Originally posted by Saphronia
Even after the abolition of slavery laws were put on the books that made educating blacks difficult.
The history I think you are disconnected from is the overall conspiracy to keep poor people (of all races) on or below the poverty line. Without free
labor there has to be a labor class for capitalism to work properly.
Far from being oblivious to this, I consider it the crux of my agreement with Traub. Although it is virtually undeniable that a functioning capitalist
system requires a "mud sill" class of workers, not necessarily in poverty, but who take a significantly lesser cut from the fruits of their labor so
that those who control the capital will have sufficient incentive to invest, this class need not be defined by race or birth. There will in fact be
such a class in virtually any conceivable evolution of American society, but it is entirely possible, if education were properly reorganized and
reformed, that this class would consist not of the disadvantaged but chiefly of those who by their own lack of ambition or aptitude were unable to
better their lot despite having been given an opportunity.
This is precisely why I do not believe in giving a bonus for college admission on the basis of race. I believe that this distracts us from what those
who have been traditionally disadvantaged, often by design, truly need, which is fair access to a sound education which will make them competitive and
offer them the chance to make or break their future based on their own personal ambition and skill, not where their parents lived or what color they
The best and brightest of the poor are forced to learn among the crackbabies and the socially retarded. Somehow they find their way to the
door of the dean of admissions looking for an opportunity in the right setting to excell. In a perfect world they would have perfect scores and
perfect gpa's...this world is flawed as evidenced by the laws used to hold black people back for centuries.
You're telling me. I can't even express how difficult it was for me to get anything out of my public school education. How in the heck is someone on
my level supposed to continue advancing and reach ivy-league standards when even the honors class at my school was full of english-second language
students who could scarcely command the language in some situations? I come from the gutter too- trust me, parts of the area I'm from, including
areas where I have lived at times, are virtually indistinguishable from the areas of Mexico which I have seen; the streets are in awful shape, homes
are in grevious disrepair, and the schools consequently the schools are woefully underfunded- and on top of that what funding exists is mismanaged.
They revamp the bathrooms just so the vandals and gangsters can tag them up again and kick the doors off the stalls- meanwhile the newest history book
I was able to lay hands on didn't contain anything more current than the Gulf War, and only the bottom of the barrel teachers would choose to teach
at my school. I didn't learn anything valuable in public school. I got my education online and at the local library, by myself, or in some cases from
talking with my grandpa about his work (he worked in agriculture- lots of math and science in those conversations).
This again is exactly why we need to reform our education system. We need evenly distributed funding, we need higher teacher standards and incentives
for going where they are needed; "combat pay" if you will. We need performance based student assignment- those who exert an effort- who don't miss
school, who turn in their work, etc should be going to the best schools with the best teachers, the most current books, and more technological
resources. Those who have made the choice to screw around and stay in the working class can be treated accordingly and stay in our current "daycare"
You can get so much of a bonus for being black maybe, but quotas were stricken down in the Bollinger case, so if the rich kids are getting too much of
an advantage, your bonus won't be enough. Not to mention that your white neighbors are staying behind just because of their skin color. We ought to
have a better sense of fairness than that. We need to go with answers that give maximum preparation to those who have the personal character to pursue
it and make use of it, with not one of those people overlooked.
But, to your larger point, it doesn't matter that we agree that schools are under funded and should be revamped because this will never be
Can't is a 4 letter word. It can be accomplished. For Christ's sake this is America. We specialize in the impossible. Sometimes we have to kill
somebody to accomplish it, and fine by me. Somebody may have to drag a few politicians out into town square and lynch them before anything changes
(hopefully not) but oh well if that's what it takes, and there's no reason that shouldn't be done if it's necessary.
My approach to things, for what it's worth, is that you identify the problem, you come up with a workable sollution, you start advancing that idea,
and you continue right on up your list of options until you've tried EVERYTHING within the law- then you make a moral decision about whether or not
it's worth going beyond the law.
I've got to get off this computer now, but I'll add more later.
Edit to Add:
I contend that bonuses in the name of "diversity" (which I distinguish from affirmative action in that AA is intended to overcome the disadvantages
created by past wrongdoing whereas "diversity" is not intended to overcome past wrongs necessarily according to Justice Powell) is not even a
bandage, but a laughable excuse from the powers that be to derive political and economic benefits for themselves by retargeting discrimination from
minorities to "majorities" (and keep in mind that this will be a misnomer soon, and infact already is in many localities, including mine.).
I believe that to happily embrace that reality, and in the process give an implied affirmation to the "justification" of past discrimination, rather
than attacking the larger, more direct problem, simply because that problem is "too big" runs contrary to virtually every value of America and
probably even democracy itself.
Once we start down that slippery slope we find ourselves eyeballing other expedient but immoral and ineffective psuedo-sollutions for problems which
would be difficult to correct in a fair and direct manner; For example let's stop arresting gang members who push drugs to children or commit acts of
violence, because a disproportionate number of them are minorities and it would be way too difficult to change the circumstances which draw
economically disadvantaged minorities into gangs at such a disproportionate rate.
without it there was damn near a revolution. Crumbs from the elite's table always satisfy the masses just enough to shut the # up and go to
Perhaps the disconnect between our points of view is that I think that if needbe there SHOULD be a revolution. I believe that the common people of
whatever race should not be placated by insubstantial pacifiers. I'm not advocating that we jump straight to blood in the streets obviously though.
I'm advocating a political revolution accomplished by shrewd bargaining by independents and third parties, as well as coordination of various PACs
and lobbies, and above all, ballot initiatives, because I am convinced that a relatively small cadre of intelligent and charismatic people can
galvanize the population and bring about radical change.
I believe in this not only as a possible sollution, but as a stepping stone to revolution if that awful necessity should arise, which it could if
things get any worse. Look at America's separation from Britain. We tried to do it right. We got together, made our grievances known, offered
proposals to the king, undertook a campaign of (semi) civil disobedience, and then, when the population had seen that the government would not respect
them, only then was it time to fight, but it was indeed time to fight, and fight is exactly what the people chose to do.
Also keep in mind that revolution is a RIGHT which the founding fathers valued dearly as the last desperate line of defense for all individual rights,
and is arguably protected by the spirit of the law, especially if other documents of America's founding are taken into consideration as indicators of
original intent, including the articles of confederation and the Declaration of Independence. Especially the Declaration, which was essentially the
of our declaration of war against Britain, which was later acknowledged by France and Spain, and therefore under international law
may set certain precedents for the legitimacy of revolutionary governments whether implemented through revolution, civil war, or simple disregarding
and replacement of the existing government without armed conflict (as is exactly what the framers did to the articles when they penned the
You're dope though...I like you.
I hope this didn't go on too much of a tangent or become too militant- I put a little less effort into this edit, I just took a few minutes to wrap
up what I cut short earlier with a little elaboration.
[edit on 21-9-2005 by The Vagabond]