Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by wygator, Aug 27, 2013.
I don't follow the Cali part. Maybe its the LA - by which I meant Louisiana, not Los Angeles.
Maybe i'm misinterpreting, but you think it's hard to argue that forced racial segregation had unquestionably good results? That's interesting. There's a philosophy professor that I became friends with recently and were talking about racial issues in America and from his understanding he believed that the government forcing a bunch of white people who had been racists for generations to no longer be racists actually made things worse. Racial and cultural integration takes time, a lot of this stuff has been bred into generations of people, and that besides the point that human beings have a natural inclination to question those who look, act, or are different than themselves. Anyway, my point is that it's interesting that people think government-forced sensitivity towards other races is "unquestionably" good. Which is better - over generations of learning and living together two distinctly different cultures learn to live with each other their own accord, or the government abruptly forcing both sides to immediately accept everything about each other?
I was in the USAF for four years and there's this kind of distinct memory that sticks out. When I was still a relatively new Airman and had just arrive at my permanent base, I found myself alone in the cafeteria browsing for a place to sit. Other than my obvious lack of skills of finding new friends, it was also obvious that the cafeteria itself was segregated. All of the black Airmen sat with other black Airmen, hispanic Airmen sat with other hispanics, and even the few scattered Asians, who weren't from the same countries, all managed to sit together. What I discovered is that that wasn't a singular instance, it was like that everywhere. Every black guy on base seemed to know every other black guy on base as if they were closest friends, and the other minorities were that way as well. Interesting how naturally humans tend/like to segregate themselves and even more interesting some of our desires to force ourselves to break that. Purely anecdotal, sure -- but the point is that I don't quite get why the result of increased segregation is really even an issue at all.
Calling gov't led integration "forced sensitivity" seems rather dismissive, IMO. Many people, myself included, see it as much more than that. Its about creating equality of opportunity where it did not exist (unless you think Plessy-style seperate but equal was working well). But if the choice is between forced integration or forced segregation (as it was in 1964), I think I'd have to go with the former. Is it "social engineering?" I suppose, but social engineering isnt just a government thing, because custom, economics, religion, and other institutions & forces "social engineer" too, which is part of the reason we had de jure segregation in the South, and why some of the legacy of that is still visible. We can all live with some degree of de facto segregation, but when it comes to public accomodation and opportunity, that becomes less palatable.
My mistake. Thought you meant Los Angeles.
91% of those using the vouchers are minorities. So the DOJ files suit because 5 white kids are using the vouchers to move from a failing school making that school even more "black". Hey DOJ, why don't you help close the failing school so all the kids can transfer?
There was a systemic exclusion of African-Americans from "the white culture" (whatever that is) for years after the civil war. Yes, the "forced" social engineering by the enactment of equal rights and opportunity laws - and court decisions - in the '60's did alter the terrain and balance the playing field as much as any forced social engineering could.
There was a social / cultural price to pay for that, however, including the opportunity for black "get back" against whites, as exemplified by their forced assimilation in the desegregated public school system, and their "taking it out on whitey," which my children - white - witnessed first hand in the '80's and early '90's. MLK would have had no part of that attitude and those actions, as indeed he stated in his "Dream" speech.
Now, the white man is no longer the devil causing the problems, and the "system" - whatever slice of it you examine, i.e., education, housing, employment, etc., IMO, cannot be forced to tilt any further through force.
So what you have here, is a failure of the black community to first, acknowledge, and then, address and remedy, the problems rampant in its own neighborhoods. It is no longer an issue of unfair opportunity of whatever kind; it is time for African Americans to admit that the current failures are unmistakably and clearly - on them - from here on out.
Perpetuating the popular myth that it is an unfair world and the white guys caused it, is not going to overcome the lack of personal accountability and responsibility that is systemic among those blacks who would prefer to remain ignorant and lawless, without motivation, and expectant for someone or something else to solve whatever problem they have.
In short, those people have totally immersed themselves in the race victimization paradigm, and frankly, have been encouraged to do so by those of their own color, who are bent on exploiting racial issues that have largely been dealt with.
In short, it is not my fault, my father's fault, or any other white man's fault in my history, for whatever circumstance any person - of color or not - in this country may find themselves in. It is now . . . each man and woman's responsibility to assess where they are, and if they look around and don't like it, to take the initiative to do something about it.
So we'll have kids with a substandard education who get along well with other kids with a poor education? How can you argue with that?
What resources or information do you have to evaluate the quality of the religious and private schools in LA?
Anyone else think a desegregation order put in place in 1975 should be reevaluated or eliminated?
They can be, the school district petitions the court to grant it "unitary status" and has to prove that it no longer operates a segregated school district and has eliminated the vestiges of past discrimination. If they make that showing, the court can declare them unitary and then typically monitors the district's operation when not subject to the plan for a few years before dismissing the case outright.
Here's a fairly helpful overview of the desgregation litigation process: http://www.coweninstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Desegregation-Litigation-Overview.pdf
When I was younger we lived in an affluent neighborhood in PR. Around 1981 the government began a program of putting public housing/projects IN more affluent neighborhoods. The idea was that this way their kids would all go to school together, play together, and that by seeing the more expensive houses daily it would drive those in the projects to work harder and be less likely to commit crimes.
My father knew this was a bad idea, so he went around asking for a petition to block it. Half the people signed - the other half said he was being a "bad Christian", how "we need to help integrate society", how the have's needed to look out and care for the have-nots.
My dad was able to block it because we had grasslands in front of our house and there was a law against building on grasslands. I saw men running through the fields and part of our yard soon after. The men were setting fires. Soon the entire field was consumed, and they were able to build the housing there. We ended up leaving due to financial issues, but within 5 years the entire neighborhood had been walled off, had policemen there 24/7, had a quadruple increase in violent crime and nearly every house had been broken into. Children who used to play outside stopped because they were being attacked repeatedly. The school had gone from one of the higher ranked schools to one of the lowest. Those that could afford it left their houses because they couldn't sell them.
Sometimes forced integration just isn't right.
I mean, is it right ever, really? As WGB stated, clearly forced segregation is terrible, but perhaps forced integration is just as bad?
Liberalism at it's finest. Punish the poor kids by keeping them in failing schools because vouchers were not our idea and some of the union teachers (at the failing school) may get $hit canned.
Unfortunately, government postulates that it is best positioned to solve problems it creates. Rinse and repeat.
This particular case is interesting because the students in question are overwhelmingly minority, according to the linked reference. And the state's education superintendent points out the irony that the DOJ is arguing in support of rules that would prevent minority parents from exercising choice to remove their children from failing schools.
I seem to have missed the point of this suit.
Here's how I understood it--more black students are using vouchers and leaving poor public schools for private schools.
So what...the DOJ wants more black kids to be stuck in those poor public schools...in the interest of desegretation????
What did I miss here?
Meanwhile, the DOJ petition cites a whopping 5 white kids from one school.
So, as I read it, according to the DOJ, comparatively speaking, the intersts of:
Unions > students (kids)/parents.
All in the name of *desegregation*.
Apparently, it's more important to keep them poor but *desegregated*, than to foster upward mobility, and increase opportunity for the disadvantaged.
Conclusion: In Holder's case, DOJ=Dumbass On-da Job.
WTH, I guess he only likes suing red states because the blue state kiss his arse. Revolution baby.
This happens here too. The Idea is nice pie-in-the-sky dreaming, but it's flawed logic to think that teasing the poor with the riches some people have earned is not going to entice theft and resentment from the poor.
Woman in control of her body = Choice is good.
Man in control of his Health Care = Step in line and find an Exchange.
Parent in control of child's education = No, not going to happen.
Democrats in favor of "choice" HAHAHAHAHAHAH.....