Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ahtman wrote:

I'm not sure it's really your place to tell families that have lived on the continent for generations and consider themselves that they aren't African's. It's like telling American's who's families have been in North America for several hundred years that they aren't Americans becuase they aren't Sioux or Apache. now you could say they aren't Sioux or Apache, but you can't say they aren't Americans (in the broader sense).

Fair enough, that was some poor phrasing on my part. This person (and indeed the decedents of Dutch/Swiss settlers) can certainly cagagorise themselves as African, I wasn’t trying to claim otherwise. Just as an African settler in the UK can (one the paperwork's been completed) describe themselves as British. They have the Passport and are afforded to the full protection of the state. They may not be British in terms of ancestry (Mind you between the Romans, Normans, Saxons, Vikings ect who is!), but that doesn’t make them any less British as far as the law of the land is concerned.

I was simply pointing out that the phrase African American does not cover these people. To claim it should is manipulating language to alter the rules intent. Letter vs Sprit and all that.

The use of the word African American as a blanket term which halonachos brought up is interesting. Yes many African Americans did not originate from Africa however if my history serves me right the majority did. African Americans therefore seems the logical phrase. I don’t think I've ever heard of any African Americans protesting the phrase but I may be wrong. Afro-Caribbean American may be more accurate but just doesn’t roll off the tongue in the same way.

But there were black people in the caribbean before anyone else came along.

halonachos wrote:
By creating PC we only extend racism, because all of a sudden we have to be careful about what we say about anyone and it creates racial tensions. People are AFRAID of saying anything might be remotely offensive. That is wrong. "

Rubbish. For starters that seems to hold with the somewhat odd idea that we have never had to or indeed should "be careful what we say" which is patently untrue. YOu go on and on about manners in society and then.. this ?

I've no idea how catholics are treated in the USA... presumably you're barred from certain jobs or bus seats are you ? It's unlucky that would be hard to get round.

And you're the one who suddenly brought "white christian fear" into the thread.

Halonachos, my assumptions about you were based on fairly solid ground. I know you're white, straight and male from what you have posted in this and other threads, and assumed your class status because you are posting on a Warhammer forum, which is a middle-class pursuit.

I completely agree with you about comedians saying important things about society. Did you watch the clips I posted in the OP?

When did I bring white christian fear into this. Do you live near any minorities? Obviously you have no idea what its like to live in the US with all the racial tension. If any member of the minority is harmed or put at fault, they pull the race card. Like the OJ trials.

Like I said, watch carlos mencia and dave chapelle. The ONLY way to stop racism is to create equality and being politically correct does nothing of the sort. In fact, telling a joke about another race is often grounds for firing in most companies.

Look at the presidents, how many have been catholic? Only one and he was shot.
Another truth is this: If two people apply for a job and have the exact same training, credentials, same schooling, etc then it goes down to race or sex. If one is white and the other a minority, then the minority gets the job. If one is a male and the other a female, the female gets the job.

@greebynog

I'll give you the being right about my skin and such, but not about being middle class. I only have a 1,600 point army and am hoping to extend it, but the truth is I can barely drop any money into it anymore. I am in college and can barely afford that. How did I get into college, its called studying books given to me by the school and not skipping class or doing drugs.

reds8n wrote:

halonachos wrote:
By creating PC we only extend racism, because all of a sudden we have to be careful about what we say about anyone and it creates racial tensions. People are AFRAID of saying anything might be remotely offensive. That is wrong. "

Rubbish. For starters that seems to hold with the somewhat odd idea that we have never had to or indeed should "be careful what we say" which is patently untrue. YOu go on and on about manners in society and then.. this ?

I've no idea how catholics are treated in the USA... presumably you're barred from certain jobs or bus seats are you ? It's unlucky that would be hard to get round.

And you're the one who suddenly brought "white christian fear" into the thread.

Hey, we have to be EXTREMELY careful of what we say. If you're middle class white guy, you can be sued for not giving a black guy a job. How is that fair? The very fact that someone calls someone else racist is racist. If you say that, you're being racist as well. The law should be changed.

Anywho, I'm off to be called a rascist for not caring about people being minorities again.

Political correctness is simply a rewording of the concept of social taboos. Those have existed for eight thousand years, probably much longer. They are a necessary function of human society.

Unless people start talking about specific instances like Englands censor-statehood or Chinas iron fist "serene state" then you're discussing nothing.

Discussing whether one thing or another should be PC is pointless as none of you command the opinions of enough people to change it even in the slightest and there are an infinite number of words and actions that could be and could not be considered politically correct.

One man can change the world, oh wait...that's only in movies.

I like that stating of it though shuma. I'm going to have to say that your statement about what PC is, is the best interpretaion of it I have ever heard. Seriously, no sarcasm.

LuciusAR wrote:Ok then:

halonachos wrote:

There was a kid who immigrated to America from South Africa and was then nationalized. He applied for an african-american exclusive scholarship. He didn't get it because he was white.

So if African American applies ONLY to those of darker skin and not to those actually from Africa, then what is this kid? Obviously hes not African.

African American is a term which applies to American nationals who are decedents of the indigenous peoples of Africa. A white person who emigrates goes to South Africa becomomes African in an administrative sense only, He no more a native African than Mr Van Der Lann who lives down the road from him. The kid was denied the African American scholarship because he wasn’t African American by the commonly accepted meaning of the phrase. Quite right too.

halonachos wrote:Why are white people called caucasians? Why not European Americans. But then they said screw caucasians and everyone says white, even officials.

Caucasian is a commonly accepted term for white Americans. The term 'European American' whilst technically correct just isn't to be found in common usage. You'll find plenty of people identifying themselves as German/Irish/Italian American though. Sound like a total non point.

halonachos wrote:A college tried to create a white only scholarship. It was called rascist and denied.

I would have thought this was obvious. Caucasians already have a virtually ' white only' scholarship. It's called The scholarship system.

The argument frequently comes up usually when discussing the Asian Police Federation or the Music of Black Origin Awards. When the mainstream already is catered specifically towards you, you don't need a special exception. You are already the default. It’s the same reason you won't find a niche radio station catering for the top 40 or a Ford Mondo owners club.

halonachos wrote:Why are russians considered caucasian when they are mostly in asia.

In a geographical sense this is correct, Russian is mostly physically in Asia. However physically most Russians have more in common with Europeans than Asians. That’s why.

halonachos wrote:Why can people select more than 1 race on a census.

Are you seriously suggesting people cannot be mixed race?

Speaking of PC nonsense...

More black people live in poverty than white people.

Why give scholarships to people for being black instead of people who are impoverished?

Modquisition on:
This thread is derailing into personal attacks and will be closed if it continues. Please argue the point and avoid personal charges. If you cannot do so then simply do not post on this thread.

Orkeosaurus wrote:More black people live in poverty than white people.

Why give scholarships to people for being black instead of people who are impoverished?

Because federal loans and scholarships already exist for people who are impoverished. They make up a far larger percentage of such forms of aid then race based scholarships.

I see the world's peoples in two colors; pink and blue.

If the inside of the lips are pink they have oxygen, if the inside is blue, they have no oxygen. I think that those are the only colors that really matter.

I prefer seeing people by what country they are from, not by color. I think people born in america are americans and the colors are just extra flavors and varieties of americans. Like I see brits as brits, frenchies as frenchies, russians as russians, etc.

Thats how the world should be.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:More black people live in poverty than white people.

Why give scholarships to people for being black instead of people who are impoverished?

Because federal loans and scholarships already exist for people who are impoverished. They make up a far larger percentage of such forms of aid then race based scholarships.

I'm well aware of that, but that's no reason to not make them all based on income.

If basing it on income is superior to basing it on race then there's no reason for any to be based on race. Shift it from 80% - 20% to 100% - 0% and you do a better job of giving it to those who need and deserve it.

Yet race based scholarships continue to exist, despite being felt to be discriminatory by many people, and continuing to segregate people based on their race. Why?

Another attempt at equality that will fail.

Some people will feel bad about their history like some germans feel bad about the holocaust. I had a german teacher who felt bad for what happened even though his mother was gassed for being mentally disabled, thats some guilt. Most would be willing to do something to make up for it.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:More black people live in poverty than white people.

Why give scholarships to people for being black instead of people who are impoverished?

Because federal loans and scholarships already exist for people who are impoverished. They make up a far larger percentage of such forms of aid then race based scholarships.

I'm well aware of that, but that's no reason to not make them all based on income.

If basing it on income is superior to basing it on race then there's no reason for any to be based on race. Shift it from 80% - 20% to 100% - 0% and you do a better job of giving it to those who need and deserve it.

Yet race based scholarships continue to exist, despite being felt to be discriminatory by many people, and continuing to segregate people based on their race. Why?

Because its believed that the socioeconomic status of the black community makes it hard for them to break through into the upper echelons of American income brackets. The scholarships are meant to counteract other draws like crime, drugs, and similar societal issues that historically effect impoverished minorities. They have a debtateable success rate in raising the black community by its bootstraps, but given the multitudinous forms of aid given to all strata of the lower income bracket it's a tiny percentage and honestly not entirely worth talking about.

People who can't get jobs because of "race welfare" are the same people who can't get jobs because they are undereducated or poorly behaved. Placing the blame is easier then fixing your own house.

Another attempt at equality that will fail.

Incorrect. Come back after you've done some actual research on the topic.

You see crime isn't a problem if you have education, many kids drop out and become criminals both white and black. Its a choice people make, not the race as a whole.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Because its believed that the socioeconomic status of the black community makes it hard for them to break through into the upper echelons of American income brackets. The scholarships are meant to counteract other draws like crime, drugs, and similar societal issues that historically effect impoverished minorities. They have a debtateable success rate in raising the black community by its bootstraps, but given the multitudinous forms of aid given to all strata of the lower income bracket it's a tiny percentage and honestly not entirely worth talking about.

People who can't get jobs because of "race welfare" are the same people who can't get jobs because they are undereducated or poorly behaved. Placing the blame is easier then fixing your own house.

But do you see the irony of policies based soley on the color of skin? That does not ring like racism to you?

Probably sounds like justified racism.

ShumaGorath wrote:Because its believed that the socioeconomic status of the black community makes it hard for them to break through into the upper echelons of American income brackets. The scholarships are meant to counteract other draws like crime, drugs, and similar societal issues that historically effect impoverished minorities. They have a debtateable success rate in raising the black community by its bootstraps, but given the multitudinous forms of aid given to all strata of the lower income bracket it's a tiny percentage and honestly not entirely worth talking about.

People who can't get jobs because of "race welfare" are the same people who can't get jobs because they are undereducated or poorly behaved. Placing the blame is easier then fixing your own house.

Are white people who live in the same income bracket unaffected by these things then?

Actually, to take it a step further, is a randomly selected black person more likely to become entrapped in crime or drug use than a randomly selected person who is below the poverty line?

What about the mostly white, rural communities that have gone through massive job loss? What about places like Appalachia?

The scholarships may not have a particularly large effect, but that's only more reason to get rid of it. It's racism for very little gain. It's continued segregation based on the color of people's skin, when it could easily be replaced by giving aid out based on economic need.

You know who's racist?

Oprah Winfrey, thats who.

Just watch her show, she only hugs women, and then she shows the most compassion to black people.

She even only gives stuff to African kids, even though she's not from Africa.

Yeah, but shes Oprah.

Are white people who live in the same income bracket unaffected by these things then?

Statistically not as heavily. The "culture" of the impoverished section of the black community is sort of a different animal compared to the same section of the white community. This is likely due to the geographical concentration of the black community in urban centers. But is also likely largely due to generational poverty and acceptance of place given decades of immobility within the wealth brackets. Popular media also likely plays an enormous role.

Actually, to take it a step further, is a randomly selected black person more likely to become entrapped in crime or drug use than a randomly selected person who is below the poverty line?

A black youth below the poverty line is statistically more likely yes. This is not due to genetics or any sort of race argument, but is due to the prevalence of the urban culture that runs throughout the lower strata. This is what bill cosby was shouting about a few years back, and its a touchy subject.

What about the mostly white, rural communities that have gone through massive job loss? What about places like Appalachia?

Those are not systemic of the community, but are based on outside influences. However there is often times aid help for impoverished communities like that specifically because it is impoverished. There are areas here in Maine that have similar forms of aid help because they are so low in the tax bracket.

The scholarships may not have a particularly large effect, but that's only more reason to get rid of it. It's racism for very little gain. It's continued segregation based on the color of people's skin, when it could easily be replaced by giving aid out based on economic need.

Except it's not racism, but race based. When there are demonstrable differences between the capability of different races to finish highschool and proceed to college then you target the problems inherent that cause those issues. This is one such method of targeting generational recidivism in income disparities.


A broad stroke approach that takes nothing but income into account may be more fair, but its far less likely to be as effective then something that targets problem areas specifically.

Probably sounds like justified racism.

I don't think you know what that word means.

www.dictionary.com

Heres a link. Peruse it for a while.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
But do you see the irony of policies based soley on the color of skin? That does not ring like racism to you?

The issue isn't simply a matter of skin color, but skin color in concert with a common condition of economic disenfranchisement. Two forces which serve to create a unifying counter-culture which is likely to destabilize the larger social order. Remember the 60's? All these Federal programs, from affirmative action to the CRA, are intended to prevent that type of thing from happening again.

The KKK is rascist but so is the NAACP, any group that chooses to aid a people of certain colors or race are rascist but are socially acceptable and more often than not, seen as not being rascist. The only group I support is the ACLU, they help anyone trying to use the 1st amendment despite beliefs, creeds, colors, or anything.

They'll support a neo-nazi march as much as a pro-semetic march.

Justified racism is something I use to describe racism that people accept as a social norm because it helps instead of hurts. It doesn't matter, its still racism. Shooting a bad guy is the same as shooting a good guy, the former is just more acceptable.

rac⋅ism   [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

It's not racism, go away.

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

BLACK POWER!!! Sounds like WHITE POWER!! Which one is accepted though?

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement,

Isn't it then racist to say that all minority youths will become criminals and start behind the majority youths?

Thanks for the help.

Isn't it then racist to say that all minority youths will become criminals and start behind the majority youths?

Not when the issue is the sociopolitical standing of that race and not the race itself. It's like saying a woman will be worse at driving when she grew up in the amazon compare to a man who grew up in new england and saying thats sexist.


It just means you don't actually understand the term at all.



Black crime rates are higher because of social and economic factors inherent to being a black youth in america. That is not a part of the black genetic structure, and it's not part of the "race". It's a societal factor.


Thats not racist, learn the damn term.

ShumaGorath wrote:Statistically not as heavily. The "culture" of the impoverished section of the black community is sort of a different animal compared to the same section of the white community. This is likely due to the geographical concentration of the black community in urban centers. But is also likely largely due to generational poverty and acceptance of place given decades of immobility within the wealth brackets. Popular media also likely plays an enormous role.

Those are not systemic of the community, but are based on outside influences. However there is often times aid help for impoverished communities like that specifically because it is impoverished. There are areas here in Maine that have similar forms of aid help because they are so low in the tax bracket.

I'm not sure how figure that these are completely different animals, with one being systemic and the other based on outside influences. Both are cases of impoverished groups of people who have difficulty moving up in life. Both are a type of institutionalized poverty, where college is not considered a viable option for most people.

Actually, I would argue that there is often more support for college education in impoverished, urban, black communities than there is in impoverished, rural, white communities simply because there is more community support and awareness that develops in large cities in contrast to communities that are far from any cities or colleges and have little interaction with groups from the outside.

A black youth below the poverty line is statistically more likely yes. This is not due to genetics or any sort of race argument, but is due to the prevalence of the urban culture that runs throughout the lower strata. This is what bill cosby was shouting about a few years back, and its a touchy subject.

Except it's not racism, but race based. When there are demonstrable differences between the capability of different races to finish highschool and proceed to college then you target the problems inherent that cause those issues. This is one such method of targeting generational recidivism in income disparities.

The problem is that it's not a matter of race, as you yourself say. It's a matter of culture more than anything.

The problem with trying to award aid to people based on the culture they grew up in comes down to simulationist arguments. Should people be given aid for having parents who drink? What if there parents didn't care about their child's academic success? What if the child's friends pushed them away from college.

The income of your parents is concrete and and has a direct effect on your ability to pay for college. To give people aid based on the culture they grew up in is a different matter entirely. You make a person's motivation and drive into something that's equal to money and similar, material assets. But how are you supposed to award people more aid due to them having less motivation to succeed? What does that accomplish?

A broad stroke approach that takes nothing but income into account may be more fair, but its far less likely to be as effective then something that targets problem areas specifically.

See, this is what I disagree with. The inequity of awarding aid based on race does have negative effects; it cheapens the accomplishment of people by giving them advantages due to the color of their skin, and it patronizes them by making it seem as though their motivation is inherently less than that of a white person, when it is, in fact, a matter of the individual's choice, not the circumstances they were raised in.


In other news, do you have any stats on black enrollment rates compared to white rates?

Going by the 2005 population estimate and the Department of Education statistics for 2005 it looks like black and white college enrollment is nearly even.


Also, it looks like female college enrollment is starting to exceed male enrollment by quite a bit. What's the opinion on financial aid given only to men?