Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Tea Party: Racist or Victims of Racism?

Jul 19, 2010#1

Troll

Let's dive right into it, shall we?

The Tea Party is in some hot water at the moment over a controversal blog post where a member referred to the head of the NAACP as "Tom's nephew and NAACP head colored person."

In response, a coalition of the Tea Party expelled the guy and his particular branch of the movement. Many have called the Tea Party racist in the past, and they can't seem to escape the criticism due to regular screw ups by their members. Of course, the Tea Party is also trying to fight back by claiming people who call them racist are racist themselves, which is complete and utter bullshit IMO.

Basically it's ugly and doesn't look to get any better in the near future.

So, is the Tea Party racist? Is anyone who claims they are racist actually racist themselves? Is the Tea Party helping or hurting conservatives? Are they ever going to gain legitimacy as a political movement, or will they turn out to be a fad?

Jul 19, 2010#2

Matt²

No I don't believe the good ones are at heart racist (and no I am not a member). It's probably a short lasting fad.

Jul 19, 2010#3

Element 117

troll discussing racism. how racist.

Jul 19, 2010#4

Sparhawk

No, not racist. Just like any movement, you have "members" that don't toe the line. They are doing the right thing, by expelling those that are spreading a message that goes against what the movement as a whole is stating. Both Dems and Reps have had people that they have tried to distance themselves from, and members that they should have.

People that speak against them, not sure, depends on how those individuals or groups address their concerns. When they are using language that implies that all the members are backwood rednecks without any education... maybe, but it depends on the context.

Jul 19, 2010#5

The Lovely Boehner

The Tea Party has a lot of racists in it. I haven't seen any laws yet that take civil rights away from white people, so I have a really hard time giving half a fuck about any racists in the Democratic party.

Jul 19, 2010#6

AshburnerX

Is the Tea Party actively trying to use hate and intimidation to oppress minorities in it's rallies as a matter of design and intent? No. The Tea Party's only real concern at this point is to create a TRUE financially conservative party in the US that doesn't alienate many of the people it would appeal to. If anything its trying desperately to not fall into the same pit trap the Libertarian Party fell into, by doing it's damnedest to portray an image that says all are welcome (As opposed to the Libertarian's image of wealthy, affluent whites attempting to sequester themselves AWAY from everyone else).

Does the Tea Party CONTAIN Racists? Oh hell yeah... but the party is still in it's infancy. It hasn't clearly cemented the party's purpose in the American Subconscious, so right now everyone is flocking to it in an attempt to make it their own. By throwing out these people, it's making a clear stance that it does stand for equality and that it wants to expand it's base to include anyone who is financially conservative, no matter where they are from or who they are related to. This is a smart move on their part, as right now it's predominantly white like the Republican Party.

I still won't vote for them though.

Jul 19, 2010#7

sixpackshaker

The Tea Party is going to stir the pot because they want the Wing-nuts of America to join in droves. A lot of the rhetoric used against Obama's tenure has come off as rather racist.

Jul 19, 2010#8

The Lovely Boehner

The Tea Party was the major driving force behind the racist AZ legislation. They literally had a part in drafting it. I don't know how you can say they don't have a racist element.

Jul 19, 2010#9

Jay

Is that considered racist? Really? Does something so... trivial really spark such a debate? I mean, seriously though, does this warrant to be discussed on a global level?

Political parties aside, we're all racist. We just have different abilities being able to show it. You can claim you the most non-racism person but if you were stuck somewhere and surrounded by uncertainty deep down you'll still feel it. Emotions will bring it out. It's all about on how well can you keep it in. This applies to people on an individual level. Does the Tea Party truly warrant to be called racism? Then all Republicans should warrant to be called dimwitted rednecks, democratics be called etc...

An entire party cannot be judged on an action of specific individuals.

Here's another question to reply back to your question :

If Barack Obama was named Jack Reynolds and was a white guy from Tennessee... would he really have been elected president?

Jul 19, 2010#10

Philosopher B.

Jay said:
we're all racist.

Jul 20, 2010#11

JONJONAUG

This is how you prove that your movement is not racist:

Williams said:
Dear Mr. Lincoln

We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the ‘tea party movement’.

The tea party position to “end the bailouts” for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn’t that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.

And the ridiculous idea of “reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government.” What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!

The racist tea parties also demand that the government “stop the out of control spending.” Again, they directly target coloreds. That means we Coloreds would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government “stop raising our taxes.” That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.

Sincerely

Precious Ben Jealous, Tom’s Nephew NAACP Head Colored Person

Honestly with all the shit going on I don't think the Tea Party is ever going to get out of this phase.

Jul 20, 2010#12

Soliloquy

I covered a tea party rally for the news agency I interned for. Here's my thoughts on the matter.

1) is the tea party racist?

There was certainly some racism -- or what certainly seemed to be racism -- among crowd members. Some were holding signs telling Obama to "go back to Kenya" or calling his policies a "Jihad." In fact, one of the candidates for governor started spouting on about how Obama hadn't produced a valid birth certificate (I mentioned this in the story, and provided a link to a website showing that he had, in fact, produced this certificate. Journalism can be quite satisfying sometimes.)

But these people were very much in the minority. Most of the people with signs were complaining about one of our (very white) U.S. Senators, who will be up for election this November, and everyone I interviewed was concerned about big government, states' rights, too much spending, etc. -- then again, I stayed away from interviewing the nutjobs with crazy signs.

Granted, most of the protesters were very uninformed about what it is they were talking about... but so is the vast majority of Americans, no matter what side of the issue they stand on.

2) is the tea party a victim of racism?

I walked the grounds a few hours after the rally was over, and saw scrawled on the ground the words "Scared white people were here" -- essentially dismissing the protesters' concerns because of their skin color. This isn't the first time I've seen people mocking the protesters for this. I believe I've seen MSNBC and The Daily Show segments that have said similar things.

And i must say, the general sentiment of "these people are white, and therefore must be racist" rings of irony.

My mind initially protests such as the million-man march, and what it would mean to dismiss their concerns simply because they were black.

But I realize that's not an entirely fair comparison. The million-man march was specifically about race, so it would make sense for the aggrieved race to appear en masse. The tea party protests, however, seem mostly to be about the middle class wanting to be able to go their own way about life with minimal government interference. And, while white people make up the largest part of the middle class, they certainly don't make up all of it, making the absence of minorities rather... suspect.

So I guess this does lead to the question: why does the tea party have almost no minorities in it? Is it because of the perceived (and occasionally real) racism in the group? Is it because most minorities tend to be left-leaning anyway? Is it because there's a feeling of loyalty to the first black president?

Beats me. I'm a white middle-class male. And this stuff's friggin' confusing.

Jul 20, 2010#13

D

Dubyamn

I think so. I mean where were they for the last 8 years of the Bush administration? No rumblings against Bush's stimulus package. But once Obama is in office they got very loud very quickly and suddenly government spending and deficiets are the #1 concern.

Could be that the discontented republicans would have formed the party no matter which democrat beat McCain but somehow the positioning of the Tea Party strongholds makes me think that it would be a much weaker movement if the president was the same color.

Jul 20, 2010#14

AshburnerX

Dubyamn said:
I think so. I mean where were they for the last 8 years of the Bush administration? No rumblings against Bush's stimulus package. But once Obama is in office they got very loud very quickly and suddenly government spending and deficiets are the #1 concern.

Could be that the discontented republicans would have formed the party no matter which democrat beat McCain but somehow the positioning of the Tea Party strongholds makes me think that it would be a much weaker movement if the president was the same color.

Why would the Republicans WANT another Conservative party though? It splits the Conservative vote, thus helping ensure more Liberals get elected. It's the same problem the Left had with the Green Party.

Jul 20, 2010#15

crono1224

Jay said:
*Snip*

Weren't you the one that posted about koreans?

Jul 20, 2010#16

bhamv3

That would be the more serious version of Jay, I think.

Jul 20, 2010#17

D

Dubyamn

AshburnerX said:
Why would the Republicans WANT another Conservative party though? It splits the Conservative vote, thus helping ensure more Liberals get elected. It's the same problem the Left had with the Green Party.

You ever hear the term Tea party supported candidate? You know why the term isn't Teabagger nominee?

It's because the Tea party isn't a party. They don't run their candidates during the main election. No the Tea party supported candidates all run during the Republican primaries. Meaning that if they are elected the Tea party supported candidates will be caucusing with Republicans and will all have little Rs next to their state.

And what has happened in the states where the Tea party backed candidate lost? Well the candidate isn't running under a Tea party flag.

TLDR: The Tea party is a group within the republicans they vote republican and honor republican figures, They won't split the conservative vote.

Jul 20, 2010#18

AshburnerX

So it's acting as more of a special interest group and less of a political party all on it's own. I suppose that makes a bit more sense.

Jul 20, 2010#19

Ravenpoe

The tea party isn't a political party. They're an anti-party. They are a party organized around opposing things, with no real centralized idea of what they want. They know what they don't want.

Because they are based on opposition rather than solution, they are going to draw every nut job wacko out there, which greatly inflates their numbers. That isn't to say they're all wacko, but the crazy ones are the loud ones, and to the general population, it's the loud ones that get heard.

Jul 20, 2010#20

Krisken

Not to mention, there isn't just one Tea Party. Each state has two or three different "Tea Party" groups, all with slightly different rules and goals. So saying "Is the Tea Party racist?", what you have to ask is "Which Tea Party?".

Jul 20, 2010#21

Espy

Oh, totally racist.

Jul 20, 2010#22

GasBandit

Just about everything I would have wanted to say has already been said here by one person or another.

1) The Tea Party is not, in and of itself, a racist organization.
2) There are racist bigots IN the Tea Party, much like there are racist bigots in the NAACP (though unlike the Tea Party, the NAACP is inherently racist, but not necessarily bigoted)
3) The Tea Party isn't an actual political party, and it isn't run by one central authority. It's rather anarchist/populist in nature, except when somebody decides to organize something and sell tickets to it, trying to make a profit and undermining the entire point of it.

Jul 20, 2010#23

sixpackshaker

The over-arching organization that is leading the Tea-Party is Fox News. Some people that are tagging along with this movement my believe that they are a grassroots movement, but they have been Astro-Turfed by Rupert Murdock.

Jul 20, 2010#24

Krisken

sixpackshaker said:
The over-arching organization that is leading the Tea-Party is Fox News. Some people that are tagging along with this movement my believe that they are a grassroots movement, but they have been Astro-Turfed by Rupert Murdock.

Well, sure. The GOP and Fox News have used the Tea party groups to make money and further their own agendas. That only works for so long though. Eventually they will splinter and turn on eachother. That is the strength and weakness of uncompromising views.

Jul 20, 2010#25

JONJONAUG

GasBandit said:
2) There are racist bigots IN the Tea Party, much like there are racist bigots in the NAACP (though unlike the Tea Party, the NAACP is inherently racist, but not necessarily bigoted)

You're kidding me, right?

Jul 20, 2010#26

The Lovely Boehner

JONJONAUG;417246][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
2) There are racist bigots IN the Tea Party, much like there are racist bigots in the NAACP (though unlike the Tea Party, the NAACP is inherently racist, but not necessarily bigoted)

You're kidding me, right?[/QUOTE]
He's not.

Jul 20, 2010#27

Chazwozel

JONJONAUG;417246][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
2) There are racist bigots IN the Tea Party, much like there are racist bigots in the NAACP (though unlike the Tea Party, the NAACP is inherently racist, but not necessarily bigoted)

Jul 20, 2010#28

Necronic

For everyone towing the "we're all racist" line, I hear you, on a semantical level, but there's racist and then there's RACIST. The problem is that there is only one word. Well actually there's also Supremacist but that's too much. We really need an additional level.

There are no inherently racist policies or positions in the Tea Party movement, in as much as you can call it an organized block, so the movement itself isn't racist. However, if it's a matter of whether the movement is comprised of a higher percentage of racists...

Is that really a different question? If there was no official stand taken by a group, yet a disproportionate number of it's members held racist ideologies, would it make the group racist? I don't know. If it did then Republican's as a whole would probably be considered a racist party, which it's not. Well....on the other hand...

Jul 28, 2010#29

GasBandit

Chazwozel;417269][QUOTE=JONJONAUG;417246][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
2) There are racist bigots IN the Tea Party, much like there are racist bigots in the NAACP (though unlike the Tea Party, the NAACP is inherently racist, but not necessarily bigoted)

Jul 28, 2010#30

Krisken

Yeah, fighting monsters makes you a monster!

Jul 28, 2010#31

Chazwozel

GasBandit;420782][QUOTE=Chazwozel;417269][QUOTE=JONJONAUG;417246][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
2) There are racist bigots IN the Tea Party, much like there are racist bigots in the NAACP (though unlike the Tea Party, the NAACP is inherently racist, but not necessarily bigoted)

Jul 28, 2010#32

GasBandit

Chazwozel;420848][QUOTE=GasBandit;420782][QUOTE=Chazwozel;417269][QUOTE=JONJONAUG;417246][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
2) There are racist bigots IN the Tea Party, much like there are racist bigots in the NAACP (though unlike the Tea Party, the NAACP is inherently racist, but not necessarily bigoted)

You're kidding me, right?[/QUOTE]

Truthiness: Gas has got it.

Racism:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

The NAACP isn't inherently racist, Gas. It was founded as a reaction to racism. Same goes for the Black Panthers.[/QUOTE]

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peoples. It's "fighting racism with racism," thus inherently racist. You can argue if you want that it's "good racism" (or if you want to really be appropriate, "it's not racism when WE do it"), but it's still racism.[/QUOTE]

How is the NAACP fighting racism with racism? How is fighting for civil rights and equality a racist thing? Your argument that the NAACP is racist is akin to calling the Gay and Lesbian alliance a hate group because it promotes giving homosexuals equal rights. They're not promoting anything in regards to persecutions towards whites or any other race, unlike for instance the KKK. The NAACP exists as a front to protect the civil rights of black people. That's all. They don't make any claims that black people are better than everyone else.[/QUOTE]

Racism doesn't JUST mean "we think this race is better than that race," it means discrimination on the basis of race. The NAACP favors discrimination in favor of a race. For example - Affirmative Action.

If something isn't racist, it would call for all judgements and decisions to be made regardless of skin color, not because of it. You know, kind of like Martin Luther King thought would be nice.

Jul 28, 2010#33

Chazwozel

GasBandit;420872][QUOTE=Chazwozel;420848][QUOTE=GasBandit;420782][QUOTE=Chazwozel;417269][QUOTE=JONJONAUG;417246][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
2) There are racist bigots IN the Tea Party, much like there are racist bigots in the NAACP (though unlike the Tea Party, the NAACP is inherently racist, but not necessarily bigoted)

Jul 28, 2010#34

GasBandit

Chazwozel;420927][QUOTE=GasBandit;420872][QUOTE=Chazwozel;420848][QUOTE=GasBandit;420782][QUOTE=Chazwozel;417269][QUOTE=JONJONAUG;417246][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
2) There are racist bigots IN the Tea Party, much like there are racist bigots in the NAACP (though unlike the Tea Party, the NAACP is inherently racist, but not necessarily bigoted)

Jul 28, 2010#35

sixpackshaker

The sky at night is white.

Frackin' racists.

Jul 28, 2010#36

Covar

Chazwozel said:
Affirmative Action isn't racist.

This I'd love to hear.

Jul 29, 2010#37

Chazwozel

Covar;420950][QUOTE=Chazwozel said:
Affirmative Action isn't racist.

This I'd love to hear.[/QUOTE]

Affirmative action states that all employers do not discriminate against potential employees regardless of gender, race, or religion. How is this racist?

---------- Post added at 07:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:28 AM ----------

"GasBandit;420933][QUOTE=Chazwozel said:
GasBandit;420872 said:

Chazwozel;420848 said:

GasBandit;420782 said:

Chazwozel;417269 said:

JONJONAUG;417246 said:

GasBandit said:

2) There are racist bigots IN the Tea Party, much like there are racist bigots in the NAACP (though unlike the Tea Party, the NAACP is inherently racist, but not necessarily bigoted)

Click to expand...

You're kidding me, right?

Click to expand...

Truthiness: Gas has got it.

Racism:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

The NAACP isn't inherently racist, Gas. It was founded as a reaction to racism. Same goes for the Black Panthers.

Click to expand...

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peoples. It's "fighting racism with racism," thus inherently racist. You can argue if you want that it's "good racism" (or if you want to really be appropriate, "it's not racism when WE do it"), but it's still racism.

Click to expand...

How is the NAACP fighting racism with racism? How is fighting for civil rights and equality a racist thing? Your argument that the NAACP is racist is akin to calling the Gay and Lesbian alliance a hate group because it promotes giving homosexuals equal rights. They're not promoting anything in regards to persecutions towards whites or any other race, unlike for instance the KKK. The NAACP exists as a front to protect the civil rights of black people. That's all. They don't make any claims that black people are better than everyone else.

Click to expand...

Racism doesn't JUST mean "we think this race is better than that race," it means discrimination on the basis of race. The NAACP favors discrimination in favor of a race. For example - Affirmative Action.

If something isn't racist, it would call for all judgements and decisions to be made regardless of skin color, not because of it. You know, kind of like Martin Luther King thought would be nice.

Click to expand...

Affirmative Action isn't racist.

A requirement that demands you must hire so many people of a certain skin color, regardless of their ability or the availability of a better suited candidate of another ethnicity is the very definition of racist.

Here's a simple test... if you can take any given sentence, swap the words "black" and "white" and suddenly it sounds racist... it was racist to begin with.

If you don't agree with that, you fail at brain use.[/QUOTE]

You can actually thank Richard Nixon for the implementation of racial quotas. They are associated with affirmative action, but they're not the same thing.

Jul 29, 2010#38

Bubble181

You're using a weird definition of "affirmative action". I agree AA isn't the same as racial quotas, but the words themselves sum up the point: take action to affirm the status of coloured people (or women, or whoever it's affirmative towards).
It's hiring a black guy because he's black, to prove that he's not lesser than his white counterparts (or yellow, or green, or purple with little green dots.)
Positive discrimination is still discrimination.
It's simple: tests have proven, and continue to prove, that people with exactly the same credentials and such are more likely to be hired under a name like John Mathewson than under a name like Muhammed Al Mustafa. This is wrong. That's why many government appointments (in Belgium) are completely abstracted away from the person applying for the job. This has a lot of other problems, but anyway, that's a different rant.
We won't be racist anymore once Muhammed and John have the exact same chance of being hired; when it doesn't have to be taken away from the people applying just to make it fairer. Hiring Mustafa because it looks good to have a couple of brown faces in your store, or because you need to have x% of immigrants, or whatever, is bad.
I've actually known someone who was hired just to use as an excuse. Female, 50+something immigrant woman without even a high school degree. She pretty much filled al lthe boxes; the onyl thing she could've done to improve herself was to go blind or something.

Jul 29, 2010#39

tegid

Positive discrimination is bad, but it's the lesser of two evils, innit?

Jul 29, 2010#40

Covar

So was Stalin.

BOOM! Godwin'd!

Jul 29, 2010#41

Bubble181

I know quite a few people who'd argue that Stalin wasn't the lesser evil compared to Hitler. Sure is responsible for more deaths and a longer-lasting oppression of foreign parts.
But lets' not go there :-P

Jul 29, 2010#42

Chazwozel

Bubble181 said:
You're using a weird definition of "affirmative action". I agree AA isn't the same as racial quotas, but the words themselves sum up the point: take action to affirm the status of coloured people (or women, or whoever it's affirmative towards).
It's hiring a black guy because he's black, to prove that he's not lesser than his white counterparts (or yellow, or green, or purple with little green dots.)
Positive discrimination is still discrimination.
It's simple: tests have proven, and continue to prove, that people with exactly the same credentials and such are more likely to be hired under a name like John Mathewson than under a name like Muhammed Al Mustafa. This is wrong. That's why many government appointments (in Belgium) are completely abstracted away from the person applying for the job. This has a lot of other problems, but anyway, that's a different rant.
We won't be racist anymore once Muhammed and John have the exact same chance of being hired; when it doesn't have to be taken away from the people applying just to make it fairer. Hiring Mustafa because it looks good to have a couple of brown faces in your store, or because you need to have x% of immigrants, or whatever, is bad.
I've actually known someone who was hired just to use as an excuse. Female, 50+something immigrant woman without even a high school degree. She pretty much filled al lthe boxes; the onyl thing she could've done to improve herself was to go blind or something.

I'm using the definition of Affirmative Action. Equality and anti-discrimination in the job place. Nixon's administration kicked off racial quotas (with good reason mind you) to force unions to accept a certain percentage of blacks. Racial quotas are the result of on-going racism in the workplace to maintain the image of compliance with affirmative action policy. In short, it's an easier way for a company to get around discrimination. They can still hire 10 "John Smiths" to two "Jamal Browns" and claim they have diversity in the work place; that everyone gets a fair chance at the job.

Of course, the hard right always thinks everyone's trying to bring the white man down, and everyone's TEKIN OUR JERBS! So, no, affirmative action isn't racist, the people that try and circumvent what it attempts to do pretty much are. And of course, the ol' propaganda story of two people being equally qualified for a job (one black and one white) and the black guy getting it because he's black, is a great example of people trying to simplify a complicated issue into an easy to digest and spread around parable. It's really the stupidest argument against Affirmative Action. It misguides people into thinking that in every instance a black guy "steals" a job from a white guy, which is utter bullshit.

If I personally lost out to a job due racial quotas, I'd shrug my shoulders and explore one of my other hundreds of avenues because I'm white and a male. Life for me ain't so bad.

Jul 29, 2010#43

sixpackshaker

Bubble181 said:
I know quite a few people who'd argue that Stalin wasn't the lesser evil compared to Hitler. Sure is responsible for more deaths and a longer-lasting oppression of foreign parts.
But lets' not go there :-P

Right, the people that do not see Stalin as the lesser of two evils are Nazis and Republicans.

Jul 29, 2010#44

Bubble181

Or people who lived in Eastern Russia and have been occupied by Communist Russia for 20+years.
Considering Hitler the end-all be-all bad guy is a very Western thing. Stalin didn't have death camps, but the Gulags weren't better than the concentration camps (notice the difference between the two). Stalin forced whole ethnicities to move, and forced "real" Russians to settle in regions where other ethnicities were in the majority so they could be controlled. He deported millions, millions died or disappeared. All historians agree the Communist regime is responsible for far more deaths than the Nazi regime. Of course, they had 10x as long to do it in, too. And, like i said, Hitler literally tried to exterminate an ethnicity, Stalin (mostly) stuck to deporting them to the middle of Siberia or forcing them into second-rank-citizenship.
I'm not saying Stalin is worse than Hitler, I'm just saying it's something not everyone would agree on as readily as you might think. Go ask plenty of Ukrainians or Kirghizi, see what they think.

Jul 29, 2010#45

Espy

Chazwozel said:
If I personally lost out to a job due racial quotas, I'd shrug my shoulders and explore one of my other hundreds of avenues because I'm white and a male. Life for me ain't so bad.

Jul 29, 2010#46

GasBandit

Chazwozel said:
I'm using the definition of Affirmative Action.

Not according to wikipedia and dictionary.reference.com you're not.

Dictionary.reference.com said:
A term referring to various government policies that aim to increase the proportion of African-Americans, women, and other minorities in jobs and educational institutions historically dominated by white men. The policies usually require employers and institutions to set goals for hiring or admitting minorities.

Wikipedia said:
Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, sex or national origin"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#cite_note-The_Federal_Register-0 into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group

Chazwozel said:
If I personally lost out to a job due racial quotas, I'd shrug my shoulders and explore one of my other hundreds of avenues because I'm white and a male. Life for me ain't so bad.

And once again, we see that what rules your assertions is your own subjectivity.

Jul 29, 2010#47

Chazwozel

Really the only white males that have any right to complain are blue collar workers and white trash (sometimes goes hand in hand). But according to Libertarian philosophy they're white trash because they haven't picked themselves up by the bootstraps. It's their own fault.

---------- Post added at 11:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 AM ----------

GasBandit;421370][QUOTE=Chazwozel said:
I'm using the definition of Affirmative Action.

Not according to wikipedia and dictionary.reference.com you're not.

Dictionary.reference.com said:
A term referring to various government policies that aim to increase the proportion of African-Americans, women, and other minorities in jobs and educational institutions historically dominated by white men. The policies usually require employers and institutions to set goals for hiring or admitting minorities.

Wikipedia said:
Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, sex or national origin" into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group

Chazwozel said:
If I personally lost out to a job due racial quotas, I'd shrug my shoulders and explore one of my other hundreds of avenues because I'm white and a male. Life for me ain't so bad.

And once again, we see that what rules your assertions is your own subjectivity.[/QUOTE]

Ah! I see your problem. You have tunnel vision!

Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, sex or national origin"[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination. The focus of such policies ranges from employment and education to public contracting and health programs. “Affirmative action” is action taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded.[2]
The term "affirmative action" originated in the United States, and first appeared in President John F. Kennedy's Executive Order 10925. The term was used to refer to measures to achieve non-discrimination. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required federal contractors to take "affirmative action" to hire without regard to race, religion and national origin. In 1968, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list.[3] Matching procedures in other countries are also known as reservation in India, positive discrimination in the United Kingdom and employment equity in Canada.

It helps to read the whole fucking thing, Gas ol' buddy; not cut it down into Fox News bite sized quotes.

Affirmative action

- 5 dictionary results
.sponsored_Img{ background:transparent url('http://4.afs.googleadservices.com/images/partners/CPP-zr-KkaMCFWBM5Qodeg8xvA/aj-lexico-dict-testing.png') no-repeat; float:right; margin-top:4px; width:91px; height:12px; cursorointer; } Affirmative Action Help
Leading Provider of Affirmative Action Services
www.berkshireassociates.com
Affirmative Action Plans
Get audit material, affirmative action plans & more. Order today!
www.blr.com/affirmative_action
Affirmative action Definition
Find Definitions For Any Word.Get Your Free Dictionary.com Toolbar.
Dictionary.com

.shd_hdr1 { width:100%; } .sep_top1 { position : relative; } .citesourceseperator{ border-bottom: solid 1px #E4E4E4; margin-top:15px; margin-bottom:7px; } .sep_top1 table{ margin-top:-2px; margin-bottom:-3px; } .results_content ul, .results_content ol { margin-bottom:-3px; } .LImg{ background-image:url("http://sp3.dictionary.com/en/i/dictionary/AddThis_v2/sprite_icons.png"); } .Lsentnce{ margin-top:14px; } affirmative action

–noun the encouragement of increased representation of women and minority-group members, esp. in employment.

Use Affirmative action in a Sentence

See images of Affirmative action

Search Affirmative action on the Web

Origin:
1960–65

—Related forms af·firm·a·tive-ac·tion, adjective

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
Cite This Source |
Link To Affirmative action
.sponsored_Img{ background:transparent url('http://4.afs.googleadservices.com/images/partners/CPP-zr-KkaMCFWBM5Qodeg8xvA/aj-lexico-dict-testing.png') no-repeat; float:right; margin-top:4px; width:91px; height:12px; cursorointer; } Affirmative Action Help
Leading Provider of Affirmative Action Services
www.berkshireassociates.com
Affirmative Action Plans
Get audit material, affirmative action plans & more. Order today!
www.blr.com/affirmative_action

World English Dictionary
affirmative action

— n
( US ) Brit equivalent: positive discrimination a policy or programme designed to counter discrimination against minority groupsand women in areas such as employmentand education

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
Cite This Source

affirmative action
n. A policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment.

Jul 29, 2010#48

GasBandit

... and then after all that, as you noted earlier, the quotas were added in, so for the majority of its lifespan AND for the entire time you have been alive, it has meant quotas and reverse discrimination.

Jul 29, 2010#49

Chazwozel

GasBandit said:
... and then after all that, as you noted earlier, the quotas were added in, so for the majority of its lifespan AND for the entire time you have been alive, it has meant quotas and reverse discrimination.

Jul 29, 2010#50

GasBandit

Chazwozel;421386][QUOTE=GasBandit said:
... and then after all that, as you noted earlier, the quotas were added in, so for the majority of its lifespan AND for the entire time you have been alive, it has meant quotas and reverse discrimination.

I swear...

The quotas exist as an extension of racism. They are not part of the Affirmative Action policy, they are sets of quotas enacted by the government and companies as an easy way to monitor discrimination. They are a cop out that exists due to the fact that racism is still alive and well. Discrimination is still very much a part of the job application process. When that ceases to exist, the need for quotas will too.[/QUOTE]

Their method of enaction has inextricably linked them to Affirmative Action. Whenever someone is talking about "affirmative action" in any sort of discussion, they are de facto talking about quotas. Your argument is tantamount to insisting that gay means happy, and that homosexuality is not part of being gay.

As for discrimination, the fact that you feel it is justified does not mean that quotas are not inherently racist. As the brits put it, it's just "positive discrimination," or as those of us who call spades such... "reverse racism."

Jul 29, 2010#51

Covar

sixpackshaker;421335][QUOTE=Bubble181 said:
I know quite a few people who'd argue that Stalin wasn't the lesser evil compared to Hitler. Sure is responsible for more deaths and a longer-lasting oppression of foreign parts.
But lets' not go there :-P

Right, the people that do not see Stalin as the lesser of two evils are Nazis and Republicans.[/QUOTE]

To both you and Bubble:

Jul 29, 2010#52

sixpackshaker

Covar;421419][QUOTE=sixpackshaker;421335][QUOTE=Bubble181 said:
I know quite a few people who'd argue that Stalin wasn't the lesser evil compared to Hitler. Sure is responsible for more deaths and a longer-lasting oppression of foreign parts.
But lets' not go there :-P

Right, the people that do not see Stalin as the lesser of two evils are Nazis and Republicans.[/QUOTE]

To both you and Bubble:

Just because something is the lesser of two evils doesn't make it ok.

---------- Post added at 12:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 PM ----------

I hate the term "reverse" racism. Guess what people, what you are referring to is still racism. Reverse racism is the exact opposite of what you are referring to.[/QUOTE]

I don't have time to redraw your graph...

Joke

..........................................................you.

Reverse Racism is exactly the opposite of Racism.

Jul 29, 2010#53

crono1224

Question are the hiring policies based upon either the population % of the whole country and/or the specific population % of that area, or is it just based on having a certain percent of all workers being any race. Cause that seems a little unfair if hypothetically there are 5% blacks, but there is required to be 30+% in the work place.

Jul 29, 2010#54

sixpackshaker

There is a story that went around when I was working in the oilfield. A man from an equal employment rights agency told an oilfield contractor that his business needs to have 10% Hispanic and 10% African American employees. So the business operator walked out into the warehouse that morning and fired half of his employees and hired whites to fill their roles.

Jul 29, 2010#55

The Lovely Boehner

sixpackshaker said:
There is a story that went around when I was working in the oilfield. A man from an equal employment rights agency told an oilfield contractor that his business needs to have 10% Hispanic and 10% African American employees. So the business operator walked out into the warehouse that morning and fired half of his employees and hired whites to fill their roles.

This never happened.

Jul 29, 2010#56

Chazwozel

crono1224 said:
Question are the hiring policies based upon either the population % of the whole country and/or the specific population % of that area, or is it just based on having a certain percent of all workers being any race. Cause that seems a little unfair if hypothetically there are 5% blacks, but there is required to be 30+% in the work place.

The Lovely Boner;421496][QUOTE=sixpackshaker said:
There is a story that went around when I was working in the oilfield. A man from an equal employment rights agency told an oilfield contractor that his business needs to have 10% Hispanic and 10% African American employees. So the business operator walked out into the warehouse that morning and fired half of his employees and hired whites to fill their roles.

Jul 29, 2010#57

sixpackshaker

Chazwozel;421497][QUOTE=crono1224 said:
Question are the hiring policies based upon either the population % of the whole country and/or the specific population % of that area, or is it just based on having a certain percent of all workers being any race. Cause that seems a little unfair if hypothetically there are 5% blacks, but there is required to be 30+% in the work place.

The Lovely Boner;421496][QUOTE=sixpackshaker said:
There is a story that went around when I was working in the oilfield. A man from an equal employment rights agency told an oilfield contractor that his business needs to have 10% Hispanic and 10% African American employees. So the business operator walked out into the warehouse that morning and fired half of his employees and hired whites to fill their roles.

This never happened.[/QUOTE]

This is what bigots like to gather round and tell each other so they can drive themselves into a stupor over how they're more disadvantaged than the scary black people, and of course HOW DER TAKIN OUR JERBS DERP BA DERP![/QUOTE]

It is more of a morality tale, where you need to be careful of what you ask for.

---------- Post added at 07:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:01 PM ----------

The Lovely Boner;421496][QUOTE=sixpackshaker said:
There is a story that went around when I was working in the oilfield. A man from an equal employment rights agency told an oilfield contractor that his business needs to have 10% Hispanic and 10% African American employees. So the business operator walked out into the warehouse that morning and fired half of his employees and hired whites to fill their roles.

This never happened.[/QUOTE]

Actually the story that went around had the name of the contractor, I worked for him one winter, and he was a sorry son of a bitch that would likely do it. It is unverified, that is why it is labeled as a story.

Jul 29, 2010#58

Krisken

Yeah, I think I'm missing the point of that story. Sounds more like a racist revenge story to me.

Jul 29, 2010#59

The Lovely Boehner

Also, it's factually incorrect. Every single sort of quota or % like that is always referred to as "at least".

Jul 29, 2010#60

Krisken

ACLU would be all over that shit.

Jul 29, 2010#61

sixpackshaker

The Lovely Boner said:
Also, it's factually incorrect. Every single sort of quota or % like that is always referred to as "at least".

How would that change what happened?

---------- Post added at 07:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 PM ----------

Krisken said:
ACLU would be all over that shit.

It is a 1099 job. You show up at his gate with lunch pail and hard hat in hand. If there is work He'll let you in the gate and put you on a work detail. If there is not enough workers, he'll drive down to the local "shade tree" and hire whoever can do the job. There is no guarantee of work, there is not much of an HR department.

If it were true, there is no recourse.

I stuck out like a sore thumb as one of the few white guys in line. So I was stealing immigrants' and alcoholics' jobs.

Jul 29, 2010#62

tegid

Well duh, of course it doesn't. But when there's a dichotomy, when you have to choose one or the other you have to choose the lesser one.

Jul 29, 2010#63

crono1224

Chazwozel;421497][QUOTE=crono1224 said:
Question are the hiring policies based upon either the population % of the whole country and/or the specific population % of that area, or is it just based on having a certain percent of all workers being any race. Cause that seems a little unfair if hypothetically there are 5% blacks, but there is required to be 30+% in the work place.

The percentage of minorities in high end jobs drops dramatically as you go up the payscale, so don't worry that scary looking black guy isn't really competing for your white collar job.[/QUOTE]

What do I care, my complaint is that if they make up the same percent of the work staff as they do the total population or of the areas population, then how is it discrimination, it is merely numbers.

Aug 14, 2010#64

Dave

The Tea Party isn't racist...unless you consider the leader and chairman of the movement, Mark Williams, calling Muslims worshipers "the terrorists' monkey God" racist.

Okay, they are racist.

---------- Post added at 09:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 AM ----------

Tea Party leader Mark Williams says Muslims worship a 'monkey god', blasts Ground Zero mosque

Aug 14, 2010#65

Krisken

Well yeah, he is racist. But again, there are so many groups that identify themselves at Tea Party which aren't affiliated with each other (some even hating the other groups) that you can't judge all the followers based on the founder.

Yup, Mark Williams is an asshole.

Aug 15, 2010#66

Espy

Dave said:
The Tea Party isn't racist...unless you consider the leader and chairman of the movement, Mark Williams, calling Muslims worshipers "the terrorists' monkey God" racist.

Okay, they are racist.

---------- Post added at 09:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 AM ----------

Tea Party leader Mark Williams says Muslims worship a 'monkey god', blasts Ground Zero mosque

Uh... The party's over: Tea Partyers finally expel bigot from their movement

Tuesday, July 20th 2010, 4:00 AM
The Tea Party Federation, an alliance of 85 organizations dedicated to a small-government, low-tax philosophy that has gained a national following, has chosen to have no further truck with one of most its visible - and vile - members.

They kicked him out almost a month ago, in fact the actual thread topic was about an article talking about them kicking him out. Painting a, what, few hundred thousand + people who most have zero connection to this guy as "racist" over his comments seems... rash.

Aug 15, 2010#67

Dave

My mistake, then. I had no idea this was the guy who was gone. Carry on.

Aug 15, 2010#68

Hailey Knight

Your post was week, Dave.

Last month.

Um...

Forums