Originally posted by: newnameman
So there are no whites in poverty/rich blacks?
[/quote]
Of course there are. Remedies are not done in those cases, they're done when the evidence shows widespread disadvantage for a group.
There are different basic issues.
Individual discrimination occurs against one or more individuals, and requires evidence, such as a tape recoridng of a manager saying "I don't promote blacks".
Affirmative Action doesn't require discrimination occuring now against people; it recognizes there's an unequal playing field because of effects of past discrimination and reduces it.
It tends to use large-scale evidence, such as low rates of some groups getting rewards, a big company where, say, 20% are black, but 2% of those promoted are black..
In this case, the issue is the interest in promoting racial diversity.
While some posters here may have an opinion that the issue is whether anyone is treated differently because of their skin color, the law distinguishes between discrimination against someone because of their race - say, denying a promotion to one or more whites because they're white - and pursuing the goal of diversity, in which the effort to ensure that the promotions don't for example *all* go to whites, has the effect of preventing some whites from getting promotions in order to give some spots to other groups.
Their point is that by promoting diversity, you are necessarily going to negatively impact some people the group that would otherwise dominate, and the law says that's ok.
It's politically tricky, because many whites are sold on the idea of ending current discrimination like segregation, but haven't much considered legacy racism effects.
It's easier to understand when you look at the example above, a big company where 20% are black but far fewer are promoted, and you ask 'why'? And sometimes the answer points to ongoing disadvantages that are a result of past racism, but it's not hard to say, 'it'd be good to do something to level the playing field'.
The basic idea is to say 'if you have a situation of such inequality, and there are two qualified people one white who is more qualified than one black, adjust the system to benefit some blacks to get them on a more equal playing field'. I've seen black families who got to move to better neighborhoods with efforts like that, and those children start getting a better education, and the cycle is broken.
I've looked as walls that were built to block off 'black neighborhoods' and prevent blacks from coming to white neighborhoods, maps showing those neighborhoods (you may have heard the term 'red-lining' as a referene to such map sections) - blacks blocked off from better houses, better schools, for generations.
When you see such things, it helps to udnerstand the sense of fairness in trying to partially right some past wrongs - even though it's imperfect.
I think the white offense largely rests on not appreciating the advantages they have because their fmily ws able to advance for generations while blacks were blocked; the ongoing effects of that past racism - the equating of the issue of race with *current* discrimination. Because they don't view themselves as having advantage from the past racism, it sfeels very unfair to them for them to lose anything to balance it.
I think that's the issue. The whites in this case have a legitimate sense of being wronged, when they think what's fair is to not pay any attention to race - if all the promotions are whites or all are blacks, so be it. The other side, on the other hand, understand that the 'of all are blacks' is only a theoretical comment given the real situation, and they have a goal of forcing some diversity where *qualified* minorities who passed the test get *some* of the promotions, even though over whites who did better in those cases.
I think it's a difficult issue, far less obvious than the issue of ending current discrimination.
