<p>No, I honestly think that the decision to assign a black, Hispanic, or female to a high profile political appointment is made quite consciously, with that person’s race/gender in mind. This is because, during almost the entirety of our nation’s history, persons who were ANYTHING other than white and male were automatically considered “inappropriate” for such positions. Therefore, any decision to go against that rule, and appoint someone DESPITE the fact that they were female or a minority, could not possibly be anything other than purposeful. Of course the decision to so blatant disregard for “the rules” also mandates that one appoint a female or minority who is eminently qualified to do the job, lest one open oneself up for strident criticism (a certain amount of which will be inevitable, regardless :rolleyes:). Yes, they are “tokens” of an administrations desire to present themselves as forward thinking, egalitarian, fair minded, etc. but they are also, very “worthy”, very eminently qualified tokens ;).</p>
<p>razorsharp -
</p>
<p>Actually, it is quite scholarly since it is an accurate description of your post.</p>
<p>The treatment of women in the West has improved not b/c of Christianity, but b/c the West has become, for the most part, SECULAR.</p>
<p>I suggest that you read or re-read the Bible - the treatment of women is not that different from what is found in the Koran.</p>
<p>Women and children were largely seen as property of the husband; virgin girls who were raped were forced to marry their rapist, with the rapist to pay fifty shekels of silver to the father (after all, a daughters virginity was a family asset); adulterers were stoned, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right Islam hasnt gone through a reformation like Christianity but even Calvinism and other Christian reformation sects didnt exactly treat women as equals. The whole womens movement is largely a secular movement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Young girls betrothed to older men was a common practice at that time around the world. And in reality, a 9 yr old wasnt really that young, tho probably slightly younger than the norm for marriage (usually at age 11-13 or when a girl first undergoes menses), since the average life expectancy at the time was only in the high 20s/low 30s.</p>
<p>And hey, at least Mohammed wasnt a homosexual pedophile like the Spartans (who practiced institutionalized sex with young boys). </p>
<p>Not to mention that there is a growing movement of militant evangelical Christianity which justifies itself with violent passages from the Old and New Testaments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not so much a reflection of increased wisdom as opposed to merely having a fatter bank account.</p>
<p>That’s the problem with affirmative action and political correctness. If you hire, appoint, select, etc… a Black into a position or slot; work or school, then there will be some that perceive that it was done solely as an affirmative action measure or a way of gaining political points. If you don’t hire, appoint, select, etc… a Black into a position or slot; work or school, then you are perceived as being racist. </p>
<p>The best thing that can be done is to eliminate all forms of affirmative action. Not just for race but for all differences. Then, those who are the most qualified can be apponted, hired, selected, etc… because they are indeed the most qualified. Granted, there are still some companies and such that have prejudices against race and wouldn’t hire certain people; but they are probably finding loop holes now anyway.</p>
<p>I think it’s important to realize that not everyone thinks that Blacks aren’t as capable or have the potential because of the race. There are plenty of people who think Blacks have the same potential and capabilities as Whites. The real “Disability” or “Disadvantage” that Blacks have is that many of them live in more concentrated urban areas. Areas where the public school system isn’t as good as other schools. Where poverty is higher. Where children come from a lot more single parent homes. Areas where education isn’t their highest priority. The White students in these areas have the same exact disadvantage, just that there are a lot more Blacks and Hispanics than there are Whites. Especially when looking at a National level for education. </p>
<p>Of course, this will start a whole new debate over how to eliminate or at least reduce the economic and social problems that more Blacks encounter than Whites. (On a National Basis). If Blacks have the same emphasis on education and controlling their own future that Whites do; if the Black children have the availability of both parents as often as White children do; and if Blacks don’t have to worry about their economic and social environment as the Whites do; then Blacks have just as much the capabilty and potential to accomplish anything that a White person can and does. </p>
<p>Now, is this a problem that the individual family; Black or White; needs to get hold of? Is it a problem that the government needs to get hold of? Personally, I think that it’s each family’s responsibility to fix this problem. With the proper motivation, anyone, of any color and background, can get themselves out of poverty and on to success. I grew up in the city areas in New York and New Jersey. Most of my family is still back there. I left. They are doing fine, but I was doing better than all of them before I was 30. I paid my way through 3 college degrees with a 4.0gpa in 2 of them; even though I only had “C’s” in the public school system growing up.</p>
<p>Justice Thomas, Sec Rice/Powell, all proved that they can be successful if they wanted to. Even if they had never been involved in politics and appointed by the President, they would have succeeded. Even if Justic Thomas has be accepted to a particular college/university based on race, they all would have done well. Maybe they would have graduated from a state University. Either way, they had to excel in High School to have been admitted or graduated from the college/university that they did. Most companies and corporation are indeed prejudice against color. Fortunately, that color is “GREEN”. If you can help that company make more money and a higher profit to expense ratio, then they want you. They don’t care if you are Black, White, Asian, Hispanice, Male, Woman, etc… That’s one reason there is so much outsourcing out of the country to cheap 3rd world countries. Yes, there are still companies that are prejudice, but many of these are insignificant mom and pop type businesses. </p>
<p>Doesn’t matter however if what I say is right or wrong. What matters is that it’s NOT Politically Correct. In all forms. Politician wouldn’t be able to use a person’s position for political gain if they can’t keep people “NEEDING” the government. And poorer people, both economically and educationally; Black, White, Hispanic, etc… wouldn’t have a “System” to blame. So many people who don’t want to take matters into their own hands and their own responsibility. I’ve lived in the inner city. I’ve been to those schools. I’ve seen those who took responsibility and moved out of poverty and became very successful; including very good colleges and companies. Maybe they took welfare and a handout to get by. But they knew in their heart that it was temporary, that they would move out of this environment. </p>
<p>I’ve also seen those who didn’t care about being responsible. Didn’t care about school. Got pregnant or got someone pregnant at 15 years old. Rather sell drugs than go to school. And so on. Those who got out of the city, myself included (Albeit not Black), didn’t need affirmative action to get into college or make ourselves successful. Some of us used the military as a stepping stone for a career, training, experience, and a way to pay to go to college. Some moved away and went to a community college and worked part time. Some busted their butt in high school and got scholarships to college. The point is; I am excited about Justice Thomas, Sec Rice/Powell, etc… for their accomplishments. They may have benefitted from Affirmative action and political correctness, but I am sure that they would have succeeded even without those programs/philosophies. That’s because they wanted to and they took responsibility for their own lives.</p>
<p>
Maybe it’s this perception that grates on Justice Thomas and others. I honestly hope your statements aren’t all true. I imagine you hope so as well.</p>
<p>If I recall correctly you basically stated that ‘all’ political appointments of blacks and females for several administrations were done purposely due to their ethnicity/gender which implies that those people wouldn’t have been appointed otherwise. Again, I hope this isn’t true but I’m wondering when you’ll ever accept that a black/female was appointed regardless of their ethnicity/gender? What about blacks/females in high level positions in industry - do you have the same viewpoint? What about blacks who are accepted to highly selective colleges - wouldn’t some of them have been accepted regardless of their race?</p>
<p>“If I recall correctly you basically stated that ‘all’ political appointments of blacks and females for several administrations were done purposely due to their ethnicity/gender which implies that those people wouldn’t have been appointed otherwise.”</p>
<p>Yes, basically that’s what I’m saying. I’m saying that it takes the “intention” to look beyond the vast pool of candidates who fit the mold of “Old boy Network/Member in Good Standing” to even consider appointing a woman or minority, because the same have heretofore been excluded from this network by definition. I’m also saying that it’s a decision that is politically and socially significant, not to mention, politically advantageous (this, for the first time in American history) because it conveys the message that a President is exerting “leadership” in advancing the causes of equality and opportunity for people who have been traditionally handicapped in that regard.</p>
<p>Yes, Justice Thomas, Ms. Rice, General Powell, et al, would certainly have been successful (indeed, were ALREADY successful) even if they were never appointed to the Supreme Court, or to Presidential Cabinet positions. But it was their race, in addition to their many other stellar attributes, that made them politically valuable. Is that so hard to understand? What makes a flawless pink diamond more valuable on the open market than a flawless white one? It’s rarity. Is it subjectively more valuable in the absence of the sentiment that rarity alone constitutes greater value? No.</p>
<p>Likewise, in the realm of college admissions, when a minority student scores in the top 5% of overall test scores, and boasts a stellar GPA, many elite schools clamor to enroll him. Clarence Thomas was such a student. Whereas in the past, he commonly would have been rejected regardless of his stats, he was suddenly seen as an asset of rare worth.</p>
<p>
At some point African Americans will run out of excuses for their poor status in our society. Asian Americans make up approximately four percent of the population yet they account for approximately 25 to 35 percent of the student body at many elite universities. Many of these Asian students have had worse lives than the typical African American growing up in American today. Too many African Americans spend their time pretending their failures result from racism while Asian Americans defeat racism against them through exceptional work ethic and performance. The fact remains that this is American where anyone can be successful regarless of race.</p>
<p>
Yes. In other words, Islam today is about five hundred to a thousand years behind western religions of today. And how to you propose a reformation occur in Islam? I don’t see it happnening any time soon.</p>
<p>
So being a pedophile polygamist is ok in your book so long as one is not a homosexual. </p>
<p>
No there isn’t. A few idiots appearing in a news story does not make a movement. If there is one charactistic of the average Christian, it would be that they are (secular) law and order types. Violance for any reason does not wash.</p>
<p>
Hopefully our leaders will always strive to do this in the best interests of leading our country but in addition, they hopefully won’t always have to “take the intention” of seeking out the ethnicity/gender and at some point seek the ‘individual’ regardless of their ethnicity/gender and how are we to know this hasn’t already happened for at least some of the individuals? I think we need to quit making assumptions that all URMs/females in these positions wouldn’t have been chosen otherwise. </p>
<p>
I’m fairly able to understand many things so no, it’s not hard to understand that this sometimes happens. I’m saying that it’s a leap to state it happens ‘every time’ and wonder at which point in time one who has that opinion would ever cease to think that the candidate might have been selected because they were the perceived best individual for that position and the race/gender was irrelevant.</p>
<p>Razorsharp, what is it about my post that prompted you to say, “At some point African Americans will run out of excuses for their poor status in our society.”? I point out how Clarence Thomas, et al, did indeed benefit from your personal anathema, affirmative Action, and you launch in to a tirade about how “African Americans spend their time pretending their failures result from racism”. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I realize you’ve got a bee in your bonnet (to put it mildly)about us AfAms. I realize that you think racism of any significance or consequence has come to an end. But must you launch into the same tirade over and over again, whether or not it applies to the discussion at hand?</p>
<p>razorsharp – the more you post, the more you come across as an ignorant bigot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, with regard to certain branches or sub-sects of Christianity, certain branches or sub-sects of Islam is about on par (Muslims, just like Christians or Jews, don’t practice their faith the same way).</p>
<p>And there was actually a period in the Islamic world where knowledge and tolerance (to a certain point) was at the forefront and ahead of the Christian world (during this period the Arabs made great strides in mathematics, astronomy, etc.). Unfortunately, due to geo-political happenings, religious fundamentalism has taken a greater hold.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhh, based on your view, many of the significant figures in the Bible would be pedophile polygamists - remember, not only was taking more than one wife acceptable, so was having a no. of concubines (which is why this whole religion-based argument on the sanctity of marriage is a bunch of bunk).</p>
<p>As I stated before – what is considered a child today is not the same as what was considered a child at those times. The average life-expectancy was about 30 – so a 13 or 14 yr old was hitting “middle age” – which is why the Jewish passage into adulthood, a bar or bat mitzvah, was/is for 13 yr old males and 12 yr old females (altho today, it doesn’t quite have the same effect, except for maybe in ultra-Orthodox Judaism).</p>
<p>And why do you think Mormons practiced polygamy (and why fundamentalist Mormons continue to do so today)? It was all there in the Bible (did you ever read the Bible?).</p>
<p>Try to think a little more intelligently about this matter – or at least learn about it in greater depth before pontificating.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s more than a few and one can argue that people who follow secular law/practices aren’t “true” Christians.</p>
<p>
In other words, you lack the intellect and logic to understand the truth I express, so you resort to name calling and behavior contrary to common curtesy and the terms required by this forum. Notice how I have not called you names even though many would apply to someone who defends pedophilia and polygamy and distains homosexuals. My behavior is called maturity and civility. Try it some time. </p>
<p>
Yes, and If Muhammad had waited until his wife turned 12 or 13 you might have an argument. Instead he chose a six year old for his bride. Using your definition of adulthood, Muhammad chose a child. </p>
<p>
Christ certainly didn’t want to marry a six year old. Can you name any significant Christian who tried to marry a six year old?</p>
<p>
And did you ever read the Book of Mormon? You might know the answer to your question, if you had.</p>
<p>
You make a fair criticism, poetsheart. I should not have linked my comment to be a response to one of your comments. I should have let it stand alone. </p>
<p>
Sometimes the truth needs repeating. What I am tired of seeing is so many African Americans failing at so many things and then blaming everybody but themselves. It is time for African Americans to become successful and productive on a massive scale. All americans are rooting for African Americans to succeed but that success cannot be handed to them through racial preference otherwise it is meaningless. It is time to end excuses and insist on results.</p>
<p>razorsharp -
</p>
<p>LOL! Once again – such big proclamations from you when YOU are the one who has been lacking in intellect and logic in this discussion (and btw, what I had stated about your comments thus far is a pretty accurate characterization).</p>
<p>Again with the pedophilia and polygamy. </p>
<p>If Mohammed was guilty of pedophilia and polygamy – then, once again, so were many of the most notable figures in the Bible, as well as your own forebearers (and yet, I don’t see you castigating them as you have Mohammed).</p>
<p>And pedophilia, by its clinical definition, is an attraction to pre-pubescent children – there is no proof that Mohammed was attracted to pre-pubescent children since the girl he was betrothed to very likely had undergone menses at the time they eventually married (and if Mohammed was a pedophile, logic would dictate that he would take continually take pre-pubescent girls as his wives, but that is far from the case – esp. considering that Mohammed was devoted to his first wife until her death).</p>
<p>And your lack of logic and intellect is most evident by the fact that you state that I “defend” pedophilia and polygamy. I have done no such thing, but merely stated that (1) polygamy was common practice in the ancient world (in addition to concubinage) and (2) during those times, girls (and boys) reached adulthood once they underwent puberty (adolescence and the relatively late entry into adulthood are recent developments in human history).</p>
<p>The fact that you still don’t get that you are applying today’s values with regard to childhood, etc. with the ancient past says something more about your intellect than I can ever say.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhh, he didn’t marry a 6 year old, he was only betrothed to her when she was 6. Again, it was common practice for families to build alliances with each other by promising their children’s hand in marriage. In much more recent times – there have been many a European princess betrothed to older royalty when they were still young girls.</p>
<p>
What is your excuse for making such a bigoted statement? </p>
<p>
I have asked you to name names and you still can’t do it. Name a notable figure of the Bible who wanted to marry a six year old or admit you don’t know what you are talking about. </p>
<p>
Wanting to marry a six year old girl is pretty good evidence. Take off your blinders.</p>
<p>
Prove it. A majority of girls today do not get their periods at age 9, why would you think it was different in Muhammad’s time?</p>
<p>
I guess slavery was ok with you. In your world the Africans who sold slaves were just good businessmen and the slaveowners who owned them were just looking after their property.</p>
<p>It looks like this statement best applies to you: "such big proclamations from you when YOU are the one who has been lacking in intellect and logic in this discussion "</p>
<p>And tell me this: Do you think it is ok for Muslims to kill a cartoonist who draws a picture of Muhammad?</p>
<p>well, its interesting to read the bible and it basic support of rape…never really thought about that much, but it is there</p>
<p>however, it can be turned and explained away by some due to “translation” which is interesting </p>
<p>some things are to be taken literally as the word of God, but yet those same groups explain away words like RAPE as something lost in translation</p>
<p>btw, the bible and slavery- welll…</p>
<p>Poet and razor you both have some pretty good points. I don’t think razor is a bigot however. Yes, Thomas, Rice, Powell, and others have definitely been used for political gain. It has also been good for America as a whole. It shows that just because people may be different in skin, clothes, accents, etc… that they can be quite capable at whatever it is they are hired to do. And we all agree that Thomas, Rice, and Powell would have succeeded no matter if affirmative action had helped them out or if political correctness had helped them out.</p>
<p>Razor on the other hand also brings up a very good point. At what point will Americans; Black, White, or whatever; be able to honestly believe in their hearts that the person that was hired, appointed, etc… was so because they happen to have been the most qualified and not because of affirmative action of for political gain?</p>
<p>It is natural for people to look out mainly for themselves. When they apply for a job, promotion, etc… and they don’t receive it, it is natural to rationalize it to protect oneself from the thought of failure. So, does the Black woman blame racism on the fact that she didn’t get a certain job she applied for. Maybe yet, is it possible she didn’t get it because she’s a woman. On the other hand, if she does get the job, does the person who didn’t get the job rationalize and believe she got it because she was Black. Maybe because she’s a woman. Maybe she did indeed deserve it.</p>
<p>I think this is an excellent point razor brings up. Sooner or later, Blacks are going to have to insist on their own that affirmative action in any form be done away with. Until that time, it will always be an excuse by some of why a Black person got to where they are; or an excuse by Blacks of that they are still being held back from their potential and why it’s needed. Either way, affirmative action type of treatments will always stand in the way by some of Blacks being accepted as equal.</p>
<p>Citygirlsmom; so funny that we should meet again in another post. Just one question. While I agree that many things in the bible have been mistranslated depending on the receiver’s perception, some things aren’t really let up to interpretation. But you did say however:</p>
<p>“some things are to be taken literally as the word of God, but yet those same groups explain away words like RAPE as something lost in translation”</p>
<p>My question to you is; could you tell me the passages, verse, paragraph, etc… of the bible with the word rape. I’m not saying that It isn’t in there, but I have read it a few times and don’t remember it in there. However, there are a few versions out there and I haven’t read them all. However, in the King James version and the American Standard version, the word “RAPE” just doesn’t seem to be there.</p>
<p>But don’t worry. Many people speak words in a biblical manner to give credence to it, as though it is from God, yet it isn’t. I.e. A lot of people, including recently Hillary Clinton; when asked what her favorite bible verse was; she answered. "The Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. It’s an excellent saying, unfortunately it’s not in the bible. Never has been. Now, the principle is there in many places from Mathew and Luke, to Islam. Forty Hadith of an-Nawawi 13,; Jainism. Sutrakritanga 1.11.33; Confucianism. Mencius VII.A.4; and just about every religion in the world.</p>
<p>The point is; depending on what you are reading, you too could be misinterpreting what you consider rape. I’m not saying yes or no. Just saying that in the 2 bibles I am most familiar with, I can’t find the word in it anyplace. So, a reference would be nice.</p>
<p>“Either way, affirmative action type of treatments will always stand in the way by some of Blacks being accepted as equal.”</p>
<p>Christcorp, thanks for your thoughtful and reasoned response. Believe me, I do understand the logic of the above argument. But I have another question for which you might be able to provide some insight: Before there was Affirmative Action, what was it that stood in the way of blacks being accepted as equals? Has that thing (things, plural) been removed? If so, is AA now the only thing that stands in the way of blacks being accepted as equals?</p>
<p>poet; great questions. Racism has affected Blacks and many people around the world since the beginning of time. I personally don’t think that affirmative action was all that bad; in it’s time. Just not sure if it’s still needed to accomplish the same result.</p>
<p>Just like I think unions were excellent at ensuring worker’s safety, fair wages, child labor laws, etc… I think most unions have outlived their usefullness. Prior to the job I am at now, I was employed and represented by a union. I believe that they caused more harm than good. While individually, we see higher wages and such as a good thing, it isn’t necessarily if you take the emotion out of it an look at it logically. Someone selling a product can only sell that product or service for what someone will pay for it. That is basic economics. But when the union continues to force higher wages and benefits, the company producing the products or services are forced to raise the price to the consumer As such, other employees require a pay raise to afford to purchase such goods and services. And the cycle continues. Within no time, percentage wise, we are about where we were before the union pushed for these increases. Then, our nation’s economy has gotten to the point where our companies must pay employees $20-$50 a hour for work that they could have done overseas for a fraction of the cost. I believe that most unions, while maybe with good intentions, have actually cost our country a lot of jobs.</p>
<p>Affirmative action too was indeed needed at one time. The initial intention was that is there were 2 identically qualified individuals applying for the same position, minority and non-minority, that an organization should be mandated to provide the job to the minority. This was to allow minorities an opportunity to be able to not be directly affected by racism. It was a good idea. Unfortunately, while this was happening, the rules didn’t put enough emphasis on the children and their education. So the problem appears that overall on a national basis, Blacks in general still need affirmative action to stay competitive. In truth, because a large portion of Blacks live in urban cities, the school system isn’t the best and neither is their economics. As such, their education doesn’t allow them to compete at the same level upon graduation. I can’t remember where I heard it, but yesterday; radio or tv; they were speaking of minorities, specifically Blacks, who were accepted into Law School through quotas and such, but were having a much lower rate of graduation and passing the “Bar” to becoming a lawyer. Not because they are Black, but because they weren’t educationally prepared.</p>
<p>With most larger companies being quite prejudice against color; NAMELY GREEN. I have found that most will higher whoever can help them make the most profit. They don’t really care if it’s a Black, White, Man, Woman, Asian, etc… If you put more coin in their pocket, they want you. Not all companies; especially smaller more private mom and pop companies. But when it comes to the larger companies, that is indeed how they operate. That isn’t opinion. The jobs are getting much more technical or broad in scope where it’s on a global perspective. It requires individuals with a lot more capabilities. Also being more global, many are becoming very accustomed to working with people from all over the world. Being Black is not as much of an issue with the larger companies.</p>
<p>So, if affirmative action isn’t my suggestion, then what is? It has to be education. The problem is, it’s not just a Black thing. It only appears to be a Black issue because Blacks comprise a minority to Whites and in many instances are more concentrated in cities and urban areas. While no place is perfect, I can honestly say that in the rural areas, Midwest, West, and other non-urban concentrated areas, Blacks don’t face the same level of discrimination as the do as reported by the media. Not that there isn’t racism outside the urban cities, there is. Just that employment and such is much more equal above the board. Mainly because the education system is much better and it’s that way for all the students. Having 15-20 students in a classroom is much nicer. Especially when the kids care to be there; there’s little to no crime; and it’s a better learning environment. When Blacks go to school here, they are pretty much no different than a White child going to school. Each kid has the exact same opportunity. Economics isn’t an issue. Skin color isn’t an issue. Crime and other distractions aren’t an issue. When the children graduate high school, it is much easier for them to go off to college and become educated and eventually qualified.</p>
<p>But having lived in most states in the USA, I have seen just as many poor, uneducated, White kids as I’ve seen Blacks. It’s just that the media, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, NAACP, and other groups concentrate more on the urban areas with the higher concentration of Blacks. Most companies now that work on a national or international basis really don’t see skin color as a major issue. That indeed has changed. Affirmative action type programs need to be replaced with better education. Parents should be allowed vouchers so their kids don’t have to go to some scumbag school in their city neighborhood. If enough parents are allowed this, then the existing school will either have to be fixed or shut down. That is better than letting them stay as they are and not educating the children. Of course, a lot of this also requires taking care of economic issues in which it’s more productive for a city kid; Black, White, Hispanic, etc… to go to school, get an education, and move on than to just hang out, drop out, drug out, etc…</p>
<p>So, the problem, IMO, is the urban inner city economics and education system. But, because that is where there is a high concentration of Blacks living, it appears to be more of a racial issue than an economic issue.</p>