Racism, are we going too far?

[Kur]

This is not a debate about whether racism is good or bad. This is a debate about whether or not we are throwing the word 'racism' around too much.

I have a few stories, all out of the UK.

First, there were 2 grade school students who were punished for not praying to Allah during a 'cultural awareness' exercise. The students were all supposed to kneel down and pray to Allah so they can know what it is like to be Muslim. 2 of the students refused on the grounds that they were not Muslim and it was basically breaking a commandment of their religion to perform the exercise. They were punished for being 'racists'.

Second, day care centers were told to be on the lookout for 'racist' children. A sure sign of such racism is supposed to be if a child (as young as 2 or 3) does not want, or refuses to eat foods originating from a different culture than their own. The example given was 'spicy curry'. If the child snubs the foreign food, then they are racist.

Third, during a meeting of some sort, a council member was dismayed that a fellow council member in charge of sending out fines for traffic violators caught by photo radar equipment, kept losing paper work and having to let people off the hook. The council member said something to the effect of "It's like there is a black hole over there and the paper work keeps vanishing" Of course the person in charge of the area was black and immediately says "Excuse me?" A judge (also black) later decided that the council member should immediately apologize for the 'racist' remark.


All of these things happened in the UK, but that is not the only place this kind of thing is going on. Here in the US it has been said by some fairly well respected members of the media that if you are white, and do not vote for Barrack Obama, it is because deep down, you are a racist.

If you want immigration laws to be enforced, it is because you are racist.

It seems to me that we are throwing this word around far too often and mostly where it does not belong.

Is it really ok, or even sane to accuse a 3 year old child of being racist because they don't want to eat spicy curry?

Should a person be called a racist for using the phrase 'black hole' when trying to make an analogy to things disappearing as if sucked into a singularity?

Am I a racist because I use the word 'black' instead of 'african american'?

Or am I wrong? Should we be going even further? Should we call a white guy racist for not owning a black shirt?

Obviously some people think this is perfectly ok, because it is happening.

 

[Amide]

Yes we are going too far.

On the first story, why in the world should people be punished for not worshipping to a certain god? Why should people be forced to pray to god in school anyway?

The second story seems fake, and the third story rather sad.

I understand why we want to be protective of feelings, but this is going too far. Also, I call people African Americans 'black' and Caucasians 'white.' It's just better for conversation that way.

On the Barack Obama thing, if people say they won't vote for him for being Muslim, they in fact are racist, or ignorant fools. But if they like McCain for being conservative, or dislike Obama for being liberal, that's fine.

 

[Modest_Egoist]

People have gone too far. In the first story, the word 'racist' was misused because they refused to perform a religious act. As for the last story, I find it was the council member and the judge who took offense to the 'black hole' remark were ignorant.

I understand why we want to be protective of feelings, but this is going too far. Also, I call people African Americans 'black' and Caucasians 'white'.

I agree. The thing is, not every African American is black. For example, Charlize Theron is African American (she was born in Benoni, South Africa and is a US citizen), yet she can also be considered Caucasian (she is white skinned).

 

[SuperBowser]

Where are you getting these stories from?! The daily mail?

Seriously, the second story doesn't even make sense and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that would actually do that to children. The other two stories sound silly but probably (or at least I'd hope) there's more to them than what's been reported.

 

[DeliciousCake]

I have to agree with SuperBowser, all three of those stories are absolutely ridiculous and make no sense whatsoever. First, Muslim is not a race, it's a religion. Second, it is highly unlikely that 3 year old children can completely understand the concept of racism. And finally, anyone who thinks that saying "black hole" is racist terminology needs to get fired from being in a federal position.

In the US, we've taken racism to an unnecessary extreme. People are way too caught up in political correctness that anything you say or do directed at someone who isn't the same race as you that could be slightly deemed negative instantly makes you a racist. This might seem like a stupid example but it gets the point across: I currently work in a restaurant that provides water cups out of courtesy for our customers. Needless to say, people take this to mean that you can just go to the soda fountain and take whatever you want. Most of the people doing this happen to be black. Now, our head manager sometimes finds it necessary to remove people from the establishment who break this rule. So he throws out a group of black kids who are stealing soda. Does that make him racist? To alot of people, yeah, this probably does, despite that these kids are obviously stealing. Stealing is a crime. But apparently perpetrating what could be seen as racism immediately overrides anything.

 

[GreatClayMonkey]

I agree with Delicious Cake on pretty much everything he stated. After all when you see someone the first thing you notice is their appearence. If you saw a person wearing all black and black makeup you would probably label them as a goth if you see a young child you'll probably assume your more intelligent than them. Appearence can usually will affect how we treat a person especially one we don't know or have just met. Its humanly impossible to prevent it so labeling it as racism every time is stupid. Race is touchy and has racism has been a problem in the past but unless its an extreme case of it I don't think theres much that can be done. Also do they really expect a 3 year old to like a spicy food.

 

[Modest_Egoist]

DC -If your boss is throwing out everyone who is caught stealing soda, then he is not being racist. He is defending his establishment from blatant theft.

 

[Kur]

Where are you getting these stories from?! The daily mail?

Seriously, the second story doesn't even make sense and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that would actually do that to children. The other two stories sound silly but probably (or at least I'd hope) there's more to them than what's been reported.

Daily mail? Never heard of it.

These are various stories I've heard from various forms of news, none of which was on a TV.

And you are right, you would be hard pressed to find anybody who would accuse 3 year old children of racism, and yet, some people are.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ho-dislike-spicy-food-racist,-say-report.html

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/021673.php

And concerning the 'black hole' comment story, which I made a mistake about. It did not happen in the UK, it happened in Dallas Texas.

http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=19983

http://coloradoright.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/black-hole-now-a-racist-term/

And these are links about the students punished for not praying to Allah. When I heard the story originally it was claimed the teacher accused the students of being racists, but now I can't find any links that say that.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/193223.php

 

[Firus]

The term 'racism' is far too overused these days. If you do ANYTHING that could be deemed mean to a person of another race, it's because of their race. I'm almost afraid for Obama to become President just because of this. Anyone who disagrees with him is going to be deemed racist simply because he's black. And I happen to disagree with him on just about everything, so I'll get called a racist right and left.

Those stories are extremely pathetic, and outrageous. And sadly, I wouldn't doubt them for a second. They seem rather likely. Political correctness and anti-"racism" have gone so far that it's practically become racism towards any majority. Political correctness has practically become things like "Christianity is the only religion that may not be represented." Notice every year around Christmas you hear stories about some Chrismas decorations being complained about.

And yeah, I use the terms "white" and "black". I don't think it makes you racist. As Modest_Egoist pointed out, all African Americans are not black. "Caucasian" and "African American" are both terms that are long, and if they can be shortened, why can't they be shortened?

 

[Modest_Egoist]

And you are right, you would be hard pressed to find anybody who would accuse 3 year old children of racism, and yet, some people are.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ho-dislike-spicy-food-racist,-say-report.html

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/021673.php

Wow. That is too absurd to believe, yet it happens. Children who dislike spicy food are not racist, they just don't like spicy food. It's not that hard a concept.

And concerning the 'black hole' comment story, which I made a mistake about. It did not happen in the UK, it happened in Dallas Texas.

http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=19983

http://coloradoright.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/black-hole-now-a-racist-term/

A quote from the story: "Commissioner John Wiley Price, who is black, interrupted him with a loud 'Excuse me!' He then corrected his colleague, saying the office has become a 'white hole.'"

That shows that the black commissioner is the one that was being a racist, not the other way around. People are becoming overly sensitive.

 

[SuperBowser]

Daily mail? Never heard of it.

These are various stories I've heard from various forms of news, none of which was on a TV.

And you are right, you would be hard pressed to find anybody who would accuse 3 year old children of racism, and yet, some people are.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ho-dislike-spicy-food-racist,-say-report.html

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/021673.php

And concerning the 'black hole' comment story, which I made a mistake about. It did not happen in the UK, it happened in Dallas Texas.

http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=19983

http://coloradoright.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/black-hole-now-a-racist-term/

And these are links about the students punished for not praying to Allah. When I heard the story originally it was claimed the teacher accused the students of being racists, but now I can't find any links that say that.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/193223.php

Daily Mail is a newspaper (the term being used loosely) that's pretty famous for the sorts of stories you mentioned. If you ever want to be appalled by humanity you should read it

Granted, the spicy curry thing is stupid, I think the story is exaggerated a little. The guide probably stated that a dislike for foreign foods was ONE sign for racism, along with the other factors given in the article. It didn't say if you don't like foreign food, you must be racist.

The students who refused to pray to Allah; again, stupid but it's likely there's more to this story. Perhaps it was something the students specifically said when they were asked to take part that got them the detention, we don't know. The article said nothing about them being branded racist and was pretty poor on details. It's pretty common for some kids to not attend religious education lessons on religious grounds in UK (I only know of jehova's witnesses that do this) so I don't know why the school would do that.

I've never paid much attention to these sorts of stories because the truth is the journalist just wants to reports the facts that support their nice headline. They don't care about accuracy.


Just to contribute, here's a couple of my own stories:

In primary school I was shouted at a couple of times by teachers for not praying in assembly, despite the fact I'm not christian (they were aware of this). I was pretty young at the time so just did as I was told and didn't think much of it. When I look back on it, it annoys me that I was shouted at in front of the whole class for something I obviously shouldn't be made to do but I still don't like drawing attention to myself. Should I have made a fuss?

My mum used to be a substitute teacher. One day she got a few troublesome students who bugged her the whole class but she managed them. During the lunch time, one of the kids came up to her and asked her if she was chinese (you'd have to be pretty blind to think that but this kid was just genuinely stupid). He then asked her if she was from Afghanistan (this was around 9/11 period). My mum laughed but unfortunately for the kid, the headteacher was just walking round the corner and heard the whole conversation . For fear of seeming racist to my mum, he immediately shouted at the kid, had a letter sent home and gave a saturday morning detention (very rare). This kid wouldn't have got such a severe punishment if he hadn't spoken about race. I don't think this is fair, but I guess the headteacher wanted to make sure he wouldn't get sued by my mum.


Personally, I don't think the word racism is used too much or too little and I have the most culturally diverse set of friends you can find. But I only have my own experiences to rely on. There are ridiculous people that ruin it for everyone else, but they are the exception, thankfully. I'll be in contact with a lot of people as part of my degree next year, so maybe I'll change my tune.

To me, the cost of a few bad cases is outweighed by the many situations where a racist is called out for what they are. Crazy people will be crazy people regardless, but others shouldn't be discouraged from using it.

 

[SkylerOcon]

It's kinda funny. The only time you can be racist is if you're white. My example? Well, I live in the US, but in my city whites are a minority. We have a mostly mexican population here.

So, I'm talking with my friend about Smash and some kid walks up to me and says 'Nintendo sucks you little cracker' right in front of a teacher. For those who don't know, calling a white guy a cracker is like calling a black guy a ****** (no doubt that the word ****** will be blocked by censors, but cracker won't). The teacher does nothing.

So, just to see what happens I say 'Shut it beaner'. Then the teacher starts shouting at me for saying that. I then explain to her that what he called me was just as bad as what I called him and she should have stopped him from saying it. Of course she denies it, but she lets me go without punishment.

The only people that can be racist in America are white people. Hell, I have another example of affimative action to give, which is giving people and advantage because of their race.

So, my brother applies to go to ASU come this August (he decided to attend A of U, however). He and a friend who both have a 4.0 GPA, did a sport, and Student Council get accepted and are both offered a scholarship.

My brothers scholarship? $40,000
My brothers friend? Full tuition.

My brother is white and my brothers friend is Mexican. They both come from middle class families, with no issues. It's an entirely merit-based scholarship.

I ask you, why did my brothers friend get a higher scholarship than my brother did?

 

[Amide]

@SkylerOcon

Guess what? At a top college, the average SAT score is higher for people on the waiting list than people actually accepted to the college. Why? Because race counts more than how good the student is. It's really sad, actually.

 

[DeliciousCake]

DC -If your boss is throwing out everyone who is caught stealing soda, then he is not being racist. He is defending his establishment from blatant theft.

My point being that people DO consider it racist, solely because the perpetrators are black. Often my manager will send my other manager, who IS black, to eject people from the place. Wonder why that is?

 

[Firus]

It's kinda funny. The only time you can be racist is if you're white. My example? Well, I live in the US, but in my city whites are a minority. We have a mostly mexican population here.

So, I'm talking with my friend about Smash and some kid walks up to me and says 'Nintendo sucks you little cracker' right in front of a teacher. For those who don't know, calling a white guy a cracker is like calling a black guy a ****** (no doubt that the word ****** will be blocked by censors, but cracker won't). The teacher does nothing.

So, just to see what happens I say 'Shut it beaner'. Then the teacher starts shouting at me for saying that. I then explain to her that what he called me was just as bad as what I called him and she should have stopped him from saying it. Of course she denies it, but she lets me go without punishment.

The only people that can be racist in America are white people. Hell, I have another example of affimative action to give, which is giving people and advantage because of their race.

So, my brother applies to go to ASU come this August (he decided to attend A of U, however). He and a friend who both have a 4.0 GPA, did a sport, and Student Council get accepted and are both offered a scholarship.

My brothers scholarship? $40,000
My brothers friend? Full tuition.

My brother is white and my brothers friend is Mexican. They both come from middle class families, with no issues. It's an entirely merit-based scholarship.

I ask you, why did my brothers friend get a higher scholarship than my brother did?

That's sad, but it's totally believable. Minorities can't be racist, because I guess the majorities oppressed them at some point in history and so the majorities deserve crap for what their ancestors may/may not have done.

Ugh...don't even get me started on affirmative action. It's completely unfair for someone to receive anything more because of their race. They all want "equal opportunity", but it's not equal opportunity anymore. They get more opportunities. They get better treatment.

Overall, things end up like this; you're racist if you make a desparaging remark against a minority and are white. Nothing happens if you're a minority and make a desparaging remark against someone who is white. And if you try to tell someone they're being racist, but they're a minority, chances are, you'll be called racist.

I have no problem with minorities whatsoever. But I have a problem with the extra treatment they get, and the fact that it can never be fixed because it's taboo to say anything about anything except how few rights they get.

Political correctness is stupid.

 

[adumbrodeus]

It's kinda funny. The only time you can be racist is if you're white. My example? Well, I live in the US, but in my city whites are a minority. We have a mostly mexican population here.

So, I'm talking with my friend about Smash and some kid walks up to me and says 'Nintendo sucks you little cracker' right in front of a teacher. For those who don't know, calling a white guy a cracker is like calling a black guy a ****** (no doubt that the word ****** will be blocked by censors, but cracker won't). The teacher does nothing.

So, just to see what happens I say 'Shut it beaner'. Then the teacher starts shouting at me for saying that. I then explain to her that what he called me was just as bad as what I called him and she should have stopped him from saying it. Of course she denies it, but she lets me go without punishment.

You're both racist and your teacher is a fool. End of discussion.

So, my brother applies to go to ASU come this August (he decided to attend A of U, however). He and a friend who both have a 4.0 GPA, did a sport, and Student Council get accepted and are both offered a scholarship.

My brothers scholarship? $40,000
My brothers friend? Full tuition.

My brother is white and my brothers friend is Mexican. They both come from middle class families, with no issues. It's an entirely merit-based scholarship.

I ask you, why did my brothers friend get a higher scholarship than my brother did?

That tiny rundown doesn't really afford a lot of depth from which to judge. It's entirely possible that there was something that distinguished them beyond race that didn't seem important to you. Or they capped the number of full scholarships and 40,000 was next one down, and their choice was pretty much random, or it was a random blip.


As for affirmative action... the system is broken, but the concept is reasonable enough. It should be done based on income, not race.

 

[MojoMan]

I find your stories difficult to believe, but I still think America at least has gone too far. A single mention of the word black can cause issues. But on some points, we have not gone far enough. A common dis in my school is "Jew", which I find very offensive, being even a bit Jewish (I celebrate a few holidays, etc.) I take this offensively. The worst part is that the dis means cheap and sleazy, when Orthodox are rich only because they devote much of their time into work and don't waste their money on petty toys no one will use. The point is, once they start getting too protective for one race, the public will find some religion or race to discriminate against. I kept yelling at my friend to stop saying Jew, then to stop saying Muslim, then to stop saying Gypsy, and it goes on and on. I think that there isn't really a way to solve this problem, because that would mean doing something to millions of Americans (giving a fine, passing a law). And then people would start finding loopholes. Racism is one problem that is going to take some time solve.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

I think it's just individuals really, it doesn't seem like the majority that's going too far.

Also, Black isn't racist. I've met people who are apprehensive about saying it because they're unsure whether it's racist or not. It's just like saying White.

Spoiler

EDIT: Spelling mistake

 

[WindyKitt]

This isn't much of a debate, but I'll comment anyways.

I agree with what most people have said. If a minority uses a racist term towards a white person, no one gets mad. They just think, "Oh, they don't really mean it. They're just joking around." But if a white makes any remark that could be taken with the slightest bit of offense to a minority, everyone gets all hot and bothered about it.

I actually heard from my mother about a pretty silly story. She's on like a diversity mental health board or close to that because she has a Ph.D in Health Psychology. She was at a meeting, and they were discussing "African-American Treatment." Apparently, some blacks (Yes, I'm using the term black. I think African-American is incorrect.) think that people should be more sensitve towards them because the fact that their ancestors were enslaved somehow passed down some emotional damage. Of course, my entire family thought this was silly, because how can something that happened 230 years ago possibly affect the mental health of people today? In short, it really can't.

Of course, most people aren't without their little race quirks. Here in California, many Mexicans illegally immigrate into our state. Our family is especially sensitive to this because one of our family friends was our illegal Mexican nanny. However, when most people in Cali are looking for cheap labour, they look to the Mexicans. We always refer to them as Mexicans. "We need to get some Mexicans to finish some of the work on our remodel." If one of those hyper-"OhPeopleAreSoRacist" types heard us saying that, they'd think we are racist, but the fact is, most people have little racist quirks in us. It doesn't matter what race. We all need to accept it because racism is not a term to throw around lightly. What I've talked about, you can also witness in the song, "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist," from Avenue Q. It's mostly true. People need to stop being so hyper-sensitive about everything.

 

[marthanoob]

A common dis in my school is "Jew", which I find very offensive, being even a bit Jewish (I celebrate a few holidays, etc.) I take this offensively. The worst part is that the dis means cheap and sleazy, when Orthodox are rich only because they devote much of their time into work and don't waste their money on petty toys no one will use. The point is, once they start getting too protective for one race, the public will find some religion or race to discriminate against. I kept yelling at my friend to stop saying Jew, then to stop saying Muslim, then to stop saying Gypsy, and it goes on and on. I think that there isn't really a way to solve this problem, because that would mean doing something to millions of Americans (giving a fine, passing a law). And then people would start finding loopholes. Racism is one problem that is going to take some time solve.

If someone is calling you cheap and sleazy, and you are not cheap and sleazy, then they are ignorant to what you really are and should shut up. You need not get all riled up or offended.

The nature of offense is simple.
Words have no meaning unless infused.
Meaning is personal. "Bad" is subjective and therefore individually determined.
A "bad meaning" is personal and can therefore be accepted or rejected like an invitation can.

On another note, anyone with a good amount of internet experience knows that there are malicious people out there who want to propagate the list of words people accept as "bad" and "offensive" for the sole purpose of using it against them.
Restricting these words is also allowing them to be used against us. Exactly why I hate political correctness.
Most people just want to prod you until you burst for the fun of it or to redirect their problems/stress into targeted anger. Ignore them.

EDIT: It's funny how overly radical my beliefs are and how much sense they make at the same time.

 

[Kur]

You're both racist and your teacher is a fool. End of discussion.

Not quite. It is entirely possible that neither of them is racist. This was the whole purpose behind me bringing this debate up. You just threw the word racist out because somebody said cracker or beaner. It is entirely possible that neither of them are racist. He said himself he called the mexican kid a beaner just to see if the teacher would react. And the mexican kid probably only called him a cracker just to insult him, no different than saying "Smash sucks, moron. Or, Smash sucks *******" The truth is that you do not know if either of them harbors any racist attitudes, you just assume they do. Guilty until proven innocent as far as you are concerned.

That tiny rundown doesn't really afford a lot of depth from which to judge. It's entirely possible that there was something that distinguished them beyond race that didn't seem important to you. Or they capped the number of full scholarships and 40,000 was next one down, and their choice was pretty much random, or it was a random blip.

That is exactly how it happens. Affirmative action is all about giving opportunities to minorities. With all else being equal, the minority gets the prize. All of your explanations are nice, but wishful thinking. Try applying for a scholarship, most of them have requirements listed and the requirements are different depending on your race.

I applied for a scholarship in high school, the requirements for white people was a 3.5 GPA and a 95% attendance rate. The requirements for minorities was a 3.0 GPA and a 90% attendance rate.

As for affirmative action... the system is broken, but the concept is reasonable enough. It should be done based on income, not race.

Affirmative action was created some decades ago to ensure that employers and other people with power did not discriminate against minorities. 40 or 50 years ago, we needed affirmative action.

Well it is 2008 now and we really don't need affirmative action anymore. All it does now is discriminate against white people. Affirmative action hands jobs, scholarships, loans, and many other things to minorities before white people.

It is an outdated policy that we do not need anymore. The system is broken, the concept is broken. It doesn't need fixing, it needs to be thrown away.

If we really want to get rid of all racism, we need to stop dividing the country by race. Stop giving blacks more benefits just because they are black. Stop having 'black history month' and just have history. Black people were part of history anyway, we don't need a special month for it.

Affirmative action is like a pro BMX rider still using training wheels. Sure he needed them when he was 5, but now they just get in his way.

 

[SuperBowser]

I actually heard from my mother about a pretty silly story. She's on like a diversity mental health board or close to that because she has a Ph.D in Health Psychology. She was at a meeting, and they were discussing "African-American Treatment." Apparently, some blacks (Yes, I'm using the term black. I think African-American is incorrect.) think that people should be more sensitve towards them because the fact that their ancestors were enslaved somehow passed down some emotional damage. Of course, my entire family thought this was silly, because how can something that happened 230 years ago possibly affect the mental health of people today? In short, it really can't.

In the UK, black Caribbean people have a higher rate (3-5 times) of mental illness to white people and it's been attributed to socioeconomic factos/stress of migration/racism. It's most likely a similar idea in America so there actually could have been a point to discussing african-american treatment for mental health

 

[Kur]

In the UK, black Caribbean people have a higher rate (3-5 times) of mental illness to white people and it's been attributed to socioeconomic factos/stress of migration/racism. It's most likely a similar idea in America so there actually could have been a point to discussing african-american treatment for mental health

In the US black people suffer from far more cases of sickle-cell anemia. Because of the same 'mutation' though they have a much higher resistance to malaria.

Is any of this because of slavery?

There are slight genetic differences between the races. If you are black, you have a statistically higher chance of dying from heart disease.

It is entirely possible those caribbean people simply have a genetic predisposition to mental illness.

Saying a person has a mental illness because of stress from migration, only work if that person was the one doing the migrating. and giving preferential treatment to any race is just racism against the races not given treatment. How long would it be before a white person gets a mental illness from not being treated as nicely as a black guy is at whatever company WindyKitts mom works at?

 

[SuperBowser]

In the US black people suffer from far more cases of sickle-cell anemia. Because of the same 'mutation' though they have a much higher resistance to malaria.

Is any of this because of slavery?

There are slight genetic differences between the races. If you are black, you have a statistically higher chance of dying from heart disease.

It is entirely possible those caribbean people simply have a genetic predisposition to mental illness.

Saying a person has a mental illness because of stress from migration, only work if that person was the one doing the migrating. and giving preferential treatment to any race is just racism against the races not given treatment. How long would it be before a white person gets a mental illness from not being treated as nicely as a black guy is at whatever company WindyKitts mom works at?

No. You are wrong.

Prevalence studies show black people to have the same rate of mental illness as whites. However, black people in the UK show a much higher rate. The conclusions of the study were as stated above. If you'd like I'll find the study for you.

Sickle cell anaemia has little to do with mental illness.

EDIT: here's one such study. There's plenty more if you look yourself. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/309/6962/1115


extra edit: there's actually too many other things in your post that bothered me.

Firstly, I think it's fair to say that slavery is a major factor for why black people tend to be in a lower socioeconomic group.

Secondly, no one talked about giving preferential treatment to black people or not treating white people. Seriously, what? It's simply about discussing different risk factors and understanding that different backgrounds can contribute to a patient's presentation.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Not quite. It is entirely possible that neither of them is racist. This was the whole purpose behind me bringing this debate up. You just threw the word racist out because somebody said cracker or beaner. It is entirely possible that neither of them are racist. He said himself he called the mexican kid a beaner just to see if the teacher would react. And the mexican kid probably only called him a cracker just to insult him, no different than saying "Smash sucks, moron. Or, Smash sucks *******" The truth is that you do not know if either of them harbors any racist attitudes, you just assume they do. Guilty until proven innocent as far as you are concerned.

The point I was making was that both parties were guilty, and both deserved to be punished, and the teacher was an idiot for not doing so in both cases.

That is exactly how it happens. Affirmative action is all about giving opportunities to minorities. With all else being equal, the minority gets the prize. All of your explanations are nice, but wishful thinking. Try applying for a scholarship, most of them have requirements listed and the requirements are different depending on your race.

I applied for a scholarship in high school, the requirements for white people was a 3.5 GPA and a 95% attendance rate. The requirements for minorities was a 3.0 GPA and a 90% attendance rate.

But this was a scholarship that wasn't based on race and therefore did not have easier requirements for minorities. It was stated explicitly by the poster that this was the case.

I see no reason to assume racism when a host of other factors could explain the situation.

Well it is 2008 now and we really don't need affirmative action anymore. All it does now is discriminate against white people. Affirmative action hands jobs, scholarships, loans, and many other things to minorities before white people.

I notice that you forgot one major group that affirmative action discriminates against, Asian Americans.

Reguardless, there's still a much more significant portion of the population that is African American that is living below the poverty line then those who are caucasian Americans.

But that not the core issue really, why should a middle class African-American have an easier ride getting into college or getting scholarships then a poor Caucasian American. What about a poor Thai American (check their graduation rates, especially the guys, it completely contradicts the model minority myth)?

It is an outdated policy that we do not need anymore. The system is broken, the concept is broken. It doesn't need fixing, it needs to be thrown away.

General poverty rates haven't improved all that much, and when a person is poor, they generally are stuck in a generational cycle of poverty, regardless of race. Some are worse off then others (Thai Americans being very notable in this regard), but in general, poor people lacking the opportunity to use their talents in much greater rates then almost any minority group.

That's what needs to be fixed, affirmative action needs to be for the poor.

If we really want to get rid of all racism, we need to stop dividing the country by race. Stop giving blacks more benefits just because they are black. Stop having 'black history month' and just have history. Black people were part of history anyway, we don't need a special month for it.

Obviously you're a uniculturalist, so, simple point, ignoring differences doesn't work, too many people wish to remember where they came from (how popular is genealogy after all). The most effective method, at least in the American expirience, of integrating people is polyculturalism. In other words, emphasize the unifying aspects of cultures.

Pretending differences don't exist is like ignoring an elephant sitting in your bedroom, you can ignor it all you want, but it's still there.

 

[WindyKitt]

In the UK, black Caribbean people have a higher rate (3-5 times) of mental illness to white people and it's been attributed to socioeconomic factos/stress of migration/racism. It's most likely a similar idea in America so there actually could have been a point to discussing african-american treatment for mental health

The point I'm trying to make is that some blacks feel traumatized because their ancestors were slaves. Not due to racism. I could imagin that black Carribean people are discriminated against and that may cause higher mental illness rates. I'm saying that what happened 230 years ago shouldn't affect the mental health or security of someone today.

 

[SuperBowser]

Well that's a little... strange =/

 

[Kur]

The point I was making was that both parties were guilty, and both deserved to be punished, and the teacher was an idiot for not doing so in both cases.

Yes both parties were guilty of using a racist word. But that is not what you said. You said both of them were racist, which plays into my point about the word racist being used way too often.

But this was a scholarship that wasn't based on race and therefore did not have easier requirements for minorities. It was stated explicitly by the poster that this was the case.

I see no reason to assume racism when a host of other factors could explain the situation.

Right. Many scholarships have done away with the separate requirements garbage since I graduated. But affirmative action laws dictate that if all else is equal, the minority gets the scholarship. Sure, it could be some of the reasons that you mentioned, but the chances are it was simply a matter of race.

I notice that you forgot one major group that affirmative action discriminates against, Asian Americans.

Eh. Whatever. It doesn't matter what race we are talking about. Giving one person preferential treatment over another because of race is racism.

Reguardless, there's still a much more significant portion of the population that is African American that is living below the poverty line then those who are caucasian Americans.

And whose fault is that? It is a statistical fact that black children are far more likely to grow up in a single parent home. I am not saying that this is why black people live 'below the poverty line' but it is a huge factor. (I am from a single parent home also)

And this is America. If you don't want to be poor, there isn't anything stopping you from making more money. If a black kid goes to school and applies himself, he can get the scholarship to go to college. Even if he doesn't go to college, there is nothing stopping him from getting a good paying job like any other non-college educated white guy could get.

We don't need a set of rules that say the black kid gets better treatment because he may or may not be poorer than the white kid.

But that not the core issue really, why should a middle class African-American have an easier ride getting into college or getting scholarships then a poor Caucasian American. What about a poor Thai American (check their graduation rates, especially the guys, it completely contradicts the model minority myth)?

Why should they? And why should a poor kid get an easier ride than a rich kid, regardless of race?

General poverty rates haven't improved all that much, and when a person is poor, they generally are stuck in a generational cycle of poverty, regardless of race. Some are worse off then others (Thai Americans being very notable in this regard), but in general, poor people lacking the opportunity to use their talents in much greater rates then almost any minority group.

Yeah, a lot of poor kids end up being poor adults. But this isn't because they are denied opportunity. There are millions of people who grew up very poor and ended up being very wealthy because they went out and did it themselves instead of relying on the government to help them. If a kid grows up with his parents collecting welfare and complaining that all their problems are caused by 'the man' or 'whitey' or 'rich people' then that is probably what the kid will think too.

That's what needs to be fixed, affirmative action needs to be for the poor.

The poor have every opportunity to pull themselves out of poverty. This is the land of opportunity, not the land of the free hand-out.

My brothers ex-wife doesn't work, has no income, and refuses to get a job. But she has a house, a car, a flat screen HDTV, plenty of food, and nothing but free time all day, because she is on welfare, foodstamps, and child support. She is considered poor and yet has more than a lot of people in 'middle class'. The point is that if you keep giving the poor a bunch of hand outs, they won't do anything to break out of the poverty. Why would they? She lives a better life than I do and I work my butt off all day. And now you are saying she should be given a higher chance of getting a scholarship, or job, or whatever than somebody else, because of her refusal to do what is right? She should have to fight her way up just like everybody else.

In a free society, some people will succeed and some people will fall on their face. And usually you will fall on your face 2 or 3 times before you succeed. It is the people who get up after falling that get out of poverty.

If we try to regulate who gets what based on a circumstance of their birth, then not only are we propegating racism, and economic classism, but we are giving up our freedom.

Obviously you're a uniculturalist, so, simple point, ignoring differences doesn't work, too many people wish to remember where they came from (how popular is genealogy after all). The most effective method, at least in the American expirience, of integrating people is polyculturalism. In other words, emphasize the unifying aspects of cultures.

Pretending differences don't exist is like ignoring an elephant sitting in your bedroom, you can ignor it all you want, but it's still there.

No I am not a uniculturalist. You can have whatever culture you want. But do not place one culture above another is all I am asking. Why not just teach history in history class? Why do we need a month of only 'black history' when black people are part of regular history?

Why make my life a little harder than a minorities life? If I am trying to get a job and my competition for the job is a black guy, (or mexican, or asian, or whatever) then why do I have a 5 point handicap right off the bat?

And multiculturalism is great, but lets not separate people because of it. Have your culture, but as far as the government, employers, schools, and anything else is concerned, your culture shouldn't matter one way or another. We are all people, equal people.

No. You are wrong.

Prevalence studies show black people to have the same rate of mental illness as whites. However, black people in the UK show a much higher rate. The conclusions of the study were as stated above. If you'd like I'll find the study for you.

Sickle cell anaemia has little to do with mental illness.

Of course. But my point was that mental illness can also be a product of genetics. Some races are more prone to different things than other races.

EDIT: here's one such study. There's plenty more if you look yourself. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/309/6962/1115

That study says that all ethnic minorities in the UK suffer from more mental illnesses than white people. It doesn't specify the black population and goes out of its way to point that out.

Nowhere in the study does it show how any 'stress' from simply being a minority is the cause of the illnesses, it simply states it as if it was obvious.

The fact that 85% of the test subjects were born outside of the UK and migrated in (or had at least one parent who did so) and 100% of the african caribbean subjects were second generation immigrants, is much more telling.

extra edit: there's actually too many other things in your post that bothered me.

Firstly, I think it's fair to say that slavery is a major factor for why black people tend to be in a lower socioeconomic group.

Why? Why is something that has been abolished completely, hundreds of years ago, still a factor in somebody today being rich or poor? It is a stupid, non-sense, BS, excuse. "I'm poor because my great, great, great, great, great grandaddy was a slave."

Get over it. You have the same opportunity as I do, and an even better opportunity than me because of affirmative action.

Black people tend to be in lower socioeconomic groups because they don't do anything to get out of them. Same with white people that are in lower groups. It is up to the individual if they are in poverty, not some white guy who died 250 years ago.

Secondly, no one talked about giving preferential treatment to black people or not treating white people. Seriously, what? It's simply about discussing different risk factors and understanding that different backgrounds can contribute to a patient's presentation.

Actually, WindyKitt was talking about how black people were going to be treated differently than white people or at least the discussion of it at his/her moms work. There is no reason for that. If a black person has a mental disease, then fine, treat that guy differently. But to treat all black people differently than white people is just racism.

 

[SuperBowser]

Look, you are wrong about black people being predisposed to mental health problems due to genetics. Back up your claim or don't say it again.

By focusing on stress (and ignoring the rest of what I said) you admit the other factors DO play a part? Thanks. You have accepted that black people have a higher rate of mental health due to socioeconomic factors and racism since you did not complain about those conclusions from the article. Other studies have mentioned stress but I'm not going to bother finding it for you. You're just picking at a small part of my sentence because you've conceded the main point - it's not genetics.

Why are you talking about other ethnic minorities now? I never said they don't have a higher rate of mental health. Don't change the topic.

Next of all, I'm not black, sorry if that ruins your presumptions about my beliefs. No need to get on your high horse and tell me I must have the same opportunities as you. Quite frankly, it's rubbish to assume everyone I had the same opportunities as you anyway. Everyone is different.

I like how you claim slavery had no effect on socioeconomic group (it's all a coincidence), then proceed to blame black people for being poor. There's far more at play for being poor than simply not trying hard enough. This can be a very lengthy discussion...

WindyKitt didn't say all black people will be treated differently. He didn't talk about treatment and he didn't talk about DENYING treatment to white people. You were just trying to be offended here. Yes, it's a very strange claim. But, they only asked to be treated more sensitively. Nothing like the stuff you are talking about -_-

 

[WindyKitt]

Read this post carefully, THEN think about it.

"Apparently, some blacks (Yes, I'm using the term black. I think African-American is incorrect.) think that people should be more sensitive towards them because the fact that their ancestors were enslaved somehow passed down some emotional damage."

There are blacks that that for some reason feel mentally/emotionally traumatized. The cause is that their ancestors were slaves. Through some kind of magic, this emotional damage transcended through time from their slave ancestors to them. They think solely because their ancestors were slaves, they've suffered some emotional trauma. Now this seems to me that this is a pathetic attempt to try to get special treatment for blacks. It shocks me to know this because behind Hispanics, Blacks are the largest minority in the U.S. and they still think they are deserving of special treatment. It just baffles me to see that no matter how well they're treated, some people in minorities still think they deserve better treatment, yet some people treat Whites badly, and either don't care or know because we are the majority in the country. Racism is a two-way street.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Yes both parties were guilty of using a racist word. But that is not what you said. You said both of them were racist, which plays into my point about the word racist being used way too often.

That was just a case of using it for emphasis.

Right. Many scholarships have done away with the separate requirements garbage since I graduated. But affirmative action laws dictate that if all else is equal, the minority gets the scholarship. Sure, it could be some of the reasons that you mentioned, but the chances are it was simply a matter of race.

Not... really. Affirmative action is generally speaking, allowed, but not legally required, at least for most areas.

They should only account for race if they specifically mention that they apply affirmative action. Otherwise I see no reason to assume they apply affirmative action.

Eh. Whatever. It doesn't matter what race we are talking about. Giving one person preferential treatment over another because of race is racism.

Just pointing it out since they tend to be forgotten in this issue, it's always painted as "Caucasian Americans versus Minorities", whereas in reality it's more complex them that.

And whose fault is that? It is a statistical fact that black children are far more likely to grow up in a single parent home. I am not saying that this is why black people live 'below the poverty line' but it is a huge factor. (I am from a single parent home also)

Statistically, being poorer makes one more likely to live in a single-parent home, but regardless, it's not the kids fault that they live in a single-parent home.

And this is America. If you don't want to be poor, there isn't anything stopping you from making more money. If a black kid goes to school and applies himself, he can get the scholarship to go to college. Even if he doesn't go to college, there is nothing stopping him from getting a good paying job like any other non-college educated white guy could get.

If you're poor, you've statistically got a significant disadvantage at all those things.

Why should they? And why should a poor kid get an easier ride than a rich kid, regardless of race?

That's just the point. They don't. Regardless of affirmative action policies, poor African-American kids will always be at a significant disadvantage versus Caucasian kids born into a higher income bracket.

Yeah, a lot of poor kids end up being poor adults. But this isn't because they are denied opportunity. There are millions of people who grew up very poor and ended up being very wealthy because they went out and did it themselves instead of relying on the government to help them. If a kid grows up with his parents collecting welfare and complaining that all their problems are caused by 'the man' or 'whitey' or 'rich people' then that is probably what the kid will think too.

The entire point of affirmative action for lower income brackets would be to encourage kids within those income brackets to work hard, and ultimately give them a chance to get a competitive education.

It isn't for people not willing to work, but there's no way that you can argue that poverty does not result in adverse conditions for learning. Two people coming from the same school with the same gpa and all else being equal, except that one lives below the poverty line and has all the associated issues... well the poor kid's gpa is more of an accomplishment.

Realistically speaking, those who make it out are the exception, not the rule. People who are poor have fewer opportunities, and to reach the same heights they need to be better then a person born into a higher income bracket, with the degree of how much better the person needs to be proportional to the gap.

The poor have every opportunity to pull themselves out of poverty. This is the land of opportunity, not the land of the free hand-out.

And affirmative action is built to give people in more difficult positions an opportunity, it's NOT a free handout.

My brothers ex-wife doesn't work, has no income, and refuses to get a job. But she has a house, a car, a flat screen HDTV, plenty of food, and nothing but free time all day, because she is on welfare, foodstamps, and child support. She is considered poor and yet has more than a lot of people in 'middle class'. The point is that if you keep giving the poor a bunch of hand outs, they won't do anything to break out of the poverty. Why would they? She lives a better life than I do and I work my butt off all day. And now you are saying she should be given a higher chance of getting a scholarship, or job, or whatever than somebody else, because of her refusal to do what is right? She should have to fight her way up just like everybody else.

Your brother's ex-wife is definitely the exception, not the rule. It's almost definitely the child support which pushes her into that category.

Regardless, affirmative action doesn't help people who do nothing, you have to be willing to work to get any help from it.

In a free society, some people will succeed and some people will fall on their face. And usually you will fall on your face 2 or 3 times before you succeed. It is the people who get up after falling that get out of poverty.

Again, you have to be better then a person born into a higher economic bracket to reach the same level.

Middle Class doesn't have to fall on their face at all to reach middle class, upper class doesn't have to fall on their face at all to reach upper class. They're just born into that position. Keep in mind that "falling on your face" is generally just failing to advance, you don't lose your current status.

Also, your estimates about number of faceplants are very conservative.

If we try to regulate who gets what based on a circumstance of their birth, then not only are we propegating racism, and economic classism, but we are giving up our freedom.

Why racism? I am suggesting a race-blind variation on the principal.

Regardless, economic class does dictate the opportunities a person is giving. I see nothing wrong with attempting to give people who achieve a certain level of success, in spite of a far inferior position, the tools they need to succeed.

The fact is, there are many gifted and hard-working people who ultimately get shafted because of poverty, which resulted in them, for example, never getting a college education.

No I am not a uniculturalist. You can have whatever culture you want. But do not place one culture above another is all I am asking. Why not just teach history in history class? Why do we need a month of only 'black history' when black people are part of regular history?

Generally because when it was established "black history" was deemphasized regardless of impact.

Still, the overall idea is a good one, we just need to have more of these (and include "white history" in there, not just minorities) because it's supposed to take people out of their comfort zones, and present them with the accomplishments of groups that they wouldn't normally know about.

Why make my life a little harder than a minorities life? If I am trying to get a job and my competition for the job is a black guy, (or mexican, or asian, or whatever) then why do I have a 5 point handicap right off the bat?

No, Asians get the same 5 point handicap that you do.

And multiculturalism is great, but lets not separate people because of it. Have your culture, but as far as the government, employers, schools, and anything else is concerned, your culture shouldn't matter one way or another. We are all people, equal people.

Which is what I'm suggesting as well.

Economic class on the other hand is a practical constraint.

Get over it. You have the same opportunity as I do, and an even better opportunity than me because of affirmative action.

Black people tend to be in lower socioeconomic groups because they don't do anything to get out of them. Same with white people that are in lower groups. It is up to the individual if they are in poverty, not some white guy who died 250 years ago.

That's not true, regardless of economic background, the vast majority of poor people stay poor. Not even because of lack of desire to work, they statistically have less access to fundamental tools to get out of poverty, such as education.

The fact is, such things require money, and when you live below the poverty line, you generally have to worry about immediate survival as opposed to long-term getting out of poverty.

It's not a coincidence however, that people who are from families who were once enslaved are more likely to be poor. Poverty is almost always transfered down the generational line.

 

[SuperBowser]

Thank you adumbrodeus. I actually have very strong opinions about people who blame the poor for being poor, and didn't want to enter this discussion because of that. You addressed his misconceptions better than I would have

I'd like to give a practical example that Cambridge has used to select students. In a private school it is normal for an applicant to have several A*s from GCSE. These grades are impressive, but not so much when a third (or more!) of the year has them already. On the other hand there's a state school student who has 3A*s, then a mixture of As and Bs. At face value, you'd ignore it. But what if I told you that the state school student got the highest grades that school has seen in several years. Why shouldn't they be given preference in university applications? If the rest of the application is similar, you must recognize this student has overcome much more to earn the grades they did.

WindyKitt, I admit I interpreted your story wrongly. But it's basically a weird claim that most likely had no impact on doctors . Nothing in your story leads to the ridiculous conclusions Kur made. They only asked to be dealt with more sensitively.

 

[Kur]

I am not going to go quote for quote here as I can sum most of it up in less space.

As far as blaming the poor for being poor. Yes, a kid born into a poor family is going to be poor, and not have the family money to send them to college. I am one such person. But there are so many opportunities for a poor kid, to go to college for practically free, that it seems like if you don't go, it is because you didn't want to.

I didn't go to college, (I will be soon though) but I did get student loans to go to a trade school. My brother, who is borderline ********, got a free ride to a small state college (but chose not to go)

No matter how poor a child is, they can get scholarships and loans to go to college. And as I said, even if you don't graduate from highschool, there are jobs available that will pay a poor guy just as much as a rich guy.

It is also worth pointing out that just because a family is rich, does not mean they will pay for their childrens education. A lot of wealthy people want their children to succeed on their own merit and refuse to buy them clothes, cars, an education, food, etc. once they are old enough to have a job of their own.

Everybody is different. Giving an advantage to one group of people over another is just asking for trouble. So what if it is harder for a poor kid to go to school? It may be even harder for the rich kid who didn't really do well in high school and his parents refuse to help him.

The majority of wealthy people in the US are not simply born into it. They earned it from more humble beginnings. To assume a poor kid needs a step up over a rich kid is nothing more than an insult to the poor kid. It would be like if Bill Gates drove around a city in his Bently, handing dollar bills to 'the little people' out his window and telling them not to spend it all in one place.

If a poor kid applies himself in his school, no matter what school he is in, he can get to a college somewhere. As it is right now, a poor black kid (and yes, asians too) have an easier time than even a rich white kid.

If a poor kid grows up to be a poor adult, it is not because of a lack of opportunity, it is because of a lack of ambition, or an expectation that the government should bail them out, or simply a bad attitude about life, or a feeling of hopelessness inherited from their parents. A lot of poor people see how hard life is and think "why bother?" They can get by doing what they are doing and force themselves to be content with it. They simply get stuck because they don't think they can do anything about it.

Well, they can.

 

[1337marth]

People are just saying that's racist to everything. Like I was in Gamestop, and a African was in my way, so I said excuse me, so I could get by, I said it politely, and he scream" it is because I am black", and freaked out. It was so dumb.

 

[SuperBowser]

The majority of wealthy people in the US are not simply born into it. They earned it from more humble beginnings. To assume a poor kid needs a step up over a rich kid is nothing more than an insult to the poor kid. It would be like if Bill Gates drove around a city in his Bently, handing dollar bills to 'the little people' out his window and telling them not to spend it all in one place.

If a poor kid applies himself in his school, no matter what school he is in, he can get to a college somewhere. As it is right now, a poor black kid (and yes, asians too) have an easier time than even a rich white kid.

Prove these two claims. I'm pretty sure statistics say otherwise.

And the thing is, there is less opportunity.

The private school children will be given help with their university applications. They won't be given incorrect information. They get interview preparation. They were taught better. They are more likely to have supportive parents. Their parents were more likely to instill a good work ethos. Their social group is more accepting of hard work. They have a stable home to work in. Their parents are more likely to be in good health. They are given more advice and support at every step of the way.

These are just off the top of my head.

I don't think you realise how bad some state schools are (or at least in england). So what if the grades they acheived aren't the 'best'? They still got good grades in an environment that actively discouraged them and got some of the best grades the school has ever seen. If you call this a ''free handout'' when they get a good university place I think you're the one being insulting.

(i don't know or understand the affirmative action system so i can't comment on that)

 

[Kur]

Prove these two claims. I'm pretty sure statistics say otherwise.

And the thing is, there is less opportunity.

The private school children will be given help with their university applications. They won't be given incorrect information. They get interview preparation. They were taught better. They are more likely to have supportive parents. Their parents were more likely to instill a good work ethos. Their social group is more accepting of hard work. They have a stable home to work in. Their parents are more likely to be in good health. They are given more advice and support at every step of the way.

These are just off the top of my head.

I don't think you realise how bad some state schools are (or at least in england). So what if the grades they acheived aren't the 'best'? They still got good grades in an environment that actively discouraged them and got some of the best grades the school has ever seen. If you call this a ''free handout'' when they get a good university place I think you're the one being insulting.

(i don't know or understand the affirmative action system so i can't comment on that)

Well, I wouldn't know how to even begin to find those statistics concerning how many people are born into wealth rather than earning it from poorer origins, but I do know the majority of wealthy people in the US did not start out that way.

And the thing is, a whole lot of the wealthy people in the US went to public schools. Most people in general go to public schools.

Of course the public school system is garbage. We knew it was garbage before we ever implemented it. And by implementing a public school system, it drove the prestige, and therefor the price, of public schools through the roof. The US would be much better off without public schools as far as I am concerned.

In any case, public vs. private schools have very little bearing on this issue. If a kid is going to a private school, it is almost certain they have no need to worry about needing funding for higher education, but why force the expense on them because they loose a scholarship to a poor kid just because the kid is poor? It amounts to not much more than redistribution of wealth. "Sure, make the wealthy pay for everything, they can afford it after all!"

A persons wealth, whether high or low, is theirs to spend or save on what they want. It is completely unfair to deny a scholarship to a child because his/her parents could probably pay for their education anyway.

What I am concerned with is kids going to similar schools, or even the same school. And in the US a large majority of kids attend public schools. Why would one get an easier ride to college over the other, just because of their parents financial situation? How does one of these kids have any more opportunity to pay attention in class than the other kid?

Everybody is equal in this country. It is unfortunate that some people think certain groups should be treated 'more equally' than others.

Maybe we should give a head start to runners from poor countries in the olympics this year?

Maybe we should let poorer football teams start with a 7 point lead against wealthy, more popular teams.

Maybe they should ask to see your W-2s at Disney land so they can put the poor people ahead of the rich people in the lines. And if you don't even have a W-2 to show, you get put on the ride immediately.

 

[SuperBowser]

Well, I wouldn't know how to even begin to find those statistics concerning how many people are born into wealth rather than earning it from poorer origins, but I do know the majority of wealthy people in the US did not start out that way.

Pff, you don't get to make outrageous claims like that and then shrug me off when I press you on them. You didn't even bother talking about the first claim. The studies aren't that difficult to find. If you can't be bothered to check if asians have an easier time than white people for yourself, then why should I believe anything you write down? You have the burden of proof. I'll make it easy for you though if you don't want to find any studies: they'll tell you you're wrong anyway.

The rest of your post is all over the place. I'm ignoring the bits that have nothing to do with the discussion.

And the thing is, a whole lot of the wealthy people in the US went to public schools. Most people in general go to public schools.

I was talking about the worst state schools. As in they have a <50% pass rate at GCSEs (an average school would be looking at 80s or 90s). If parents can afford to, there is a very low chance they'll send their children to these schools.

In any case, public vs. private schools have very little bearing on this issue. If a kid is going to a private school, it is almost certain they have no need to worry about needing funding for higher education, but why force the expense on them because they loose a scholarship to a poor kid just because the kid is poor? It amounts to not much more than redistribution of wealth. "Sure, make the wealthy pay for everything, they can afford it after all!"

I was talking about a place at university. I don't know how university fees work in america. However, it's convenient you didn't really respond to my earlier post. Being the top student in a bad school is worth more than an average student at a good school. Do you deny that or not?

Top universities here do keep places for people from particularly bad schools and no one sensible complains about it being unfair. It's about getting the smartest candidate. Sometimes you have to look past the grades to do that or you end up creating the very barrier to education that you claim does not exist. In medicine the standard grades of entry are AAB/AAA but this is lowered to as low as CCC for a select minority.

What I am concerned with is kids going to similar schools, or even the same school. And in the US a large majority of kids attend public schools. Why would one get an easier ride to college over the other, just because of their parents financial situation? How does one of these kids have any more opportunity to pay attention in class than the other kid?

You're trying to say a lot of things here and I'm a little confused. I've asked you to demonstrate how one group has an easier time than the other. Prove they do, or don't go down this line.

For the last question, it's quite a bit more complex. These are just a few factors. You are more likely to have your hearing and eyesight checked and corrected so you can pay attention in class. You're more likely to have a stable home to work in. You don't have to get a job to help your family get by. You don't have to spend time caring for siblings instead of going to school. Medical problems willl be treated accordingly. You'll have a better diet. You'll have new clothes. You're more likely to actually be in school.

The remainder of your post was just an appeal to emotion with little or no substance. I'll say it again. Telling a student who has worked extremely hard at school, is very intelligent, and was the top of their school year that their university place was just a 'free handout' or whatever other drivel you've written is insulting. It's simply not the case.

 

[Amide]

I just watched Fox News (I know, sue me) and they were talking about how hilarious the 'black hole' story was, it's actually real.

 

[Kur]

Pff, you don't get to make outrageous claims like that and then shrug me off when I press you on them. You didn't even bother talking about the first claim. The studies aren't that difficult to find. If you can't be bothered to check if asians have an easier time than white people for yourself, then why should I believe anything you write down? You have the burden of proof. I'll make it easy for you though if you don't want to find any studies: they'll tell you you're wrong anyway.

It's not an outrageous claim. Maybe in England it would be the other way around, but in the US, the vast majority of US citizens trace their families back to poor immigrants. Somehow, anybody who isn't poor today must have either broken out of poverty themselves, or had a past family member who did so.

And yes, it is surprisingly difficult to find any statistics concerning this specific issue. I am in no way avoiding anything you said, but I thought it was fairly common knowledge that most wealthy (not necessarily rich) people were not born into it. Just to clarify, by wealthy, I do not mean 'life styles of the rich and famous' I am just talking about people who are not living paycheck to paycheck, upper middle class if you will.

I did find this page though...

http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2007/01/facts_about_mil.html

Which lists out by percentage, how the 8.9 million millionaires in the US got to be millionaires.

The rest of your post is all over the place. I'm ignoring the bits that have nothing to do with the discussion.

All over the place? And every bit of it has to do with this discussion.

I was talking about the worst state schools. As in they have a <50% pass rate at GCSEs (an average school would be looking at 80s or 90s). If parents can afford to, there is a very low chance they'll send their children to these schools.

I know what you were talking about. I live in Arizona, the state rated 50th in education. Almost every public school here is garbage. And as I said before, the majority of people in the US send their children to public school, even if they could afford to send them to a private one. This means that the poor kids are sitting in the same crappy class as the rich kids. Now tell me one of them deserves a scholarship over the other.

I was talking about a place at university. I don't know how university fees work in america. However, it's convenient you didn't really respond to my earlier post. Being the top student in a bad school is worth more than an average student at a good school. Do you deny that or not?

Yes I deny that. It may be a greater accomplishment, but it doesn't mean that somebody else deserves to lose out because of it. Why would I bother sending my kid to a private school if I know he would have a better chance of getting into college attending a crappy public school?

Top universities here do keep places for people from particularly bad schools and no one sensible complains about it being unfair.

That is because anybody who does complain about it is instantly labeled 'unsensible' and ignored. You basically just said right here that if anybody disagrees with you, they simply have no sense. It couldn't be because they have any reasons, you are just right.

It's about getting the smartest candidate. Sometimes you have to look past the grades to do that or you end up creating the very barrier to education that you claim does not exist. In medicine the standard grades of entry are AAB/AAA but this is lowered to as low as CCC for a select minority.

I agree it is important to look past the grades when selecting a student. For example, if a student has C's across the board, look at their individual scores and you might find he aced every test and exam, but didn't bother to do most of the homework. That student would certainly be smart, but even then, he seemed unwilling to do the work required. But looking to circumstances of their birth is completely unfair to people not born into the circumstances you think need extra help.

And if I ever found out that the doctor operating on me had Cs through school, I would get a different doctor. "Oh but it's ok! He only got Cs because he went to a horrendously bad school!" Yeah, THAT makes me feel better.

You're trying to say a lot of things here and I'm a little confused. I've asked you to demonstrate how one group has an easier time than the other. Prove they do, or don't go down this line.

You are confused. I was not claiming one student has an easier time. It is exactly my point that they should not have an easier ride to college. You are trying to tell me a poor student should have a lower standard to reach than a wealthy student. My point is that there is no reason for that at all.

For the last question, it's quite a bit more complex. These are just a few factors. You are more likely to have your hearing and eyesight checked and corrected so you can pay attention in class. You're more likely to have a stable home to work in. You don't have to get a job to help your family get by. You don't have to spend time caring for siblings instead of going to school. Medical problems willl be treated accordingly. You'll have a better diet. You'll have new clothes. You're more likely to actually be in school.

Oh come on now, you are just reaching. This is pure speculation. A wealthier kid MIGHT have corrected vision or a more stable home? It may surprise you to find that wealthy families are sometimes less likely to have a stable home because the parents are out working 14-16 hour days so they can have that wealth. You are just rambling off a bunch of guesses and assuming poor people are all a bunch of slobs who don't take care of their children. Give me something concrete that says it is definitely more difficult for a considerable majority of poor kids to pay attention in class, than it is for the more wealthy kid sitting right next to them.

Honestly, if a kid can't see well, they move them to the front of the class. If they are so deaf or blind that they can't learn anything, there are special classes for them. There is no need to lower the standards they need to meet to be accepted into a university.

And I never had new clothes. I lived on macaroni and cheese, ramen soup, and canned green beans. I had to take care of my brother while my mom worked for 5 hours after I was home from school, and I only went to a doctor if I was in real danger. I came from a dirt poor family and yet I managed to pay attention in class. I managed to get good grades and perfect attendance several times. There is nothing special about me. If I can do it, why can't some other poor kid? Why should we reward them for their laziness, for giving up and saying it is too hard to be a good student because they are poor?

The remainder of your post was just an appeal to emotion with little or no substance. I'll say it again. Telling a student who has worked extremely hard at school, is very intelligent, and was the top of their school year that their university place was just a 'free handout' or whatever other drivel you've written is insulting. It's simply not the case.

It wasn't an appeal to emotion, it was an reducto ad absurdum. I was taking your views to a conclusion that was absurd. It is absurd to give a poor countries runner a head start in an olympic race, even if he had to overcome greater odds to make it to the race. And it is absurd to give a poor kid a free leg up over a wealthy kid for no other reason than the wealth of their families. Imagine how you would feel if you heard you lost a scholarship because your parents made more money than the kid who had lower grades than you, who got the scholarship. It simply isn't right.

If a kid really is very intelligent, top of their class, and all that, they should have no trouble getting into a university on their own merit, without having the standards lowered to suit them. This goes for scholarships and various other forms of student aid as well. If they had to have the standards adjusted to meet them, then they did not actually work as hard as they should have. You can't tell me that an all C student was 'top of his class' no matter what school they went to.

Affirmative action (if applied to levels of wealth) would not be about making sure kids from bad schools get a chance to go to college, it would be about giving ALL poor kids a lower standard to meet than ALL of their wealthy counterparts would have to meet. Either that or it would mean that all else being equal, the poor kid is accepted instead of the wealthier kid every time. This is how affirmative action works now with race. Any company that operates under affirmative action (and almost all do) has to give a job to a minority before a white person even if both people have equal qualifications, or in some cases, even if the minority has weaker qualifications.



All I am saying is if a scholarship or university has a set of standards that must be met to be accepted, there is no reason to lower those standards for a kid who may be poor, black, asian, mexican, or for any reason at all.

 

[SuperBowser]

It's not an outrageous claim. Maybe in England it would be the other way around, but in the US, the vast majority of US citizens trace their families back to poor immigrants. Somehow, anybody who isn't poor today must have either broken out of poverty themselves, or had a past family member who did so.

And yes, it is surprisingly difficult to find any statistics concerning this specific issue. I am in no way avoiding anything you said, but I thought it was fairly common knowledge that most wealthy (not necessarily rich) people were not born into it. Just to clarify, by wealthy, I do not mean 'life styles of the rich and famous' I am just talking about people who are not living paycheck to paycheck, upper middle class if you will.

I did find this page though...

http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2007/01/facts_about_mil.html

You forgot to research your other claim. I'm not letting that one go (and that one most certainly is outrageous )

Millionaires don't represent the general society. They are the exception so statistics you find for them are meaningless for the general population.

By rich, I mean socioeconomic group (sometimes shortened to SEG). This is normally represented as SEG1 to SEG5, making five groups and there are a lot of studies on this topic. I know this because I've done a whole module at uni on it. If you don't mind, try searching again.

''People from lower socio-economic backgrounds make up around one half of the population of England, but represent just 29 per cent of young, full-time, first-time entrants to higher education.''

Do you really believe this is by chance or do you think it's because lower SEG people are simply lazier?

I'm afraid I don't know your scholarship system and whether it's fair or not. Over here, tuition fees are 100% covered by a student loan for everyone. And then you get varying loans for accommodation/food/etc. depending on your parents' income. If your parents don't support you, you can apply as an independent person. I've found it pretty fair. Money plays no factor in admissions unless you are in the very extreme.

When I mentioned the students that get into medicine through this route, I was talking a very small minority. As in, 30 students across the whole country. I thought you'd reply with what you did. One of my friends got into medicine through this route and guess what? In university, he consistently gets brilliant marks against the rest of year. I wonder why that is. Oh, it's because the university admissions procedure wasn't just a handout and they selected intelligent students, suitable for the degree. No one complains because these students cope just as well as anyone else during their degree and will be just as good doctors. Universities wouldn't bring in students if they didn't think they'd cope. It costs hundreds of thousands of pounds to train a medical student; they don't want to waste the money.

What you are suggesting can be viewed as buying your way into uni. Yes, I may get higher grades in a private school. In fact, if there is no advantage to private school students, why send your child there at all

What if I'm below average for my year. Compare me to someone in a much worse school that is the top of their year but has slightly worse grades. You may not like it, but the state school student is more intelligent. Cambridge selects students on its own criteria, not on the government's. Why would it choose the state school student unless it genuinely believed they are the better candidate? I would trust their admissions team's more than your opinion. A university should be able to apply whatever standards they feel appropriate. Not what you want.

I'll bring a source. http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/n110.asp.

Here's a few quotes to save you reading the whole thing (unless you want to).

''Under-representation in higher education was primarily due to poorer school performance by disadvantaged young people, rather than to any systematic bias in university admissions policy.''

An important one: ''Even within schools near the bottom of the government 'league tables', those young people who attained sufficient qualifications for university entry were relatively advantaged in comparison with the majority of the school intake.''

''Few qualified but disadvantaged young people forewent the opportunity to progress to higher education. However, as a result of the extra financial, geographical and social barriers they face, such students were more likely to enrol in less advanced or prestigious courses than their more advantaged peers.''

''Few of these young people applied for the most prestigious institutions. Only three individuals applied for 'Oxbridge'; none were successful, including a 'straight A' student who received an outright rejection by interview. Some high-achieving respondents felt that there was an element of favouritism towards independent school entrants within the most prestigious institutions and subjects (e.g. medicine). During face-to-face interviews, many students - particularly those enrolled in advanced courses - said they felt were atypical of higher education students. Some felt that their social background was a barrier to their future progress both within and beyond higher education. ''

This last quote ties into what I've mentioned earlier. Not only is it harder for these students to get good grades but they receive little to no help or are encouraged (sometimes are actively discouraged) to enter university. They aren't given interview preparation, they don't get advice for where to apply, they get no help with the essay sent off with their application.

All the factors you mentioned that you overcame in your life were barriers. Many people in the same position would have stuggled. What if you had a chronic medical problem that never got addressed. Don't you think you had to show more determination and work harder than someone who was spoonfed all their lives? Shouldn't this count for something