Should the admissions process be colorblind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now I get it, the troll is the person who calls you on your BS and keeps doing it until you reveal yourselves for who you are.

Uh, I thought you provoked somebody else into talking about the Holocaust, which in turn caused you to post some pretty anti-semitic things? You really are incredibly immature in how you twist things around. It really is obvious to everybody here, you know.

Certainly not me (the quoted poster). I didn't say a thing about the Holocaust/holocaust before that post. My sense throughout this thread has been that you (the "twisting things" poster) have been assuming that that every post disagreeing with you is written by the same person.

As far as I can tell, there are (at least) two of us disagreeing with you. Meaning that I know I haven't written many of the things you seem to be attributing to me when you respond to posts that I have, in fact, written.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Millions?

"Slavery on American soil grew at such a fast rate that, by 1750, over 200,000 African slaves were here. Fifty years later, that number grew to 700,000. In South Carolina alone, African slaves outnumbered the white population, and they made up more than one half of the populations in the states of Maryland and Virginia. The free Black American population did expand to about 40,000 throughout the colonies by 1770. "

Yes, millions. (The estimates I've seen range from 2-4 million). Remember that slavery was a global system at the time and that it went on for centuries. So a few late eighteenth century stats from half of the British colonies in America (mainland vs. Caribbean) at the time aren't a good measure of its impact.

What is the consensus on number of slaves brought to America?

[Anonymous]

13:28. Nor, I should add, did I post anything (at any point) that has been labelled anti-semitic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Millions?

"Slavery on American soil grew at such a fast rate that, by 1750, over 200,000 African slaves were here. Fifty years later, that number grew to 700,000. In South Carolina alone, African slaves outnumbered the white population, and they made up more than one half of the populations in the states of Maryland and Virginia. The free Black American population did expand to about 40,000 throughout the colonies by 1770. "

Yes, millions. (The estimates I've seen range from 2-4 million). Remember that slavery was a global system at the time and that it went on for centuries. So a few late eighteenth century stats from half of the British colonies in America (mainland vs. Caribbean) at the time aren't a good measure of its impact.

What is the consensus on number of slaves brought to America?

Wikipedia:
[quoteWikipedia]Twelve million Africans were shipped to the Americas from the 16th to the 19th centuries.[5][6] Of these, an estimated 645,000 were brought to what is now the United States. The largest number were shipped to Brazil (see slavery in Brazil).[7]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My sense throughout this thread has been that you (the "twisting things" poster) have been assuming that that every post disagreeing with you is written by the same person.

Apparently can't tell (or don't want to see) that there is more than one poster who is completely fed up with your cheap tactics. I'll let somebody else address your subsequent claim that you're not anti-semitic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What is the consensus on number of slaves brought to America?

Wikipedia:
[quoteWikipedia]Twelve million Africans were shipped to the Americas from the 16th to the 19th centuries.[5][6] Of these, an estimated 645,000 were brought to what is now the United States. The largest number were shipped to Brazil (see slavery in Brazil).[7]

Thank you.

Regarding the word "Holocaust" - I would note that society has evolved to avoid using certain words which certain groups find offensive due to their history. ie. Negro.

It would be nice if those AAs on this thread would apply the same sensitivity with regard to the word 'holocaust'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are refering to me. My posts are crystal clear and offer my thoughts and opinions on the subject:

1 Race is used as a basis for private school admissions. Nothing new here. It was used last centrury as well as this century.
2 Affirmative action by admissions directors today are preferences for legacies, siblings, athletes, faculty children, minorities etc. There is no separate affirmative action for minorities, but perferential treatment for others that many DCUMMIES feel so dear to their bossoms.
3 Minorities have benefitted the least from the affirmative action of preferential treatment in private schools over the years. DCUMMIES do not agree with this. I would beg to differ but no one has looked at this practise over the last 150 years and generated the data.
3 Slavery, Jim Crow, 3/5 human status in the eyes of the law was a holocaust for Africans (later Black Americans) in this country. Some DCUMMIES do not agree. But they make no arguments to the contrary short of primative invective.
4 Vestiges of that legacy still remains today in this country as Black Americans as a group belong in the lowest socio-economic group (devoid of generational wealth). This impacts decisions about applying to these expensive schools by families as well as ultimate admission to these expensive schools granted by admission directors.
5 Many DCUMMIES lie about preparing for entrance exams: WPPSI, SSAT, SAT, PSAT, IEE. The tutoring industry they have spawned suggests that their children are the beneficiaries of this and the annonymous practising for these exams multiple times (without penalty since the schools never see these results) I am not against this at all just the deception amongst DCUMMIE braggards.
6 The results of the above exams are used to gain admission to these exclusive, elite institutions and the braggarts swear they define intelligence. I'm not so sure about that. They use this argument to justify that minorities take away seats historically reserved for them as entitlement in these Ivy pre-K halls. On the other hand, when non-minorities are benefitting from affirmative action they hide behind rose-colored glasses or creating an interesting a representative class portfolio!
7 On the basis of these thoughts those who share these opinions are branded racist, anti-semitic and the like by DCUMMIE ignorami.
8 Alas, all is well, this is America after all

Can we all take this and run? This may be as close to agreement as we come. I basically agree with points 1-6. In places, she may have exaggerated, but she's not completely wrong. And frankly, re point 7, she does seem really immature and unable to rise above an insult-free post, so I think we have to settle for what we can get.

So I'm really happy with this. Anybody else?

Then maybe we can close this thread down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are refering to me. My posts are crystal clear and offer my thoughts and opinions on the subject:

1 Race is used as a basis for private school admissions. Nothing new here. It was used last centrury as well as this century.
2 Affirmative action by admissions directors today are preferences for legacies, siblings, athletes, faculty children, minorities etc. There is no separate affirmative action for minorities, but perferential treatment for others that many DCUMMIES feel so dear to their bossoms.
3 Minorities have benefitted the least from the affirmative action of preferential treatment in private schools over the years. DCUMMIES do not agree with this. I would beg to differ but no one has looked at this practise over the last 150 years and generated the data.
3 Slavery, Jim Crow, 3/5 human status in the eyes of the law was a holocaust for Africans (later Black Americans) in this country. Some DCUMMIES do not agree. But they make no arguments to the contrary short of primative invective.
4 Vestiges of that legacy still remains today in this country as Black Americans as a group belong in the lowest socio-economic group (devoid of generational wealth). This impacts decisions about applying to these expensive schools by families as well as ultimate admission to these expensive schools granted by admission directors.
5 Many DCUMMIES lie about preparing for entrance exams: WPPSI, SSAT, SAT, PSAT, IEE. The tutoring industry they have spawned suggests that their children are the beneficiaries of this and the annonymous practising for these exams multiple times (without penalty since the schools never see these results) I am not against this at all just the deception amongst DCUMMIE braggards.
6 The results of the above exams are used to gain admission to these exclusive, elite institutions and the braggarts swear they define intelligence. I'm not so sure about that. They use this argument to justify that minorities take away seats historically reserved for them as entitlement in these Ivy pre-K halls. On the other hand, when non-minorities are benefitting from affirmative action they hide behind rose-colored glasses or creating an interesting a representative class portfolio!
7 On the basis of these thoughts those who share these opinions are branded racist, anti-semitic and the like by DCUMMIE ignorami.
8 Alas, all is well, this is America after all

Can we all take this and run? This may be as close to agreement as we come. I basically agree with points 1-6. In places, she may have exaggerated, but she's not completely wrong. And frankly, re point 7, she does seem really immature and unable to rise above an insult-free post, so I think we have to settle for what we can get.

So I'm really happy with this. Anybody else?

Then maybe we can close this thread down.

No.

I don't agree with most of this, dislike the tone and the insults and believe most of it is nonsense. Not interested in debating it though. It speaks for itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1 Race is used as a basis for private school admissions. Nothing new here. It was used last centrury as well as this century.
2 Affirmative action by admissions directors today are preferences for legacies, siblings, athletes, faculty children, minorities etc. There is no separate affirmative action for minorities, but perferential treatment for others that many DCUMMIES feel so dear to their bossoms.
3 Minorities have benefitted the least from the affirmative action of preferential treatment in private schools over the years. DCUMMIES do not agree with this. I would beg to differ but no one has looked at this practise over the last 150 years and generated the data.

I think I mostly agree with these points, although it's pretty confusing. Point 1 would seem to conflict with the second sentence in point 2. What does it mean to say that "there is no separate affirmative action for minorities", but then to talk about it in pt. 3? Affirmative action for minorities actually has a legal basis, unlike other types of preferences.

I disagree completely with the 2nd sentence in pt. 3, that DCUMMIES won't see that affirmative action (for legacies, rich) benefits whites more than AAs. I've seen studies that prove that whites do benefit more from legacy and others.

You don't speak for me, and you shouldn't make sweeping statements like this. (But you knew that, and we realize that you're just trying to provoke others.) So I want to agree with most of your points, but your sheer obnoxiousness is making me hold my nose as I do it. Why, oh why, are you such a jerk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1 Race is used as a basis for private school admissions. Nothing new here. It was used last centrury as well as this century.
2 Affirmative action by admissions directors today are preferences for legacies, siblings, athletes, faculty children, minorities etc. There is no separate affirmative action for minorities, but perferential treatment for others that many DCUMMIES feel so dear to their bossoms.
3 Minorities have benefitted the least from the affirmative action of preferential treatment in private schools over the years. DCUMMIES do not agree with this. I would beg to differ but no one has looked at this practise over the last 150 years and generated the data.

I think I mostly agree with these points, although it's pretty confusing. Point 1 would seem to conflict with the second sentence in point 2. What does it mean to say that "there is no separate affirmative action for minorities", but then to talk about it in pt. 3? Affirmative action for minorities actually has a legal basis, unlike other types of preferences.

I disagree completely with the 2nd sentence in pt. 3, that DCUMMIES won't see that affirmative action (for legacies, rich) benefits whites more than AAs. I've seen studies that prove that whites do benefit more from legacy and others.

You don't speak for me, and you shouldn't make sweeping statements like this. (But you knew that, and we realize that you're just trying to provoke others.) So I want to agree with most of your points, but your sheer obnoxiousness is making me hold my nose as I do it. Why, oh why, are you such a jerk?

I think we should ignore this troll and move on. (not you, the PP who thinks "DCUMMIE" is clever.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I think we should ignore this troll and move on. (not you, the PP who thinks "DCUMMIE" is clever.)

This raises an interesting point. Because the issue is race, we want to take every post seriously. I've been trying to give it my best (I'm the poster you're responding to).

But this particular poster, with the 8 or 9 points, is an obnoxious mixture of a dose of reason combined with a dose of pure spite. Does that make her a troll? Is any poster who is unable to maintain a civil tone a troll? I'm reluctantly coming to the conclusion that she just wants a forum to insult people, and is using race as the vehicle. But it's really hard to say for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think we should ignore this troll and move on. (not you, the PP who thinks "DCUMMIE" is clever.)

This raises an interesting point. Because the issue is race, we want to take every post seriously. I've been trying to give it my best (I'm the poster you're responding to).

But this particular poster, with the 8 or 9 points, is an obnoxious mixture of a dose of reason combined with a dose of pure spite. Does that make her a troll? Is any poster who is unable to maintain a civil tone a troll? I'm reluctantly coming to the conclusion that she just wants a forum to insult people, and is using race as the vehicle. But it's really hard to say for sure.

You don't call people you disagree with "Dummies" and expect to have a real discussion. You give her far too much credit.

[Anonymous]

Actually I found the poster with the 8 points to have some interesting arguments. Yeah, her tone is nastier than it needs to be but I agree with some of her substantive claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually I found the poster with the 8 points to have some interesting arguments. Yeah, her tone is nastier than it needs to be but I agree with some of her substantive claims.

Exactly. Preferences (note, I'm not saying affirmative action, which is different) benefit whites more than AAs. But why the hell is it necessary to make sweeping statements about how all of us whites will deny this?

So if she's a complete jerk about it, do we ignore her? Or take it and run, and close the thread down?

The second option has my vote. Her post demonstrates obvious prejudices against whites that we're not going to change. So why bother. Let's call it a day, with a modicum of agreement on something at least.

[Anonymous]

As I pointed out previously, the Atlantic slave trade was a global phenomenon. A nationalistic perspective on it (especially one that focuses on a time when the US wasn't even a nation) makes no sense. The Jewish holocaust numbers are multinational as well.

Finally, to put this in context, imported slaves were a fraction of slaves in the US. (The 1860 census counted 3.95 million slaves). And, of course, the population of the world was a lot smaller in the 18th/19th century than it was in the late 20th c. (978 million est in 1800 (the closest date I could get to 1808 when the US banned the slave trade) vs. 2.3 billion in 1939). And North America was a much smaller part of that world population (less than 1%) than Europe was in the mid/late 20th c. (20-25%) I don't know what percentage of the European population Jews were when Hitler came to power/pre-Holocaust. But African Americans were about 20% of the US population at the time of the Revolutionary War. Slavery wasn't some small, peripheral institution.

Yes, the Jewish Holocaust claimed more lives faster. By contrast, slavery ground on for centuries. Both are horrors and tragedies with implications that are still felt. I don't see the point of playing "who got it worse?"

Out of curiosity, do you think Native Americans experienced a holocaust and if not, why not?