Well, the form of discrimination Major Tom is referring to is largely institutional (I'm going to take his objection at face value rather than discussing whether it actually is/is not a valid form of discrimination) while the discrimination minorities face is largely social. That is, a white person might not receive as many resources when applying to college, for example, while a black person might find himself watched like a hawk in a convenience store because he's obviously a shoplifter. Certainly an improvement over pretty much any other period in American history, though not perfect.
edited 21st Jan '11 4:30:01 AM by Chalkos
![]()
I was expecting to trigger a descritpition of how that discrimination even works. I mean, I guess there are all-black clubs, organizations, etc., but when I hear "discrimination against white people" I think "what, you mean when they send their resume the Human Resources people don't even read it if the picture is that of a white person?" So instead of facepalming, explain to me how does that even work.
Oh, so Major Tom complains about Affirmative Action? I disapprove of him doing that. I'm queasy about the obvious patch that AA is, but I think it's a problem that will solve itself: as more "minorities" become duly rperesented in all social classes and earn social respect, the members of the lower class will feel socially more comfortable and raise their own expectations as to what they can achieve. Thus, by giving a head-start to those unfairly disadvantaged, we'll manage to reach a situation where that head-start is not necessary anymore and everyone can compete together. This paragraph is spur of the moment original speculation, I think I just understood how AA worked.
edited 21st Jan '11 6:22:11 AM by RawPower
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?There are three main types of scholarships:
1. Those based on Affirmative Action, aiming to increase the general education level of certain historically underprivileged communities. White people's education level, taken as a whole, is high enough not to need it, though some areas lag behind the average rather badly.
2. Need-based scholarships. These attempt to break the cycle of poverty by allowing the poor (of ANY race) to obtain an education that will, hopefully, lead to better prospects and a better income level. Government loans, which often do not incur interest while you're in school, follow the same basic idea.
3. Merit-based scholarships, which aim to reward students for doing well.
Poor whites and intelligent whites can qualify just as easily for the latter two types, in most cases. In fact, from anecdotal evidence I'd wager it's easier for whites to get merit-based scholarships.
edited 21st Jan '11 6:15:22 AM by Yamikuronue
BTW, I'm a chick.I think my own context makes me disregard a lot of arguments about AA simply because where I live, there are only needs-based scholarships (which are not allowed to discriminate based on anything) and merit-based scholarships (which may only be based upon marks and extracurricular, but usually just marks). People still complain about "race-based" scholarships/bursaries/benefits even though they don't even exist, so I've grown a frustration with those types of comments.
Arguments about the merits of AA aside, if that's all you've got, that isn't a very compelling case for anti-white racism being a large problem, especially when it's weighed against cases like this.
But crying anti-white racism is evidence that you're not in any way race-blind, but in fact hypersensitized to any possible slight against white people, real or perceived.
OK, back on topic, Slacktivist's
assessment of the decision was rather wonderful:
No more of this obsession with kings and nobles — put the focus where it belongs, on the serfs and the peasants who made up the vast and overwhelming majority of the population.
Set aside the generals and conquerors and put the focus on their victims — the foot soldiers and the civilians who make up the majority in any war.
Forget this preoccupation with the minority experience of the wealthy plantation owners. History should be taught with an emphasis on the much larger number of people who were treated as non-people and — thanks to minority-rule in the Involuntary Volunteer State — were raped, beaten, kidnapped and tortured with impunity.
I gotta say, I prefer learning about people. Why would you focus on learning about technological developments? Effects of said technological developments would be important to learn about, but there's not a lot to be gained easily from learning about obsolete updates of technology.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.Yes, the effects are the most important, the actual development process, much like the inventor, is secondary trivia, rather than of primary importance. The details and trivia are for things like The Other Wiki and specialized books, not for general studies books.
Fight smart, not fair.Thing is, history is about societies and nations because these things, and their political impact and the resulting wars and so on are the reason we have the national and political boundaries and socioeconomic classes that exist today. It's why we are the way we are. If we learned only about inventions, we'd lose that, needlessly decreasing the subject's utility.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffI meant it more in an "technology is overlooked". For instance, it wasn't until college that I found out how important the cotton gin was to US history.
Fight smart, not fair.I must agree with Deboss. Technology and economy were vital shit. Otherwise how do you think Colonization was even possible?
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?Sure, but the people were important, too.
Maybe not the individuals so much from a retrospective standpoint, but certainly the societies, the cultures, the uprisings, the wars, etc.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffThose are, too many text books look like summarized biographies of people from various time periods and their exploits.
Fight smart, not fair."Great Men and the Incredible Things They Did On Occasion" is not my idea of a good history book.
Fight smart, not fair.Do you plan on going on an endless loop with this? I think you made your point.
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?

Face Palm
Yes, Raw, it does. Discrimination happens against anyone.
"Who wants to hear about good stuff when the bottom of the abyss of human failure that you know doesn't exist is so much greater?"-Wraith