25 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrI do agree with both statements. I'm not a total arse 😉
Unfortunately. But its fun to argue Colts vs. Bears, and Seahawks fans will be able to discuss last year's egregious officiating until we ski in Hades.
In terms of the central issues of race and inequality in the United States today, two black football coaches in the Superbowl is relatively unimportant. It will not alter patterns of inequality. Neverthele ...[text shortened]... decades beginning in the mid-1950s, we might see true and full equality of opportunity by 2040.
Thanks for the response. It was well put.
25 Jan 07
Originally posted by Wulebgrwhat did you say to the good ol boy?
Only a few years ago, when Peyton Manning was a college QB, many of his teammates were in jail during mid-summer. I listened as some good ol' boy told me that UT's discipline problems were a consequence of interference from the North ("if the Yankees hadn't imposed integration," etc.). Some ideas, especially those rooted in ignorance and prejudice, die hard.
25 Jan 07
Originally posted by WulebgrMy dentist turned out to be smurf blue. And my dog is in the running to get the Dogacratic bid for the next presidential election.
Smurfs? Dogs?
The more you say about this topic, the more you revel in your ignorance. Your comparisons show that you have not the faintest glimmer of an idea based on social, economic, pschological, or historical knowledge.
As for your dentist, the odds are significantly in favor of yours being white, but less so than thirty years ago. See http://jada.ada.org/cgi/content/full/131/12/1750 if you really care about the issue.
I'm not prejudice at all, I have black friends and black co-workers and all that stuff. In speaking to them, they are not upset and the status in the country, they realize that the oppurtunity is there for all blacks and other minorities to take advantage of. They just need to do a better job of taking advantage of it. The country can only give them the oppurtunities, they can't just give them the degrees or the jobs, they have to be earned. I think that has more to do with socio-economic class than anything else, how you going to fix that, genius?
25 Jan 07
Originally posted by zeeblebotNothing, although I was preparing a feeble response. I didn't get the chance to speak because his cousin (to whom I was married at the time) really let him have it, essentially telling him that he was spewing B.S. in her charming way. Sometimes it takes a Southerner to get through to another Southerner, and I'm not from there.
what did you say to the good ol boy?
25 Jan 07
Originally posted by PocketKingsI'm saying:
You calling me racist?
Originally posted by Wulebgr
The more you say about this topic, the more you revel in your ignorance. Your comparisons show that you have not the faintest glimmer of an idea based on social, economic, pschological, or historical knowledge.
25 Jan 07
Originally posted by WulebgrFunny, I'm giving my opinion, not spouting what the historical society says. I'm educated in all the things you listed, I'm an American history teacher. However, my BELIEFS on this topic are very different from yours. I know all of the historical aspects of it, we just have differing OPINIONS.
I'm saying:
Originally posted by Wulebgr
[b]The more you say about this topic, the more you revel in your ignorance. Your comparisons show that you have not the faintest glimmer of an idea based on social, economic, pschological, or historical knowledge.[/b]
I ask again, was your previous post referring to me as a racist? Thats how it looked.
25 Jan 07
Originally posted by PocketKingsActually there are some good economic reasons for giving equally or even slightly less otherwise qualified (qualified is a loaded word) minorities preference for a job.
ugh, you again. Why do I get the feeling you are organizing another black million man march?
The best person for a job should get a job. There is no need to give jobs to minorities just to get them into the field. If they are the best for the job then they will get the job.
It has to do with systemic poverty caused by historical repression of a racial group. That's the ethical argument. The economic argument is that wealth and income distributions matter for overall growth as well as the prevention of costly externalities imposed by the poor both on their offspring and us (e.g. through aesthetic devaluation, personal guilt, crime, educational burden, welfare costs, prison costs, and medical costs).
Quite simply not targeting minority groups (temporarily) in order to raise the standard of living leads to prolonged and often exacerbated wealth inequality which in the long run can be extremely costly to all of us.
25 Jan 07
Originally posted by PocketKingsPK,
Funny, I'm giving my opinion, not spouting what the historical society says. I'm educated in all the things you listed, I'm an American history teacher. However, my BELIEFS on this topic are very different from yours. I know all of the historical aspects of it, we just have differing OPINIONS.
I ask again, was your previous post referring to me as a racist? Thats how it looked.
I think you're trying to say, "this whole thing shouldn't be an issue".
The problem is, it is an issue. You can't sweep history under the table, and you should know that being a teacher.
By saying things like "First black president won't matter" you are trying to say it shouldn't matter... well, I agree. What you need to understand is things like this DO matter right now. Once all the firsts are finished perhaps we can all be blind to racial differences and first.
For now, these things are important because they are firsts. If you don't know that this is the first time a black coach made it to the Superbowl, you might think it happened in the 50's or 60's.
It didn't. It happened in 2007. It's history, and it's noteworthy.
I don't think you are being racist, I think you are trying to prove you are not racist... Your trying to prove this doesn't mean anything... but in doing so you are sweeping history under the table. Our time and age, this does matter, and shouldn't be ignored.
We don't need to mark this on a calendar; we don't need to talk about it for another 100 years. But it's news today, and worth talking a little about.
P-
25 Jan 07
Originally posted by telerionFinally, someone who makes good sense in a debate in this sports thread 😉 Well said, I can agree with most of that. However, I still think the most qualified person should get the job. Think about it personally: If you (i don't know you, so lets just say hypothetically that you are a white male in America) interviewed for your dream job and found out a less qualified minority (not implying that minorities are all less qualified) got the job just to have a higher number of minorities in their work force. Tell me that wouldn't pi$$ you off.
Actually there are some good economic reasons for giving equally or even slightly less otherwise qualified (qualified is a loaded word) minorities preference for a job.
It has to do with systemic poverty caused by historical repression of a racial group. That's the ethical argument. The economic argument is that wealth and income distributions matter ...[text shortened]... often exacerbated wealth inequality which in the long run can be extremely costly to all of us.
25 Jan 07
Originally posted by PhlabibitOk, well said also. Thanks for understanding my point of view, I understand yours too. You have brought peace and harmony back to the thread 😉😛
PK,
I think you're trying to say, "this whole thing shouldn't be an issue".
The problem is, it is an issue. You can't sweep history under the table, and you should know that being a teacher.
By saying things like "First black president won't matter" you are trying to say it shouldn't matter... well, I agree. What you need to understand is thing ...[text shortened]... er 100 years. But it's news today, and worth talking a little about.
P-