[Split]When are you white?

[CFLarsen]

Sorry, what? I thought I answered your question? Why change the question to make it incompatible with my answer?

I'm not changing the question. I am asking a new one, deriving from your reply. You did ask for the next question, you know...

No, race is not a social construct. The word "race" is another word for "sub-species". And Ed knows that sub-species abound in the scientific taxonomy world.

Where do you draw the line, when it comes to humans?

That, Yorick, is the question.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I'm not changing the question. I am asking a new one, deriving from your reply. You did ask for the next question, you know...

Okay, but your new question is barely related to your first question. Shouldn't we try to keep things a bit on topic?

Where do you draw the line, when it comes to humans?

That, Yorick, is the question.

My suggestion in the previous post drew a line.

I agree that it is not easy now a days to determine what race a given human is. Technology has made the inter-breeding of races easier and easier, as well as faster and faster.

 

[CFLarsen]

Okay, but your new question is barely related to your first question. Shouldn't we try to keep things a bit on topic?

Isn't a question of how we define "race" very much on topic?

My suggestion in the previous post drew a line.

Actually, you didn't. You just said that there was a line. Where is it?

I agree that it is not easy now a days to determine what race a given human is. Technology has made the inter-breeding of races easier and easier, as well as faster and faster.

It isn't a question of the technology, but of the definitions.

When is someone "black"?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Isn't a question of how we define "race" very much on topic?

Certainly it is. But questions on college admissions, which is what you started rambling about, seem to have little relevance to that question. Don't you agree?

Actually, you didn't. You just said that there was a line. Where is it?

Actually I did. I gave the procedure for determining this line. Which is what you asked for.

It isn't a question of the technology, but of the definitions.

When is someone "black"?

Already answered.

 

[slingblade]

But if you are the sole arbiter of who is black or not, and, hence, who gets the college grant?

What do you base your decision on, then?

In America, one's birth certificate lists one's race. That is all that is needed. Race is not a decison made late in life: our government requires your parents to declare your race on your birth certificate. It is not a third-party determination*.

I am not aware of any colleges at this time which openly discriminate based on race. I am not aware of any colleges which have a race "quota." The Federal student aid program does not ask for one's race.

Do you, then, know of any colleges in which AA has been recently used to admit students who would otherwise not have been admitted?

If not, does that not make the point moot?

Is race a social construct?

That depends on what you mean by "race." It is not a yes/no question, but one which is multi-faceted. The majority of racial issues are social constructs, yes. One gets into muddier waters when one speaks about race from a medical standpoint.

Do we vote on who is black? That's even more ridiculous than setting up arbitrary "scientific" standards.

Which is why we don't do that in America. Your parents determine your race at birth. They check off a box when they fill out the paperwork for your birth certificate. *I do not know what would happen in a scenario in which your parents (their race previously determined on their own BC) list you as a different race from them. For instance, if your black parents mark you down as white on your birth certificate, I do not know if anyone would question that, or make them change it, nor how that would work.

 

[Aoidoi]

After 3 pages I started skimming, but didn't notice anybody mention this.

CFLarsen is apparently like Stephen Colbert. He's so advanced he no longer sees race. So he has to ask people what race they are so that he knows. If only we were all like these 2 fine gentlemen, racism would be a thing of the past!

 

[slingblade]

I asked you a question. Is this not what AA is for?

What are you claiming it is for? You are making the claim about AA, not I. You must tell us what you have determined it is for, since it is your claim.

Scientific standards. If you lower the bar for academic acceptance, then you are lowering the bar for scientific standards.

You do realize that "scientific standards" is a vague term? I can't answer a question until I know what you mean.

You do realize there is a connection between academic achievements and academic merits?

I realize you claim there is. But I do not yet know what that claim is, so I cannot answer. State the difference, and I will agree or disagree.

I think this is one of the major differences in thinking. I don't see any reason to even think about placing blame on those who have not had the opportunities to get an education.

It isn't about blame, it's about opportunities.

How does AA address opportunities, and for whom?

Why should you be allowed to attend college? You haven't earned it, have you? That you lose interest in educating yourself is your own decision.

And yet I now have one BA and am working on a second. I earned it. Don't even think of suggesting otherwise. One doesn't just get their degree handed to them; getting into college is but the first step of many. If you cannot handle the work, you will not stay long. If you can do the work, you will be graduated. Bear in mind there are many people with degrees just like mine, but instead of a Grade Point Average (GPA) of 3.6 (an A), they earned a 2.0, (a C). Yet they still have a degree. Hardly seems fair, does it?

However, there are some colleges which would not have accepted me: Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, etc. I attend a state college.

College acceptance is not always based on merit, or grades. College graduation is. Many colleges don't mind letting you in, to see if you can make it. They are, after all, getting paid. But if you cannot complete the requirements for graduation, you will not be graduated, and they will still have gotten a lot of your money. Sounds like a win/win for the college, so why should it care about your grades or your color, as long as somehow you pay?

Where did I say anything about intelligence? I am speaking about academic merit. Sure, intelligence plays a huge part, but intelligence is not the only factor. There are also such aspects as dedication and stamina. You may be intelligent, but that doesn't mean you are entitled to an academic career. You have to work for it, too.

Most educators know that grades are arbitrary. They actually reflect very little about one's abilities. Since it is possible to be very intelligent and skilled, yet still get poor grades for numerous reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with your abilities, grades are but one consideration for admission to many colleges.

You didn't answer the question. Are we talking about life experience (maturity, etc), or academic knowledge?

There is not much academic knowledge to it. I have taken the test. It focuses, largely, on your ability to distinguish the difference between sets of numbers, and your ability to notice incremental differences in addresses.

http://federaljobs.net/usps.htm

Part A
Address Checking (60 questions) 11 minutes. Determine if two addresses are identical

Part B
Forms Completion (30) 15 minutes information identification for completing forms correctly

Part C
Section 1 - Coding (36) 6 minutes Use the proper code to assign to addresses

Part C
Section 2 - Memory (36) 7 minutes Memorize assigned codes for addresses ranges

Part D Inventory of Personal Experience and Characteristics (236) 90 minutes Experience and characteristics which are job-related.

Experience, we can see, does matter, but only job-related experience. This is not specifically an exam, but a survey. "Characteristics" are not defined.

But none of this relates to my question:

Is it fair that military veterans get 5 to 10 points added to their test score simply because they are veterans and you are not? Yes or no, and why/why not, if you care to add that part.

When you allow people who don't have the academic skills to enter academia, you are lowering the bars.

Am I wrong here?

Apples and oranges, I'm afraid. See what I said above about how getting in is quite different from being graduated.

Grades don't always consistently or accurately reflect one's skills. You can have low grades and high skills. I did.
Please remember that HS was 29 years ago for me. I didn't have failing grades, mind you. Not one. I had a range of grades from C to A, largely A's and B's. But they were not straight A's. If I recall, my HS GPA was 2.6...I think. This would not get me into Harvard, but it will and did get me into state college.

 

[CFLarsen]

Certainly it is. But questions on college admissions, which is what you started rambling about, seem to have little relevance to that question. Don't you agree?

It is very relevant in a discussion about AA.

Actually I did. I gave the procedure for determining this line. Which is what you asked for.

Already answered.

You are not serious, are you?

In America, one's birth certificate lists one's race. That is all that is needed. Race is not a decison made late in life: our government requires your parents to declare your race on your birth certificate. It is not a third-party determination*.

First, race is certainly a decision that can be made late in life: When you fill out forms, there is very often a question about what race you are. When I was living in the US, I filled out a lot of those forms...

I am not aware of any colleges at this time which openly discriminate based on race. I am not aware of any colleges which have a race "quota." The Federal student aid program does not ask for one's race.

Do you, then, know of any colleges in which AA has been recently used to admit students who would otherwise not have been admitted?

If not, does that not make the point moot?

Isn't that what AA is supposed to help? Get student admitted that would otherwise not have been admitted?

That depends on what you mean by "race." It is not a yes/no question, but one which is multi-faceted. The majority of racial issues are social constructs, yes. One gets into muddier waters when one speaks about race from a medical standpoint.

Indeed. Which makes AA not just silly, but a weapon of arbitrary racism.

Which is why we don't do that in America. Your parents determine your race at birth. They check off a box when they fill out the paperwork for your birth certificate.

*I do not know what would happen in a scenario in which your parents (their race previously determined on their own BC) list you as a different race from them. For instance, if your black parents mark you down as white on your birth certificate, I do not know if anyone would question that, or make them change it, nor how that would work.

Do the boxes cover all possibilities? Have the options changed over time?

What are you claiming it is for? You are making the claim about AA, not I. You must tell us what you have determined it is for, since it is your claim.

I explained what I think AA is for. If I am wrong, please explain it to me.

You do realize that "scientific standards" is a vague term? I can't answer a question until I know what you mean.

Adhering to the scientific method. Take Uri Geller: Does he do science?

I realize you claim there is. But I do not yet know what that claim is, so I cannot answer. State the difference, and I will agree or disagree.

I'll explain further: Your academic achievements is the work you have done. Your academic merits are the scientific education you have received. Is that clearer?

How does AA address opportunities, and for whom?

They address the opportunities - or lack of - for those who don't have them, and then, help those people.

Again, if I am wrong, please explain it to me.

And yet I now have one BA and am working on a second. I earned it. Don't even think of suggesting otherwise. One doesn't just get their degree handed to them; getting into college is but the first step of many. If you cannot handle the work, you will not stay long. If you can do the work, you will be graduated. Bear in mind there are many people with degrees just like mine, but instead of a Grade Point Average (GPA) of 3.6 (an A), they earned a 2.0, (a C). Yet they still have a degree. Hardly seems fair, does it?

However, there are some colleges which would not have accepted me: Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, etc. I attend a state college.

And why? Because their standards are higher?

College acceptance is not always based on merit, or grades. College graduation is. Many colleges don't mind letting you in, to see if you can make it. They are, after all, getting paid. But if you cannot complete the requirements for graduation, you will not be graduated, and they will still have gotten a lot of your money. Sounds like a win/win for the college, so why should it care about your grades or your color, as long as somehow you pay?

If they don't, then why are there problems with blacks (not) attending colleges?

Most educators know that grades are arbitrary. They actually reflect very little about one's abilities. Since it is possible to be very intelligent and skilled, yet still get poor grades for numerous reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with your abilities, grades are but one consideration for admission to many colleges.

If grades are arbitrary, why have grades at all, then?

There is not much academic knowledge to it.

Then, there's hardly need for an academic degree.

But none of this relates to my question:

Is it fair that military veterans get 5 to 10 points added to their test score simply because they are veterans and you are not? Yes or no, and why/why not, if you care to add that part.

It does relate very much to your question, and you've given the answer yourself: There's not much need for an academic degree.

Apples and oranges, I'm afraid. See what I said above about how getting in is quite different from being graduated.

Grades don't always consistently or accurately reflect one's skills. You can have low grades and high skills. I did.

Indeed. But when you graduate, you have to get a certain grade. Otherwise, yer out.

After 3 pages I started skimming, but didn't notice anybody mention this.

CFLarsen is apparently like Stephen Colbert. He's so advanced he no longer sees race. So he has to ask people what race they are so that he knows. If only we were all like these 2 fine gentlemen, racism would be a thing of the past!

I do see "race", in the cases where there's little doubt (although I find it silly to divide people into races). What I am questioning is the methods by which people decide the fuzzy boundaries. The explanations seems as fuzzy as the boundaries...

 

[.13.]

When is someone "black"?

When they think OJ didn't do it.

 

[slingblade]

First, race is certainly a decision that can be made late in life: When you fill out forms, there is very often a question about what race you are. When I was living in the US, I filled out a lot of those forms...

I am not aware of anyone changing the box they usually tick, later in life. I could be mistaken. All I do know is that you originally asked how people know what race they are. My explanation is the best I can come up with; sorry.

I have read articles written by Indians in which the author complains his/her race/ethnicity is the only one in America one has to prove. Google "blood quantum" to find similar articles, for and against. This seems to relate to the discussion. Some Indians feel this is racism; some don't.

Isn't that what AA is supposed to help? Get student admitted that would otherwise not have been admitted?

"AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Specific actions in recruitment, hiring, upgrading and other areas designed and taken for the purpose of eliminating the present effects of past discrimination, or to prevent discrimination."

That's one definition. Evidently, school falls under the non-specific "other areas."

Another definition says: "Established during FDR's presidency, intended to provide minorities with increased social, economic, educational, and other opportunities."

I thought it came about in the '60s, with Kennedy. *shrugs*
Regardless, it is still important to remember that AA covers gender equality as well as racial and physical equality, as in assuring that those who are disabled will also have equal opportunity for....opportunity. Race is only one issue addressed by AA. Do remember this, please.

Indeed. Which makes AA not just silly, but a weapon of arbitrary racism.

Okay. Whatever. Is this where I ask you what you plan to do about it, given your statement above?

Do the boxes cover all possibilities? Have the options changed over time?

I don't know; do they? Have they? You've filled out similar papers, you say. Can't you answer that for yourself? Most such forms do have a box for "other." And often a write-in blank so you can specify which "other." I think trying to cover ALL possibilities would result in forms pages and pages long.

On a related note, which box do intersexed people tick? There're only two....

I explained what I think AA is for. If I am wrong, please explain it to me.

Much as I like you, Claus, I don't want this job. I don't claim to be any kind of expert on the subject of AA. Ask someone who is, please.

Adhering to the scientific method. Take Uri Geller: Does he do science?

Ah! He certainly takes advantage of science to convince us of the paranormal! Bending spoons or keys manually adheres to scientific principles. I know if I put the key against the chair while you're not looking (misdirection), I can use physics and the chair to bend the key. Randi showed us how. But this likely isn't what you meant, is it? Darn.

I'll explain further: Your academic achievements is the work you have done. Your academic merits are the scientific education you have received. Is that clearer?

Then all we have here is a difference in usage which might or might not be significant. They tell me I have a Liberal ARTS education, not a scientific one. I don't know what one would want in order to classify my education as a "scientific" one, but I suppose in some (many?) respects, it qualifies.

They address the opportunities - or lack of - for those who don't have them, and then, help those people.

Again, if I am wrong, please explain it to me.

Again, I decline the opportunity. I'm not a teacher, and no longer want to be one (at least, that's how I feel today; this may change in the future). If you need explanation, please consult an expert. (I do think you are right, in a general sense, however.)

And why? Because their standards are higher?

I think so. I think one needs a 4.0 from HS, plus high SAT/ACT scores, plus lots of extra-curriculars, plus recommendations....stuff I don't have.
Also, those schools are much more expensive. What I paid for 5 years of college tuition wouldn't begin to cover one semester at Harvard. So, I wouldn't qualify for an Ivy League school. But I did qualify for my state college. That's good enough for me.

If they don't, then why are there problems with blacks (not) attending colleges?

Racism.

If grades are arbitrary, why have grades at all, then?

Good question. If you find any answers, please share them.

Then, there's hardly need for an academic degree.

Please inform my prospective employers. They don't seem to be aware of this opinion.

It does relate very much to your question, and you've given the answer yourself: There's not much need for an academic degree.

I think that's a bit too broad and vague to stand. But it could still be true. What do you suggest be done about it? (By the way: I noticed you didn't answer my question with a yes or no. Heh.)

Indeed. But when you graduate, you have to get a certain grade. Otherwise, yer out.

Well, not cut-and-dried like that, but generally true. You can always re-take the classes you didn't pass with a C, and if you perform better, the grade can change. You'll graduate later, and spend more money doing it, but you'll still graduate. But until you meet the specific requirements for your degree, it will not be awarded, correct.

I do see "race", in the cases where there's little doubt (although I find it silly to divide people into races). What I am questioning is the methods by which people decide the fuzzy boundaries. The explanations seems as fuzzy as the boundaries...

Yes. You've hit on a long-standing objection to race, in general. Most people who are trying to fight racism recognize your statement as true and troubling. Congrats on figuring that out for yourself. Too many people don't even bother to question the issue.

Here's a snip from an article which I found interesting, and which illustrates systemic or institutionalized racism very well. See what you think:

Teachers are often among that group most reluctant to acknowledge the extent to which white-supremacist thinking informs every aspect of our culture including the way we learn, the content of what we learn, and the manner in which we are taught. Much of the consciousness-raising around the issue of white supremacy and racism has focused attention on teaching what racism is and how it manifests itself in the daily workings of our lives. In anti-racist workshops and seminars, much of the time is often spent simply breaking through the denial that leads many unenlightened white people, as well as people of color, to pretend that racist and white-supremacist thought and action are no longer pervasive in our culture.

In classroom settings I have often listened to groups of students tell me that racism really no longer shapes the contours of our lives, that there is just no such thing as racial difference, that "we are all just people." Then a few minutes later I give them an exercise.

I ask if they were about to die and could choose to come back as a white male, a white female, a black female, or black male, which identity would they choose. Each time I do this exercise, most individuals, irrespective of gender or race invariably choose whiteness, and most often white maleness. Black females are the least chosen. When I ask students to explain their choice they proceed to do a sophisticated analysis of privilege based on race (with perspectives that take gender and class into consideration).

This disconnect between their conscious repudiation of race as a marker of privilege and their unconscious understanding is a gap we have to bridge, an illusion that must be shattered before a meaningful discussion of race and racism can take place. This exercise helps them to move past their denial of the existence of racism. It lets us begin to work together toward a more unbiased approach to knowledge.

From: http://students.washington.edu/pedagogy/articles/hooks.pdf
(The author would be bell hooks.)

That last paragraph is the sermon I have preached since joining this forum. I was, and am, surprised at how many whites resist this idea, even to the point of violence. It is especially surprising when the whites are also skeptics, and refuse to even consider the idea.

 

[LawnOven]

Well I'm white most of the time, except when I'm around the dutch.

 

[CFLarsen]

I am not aware of anyone changing the box they usually tick, later in life. I could be mistaken. All I do know is that you originally asked how people know what race they are. My explanation is the best I can come up with; sorry.

But you have argued that people can become Cherokees?

I have read articles written by Indians in which the author complains his/her race/ethnicity is the only one in America one has to prove. Google "blood quantum" to find similar articles, for and against. This seems to relate to the discussion. Some Indians feel this is racism; some don't.

A google search does not constitute evidence.

Regardless, it is still important to remember that AA covers gender equality as well as racial and physical equality, as in assuring that those who are disabled will also have equal opportunity for....opportunity. Race is only one issue addressed by AA. Do remember this, please.

Not a problem. But it still means I was not wrong when I described what AA was, right?

Okay. Whatever. Is this where I ask you what you plan to do about it, given your statement above?

I've already explained this.

I don't know; do they? Have they? You've filled out similar papers, you say. Can't you answer that for yourself? Most such forms do have a box for "other." And often a write-in blank so you can specify which "other." I think trying to cover ALL possibilities would result in forms pages and pages long.

But "other" isn't particularly informative, is it? Grouping aboriginees together with Khoikhois is hardly...nice, is it?

On a related note, which box do intersexed people tick? There're only two....

Very true. It merely emphasizes the problems you get yourself into, when you try to group people.

Much as I like you, Claus, I don't want this job. I don't claim to be any kind of expert on the subject of AA. Ask someone who is, please.

I am asking you, because you are the one telling me that I am wrong. If you can tell me I am wrong, you can tell me why I am wrong.

Much as I like you, slingblade, you don't expect me to give you an easy time, hm?

Ah! He certainly takes advantage of science to convince us of the paranormal! Bending spoons or keys manually adheres to scientific principles. I know if I put the key against the chair while you're not looking (misdirection), I can use physics and the chair to bend the key. Randi showed us how. But this likely isn't what you meant, is it? Darn.

No, it isn't. Care to address it? No easy time, hm?

Then all we have here is a difference in usage which might or might not be significant. They tell me I have a Liberal ARTS education, not a scientific one. I don't know what one would want in order to classify my education as a "scientific" one, but I suppose in some (many?) respects, it qualifies.

But we are talking about science.

Again, I decline the opportunity. I'm not a teacher, and no longer want to be one (at least, that's how I feel today; this may change in the future). If you need explanation, please consult an expert. (I do think you are right, in a general sense, however.)

Again, if you can tell me I am wrong, you can explain why I am wrong. No easy time, hm?

I think so. I think one needs a 4.0 from HS, plus high SAT/ACT scores, plus lots of extra-curriculars, plus recommendations....stuff I don't have.
Also, those schools are much more expensive. What I paid for 5 years of college tuition wouldn't begin to cover one semester at Harvard. So, I wouldn't qualify for an Ivy League school. But I did qualify for my state college. That's good enough for me.

Do you think they are more expensive because they have higher standards?

Racism.

Now you are contradicting yourself. Before, you argued that they'd let anyone in, as long as they paid.

Good question. If you find any answers, please share them.

But we are basing our assessment on how well you have accrued scientific knowledge on grades. If we can't rely on grades, how do we assess how well you have accrued scientific knowledge?

Please inform my prospective employers. They don't seem to be aware of this opinion.

Then, there's no need to argue this point, is there?

I think that's a bit too broad and vague to stand. But it could still be true. What do you suggest be done about it? (By the way: I noticed you didn't answer my question with a yes or no. Heh.)

Already explained.

Yes. You've hit on a long-standing objection to race, in general. Most people who are trying to fight racism recognize your statement as true and troubling. Congrats on figuring that out for yourself. Too many people don't even bother to question the issue.

Yes, I've hit on this, and I am questioning it. I am asking you now: What will you do about it?

Here's a snip from an article which I found interesting, and which illustrates systemic or institutionalized racism very well. See what you think:

That last paragraph is the sermon I have preached since joining this forum. I was, and am, surprised at how many whites resist this idea, even to the point of violence. It is especially surprising when the whites are also skeptics, and refuse to even consider the idea.

Only emphasizes my point: Racism is prevalent in the United States.

 

[Dave1001]

Stop. If you want to use DNA to determine who is black and who is not, I want to see what criteria you are using.

Check out the national geographic website on this topic. I think they use markers of the populations that left sub-saharan africa, I believe about 30,000 years ago, and left to populate the rest of the world in various migratory routes to determine the ethnic/racial heritage and history of individuals living today. I didn't say I want to use this criteria to determine who is black. Instead I'm pointing out that white-looking people have an incentive to appeal to such criteria to justify a black identity and right to affirmative action and scholarships reserved for black americans. And the eligible population is about 30% of all currently white-identified people in the US.

 

[CFLarsen]

Check out the national geographic website on this topic. I think they use markers of the populations that left sub-saharan africa, I believe about 30,000 years ago, and left to populate the rest of the world in various migratory routes to determine the ethnic/racial heritage and history of individuals living today. I didn't say I want to use this criteria to determine who is black. Instead I'm pointing out that white-looking people have an incentive to appeal to such criteria to justify a black identity and right to affirmative action and scholarships reserved for black americans. And the eligible population is about 30% of all currently white-identified people in the US.

Link?

Is this the definition used in the US? (If it isn't, then it's hardly relevant )

 

[Dave1001]

Link?

Is this the definition used in the US? (If it isn't, then it's hardly relevant )

The definition used in the US is self-identification. Which allows any American to choose to identify as black and partake of affirmative action and scholarship benefits.

 

[CFLarsen]

The definition used in the US is self-identification.

Race is not self-identified in the US. This has been made clear by plenty of other posters here.

Not only do you not have a clear definition of what race is, you can't even agree on who gets to decide what race a person is.

Silly, no?

Which allows any American to choose to identify as black and partake of affirmative action and scholarship benefits.

That does make AA a bit....silly, no?

 

[Dave1001]

Race is not self-identified in the US. This has been made clear by plenty of other posters here.

Not only do you not have a clear definition of what race is, you can't even agree on who gets to decide what race a person is.

Silly, no?



That does make AA a bit....silly, no?

huh? Legal race is done by self-identification in the US. On every piece of paperwork one fills out, in the U.S. census, school and scholarship applications, etc.

If one's choice is challenged, I'm aware of no law that prevents one from using a genetic admixture test as proof of sub-saharan african admixture.

What other poster has contradicted these claims?

 

[CFLarsen]

huh? Legal race is done by self-identification in the US. On every piece of paperwork one fills out, in the U.S. census, school and scholarship applications, etc.

If one's choice is challenged, I'm aware of no law that prevents one from using a genetic admixture test as proof of sub-saharan african admixture.

What other poster has contradicted these claims?

You misunderstand.

I am not saying that self-identification is met with genetic tests. I am saying that self-identification is met with exo-identification. And, sometimes, exo-identification trumps self-identification.

But in neither of these, we have anything else than opinion to work from.

 

[slingblade]

But you have argued that people can become Cherokees?

Have I? Or have I argued that people can discover they have Cherokee ancestry by looking at their genealogy? Some Nations do adopt outsiders, I forgot to ever mention that. But have I really argued people can just "become" Cherokee (implying that this is an act of their own wills; a capricious choice)? Can you show me where I said that?

A google search does not constitute evidence.

Oh, okay. Then perhaps you would rather go to your local library? I'm not sure what it is you want from me. I don't happen to have authored any articles on blood quantum, nor do I happen to own any books any more which discuss it. Anyway, the articles I mention which discuss Indian opinions about blood quantum do exist; find them however you like, in whatever way seems valid to you. Or don't.

Not a problem. But it still means I was not wrong when I described what AA was, right?

Oh, okay, I remember now. I think my quibble with you was about whether or not people who are not qualified for Harvard are admitted anyway solely because of their skin color.

I don't think AA works like that. I don't think that if I were black, AA would help me get into Harvard, if everything else about me stayed the same: my less-than-4.0, my lack of SAT/ACT scores, my poverty, and my age, all taken together.

I'm not sure that AA does this: Man 1 is white; he is rich, has excellent grades, high SAT scores, some extracurriculars, and some good recommendations.

Man 2 is black; he is impoverished, has lousy grades, low or no SAT scores, no extracurriculars, and has no recommendations.

Man 2 gets admitted to Harvard anyway, under AA, and furthermore, Man 1 is denied entrance, supposedly so Man 2 can have Man 1's place.

NO. I do not think AA works like that.

However: Man 1 is as before, but Man 2 is black, needs significant help with financial aid, has excellent grades, high SAT scores, some extracurriculars, and some good recommendations, BUT Man 2 is refused entrance to Harvard. AA would ask why, and if race were found to be the underlying reason, AA would insist Man 2 be given the same opportunity as Man 1. In addition to Man 1, not in the place of.

IF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION does indeed work as posed in the first scenario, then I am not aware of it, and need to be educated on this point.

I've already explained this.

Then I missed it. Would you have a post number handy, please?

But "other" isn't particularly informative, is it? Grouping aboriginees together with Khoikhois is hardly...nice, is it?

What's "nice" got to do with gathering information about race?

As to informative, that's why there is a blank to fill in the specific "other."
Gathering information about race can work to both perpetuate false notions about race, and to help us understand race. It's a mixed bag. If you are looking for, forgive the expression, black and white answers about this topic, you are looking in vain. There are few if any clear-cut questions or answers in this subject. Sorry.

Very true. It merely emphasizes the problems you get yourself into, when you try to group people.

I agree. I hope you are using "you" as you should have used "one" instead, and not pointing specifically at me. I don't make these forms, and I don't make these rules about race. I do, unconsciously, perpetuate them, just like almost everyone else. But I have been consciously trying to change that about myself, in the last few years. Sometimes I don't do it properly. I give myself credit for at least being willing to try. That's more than many can say.

I am asking you, because you are the one telling me that I am wrong. If you can tell me I am wrong, you can tell me why I am wrong.

Okay, let me try to explain this. I'll probably screw it up.

I don't think the purpose (or the actual action) of Affirmative Action is to force employers or schools or other institutions to accept or hire people who are totally unqualified instead of people who are fully qualified, simply because the latter is white and the former is non-white.

I think it's a fallacy of some kind (not sure which) to say that the whole point of AA is to hire or accept ignorant people in the stead of educated people.

I can remember a time when two people of equal qualifications would compete, but the non-white would lose because of his non-whiteness. THAT is what AA should be correcting, and I believe that is largely what it does. It occurs to me that this still happens today, as it did when I was a child, but that today the offenders have learned to be more subtle about it. They don't openly say "we don't hire blacks." They instead find a valid reason, often one which would normally be overlooked, and they apply it to the non-white candidate.

Much as I like you, slingblade, you don't expect me to give you an easy time, hm?

Now what fun would that be, eh?

No, it isn't. Care to address it? No easy time, hm?

I have been addressing it, but not as you would like, it seems. I don't know that I have a scientific education, but I think we are quibbling about terms, not facts. As it stands, I'll concede. I simply don't know what you mean, and you won't explain. So, okay: I have a scientific education in the Liberal Arts. What were we talking about, in regards to that? (Sorry, but these long, rambling, drawn out arguments are hard to keep up with. I bet you had no clue about that. )

But we are talking about science.

Again, okay. Whatever that means, but okay.

Again, if you can tell me I am wrong, you can explain why I am wrong. No easy time, hm?

I tried to explain it above. Hope I did a better job.

Do you think they are more expensive because they have higher standards?

I know what you want me to say, so you can give your reply: "if you can't meet the standards of Harvard, why should they let you in, regardless of your color?"

Have you yet proven this is done? Can you show me an instance in which it happened? Please? Because I can agree that if you can't meet the standards, you shouldn't get in IF THAT'S THE ONLY REASON.

But you want cut-and-dried, firm, hard, etched-in-stone lines. You can't have them. There are too many variables, too many other things to consider.

I keep telling you grades aren't a firm measure of ability. Grades are subjective; a racist teacher could conceivably award you a B for your A work because she doesn't like your color. It happens. Worse happens. When you are a kid, this could easily be not just beyond your control, but beyond your awareness. You may not know that your work is just as good as the white kids', but you always get Bs and C, and they always get As. Then when you get to college, and you know just as much as he does, but your grades are crap, how do you rectify this obvious wrong?

Your teacher's racism affected your grades unfairly. But the college board didn't go to school with you, and doesn't know that. All they know is that your grades are crap. Here, they can fix this by testing you. If your SAT scores are top-notch, then maybe your grade transcript is given much less weight. Colleges can generally opt to do that.

But you have not proven to me yet that people who do not qualify for Harvard are admitted on race preference alone. Until you do that, I can't agree or disagree with you about your stance on AA.

Now you are contradicting yourself. Before, you argued that they'd let anyone in, as long as they paid.

Oh, no I did not. I said my college lets in just about any non-trad student who applies and who has at least a GED, and who can pay (and payment includes borrowing or being granted every dime of it through Student Aid, as I did). One of my stepsons was admitted, after age 24, with his GED, on Student Aid. I never said or implied they'd admit ANYONE. However, it really isn't that difficult to get into my college. They will admit ALMOST anyone, with certain restrictions. But there are restrictions. They just aren't as rigorous at my school as they are at, say, Harvard. The two schools have different policies.

But we are basing our assessment on how well you have accrued scientific knowledge on grades. If we can't rely on grades, how do we assess how well you have accrued scientific knowledge?

We agree in substance, Claus. Grades are an imperfect measure of acquisition of knowledge of any type, because they are subjective. You can't stop an English teacher from giving your B paper a C if she "feels" it deserves a C.

We designed our own rubrics; there is no true hard-and-fast to it. I weighted my rubrics more heavily to content than to mechanics. Others do it in other ways. It's subjective.

But it's what we have at the moment, so it is what we use. So if your grades aren't good enough, you probably won't make it into Harvard, regardless of you skin color.

However, that could still be racism, in that because of your race, you received a substandard education, a different education than the rich white kids get. How do we address the fact that racism operated in your childhood to make sure you wouldn't qualify for Harvard, while racism operated in the rich white kid's favor to make sure he would qualify?

How do we fix that? That's why I say that Affirmative Action doesn't address the real problem: the substandard education certain races receive as children, because of their race. But AA is at least some kind of (imperfect) answer. We shouldn't abandon it just because it's a stop-gap measure until we have filled the actual gap!

Come on! Surely you see this? I am not spouting total nonsense here.

Have you ever questioned what grades really reflect? What they really mean, and if they actually do mean what you think?

Then, there's no need to argue this point, is there?

Not really.

Already explained.

Evasion noted. Sorry, but I asked, as you so often ask, for a yes/no. I didn't get it. That's evasive. But we'll drop it if you like.

Yes, I've hit on this, and I am questioning it. I am asking you now: What will you do about it?

I'm doing it right now. I've been doing it for over a year.

Suggestions?

Only emphasizes my point: Racism is prevalent in the United States.

I have never disagreed with that.

 

[Morrigan]

What would you replace it with? Because dumping the program without anything to replace it isn't going to help the problems that Affirmative Action was meant to address.

Fallacious thinking. AA doesn't solve problems, and in fact creates new ones. Removing AA will at least get rid of the new problems it caused. It's fallacious to think that AA should remain because "removing it won't solve old problems".

Anyway, I'm not sure what are the problems AA is supposed to solve. Racial discrimination? So we can solve racial discrimination by enforcing... racial discrimination. Genius!

What's the burning reason behind being able to "tell" a person's ancestry?

Who the hell said anything about a "burning reason"?

What are you going to do about it?

What am I going to do about what?