Asain american art, artists and content
Evan Lee
read some articles about culture vs. kitsch in literature. My area of
interest is in art...and would like to know if anyone has anything to
discuss. In my neck of the woods, there are two rather prominent
asian-american artists that I know of and teach at my school--Ken Lum and
Gu Xiong. Lum's work is beyond race and Gu's is the most honest
expression of life in the PRof China and his move to Canada.
But there are also a lot of other asian-american artists who
seem to fall in the "Amy Tan" category and it really disturbs me. They
like to portray the stereotypes and the art community just eats it up.
So I'm not here to champion any achievments by asians or their
representation. just interested in the perspective.
If anyone has any insight on this topic, please share.
--
bANE
BaNE
BAnE
BANe
Lucy Yau
Many A-A artists like A-A writers do seem to be pigeonholed into
expressing the experience or stereotypes foisted upon us. But the
art community just eats it up. I'd say the art community is even more
rigid than the literary - look at the major artists today, the
majority are white males. You do have female artists like Cindy
Sherman, Jenny Holzer and Barbara Krueger, but once again they're all
white. The only non-white contemporary artist who's widely known is
Jean-Michel Basquiat, and what was his fame derived from? A torrid
life on the streets as a heroin addict/graffitti artist. Even worse
is Mapplethorpe, a racist white homosexual artist whose photographs
(allegedly as much as 80%) were taken by assistants - but whose
disgusting lifestyle (his treatment of his male lovers and drug
addictions) earned him unabashed "eccentricity" and wild censorship
controversy.
There are the "respectable" A-A artists and architects, like Maya Lin
Noguchi and I.M. Pei but they seem to be considered outside the
mainstream in the sense that textbooks don't consider them influential
though they've clearly make their mark.
Lucy
fs...@sirius.com
"They Painted from Their Hearts: Pioneer Asian American ARtists" bu Mayumi
Tsutakawa...available from Wing Luke Asian Museum, Seattle
"The View from Within:Japanese American Art from the Internment Camps
1942-1945" by Karin Higa...published by the Japanese American Museum, UCLA
Wight Art Center, and UCLA Asian American Studies Center.
I bring this up because they were written by ASIAN AMERICANS!
I think we have to support our own. *Mainstream* galleries only sell work
they can make $$$ from. Support non-profits that show contemporary Asian
AMERICAN arts. As an artist, I am familiar with textbooks that don't
relate to me, don't have any Asian Americans... and are purported to be
THE textbooks. But I do think their are artists/scholars that are trying
to *fix* that.
Two organizations on Asian American Art:
Godzilla: Asian American Art Network
P.O. Box 8789
Canal Street Station
New York, NY 10013-0864
(718) 855-8385
Asian American Women Artists Association
P.O. Box 20712
Oakland, CA 94620
***** MARK YOUR CALENDARS!!!!!! SEPTEMBER 23-OCTOBER 26, 1995 ********
"WITH NEW EYES:
Towards an Asian American Art History in the Western United States"
An exhibition highlighting western American Art by artists of Asian
immigration or descent. We plan to focus on the period spanning from the
Gold Rush through 1965. The exhibition will include photography, painting,
printmaking, calligraphy, sculpture and craft forms.
We are still hoping to locate important works, including:
-any photographs or paintings by MARY TAPE, circa 1880s
-any daguerreotypes by KA CHAU, circa 1854
-portrait PAINTINGS by LAI YONG, circa 1860s
-any photographs by ANN TING GOCK, circa 1890s
for more information, contact: fs...@sirius.com
or
San Francisco State University
ART Dept/ART Gallery
(415) 338-1017
--
***** MARK YOUR CALENDARS!!!!!! SEPTEMBER 23-OCTOBER 26, 1995 ********
"WITH NEW EYES:
Towards an Asian American Art History in the Western United States"
An exhibition highlighting western American Art by artists of Asian immigration or descent. We plan to focus on the period spanning from the Gold Rush through 1965. The exhibition will include photography, painting, printmaking, calligraphy, sculpture and craft forms.
We are still hoping to locate important works, including:
-any photographs or paintings by MARY TAPE, circa 1880s
-any daguerreotypes by KA CHAU, circa 1854
-portrait PAINTINGS by LAI YONG, circa 1860s
-any photographs by ANN TING GOCK, circa 1890s
for more information, contact: fs...@sirius.com
or
San Francisco State University
ART Dept/ART Gallery
(415) 338-1017
R. Tang
fs...@sirius.com <fs...@sirius.com> wrote:
>Two good books on Asian American Artists:
>"They Painted from Their Hearts: Pioneer Asian American ARtists" bu Mayumi
>Tsutakawa...available from Wing Luke Asian Museum, Seattle
407 7th Ave. S.
Seattle, WA 98104
Mayumi does good work (talented clan, too....).
>I bring this up because they were written by ASIAN AMERICANS!
>I think we have to support our own.
Well, at least, the good and promising....
>Two organizations on Asian American Art:
Add
Fertile Ground, the Asian American Artists Alliance
505 Boylston Ave. E. #111
Seattle, WA 98102
(or reply e-mail)
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
STILL just another theatre geek....
The most unAmerican thing you can say is "He/she makes too much money."
Stephanie Tai
sponsored by the Asian American Resource Workshop of Boston, at the
Cambridge Multicultural Art Center right now.
Camrbdige Multicultural Art Center
41 Second Ave. (near Galleria Mall)
Cambridge
617-577-1400
art exhibition goes through September 22, 1995
Participating artists: Genara Banzon, Joanna L. Kao, Young Kyu Kim, Dinh
Lee, Helen Lee, Richard Lee, Helen Liu, Long Nguyen, Riti Sachdeva, and
Wen Ti Tsen
-steph
Glenn Horiuchi
try check out Asian Improv aRts. though primarily a music
organization, air and many of its affiliated artists have been
involved in multimedia collaborations with people like Genny Lim,
Janice Mirikitani, Sachiko Nakamura, etc. Its online magazine
ImprovisAsians Online! at
http://www.wp.com/horiuchi/improv1.html
has an interesting interview with musician Mark Izu on his
collaborations with Janice M. and others.
> Add
> Fertile Ground, the Asian American Artists Alliance
> 505 Boylston Ave. E. #111
> Seattle, WA 98102
> (or reply e-mail)
>--
>Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
>STILL just another theatre geek....
> The most unAmerican thing you can say is "He/she makes too much money."
Glenn Horiuchi
http://www.wp.com/HORIUCHI
R. Tang
>gwan...@u.washington.edu (R. Tang) wrote:
>
>try check out Asian Improv aRts. though primarily a music
>organization, air and many of its affiliated artists have been
>involved in multimedia collaborations with people like Genny Lim,
>Janice Mirikitani, Sachiko Nakamura, etc. Its online magazine
>ImprovisAsians Online! at
>http://www.wp.com/horiuchi/improv1.html
Damn. Glad to see Genny and Janice still active and doing art;
haven't seen them since the early...umm....well....a while ago...
fs...@sirius.com
shi...@uclink2.berkeley.edu (jon) wrote:
> Anyway, some time ago I
> saw a (unfortunately very thin) catalog of a travelling exhibition of
> Asian American art that was supposed to go nationwide (I wish I could
> remember the name of the exhibition!?!). Anyone know where it is now, and
> when it's due in the Bay Area?
What was the theme of the show? was it painters, photographers, sculptors?
I know "Asia/America" curated by Margo Machida will be in SF in Sept.
That's an exhibition on first generation Asian Americans.
I'm part of a photo exhibit in Pittsburg "Picturing Asia America"...It was
also at Houston Center for Photography.
fs...@sirius.com
Yoko Ono, Nam June Paik, Tseng Kwong Chi. Please correct me if I'm
wrong...and it's not a big point...are those three all foreign born? I
think many galleries show works by Asians but not American-born Asians.
That isn't a comment on the work...but of the art world structure and how
Asians are perceived.
Who else....
Chiro Obata did some profound landscape paintings.
Frank Matsura was a wild photographer of Okanogan, Washington.
Bernice Bing mixes asian calligraphy with abstract painting.
Ruth Asawa has some really cool sculptures.
Nguyen Tan Hoang had photographs commenting on media portrayals and Asian
gay imagery.. I think he's working in video now.
Corey-Cuong Nguyen had a wild installation at SF Camerawork years ago.
Valerie Soe did a fantastic video installation about interracial relationships.
Terry Acebo Davis is a great printmaker.
who else?
fs...@sirius.com
I was not commenting directly on the works of Ono, Paik and Tseng...I
think their works are great... Many artists of many different generations
comprise the thing we call "Asian American Art". I would never hold
anyone's "native" status against the artist...I congratulate them for
their success.
I was commenting on an artworld system that upholds the idea that Asians
are all foreign born.
There are many Asian art museums that show works from overseas...but will
NOT show works of American born artists. The Asian Art Museum/DeYoung in
San Francisco is a good example. I also think that if you look into how
many Asians show at the SF Museum of Modern Art...you will see they favor
Asian born...at the expense of American born.
I don't fault the artists...I fault the system that only sees the
"collective us" as immigrants, foreigners, other.
I am questioning why we know more about foreign born Asian artists and
nearly nothing of American born Asian artists. I am addressing the
system....not the content of the artists' works.
diane
> In any case, I don't think it's fair to separate foreign-born Asian
> Americans and American-born Asian Americans in that (obviously) both
> contribute to the image of Asian Americans in America. It's probably not
> intentional on your part (or perhaps you weren't being clear), but the
> small distinction you make reminds me of those American-born Asian
> Americans who feel their "F.O.B." counterparts "ruin" their (A-b's) image
> as truly "American" Americans (a complex that many Asian Americans, even
> some foreign born, seem to need to work through, I think). But in this
> case, it seems to be working in a counterproductive way, which I can't
> understand--it's as if you don't want the positive accomplishments of
> foreign-born Asian Americans to count in the legacy of Asian America. A
> strange sort of Asian American purist, I'd say. On the other hand, if you
> thought that the work of Ono, Paik, Tseng was so weird & inexplicable that
> you didn't want it to tarnish the image of Asian American art, I'd
> understand better--I wouldn't agree, but I'd understand :).
>
> bye bye.
>
> s.kim (who arrived in N.Y. at age one, thus qualifying as a foreign-born
> Asian American :)
Brian L. Robinson
>(I didn't think this thread would still be here when I made it back
>here--I guess it is, just barely. Anyways...).
>
>I basically understand where you're coming from now--it's more the notion
>of Asian-Ams being considered not necessarily just foreign-born, but
>simply "foreign", an impression that's definitely not just confined to the
>"art world". As far as can tell (which is just derived from reading
>what's been written about different artists I like--inc. pos./neg./just
>plain weird reviews), when it comes to art, minority-Americans in general,
>not just Asian-Ams, seem to face this problem. Even Jean-MIchel
>Basquiat's art would draw references to the so-called "primitive" art of
>Africa and Haitian voodoo (his father was Haitian, but he never lived
>there or was much exposed to the culture). Also, Native Americans, and
>sometimes Latino-Americans, who ought to be considered the truest
>Americans, seem to have their art described oftentimes in some mystical
>sense, or other times as representatives of "barrio" culture". To me, it
>usually doesn't seem like there's anything wrong with the art or its
>subject matter per se, but just the (almost always white) reviewer's
>projections onto the art. I don't really think these tendencies will
>stop any time in the near future in American culture (esp. with the
>attempts to roll back Aff.Act. & the general conservative tide these
>days). It seems that slowly conscious minority-Americans will have to try
>to establish more of their own institutions, because we sure can't depend
>on those in the majority to represent us accurately and fairly.
I disagree with most of your analysis until you come to the part about
rolling back affirmative action. Art critics are not famous for their
conservative anti-affirmative action beliefs. To the contrary,
artists and people who take art very seriously tend to be quite
liberal.
Progressing away from affirmative action has everything to do with bringing
minorities into the mainstream and treating them equally with other
Americans, and nothing to do with treating them as "foreigners".
--
bl...@Virginia.EDU ***** "Individuals who have been wronged by unlawful
discrimination should be made whole; but under our Constitution there can be
no such thing as either a creditor or debtor race...In the eyes of
government, we are just one race here. It is American." - Justice Scalia
Brian L. Robinson
>In article <DCLqJ...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>bl...@cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU (Brian L. Robinson) wrote:
>
>BRobinson here:
>>
>> I disagree with most of your analysis until you come to the part about
>> rolling back affirmative action. Art critics are not famous for their
>> conservative anti-affirmative action beliefs. To the contrary,
>> artists and people who take art very seriously tend to be quite
>> liberal.
>
>> Progressing away from affirmative action has everything to do with bringing
>> minorities into the mainstream and treating them equally with other
>> Americans, and nothing to do with treating them as "foreigners".
>
>> --
>> bl...@Virginia.EDU
>
>
>
>I don't understand what you're saying. The only way I can make a little
>sense of what you wrote is to change your "disagree" in the first sentence
>to an "agree". I'll assume that in my response.
Yes, that is the proper correction (I really do need to proofread more
carefully!)
I agree in part with your analysis (which I deleted because it was too
darn long). The art world seems very interested in what it wants to
be reality, rather than what reality is.
>But it would mean giving minority-Ams a stronger voice in this society,
>and the white conservatives gaining momentum (who generally couldn't care
>less about min.-Ams & would just as soon maintain the status quo, or
>better yet, regress!) are definitely not going to let thAt happen.
I think most white Americans don't like the status quo. They don't
like government sponsored discrimination. They don't like decaying
cities. They don't like paying for people who are unable or unwilling
to support themselves. They don't like not being able to walk
downtown at night for fear of violence.
As for "regressing", that is a matter of opinion. If you've been
walking the wrong direction for the past 20 years, the most
progressive person is the one who changes direction.
>As for the topic of Affirmative Action:
>It's naive (or willfully ignorant) for people to think that if we roll
>back Aff. Act., we can depend on white people to do the right thing, and
>hire as many minority-Ams as when it was in action.
We can expect them to do the greedy thing and hire those who are the
best people for the job.
I read an interesting article in the Washington Times friday. It was
by Thomas Sowell, an economist and senior fellow at the Hoover
Institution and a nationally syndicated columnist.
Some excerpts:
"Blacks were not sitting in the backs of buses because that's where
the bus companies wanted them to sit. They sat there because of Jim
Crow laws passed by politicians."
"When these laws spread through the South about a hundred years ago,
private bus companies and railroads opposed such laws while they were
under consideration in the legislatures, challenged them in court and
then, when all else failed, dragged their feet in enforcing them.
Only after street car conductors began to be arrested and companies
were threatened with legal action did racial segregation become a
reality on the buses and trolleys of the South."
[...]
"Even when South Africa was run by its white minority, violations of
apartheid law were rampant in competitive market sectors. Whjen the
government cracked down on the construction industry in the 1980's,
hundreds of firms were fined for hiring more blacks and in higher
positions than they were allowed to under the racial laws."
[...]
"In pre-World War II Central and Eastern Europe, anti-Semitic policies
were far more effective in keeping Jews out of government jobs, and
jobs for which government licenses were required, than in keeping them
out of unregulated professions."
[...]
"This pattern exists not because people in government are more racist,
but because discrimination costs government officials nothing but can
cost private companies a lot. This is true whether considering the
old plain vanilla discrimination or the more convoluted reverse
discrimination called 'affirmative action.'"
[...]
"One of the real ironies is that organizations that were once more
discriminatory than others-phone companies, universities,
foundations--have led the charge for affirmative action. Neither
direct discrimination nor reverse discrimination costs them much."
According to Mr. Sowell, the pattern of government being a greater
practicer of discrimination than the private sector occurs around the
world.
I think you are right that we can't count on people to do the "right
thing", but I am very confident in people's ability to do the "greedy
thing."
>The truth is that
>bosses don't hire people simply on the basis of who's most qualified on
>paper anyway (also, one boss's idea of "qualified" is not the same as
>another's for the same position).
Very true. Which is one of the reason's government should stay out of it.
> They interview based on good
>applications (all of "qualified" people), and then hire the person that
>makes the best "impression" in an interview. Because of Aff.Act., bosses
>are forced to consider minority-Ams who make a good impression. If the
>boss doesn't interview any, then they can hire a white person who
does.
Of course if the applications and resumes don't reveal the race of the
prospective employee, the boss can't screen out people of a particular
race before the interview.
>But chances are, there will be other open positions where there will be a
>minority-Am who makes a good impression and that person will be hired, and
>that's how things work out.
>However, if no affirmative action was in place, white bosses would simply
>hire white people for the jobs because they'd be most comfortable working
>with other whites, and they'd assume that to be so for the other whites
>working for them. There may be those who may not be actively racist, and
>even consider themselves open-minded, but the truth is that they haven't
>really ever had to deal closely with minority-Ams on a day-to-day basis,
>and the prospect probably makes them uncomfortable (what do you say or
>talk about?). Some lower-level bosses may hire a couple of Asian-Ams (or
>immigrants of any kind) because they subconsciously figure that they're
>easy to order around and will do the most or hardest work with a minimum
>of fuss. But those employees will never get very far, because of
>stereotypes that they lack the assertiveness and authority for the higher
>positions that require them to display leadership. Also, bosses might
>assume that their white employees would feel a little resentful working
>under a min-Am, esp. a woman, and they don't want to alienate the white
>employees. Without Aff.Act. you probably can't even depend on the rare
>min.-Am bosses to hire people of their own race because they might feel
>under pressure from higher-ups and don't want to raise suspicion of racial
>"nepotism". (All of the above scenarios for min-Ams could apply to white
>women, too, to varying degrees).
I think you would find that people try to find the most qualified
workers regardless of the problems you mention. Consider the number
of foreigners we have working in our high-tech industries. Sure they
may be hard to talk to, but they get the job done.
Under your scenarios, we would have a lot of very qualified minority
people looking for work. Someone would surely see that as an
opportunity and hire them for less money than they would have to pay a
similarly qualified white male. In fact that person would have
enough sense not to hire any white men so that
1. he wouldn't have to pay those high white male salaries.
2. he wouldn't have to worry about whether those white men would feel
comfortable in the office.
Now you have a competitor (which only hired the best minority workers)
producing a superior product at a lower cost.
Those bosses that were worried about being comfortable in their
offices are going to stop worrying about comfort and start worrying
about their bottom line, which will be dropping rapidly. And their
going to start trying hire workers away from that successful
competitor. Thus:
1. Those minority workers see an increase in their salaries as the
competitors bid for their work.
2. The office becomes integrated as those minority workers are hired.
>relevant sidenote: I once read an article that quoted a study that found
>many companies who, when turning down white male applicants, simply said
>"sorry, we had to hire a minority (or a woman)" to let the person down
>easy, when that simply wasn't true, that actually either another white
>male or someone else better suited was hired.
I don't really consider that too relevent. I think the government and
industries that must do the will of the government have been forced to
hide their overtly racist actions so much that people are rarely in a
position to say "You didn't get the job because we gave it to a less
qualified minority". Instead the real situation is likely to be -
"You never heard about the job because we focused our recruiting in
predominately black areas of town" or "He got higher marks on the
'general impression' part of the interviews because all the
interviewers knew that we need to hire more minority workers" or some
other such thing.
>They had interviewed
>several former personnel workers who explained themselves by saying it
>seemed the politest way to reject applicants. Sounds like that's where a
>lot of the "white male rage" could be coming from...
I suspect that you'll find most of the white males who are angry have
never been told that they didn't get a job because they were white and
male. Instead they just look at what they laws say, and they listen
to political leaders blame them for everything that has ever gone
wrong in the world. And many of these white males weren't even alive
when the crimes took place!
Even your comment that "we can't count on white males to do the right
thing" seems to imply that white males are somehow more evil than the
general population.
>Aff. Act. policy regards university admissions:
>How is the policy that allows ESL students special advantages in
>admissions applications any different from the concept of Affirmative
>Action (yes, I'm particularly frustrated at anti-Aff.Act. Asian-Ams). In
>both cases, people who have come from different kinds of disadvantaged
>backgrounds (in the first case, a foreign country; in the second, an
>underfunded school with apathetic teachers or even a mainly white school
>with racist kids and/or teachers)
If you want to give special advantage to kids from underfunded
schools, fine.
If you want to give special advantage to kids who went to schools
in which they were a discriminated against minority, I suppose that
would be ok too.
But you can't just assume that every black kid went to an underfunded
school or a school in which they were discriminated against. And you
can't assume that every white kid went to a good school and was in the
majority.
>are able to show what they have been
>able to overcome. And someone who isn't very fluent in English is
>probably less prepared than a Latino or Afr.Am "B" student for college
>work at an American university, where courses are almost always taught in
>English. (BTW I support both policies, if that isn't clear.)
>Also remember, grading is mostly a subjective thing, too, and teachers are
>human and can't help but subconsciously base some of their decisions on
>racial or other stereotypes or other subjective considerations. For
>example, if a teacher assigned a report on any poem a student chooses, a
>student who does a profoundly meaningful report on a rap song (esp. w/o
>prior permission) would probably not get as good a grade as a student who
>picked Shakespeare, regardless of the quality of the report (that's unless
>the teacher is particularly open-minded).
Of course Shakespeare would beat out a song by a white rock and roll
group as well. So would Langston Hughes. (did I get that name right?)
>I know that much more subtle
>discrimination happens every day in schools. So grades themselves
>shouldn't be the sole determining factor in deciding college
admissions.
But what happens when affirmative action becomes the source of that
discrimination? "Don't worry, you'll be able to go to college even if
you don't have a 4.0 since you're black. So go ahead and go to the
dance. You don't need to study so hard." No one may say those words
exactly, but that is a message that is sent out. Along with
"Standards are lower for you since we know you can't do as well as
white kids."
>Some people don't realize that some K-12 schools in the midwest (and
>prob. elsewhere) actually didn't end up integrating their campuses until
>as little as 24 years ago, and those few African-Am. students who attended
>had their lives threatened and bottles thrown at them and suffered other
>such constant abuse. Needless to say, that wasn't all too long ago. I
>think people are forgetting.
The kids entering college today weren't alive then. Why should
affirmative action affect them?
>I wish that people who care (I know some could give a rat's ass--to hell
>with ya) would just see Aff. Action as simply an acknowledgement that
>things are still not fair and equal for all people in our society.
Things aren't fair and equal yet, but fairness and equality should be
our goal.
To me the problem is that affirmative action isn't a solution. It's
like someone hitting you on the right side of your head and giving you
a headache. Then they say "Don't worry, I'll fix it" and they hit you
on the left side of the head to balance things out. It doesn't work
that way. It only makes they headache worse. The solution to
discrimination is not more discrimination. The solution is less
discrimination.
>I
>think that the fact that Pete Wilson has become the Aryan Nation's poster
>boy kinda says it all.
>
>s.kim
Joan Shields
>I think most white Americans don't like the status quo. They don't
>like government sponsored discrimination. They don't like decaying
>cities. They don't like paying for people who are unable or unwilling
>to support themselves. They don't like not being able to walk
>downtown at night for fear of violence.
The only trouble with this, and I agree that all of the above are
legitimate things to complain about, is that there is this desire of the
more affluent groups to blame the less affluent and the minorities and
women for these problems. I've sat there and watched as politicians and
commentators and apparent "those in the know" blame illegitamcy for all
the crime and poverty in the inner cities. In one fell swoop the women
who have these children (and yes, they were specifically pointed to as
those responsible) are to blame for all the problems. It's also
interesting to know that violent crime is actually down in this country,
as a whole, while rape and domestic violence against women is up. More
and more violent crimes are reported more and more extensively whereas
other crimes (ie: hog farm pollution of recreational lakes and streams in
NC as one example) are downplayed. However, when it comes down to the
bottom line we are all responsible for the state of our country. We
cannot point to one group or one law or one action and lay all the blame
at it's feet. For a very long time the "pill" was blamed for all the
social ills in this country. It's funny, a birth control pill is
responsible for crime and drugs. It did make many women's lives a hell of
a lot easier - gave women a lot more control over their fertility but I
hardly think it signaled the downfall of the nation - which is what is has
been touted with doing. Like I said, we are all responsible. History is
an ongoing thing - it didn't magically start when you were born and it will
continue on long after you die. Affirmative Action did not start
discrimination - it's been going on for a very long time and still does,
believe it or not. It hasn't righted the situtation but it has afforded a
lot of people opportunities, well deserved and hard earned opportunities
that they would never have had before.
>As for "regressing", that is a matter of opinion. If you've been
>walking the wrong direction for the past 20 years, the most
>progressive person is the one who changes direction.
This is true however, is going back to racial and sexual discrimination
practices of the past, and there have been studies to show that without
Aff.Action there is a lot of discrimination still prevelant in this
country, necessarily progressive?
>>As for the topic of Affirmative Action:
>>It's naive (or willfully ignorant) for people to think that if we roll
>>back Aff. Act., we can depend on white people to do the right thing, and
>>hire as many minority-Ams as when it was in action.
>We can expect them to do the greedy thing and hire those who are the
>best people for the job.
Not necessarily. There is also the attitude that the most qualified for
any job will most likely be male and white. While you may not believe
this there are quite a lot of those who still do believe this. There is a
lot of instant credibility given to white males where their women and
minority counterparts are expected to twice over prove themselves. You
may not have ever encountered a glass ceiling but there are multitudes of
others who have. It would be nice to be able to make your assumption but
I, for one, have not seen a lot of evidence to prove it a good one to make
in most situtitions.
>I read an interesting article in the Washington Times friday. It was
>by Thomas Sowell, an economist and senior fellow at the Hoover
>Institution and a nationally syndicated columnist.
>Some excerpts:
>"Blacks were not sitting in the backs of buses because that's where
>the bus companies wanted them to sit. They sat there because of Jim
>Crow laws passed by politicians."
>"When these laws spread through the South about a hundred years ago,
>private bus companies and railroads opposed such laws while they were
>under consideration in the legislatures, challenged them in court and
>then, when all else failed, dragged their feet in enforcing them.
>Only after street car conductors began to be arrested and companies
>were threatened with legal action did racial segregation become a
>reality on the buses and trolleys of the South."
>"This pattern exists not because people in government are more racist,
>but because discrimination costs government officials nothing but can
>cost private companies a lot. This is true whether considering the
>old plain vanilla discrimination or the more convoluted reverse
>discrimination called 'affirmative action.'"
Ah, maybe I'm a little lost here but if this is the case why in it that in
1990 a poll of Fortune 1000 companies over 80% admitted that women still
faced a tremendous amount of discrimination in the workplace but less than
1% had any plans to changing this and even that 1% had it on the
bottom of their human resource priority list? Why is it that women owned
businesses employ 35% more employees than Fortune 500 companies yet people
complain about the 8% of federal contracts that are set aside by the
government for women and minority owned companies? Why is it that over
60% of the population is still discriminated against and when their numbers
rise in non-traditional professions they are looked at as a threat?
>"One of the real ironies is that organizations that were once more
>discriminatory than others-phone companies, universities,
>foundations--have led the charge for affirmative action. Neither
>direct discrimination nor reverse discrimination costs them much."
That is a funny thing. You might want to look at who is employed where in
those companies and institutions. You'll find that most of the lower
level secretarial jobs are filled by women and most of the technical
(non-managment) positions are filled by minorities where the upper level
administrative jobs are mostly filled by white males. Women and
minorities are still assumed to be less competent than white male
counterparts in upper-level positions, especially managorial ones.
>I think you are right that we can't count on people to do the "right
>thing", but I am very confident in people's ability to do the "greedy
>thing."
Like I said, this isn't necessarily the case and you have to keep in mind
that in the minds of a lot of companies the white male is generally
assumed to be much more qualified in any given position than a woman or
and minority.
>> They interview based on good
>>applications (all of "qualified" people), and then hire the person that
>>makes the best "impression" in an interview. Because of Aff.Act., bosses
>>are forced to consider minority-Ams who make a good impression. If the
>>boss doesn't interview any, then they can hire a white person who
>does.
>Of course if the applications and resumes don't reveal the race of the
>prospective employee, the boss can't screen out people of a particular
>race before the interview.
How often does this happen?
>I think you would find that people try to find the most qualified
>workers regardless of the problems you mention. Consider the number
>of foreigners we have working in our high-tech industries. Sure they
>may be hard to talk to, but they get the job done.
Yes, but how many of these people move out of technical support and into
higher level jobs? And how about minorities and women who were born and
raised in this country - where language isn't an issue?
>Under your scenarios, we would have a lot of very qualified minority
>people looking for work. Someone would surely see that as an
>opportunity and hire them for less money than they would have to pay a
>similarly qualified white male. In fact that person would have
>enough sense not to hire any white men so that
But it doesn't happen this way, does it? Women stil make, on average (and
the rate varies depending upon the race of the woman - hispanic women make
about 66 cents on the dollar a man makes) 78 cents for every dollar a man
makes for equal work. And look at this - why should a woman or a minority
be paid less for the same work as a white male? Is this what we should
settle for in order to be hired? Unfortunately it ends up being the case
more often than it is not.
>Those bosses that were worried about being comfortable in their
>offices are going to stop worrying about comfort and start worrying
>about their bottom line, which will be dropping rapidly. And their
>going to start trying hire workers away from that successful
>competitor. Thus:
>1. Those minority workers see an increase in their salaries as the
>competitors bid for their work.
>2. The office becomes integrated as those minority workers are hired.
BUT HOW OFTEN IS THIS THE CASE? You make a lot of "wonderful" comments
and suggestions but how often do these things occur in the real world???
>>relevant sidenote: I once read an article that quoted a study that found
>>many companies who, when turning down white male applicants, simply said
>>"sorry, we had to hire a minority (or a woman)" to let the person down
>>easy, when that simply wasn't true, that actually either another white
>>male or someone else better suited was hired.
>I don't really consider that too relevent. I think the government and
>industries that must do the will of the government have been forced to
>hide their overtly racist actions so much that people are rarely in a
>position to say "You didn't get the job because we gave it to a less
>qualified minority". Instead the real situation is likely to be -
>"You never heard about the job because we focused our recruiting in
>predominately black areas of town" or "He got higher marks on the
>'general impression' part of the interviews because all the
>interviewers knew that we need to hire more minority workers" or some
>other such thing.
Why isn't it relavent? I've been told by males that reverse
discrimination is rampant and yet only 3% of cases tried by the EEOC are
reverse discrimination cases. Why is your reason more valid or relavent
than the other?
>>They had interviewed
>>several former personnel workers who explained themselves by saying it
>>seemed the politest way to reject applicants. Sounds like that's where a
>>lot of the "white male rage" could be coming from...
>I suspect that you'll find most of the white males who are angry have
>never been told that they didn't get a job because they were white and
>male. Instead they just look at what they laws say, and they listen
>to political leaders blame them for everything that has ever gone
>wrong in the world. And many of these white males weren't even alive
>when the crimes took place!
You might want to keep in mind that a lot of white males believe that they
are always more qualified than their minority or women counterparts. I've
seen it happen so many times where a white male will get passed over for a
job in favor of a woman or a minority and they assume it's an Affr. Action
thing - never taking into consideration that the person hired may actually
have been more qualified than they are. Why this assumption? Is it
better that they are duped by politicians instead of looking at the
situation realistically and taking responsiblity for themselves?
>Even your comment that "we can't count on white males to do the right
>thing" seems to imply that white males are somehow more evil than the
>general population.
No, but it has been a trend for quite a very long time that white males
have held most (much more than the 40% of the population they make up) of
the wealth and power and that there has been a very long and strong
tradition of keeping things this way.
>If you want to give special advantage to kids from underfunded
>schools, fine.
This would be good though it would be better to upgrade the schools in the
first place.
>If you want to give special advantage to kids who went to schools
>in which they were a discriminated against minority, I suppose that
>would be ok too.
But isn't that what Affir. Action does to an extent?
>But what happens when affirmative action becomes the source of that
>discrimination? "Don't worry, you'll be able to go to college even if
>you don't have a 4.0 since you're black. So go ahead and go to the
>dance. You don't need to study so hard." No one may say those words
>exactly, but that is a message that is sent out. Along with
>"Standards are lower for you since we know you can't do as well as
>white kids."
This is a really inane anology and assumption. What about the black kid
who studies hard and pulls a 3.5 average because he has to work after
school to help support his family who is pulled over by the cops and
searched because since he's black and driving at night he must be a drug
dealer? Or the same kid who gets a scholarship and admission into Harvard
being told that he's only there because of Affir. Action and therefore he
really doesn't belong there and is only a charity case? Or how about the
hispanic kid who's told that he really shouldn't bother studying so hard
since he's really only good for doing the field work like his parents? Or
the woman working her ass off in college for a science degree being told
by a professor that she ought to look into being a teacher or a nurse
since women don't have the talent or determination to be a college
professor or a surgeon? What about them? What about all those who
struggled for so long against all the discrimination only to later be
pointed at by white males as those "who worked hard and did it without the
benefit of Affir. Action!" I don't know about you but poverty and
discrimination are two things that may make a noble story but I sure as
hell would rather not have had to deal with them. Being "noble" doesn't
pay the bills nor put food on the table.
>>I wish that people who care (I know some could give a rat's ass--to hell
>>with ya) would just see Aff. Action as simply an acknowledgement that
>>things are still not fair and equal for all people in our society.
>Things aren't fair and equal yet, but fairness and equality should be
>our goal.
>To me the problem is that affirmative action isn't a solution. It's
>like someone hitting you on the right side of your head and giving you
>a headache. Then they say "Don't worry, I'll fix it" and they hit you
>on the left side of the head to balance things out. It doesn't work
>that way. It only makes they headache worse. The solution to
>discrimination is not more discrimination. The solution is less
>discrimination.
You are oversimplifying and buying into the myth that anti-Affir.Action
people spew. You are listening to the politicians give you an all-
encompassing tied-up-with-a-bow-ontop explanation for all of the woes here
in the US. You've bought the party line. Congraduations. You no longer
have to take any sort of responsibility for anything that happens to you
as you have something handy to blame.
It used to be the Communists - before that it was the Irish and Eastern
European immigrants (the Catholics, damn Papists). It used to be the pill
and the women's movement. Now it's the new immigrants and Affirmative
Action - before that it was unwed mothers (still is to an extent). There's
always something to blame for problems we started ourselves.
joan
Brian L. Robinson
>Brian L. Robinson <bl...@topaz.cs.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>>I think most white Americans don't like the status quo. They don't
>>like government sponsored discrimination. They don't like decaying
>>cities. They don't like paying for people who are unable or unwilling
>>to support themselves. They don't like not being able to walk
>>downtown at night for fear of violence.
>
>The only trouble with this, and I agree that all of the above are
>legitimate things to complain about, is that there is this desire of the
>more affluent groups to blame the less affluent and the minorities and
>women for these problems. I've sat there and watched as politicians and
>commentators and apparent "those in the know" blame illegitamcy for all
>the crime and poverty in the inner cities. In one fell swoop the women
>who have these children (and yes, they were specifically pointed to as
>those responsible) are to blame for all the problems.
Don't forget the people who father those children.
But for the most part is is the less affluent who are to blame for
their troubles. We have all kinds of opportunity if they would be
responsible, study hard, and work hard.
But I realize that being responsible, studying hard, and working hard
are very difficult in the environment our society provides. Our
schools are worse than useless because they trick people into thinking
they're getting an education. Instead of teaching responsible
behavior we reward irresponsibility. Instead of rewarding hard work
we reduce welfare payments.
>It's also
>interesting to know that violent crime is actually down in this country,
>as a whole, while rape and domestic violence against women is up. More
>and more violent crimes are reported more and more extensively whereas
>other crimes (ie: hog farm pollution of recreational lakes and streams in
>NC as one example) are downplayed. However, when it comes down to the
>bottom line we are all responsible for the state of our country. We
>cannot point to one group or one law or one action and lay all the blame
>at it's feet. For a very long time the "pill" was blamed for all the
>social ills in this country. It's funny, a birth control pill is
>responsible for crime and drugs. It did make many women's lives a hell of
>a lot easier - gave women a lot more control over their fertility but I
>hardly think it signaled the downfall of the nation - which is what is has
>been touted with doing. Like I said, we are all responsible. History is
>an ongoing thing - it didn't magically start when you were born and it will
>continue on long after you die. Affirmative Action did not start
>discrimination - it's been going on for a very long time and still does,
>believe it or not. It hasn't righted the situtation but it has afforded a
>lot of people opportunities, well deserved and hard earned opportunities
>that they would never have had before.
It has provided some opportunities, but it has destroyed others. In
particular it has destroyed the opportunity for minorities and women
in high positions to be respected as having earned those positions.
It has also destroyed the opportunity for our government to say that
discrimination is unacceptable.
>
>>As for "regressing", that is a matter of opinion. If you've been
>>walking the wrong direction for the past 20 years, the most
>>progressive person is the one who changes direction.
>
>This is true however, is going back to racial and sexual discrimination
>practices of the past, and there have been studies to show that without
>Aff.Action there is a lot of discrimination still prevelant in this
>country, necessarily progressive?
I truly believe that if you end government discrimination, almost
everyone else will follow the profits and try to hire the best people
for the job. During the time when racial discrimination was a larger
problem in this country, government was one of the worst practicers of
discrimination, and often forced that discrimination in private
industry as well. We have yet to see a time in this country where
discrimination is not mandated by law, despite the 14th amendment
which says that things like Jim Crow laws and affirmative action are
illegal. When we do finally end government discrimination, I am sure
that most other discrimination will end quickly as people follow the
almighty dollar.
>
>>>As for the topic of Affirmative Action:
>>>It's naive (or willfully ignorant) for people to think that if we roll
>>>back Aff. Act., we can depend on white people to do the right thing, and
>>>hire as many minority-Ams as when it was in action.
>
>>We can expect them to do the greedy thing and hire those who are the
>>best people for the job.
>
>Not necessarily. There is also the attitude that the most qualified for
>any job will most likely be male and white. While you may not believe
>this there are quite a lot of those who still do believe this. There is a
>lot of instant credibility given to white males where their women and
>minority counterparts are expected to twice over prove themselves. You
>may not have ever encountered a glass ceiling but there are multitudes of
>others who have. It would be nice to be able to make your assumption but
>I, for one, have not seen a lot of evidence to prove it a good one to make
>in most situtitions.
I have confidence in the marketplace. Glass ceilings will break as
CEOs put profits over anything else. While there may be the
assumption that the best person will be male and white. Situations
will surely occur where it is painfully obvious that the best person
is female and black. Each time it occurs, and that person is
promoted, it will make it easier for the next female black person to
move up.
And the best part is, no one will doubt that these positions were
earned. In fact, they will get more respect than others in their
position from people who see the difficulties they have faced.
>
>>I read an interesting article in the Washington Times friday. It was
>>by Thomas Sowell, an economist and senior fellow at the Hoover
>>Institution and a nationally syndicated columnist.
>
>>Some excerpts:
>
>>"Blacks were not sitting in the backs of buses because that's where
>>the bus companies wanted them to sit. They sat there because of Jim
>>Crow laws passed by politicians."
>
>>"When these laws spread through the South about a hundred years ago,
>>private bus companies and railroads opposed such laws while they were
>>under consideration in the legislatures, challenged them in court and
>>then, when all else failed, dragged their feet in enforcing them.
>>Only after street car conductors began to be arrested and companies
>>were threatened with legal action did racial segregation become a
>>reality on the buses and trolleys of the South."
>
>>"This pattern exists not because people in government are more racist,
>>but because discrimination costs government officials nothing but can
>>cost private companies a lot. This is true whether considering the
>>old plain vanilla discrimination or the more convoluted reverse
>>discrimination called 'affirmative action.'"
>
>Ah, maybe I'm a little lost here but if this is the case why in it that in
>1990 a poll of Fortune 1000 companies over 80% admitted that women still
>faced a tremendous amount of discrimination in the workplace but less than
>1% had any plans to changing this and even that 1% had it on the
>bottom of their human resource priority list?
Probably because affirmative action screws up the market forces that
would cause these changes.
> Why is it that women owned
>businesses employ 35% more employees than Fortune 500 companies yet people
>complain about the 8% of federal contracts that are set aside by the
>government for women and minority owned companies?
Because they see those companies getting contracts which their company
is ineligible for, causing resentment at the special treatment those
women and minorities get. Even if only one company were owned by one
person with three arms, that person with three arms would be resented
if the government reserved contracts for him and didn't let other
companies compete with him on equal footing.
>Why is it that over
>60% of the population is still discriminated against and when their numbers
>rise in non-traditional professions they are looked at as a threat?
Perhaps some think they are rising by affirmative action and not by
their abilities?
>>"One of the real ironies is that organizations that were once more
>>discriminatory than others-phone companies, universities,
>>foundations--have led the charge for affirmative action. Neither
>>direct discrimination nor reverse discrimination costs them much."
>
>That is a funny thing. You might want to look at who is employed where in
>those companies and institutions. You'll find that most of the lower
>level secretarial jobs are filled by women and most of the technical
>(non-managment) positions are filled by minorities where the upper level
>administrative jobs are mostly filled by white males. Women and
>minorities are still assumed to be less competent than white male
>counterparts in upper-level positions, especially managorial ones.
At this point they probably are at the upper level positions, which
require a great deal of experience. Since women and minorities have
only been competing (somewhat) equally and in large numbers for a
short time, that experience can be very lacking. Also, many
minorities have to deal with the sub-substandard education this
country provided them.
>>I think you are right that we can't count on people to do the "right
>>thing", but I am very confident in people's ability to do the "greedy
>>thing."
>
>Like I said, this isn't necessarily the case and you have to keep in mind
>that in the minds of a lot of companies the white male is generally
>assumed to be much more qualified in any given position than a woman or
>and minority.
So give women and minorities a chance to prove that assumption wrong!
Don't undercut their achievements by letting people believe they got
where they are some other way!
>
>>> They interview based on good
>>>applications (all of "qualified" people), and then hire the person that
>>>makes the best "impression" in an interview. Because of Aff.Act., bosses
>>>are forced to consider minority-Ams who make a good impression. If the
>>>boss doesn't interview any, then they can hire a white person who
>>does.
>
>>Of course if the applications and resumes don't reveal the race of the
>>prospective employee, the boss can't screen out people of a particular
>>race before the interview.
>
>How often does this happen?
>
>>I think you would find that people try to find the most qualified
>>workers regardless of the problems you mention. Consider the number
>>of foreigners we have working in our high-tech industries. Sure they
>>may be hard to talk to, but they get the job done.
>
>Yes, but how many of these people move out of technical support and into
>higher level jobs?
Language is a problem.
> And how about minorities and women who were born and
>raised in this country - where language isn't an issue?
Unfortunately, many of the minorities and women suffer from a poor
education or from lack of experience or from perceptions that they
only got where they are through aa and shouldn't get any further.
>>Under your scenarios, we would have a lot of very qualified minority
>>people looking for work. Someone would surely see that as an
>>opportunity and hire them for less money than they would have to pay a
>>similarly qualified white male. In fact that person would have
>>enough sense not to hire any white men so that
>
>But it doesn't happen this way, does it? Women stil make, on average (and
>the rate varies depending upon the race of the woman - hispanic women make
>about 66 cents on the dollar a man makes) 78 cents for every dollar a man
>makes for equal work. And look at this - why should a woman or a minority
>be paid less for the same work as a white male? Is this what we should
>settle for in order to be hired? Unfortunately it ends up being the case
>more often than it is not.
I've heard these statistics, but I've never really believed them.
I've never had a job where the women and minorities around me
were making less and doing the same job. I also wonder how one can
accurately compile those statistics. But anyway, until goverment
discrimination ends, evidence of discrimination merely backs up what
I've been saying.
>
>>Those bosses that were worried about being comfortable in their
>>offices are going to stop worrying about comfort and start worrying
>>about their bottom line, which will be dropping rapidly. And their
>>going to start trying hire workers away from that successful
>>competitor. Thus:
>
>>1. Those minority workers see an increase in their salaries as the
>>competitors bid for their work.
>
>>2. The office becomes integrated as those minority workers are hired.
>
>BUT HOW OFTEN IS THIS THE CASE? You make a lot of "wonderful" comments
>and suggestions but how often do these things occur in the real world???
They don't. Government still screws things up by demanding discrimination!
>>>relevant sidenote: I once read an article that quoted a study that found
>>>many companies who, when turning down white male applicants, simply said
>>>"sorry, we had to hire a minority (or a woman)" to let the person down
>>>easy, when that simply wasn't true, that actually either another white
>>>male or someone else better suited was hired.
>
>>I don't really consider that too relevent. I think the government and
>>industries that must do the will of the government have been forced to
>>hide their overtly racist actions so much that people are rarely in a
>>position to say "You didn't get the job because we gave it to a less
>>qualified minority". Instead the real situation is likely to be -
>>"You never heard about the job because we focused our recruiting in
>>predominately black areas of town" or "He got higher marks on the
>>'general impression' part of the interviews because all the
>>interviewers knew that we need to hire more minority workers" or some
>>other such thing.
>
>Why isn't it relavent? I've been told by males that reverse
>discrimination is rampant and yet only 3% of cases tried by the EEOC are
>reverse discrimination cases. Why is your reason more valid or relavent
>than the other?
Because I haven't said anything about individual white men being
denied a job or promotion because of discrimination. I think our
courts have done a good enough job of disguising and legitimizing
discrimination against white men that it is difficult to point to a
particular instance and say that a white man was discriminated
against. Like if a company looked at UVa and an all women's school,
and decided to recruit at the all women's school but not at UVa.
1. The courts would say that the company wasn't discriminating, but
was pursuing a legal affirmative action plan.
2. It would be difficult to say that I personally was a victim because
even if they had come to UVa, I might not have been hired. But I was
denied the opportunity to try unless I went to the company on my own
initiative.
>>>They had interviewed
>>>several former personnel workers who explained themselves by saying it
>>>seemed the politest way to reject applicants. Sounds like that's where a
>>>lot of the "white male rage" could be coming from...
>
>>I suspect that you'll find most of the white males who are angry have
>>never been told that they didn't get a job because they were white and
>>male. Instead they just look at what they laws say, and they listen
>>to political leaders blame them for everything that has ever gone
>>wrong in the world. And many of these white males weren't even alive
>>when the crimes took place!
>
>You might want to keep in mind that a lot of white males believe that they
>are always more qualified than their minority or women counterparts. I've
>seen it happen so many times where a white male will get passed over for a
>job in favor of a woman or a minority and they assume it's an Affr. Action
>thing - never taking into consideration that the person hired may actually
>have been more qualified than they are. Why this assumption?
They make the assumption because they can.
Is it
>better that they are duped by politicians instead of looking at the
>situation realistically and taking responsiblity for themselves?
Were it not for affirmative action, they would have no choice but to
look at the situation realistically and take responibility for
themselves. Discrimination begets discrimination.
>>Even your comment that "we can't count on white males to do the right
>>thing" seems to imply that white males are somehow more evil than the
>>general population.
>
>No, but it has been a trend for quite a very long time that white males
>have held most (much more than the 40% of the population they make up) of
>the wealth and power and that there has been a very long and strong
>tradition of keeping things this way.
With the government as the primary instrument of this power. It
continues today with k-12 education.
>
>>If you want to give special advantage to kids from underfunded
>>schools, fine.
>
>This would be good though it would be better to upgrade the schools in the
>first place.
Finally we agree on something. Unless we fix the schools we will
never see minorities in powerful positions in large numbers. You can
say all you want about equal abilities, but if the schools don't
provide equal education, we'll never have equal abilities.
>
>>If you want to give special advantage to kids who went to schools
>>in which they were a discriminated against minority, I suppose that
>>would be ok too.
>
>But isn't that what Affir. Action does to an extent?
Not if you were a white kid going to a predominately black school. Or
a kid of Asian descent going to a predominately white school.
>>But what happens when affirmative action becomes the source of that
>>discrimination? "Don't worry, you'll be able to go to college even if
>>you don't have a 4.0 since you're black. So go ahead and go to the
>>dance. You don't need to study so hard." No one may say those words
>>exactly, but that is a message that is sent out. Along with
>>"Standards are lower for you since we know you can't do as well as
>>white kids."
>
>This is a really inane anology and assumption. What about the black kid
>who studies hard and pulls a 3.5 average because he has to work after
>school to help support his family who is pulled over by the cops and
>searched because since he's black and driving at night he must be a drug
>dealer?
What about the white kid who studies hard and pulls a 3.5 average
because he has to work after school to support his family?
>Or the same kid who gets a scholarship and admission into Harvard
>being told that he's only there because of Affir. Action and therefore he
>really doesn't belong there and is only a charity case?
Yes, affirmative action really helps him doesn't it.
Or how about the
>hispanic kid who's told that he really shouldn't bother studying so hard
>since he's really only good for doing the field work like his
parents?
Or the white kid who gets told the same thing? (it happens)
>Or
>the woman working her ass off in college for a science degree being told
>by a professor that she ought to look into being a teacher or a nurse
>since women don't have the talent or determination to be a college
>professor or a surgeon? What about them?
What about the man who gets ridiculed for wanting to be a nurse or
teacher? What about the man who is told by his peers that he's a guy
and that doing homework is for sissies and that he should be more
involved in sports and fighting?
>What about all those who
>struggled for so long against all the discrimination only to later be
>pointed at by white males as those "who worked hard and did it without the
>benefit of Affir. Action!" I don't know about you but poverty and
>discrimination are two things that may make a noble story but I sure as
>hell would rather not have had to deal with them. Being "noble" doesn't
>pay the bills nor put food on the table.
Affirmative action may help a few escape poverty, but it helps keep
the rest in poverty.
>>>I wish that people who care (I know some could give a rat's ass--to hell
>>>with ya) would just see Aff. Action as simply an acknowledgement that
>>>things are still not fair and equal for all people in our society.
>
>>Things aren't fair and equal yet, but fairness and equality should be
>>our goal.
>
>>To me the problem is that affirmative action isn't a solution. It's
>>like someone hitting you on the right side of your head and giving you
>>a headache. Then they say "Don't worry, I'll fix it" and they hit you
>>on the left side of the head to balance things out. It doesn't work
>>that way. It only makes they headache worse. The solution to
>>discrimination is not more discrimination. The solution is less
>>discrimination.
>
>You are oversimplifying and buying into the myth that anti-Affir.Action
>people spew. You are listening to the politicians give you an all-
>encompassing tied-up-with-a-bow-ontop explanation for all of the woes here
>in the US.
Actually I haven't heard many politicians speak out against
affirmative action since their scared senseless of being called
racists.
>You've bought the party line. Congraduations.
Actually I came up with the lines all by myself. Maybe the party
bought the Brian line :-)
> You no longer
>have to take any sort of responsibility for anything that happens to you
>as you have something handy to blame.
Actually I don't blame affirmative action for my personal woes. I
think it hurts the average women or minority person more than it hurts
me. If I were a poorly educated person or someone from a poor
background it would probably hurt me more. My concern is not how it
effects me personally. My concern is how it messes up the country.
>It used to be the Communists - before that it was the Irish and Eastern
>European immigrants (the Catholics, damn Papists). It used to be the pill
>and the women's movement. Now it's the new immigrants and Affirmative
>Action - before that it was unwed mothers (still is to an extent). There's
>always something to blame for problems we started ourselves.
Actually we did start the welfare system and affirmative action
ourselves. So you are entirely correct that we did start the problems
ourselves. Now it's time to clean up our mess.
>
>
>joan
Timothy J. Lee
|I have confidence in the marketplace. Glass ceilings will break as
|CEOs put profits over anything else. While there may be the
|assumption that the best person will be male and white. Situations
|will surely occur where it is painfully obvious that the best person
|is female and black. Each time it occurs, and that person is
|promoted, it will make it easier for the next female black person to
|move up.
Problem is, in some jobs, it is difficult to determine who is
better at doing the job. Discrimination based on useless things
(including, but not limited to, race or sex) easily creeps in
(and is less obvious when it does) when determining who is better
at doing the job is difficult. Where determining who is better at
doing the job is easy, discrimination based on useless things is
less common and easier to detect.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee tim...@netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.