Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, in western culture there is White privilege. In eastern culture there is Asian privilege. Why is that?

In the Middle East, there is rich male, Muslim privilege. Why is that?

In India there are castes, with certain castes having much greater privilege than others. Why is that?

Why is there ever privilege and why does it persist?

Answering this question and then pursuing in the manner by which those groups gained their privilege is the only way another group’s status will rise. I can tell you that none of those groups became privileged by having an affirmative action program. AA programs inherently say the following, without admitting it, “you’re not as good as the rest of us, so we’re going to give you an unfair paper advantage, based not on merit but on a natural born trait.” This does two things: it reinforces to the oppressed that they are not considered equal and cannot compete on level terms and makes the privileged class resent the underprivileged even more. While it may have some success stories, it has a net negative affect overall.

How dare you compare Whitness and its violence to social issues in the Middle East and India?!? Where is the Lebanese Empire? The Indian colonies? Are their slaves in Iraq? Who is more likely to be assaulted, a young woman in Manhattan or Riyadh?

White culture = Violence

If you truly believe that, and you choose to live here, you are deeply dumb.

No affirmative action will ever help you. Other than a one-way ticket to the non-white country of your choosing.

PP doesn't have to wait long for things to change:
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/05/17/explaining-why-minority-births-now-outnumber-white-births/

Some groups are too busy chasing material goods to make babies. They are old, tired and wanting to rest.

Not to mention they are too busy building things, inventing things, making the world go around, and supporting everyone else.

Oh look, David Duke joined us. Aren't we lucky?

So you respond to hard truths that you don’t like by calling someone a white supremacist? You are mentally and intellectually weak.

That's what liberals have been doing for three years. It's especially ridiculous when they accuse Jewish posters of being neo-Nazis (which, yes....I have seen on this forum) if they don't agree with Democratic socialism. (Ironic, in a way....demonizing Jews by calling them Nazis while at the same time essentially criticizing Nazis for demonizing Jews.)

Yes, and how can the David Duke PP explain away that most of the world would kill to live in the US, Canada, Europe, or Australia (majority white places)? Hmmm...

Sorry, I have to go vomit. Did you really just write that? And you really think that.



We have much bigger issues that affirmative action. WTAF.

Go vomit but accept the reality that white countries are the wealthy desirable countries that everyone wants. My DH’s Hong Kong colleagues are scrambling to get out of Hong Kong to Australia, Canada, or the States.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You clearly didn’t read the 1619 Project. Learn some history. Get over yourself. Black people aren’t taking anything away from you.

1619 project is an anti-Trump propaganda piece used by NYT to shift national attention away from their failed attempt to bring Trump down with falsified claims of Russian collusion. The NYT editors explicitly admitted this: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/new-york-times-meeting-transcript.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kudos to Jews and Asians and everyone else who has done well in America despite difficulties and prejudice and discrimination. The key thing for many of them was getting out of agricultural and menial labor and being able to own property and own businesses or enter professions that were not controlled by white patronage and have access to good education. You need to understand that it was different for black Americans. Long after slavery ended, the South was an oppressive police state that denied them education, freedom of movement, property rights, voting rights, and really every basic right. Even if they did move from the fields, they were laborers and menial servants. They were only allowed to live where white people did not want to live and only allowed to have jobs working for white people. A black middle class did develop in some cities and states but even they had to be careful to stay in their place. Pretty much every political, legal, financial institution in the U.S. was dedicated to keeping blacks in their place.

Very well said but it’s falling on deaf ears. This has been explained countless times on DCUM but has never been acknowledged.

That’s a great history lesson but the question posed above was if there are remaining systemic barriers to blacks progressing then why are black immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean and elsewhere flourishing whilst African-Americans seem to be going backwards?

It is just not true that blacks are going backwards. Black women, in particular, are doing much, much better than ever, so much so that all the racists are upset that, with less discrimination today, so many of them are getting jobs in the government and so many are going to college. This whole thread is about keeping black women in their place.

Oh, FFS. First, having a fair and neutral policy is about keeping "black people in their place," and now it's about "keeping black WOMEN in their place?"

No, if it were about that, the proposal (OP here, btw) would be that since blacks have benefitted from AA since the 1970s, it is now time to reverse that and apply that benefits to whites (poor whites). Blacks would not be eligible.

But that is NOT what this is about. Black kids who do very well in school, as measured by their own cohort (so that those in poor DC schools with lousy teachers are not competing against the wealthier kids from W schools), will not only get a big assist in admissions, but they will get their way paid as well. A free college education.

The only problem is that poor whites can benefit, too, due to the race-blindness aspect. And that, despite the racists on here who say demeaning things about poor white people, is a GOOD thing.

And finally, remember....if those of you who are saying that community college is good enough for a white boy (with excellent grades), why isn't community college good enough for a black boy with OK grades? There are astronauts who started at CC! It's not a death sentence - for blacks or whites.

I am honestly fed up with you people who are accusing someone (like me). who wants a race-neutral policy that would advantage blacks and whites both, a racist - and then calling poor whites "white trash" (or overlooking those that do). I do see a lot of racism on this thread, and much of it is against poor whites.

OP. I have asked before and I ask again. Why are you so focused on race-based decisions that colleges make but not other factors (athletics, musical achievement, legacy, geographic diversity, etc). Why is only one of the factors that colleges are allowed to consider in creating their class a problem for you? Why do you believe your “White kid’s slot” is taken over by an underachieving black child of a two doctor family rather than his next door neighbor who happens to be a white double legacy?

You are so full of condescension and false scenarios (what's this with "my white kid's slot? my white kid is at Columbia, doing graduate work), AND I have answered you repeatedly, that you don't get another response.

Plus, are you the horrible person that called me a racist POS for suggesting a race-neutral policy (which would still disproportionately benefit blacks) OR the one who called low-income whites "white trash" OR the one who said white Billy with the excellent grades should go to community college so that a black kid with mediocre grades gets pushed into university? Just curious. Are you any of those posters?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kudos to Jews and Asians and everyone else who has done well in America despite difficulties and prejudice and discrimination. The key thing for many of them was getting out of agricultural and menial labor and being able to own property and own businesses or enter professions that were not controlled by white patronage and have access to good education. You need to understand that it was different for black Americans. Long after slavery ended, the South was an oppressive police state that denied them education, freedom of movement, property rights, voting rights, and really every basic right. Even if they did move from the fields, they were laborers and menial servants. They were only allowed to live where white people did not want to live and only allowed to have jobs working for white people. A black middle class did develop in some cities and states but even they had to be careful to stay in their place. Pretty much every political, legal, financial institution in the U.S. was dedicated to keeping blacks in their place.

Very well said but it’s falling on deaf ears. This has been explained countless times on DCUM but has never been acknowledged.

That’s a great history lesson but the question posed above was if there are remaining systemic barriers to blacks progressing then why are black immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean and elsewhere flourishing whilst African-Americans seem to be going backwards?

It is just not true that blacks are going backwards. Black women, in particular, are doing much, much better than ever, so much so that all the racists are upset that, with less discrimination today, so many of them are getting jobs in the government and so many are going to college. This whole thread is about keeping black women in their place.

Oh, FFS. First, having a fair and neutral policy is about keeping "black people in their place," and now it's about "keeping black WOMEN in their place?"

No, if it were about that, the proposal (OP here, btw) would be that since blacks have benefitted from AA since the 1970s, it is now time to reverse that and apply that benefits to whites (poor whites). Blacks would not be eligible.

But that is NOT what this is about. Black kids who do very well in school, as measured by their own cohort (so that those in poor DC schools with lousy teachers are not competing against the wealthier kids from W schools), will not only get a big assist in admissions, but they will get their way paid as well. A free college education.

The only problem is that poor whites can benefit, too, due to the race-blindness aspect. And that, despite the racists on here who say demeaning things about poor white people, is a GOOD thing.

And finally, remember....if those of you who are saying that community college is good enough for a white boy (with excellent grades), why isn't community college good enough for a black boy with OK grades? There are astronauts who started at CC! It's not a death sentence - for blacks or whites.

I am honestly fed up with you people who are accusing someone (like me). who wants a race-neutral policy that would advantage blacks and whites both, a racist - and then calling poor whites "white trash" (or overlooking those that do). I do see a lot of racism on this thread, and much of it is against poor whites.

OP. I have asked before and I ask again. Why are you so focused on race-based decisions that colleges make but not other factors (athletics, musical achievement, legacy, geographic diversity, etc). Why is only one of the factors that colleges are allowed to consider in creating their class a problem for you? Why do you believe your “White kid’s slot” is taken over by an underachieving black child of a two doctor family rather than his next door neighbor who happens to be a white double legacy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kudos to Jews and Asians and everyone else who has done well in America despite difficulties and prejudice and discrimination. The key thing for many of them was getting out of agricultural and menial labor and being able to own property and own businesses or enter professions that were not controlled by white patronage and have access to good education. You need to understand that it was different for black Americans. Long after slavery ended, the South was an oppressive police state that denied them education, freedom of movement, property rights, voting rights, and really every basic right. Even if they did move from the fields, they were laborers and menial servants. They were only allowed to live where white people did not want to live and only allowed to have jobs working for white people. A black middle class did develop in some cities and states but even they had to be careful to stay in their place. Pretty much every political, legal, financial institution in the U.S. was dedicated to keeping blacks in their place.

Very well said but it’s falling on deaf ears. This has been explained countless times on DCUM but has never been acknowledged.

That’s a great history lesson but the question posed above was if there are remaining systemic barriers to blacks progressing then why are black immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean and elsewhere flourishing whilst African-Americans seem to be going backwards?

It is just not true that blacks are going backwards. Black women, in particular, are doing much, much better than ever, so much so that all the racists are upset that, with less discrimination today, so many of them are getting jobs in the government and so many are going to college. This whole thread is about keeping black women in their place.

Oh, FFS. First, having a fair and neutral policy is about keeping "black people in their place," and now it's about "keeping black WOMEN in their place?"

No, if it were about that, the proposal (OP here, btw) would be that since blacks have benefitted from AA since the 1970s, it is now time to reverse that and apply that benefits to whites (poor whites). Blacks would not be eligible.

But that is NOT what this is about. Black kids who do very well in school, as measured by their own cohort (so that those in poor DC schools with lousy teachers are not competing against the wealthier kids from W schools), will not only get a big assist in admissions, but they will get their way paid as well. A free college education.

The only problem is that poor whites can benefit, too, due to the race-blindness aspect. And that, despite the racists on here who say demeaning things about poor white people, is a GOOD thing.

And finally, remember....if those of you who are saying that community college is good enough for a white boy (with excellent grades), why isn't community college good enough for a black boy with OK grades? There are astronauts who started at CC! It's not a death sentence - for blacks or whites.

I am honestly fed up with you people who are accusing someone (like me). who wants a race-neutral policy that would advantage blacks and whites both, a racist - and then calling poor whites "white trash" (or overlooking those that do). I do see a lot of racism on this thread, and much of it is against poor whites.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. Absolutely not.

Poor white people, poor white trash as we call them in my house growing up, still have all the advantages of being white.

It's nonsense to pretend otherwise.

+1

OP’s argument really only supports excluding wealthy minorities from benefiting from affirmative action. Please present some evidence showing that poor URMs are similarly situated to poor white children. Numerous reasons to suggest that is not the case:
- https://www.epi.org/publication/poor-black-children-are-much-more-likely-to-attend-high-poverty-schools-than-poor-white-children/

Also how do you account for the fact that someone could be a legacy based on a relative attending a school that at that time only admitted whites?

I’m just curious as to why the argument that something should not benefitt wealthy POCs doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be limited to poor POCs?

Anonymous wrote:No. Absolutely not.

Poor white people, poor white trash as we call them in my house growing up, still have all the advantages of being white.

It's nonsense to pretend otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The three races are Causacoid, Mongloid, and Negroid. Along those lines, there are Jewish Causacoids, Jewish Mongloids, and Jewish Negroids.

There is no Jewish race. People who insist on segregating Jews as a separate race are showing their anti-Semitic stripes.

Where do people who are indigenous to the Americas fit in? American Indians, etc.

Mongloid. You really didn’t know that? Remember the land bridge?

Sounds like old-timey definitions of race.

Here are the US categories for this discussion.
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html

Wrong. Your page clearly says these are categories based on race AND enthnicity. If you go by race only, it's the three races named above.

For this discussion, these are the relevant definitions. Race is just a social construct and our society currently uses these modern definitions.

If race is a social construct where does that leave dna evidence?

Do you mean like the fact that most blacks in America have European DNA? As a matter of fact, the average is about 24% European DNA.

https://splinternews.com/if-you-re-black-dna-ancestry-results-can-reveal-an-awk-1793862284

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The three races are Causacoid, Mongloid, and Negroid. Along those lines, there are Jewish Causacoids, Jewish Mongloids, and Jewish Negroids.

There is no Jewish race. People who insist on segregating Jews as a separate race are showing their anti-Semitic stripes.

Where do people who are indigenous to the Americas fit in? American Indians, etc.

Mongloid. You really didn’t know that? Remember the land bridge?

Sounds like old-timey definitions of race.

Here are the US categories for this discussion.
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html

Wrong. Your page clearly says these are categories based on race AND enthnicity. If you go by race only, it's the three races named above.

For this discussion, these are the relevant definitions. Race is just a social construct and our society currently uses these modern definitions.

If race is a social construct where does that leave dna evidence?

What evidence?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/
“It's been used to define and separate people for millennia. But the concept of race is not grounded in genetics.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/
“"What the study of complete genomes from different parts of the world has shown is that even between Africa and Europe, for example, there is not a single absolute genetic difference, meaning no single variant where all Africans have one variant and all Europeans another one, even when recent migration is disregarded,"”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The three races are Causacoid, Mongloid, and Negroid. Along those lines, there are Jewish Causacoids, Jewish Mongloids, and Jewish Negroids.

There is no Jewish race. People who insist on segregating Jews as a separate race are showing their anti-Semitic stripes.

Where do people who are indigenous to the Americas fit in? American Indians, etc.

Mongloid. You really didn’t know that? Remember the land bridge?

Sounds like old-timey definitions of race.

Here are the US categories for this discussion.
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html

Wrong. Your page clearly says these are categories based on race AND enthnicity. If you go by race only, it's the three races named above.

For this discussion, these are the relevant definitions. Race is just a social construct and our society currently uses these modern definitions.

If race is a social construct where does that leave dna evidence?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The three races are Causacoid, Mongloid, and Negroid. Along those lines, there are Jewish Causacoids, Jewish Mongloids, and Jewish Negroids.

There is no Jewish race. People who insist on segregating Jews as a separate race are showing their anti-Semitic stripes.

Where do people who are indigenous to the Americas fit in? American Indians, etc.

Mongloid. You really didn’t know that? Remember the land bridge?

Sounds like old-timey definitions of race.

Here are the US categories for this discussion.
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html

Wrong. Your page clearly says these are categories based on race AND enthnicity. If you go by race only, it's the three races named above.

For this discussion, these are the relevant definitions. Race is just a social construct and our society currently uses these modern definitions.

If race is a social construct where does that leave dna evidence?

What evidence?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/
“It's been used to define and separate people for millennia. But the concept of race is not grounded in genetics.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/
“"What the study of complete genomes from different parts of the world has shown is that even between Africa and Europe, for example, there is not a single absolute genetic difference, meaning no single variant where all Africans have one variant and all Europeans another one, even when recent migration is disregarded,"”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The three races are Causacoid, Mongloid, and Negroid. Along those lines, there are Jewish Causacoids, Jewish Mongloids, and Jewish Negroids.

There is no Jewish race. People who insist on segregating Jews as a separate race are showing their anti-Semitic stripes.

Where do people who are indigenous to the Americas fit in? American Indians, etc.

Mongloid. You really didn’t know that? Remember the land bridge?

Sounds like old-timey definitions of race.

Here are the US categories for this discussion.
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html

Wrong. Your page clearly says these are categories based on race AND enthnicity. If you go by race only, it's the three races named above.

For this discussion, these are the relevant definitions. Race is just a social construct and our society currently uses these modern definitions.

If race is a social construct where does that leave dna evidence?