posted
According to the article below, Asians need to post HIGHER math and verbal scores just to have the same chance as whites to get into Harvard. ------------------------------------------------------------------
MONEY QUOTE: "Asian-American students with almost perfect college entrance-exam scores, top 1 percent grade-point averages, academic awards and leadership positions are more likely to be rejected than similar applicants of other races, according to their administrative complaint, filed Friday with the US Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights. Harvard denies any discrimination."
SO let me get this straight. Everyone is always beating up on black folk yet here are Asians who are playing by the rules, and even they STILL are not getting what they deserve? But yet assorted "heriditarian" types keep talking about "merit"? Hmm.. Very interesting.. And this issue s not new. There have been several bias complaints about elite US colleges and how they are freeing out higher performing Asians. This is a long-standing issue. http://news.yahoo.com/claims-of-anti-asian-discrimination-at-harvard-reveal-a-long--complicated-fight-over-affirmative-action-231625860.html
"Asian-American students with almost perfect college entrance-exam scores, top 1 percent grade-point averages, academic awards and leadership positions are more likely to be rejected than similar applicants of other races, according to their administrative complaint, filed Friday with the US Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights. Harvard denies any discrimination."
posted
Elite white universities discriminate against Asians using reverse "affirmative action" to keep out "too many" Asians. This phenomenon has been largely swept under the rug by white elites and Asians compradors, but the average Asian parent raised protests when California state policy threatened recently to restore AA "quotas" that freeze out Asians.
This pattern is reminiscent of what blacks endured in the early NBA. As credible histories show, on into the 1960s NBA teams used "informal" white quotas to limit the number of blacks playing, with the result that more talented, more skillful, harder working black players were frozen out of lineups so lesser whites could get team slots. Sometimes the "informal" white quotas extended to starting lineups. As old-line NBA legend Connie "The Hawk" Hawkins said on his biography: "In those days, if you were black, yo were starting," going on to say that team rosters that could have been filled with good black players, were reserved for more mediocre whites and only a few black "stars" were allowed- in starting lineups.
It was a shrewd strategy. How could anyone make a discrimination case if you had 1 or 2 black guys starting? As team owners figured out, few people looked at the bench and at depth charts. Elite white colleges and their supporters have used a similar "rope a dope" obfuscation strategy. The quota systems so obsessed over by the white masses have a dual purpose. It is not merely handing a few quota slots to blacks and browns (note there are those blacks and browns who don't need quotas by the way), but quota systems also LIMIT the number of better qualified Asians, to the benefit of white people. And the real good bonus about this strategy is that the spotlight can be turned on black scapegoats if things get ugly.
If Jews control the admission committees, coud it then be argued that limiting Asian admissions helps boost Jewish admission?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:"If Jews control the admission committees, coud it then be argued that limiting Asian admissions helps boost Jewish admission?"
There was a "numerus clausus" in place for generations to block Jewish over-representation at Harvard. What did they do? They just went further down the street and set up and opened MIT. Some people even say that MIT is a tougher school than Harvard.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well this is only a symptom of the fact that America was built on fake unnatural immigration and quota policies. The only reason the whites have tolerated it and not complained is because historically the quotas and affirmative action were for them. Also, where were all these Chinese, Filipino and Indian folks 100 years ago at the height of lynchings? They weren't here because they couldn't come here. So the other part of this is not only do they have a quota system to limit the number of blacks, but they have a quota system within a quota system. Because technically ALL these quotas for schools, jobs and everything else 'set aside' was supposed to be for black folks as the only 'minorities' at the time (with native Americans and latinos to a lesser degree). But good old Southerner Lyndon Johnson and the rest of the white establishment played a trick on those simple minded civil rights folk. They passed the 1965 Immigration Act right after the Civil Rights act which opened the flood gates for all these other folks to come here. So now instead of it just being an issue of blacks competing with whites, it is blacks competing not only with whites, it is blacks competing with other 'minorities' who technically were not even part of the civil rights struggle. Yet they get the same benefits since they are lumped in with all the rest of the minorities when it comes to those kinds of quotas. Which was all intentional and by design.
Now, all that said, Asians are flooding American universities. There are 275,000+ Chinese alone in American universities. That does not include other Asian ethnic groups. So the big picture here is that America has given away all of its treasures to the highest bidder. Go on a campus of any of these elite universities and you will see a flood of Asian faces, especially in the North East. It is ironic that this is happening in California which has an even larger population of Asian immigrants. And again this is by design, the elites like China because it is an imperial communist combine where human rights are secondary to the goals of the party. It is a demand economy where things are built by demand not by what is best for the market. Hence all the ghost cities all over China built by the Western Educated Chinese engineers.
quote: American higher education is in the cross hairs of a heated national debate over the value and cost of a college degree. Yet in China, our fiercest global economic competitor, the popularity of American colleges and universities might be at an all-time high.
I just returned from a trip to Beijing, where I spoke with Chinese parents about the value of American education, where we excel and where we fall short. Not surprising was the extent to which the Chinese value education, especially primary and secondary education, and yearn for their children to attend American universities, and if possible, stay in America.
When I engaged Chinese parents about their children, they would often say, "My son (or daughter) is going to Princeton (or fill in the elite American university)." I would respond, "Great! What year is your son or daughter right now?" And they would say, "Three years old."
This passion for education starting at such an early age is powerful. After meeting with Chinese teachers, parents and children, three differences were immediately clear.
posted
The Asians are just acting silly on this one. Harvard admits only 5% of applicants. So to really have a diverse student body--with room for wealthy international applicants too--those admitted must represent society as a whole.
Why? All applicants to Harvard are mostly equally qualified to enter. The difference is that while 40% of AA applicants may be admitted given their relatively smaller applicant pool only 20% of Asians may be admitted.
The point that most people fail to note is that all the Harvard applicants would be in the 98th to 100 percentile in terms of SAT scores.
So the Asians should just quit moaning.
But the big question is: what is so special about Harvard? MIT, Cal Tech, Princeton, Yale, Stanford are all in the same prestige bracket.
Plus, Harvard has been noted to produce its fair share of moronic jackasses over time.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug, The Chinese were trucked in during the 1860s to lay railway tracks. Check the history on that. But I doubt they were part of the U.S. Civil Rights struggle.
The optimal solution is for AAs to demand that all HBUs become state universities thereby guaranteeing adequate funds and go from there. But AAs don't makes such demands, preferring instead to absorbed into the white universities. Thus most of the parents of past Howard graduates would prefer to send their children to Harvard than to Howard.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black folks the bus has not only left, but it is not even being manufactured here any more.
quote: This report uses a new database on foreign student visa approvals from 2001 to 2012 to analyze their distribution in the United States, finding that:
The number of foreign students on F-1 visas in U.S. colleges and universities grew dramatically from 110,000 in 2001 to 524,000 in 2012. The sharpest increases occurred among students from emerging economies such as China and Saudi Arabia. Foreigners studying for bachelor’s and master’s degrees and English language training accounted for most of the overall growth. Foreign students are concentrated in U.S. metropolitan areas. From 2008 to 2012, 85 percent of foreign students pursuing a bachelor’s degree or above attended colleges and universities in 118 metro areas that collectively accounted for 73 percent of U.S. higher education students. They contributed approximately $21.8 billion in tuition and $12.8 billion in other spending—representing a major services export—to those metropolitan economies over the five-year period. Most foreign students come from large fast-growing cities in emerging markets. Ninety-four (94) foreign cities together accounted for more than half of all students on an F-1 visa between 2008 and 2012. Seoul, Beijing, Shanghai, Hyderabad and Riyadh are the five foreign cities that sent the most higher education students to the United States during that time. Foreign students disproportionately study STEM and business fields. Two-thirds of foreign students pursuing a bachelor’s or higher degree are in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) or business, management and marketing fields, versus 48 percent of students in the United States. Both large (San Jose, Calif.) and small (Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas) metro areas figure among those with the highest shares of their foreign students in STEM disciplines. Forty-five (45) percent of foreign student graduates extend their visas to work in the same metropolitan area as their college or university. Metro areas that retain high shares of their foreign graduates under the temporary Optional Practical Training (OPT) program tend to be either large diversified economies (e.g., New York, Los Angeles), or specialized labor markets that align closely with foreign graduates’ training (e.g., Honolulu, Seattle, Las Vegas).
These findings suggest that foreign students can provide important economic benefits to their U.S. metropolitan destinations—serving as bridges back to their growing home cities and offering valuable skills to local employers. More metropolitan leaders should emulate leading practices that capitalize on the knowledge and relationships of foreign students to strengthen local economies while also maximizing students’ educational and professional experiences in the United States.
These students will become the non white ethnic component of choice for gentrification in American cities, while those who fought and died for access to these benefits get pushed to the side.
quote: URBANA-CHAMPAIGN, Ill. -- It would be hard to find a more iconic American campus than that of the University of Illinois's main campus here. On the unseasonably warm late October weekend when the homecoming football game is played, the trees have changed to their fall colors and the central quad is alive. Students wearing orange Illinois gear crisscross it. Three young women who do not lack for pep pose for pictures, their arms arched into the shape of an I, an L, another L. One of those tightrope-like slacklines that have become ubiquitous on college campuses is strung between two trees.
Couples snooze, families walk dogs, a child rides piggyback. A group of revelers, possibly students, possibly young alumni, traverse the quad with an air of purpose: one clutches a Bud Light in an orange cozy, while another announces to anyone within a 20-foot radius that she really needs to pee. Toward the end of the weekend, on Sunday afternoon, an all-male a cappella group called the Xtension Chords gives a concert in front of the student union, concluding with a performance of “I Love Illinois” sung to the tune of “I Love Rock N’ Roll” (sample lyrics: “Wisconsin’s got no class/And Indiana can kiss my a…”).
Outside the twin cities of Urbana and Champaign, miles of corn and soybean fields spread as far as the eye can see. The university’s nickname in China, I’m told, translates roughly as “village of corn.”
That's not an idle fact. UIUC enrolls nearly 5,000 students from China, more than any other U.S. university. Nationally, the number of Chinese students in the U.S. has risen fivefold since 2000 – driven by a big increase in the number of Chinese students going overseas for their undergraduate degrees – but even against that backdrop of growth the expansion of the Chinese student population at Illinois’s public flagship university has been remarkable: a university that enrolled just 37 undergraduates from the People’s Republic in 2000 enrolls 2,898 today. Nearly a tenth of this fall’s freshman class – 684 students – hail from China. There are more freshmen from China than there are, combined, from 48 of the 50 states, all save for Illinois and California.
Even at the graduate level, where there was a larger base to begin with, UIUC’s Chinese student enrollment has more than tripled, from 649 in 2000 to 1,973 this fall.
The 4,898 Chinese students make up the largest group of international students on Illinois’s campus, followed distantly by students from South Korea (1,268 this fall) and India (1,167).
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Doug, The Chinese were trucked in during the 1860s to lay railway tracks. Check the history on that. But I doubt they were part of the U.S. Civil Rights struggle.
The optimal solution is for AAs to demand that all HBUs become state universities thereby guaranteeing adequate funds and go from there. But AAs don't makes such demands, preferring instead to absorbed into the white universities. Thus most of the parents of past Howard graduates would prefer to send their children to Harvard than to Howard.
Yes they were trucked in and then they stopped bringing in more Chinese because of the backlash from other European 'affirmative action' babies. So the Chinese that came here created China towns all across the country.
And NOBODY was part of the civil rights movement except black folks, but EVERYBODY has gotten the majority of the benefit, including Asians, Hispanics, white women and so on. Black folks are still sitting at the back of the bus economically and socially because if you look at the history of white European colonialism, they have ALWAYS played ethnic groups off against each other. And when it comes to colonies in Africa and the Carribean they ALWAYS used Indians and Asians as buffers between themselves and black folks. And then they will sit there and claim that these 'other folks' are doing better than the Negroes because the Negroes are just inherently stupid. Of course the SYSTEM of white supremacy has nothing to do with it. This is why Idi Amin expelled Indians from Uganda, because they were British imports who figured they had a 'right' to a piece of Uganda's economy while the black folks stayed poor. All of these folks are basically in the pocket of white supremacy as white folks can do no wrong as long as they give these people a share of the spoils of the colonialism and slavery pie. Black folks have never gotten a cut of anything.
And like I said, all of this is artificial because no country on earth outside the Western colonies built in the last 500 years has been explicitly built on immigration. But most people don't realize that these countries are simply corporations built by the original globalists who were the elites from Europe. So of course as a corporation they don't care about people and populations, they are just human resources to be moved around as needed to serve the bottom line. India, China and Africa are ancient cultures and do not need and cannot use immigration in the same way as it makes no sense. Most ancient societies always used homegrown wealth and the cultivation of the population within the country as the basis for growth of advanced societies not immigration. And that is really the only thing that makes a nation a nation, which is the concept of 'us' as a cohesive ethnic and social construct. But now with globalization especially with these European satellite colonies as the drivers of most wealth and innovation, you get the idea of a 'us' as a melting pot which is totally artificial and fake and only really relevant to the artifically created white colonies in the first place. China will never be a 'melting pot'. Neither will India or Africa. Melting pots are simply the result of European colonists invading and dominating native people, importing African slaves and then allowing the best and brightest from all over the world to share in the stolen wealth and profit they have gained from 400 years of dominance.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Parts of Africa are already class-based and race-based melting pots. Examples: South Africa with Europeans and Indians holding away. Kenya, where Indians hold sway. West Africa--except Nigeria-- where Lebanese hold sway. Egypt, where motley groups of settlers from West Asia, Europe and Turkey hold sway--especially in the North--Cairo, Alexandria, etc.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Parts of Africa are already class-based and race-based melting pots. Examples: South Africa with Europeans and Indians holding away. Kenya, where Indians hold sway. West Africa--except Nigeria-- where Lebanese hold sway. Egypt, where motley groups of settlers from West Asia, Europe and Turkey hold sway--especially in the North--Cairo, Alexandria, etc.
Parts of Africa are already class-based and race-based melting pots. Examples: South Africa with Europeans and Indians holding away. Kenya, where Indians hold sway. West Africa--except Nigeria-- where Lebanese hold sway. Egypt, where motley groups of settlers from West Asia, Europe and Turkey hold sway--especially in the North--Cairo, Alexandria, etc.
That is not a real melting pot in the sense of how European colonists used it in reference to the America. A 'melting pot' refers to the blending of various ethnic groups on a social, ecomomic and genetic level producing a large number of 'mixed' children of various backgrounds. What you have in Africa is a primarily African population that has some pockets of various ethnic groups who stay to themselves for the most part, even though there is SOME mixture. In a melting pot, mixture is the goal and the norm, not the exception. However, keep in mind that even this ideal is not really practiced as the colonizers still tend to stick to their own and not really mix with other populations, especially those they consider 'lower' than themselves.
What I meant about Africa is that the population is growing not because of immigration from other countries but because the reproduction within the local population. The presence of non Africans will always be as a significant minority in most African countries, as even with the colonization the whites were still a significant minority.
But then again, you got some boneheads who think letting MORE foreigners in will make Africa better....
The distinction and context has to do with social and economic development of the local population as the primary GOAL of the country. As opposed to relying on foreigners to do everything while the local population stays undeveloped and unable to address their own issues.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is not a real melting pot in the sense of how European colonists used it in reference to the America. A 'melting pot' refers to the blending of various ethnic groups on a social, ecomomic and genetic level producing a large number of 'mixed' children of various backgrounds
I don't know where this has ever been the case except Brazil. Yet there are many blacks in Brazil who are strictly African in phenotype.
And incidentally the "coloured" population of South Africa is some 4.6 million which amounts to approx. 10% of the population.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug says: Also, where were all these Chinese, Filipino and Indian folks 100 years ago at the height of lynchings? They weren't here because they couldn't come here.
True no one has suffered more than black folk on this, but in some cases Chinese were lynched and driven out, particularly in California during the 1800s because they competed with whites. White people could not treat Japanese the same way during this period because Japan was a major military regional power, compared to a weak China during this period. They banned Japanese immigration but could not afford to undertake the freewheeling violence against Japanese on the West Coast that the Chinese endured.
lamin says: The Asians are just acting silly on this one. Harvard admits only 5% of applicants. So to really have a diverse student body--with room for wealthy international applicants too--those admitted must represent society as a whole. Why? All applicants to Harvard are mostly equally qualified to enter. The difference is that while 40% of AA applicants may be admitted given their relatively smaller applicant pool only 20% of Asians may be admitted... So the Asians should just quit moaning.
This doesn't make sense. Why are Asians being "silly" when their test scores are superior to whites, but they are still being frozen out? If it was black people you would not dismiss it as being "silly" nor would you tell black folk to "quit moaning" if only 1-2 black players were allowed to start in the NBA- like it used to be in the 1950s. The fact is that Asians don't primarily compete with the small number of Blacks and Hispanics for slots. They mainly compete against whites, which is why whites are anxious to keep them out.
In fact there is some evidence that whites are using preferential admission policies to keep Asians out. So called "race quotas" only make up a pitiful 3-5% of slots. LEGACY admissions for rich white kids, or kids of alumni, or other "preferred" kids make up between 10-30% of students admitted to the Ivy Leagues. SO while everyone is beating up on the 2% of black kids who may have gotten in under "diversity quotas" (NOTE- some black kids DON'T need such quotas), up to 30% of the slots are safe white slots from the get go- also preferential treatment quotas, but you don't hear much about these from white people, who are all too ready to beat up on the brothas as scapegoats.
Legacy admissions are the dirty little secret of "white quotas" today. Some white people like to lecture black folk about "merit" but when the spotlight is shined on them they turn out to not be the shining "role models they advertise themselves to be.
posted
Doug says: And NOBODY was part of the civil rights movement except black folks,.. Not quite accurate if you say that literally. It would be better to say black folk were the major and primary driving force, the overwhelming majority, but there were some other people in the mix as well- though a smaller minority.
But you are correct that the struggle allowed a lot of other people to piggyback on the benefits. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ironically, as a numerical sense, actually helped more white people that black, because white women were covered by it, and they have done quite well in using it to combat disrcimination. Jews also benefitted from such things- housing policies that kept Jews out of certain neighborhoods usually also kept blacks out. JEws benefitted when the walls came tumbling down, including the matter of university admissions. hell, even white homosexuals have piggybacked on, using it to push their "gay" marriage agenda.
Further down the line are various Aa quota policies which came some years after the CRA of 1964. But there again everybody as been cashing in on the sacrifices of black folk. Hell in DC during the 1980s a large number of so-called "minority set aside" contracts went to white businessmen from Portugal, playing the "Hispanic" angle. The Fanjul family of millionaires out of CUba, also cashed in big tome in Florida using the "Hispanic" angle. Koreans and ther Asians have also cashed in on the wide variety of programs put in place.
An the biggest single benefiiary numerically has been white women. Again, many like to bash black folk, even as they cash in on the bitter sacrifices that black folk have to make to even get minimal rights.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Namerthoth says: lol, inspite of the large number of African American millionaires/Billionaires in America, Negroes have failed to build even one university since the time of reconstruction.
Not true at all. You do seem to forget about places like Tuskeegee, and many others. And black folk did not have money to burn after slavery. Most were just trying to stay alive, and dodge racists. Teachers had to be hired and paid. Books had to be bought. None of this comes from the tooth fairy. None of this came easy to struggling ex-slaves. So what if they got help from the outside? White schools get outside help all the time. And while they got some outside help, Tuskegee was heavily built with "sweat equity"- the buildings, the roads, the furniture, etc had to be built and fabricated the hard way. And exactly what credible universities has Louis Farakhan built? And why has he taken Libyan, Saudi and other Arab money if he supposed to be so "independent"?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Please do NOT respond to the banned because your post will be deleted if you choose to do that. When I put out the trash I don't want it dragged back in.
THANK YOU ONE AND ALL
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This doesn't make sense. Why are Asians being "silly" when their test scores are superior to whites, but they are still being frozen out? If it was black people you would not dismiss it as being "silly" nor would you tell black folk to "quit moaning" if only 1-2 black players were allowed to start in the NBA- like it used to be in the 1950s. The fact is that Asians don't primarily compete with the small number of Blacks and Hispanics for slots. They mainly compete against whites, which is why whites are anxious to keep them out.
What I wrote does make sense. I wrote that the differences in test scores for all admitted applicants is not statistically significant.
And I must add that test scores alone are not the sole criterion to be admitted to Harvard and institutions like that. There are cram courses offered by various SAT preparers that would prepare you to score high on the SATs. But the prices are high on this one.
The sensible thing the Asians should have done before mounting a silly law suit would have been to ask Harvard to reveal what are its admission criteria. The Asians would see right away that test scores are not the sole criterion.
Note too that Harvard is a private institution so its owners and shareholders have a right to set whatever admissions standards they choose.
That law suit should be dismissed as frivolous.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
People build their schools to serve the needs of their community first, not to serve outsiders. Saying that you have the right to admission to someone's school based on scores is like saying that you have a right to enter someone's house they built for themselves and their family.
If ethnic minorities feel they are being excluded, the sensible thing is build their own universities and centres of excellence.
The only reason why the top Ivy League institutions admit high scoring ethnic minorities it because they would rather influence the psyche of talented blacks in a way that serves their own needs, than allow those blacks to be influenced be concerns that are more beneficial to their own communities as a whole.
If the Ivy League colleges were created to serve the needs of the white people then it is counter to their goals to admit fewer whites than they feel they should because Jewish or Asian students score higher. I think for elite white institutions to discriminate against other ethnic groups is a perfectly rational action. Just because someone's act is counter to another persons interests does not make it irrational or immoral. If they believe that admitting more people from other ethnic groups means educating fewer of the whites their institutions where purportedly setup for then they are well in order to limit intake of other ethnicities.
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
If the Ivy League colleges were created to serve the needs of the white people then it is counter to their goals to admit fewer whites than they feel they should because Jewish or Asian students score higher. I think for elite white institutions to discriminate against other ethnic groups is a perfectly rational action. Just because someone's act is counter to another persons interests does not make it irrational or immoral. If they believe that admitting more people from other ethnic groups means educating fewer of the whites their institutions where purportedly setup for then they are well in order to limit intake of other ethnicities.
The recent accusations have been compared to a time, several decades ago, when Harvard was accused of limiting the number of Jews being admitted to Harvard. Now the admissions board is supposedly largely Jewish so Harvard is now being accused of being biased toward admitting Jews and excluding a fair number of Asians.
I don't know how true it is, statistical data has to be analyzed. Some analysis has been done and assumptions are made sometimes based on surnames which can be inaccurate. Also, some of the Asian countries admissions are more based on test scores than in the U.S. where relatively more other factor are considered. So they may or may not be discriminating against Asians to an extent.
But you say it's o.k. to do this because why should an ethnic group be expected to act against it's own self interest.
The answer to that depends on whether or not society should be set up primarily along ethnic group lines, primarily along religious lines or primarily in the interests of the individual.
quote:Originally posted by Habsburg:
to discriminate against other ethnic groups is a perfectly rational action.
Some might say slavery is a rational institution
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
If the Ivy League colleges were created to serve the needs of the white people then it is counter to their goals to admit fewer whites than they feel they should because Jewish or Asian students score higher. I think for elite white institutions to discriminate against other ethnic groups is a perfectly rational action. Just because someone's act is counter to another persons interests does not make it irrational or immoral. If they believe that admitting more people from other ethnic groups means educating fewer of the whites their institutions where purportedly setup for then they are well in order to limit intake of other ethnicities.
The recent accusations have been compared to a time, several decades ago, when Harvard was accused of limiting the number of Jews being admitted to Harvard. Now the admissions board is supposedly largely Jewish so Harvard is now being accused of being biased toward admitting Jews and excluding a fair number of Asians.
I don't know how true it is, statistical data has to be analyzed. Some analysis has been done and assumptions are made sometimes based on surnames which can be inaccurate. Also, some of the Asian countries admissions are more based on test scores than in the U.S. where relatively more other factor are considered. So they may or may not be discriminating against Asians to an extent.
But you say it's o.k. to do this because why should an ethnic group be expected to act against it's own self interest.
The answer to that depends on whether or not society should be set up primarily along ethnic group lines, primarily along religious lines or primarily in the interests of the individual.
quote:Originally posted by Habsburg:
to discriminate against other ethnic groups is a perfectly rational action.
Some might say slavery is a rational institution
Don't confuse privately formed institutions with state owned institutions, and even state institutions tend to be created or influenced by private interests who want the state to fund their private goals.
Whether you like it or not educational institutions are formed with their founders interests at heart, and even if they have a desire to attract top talent regardless of ethnic origin they still have the founders interests at heart, ie the founder's ethnic groups, unless subsequently they get taken over by other cliques who also prefer to focus on their ethnic interests.
There is no such thing as society, that only exists in urban life style publications for wealthy urban sophisticates and their hangers on. There are only familes, extended families, clans, tribes or whatever unit of social organization you care for. They are also mostly related by blood, geographical origin (which also goes by blood) or by shared interests, or shared experiences at various institutions, such as colleges, church, mosque, military, company employment.
Just because white communities are not outwardly tribal or clan oriented does not mean internally they are not. They know themselves, they just don't announce it.
Slavery is the result of captivity or subjugation, and in some cases debt, which should let you know that it runs along ethnic lines as well.
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
lamin says: What I wrote does make sense. I wrote that the differences in test scores for all admitted applicants is not statistically significant.
^^Your position still don't make sense. You avoided answering what I asked you before- would you be willing to apply your reasoning to black NBA players, who despite superior accomplishment and skill, were locked out of both starting lineups or out of the reserves in favor of more mediocre whites? You avoid answering because your position continues to be very weak.
And you are wrong about the test scores not being statistically significant. In fact Asians have demonsrated clear superiority over the whites. Why are they being "frivolous" when the question how come white people with lesser qualifications are being admitted ahead of them? Isn't this what white people have been bashinng black folk with over "affirmative action"? Haven't we all heard noble speeches about "merit" from white people, but when push comes to shove, "meritorous" white "role models" are not all they are advertised to be?
The sensible thing the Asians should have done before mounting a silly law suit would have been to ask Harvard to reveal what are its admission criteria. The Asians would see right away that test scores are not the sole criterion.
This too makes no sense. They already KNOW what Harvard's admission criteria is. And in fact if test scores are not the sole criterion then why is it that NON test score factors weigh so heavily as to trump academic work? This is a very valid question not a "silly" one. In fact black folk have often been victims of "additional" factors, like the "need" for union cards to get certain jobs. Who controlled the issue of union cards- the white union bosses. Who got most of said cards- white buddies, cronies and relatives. Who got frozen out by such "additional" factors? The brothas. White people have always played the "additional factors" game to "hookup" their own people. Asians have caught on to the game.
That law suit should be dismissed as frivolous.
^^Nonsense.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hapsburg says: Just because white communities are not outwardly tribal or clan oriented does not mean internally they are not. They know themselves, they just don't announce it.
Indeed. White people have grown more sophisticated nowadays. These days the snarling old Klu Kluxer is gone. In his place is a suave "heriditarian" type deploying smooth distortions. White people have gotten so sophisticated that they now use black "affirmative action" as a reason to cut back on Asians. Blacks are used as scapegoats.
While knee-jerk head count admissions may have begun as a “response” to ghetto unrest and activism in the 1960/ 1970s, those times are long gone, and in any event were closely controlled and limited. White people today are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. The so-called “quotas for blacks” are a smokescreen whites may be using to LIMIT ASIAN NUMBERS, via admission formulas that allow whites to gain slots on things other than strict test scores.
For example, lets say you get extra points for “community service” or “civic engagement.” While all those Asian kids are grinding away and going to cram schools solely for the best test score number, the extra points given for “civic engagement” will favor whites, who typically, on the average, can show more of such extracurricular activity. These extra point can tip an admission slot towards a more “well rounded” white candidate, beating out the Asian with a higher number. It is the same “Jew reduction” tactic of the past. “Community service” might be only one such “tipping” factor. There are other factors that weigh in college admissions- including Essay writing, Teacher recommendation, Counselor recommendation, Class rank, Portfolio, Extracurricular activities, Work and so on. These factors have helped SOME black candidates build up enough points for admission, but they ALSO work in favor of whites to cut back on Asian slots.
Think about it. Why would white people be so incredibly generous as to hurt their own via this wave of “black quotas” alleged by assorted right wingers? They aren’t- for 3 reasons:
1) The number of black students admitted under quotas is trivial overall, and AA quotas have been carefully controlled and limited since the 1970s e.g. numerous lawsuits such as Bakke. Contrary to the usual propaganda, there is no vast horde of blacks on campus due to “quotas” and quotas are primarily operative on high-end campuses with very few minorities.
2) Admission “point” systems allegedly “helping only” blacks are MORE helping whites, by enabling them to bypass and squeeze ahead of Asians who may post better raw numbers. Unz’s analysis suggests that certain elite institutions can manipulate a variety of factors, not because of “guilt” or “self-hate” but to help whites edge out the Asian competition- you know- via that prototypical “well rounded” candidate. Translation: less “narrow” Asian grinders on campus. A similar pattern operated to screen out Jews in years past.
3) Blacks can be used as front-men and scapegoats for the above- taking the heat from assorted bigots, bashers and baiters. In the meantime, behind the scenes, the admission structures are manipulated to hinder or slow down the real competition- Asians.
See book- The Retreat from Race: Asian-American Admissions by Dana Y. Takagi – which documents how white colleges use various tactics to “phase down” Asian admissions in favor of whites, and to shift the blame to black and Hispanic scapegoats.
Interestingly enough, there have been a number of articles showing white people RUNNING AWAY from tough Asian competition. In some school districts, white parents flee certain schools because the percentages of Asians enrolled are “too high.” In short- it is too competitive. But of course one rarely reads about such things in the right wing media. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/06/AR20 08070602343.html?hpid=topnews
As for government reports, the US Department of Education found discrimination against Asians in favor of whites in admissions to various university programs. Asians scored higher, but the white administrators of the programs found OTHER reasons to find whites more deserving of admissions than Asians. (Alexander 2005- Racism, African Americans and Social Justice)
See the game? Everybody rushes to beat up on black scapegoats, while white people manipulate the cards behind the scenes. Yet another study Andrea Guerrero’s “Silence at Boat Hall” found the same pattern. Asians did not compete against blacks and Hispanics for the miniscule number of “minority” slots- they went head to head against whites. She quotes Sum Cho, chair of the Graduate Assembly at Berkeley who demonstrated specifically how white university administrators were playing the “black card”- trying to explain away drops in Asian admission by blaming “affirmative action” for blacks, when in fact, Asians do NOT fall under the “minority” category but are competing directly with whites.
Says Cho: “The most vile thing the university is doing is using affirmative action as a scapegoat.” The tactic of white liberal administrators is to blame a reduction in Asian slots on blacks, thus diverting attention from their favoritism towards less deserving white students. In fact the white Berkeley regime was forced to publicly admit discrimination against Asians, complete with public apology, when memos surfaced confirming the “yellow out” – such as minimum scores being imposed to limit Asian admissions. Guerrero 2002- Silence At Boalt Hall) White neocons also seized on the scapegoat tactic, again using it to divert attention from white favoritism, when in fact Asians were not even in the trivially small “minority” category but competed directly against whites, and were denied admission despite scoring higher than whites. Despite all the talk about “merit” whites may actually OPPOSE merit, if it means Asians get ahead.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Asian Americans students comprise of Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Indian students are very smart. After white people the Asian American are the majority of people working in Silicon Valley , California.
The Chinese political and business elite send their children to USA university to be educated. This is the proof that the USA and China being political enemy is fake. You don't send your children to your enemy house. Your enemy will hurt your children. China and the USA are friendnemy.
Lyndon Johnson and the rest of the white establishment played a trick on those simple minded civil rights folk. They passed the 1965 Immigration Act right after the Civil Rights act which opened the flood gates for all these other folks to come here. So now instead of it just being an issue of blacks competing with whites, it is blacks competing not only with whites, it is blacks competing with other 'minorities' who technically were not even part of the civil rights struggle. Yet they get the same benefits since they are lumped in with all the rest of the minorities when it comes to those kinds of quotas. Which was all intentional and by design.
Now, all that said, Asians are flooding American universities. There are 275,000+ Chinese alone in American universities. That does not include other Asian ethnic groups. So the big picture here is that America has given away all of its treasures to the highest bidder. Go on a campus of any of these elite universities and you will see a flood of Asian faces, especially in the North East. It is ironic that this is happening in California which has an even larger population of Asian immigrants. And again this is by design, the elites like China because it is an imperial communist combine where human rights are secondary to the goals of the party. It is a demand economy where things are built by demand not by what is best for the market. Hence all the ghost cities all over China built by the Western Educated Chinese engineers.
So America wants to give away all of its treasures to the highest bidder?
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: "If Jews control the admission committees, coud it then be argued that limiting Asian admissions helps boost Jewish admission?"
Now you get it !!!!!
Im Waiting for the Asians to actually state this publicly and see what the reaction is.
Well there has been some data on Jews in places like Harvard and various writers argue that Jewish accomplishment is not that spectacular, and has been surpassed by Asians. Hence, Jews are OVER-REPRESENTED at elite schools and have a vested interest in holding down Asian numbers. If as is oft claimed, Jews have a disproportionate presence on admission committees to these schools, then they are in an even better position to suppress Asian numbers. I do not agree with these writers on all points but their data on Jewish over-representation seems fairly solid.
If the above is true then, some questions. Could it be argued that:
1) When AA first came out, Jews correctly saw that so-called “minority quotas” would be used against them to reduce Jewish numbers. The Jew head count could be reduced by saying a certain number of slots were reserved for blacks, browns and reds and yellows initially. This accounts for the vigorous opposition by Jews to AA early on?
2) Jews spearheaded opposition to AA and gained good influence with white right wingers, traded in return for support of Israel? Under this scenario, Jewish neo-cons made common cause with the white right, the foot soldiers of Nixon’s “southern strategy” and as part of that alliance- garnered support for the State of Israel among that white right. Hence Republicans including Reagan allied themselves with the agenda of the Israel lobby on numerous occasions. So it was a fair deal? Jewish neo-cons would lend their intellectual firepower to the anti AA bandwagon to help pump up the white right wing base, and in return they got right wing support for Israel's agenda?
3) Some Jews thus gained a 5-spot benefit during the “Affirmative action” wars?
3a) They limited the spread of AA early via a huge barrage of criticism, including lawsuits
3b) They ingratiated themselves with the white right wing
3c) As part of the ingratiating, they got favorable treatment for the Israel agenda
3d) They talked up Israel as a “strategic asset” to right wing hawks and internationalists, tying Israel assistance to American hegemonic projects
3e) They captured gushing support from high placed right wingers like Reagan, to lower end white fundamentalists.
---------------------------------------
So are Asians are just now beginning to see how so-called “minority quotas” are being used as a wedge against them?
Whites can keep out Asians by a variety of means such as the “need for well rounded candidates,” but also, crucially, by arguing that the small number of black and brown slots is responsible for Asians being underrepresented relative to their test scores, grades, etc. But Asians do not compete for the trivial number of “minority slots.” They go head to head with whites, in open competition. Talking bout “black quotas” shifts the scrutiny from white manipulation to the all too easy black scapegoats.
Sweet! Blacks can be put out front to take the heat, while yellow numbers are cut back or stymied, behind the scenes. Jews saw the game early on and did an end-run. Asians are increasingly coming to understand the double game being played?
^^Ahh the perennial black scapegoats... White university administrators have been using the brothas as scapegoats to explain away drops in Asian admissions..
---------------------------
Originally posted by kdolo: Im Waiting for the Asians..
^^Asians may be catching on to the game. Yet another study, Andrea Guerrero’s “Silence at Boat Hall” found the same pattern. Asians did not compete against blacks and Hispanics for the miniscule number of “minority” slots- they went head to head against whites. She quotes Sum Cho, chair of the Graduate Assembly at Berkeley who demonstrated specifically how white university administrators were playing the “black card”- trying to explain away drops in Asian admission by blaming “affirmative action” for blacks, when in fact, Asians do NOT fall under the “minority” category but are competing directly with whites.
Says Cho: “The most vile thing the university is doing is using affirmative action as a scapegoat.” The tactic of white liberal administrators may be to blame a reduction in Asian slots on blacks, thus diverting attention from their favoritism towards less deserving white students. In fact the white Berkeley regime was forced to publicly admit discrimination against Asians, complete with public apology, when memos surfaced confirming the “yellow out” – such as minimum scores being imposed to limit Asian admissions. Guerrero 2002- Silence At Boalt Hall) White neocons also seized on the scapegoat tactic, again using it to divert attention from white favoritism, when in fact Asians were not even in the trivially small “minority” category but competed directly against whites, and were denied admission despite scoring higher than whites.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zarahan, Still your post doesn't make sense. Pre-Civil Rights days blacks were kept out of many avenues and were subject to discrimination. Even today, black workers are shunted aside in favour of Hispanic workers. Your point about black and white basket-ball players doesn't apply today because the NBA is 75% black. Basketball is a business determined by what the fans are willing to pay for. Similarly, there was a "numerus clausus" at Harvard to limit the number of Jews admitted.
Whereas in Pre-Civil Rights days "racial exclusivity" was the legal norm in the U.S. there was a legal sea-change instituted by Civil Rights legislation. Culturally, Affirmative Action and Multiculturalism became part of the cultural landscape. Harvard is just following suit. The slogan is not only to "integrate the work place" but also to "integrate the classroom". Hence all ethnic groups should be allowed in in adequate numbers so that they will later match the integrated workplace.
It seems to work because 94% of blacks graduate compared to 94% for Hispanics--most of whom would be white--, Whites 98% and Asians 99%.
Standards are not lowered because world university rankings put Harvard in the top 3 perennially. See the Times of London rankings. The top Asian university comes in at 43. The top university in China is at 48.
Education prepares for the workplace. The EU and the U.S. combined produce more than China, India, Japan and South Korea combined. Is there an issue with the metrics here. See world GDP rankings.
In terms of Human Welfare, no Asian nation except Singapore are in the top 10. China is 91. See Human Development Index.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Error above: Hispanics graduate at the 95%. Nite that the graduation differences between the groups are not significant. Whites graduate at 98% and Asians at 99%. Whites--including Hispanic whites--are 76% of the U.S. population while their Harvard percentage is below 60%. All the ethnic groups are underrepresented while Asians are overrepresented.
Asian students travel all the way from China and Korea to study in the U.S., so why can't U.S.-born Asian students travel to China to boost the standards at the University of Beijing--given their extreme willingness to identify as "Asian"?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
lamin says: Pre-Civil Rights days blacks were kept out of many avenues and were subject to discrimination. Even today, black workers are shunted aside in favour of Hispanic workers. Your point about black and white basket-ball players doesn't apply today because the NBA is 75% black. Basketball is a business determined by what the fans are willing to pay for. The point about the NBA does apply because you are saying discrimination against the Asians are fine, but duck applying the same discrimination to blacks in the NBA. Again you are avoiding the point. As for what white customers are willing to pay for -in fact, white customers DO pay to see the best players, and the NBA would NOT be 75% black today if the discriminatory practices it used in the 1950s and early 1960s were applied. Back then, MORE qualified black players were often frozen out.
Culturally, Affirmative Action and Multiculturalism became part of the cultural landscape. Harvard is just following suit.
Yes, and as the case with Berkeley shows above, white university administrators have tried to use the tiny number of black admissions under AA as scapegoats for the limitations on Asian numbers. (Note there are black students that DON;T need preferences- also white legacy preferences can exceed any race preferences depending on the college).
Affirmative Action has been part of the landscape indeed, and has been under attack almost from the beginning, and has been substantially and limited for over a decade. California's Prop 209 which gutted racial preferences for example was back in 1996. The Croson and Adarand cases which gutted minority contract set asides are fro the 1980s and 1990s. AA has been on life support for years, yet assorted white right wing propagandists keep beating the drum as if it just came out yesterday, or as if it has had widespread influence.
Asian students travel all the way from China and Korea to study in the U.S., so why can't U.S.-born Asian students travel to China to boost the standards at the University of Beijing--given their extreme willingness to identify as "Asian"? The Asian universities (for now) do not have the depth or advanced faculty and reputation as a Harvard or MIT. But who says there are not Asian students going to Asian institutions? Students have been going to China to get more in-depth on the language and culture all the time for example. International studies majors, language majors, and so on have always went overseas.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The point about the NBA does apply because you are saying discrimination against the Asians are fine, but duck applying the same discrimination to blacks in the NBA. Again you are avoiding the point. As for what white customers are willing to pay for -in fact, white customers DO pay to see the best players, and the NBA would NOT be 75% black today if the discriminatory practices it used in the 1950s and early 1960s were applied. Back then, MORE qualified black players were often frozen out.
Confused comment--just missing the meaning of the post-Civil Rights U.S. cultural shift in the direction of "let the work-place and the class-room reflect society and promote inclusiveness". The Asians don't seem to understand that point.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually this whole fiasco is part of the plan by America bringing in new immigrants to play the role of buffer against the upward mobility of black folks. Remember, prior to the 1960s, Asians and all these other folks could not come to America, except for the Chinese and we already know how that went. But right after the Civil Rights act was passed, they passed the immigration act of 1965:
quote:In 1965, Congress amended the 1952 immigration law. In part, this change was a response to the ColdWar politics of the time. American lawmakers were concerned about competition with communist nations and believed that more open immigration policies would reflect well on the reputation of the United States abroad. A major stimulus to this new legislation was the opposition to racially discriminatory laws arising during the Civil Rights era. Michigan’s Democratic senator Philip Hart, one of the sponsors of the 1965 reform, declared that the effort to maintain the American creed and to protect the American political heritage required that American immigration policy become more consistent with democratic moral and ethical principles. ... Consequences of the Law
Contrary to the predictions of Senator Kennedy and President Johnson, the 1965 immigration law was followed by both an enormous increase in immigration and changes in the countries of origin. From 1971 to 1980, 4,493,000 immigrants were admitted into the United States, an increase of 1,171,000 over the years from 1961 to 1970. The increase in numbers accelerated in the decades that followed. By 1990, of the estimated 21,596,000 foreign-born people living in the United States, about 43 percent had arrived during the 1980's. By the year 2007, more than 38 million immigrants lived in the United States, accounting for about 12 percent of the country’s total residents.
Meanwhile, the primary countries of origin shifted from Europe to Latin America and Asia. By the late 1990's, about one-half of all immigrants in the United States were coming fromLatin America and about one-quarter from Asia. During the last three decades of the twentieth century, immigration was the primary source of demographic change and population growth in the United States. As a result, scholars in this field use the term "post-1965 immigration" to refer to the new trends that followed the change in law.
Now why did they bring in all these immigrants into America right after the passage of the civil rights act? Well of course it was partly for public image, but the larger goal was to replace blacks as the primary minority population in the country. It meant that all these other folks were implicitly receiving benefits paid for in the blood, sweat and tears of black folks. And it creates voting blocks and interest groups that politicians can focus on, ala illegal immigrants, while totally ignoring the issues of blacks as 3rd class and 4th class citizens...
Also, in terms of education, since they can attract so many immigrants from all over the world to get into these colleges and universities, why on earth do they need to spend money on quality education for Negroes? They don't, but they can still fill their quota of 'minorities' using Asians and other folks instead of blacks and appear to be liberal and progressive. That is the con game being played on black folks. Once black folks are run out of the cities, these immigrants will become the basis of the "new America" that was envisioned where black folks no longer exist as a substantial minority representing a thorn in the side of America's public image. Now they will be able to push a parade of faces to represent America from all over the world while black folks languish in obscurity.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Actually this whole fiasco is part of the plan by America bringing in new immigrants to play the role of buffer against the upward mobility of black folks. Remember, prior to the 1960s, Asians and all these other folks could not come to America, except for the Chinese and we already know how that went. But right after the Civil Rights act was passed, they passed the immigration act of 1965:
Meanwhile, the primary countries of origin shifted from Europe to Latin America and Asia. By the late 1990's, about one-half of all immigrants in the United States were coming from Latin America and about one-quarter from Asia.
Now why did they bring in all these immigrants into America right after the passage of the civil rights act? Well of course it was partly for public image, but the larger goal was to replace blacks as the primary minority population in the country. It meant that all these other folks were implicitly receiving benefits paid for in the blood, sweat and tears of black folks. And it creates voting blocks and interest groups that politicians can focus on, ala illegal immigrants, while totally ignoring the issues of blacks as 3rd class and 4th class citizens...
zarahan do you believe the above theory?
Are Mexicans allowed into America to keep blacks down or is it because they are willing to do menial labor for sub-standard wages?
Are they also letting too many Asian immigrants into the U.S. ? That implies they should cut back according to Doug.
zarahan, and so that lamin knows where you are coming from, correct me if I am wrong, you are against affirmative action progams - what is your solution, that college admissions should go strictly by test scores?
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Actually this whole fiasco is part of the plan by America bringing in new immigrants to play the role of buffer against the upward mobility of black folks. "
Bingo !!!!
-------------------- Keldal Posts: 2818 | From: new york | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
"She quotes Sum Cho, chair of the Graduate Assembly at Berkeley who demonstrated specifically how white university administrators were playing the “black card”- trying to explain away drops in Asian admission by blaming “affirmative action” for blacks,"
" The tactic of white liberal administrators may be to blame a reduction in Asian slots on blacks, thus diverting attention from their favoritism towards less deserving white students."
JEWS !
non Jewish whites and Asians are discriminated against in favor of Jews.
-------------------- Keldal Posts: 2818 | From: new york | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
lioness says: zarahan do you believe the above theory? Are Mexicans allowed into America to keep blacks down or is it because they are willing to do menial labor for sub-standard wages?
It's a combo. I think, and I don't believe in the theory as you phrase it. I think though that cheap Mexican labor has been encouraged to do the jobs blacks will not do FOR THE WAGES OFFERED, just as they have been encouraged because white Americans will not do certain jobs for certain wages. And while there may be no "central white hearquarters" coordinating anything, it is not unreasonable to conjecture that SOME white people are only to happy to see blacks displaced by Mexicans.
Let's look at why-
1) the Mexicans will work certain jobs for lower wages than blacks,
2) they will yield higher profits per square foot of rental property as many families or individuals pack into housing vacated by displaced blacks,
3) they tend to be less vocal and active politically (illegal immigration being one reason) than blacks, and finally-
4) Per the old saw: "if you brown hang around, if you black get back" - Hispanics have always had more biological links with whites under the "Latin" umbrella of Spanish and Portugese hegemony in the Americas. Hence there are many more interracial marriages between Hispanics and whites, and in fact many Hispanics are eager to embrace whiteness- i.e Cubans, Puerto Ricians etc. Indeed as white populations decline demographically, the "mestizo option" as in South America, where whites still remain frmly on top is likely the wave of the future. Just as Jews, Italians and other Euro ethnics were eventually classified as "white" by the dominant culture, Hispanics are eager to be next in line. All these are reasons for white people to be glad to see blacks depart.
What reasons can you, DOug, or lamin come up with, nay or yea?
------------------------------------------------------------- But time for you to answer some questions. Are you are against affirmative action progams? What is your solution, that college admissions should go strictly by test scores?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
But time for you to answer some questions. Are you are against affirmative action progams? What is your solution, that college admissions should go strictly by test scores?
I asked you first
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic