Boston University group offers 'White' scholarship

[ParanoiA]

Thought this was an interesting story. I've always thought that discrimination was discrimination, no matter who's the majority or what the intentions may be. This is long overdue.

 

 

 

BU - White Scholarship to protest race-based scholarships

[hotcommodity]

Well I applaud the effort. Issues such as this always make me think of how "racist" it would be to have a white history month, or something of the sort. Total hypocrisy. I don't see any change resulting from this however. The clashing of cultures in American society slow its progression as some feed off of society, while others contribute.

[Sisyphus]

The typical response is that "every month is white history month." While I think affirmative actions is a deeply, deeply flawed system (I'm still pissed about much richer and much dumber kids than me getting into schools that I didn't because they were "hispanic."), even I acknowledge the naivete of thinking it's exactly the same as something like this.

[Pangloss]

Two wrong turns don't get you to your destination. They just get you more lost.

[Sequence]

Good for them. I've often thought about this. You can have black history month. Hispanic history month. Hell there is a National Frozen Food Month. But anything celebrating solely white people is racist. I don't want to sound racist because I'm not, but I think there is to much time and money devoted to minoritys. What Sisyphus said, I've also been screwed by affirmative action. They are important, but they are a minority. Treat them the same as the majority.

 

If anyone takes offense to this (Which no one should) I don't care.

[Dak]

^^^ one of the best disclamers ive heard

 

Two wrong turns don't get you to your destination. They just get you more lost.

 

I dunno. i suppose, after years of institutionalised racism, it wasn't really enough to just go 'hey, we wont be racist ****s anymore'. black people were, by and large, much more poorer than white people, had crappyer jobs, less education etc; i'm guessing it would have taken yonks for the situation to rectify itself, and for the new equality to actually 'trickle down', and for black people to get equal educations, then equal job prospects, etc -- and, in all that time, with mostly-white work-forces etc, institutionalised racism could have effectively continued in an unnoficial way.

 

so, i think 'positive' racism was probably a good move to quickly equalise the situation, and espescially to break the 'whites only' attetude at the time, but is still definately a wrong -- still unfair on those discriminated against, still breads racism, still gives nazis* ammunition -- but one of those cases where 'two wrongs kinda do make a right', by fixing the situation quicker.

 

i definately think it should only be a temporary measure, tho, and i'm not sure it's still justified (in the uk at least).

 

----------

* in the uk, we actually have a nazi party (BNP), and they actually do use this 'suppression of the masses' as a recruting chant, and nearly got elected in a few constituencies last election.

[Sequence]

Yes I thought I covered all my bases there:D

 

I'm sure some people will bitch, people always do. Just to give an example of how frusterating it can be,

 

In my home town we have a lot of native Americans. Nothing wrong with that. Here's the problem. Natives don't have to pay sports fee. In fact, they are PAID to play sports. While white kids get pounded with rising costs. DO you know how many Natives we have on our sports teams? 2 or 3. Another thing, many indians get free lunch. One kid who thinks I'm his friend rgularally tells me that his lunch tastes great because my parents are paying for it. And I want to kill him. This kid is going to grow up into a leech of society. And everyone here will be paying for his beer in the form of welfare.

 

At our celebration of cultures day, all we did was learn Indian dances. Most are on IEP's because of Bush's No Child Left a Dime. Most of them are just lazy.

 

The indians got dealt a shitty hand. Black people got dealt a shitty hand. But there is no reason for white people to keep apologizing for thier ancestors mistakes.

 

Again, I'm not trying to be racist, but if you are offended, I don't care.

[swansont]

Nothing new. It happened at Roger Willams College a few years back; the administration threatened to revoke the College Republicans club's charter. Ironically enough, the ACLU stepped in on their behalf, since it was (in their view) a free-speech issue, as it was done in protest. http://www.riaclu.org/02272004.html

[ecoli]

We really need to institute a true meritocracy in this country, and nobody will have to worry about this stuff. Just look at an association like the NBA as proof at it's sucess. The NBA is full of people who are good at sports, and there is no racial quota. As a result, the people who are playing deserve to playing, regardless of race.

[Glider]

The problem with the concept is that there ain't no such thing as 'positive discrimination'. All discrimination that is based on irrelivant factors is negative and bad.

 

To discriminate against a group because of its race is bad. To discriminate in favour of the same group on the basis of its race is equally bad, because it means you are discriminating against all other groups on the basis of race.

[GutZ]

The only problem I have is that for so long the majority has screwed the minority in every which way ignoring it because, well it doesn't affect them, but once an idea to equalize the playing field (regardless of how bad the idea is) They complain, "OoOo that discrimination".

 

I'd definitely be more behind the idea if they were to focus on the problem, not add to it.

[ParanoiA]

The only problem I have is that for so long the majority has screwed the minority in every which way ignoring it because, well it doesn't affect them, but once an idea to equalize the playing field (regardless of how bad the idea is) They complain, "OoOo that discrimination".

 

I'd definitely be more behind the idea if they were to focus on the problem, not add to it.

 

You have to prove the fallacy first - prove there is a problem. That's why I like the idea. Affirmative action has polarized racism, helped keep it active and part of our psyche. Great job. We spent decades telling everyone how equal we all are, to not see in color, then we keep the color barrier by institutionalizing it with affirmative action. Aliens would be confused, just like our children.

 

And white guilt compensation is even stupider. So, because our white ancestors enslaved and held back our black ancestors, that has created an unfair advantage for the white race as a whole, and therefore the white race must atone for their white ancestors behavior? Have I got that right?

 

So, if my dad kills your dad then I have to financially fix things for you so that you enjoy the advantage you would have had if my dad hadn't killed yours?

 

Well then why stop there? I'll bet if we dig around our family histories we can trace billions and billions of dollars worth of unfair advantages to specific people and their families and have them fork over their estates and riches to make it fair.

 

We can all look back in 20/20 and pick apart everyone's history and debate about what should have, could have, would have happened if such and such and so and so but how is that our problem now? I didn't enslave anybody and I didn't enherit a plantation to live off of. In fact, none of those people are even alive today. I've had to bust my ass to get a job and keep a job - no handouts for being white. I supported my wife and two kids on 8 bucks an hour and lived in some nasty places just to make it - no special accomodations for being white. And that's how it should be.

 

No one alive today has ever been a slave in America. This is the sons and daughters of the victims demanding retribution from the sons and daughters of the perpetrators. That's ridiculous. Every race in the world can justifiably claim to have been victimized at some point in history and prove their current status is effected by it - and they would be correct and accurate. Their perpetrators offspring are alive and kicking today. And that's just the last 15,000 years of human history.

 

There is no way to level the playing field for every victimized class of people in the world. The rules of morality and ethics has changed for the better in recent centuries, so we should appreciate the awesome ground we've covered and give credit to all of the races in the world that have tried to coexist, for overcoming the competitive programming we've been saturated with and cooperating in peace.

 

Or, we can keep perpetuating racism and instill it in our children like we have been. Just look at how well it's working for the Palestinians and Israelis...

[Dak]

a quick point: in international circles, i believe transgrettions expire after a century (possibly?).

 

if 'black people' were a different country that america had screwed with by enslaving them, then the country of 'black people land' would still be demanding reparations, and, being that it was so recent, i believe international oppinion/SOP might be that the US should recompensate 'black people land' for their recent, and quite nasty, insult.

 

does the fact that they're not their own country, and that some americans just screwed with some other americans, make it that different? should america, the country, not recompensate the people whom it shat upon, and who are still (on average) in a lesser position because of it, just because they're members of america and not foreigners?

 

So, because our white ancestors enslaved and held back our black ancestors, that has created an unfair advantage for the white race as a whole, and therefore the white race must atone for their white ancestors behavior? Have I got that right?

 

well, if we dont, what's to stop us using that advantage to keep that advantage for a looooooooooooong time (wether we intend to do so or not)?

 

[disclaimer]i'm kinda playing devils advocate here: i dont neccesarily think the above is true. i'm also assuming the US's 'affirmative action' is pretty-much the same as the UK's 'positive discrimination'[/disclaimer]

[ecoli]

The scholarship is only $250... it's not like we're taking about a free ride to BU, or anything like that.

[ParanoiA]

does the fact that they're not their own country, and that some americans just screwed with some other americans, make it that different? should america, the country, not recompensate the people whom it shat upon, and who are still (on average) in a lesser position because of it, just because they're members of america and not foreigners?

 

1) Yes, it DOES matter that they are not their own country - countries usually pay compensation after being beaten in war. That compensation begins immediately, just after the crimes and injustices were commited - not decades and decades after the fact

 

2) Again...every person in the entire world can claim some kind of victim status by their people at some point in world history and trace that to the present, proving they have been disadvantaged and are in a lesser position today because of it - to dwell on that puts you with the likes of Palenstinians and Israelis. How well is that working for them??

[Glider]

We can all look back in 20/20 and pick apart everyone's history and debate about what should have, could have, would have happened if such and such and so and so but how is that our problem now? I didn't enslave anybody and I didn't enherit a plantation to live off of. In fact, none of those people are even alive today. I've had to bust my ass to get a job and keep a job - no handouts for being white. I supported my wife and two kids on 8 bucks an hour and lived in some nasty places just to make it - no special accomodations for being white. And that's how it should be.

That's a good point. If you follow the logic of the sins of the fathers being paid for by sons and daughters, then you have the problem of where to stop.

 

By that logic, we (in the UK) have legitimate claims against France for invading us, taking all our land and turning us into slaves (surfs and villeins) in 1066. Also, we have a ligitimate claim against the Norwegans and Danish for taking North East England, Scotland and parts of Ireland in 794AD, Germany for taking England in around 450AD. Also, the Italians for trying to take England in 55 - 54 BC and again (successfully) in 43-51AD and keeping it for four-hundred years (those bastards!).

 

Where exactly should it stop?

[insane_alien]

not to mention all the internal wars between clans and counties we've had since we got to these wet and windy isles

[GutZ]

You have to prove the fallacy first - prove there is a problem. That's why I like the idea. Affirmative action has polarized racism, helped keep it active and part of our psyche. Great job. We spent decades telling everyone how equal we all are, to not see in color, then we keep the color barrier by institutionalizing it with affirmative action. Aliens would be confused, just like our children.

 

I never said AA was good. Nitpicking doesn't help in the same respect. I was talking about the mentality. It's like Rich people complaining that poor people get assistance. Maybe giving someone money isn't the greatest approach, some people can even say it's unfair to those that work, but the majority of us don't have to live in that condition, so we have no understand of what it's truely like. I just feel the majority is in a better position to help out and not complain so damn much about equality when it doesn't affect them as much. This whole racism mess wouldn't be that much of an issue if that were to take place. To me it's just wasted time bickering back and forth about it. It's like people when something goes wrong, they spend 4 hours trying to pin the blame and is responsible for fixing it. Who cares, Just find the problem and find the best way to fix it, regardless of who's job or who's responsible for it.

 

If we go this route it won't be till we breed ourselves to one colour, that we can live peacefully without all the crap, There are no need for games.

[hotcommodity]

 

if 'black people' were a different country that america had screwed with by enslaving them, then the country of 'black people land' would still be demanding reparations, and, being that it was so recent, i believe international oppinion/SOP might be that the US should recompensate 'black people land' for their recent, and quite nasty, insult.

 

does the fact that they're not their own country, and that some americans just screwed with some other americans, make it that different? should america, the country, not recompensate the people whom it shat upon, and who are still (on average) in a lesser position because of it, just because they're members of america and not foreigners?

 

 

Yes, slavery is wrong, and no one should be treated in that manner. That said, lets look at the issue in the big picture. We weren't the only nation using slaves, but they were used for economic efficiency. The land and potential profit emanating from the South was so plentiful that slaves seemed to be a good idea. The Civil War caused hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths as a resolution could have been met between the warring states. Instead the greed and transcendentalist mentality of the North remained constant, while the South simply wished to retain their way of life as it was vital to their economy.

 

The slaves themselves retained a mentality reflective of their culture of origin during their captive years, and were set free into society after the war with little help from the Freedmans Bureau.

 

This clashing of cultures between the freed slaves and their progeny, and Anglo America has resulted in many things that are destructive to our sociey. The North may have realized what they were fighting for, but I believe if they had known that they were setting up future problems for America, and what these problems would degenerate into, they would not have pursued abolishion. With proper foresight, the North should have sent the slaves back home to evade the coming clashing of cultures, which slows the progression of society to this day. You want to argue that blacks in this country would be better of today if their ancestors had not been enslaved, but I point out that had their ancestors not been enslaved, they would not be here. Point this out to them, and let them take a look at modern day Africa, the country they would reside if these "atrocities" had not occured, and I bet most would choose the abuse of their ancestors over having to live in an underdevoloped country. Americans haven't suppressed the entire nation of Africa, which lacks the proper economy, government, etc., so don't tell me they would be better off without what happened to their ancestors. Most are looking for a handout and nothing more. Affirmirmative action, reparations, and the clashing of cultures are indeed destructive to this country.

[Pangloss]

Well that'll raise a few hackles. I can think of a few things wrong with that argument just off the top of my head.

 

I don't think the North's success can be pawned off as "greed and transcendentalist mentality". Clearly it's more like "intelligent and motivated self-interest". And the South was hardly immune to greed. I think you also oversimplify the motives and intentions of modern African-Americans, and saying that if it wasn't for slavery they wouldn't be here today is an awful lot like saying they should be grateful for having been slaves. That kind of apologism doesn't carry well because, as you say, slavery was wrong.

 

And it simply isn't necessary to make that kind of argument in order to also make the point that affirmative action and reparations are detrimental and unjustified.

[hotcommodity]

Well that'll raise a few hackles. I can think of a few things wrong with that argument just off the top of my head.

 

I don't think the North's success can be pawned off as "greed and transcendentalist mentality". Clearly it's more like "intelligent and motivated self-interest". And the South was hardly immune to greed. I think you also oversimplify the motives and intentions of modern African-Americans, and saying that if it wasn't for slavery they wouldn't be here today is an awful lot like saying they should be grateful for having been slaves. That kind of apologism doesn't carry well because, as you say, slavery was wrong.

 

And it simply isn't necessary to make that kind of argument in order to also make the point that affirmative action and reparations are detrimental and unjustified.

The North may have had a "motivated self-interest," but their acomplishment was hardly "intelligent," as they may have won the battle, but the civil rights movement did not rear its head until the mid 20th century. Six-hundred thousand lives were lost because of, yes, the "greed and transcendentalist" mentality of the North. The industrious North was losing business to other countries when it came to the South buying goods, because they recieved it cheaper from foreign nations. The North passed laws to keep them from doing this, hurting their economy and pushing them to secede from the Union. As nations like Britain and France saw an opportunity to side with the South during this confrontation, Lincoln turned the war into a moral crusade by turning the issue into slavery and thus kept the foreign nations from siding with a pro-slavery federation. And I agree with you, most of this is beside the point. However, I brought up the history to make people think about where these people would be without slavery.

 

and saying that if it wasn't for slavery they wouldn't be here today is an awful lot like saying they should be grateful for having been slaves.

 

"They" were not slaves at all. And saying that they wouldn't be here without slavery (which is obvious), is not like saying they should be grateful for what happened.

 

Look, they could be living one of two lives. 1) A life in their country of origin, which is a place I doubt most of them would want to live, or 2) a life here in America, even tho' it took the abuse of their ancestors to accomplish that. Be honest with yourself and think "which would they choose, to be living in their country of origin and have their ancestors be slaves to their own race (as they were before they were sold), or to have their ancestors act as slaves here in America so they could grow up in a progressive and devoloping country?" I think we both know the answer. And yes, history is sad and brutal, and this in not a pretty picture, but it is an accurate one.

 

You say I oversimplify the intentions of African-Americans, but while there are exceptions to the rule, when you look at the culture they have developed in the past 150 years or so, you see it is a culture of materialism. Who can have the most expensive car, the most "bitches," the bigger television, the most expensive clothes, and they'll do almost anything to attain it: sell drugs, con welfare, steal, etc. For those who achieve a higher education, they want to attain high positions, and when they don't recieve it they complain about how it must be because of their skin color. They set up programs exclusive to blacks: scholarships, defamation leagues, and the like. But if a white person tried to establish such a thing, it would be "racist."

 

Now don't get confused. I'm not a racist, I'm simply stating facts. The only problem I have with the culture of African-Americans is that it is mixing with our original culture and slowing the progression of society. You may not despise it at the moment, but maybe one day when your kid begins wearing baggy pants, listening to music about ho's and drugs, and talking gibberish, just maybe you'll come to abhor the blending of cultures in our country.

[GutZ]

Now don't get confused. I'm not a racist, I'm simply stating facts.

 

Facts would have proof, can you prove that the majority of black people do this? Which isn't even the point of this thread but...

[Dak]

Look, they could be living one of two lives. 1) A life in their country of origin, which is a place I doubt most of them would want to live, or 2) a life here in America, even tho' it took the abuse of their ancestors to accomplish that. Be honest with yourself and think "which would they choose, to be living in their country of origin and have their ancestors be slaves to their own race (as they were before they were sold), or to have their ancestors act as slaves here in America so they could grow up in a progressive and devoloping country?" I think we both know the answer. And yes, history is sad and brutal, and this in not a pretty picture, but it is an accurate one.

 

that doesn't excuse any inequality in present day america.

 

it'd be basically saying 'hey, sucks to be you -- but it could be worse, so that's ok'. not a very good argument imo.

 

You say I oversimplify the intentions of African-Americans, but while there are exceptions to the rule, when you look at the culture they have developed in the past 150 years or so, you see it is a culture of materialism. Who can have the most expensive car, the most "bitches," the bigger television, the most expensive clothes, and they'll do almost anything to attain it: sell drugs, con welfare, steal, etc. For those who achieve a higher education, they want to attain high positions

 

methinks you're relying too much on MTV for your oppinion of black people.

 

afaict, most whites and blacks in the us aren't like the above. tho, there are many -- both black and white -- that are.

 

unless you want to tell me that there are no rich-ass materialistic white people, who show off their new car, or 50" widescreen? and no of them break the law to get material luxuries?

 

Now don't get confused. I'm not a racist, I'm simply stating facts. The only problem I have with the culture of African-Americans is that it is mixing with our original culture and slowing the progression of society. You may not despise it at the moment, but maybe one day when your kid begins wearing baggy pants, listening to music about ho's and drugs, and talking gibberish, just maybe you'll come to abhor the blending of cultures in our country.

 

both black and white youth (and adults):

 

1/ wear baggy pants ¹

2/ listen to music centred on sex and drugs

3/ talk jibberish

 

to, i would suggest, an equal degree.

[Pangloss]

The North may have had a "motivated self-interest," but their acomplishment was hardly "intelligent," as they may have won the battle, but the civil rights movement did not rear its head until the mid 20th century. Six-hundred thousand lives were lost because of, yes, the "greed and transcendentalist" mentality of the North. The industrious North was losing business to other countries when it came to the South buying goods, because they recieved it cheaper from foreign nations. The North passed laws to keep them from doing this, hurting their economy and pushing them to secede from the Union. As nations like Britain and France saw an opportunity to side with the South during this confrontation, Lincoln turned the war into a moral crusade by turning the issue into slavery and thus kept the foreign nations from siding with a pro-slavery federation. And I agree with you, most of this is beside the point. However, I brought up the history to make people think about where these people would be without slavery.

 

Just to clarify (although I think you understood me), I wasn't trying to say that the North eliminated slavery due to intelligence, I was trying to say that their economic success was due to intelligence. I don't mean that in a relative sense, either, I'm just complimenting those who made intelligent in that environment.

 

It's an interesting point about the economic situation, and I'd like to read more about it. I consider myself pretty familiar with the war period, but not as much with the pre-war economic environment, other than the superficial situation that all the history books cover in passing before launching right into Fort Sumter. (Suggestions for further reading are always appreciated in this forum, by the way.)

 

 

"They" were not slaves at all. And saying that they wouldn't be here without slavery (which is obvious), is not like saying they should be grateful for what happened.

 

Fair enough. The last thing I want to do is put words in anyone's mouth.

 

 

Now don't get confused. I'm not a racist, I'm simply stating facts. The only problem I have with the culture of African-Americans is that it is mixing with our original culture and slowing the progression of society. You may not despise it at the moment, but maybe one day when your kid begins wearing baggy pants, listening to music about ho's and drugs, and talking gibberish, just maybe you'll come to abhor the blending of cultures in our country.

 

I don't think your post implies racism; I'm ok with your post on that basis. In fact I think you also have a valid point. But I also disagree with your conclusion -- I don't think it's necessarily the case that it's "slowing the progression of society", and I don't "abhor the blending of cultures in our society". In short, I respect the concern, but I don't share the fear.

[Pangloss]

that doesn't excuse any inequality in present day america.

 

Whoa nellie -- please define "equality". Because there's a whole lot of inequality that I consider to be not only healthy in our society, but downright necessary.