Institutionalized Racism in America

[Ravi]

Manipoo doesn't even know the difference between affirmative action and the Civil Rights Act, so how can she be expected to speak intelligently on this topic?

LOL! Fixed your post.

From wikipedia, a simplistic enough explanation that even you can understand.

Affirmative action was first established in Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on March 6, 1961 and required government contractors to "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" as well as to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".[9] This executive order was superseded by Executive Order 11246, which was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 24, 1965 and affirmed the Federal Government's commitment "to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency".[1] It is notable that affirmative action was not extended to women until Executive Order 11375 amended Executive Order 11246 on October 13, 1967, expanding the definition to include "sex." As it currently stands, affirmative action through Executive Order 11246 applies to "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." In the U.S., affirmative action's original purpose was to pressure institutions into compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[4] The Civil Rights Acts do not cover veterans, people with disabilities, or people over 40. These groups are protected from discrimination under different laws.[10

 

[manifold]

manifold's spot on assessment of my ignorance was more hurtful than my ego can handle, so now I'm going to lash out with deflection and strawmen, the only way I know how.

If you're looking for sympathy you can find it in the dictionary, somewhere between shit and syphilis.

 

[Ravi]

manifold's spot on assessment of my ignorance was more hurtful than my ego can handle, so now I'm going to lash out with deflection and strawmen, the only way I know how.

If you're looking for sympathy you can find it in the dictionary, somewhere between shit and syphilis.

I hate to break it to you, but AA does cover everyone on the list I posted.

Now run off and let the grown ups talk.

 

[manifold]

First the deflection, now the strawman. Just like I called it.

 

[Ravi]

First the deflection, now the strawman. Just like I called it.

Are you feeling okay?

And if so, what point were you trying to make?

 

[manifold]

First the deflection, now the strawman. Just like I called it.

Are you feeling okay?

And if so, what point were you trying to make?

Originally, I was simply pointing out that you made references to affirmative action when you really meant to reference the Civil Rights Act. The two may be related, but they are not synonymous.

The rest was me having fun watching you backpedal, dance, deflect and construct strawmen in a misguided effort to keep from admitting you made a mistake.

 

[The Big Pickle]

What is it? RACISM AGAINST WHITES

Is it bad? IT'S HORRIBLE AND DISGUSTING

Is it thriving, extinct or somewhere in between? IT'S EVERYWHERE

If necessary, what can be done about it? GO BACK TO A SEGREGATED WHITE AMERICA

 

[Ravi]

First the deflection, now the strawman. Just like I called it.

Are you feeling okay?

And if so, what point were you trying to make?

Originally, I was simply pointing out that you made references to affirmative action when you really meant to reference the Civil Rights Act. The two may be related, but they are not synonymous.

The rest was me having fun watching you backpedal, dance, deflect and construct strawmen in a misguided effort to keep from admitting you made a mistake.

uh, no...I did not mean to reference the Civil Rights Act. Affirmative Actions covers exactly who I said it does.

 

[manifold]

In that case Ravibility I truly cannot expect you to speak intelligently on the subject.

Carry on

 

[Ravi]

In that case Ravibility I truly cannot expect you to speak intelligently on the subject.

Carry on

Whatever reason it was originally written is immaterial. The way it is written it covers everyone.

 

[Tank]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain what institutionalized racism is and where it exists.

 

[Ravi]

Thanks, tank...I haven't watched your video but I do believe you are both institutionalized and racist.

 

[Tank]

Thanks, tank...I haven't watched your video

That's to bad, it might have helped

 

[The Infidel]

What is it?

Is it bad?

Is it thriving, extinct or somewhere in between?

If necessary, what can be done about it?

So many questions, so few answers.

What say you USMB?

Ho humm....

 

[manifold]

Still no Maddie?

I never would've expected her to challenge JB and then run and hide.

Duly noted

 

[manifold]

Is socially & culturally accepted racism a subset of institutionalized racism?

Or is that something completely different?

 

[Sheldon]

If there are incidences of whites being discriminated against then, by law, the affirmative action laws must cover them as well. That this doesn't seem to happen merely means that white people aren't discriminated against on a regular basis.

If we NEED this law is another question entirely...but the way the law is written it covers everyone (except gender benders).

I think the Supreme Court has said that the CRA prevents institutions (colleges, private employers, governments) from choosing an under-qualified person over a qualified person on the basis of race etc. But those institutions can have policies where, if there's a pool of equally qualified candidates, they can select a racial minority and/or female from that pool by virtue of that candidate having those traits. I think that's the nuance here.

Applying for a job or college is a zero sum game. People are naturally going to get squeezed out. Some companies' policies will default to the non-white non-male candidate over other equally qualified candidates who are white and or male--meaning they're being squeezed out on the basis or race and or gender. This is the discrimination I'm talking about, which is something that admittedly offends my delicate sensibilities here.

But I realize it's kind of hard to feel sorry for white males in this country because we've historically been the oppressor social group.

Wouldn't "on the basis of... sex" cover benders?

 

[Sheldon]

Manipoo doesn't even know the difference between affirmative action and the Civil Rights Act, so how can she be expected to speak intelligently on this topic?

LOL! Fixed your post.

From wikipedia, a simplistic enough explanation that even you can understand.

manifold's spot on assessment of my ignorance was more hurtful than my ego can handle, so now I'm going to lash out with deflection and strawmen, the only way I know how.

If you're looking for sympathy you can find it in the dictionary, somewhere between shit and syphilis.

You guys would make for a cute couple.

 

[mudwhistle]

In that case Ravibility I truly cannot expect you to speak intelligently on the subject.

Carry on

Whatever reason it was originally written is immaterial. The way it is written it covers everyone.

Problem is it's not interpreted the way it reads.

Show me an example where a white used AA laws as precedence in a civil suit?

It's just like EEO. Whites would get laughed out of the office if they had a complaint.

The problem I have is with fairness. As you say, laws should always be applied evenly, but they never are. If you want to look at Hate Crimes legislation, who do they protect? Certainly not whites or Christians. Only minorities and Gays.

 

[manifold]

Is socially & culturally accepted racism a subset of institutionalized racism?

Or is that something completely different?

Anyone?