that generalizes the complex idea of AA, so lets break it down with a simple example.... You are applying for admission to a college, your ACT score rests right at a 28, but your GPA was not so hot, so you end up on the 'maybe' list for admission. You are white, you grew up in a trailor in the middle of bum-****, your mother had you when she was 16 and you have never met your father; and currently, you plan on paying for your education off of the summer money you make working at the local "****-shoveling" plant. You attended High school in the same room they taught jr. high, middle school and so on; one teacher for all, and not even chalk for the chalk-board. But still, despite all the poverty and hard times in your life, your skin color is still white; you tried tried tried to get ahead, tried to overcome your 'life situation', but the social programs and educational system were not there for you. So, you're applying to college with your 28 and your crappy GPA coming from such a horrid background, needing Affirmative Action so desperately.... but a black guy from yuppyville who drove his camaro to school who never worked, never experienced hardships, got a 27 ACT with the same crappy GPA, and due to the points added to his application for checking "african american" for his race, he got your place at the school and you were denied admission even though you 'needed' the help yet he was black.... this is a prime example of the workings of AA; a program with a noble cause, but the path to reach that solution takes the wrong variable into account... its not a skin color problem, it is a socio-economic problem... being black doesn't mean you are poor/needy/crappy schools (which is an insulting generalization if I were black), and being white doesn't mean you're rich/good schools/etc... again, all AA does is reinforce stereotypes, not rid them... making generalizations on the idea of skin color defining level of need... interesting thought: the white kids who live in the inner city who go to the same schools as the 'troubled needy' inner city black kids, these white kids don't benefit at all from AA, and they are as deserving as their neighbors, but the color of their skin somehow doesn't allow them to be needy, or in any way able to benefit from the 'helping hand'. BTW, quotas were deemed illegal by the Supreme Court (which is how AA used to run), but adding points for skin color was considered legal.... kind of like how gambling is illegal in louisiana but gaming is legal.... hmmmm....
