Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obama's Secret Weapon In The South is 129 Million Years Old

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 318 posts

Re: Obama's Secret Weapon In The South is 129 Million Years Old

#181

Post by iy56 »

arrrg wrote: post #76
kitsune_ wrote: post #3

This article is nothing more than blog spam. Yeah, it provides a link back to the original post, but that's about it. Even most of the images are lifted.

Nothing was lifted. The article was published on a different website with a larger audience. (That’s how people found it and posted it here, so don’t you dare question the value of republishing something.) I assume that NPR asked the author for permission to republish. Why are HN readers trying so hard to be assholes about stuff like this?

If everyone only submits the original article to HN, all discussion is consolidated into one thread. If ten people each submit a different republication of the same article, discussion is fragmented. It's not a value judgment, it just makes using the site easier.

Re: Obama's Secret Weapon In The South is 129 Million Years Old

#182

Post by king_jester »

Karunamon wrote: post #116
king_jester wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot create institutional and systemic racism against white people. White is the cultural norm in the US: everything is default to white perspective and whiteness is considered the most desireable state. Even if a minority treats an individual white person badly, that white person can typically walk away from that encounter without being affected, nor have that sentiment compounded by society at large every day…

>..that white person can typically walk away from that encounter without being affected Meaning, what? I'm not "affected" because I have to deal with someone who, say, hates white people? >Yes, but the rules are not evenly applied. Aha. Sounds like the problem is here. The laws we have need to be applied correctly, instead of inventing new and questionable ones. >The only thing wrong here is your sentiment. Any "sent…

shantanubala did a good job talking about some of your points, so I don't have any thing particular to add. However, the fact that you see something wrong with providing help in finding employment for native people speaks volumes about how you feel about native peoples with regard to how they interact in US society. You call decisions that include race as a factor as discrimination, but that ignores the long legacy and reality of discriminatory policies and social norms in the US as they relate to people of color.

> I'm beginning to think race discussions are becoming the new religious discussions. People are incapable of discussing it without moralizing, preaching, or talking down.

That you yourself took a position to defend normative ideas that actively perpetuate real, actual violence and harm is a sign you yourself, whether you realize it or not, have taken a position of talking down and over the actual experiences of people of color. The reason why people take race discussion seriously is because for people of color these things are not just discussions, but the real existence they face every single day.

Re: Obama's Secret Weapon In The South is 129 Million Years Old

#183

Post by clarky07 »

vec wrote: post #180
clarky07 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying in general, I'm talking specifically about AA. With affirmative action and applying to something like grad school, a minority that is "qualified" can and will get a spot over a non-minority, that is "slightly more qualified." In general, averaging across all of America, I'm certain it's an advantage to be white. I'm also certain it's an advantage to grow up to rich parents. I'm also certain it's an adv…

Yes, but the absolutely most qualified person for a whole bunch of things is disproportionately often white and male. And even if we as a society wake up tomorrow magically not racist or sexist at all, that will be the case for the foreseeable future simply because white men have disproportionate amounts of money and connections. Hiring through AA is _intentionally_ suboptimal. The whole point is to give members of d…

Instead we discriminate against the poor white guy from the ghetto growing up with a single mom? Brilliant. That guy had none of the supposed white male advantages. Hire/accept people based on their merits. If you want to take into account overcoming adversity that's fine with me. But picking someone based on the color of their skin, be it white, black, or other, is wrong, and it's racist.

Re: Obama's Secret Weapon In The South is 129 Million Years Old

#184

Post by king_jester »

zanny wrote: post #160
adaml_623 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the part of his comment that did counter some of what you said. You said: "Affirmative action should exist; but it should be entirely based on parental income, growing up in a poor area, or other disadvantaged indicators. Not race, not ethnicity, and not gender. These things don't prove you're poor or disadvantaged." which seems quite reasonable. He said: "Also, helping people who are affected by instituti…

Countering institutional racism is reactive. It isn't passive like affirmative action is. I think he is describing facilitating courts to allow the discriminated to sue the discriminators, and given sufficient evidence charge them with racial discrimination. I do agree with him though, you don't repay racisms of the past and present with more racism in the opposite direction.

I'm not really sure how affirmative would be a passive policy vs. a reactive one, would you be able to elaborate on that?

Also, use of the legal system to remedy institutional and societal problems has really only been effective to introduce marginal change in the face of existing problems, so its not an overall solution to the problem, just a small part.

> I do agree with him though, you don't repay racisms of the past and present with more racism in the opposite direction.

This would of course assume that it is possible to be institutionally racist against the predominant white culture in the US, which is not possible. In that sense, a policy such as affirmative action is not racist and instead is a policy that combats racism.

Re: Obama's Secret Weapon In The South is 129 Million Years Old

#185

Post by binarycheese »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #117
rayiner wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The justification and rationale for race-based affirmative action is somewhat different from anything favoring people of low socioeconomic class generally. It has to do with correcting specific and massive historical wrongs in which our government was complicit, not lifting up disadvantaged people generally. Conflating the two is a little silly. If I destroy your house, you're not going to be happy if I make amends t…

Let's accept that rational; but that does leave one question: when does this end? If we have no way to measure the damage then how do we measure the resolution of the damage? Do we continue this for 5, 10, 50, 100, 500 years? Or do we simply never end it? Do we try to "correct" it so there are literally no poor people of a particular ethnicity? How realistic is that?

Slavery lasted for 400yrs(+).

Re: Obama's Secret Weapon In The South is 129 Million Years Old

#186

Post by mikeash »

javert wrote: post #125
loumf wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could have conveyed the non-snark by just omitting your parenthetical. Everything before that is totally valid, but the parenthetical invites the kind of reply that doesn't actually move the conversation in the way I think you intended. (Edit, adding): Also, when you use "", it's much better if you are actually quoting. If not, you are putting words in their mouth.

Thanks. This is useful. It got me thinking. If I had just not put the parenthetical, it would make it look like I was "really asking" the question. That would treat the derivation in question as potentially legitimate (it's really not), and also invite serious but non-useful responses. So that leads me to conclude that I just shouldn't have phrased my point as a question in the first place. I could have just stated m…

That's pretty much what I was trying to say with, "What is the point of even asking a question that you're sure you already know the answer to?"

I guess you were trying for a rhetorical question, but I think that requires either:

1. The answer to be obvious to everybody, both asker and audience. E.g. "Do we really want to destroy all life?"

2. The question to be a lead-in to a discussion or argument. E.g. "Is it better to have more blue cars available for consumers to buy? I think so, and here's why."

You didn't do #2, so it looked like #1, but in context that's horribly dismissive.

Re: Obama's Secret Weapon In The South is 129 Million Years Old

#187

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #41

I think this is a great answer to people who ask why we still need things like affirmative action. Here you have a continuing demographic phenomenon that can be traced directly back to slave ownership patterns hundreds of years ago. It should be noted also that the black belt is also a terribly poor stretch of the country. Unfortunately, it appears that socioeconomic patterns are imprinted more deeply than anyone wou…

[deleted]

Re: Obama's Secret Weapon In The South is 129 Million Years Old

#188

Post by king_jester »

grannyg00se wrote: post #156
alxp wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is racist by the fact that it is based on race. Your definition is too simplistic. Racism isn't just prejudice based on race. Racism requires a power imbalance. Acting to counteract an institutional imbalance caused by racism is not "just anotehr kind of racism."

Oppression requires a power imbalance. Racism only requires using race as a classification upon which you base your actions. Choosing who you hang out with simply based on race is racism even though ut is not a power imbalance. And you can act to counteract an institutional imbalance caused by racism without furthering racism. Focus on something else. Race is being reinforced as an accepted means to classify people a…

> Racism only requires using race as a classification upon which you base your actions.

This completely flies in the face of the history of racism and racism systems in the US. The most raw and visceral forms of slavery and de-facto slavery in the US are most certainly based on power imbalance. Being disproportionately affected by laws and economic policy drafted by mostly white political bodies is a power imbalance. Direct, physical actions by police forces and governments against communities of color is a power imbalance. All of these things are institutional problems regarding race the US faces today and all come back to fundamental power imbalance.

> And you can act to counteract an institutional imbalance caused by racism without furthering racism.

Absolutely true, and policies such as affirmative action do not further racism but rather attempt to fix a small aspect of it.

> Focus on something else.

This is a total derailment. Institutional oppressions are highly linked to racism, to ignore it is to dismiss the criticisms and voices of people of color point this power imbalance out.

Re: Obama's Secret Weapon In The South is 129 Million Years Old

#189

Post by [deleted] »

iy56 wrote: post #178
dharmach wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are willing to wash their hands off their ancestors' sins but without realizing the booty they keep enjoying from the same ancestors. How fair is that a guy shackled for years is freed suddenly and asked to participated in a race as an equal?

So we should shackle the other guy for a few years to compensate? Two wrongs don't make a right.

[deleted]

Re: Obama's Secret Weapon In The South is 129 Million Years Old

#190

Post by mtoddh »

rayiner wrote: post #110
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with affirmative action is that it is based on race. It is racist. In fact it isn't just based on race, it is based on skin colour - since some mixed black-white people with white skin can be discriminated against. America needs to put race on the sidelines and start thinking in terms of class. You should help the disadvantaged or poor regardless of their great great grandparent's struggles. Affirmative a…

The justification and rationale for race-based affirmative action is somewhat different from anything favoring people of low socioeconomic class generally. It has to do with correcting specific and massive historical wrongs in which our government was complicit, not lifting up disadvantaged people generally. Conflating the two is a little silly. If I destroy your house, you're not going to be happy if I make amends t…

A lot of people don't believe that Americans of today should be liable for the actions of Americans then.

It seems like there's two lines of discussion around this topic. One, as you've pointed out, is whether people should be liable for the actions of past Americans (ie, whether something like affirmative action should exist in the first place). The second is whether affirmative action is the best way to remedy the mistakes of the past. It seems (to me) like a lot of people disagree more on the second point.

Post reply on HN