English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

serious answers please.
and please, no pointless diatribes about 'the white man owes us' or 'blacks want special treatment'; but answer as intelligently,elaborately and honestly as possible.

2007-01-26 13:07:34 · 10 answers · asked by atlas shrugged and so do i 5 in Society & Culture Other - Society & Culture

10 answers

its legalized racisim. My ancesters were Roman slaves. My claims for compensation to the Italian government have gone unanswered....

2007-01-26 13:12:08 · answer #1 · answered by walter_b_marvin 5 · 2 1

Well we gave blacks special treatment as slaves and you mention that you are not interested in reciprocal arguments so I will not consider this.

We gave them special treatment in federal courts with regard to Brown v. Board of education when schools were integrated. Again when Federal troops were sent into the southern States to allow Blacks to register to vote without the threat of death.

You may be asking whether charity is moral. There is a position which I would not dignify by attributing it to Darwin, but some people prefer a situation where they have an advantage, and when doing nothing promotes their advantage it is called natural. They may say it is natural to allow hungry children to starve based on the rule of doing nothing. Doing nothing is not doing something that can be attributed.

If we leave out social justice too, defer to natural methods, what remains is the races desire to continue to exist. This is not quite racism is it? These pseudo Darwinists think the world is designed as a contest and there is a winner. Some people think that they should be able to enjoy grandchildren and that the cultural work being done continue. The sort of thing the Kurds in Turkey are denied now and the Irish in earlier centuries when their language and culture were banned from use.

Does a culture have a right to exist too or do we defer to natural methods. This is interesting because the economically dominant western culture is in steep decline racially.

The answer, which I happen to know, seems like a dichotomy. We need to promote culture and destroy the melting pot. At the same time we need to teach cultural survival and benevolence so cultures can interact with each other. Monolithic entropy is not the answer. My two and half cents. The subject is quite deep.

2007-01-26 21:41:27 · answer #2 · answered by Ron H 6 · 0 0

There is always a cause and effect to everything. For hundreds of years whites could almost always get away with oppression and racism. That's the cause of whites not hiring blacks for jobs. The effect is When blacks had rights to get jobs whites who own the business would not hire them. So they had to make a law just for this type of racism. Anytime you make a law and don't enforce it, people will break it. No one enforce or punished white people for crimes they commited towards blacks. In fact many times the government or the ones in power where the main ones doing it.

Affirmatve Action helps because it's a law that helps prevent the problem that it's intented. That's to keeps whites from not hiring non whites. Blacks had lots of rights even the right to vote but couldn't because they didn't enforce the law. If no one enforce Affirmative action it too would be a vain law. Laws are nothing if not enforced.

If you set the speed limit at 60 and no police ever enforce it people would speed breaking the law. But if you line cops up and down the freeway no one would. The simple answer is that, that's the effect of racism. Affirmative Action is a law enforcing the equal rights for all. It was made a law because the government didn't want to enforce it's own law because the color of the man skin happens to be wrong. So when the government decides to treat everyone equally, the hate they created left people without jobs. Since they can't make someone like you enought to hire you. They can make a law requiring them to at least hire you.

FACT: If they can pass a law ending black slavery with only a law. Why didn't they do it 200 years earlier?(if all they had to do was pass a law)

*If they can pass a law ending slavery and that all men are equal why couldn't blacks votes 100 years latter? If they could pass a law giving blacks the right to vote in 1965 why not in 1865 when slavery ended?

If blacks as what they claim were free in 1865 why was Dr. King 100 years latter marching for jobs. Obvious they have a problem enforcing eqaulity of those of African decent. If if took hundred years to pass a law force white to hire blacks. How long would it take if their is no Affirmative Action law to enforce? Answer-people would still be fighting for rights.

That's how they where able to commit such crimes for years. Because they were in a position of power even beyond the people they represent, because the oppressed couldn't vote. It do not matter if you have a country of people that are all for equal rights. If the people in power can call oppression well beyond whom they represent. Pharoah one man gave power to oppress a whole group of people. The effect was God brought a plague on All Egyptians even those others who live in the country. Others make it bad for others who had nothing to do with it.

2007-01-27 01:01:14 · answer #3 · answered by justme 5 · 0 0

You have not given the "experiment" enough time yet. The vote is still out, so to speak. It takes a few generations to change widespread stupidity. I am rather encouraged by what I see in different areas of the country, BUT I have to say that this hatred of black americans is deeply ingrained. In Memphis, where I lived for 30 years, the anger, fear and hatred continues between the races, and affirmative action has had only a modest effect.

2007-01-26 21:14:52 · answer #4 · answered by Pixie 7 · 0 1

My instinct is that 'affirmative action,' or 'reverse discrimination' as we call it in the UK, is wrong. The way I look at is that on one hand you make laws saying it is illegal (as it should be) to treat people differently because of the colour of their skin, on the other you have a law saying that a certain group should be treated differently.

However it is quite obvious that a level playing field does not exist for many groups, so perhaps something like this is needed. Hopefully in the future it won't be.

2007-01-26 21:15:05 · answer #5 · answered by Fitz 3 · 2 0

It is definitely a help, in my opinion. However, all men should be treated equal. We should all treat each other with respect, regardless of race or background. After all, it has been proven that our brains are all the same, and, with the exception of severely mentally disabled people, we all have the same learning capacity.

2007-01-26 21:15:07 · answer #6 · answered by Tikimaskedman 7 · 0 0

Affirmative action is a bunch of nonsense. I like it better before all that garbage was put in to law.

2007-01-26 21:14:17 · answer #7 · answered by m c 5 · 1 1

it is a bad bad thing. freedom and merit. i only hire people i feel comfortable with. that is freedom, liberty and justice. i am in favor of liberty, freedom and justice. aren't you/ otherwise lets have hundreds of special treatment for those who may or may not face discrimation like women, fat people, bald people, crippled people, and a hundred more. however, it is all focused on one group. wrong!

2007-01-26 21:14:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

All I will say is if you do your research those who benefit most from it are White Women.

2007-01-26 21:12:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

If it didn't exist, minorities would be able to be discriminated against.

2007-01-26 21:20:09 · answer #10 · answered by lavendergirl 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers