Has the NAACP outlived its usefulness?

[CakeDaddy]

Just so you know, I'm 5'6 lol, so when i walk into where ever i go, it doesn't matter what kind of attitude i have i'm likely not to be taken as a threat. especially since a hard sneeze would send me flying backwards(stick thin lol)

Can you honestly say that the NAACP has done something that has directly affected you or anyone you know within the last 10 years?

Would you be offended if there were some type of organization for White people championing equality?

Would you be offended if a university championed itself as a Historically White College? http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/....html

These are just questions. I would like an honest non-defensive reply if you can. I don't judge people so don't worry about your answers.

Honestly… No. I have no direct ties nor do I know anyone that has been affected by the NAACP, but not to say that they do not do positive things for the African American communities. The NAACP is not a fly high type of organization. The NAACP stays pretty low on the radar, so you will not hear about them on CNN for the work and contributions that they make. I’ve read news mags in book stores that praise them and their dealing. The NAACP is backed and supported by some pretty heavy hitters in the entertainment business, sports business and they have backing from a lot of political heads of all colors. White people campaigning for equality would be like MLB players asking for more money. I would have a hard time understanding it, so to answer your question…. I’d be more confused than offended. I would only be offended if a white organization preached hatred toward other races for the advancement of their own race. I can name a few, but I wont. “White Historical College” only it were 1960…..nahhhhhhh! . They would fail with that expression alone in 2009, plus the NAACP would eat them alive and turn that "White Historical College" into their next new head quarter. If you “champion” yourself as a white college then the pressure is on to maintain a white student base and that equals RACISM!!!!! Spellman & More House are mostly made up of African American student, but I would seriously doubt if they would step out and say “we are an ALL black college” they do enroll other races. Trust me…they do and they are proud of it. Joshua Packwood attends More House and he's the valedictorian. Do you think a “Historical White College” in Mississippi back in the 1960's or 2009 would even consider a highly intelligent, well spoken, A+ honor student, role model like DeAndre Watson Jr. or Keisha Jones to be valedictorians? Probably not! Not even if they were wrapped in a confederate flag with the letters KKK tattooed across their backs with a white cone shapped hood as they drove up in a white Chevy pick-up chanting John Wayne lines from the movie "Hell Town"


Modified by CakeDaddy at 7:49 PM 5/5/2009

[OriginalWheelman]

I hate the term "reverse racism". Racism is racism, no matter who is being discriminated against.

[rjdmmfl1]

To the OP, if indeed you are asking this question out of genuine concern or curiousity, then it deserves an honest and articulate response... and I will give it its due justice when I am done in the lab this evening. But for a quickie, until I get to the dissertation, let me state this...

it is true that, at the time of its inception, there may have been more of a global need for its existence. Overt racism ruled the day, and hanging ni**ers from a tree with no justice being done was clearly more "in your face" than the smaller incidents that happen today. However, one need not look too hard for signs of whether racism exists today... from the unequal laws put in place to disproportionately incarcerate blacks vs whites, to the disproportionate incidents of police brutality against blacks, to the Jena 6 situation, even to the venom that I smell on the lips of some of the folks that responded to this thread, indeed racism is alive and well in this country. And the second an organization like the NAACP gets comfortable and decides that it is no longer needed, that's when a catasrophy like Hurricane katrina happens... and although "The Man" was not responsible for this hurricane, the response of the ferderal government and its relief effort to this tragedy spoke volumes about how the POTUS in power at the time felt about the individuals being affected.(And no, George ush does NOT care about blck people) I also have a list of quotes from Congressmen, politicians, lawmakers, and former first ladies that would provide for a good chuckle, but I digress...

ask the people of Katrina if the NAACP relief fund which raised almost 2 million dollars to help affected families if the organization still has a need for existence. Indeed it does my friend, indeed it does. That's just one example off the top of my head that I can think of, but there's more, so many more. The fact that they are not reported or ever make the news doesn't mean that the NAACP does not still do things for the community it was created to serve EVERYDAY! A little more self education and less sarcastic threads created without even trying to find the answer on your own would take you a long way to gaining knowledge on this subject, if that's really what you are craving!
Modified by rjdmmfl1 at 6:43 PM 5/5/2009

[EazyBreazy]

Sarcasm had honestly nothing to do with the initial question. I've been around and done a few things in my life, but I am well aware there are people whom are not only smarter, but wiser out there. I wanted to get their opinions on this question. Notice, I've never put my stance on the question. That's because I'm still trying to figure out where I stand.

Would the NAACP be more relevant if but for a simple name change to National Association for the Advancement of All People(NAAAP)? It would still be able to deal with any discrimination issues, but it would encompass so much more in my opinion.

[CakeDaddy]

Would the NAACP be more relevant if but for a simple name change to National Association for the Advancement of All People(NAAAP)? It would still be able to deal with any discrimination issues, but it would encompass so much more in my opinion.

As of Feb-12-2009, the NAACP celebrated 100 years, so they are the oldest, largest and most widely recognized grassroots–based civil rights organization, so I seriously doubt if they'll change their name.

So... No. They would not be more revelant in my opinion. I applaud your thinking, but they are who they are and will always be the NAACP.
Modified by CakeDaddy at 6:59 AM 5/6/2009

[rjdmmfl1]

Would the NAACP be more relevant if but for a simple name change to National Association for the Advancement of All People(NAAAP)? It would still be able to deal with any discrimination issues, but it would encompass so much more in my opinion.

Please note that this is an entirely differnt question than the first one you posted. You made a baseless comment in response to cakedaddy about the NAACP not doing anything of value in the last ten years.... the 2 million dollars raised in response to hurricane Katrina victimes after the federal government let hundreds of poor blacks starve and die in the superdome was just one example of the NAACP's usefullness as it relates SPECIFICALLY to people of color, being that poor people of color were disproportionately affected by the disaster, and the governemnt's poor response.

My statement regarding sarcasm revolved around the fact that had you really been interested in the NAACP's usefullness, you could have googled NAACP and found a number of recent things that they have done for the advancement of colored people. The fact that you didn't bother to gather that information on your own supports the belief that you are not genuinely interested in finding that information.

Black people are still disproportionately discriminated against everday, and the NAACP picks its battles to help people of color fight these discrimination. Changing the name to the NAAAP completely defocuses its aimat advancing the plight of people of color in this country... yes, we still need the NAACP just as much as we still need some forms of affirmative action... as long as racist people remain n positions of power, it will be hard for many folks to attain the same things that others so easily get (and by many folks I mean minorites and women)

Affirmative Action:this is a double edged sword, and most folks just choose one side to cut with. Clarence Thomas, who is the biggest pariah in the black community, sees affirmative action as a chronic crutch for people of color. In a perfect society, he'd be right, and we wouldn't need affirmative action... but unfortunately society isn't perfect, and we do ned some of these programs. I am personally a product of affirmative action, but not in the way folks may choose to look at it. The MD/PhD program at Johns Hopkins is arguably the most difficult academic program to enter in the country, with an acceptance rate of around 3%. And although my test scores and GPA were both at the top of the applicant pool, it was my research experiences at the Natiuonal Institutes of Health and Yale University that put me over the top (via letters of recommendation from the Dean of yale's graduate school and the director of the Heart lung and blood institute... HOWEVER, both of those summer research experiences were afirmative action programs that did not TAKE AWAY opportunities for majority folks, but merely added created funding for additional students , particularly students of color to be exposed to the field of biomedical research, a field that these students for many reasons were previously cut off from.

So, my point is, without those programs in place to make me a serious candidate for admission, I doubt I would be a Hopkins students right now. Also, the fact that the NIH mandates that these MD/PhD programs accept a diverse student population (and not fill each class with say all white males) is another reason that I am there... but they didn't have to lower their standards to accept me (as many opponents of affirmative action feel happens )I mention my personal situation only as a means to clartify my stance on affirmative action, and how some of these programs truly give minority students the chance to compete on an already unlevel playing field.

[OriginalWheelman]

ask the people of Katrina if the NAACP relief fund which raised almost 2 million dollars to help affected families if the organization still has a need for existence.

I belonged to a Star Trek fan club and we raise money for charity. Does that mean we need to exist?

[hannibal]

As more people grow less tolerant of racism and discrimination, we as a society can begin to put an end to rediculous, outdated ideas. It is a matter of time IMO.

I agree 100% with Brian in that people have to stand for what they believe is right. If you see someone doing something wrong, call them out no matter who they are.

Speaking of my alma mater (Morehouse), I had a white roommate my freshman year. Very cool guy BTW. Our first White valedictorian graduated in 2008.

HBCU's are so named because they were the few colleges that accepted Black students. A Black man couldnt go to Ivy League or (most) state schools. HBCUs, often founded by White people who disagreed with discrimination, were the only option. A HWCU is virtually every other school.

As far as an NAAWP, you could consider that our government fulfilled that role for centuries. By restricting the rights and opportunities of Blacks and other people of color, the advancement of White people could be seen as a goal, or at least an intended consequence. The "advancement" part of NAACP shouldnt be confused with the intention of promoting Black people beyond the conditions of Whites. At the time Black people were suffering drastically in this country at the hands of the White majority, and advancement referred to achieving a level equal to White citizens. We still arent there yet.

Affirmative action was not created as a means of discrimination against White people. It was supposed to counteract the history of discrimination Blacks and other groups had suffered. If you can defend the past by saying "Life isnt fair", cant you defend AA the same way? Either way, this is a cop out. I should do whats right and you should do the same.

To answer the original question, as long as discrimination exists, there is a need for a group to fight against it and defend its victims. Its funny, no one seems to question the need for the ADL, yet in this country, Jews have faced little of the discrimination Blacks have experienced. Not trying to compare Jewish history with Black history, but simply making a comparison between advocacy groups.
Modified by hannibal at 11:38 AM 5/6/2009

[rjdmmfl1]

I belonged to a Star Trek fan club and we raise money for charity. Does that mean we need to exist?

your sarcasm is overshadowed by the fact that your statement has nothing to do with mine. If the name of your fan club were "Star trek fans for charity", and someone asked you what had your club done for charity in the last 10 years, then your response would be meaningful.

The OP asked what has the NAACP done in the last ten years, specifically for people of color, and my response was "they raised 2 million dollars during their hurricane Katrina relief fund drive" to help the displaced citizens of New Orleans, most of which were poor people of color. That is a direct response to a direct question.

These debates are healthy, but only when mature individuals engage in the discourse. Comments like yours are not only sarcastic, but are distracting to the topic at hand. This is where the term arguing with retards on the internet comes into play. I have no problems engaging in intelligent conversation, especially regarding topics that many of you either don't know or don't care about, but I will not debate with children or adults that resort to childlike sarcasm not related to the topic at hand.

As more people grow less tolerant of racism and discrimination, we as a society can begin to put an end to rediculous, outdated ideas. It is a matter of time IMO.

I agree 100% with Brian in that people have to stand for what they believe is right. If you see someone doing something wrong, call them out no matter who they are.

Speaking of my alma mater (Morehouse), I had a white roommate my freshman year. Very cool guy BTW. Our first White valedictorian graduated in 2008.

HBCU's are so named because they were the few colleges that accepted Black students. A Black man couldnt go to Ivy League or (most) state schools. HBCUs, often founded by White people who disagreed with discrimination, were the only option. A HWCU is virtually every other school.

As far as an NAAWP, you could consider that our government fulfilled that role for centuries. By restricting the rights and opportunities of Blacks and other people of color, the advancement of White people could be seen as a goal, or at least an intended consequence. The "advancement" part of NAACP shouldnt be confused with the intention of promoting Black people beyond the conditions of Whites. At the time Black people were suffering drastically in this country at the hands of the White majority, and advancement referred to achieving a level equal to White citizens. We still arent there yet.

Affirmative action was not created as a means of discrimination against White people. It was supposed to counteract the history of discrimination Blacks and other groups had suffered. If you can defend the past by saying "Life isnt fair", cant you defend AA the same way? Either way, this is a cop out. I should do whats right and you should do the same.

To answer the original question, as long as discrimination exists, there is a need for a group to fight against it and defend its victims. Its funny, no one seems to question the need for the ADL, yet in this country, Jews have faced little of the discrimination Blacks have experienced. Not trying to compare Jewish history with Black history, but simply making a comparison between advocacy groups.

Modified by hannibal at 11:38 AM 5/6/2009

What's good my Morehouse Brother??... Robert Drummond, Morehouse College class of 2002, I stayed in DuBois hall freshman year!

[hannibal]

What's good my Morehouse Brother??... Robert Drummond, Morehouse College class of 2002, I stayed in DuBois hall freshman year!

Holy crap, what a small world!

Whats up! Jordan Hinds, class of 2001. Stayed in Graves Hall my Freshman year. I started as a chemistry major, but finished with a degree in econ. Assuming you did bio or chem, I prolly had a few classes with you.

Congrats on your JHU program. Represent baby! I'm at Georgia State now, trying to figure out if I have what it takes to do a PhD in econ.

"Dear old Morehouse..."

[rjdmmfl1]

I have a better idea -

There's no need for a gov't-sanctioned program to "advance" a certain sub-set of the population.

Would you approve of the NAAWP? Why not? Because we all "have it made"? Really? Drive through rural Arkansas and tell me that.

No - Its time has passed. It's done nothing of consequence for years, and it's a relic of a time when people couldn't "bootstrap" themselves into a better way of life.

Those days are gone. And in the rare cases they're not? Too damn bad.

as long as folks continue to think like this, then these programs will continue to exist... there are also gverment sanctioned programs that exist to help

A. folks from disadvantaged backgrounds, regardless of ethnicityB. women gain equal opprtunity in society (and no women are still not paid the same wages, and are not treated as equals by their white male counterparts across the country)

by your statement, the folks that make the decisions should continue to let the good old boys in and screw everyoe else right? (be they disadvanaged whites, poor blacks, or women)... that is not acceptable from an equality standpoint.

Did George W. Bush get into Yale undergrad, or Harvard business school own his own merits? NOPE, it was the good old boy network that landed him there. Well that still occurs all over this country, special treatment of folks from the "right families." So by your statement, no progra should exist that allows fair treatment of ALL applicants, whether they are a Bush or not? Sure, these affirmative action programs are not perfect, and even I don't agree with some of the blind + point programs, HOWEVER, being familiar with the legacy privaleges that exist for applicants to top schools, indeed I can tell you from personal experience that there is NOT a level playing field for many aspects of society.

How can you keep telling folks to " just work harder" to win the game when the deck has been stacked from the beginning? being in higher education, I've seen first hand what a stacked deck looks like, and I will continue for the rest of my lif to fight against the "good old boy network" and work for equality for all folks that have been denied, including, but not limited to.. African-Americans, folks from disadvantaged backgrounds, women, and anyone else not a part of the good ole boy network!
Modified by rjdmmfl1 at 11:29 AM 5/6/2009

[AZhitman]

The problem is, the NAACP is NOT looking out for "disadvantaged people".

It is, by definition, designed for the Advancement of Colored People" (not my words - theirs.)

When the NAACP offers a scholarship for the children of the white trash, uneducated hilljack on the outskirts of Little Rock, let me know.

Until then, they're an exclusionary organization whose time has come and past.

Rail against the "GOB Network" all you want, I have disdain for it as well. But in this case, they're not the enemy - They're a distraction from the true need.

Focus on that, and all will be better.

[rjdmmfl1]

The problem is, the NAACP is NOT looking out for "disadvantaged people".

It is, by definition, designed for the Advancement of Colored People" (not my words - theirs.)

When the NAACP offers a scholarship for the children of the white trash, uneducated hilljack on the outskirts of Little Rock, let me know.

Until then, they're an exclusionary organization whose time has come and past.

Rail against the "GOB Network" all you want, I have disdain for it as well. But in this case, they're not the enemy - They're a distraction from the true need.

Focus on that, and all will be better.

re-read my post, I didn't say nor imply the NAACP was/is/should be looking out for disadvantaged folks... indeed the NAACP is looking out for the advancement of colored people. I brought up the disadvantaged folks to mention that there are similar programs set up to aid these people as well, and being that they too are discriminated against, there is a necessity for those programs. Why at Johns Hopkins there is a scholarship fund specifically designed for folks from "disadvantaged backgrounds" it is known as the "Board of visitors" scholarship. And I can tell you that there is a diverse background of folks that have this scholarship, white, black, and hispanic alike. So that scholarship has reached the people it is intened to reach: disadvantaged folks that are discriminated against or have not had the same opportunitites to "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" like the rest of us in society.

But to argue that "colored folks" are not discriminated against on a daily basis and that we should just let what happens to them happen to them is to ignore the truth and forget the problem, hoping that it will go away.

So to respond directly to your statement, the NAACP doesn't need to offer scholarships to disadvanteged folks since that is NOT what it was created for... it offers them to the peope it was created to support. Likewise, our "Board of visitors" scholarship doesn't need to be offered only to blacks, or women, but to anyone from a disadvanteged background. That was what it was created to do.

And my rant towards the good ole boy network was only made to lay a basis for the argument that indeed there is a N.A.A. of Rich W.P., and it is the good ole boy network... and as such, there needs to be a NAACP to counteract this type of stacked deck.

To that end, I feel that the Center for the Advancement of Women and the National Association of Women are both equally necessary groups in our society as women are still at a struggle for equality as well.

If one can agree with the claim that certain groups are discriminated against, but then in the same breath say that these folks don't need to have an advocacy group dedicated to them, then that person is not thinking intelligently!

[OriginalWheelman]

My point is raising money for charity has nothing to do with advancing colored people. There were lots of organizations there were not racially affiliated that sent lots of money to Katrina victims. According to wikipedia, there were over $4.2 billion in donations. My point was that the point you made about raising money for Katrina victims is irrelevant.
Modified by OriginalWheelman at 12:29 PM 5/6/2009

[AZhitman]

... indeed the NAACP is looking out for the advancement of colored people.

Therefore, they are an exclusionary organization and should be abolished.

they too are discriminated against, there is a necessity for those programs.

So are fat people. Stupid people are too. Let's not forget people with a lazy eye, a hare lip, and those with a receding hairline. Where's their program?

scholarship fund specifically designed for folks from "disadvantaged backgrounds"

And who is qualified to make this determination? Is there a formula? Is there a "GOB Network"within the NAACP? I'll bet there is. Sounds awfully subjective to me, but we'll touch on this more in a moment.

that scholarship has reached the people it is intened to reach: disadvantaged folks that are discriminated against or have not had the same opportunitites to "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" like the rest of us in society.

Again, who are they to judge WHO has had "opportunity"? Have they followed these people every waking moment? Did any of those "disadvantaged" people choose to use drugs or alcohol? Any of them sleep in, instead of going to a job interview? Any of them tell their boss to "piss off" and get fired?

If so, is their "disadvantage" avoidable? Who tallies the points? That person must be pretty well-compensated, since they're omniscient.

the NAACP doesn't need to offer scholarships to disadvanteged folks since that is NOT what it was created for... it offers them to the peope it was created to support.

Right. Black people. Exclusionary. Why is that OK?

indeed there is a N.A.A. of Rich W.P., and it is the good ole boy network... and as such, there needs to be a NAACP to counteract this type of stacked deck.

Really? There is? Is it recognized by the Federal Government? Does it have tax-exempt status? Is it approved?

Or is this another example of "Look at all those rich bastards - They can't POSSIBLY have earned all that money, let's take it away."

I'd cuonter that the NBA and NFL are FULL of overpaid minorities. Why is there no organization to help skinny, non-athletic White kids get a piece of that pie? Can you help set that up for me? I've always wanted to be the starting QB for the Atlanta Falcons... But I'm "disadvantaged", you see.

To that end, I feel that the Center for the Advancement of Women and the National Association of Women are both equally necessary groups in our society as women are still at a struggle for equality as well.

Debatable. The gap has closed considerably, and recent stats show it's nearly negligible in many areas and fields.

But those poor, helpless women really do need someone to take care of them, don't they. After all, they're mentally and physically inferior to us big strong smart men.

If one can agree with the claim that certain groups are discriminated against, but then in the same breath say that these folks don't need to have an advocacy group dedicated to them, then that person is not thinking intelligently!

Ah, the old "You don't agree with me, ergo, you are dumb" counter. Not buynig it.

Let me ask this: Am I disadvantaged? Think of your answer.

Now, let me describe a guy I know, tell me if HE is from a "disadvantaged background":

His parents: A woman who was raised in rural NC by her siblings - Her Dad died when she was 18 months, Mom died when she was 14. The father - First-generation American, unemployed, paying child support for three kids, and his sole job skills are outdated and no longer in demand.

Father has no diploma. Mother graduated high school.

Their first child is born in a town of 15,000 people, they reside in a 3-room house. Although the father works to the best of his ability, their car is repo'ed, money is tight, and the prospects for work in such a small town are meager.

Now - Is that child "from a disadvantaged background"?

Because I want to know if I'm eligible for some kind of assistance... Maybe I've just been working too hard.

[rjdmmfl1]

Greg, i'm not going to go tit for tat with you on your statements as i just have too many things to do today, but I will respond to a few of them..

regarding the "Board of visitors" scholarship, and who judges those individuals from diverse backgrounds... there is something called a personal tatement that everyone must write in order to gain entry into medical school. This personal statement is not a rehash of their accolades, but rather a chance to give the reviewer a glimpse into who they are as a person. Any "hardships that were overcome" should go into this statement and this is told to all applicants. Telling the story of the "guy you know" may or may not be viewed as a hardship.

The stories we hear are usually more of... My father is in jail, my mother is on drugs, in addition to raising my 3 brothers and sisters on my own, I have held down a part time job while attending college. That is an individual from a disadvantaged background.

or " me and my family are refugees from ____ country. We arrived here on a boat with only the clothes on our backs. My father was an illigal day laborer with no education, my mother works under the table as a nanny/housekeeper, they valued education for me, and pushed me to excel in school. "

not to say your situation below doesn't describe a disadvantaged background, but compared with other situations, it may or may not be considered so. You asked the question of whether or not you were disadvantaged assuming that you knew what I was going to say, but you can't tell if a person is disadantaged just from knowing what they do now, that's why these scholarships are based, not on ethnicity, but on individual's personal stories. But to answer your question, based on the limited information you wrote down, I would say that individual being described would qualify as being from a disadvantaged situation. Again, in this context, its not about ethnicity.

regarding you statement "you don't agree with me ergo you are dumb" that never came out of my mouth, I said that person that makes a statement, but in the same breath says something that doesn;t support the first statemet is not thinking intelligently. BUt it was a poor choice of words on my part, unsympathetic and un-empathetic would be the words to describe a person that sees a group is being discriminated against, and still thinks they don't need an advocacy group to defend them.

regarding your statement on women's equal rights, I think many of them would disagree with you on that, and of course my statement is debatable, that's why I lent it as an opinion and not fact

I doubt I would ever convince you that the NAACP is still necessary, indeed there were folks that didn't think it was necessary when black people were burning from trees, but indeed it was necessary then, and is still necesssary today in a time when lesser eveils are still being perpetuated. And all I can say to that is thank God you all are not in power, for if you were, surely I would be "put in my place" and would not be the seemingly uppity negro that I am ... with m wanting equal rights and all that nonsense!

[hannibal]

Therefore, they are an exclusionary organization and should be abolished.

What should be abolished is the idea that race determines someone's abilities. THe NAACP seeks to counteract the ideas that this is alright.

So are fat people. Stupid people are too. Let's not forget people with a lazy eye, a hare lip, and those with a receding hairline. Where's their program?

As far as I'm aware, there has never been a law in this country making it legal to discriminate against these groups. We never enslaved lazied eyed people. People with hare lips werent prohibited from learning to read or attend school. But the solution is the same: stop hating on people.

Really? There is? Is it recognized by the Federal Government? Does it have tax-exempt status? Is it approved?

It WAS the federal government. Congress didnt raise objections. The presidents did voice conern. Society struggle to render a complaint.

This shouldnt require much explanation.

I'd cuonter that the NBA and NFL are FULL of overpaid minorities. Why is there no organization to help skinny, non-athletic White kids get a piece of that pie? Can you help set that up for me? I've always wanted to be the starting QB for the Atlanta Falcons... But I'm "disadvantaged", you see.

Where is it written that every man, women, and child has the right to play professional sports? Thats crazy. You wanna take Matt Ryan's place? Go practice and hit the combine next year. (Never seen you play football, but I think I'd rather have Matty!) Everyone should have the chance to live to their potential. Restricting them is wrong.

Debatable. The gap has closed considerably, and recent stats show it's nearly negligible in many areas and fields.

But those poor, helpless women really do need someone to take care of them, don't they. After all, they're mentally and physically inferior to us big strong smart men.

The wage differential between men and women is about 10%. Adjusting for differences in education, experience, and other individual factors leaves about a 5% wage differential. The wage differential between White women and Black women is about the same (both raw and adjusted). The wage differential btw Black men and White men is about 20% raw and 10% adjusted for individual factors. This data comes from a respected labor economist.Shouldnt these gaps be zero?!?

Ah, the old "You don't agree with me, ergo, you are dumb" counter. Not buynig it.

He certainly did not call you dumb. I believe his point was if you can see there was/is structural discrimination against a group, then argue that groups combating this bias are unnecessary, you're not thinking rationally or honestly.

Let me ask this: Am I disadvantaged? Think of your answer.

Now, let me describe a guy I know, tell me if HE is from a "disadvantaged background":

His parents: A woman who was raised in rural NC by her siblings - Her Dad died when she was 18 months, Mom died when she was 14. The father - First-generation American, unemployed, paying child support for three kids, and his sole job skills are outdated and no longer in demand.

Father has no diploma. Mother graduated high school.

Their first child is born in a town of 15,000 people, they reside in a 3-room house. Although the father works to the best of his ability, their car is repo'ed, money is tight, and the prospects for work in such a small town are meager.

Now - Is that child "from a disadvantaged background"?

Because I want to know if I'm eligible for some kind of assistance... Maybe I've just been working too hard.

You tell me? Is it an advantage to lose one's parents at an early age? Is having an unemployed father beneficial? Have you ever been in a situation where someone with power or who can impact your future looked at you and concluded, "Youre White and I'm not gonna allow you an opportunity to succeed?"

One last thought. No one knows your background from your appearance. You could hide this all day, everyday if you chose to. Race is printed on one's body. Much easier to hate on that than something no one could know.

[rjdmmfl1]

Hannibal, you're starting to sound like one of those "uppity negroes" as well...

so ur telling me its OK for a group of people still feeling the burden of Jim Crow, seperate but "unequal' schools", literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and overt racism to actually want an organization that advocates for their advancement ??? Sounds mighty uppity to me.. how dare you want equal rights!

(to the untrained ears/eyes reading this post, please note the intended sarcasm)

[OriginalWheelman]

You're assuming racism / sexism is the reason for all this. I used to interview people for jobs. I can tell you from my experience it seems women make less because they haggle less at job interviews. Almost every man i interviewed tried to negotiate the pay rate, only on woman ever did, out of the 30 or so I interviewed. That could easily account for the 5%.

Furthermore, not every white person was a slave owner. A lot of white people fought against slavery and for equal rights. No offense intended, but black people would not have gotten equal rights without the help of white people. Not every black person was enslaved, not every slave was black. Not every slave owner raped their female slaves and not every slave owner whipped them for getting "uppity".

Furthermore, slaves were treated a lot better than immigrants. Slaves were property and as such slaves had value. An Irishman didn't. People generally take care of their property.
Modified by OriginalWheelman at 2:19 PM 5/6/2009

[AZhitman]

As far as I'm aware, there has never been a law in this country making it legal to discriminate against these groups. We never enslaved lazied eyed people. People with hare lips werent prohibited from learning to read or attend school. But the solution is the same: stop hating on people.

No. But many were discriminated against. Still are. Where's their Advancement Association?

We don't enslave anyone, and we don't prohibit anyone from going to school or learning to read. Let's keep apples compared to apples.

Where is it written that every man, women, and child has the right to play professional sports? Thats crazy.

Where is it written that every man, woman, and child has the right to a college education?

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And the latter is in the eye of the beholder.

if you can see there was/is structural discrimination against a group, then argue that groups combating this bias are unnecessary, you're not thinking rationally or honestly.

"Structural discrimination" implies that it is organized and sanctioned. I don't think this is the case. Is there discrimination on a case-by-case basis? Of course. And it's wrong.

But we're discussing the existence and necessity of an exclusionary organization that seeks only to further the advancement of a select few people, and there exists NO PARALLEL ORGANIZATION for those it excludes. THAT cannot be disputed.

One last thought. No one knows your background from your appearance. You could hide this all day, everyday if you chose to. Race is printed on one's body. Much easier to hate on that than something no one could know.

Of course. I agree.

Perhaps I'd be better off seeking assistance from the National Association for the Advancement of Ugly People. WIN.

p.s. I'm not even going to TOUCH on the alleged lack of "equal rights". If you feel you've been discriminated against, the laws are in place, and they're there for your protection. Contact your EEOC rep at work, or an attorney.

[AZhitman]

Furthermore, not every white person was a slave owner. A lot of white people fought against slavery and for equal rights. No offense intended, but black people would not have gotten equal rights without the help of white people. Not every black person was enslaved, not every slave was black.

Well-said.

Also, slavery has no place in this discussion.

Feel free to wallow in the miseries of ancestry, but the rest of us choose to live in the present.

I could tell you stories about my ancestors that would make anyone of Black descent feel fortunate. So let's not go there.

[rjdmmfl1]

You're assuming racism / sexism is the reason for all this. I used to interview people for jobs. I can tell you from my experience it seems women make less because they haggle less at job interviews. Almost every man i interviewed tried to negotiate the pay rate, only on woman ever did, out of the 30 or so I interviewed. That could easily account for the 5%.

Furthermore, not every white person was a slave owner. A lot of white people fought against slavery and for equal rights. No offense intended, but black people would not have gotten equal rights without the help of white people. Not every black person was enslaved, not every slave was black. Not every slave owner raped their female slaves and not every slave owner whipped them for getting "uppity".

Furthermore, slaves were treated a lot better than immigrants. Slaves were property and as such slaves had value. An Irishman didn't. People generally take care of their property.

Modified by OriginalWheelman at 2:19 PM 5/6/2009

the mere statement that slaves were treated much better than immigrants is a disgrace to the memory of slaves. PERIOD. The type of CHATTEL slavery that occured here in the U.S. was based on racial differences and subhuman treatment of black slaves by their white slave masters (except when master wanted some of that big black a$$) but to even state that immigrants were treated better than slaves does not deseve any kind of intelligent response... also, I'm guessing you and AZ were responding to my brother Hannibal regarding slavery since he brought that up...

but the long lasting social impacts of slavery, both on the concious and unconcious level , and how they apply to today's society is material for another discussion entirely, but suffice to say the social impacts of the things I mentioned, i.e. lack of civil rights like voting, having seperate "unequal" schools, and not being allowed admission to certain schools is something that only ended overtly a few decades ago, the effects of which are still very much present today...

I will end by saying that it warms my heart to know that you two individuals have no bearing on my future success, and do not stand between me and any of my goals, however, it pains me to think/know that there are other folks that have your views that are still in positions of power...

HOWEVER, just like there were indeed whites that were extremely involved and instrumental in blacks obtaining freedom, obtaining civil rights, and obtaining an equal education back in the day, still today there are superb whites that champion equal rights, and advocate for these things. Back then, ya'll called them race traitors, today you all call them liberals... but either way, just as they countered the thinking of individuals like yourself back then, they are still doing it today. At Hopkins, we're working diligently on displacing the last bits of conservatives that maintained the status quo, and they've hired new young faculty of all colors that are truly comitted to diversity and an equal medical community... ahhh, how sweet it is to know that there are people like that in this world, especially since racist institutions like Hopkins didn't accept blacks into their medical school until the 1960's ... but it is even sweeter to know that the conservatives can only sit back and complain about what's happening at Hopkins and other institutions all over the country.. and the more individuals like myself that move into positions of power at these medical institutions, the more diverse they will continue to get and remain...

[hannibal]

^ too much at once!

I dunno if youre banned from this site yet, but you gotta say one peice at a time. Thats a lot to digest if its the first time someone's considered it.

Expect the majority of your posts (no matter the subject) to be dismissed from now on...

[OriginalWheelman]

the mere statement that slaves were treated much better than immigrants is a disgrace to the memory of slaves. PERIOD. The type of CHATTEL slavery that occured here in the U.S. was based on racial differences and subhuman treatment of black slaves by their white slave masters (except when master wanted some of that big black a$$) but to even state that immigrants were treated better than slaves does not deseve any kind of intelligent response... also, I'm guessing you and AZ were responding to my brother Hannibal regarding slavery since he brought that up...

but the long lasting social impacts of slavery, both on the concious and unconcious level , and how they apply to today's society is material for another discussion entirely, but suffice to say the social impacts of the things I mentioned, i.e. lack of civil rights like voting, having seperate "unequal" schools, and not being allowed admission to certain schools is something that only ended overtly a few decades ago, the effects of which are still very much present today...

I will end by saying that it warms my heart to know that you two individuals have no bearing on my future success, and do not stand between me and any of my goals, however, it pains me to think/know that there are other folks that have your views that are still in positions of power...

HOWEVER, just like there were indeed whites that were extremely involved and instrumental in blacks obtaining freedom, obtaining civil rights, and obtaining an equal education back in the day, still today there are superb whites that champion equal rights, and advocate for these things. Back then, ya'll called them race traitors, today you all call them liberals... but either way, just as they countered the thinking of individuals like yourself back then, they are still doing it today. At Hopkins, we're working diligently on displacing the last bits of conservatives that maintained the status quo, and they've hired new young faculty of all colors that are truly comitted to diversity and an equal medical community... ahhh, how sweet it is to know that there are people like that in this world, especially since racist institutions like Hopkins didn't accept blacks into their medical school until the 1960's ... but it is even sweeter to know that the conservatives can only sit back and complain about what's happening at Hopkins and other institutions all over the country.. and the more individuals like myself that move into positions of power at these medical institutions, the more diverse they will continue to get and remain...

Wow, so conservatives are against equal rights? Race traitors? I don't recall calling anyone that. Furthermore, my family was one of the families out campaigning for equal rights, and working int he underground railroad. What bothers me are people like you, that have never known the discrimination of which you speak, holding it against people like me, who have never discriminated against anyone.

[AZhitman]

the mere statement that slaves were treated much better than immigrants is a disgrace to the memory of slaves. PERIOD. The type of CHATTEL slavery that occured here in the U.S. was based on racial differences and subhuman treatment of black slaves by their white slave masters (except when master wanted some of that big black a$$)

Just the type of stereotypical thinking and revisionist thinking I'd expect from someone in SoCal.

To ASSUME (as you have) that all slaves were Black is ignorant.

To ASSUME that all were of African descent is ignroant as well.

To ASSUME they were all treated horribly is ignorant (many owned homes on the land, raised their families, owned livestock, and even had retirement and pensions). You wouldn't accept that, though.

To ASSUME widespread abuse (you even go so far as to imply sexual abuse, perhaps even rape) tells me you've already made up your mind. I have to wonder where you learned so much... stories passed down through the generations? No? Textbooks? No? Ever LIVE in the deep south?

I grew up in the deep south. 14 years. I saw the aftereffects. My grade school had seperate drinking fountains and restrooms, although the words "White" and "Colored" had been painted over a few years prior (but still visible).

Made me upset, even as a child. (I always wondered, what did they do about the Korean kids? The Mulatto kids? The Haitians? There were many of them in my classes.)

lack of civil rights like voting, having seperate "unequal" schools, and not being allowed admission to certain schools is something that only ended overtly a few decades ago, the effects of which are still very much present today...

Hmmm. Smallpox was eradicated a few decades ago too. Are we still wringing our hands over its remaining effects? Are the kids who lost grandparents to smallpox seeking reparations?

I want MY reparations for the genocide of MY ancestors. I want reparations for MY father and his father having to change their name on Ellis Island and being looked down upon as second-class "invaders". Where's MY Advancement Association?

I will end by saying that it warms my heart to know that you two individuals have no bearing on my future success, and do not stand between me and any of my goals,

Awesome! That's some good "bootstrap" mentality. I applaud you. You have no need for anyone's assistance, and I respect that. Sincerely.

...however, it pains me to think/know that there are other folks that have your views that are still in positions of power...

I take offense to that. Apparently, because I don't see a need for the NAACP, I may harbor some racist ideology? I'd suggest you read up on me a little. Nothing could be further from the truth.

By the way, why can't I gain admission to Alcorn State? Why couldn't my mother?

Exclusionary.

I'm saddened that you have deduced that I'm aligned with those who refuse to become colorblind. I'm going to leave that as an unfortunate misconception on your part, because I know in my heart it's inaccurate.

[AZhitman]

^ too much at once!

I dunno if youre banned from this site yet, but you gotta say one peice at a time. Thats a lot to digest if its the first time someone's considered it.

Expect the majority of your posts (no matter the subject) to be dismissed from now on...

You lost me here, Jordan... Was that for rjdmmfl1?

[CakeDaddy]

I belonged to a Star Trek fan club and we raise money for charity. Does that mean we need to exist?

You should just sit back and watch... You might learn something instead of injecting ignorant comments into an educated thread

[OriginalWheelman]

You should just sit back and watch... You might learn something instead of injecting ignorant comments into an educated thread

Speaking of ignorant comments. I was pointing out a fallacy in his argument. You have done nothing but criticize, at least I was offering a thought based on something other than hatred.

[CakeDaddy]

I refuse to ever use the term "African American"... or any other hyphenated label.

Don't like it? Make me.

Sigh Sigh Sigh! You have to respect the wishes of the ones who prefer to be called African American. It would not be in your best interest to call a group of African Americans “black” while in their company, especially when you know they prefer to be called otherwise. Be smart not ignorant! You sound real tough behind that computer screen but in the real world I’m sure you'd be on your best behavior and will respect the African Americans that are in your presence.

[OriginalWheelman]

None of my black friends have a problem with me calling them black. If you have a problem me calling "African-Americans" black then stop referring to me as white. I'm a English-Irish-Italian-Norwegian-German-African-Native-American.