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

231–240 of 318 posts

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

#231

Post by rmc »

clarky07 wrote: post #145
arrrg wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about until there no longer is any significant racism that systematically disadvantages black people?

Instead we have a system that systematically disadvantages non black people. Just stop discriminating. Either way. No reason to have one or the other have an advantage. We just had a black man elected to his second term as president, so I think that's a pretty good sign we aren't that racist. This wouldn't have happened a few decades ago.

that's a pretty good sign we aren't that racist

Yes the level of racism is probably going down. However that doesn't mean it's at zero now.

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

#233

Post by rmc »

ta12121 wrote: post #166
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…

If the US government wants to atone for its immoral actions in the past it should pay reparations not institute a system of race based discrimination. If, on the other hand, the US government wants to help disadvantaged people gain a level economic footing with the rest of the population they should use a much better predictor of disadvantage than skin color.

they should use a much better predictor of disadvantage than skin color

What would you suggest? All methods of trying to measure "disadvantage-ness" will be flawed (including race/ethnicity ones). I mentioned this in this comment http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4758649

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

#234

Post by Karunamon »

king_jester wrote: post #216
Karunamon wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>However, the fact that you see something wrong with providing help in finding employment for native people I didn't say this. I said that stating a racial preference in an employment advertisement is wrong and discriminatory regardless of the noble aims of the reasons those ads exist. >That you yourself took a position to defend normative ideas that actively perpetuate real, actual violence and harm What the actual…

Well, you directly said you found racial preference for native people in job ads is "wrong on a number of levels" (originally phrased as a rhetorical question). But we know that native people suffer in a systemic way in US society, so they do need targeted help and policies on the basis of race in order to allow them to have the equal participation in society they deserve (and to help them not be disproportionately a…

>This instance of a job ad with a stated preference for native peoples is discriminatory, yes, but that is wholly acceptable given the state the US and its policies have put native peoples in.

You agree that it's discrimination. Finally.

So discrimination is okay in certain circumstances.

.. I find that hard to accept. Again, you're proposing that the answer for discrimination is more discrimination. What does violent crime and equal participation in society that you keep bringing up have to do with allowing one group to do something we don't allow any other group to do?

What does allowing this accomplish that enforcing the existing equality laws does not? (Referring to EEO and EEH acts, if they are applied like they should be?) Legally, how does this not fall afoul of the equal protection laws as defined in the constitution?

On a more practical level, wouldn't it be more beneficial for everyone involved (the employeer, the employee, society at large) for someone hiring for a position to choose the most qualified person for the job rather than selecting explictly for racial background?

>Your message isn't just that all discrimination is wrong. You quite clearly took aim at the behavior of and policies directed towards minorities as wrong or unjust.

That is my message, and whatever other subtext you choose to read into it is entirely between you and your keyboard. Knock it off.

I don't feel particularly discriminated against here, so I hardly have a dog in this hunt. I don't like how I'm not allowed to question a discriminatory law without being presumed racist. Basically pointing and asking "WTF?" is what I'm doing here.

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

#235

Post by rmc »

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

Another way to think about it: Wealth (and power) is often passed down through generations, through families, from parents to children. Most people are fine with this. Hence people now who are advantaged might be likely to have benefited from slavery in the past, when it was passed down. Why is the wealth allowed to be passed down, but not the responsibility?

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

#236

Post by flxmglrb »

How exactly is this a "secret weapon"? Obama did not carry any of the states in this region except perhaps Florida (it's still being counted), which is not even among the states with these swatches of ancient plankton deposits.

Also, if you look at the map it's clear the blue patches are clustered around major highways and rivers, which is where the population centers will obviously be. As we've seen before, the Democratic / Republican divide is very strongly along the lines of urban vs. rural. There doesn't seem to be any mention in the article of how that factors into this. Obviously there is a bit of chicken & egg thing going on with population and highways, but you would think there could at least have been some discussion of this.

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

#237

Post by brianchu »

silverbax88 wrote: post #225
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…

We absolutely need affirmative action, based on race, based on gender, and based on ANY disenfranchised group. Corporations and colleges are still biased against race, because the demographics of corporations do not reflect the population as a whole, and if they were hiring correctly, they would. On other words - if 20% of the general population of 300 million people is a certain race, it stands to reason that corpor…

Saying that the demographics of colleges/corporations don't match those of colleges directly is evidence of racism is a logical leap that is completely false. Right now colleges already practice affirmative action. Yet African Americans are still underrepresented.

Why? African-Americans on average have lower incomes and thus lower high school educational attainment.

You should be treating the root cause (low-income) instead of implementing a plan that benefits the children of well-off African-Americans and the children of African immigrants to a greater degree than it benefits the children of low-income African-Americans (because those kinds of African-Americans are more likely to meet the minimum qualifications and benefit from the extra boost of affirmative action), a system that also detracts from the opportunities of poor whites and Asian-Americans, as affirmative action is inherently a zero-sum game.

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

#238

Post by rabid_fish »

numo16 wrote: post #165
rabid_fish wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't help but reply to this thread. I grew up in L.A., came to Iowa for college and stayed. Am now in my late 30's. Was not affiliated with any party when I caucused for Obama the first go 'round. Iowa is an interesting political crossroads for the nation. We have a large percentage of the population above 65 - 15% ( http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-09.pdf ) - and still rural - 36% as of 2010 ( ht…

> We are somewhat socially liberal - gay rights are making headway here - and fiscally conservative - our state sales tax is 6%. Based on this everything else you mentioned about Iowa, it seems like it would be a great state for third party candidates to try to upset the two party balance.

I agree that Iowa would be a good place for third party candidates to make a run, but the problem they have is visibility. There's no national visibility, and there's no local coverage. We have strong local media though, and I would actually call them balanced, so I've no idea why the visibility is lacking.

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

#239

Post by clarky07 »

Natsu wrote: post #219
tdfx wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think poor, white people are an edge case. As of 2007, 9.9% of the white, non-hispanic population lived in poverty (compared to 27.6% of black people and 26.6% of hispanics). The numbers are lower, but they are far from edge cases. The source of adversity in the human experience is not solely rooted in race.

Just curious, but what do you get if you multiply those percentages by the size of those groups?

~24 mil white ~11 mil black ~14 mil hispanic

Imagine that. All kinds of people leaving in poverty and having disadvantaged lives.

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

#240

Post by shantanubala »

Karunamon wrote: post #207
shantanubala wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meaning, what? I'm not "affected" because I have to deal with someone who, say, hates white people? The problem is mainly that a white person only needs to deal with racism on a personal level, and this racism is easy to ignore and "walk away" from. A black person or latino has to not only deal with racism from individual people, but also inequities that are the result of our society. What are these inequities? Her…

>Now you might say, "but what if blacks and latinos just aren't suitable for our government, educational institutions, workforce, and popular culture?" Except I wouldn't say that, because first, it doesn't make any damn sense, and second, it's the kind of ignorant tripe you'd expect to hear a white supremacist say.

Ah, my bad -- the sentence was phrased a bit poorly. By "suitable" I meant "good for the job" -- ie there may not be a large enough pool of talent available to fill necessary roles appropriately. There's a common argument that, "maybe they just don't want the jobs" adequately explains and justifies the situation. I didn't mean it personally in any way, nor did I mean that your position automatically includes that kind of an opinion :-)
Post reply on HN