American blacks seek money and land

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Aug. 19 2002,03:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well, this is why we need Affirmative action back. As Warin stated, better education to better enable blacks to survive this world would be the most effective way.

it is of no use to trace back ancestry and give land to repay it. however, i think they need to look into future and try to secure methods to better themselves for tomorrow.<span id='postcolor'>

We do not need affirmative action back. People should be hired for jobs or admitted to schools based on their qualifications or grades, NOT on their ability to help fill a quota.

[ralphwiggum 6]

no, Affirmative action is needed to ensure that minorities get the chance at the job. Do you think white ppl were always hiring color-blind?

most minorities do not have a knowledge of more opportunities they can achieve, because their world was limited.(especially black slaves) and if you don't give them a chance to see what kind of possibility there are beyond simple jobs, they will never be given chance to get themselves improved.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Aug. 19 2002,03:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOL! The main cuase of the War for Southern Independence was not slavery! It was states rights, and other things! Sure slavery had some thing to do with it, but was not the core. The South would have freed the slaves, so do not go saying the SOuth was any more racsist than the North! The North did not care about the blacks!<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, it was war over states rights- states right to allow something that reduced people to property

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Aug. 18 2002,18:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">no, Affirmative action is needed to ensure that minorities get the chance at the job. Do you think white ppl were always hiring color-blind?

most minorities do not have a knowledge of more opportunities they can achieve, because their world was limited.(especially black slaves) and if you don't give them a chance to see what kind of possibility there are beyond simple jobs, they will never be given chance to get themselves improved.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't understand this at all. If I were a factory owner, why would I hire a minority with little to no training over someone who is fully qualified for the job? That makes no sense from any standpoint you look at it. It is going to ultimately hurt the business, hurt the economy, and hurt the job market (you'll have overqualified people working in underpaying jobs).

There was a story recently on the news here in California talking about how colleges are starting to turn down kids who have too good of a homelife. The colleges feel that they should admit people who have had stressful homelives before they admit people with good homelives. I think these two fall into the same grouping.

You have touchyfeely people who are so worried about hurting feelings and doing "the right thing", that they forget what it's all about. If you give jobs to people who aren't qualified for them, or admit kids to school even though they don't deserve it, it is going to bite the society where it counts down the line.

It takes away the drive. If I don't have to be qualified to get a job, why bother working hard or going to school? If I get get into a college regardless of my grades, with only how horrible I make my home life sound, why bother doing good in high school? It is going to encourage a generation of lazy underachievers.

Discrimination is wrong. If someone feels that they really should have had that job but didn't get it because of race or creed then I'm all for going to get a civil rights lawyer and sticking it to that employer. BUT, if someone dosen't get a job because they're underqualified compared to the other applicants then they need to do something to improve their resume plan and simple.

[Paratrooper 0]

People should be accepted regardless of race. I know this doesn't always happen, but positive discrimination is not the answer!

[Bosun 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Othin

I don't understand this at all. If I were a factory owner, why would I hire a minority with little to no training over someone who is fully qualified for the job?

<span id='postcolor'>

....why....because maybe they are really excited about the job, maybe they have a personality that surpasses anyones qualifications. Besides what qualifications do you need in a factory.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BUT, if someone dosen't get a job because they're underqualified compared to the other applicants then they need to do something to improve their resume plan and simple.<span id='postcolor'>

It's not that plain and simple. I'm not saying that we should hire blind black special needs lisping minorities....just that we should perhaps look past the qualifications, the college backgrounds, the clothing, ......

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't understand this at all. If I were a factory owner, why would I hire a minority with little to no training over someone who is fully qualified for the job? That makes no sense from any standpoint you look at it. It is going to ultimately hurt the business, hurt the economy, and hurt the job market (you'll have overqualified people working in underpaying jobs).<span id='postcolor'>

the problem was that(and still is to some extent) a qualified minority was not chosen over slightly less majority. and that is what affirmitive action sought to recover from. yes, if you were a factory owner, you'd want the best worker. but if the applicant was a bit different from you, and another competing candidate was not upto par in just a minute detail, but has similar ideas and could get along, who would you choose? in rational sense, you'd still choose best candidate, but in real world, things don't go that way. there are still a lot of ppl who wouldn't hire or delay it due to presonal perception. and you call that unbiased?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There was a story recently on the news here in California talking about how colleges are starting to turn down kids who have too good of a homelife. The colleges feel that they should admit people who have had stressful homelives before they admit people with good homelives. I think these two fall into the same grouping.<span id='postcolor'>

more of economical grouping than racial grouping. there are good munber of whites who have hardship as well as blacks and other minorities. but number of whites having harship is still considerablly low than that of minorities. and when colleges use economic factors, minorities would naturally end up getting more slots, and then ppl start to think that idea is reverse-racism.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you give jobs to people who aren't qualified for them, or admit kids to school even though they don't deserve it, it is going to bite the society where it counts down the line.<span id='postcolor'>

what makes them unable to qualify? you seem to be implying that in current situation, minorities don't deserve it. but did it ever occur to you that it is reenforcement of social casting? considering the fact that most minorities were seldom given chance to develope themselves, it's not surprising that they can't now. and you are now using that as "proof" of denying access to it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If I don't have to be qualified to get a job, why bother working hard or going to school? If I get get into a college regardless of my grades, with only how horrible I make my home life sound, why bother doing good in high school? It is going to encourage a generation of lazy underachievers.<span id='postcolor'>

you obviously have prejudice on the affirmitive action. it gave more favor to among those who qualified, not those who did not qualify. if given certain criterion and both meet it, then affirmative action kicked in. it wasn't like 'oh, he is black, let's give hime the job despite him knowing nothing at all'. the applicants ahd to show that they possessed considerable knowledge of that field and then the affirmative action would be considered.

[Bosun 0]

...well said Ralph Wiggum.

if only l was as articulate..

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Aug. 18 2002,19:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't understand this at all.  If I were a factory owner, why would I hire a minority with little to no training over someone who is fully qualified for the job?  That makes no sense from any standpoint you look at it.  It is going to ultimately hurt the business, hurt the economy, and hurt the job market (you'll have overqualified people working in underpaying jobs).<span id='postcolor'>

the problem was that(and still is to some extent) a qualified minority was not chosen over slightly less majority. and that is what affirmitive action sought to recover from. yes, if you were a factory owner, you'd want the best worker. but if the applicant was a bit different from you, and another competing candidate was not upto par in just a minute detail, but has similar ideas and could get along, who would you choose? in rational sense, you'd still choose best candidate, but in real world, things don't go that way. there are still a lot of ppl who wouldn't hire or delay it due to presonal perception. and you call that unbiased?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There was a story recently on the news here in California talking about how colleges are starting to turn down kids who have too good of a homelife.  The colleges feel that they should admit people who have had stressful homelives before they admit people with good homelives.  I think these two fall into the same grouping.<span id='postcolor'>

more of economical grouping than racial grouping. there are good munber of whites who have hardship as well as blacks and other minorities. but number of whites having harship is still considerablly low than that of minorities. and when colleges use economic factors, minorities would naturally end up getting more slots, and then ppl start to think that idea is reverse-racism.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you give jobs to people who aren't qualified for them, or admit kids to school even though they don't deserve it, it is going to bite the society where it counts down the line.<span id='postcolor'>

what makes them unable to qualify? you seem to be implying that in current situation, minorities don't deserve it. but did it ever occur to you that it is reenforcement of social casting? considering the fact that most minorities were seldom given chance to develope themselves, it's not surprising that they can't now. and you are now using that as "proof" of denying access to it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If I don't have to be qualified to get a job, why bother working hard or going to school?  If I get get into a college regardless of my grades, with only how horrible I make my home life sound, why bother doing good in high school?  It is going to encourage a generation of lazy underachievers.<span id='postcolor'>

you obviously have prejudice on the affirmitive action. it gave more favor to among those who qualified, not those who did not qualify. if given certain criterion and both meet it, then affirmative action kicked in. it wasn't like 'oh, he is black, let's give hime the job despite him knowing nothing at all'. the applicants ahd to show that they possessed considerable knowledge of that field and then the affirmative action would be considered.<span id='postcolor'>

I think that it is biased to assume that over 49% (because as we all know, in US politics 51% is a majority) of people in the position to hire someone are ignorant or racist. If I was a business owner in the position of hiring applicants, I would have this law thrown into my face that "Your white so your obviously racist, we've made laws to make sure you hire your workers based on our concept of fairness."

That is ridiculous. That basically equates to punishing me as a business owner for other peoples ignorance. I don't care what your color, creed, or sex is, I'm going to hire the person most qualified for the job. Screw your quota.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">what makes them unable to qualify? you seem to be implying that in current situation, minorities don't deserve it. but did it ever occur to you that it is reenforcement of social casting? considering the fact that most minorities were seldom given chance to develope themselves, it's not surprising that they can't now. and you are now using that as "proof" of denying access to it.<span id='postcolor'>

I did not say that they weren't able to qualify. I said if you give jobs to people who aren't qualified for them. If you had two people applying for a machine operators job. They would run Machine XYZ. Applicant one has 10 years of working on machine XYZ, Applicant two has never worked on machine XYZ, but has worked on other machines for 10 years. I would look at those two resumes and say that applicant one is more qualified. Am I supposed to summarily decide that I should give the job to applicant b just to broaden his/her horizons? No, I'm a business owner and it makes more business sense for me to put the person in the job that already knows how to do it.

I did not imply at ALL that minorities didn't deserve a job. What I did imply was that unqualified people shouldn't be given jobs they're not qualified for.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you obviously have prejudice on the affirmitive action. it gave more favor to among those who qualified, not those who did not qualify. if given certain criterion and both meet it, then affirmative action kicked in. it wasn't like 'oh, he is black, let's give hime the job despite him knowing nothing at all'. the applicants ahd to show that they possessed considerable knowledge of that field and then the affirmative action would be considered.<span id='postcolor'>

It is not a prejudice, it is just frustration at how the system dosen't work the way it's supposed to. Half the time the business owner feels pressured to hire someone regardless of qualifications for fear of being called racist, sexist, or whateverist. The other half of the time the racist, sexist, or ignorant business owners get away with it because there is no set reporting method within the system for job seekers to let someone know.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that it is biased to assume that over 49% (because as we all know, in US politics 51% is a majority) of people in the position to hire someone are ignorant or racist. If I was a business owner in the position of hiring applicants, I would have this law thrown into my face that "Your white so your obviously racist, we've made laws to make sure you hire your workers based on our concept of fairness."<span id='postcolor'>

you obviously have naive look at US political system. although 51% is majority, that didn't push Al Gore to presidency. and if majority vote matters, then why are there so many freaking lobbyist winning over public interest?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you had two people applying for a machine operators job. They would run Machine XYZ. Applicant one has 10 years of working on machine XYZ, Applicant two has never worked on machine XYZ, but has worked on other machines for 10 years. I would look at those two resumes and say that applicant one is more qualified. Am I supposed to summarily decide that I should give the job to applicant b just to broaden his/her horizons? No, I'm a business owner and it makes more business sense for me to put the person in the job that already knows how to do it.

I did not imply at ALL that minorities didn't deserve a job. What I did imply was that unqualified people shouldn't be given jobs they're not qualified for.

<span id='postcolor'>

you obviously didn't understand my statement. read again. I said "GIVEN SIMILAR BACKGROUND". in your case Affirmitive action won't even take place. my situation is more correctly depicted as this:

person A has 10yrs of experience(also a majority) and B has 10 yrs of experience on the SAME job. Affirmitive action would dictate that employer whould seriously consider hiring person B.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I did not imply at ALL that minorities didn't deserve a job. What I did imply was that unqualified people shouldn't be given jobs they're not qualified for.

<span id='postcolor'>

yeah, and my question is were they given EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AT THE START? what is a qualification? it shows that someone is capable of doing a certain task. and how do you get qualification? goto place where they teach the skills. But most minorities are not given that chance to enter the classroom. that's what i'm pointing out. and since they are not given proper chance, do you think they will perform on same level?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is not a prejudice, it is just frustration at how the system dosen't work the way it's supposed to. Half the time the business owner feels pressured to hire someone regardless of qualifications for fear of being called racist, sexist, or whateverist. The other half of the time the racist, sexist, or ignorant business owners get away with it because there is no set reporting method within the system for job seekers to let someone know.<span id='postcolor'>

so is stopping the system the answer? the system produce significant number of minority(who are qualified) in reputable position. but majority starts to whine that they are "reverse-discriminated" and that's what killed the system.

the half that fears being labeled as biased don't have to worry about it. as long as they can keep it clean and through on why they maintain their hiring practice, no protesters can argue otherwise. and then we can focus on the other half.

[Major Fubar 0]

My view is a simplistic one: strive to make everyone equal in the present, and forget the past.

If you go back far enough in history, almost every race has endured horros at the hands of another race.

I'm of English decent, can I have some money from Italy and Sweden for what the ancient Romans and Vikings did to the Britons?

Instead of dredging up the past and wanting to be compensated for it, look to the future. If we hold grudges for every injustice in the past, we will never get anywhere.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Aug. 19 2002,11:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm of English decent, can I have some money from Italy and Sweden for what the ancient Romans and Vikings did to the Britons?<span id='postcolor'>

The Vikings are still having their way to this day. Why shouldn't you?

[Longinius 1]

Ralph, have you ever been on the negative end of affirmative action? Have you ever been turned down a job or education because someone else had the right of way simply because of their gender, race or creed? Well, I have. It is no solution, fighting discrimination with dircrimination doesn't work.

[ralphwiggum 6]

sorry Longinius..but i'm one of those ppl who benefitted from affirmitive action discontinuation.

and Affirmitive action is not a discriminiation, but giving chance to experience broader world

[Longinius 1]

If you benefited from it I can see why you support it. But there is a winner and a loser in this. Is it fair that I should be denied my chances at education because there is a certain quota of women that should be accepted? Or because one of the other applicants comes from another culture? Should I have to give room for someone else just because there are 10 of "them" and 100 of "us"? Heck no. That is the kind of stuff that cause tensions, prejudice and hard feelings.

[ralphwiggum 6]

uh, longinius...i said i benefited from AA discontinuation..in other words i was NOT getting benefits from affirmitive action... i guess my composition skills are still horrible....damn education system

again, let me refresh what AA says. it says given presumption that candidates are qualified, then it'll be considered.

if you don't get my point, here it is. minorities in US usually do not have same chance given at the start of their life. it is harder for some black kid in some less-affluent town to think about earning a PhD engineering than becoming a rap star or a basktball player. they are given less chance. what AA does is give them some glimps of hope. it's a long and arduous process. one minority will get a job, then another one will be inspired by it and try better, and get better job, and the process continues until both majority and minority are given equal chance to start with. then AA will be useless.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

I think that if someone does not want to hire another person becuase of their color, then they should be wllowed to do that. People should be able to only server a ceratin color if thats what they want, it may be wrong to do it, but it should be legal. Minorities should get NO special treatment.

[Longinius 1]

And in the meanwhile, many people miss their chances at education / job or whatever.

It should be the right person for the right job, no matter race, creed or gender. Affirmative action sucks.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Aug. 19 2002,23:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that if someone does not want to hire another person becuase of their color, then they should be wllowed to do that. People should be able to only server a ceratin color if thats what they want, it may be wrong to do it, but it should be legal. Minorities should get NO special treatment.<span id='postcolor'>

DOR, I nominate you for the clueless idiot of the month award.

Being able to be served at any restaraunt you want IS NOT SPECIAL TREATMENT!!! Somehow Im willing to bet that you were never barred from a restaraunt because you were white- theres nothing special about that. How is it special treatment if Billy Bob Dumbf*ck's Steakhouse is barred by law from refusing to serve people just because they are black? Exactly, it isnt. Im sure if a restaraunt started refusing to serve you just because you were white you would feel hurt, because youre just a guy who wanted to get a hamburger. DOR, Ive said it before, and no doubt I will say it again, but PLEASE think about what you are saying before you say it.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

I do see how you could have got my post confuesed, I did not write it in the best manner. Your right getting served a burger is not special, but still ifa black person owns a burger joint, and they will not serve me becuase I am white, then thats fine, it is their right. What I mean is that no minorities should get anything special treatment,like Indians getting into collage cheaper.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

No, it isnt their right. Noone has the right to discriminate against ANYONE else because of a racial bias. IT'S WRONG.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Aug. 20 2002,00:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">DOR, I nominate you for the clueless idiot of the month award.<span id='postcolor'>

Behave Tex. Resorting to calling other member names is not acceptable.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

You are right it is extremly wrong, but still it is their right.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

no, it is NOT their right.

This is a direct quote from the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the

premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

© The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

<span id='postcolor'>

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

I know its not legal, but I guess I should say that it should be their right.