Affirmative action ban ruled constitutional

[Lobster]

Well they had the advantage of not having their languages and cultures deliberately eradicated to keep them ignorant and docile, so yeah, that probably played a part. This isn't some exageration either, that was the policy implemented. Break up tribal groups and families. But then again, in places like Haiti for example the slavers were a lot more lax, where the religion, tribal identities, culture and languages of the slaves were amalgated into a melting pot rather than completely erased, and you can't exactly point to modern Haiti as an example of a prosperous, peaceful country.

[Saz]

[Lobster]

[exploited]

What interests me is how discussions on race so quickly devolve into simplistic nonsense.

There is simply no way to deny that slavery had a tremendous impact on blacks, one that hurts to this day. There is too much evidence linking poverty, access to resources, segregation and feelings of "alienation" to stuff like crime, violence, inferior educational attainability, lack of opportunities, etc. Economic mobility in the US is at an all-time low - it is harder than ever for people to break out of the class they were born into, and considering that segregation was still kicking just fifty years ago, I'd say it is pretty clear that a good chunk of black misfortune can be attributed to centuries of abuse which was only addressed within the past half-century.

On the other hand... the history of slavery is very egalitarian (har har). Blacks enslaved blacks. Whites enslaved whites. They both enslaved one another. Who is culpable? Was it the African warlord who made a fortune selling his countrymen into slavery? Was it the English lords for selling Irish women and children into slavery? Was it the British (including Irish) people who then proceeded to force Africans into slavery? The reality of slavery isn't one of race - that is simply a pseudo-scientific justification used for a short period of time by white men to avoid responsibility for what they'd done. The reality is that slavery is and has always been an essential feature of civilization, and has existed everywhere that power has been centralized.

This all plays into the current day. We have seen the largest transfer of wealth in history. There has been tremendous progress to alleviate the misfortune of black people, but it has been stifled by economic and legal centralization of power. Recognizing this has resulted in an attempt to regulate that power, rather than to abolish it. For instance, instead of providing universal post-secondary education to everyone, we institute affirmative action programs, so that the best of the best of minorities can rise to the top. Problem is, that doesn't help the overwhelming mass of people - it only helps the exceptional. Which, in turn, increases the centralization of power. So while some blacks are comparatively better off, most are comparatively worse, in terms of growth potential, than a black person in the 1970s. Some of this can be attributed to outright racism - probably at least a third of it, based upon the academic literature. But much of it has nothing to do with race, and more to do with the questionable and highly immoral delegation of capital within our society.

Professor brought up the fact that African nations haven't really been moving forward to the same degree that Europeans did. That is true. Saz brought up how these same nations were actually ahead of Europe for a time. Also true. The thing to note is that the reason why African Muslim nations stopped progressing is because of cultural conservatism - there came a point where the knowledge gained from science began to threaten the legitimacy of the reigning religious and cultural authorities. Europe underwent the same thing, but Europe managed to press forward, whereas Africa did not, and also had to contend with centuries of foreign occupation and abuse.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are a multitude of reasons why black people aren't experiencing the same level of success. Some of it is hostility from whites and asians. Some of it is cultural practices - black women get accidentally pregnant three times as often, for instance, and there really isn't any good reason for this given advances in birth control. But when you take the effect of racism and the effect of capital/legal centralization together, it shows that the vast majority of the issues faced by blacks aren't due to a lack of effort, but instead due to the circumstances they live in. These circumstances are often deliberate - so while the relative power of the middle class (meaning white people) has shrank from 1970 to 2000, the effects are much worse on black people. This has the effect of not only preventing more black success directly, as in individual effort matters less, but also in terms of racial hatred - as things get worse for blacks, so do the perceptions they face, as evidenced by jimmyz.

[Indy]

That last point is a good point: things get worse and worse for them and now it's in vogue to point at the results of that terrible environment and say "SEE I TOLD YOU SO ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE!" As if white people placed in the same situation wouldn't face a similar outcome.

That is not to suggest that the black population has serious problems that need to be dealt with internally before any external solution can have an effect.

But the vicious cycle here is that white folks are being marketed the idea that black folks are why they're lives aren't improving, which is why we need to turn our backs on black folks, until the next misfortune appears and out get dragged the black folks again, etc., etc. Round and round we go.

Point being: if you're middle class or lower and you're voting for people who are claiming your life is hard because of black folks--you're literally screwing yourself. The people you're voting for intend to put you down there with them ASAP and if you can't climb out well, then: you're just not a Rugged Individual.

[Saz]

[Philly]

[Professor]

Shooter. The literacy rates in continental Europe were much higher. In 1641, it was around 30%. By 1696 it was near 47%. By 1800, it was at 62%. But, rather than saying "France was literate", I meant that if enslaved a population that was literate and one that wasn't, which one would be better off after 250 years of enslavement. While I have no proof, I cannot help but suppose that the population starting with literacy would fare better.

My main point was that we cannot, and should not, say that slavery accounts for every single ill that the current African-American population suffers. Of course it counts for a majority of it. But, not all of it.

However, and I don't know how we got on this tangent, we're talking about AA. Recognizing that, despite the cause, minorities are at a disadvantage, is the answer to raise them up artificially once their education is all-but finished, or to afford them an equal education from birth?

[gla22]

[Philly]