Does the Prime Minister have specific plans for black folk in the UK? Does there need to be a specific plan for black folk when we are one and the same? Isn't singling out black people perpetuating devisiveness?
Singling out voter demographics is what politicians do. They do exist and appealing to them can win them an election. You might think it perpetuates divisiveness but such is the price we pay for freedom and democracy.
Blacks represent a much smaller proportion of the UK population, but such things do come up during election time. If Gordon Brown doesn't focus on particular demographics, then that demographic might not vote for him.
That's all brenna was saying. If a certain demographic has been given no specific reason to vote for Huckabee, why would we expect them to, on the whole, get behind him?
Are you saying that the slave trade was confined to America?
No, because I'm not an idiot. I was talking about the US because that is the country of which Obama is a potential future president, and is thus essentially the geo-political focus of this topic.
I don't believe there is one any longer.
There is one what?
Are you telling me that Bill Cosby would be passed up by K-Fed for a job? Sorry, but I don't buy it.
No. Bill Cosby might get a job there. What has this got to do with the fact that a disproportionate number of black people are in poverty?
Its all attitude.
Right - so poor people have a bad attitude? Presumably then, it is your position that the colour of people's skins determines the likelihood they'll have a bad attitude? Personally, I think that is racist. I think a person's attitude is shaped far more by their social status and potential for mobility than by their colour. Potential for mobility is largely determined by education and work experience.
Modulous, did it ever occur to you that some people commit disadvantages themselves? Again, are you telling me that Britney Spears, because she's white, could get a job over Oprah Winfrey, because she's black? I don't think so! You can't discount attitude.
When talking about disadvantaged people, why are you giving examples of people who are clearly not disadvantaged? OK, try this thought experiment. You are about to be born. If you are born black, what are the chances you will be raised by parents with a good education? What are the chances that you will grow up in an area low on crime and high in education?
What are the chances, that you'll end up trying to survive day-to-day rather than being able to concentrate on improving your lot.
Now, do the same for being white.
You will find that being born black increases your chances of not getting a good start. You can still have a terrible start and have a wonderfully wealthy life - but this is less common than if you had a decent start in life.
Then again, perhaps they just have a bad attitude.
I think many blacks are lazy, just like many whites are lazy. I wouldn't begin to quantify something like that.
Well, you have to explain the numbers that brenna posted somehow. If health wealth and happiness are a function of attitude, then those without them must generally have a bad attitude. Blacks are less likely to have them, therefore blacks generally have a worse attitude that whites generally do.
Now - maybe they do. The question becomes: Why? Is it because of their race? Or is it because of the large amount of deprived areas these people come from? If these people were French, Polish, Cuban, British or whatever the point would still stand. The numbers clearly show a disparity of opportunity and it might be worth considering evening that up.
But here's my problem: Lazy, ignorant, unkempt, discourteous black folk might get a job just because they are black, rather than say, (oh, I don't know), on the measure of their character -- something Martin Luther King, a true patriot, said.
I'm not sure that is how affirmative action works. That said, I haven't gone around supporting affirmative action so I don't see your point.
And moreover, its RACISM. How is that not blindingly obvious?
Why are you ranting at me over this? Affirmative action may well be racist, I'm sure there are bad ways to implement the idea and better ways. Personally I don't like it.
You seem to be of the opinion that I am talking about being deprived because of racist opinion causing people to get passed over. That is not the case. I am talking deprived as in living in areas with the worst teachers, few jobs, high crime etc etc. That is to say: poor people have to live in the least desirable (thus cheap) places.
Fantastic. So, for the record, are you stating, in no uncertain terms, that the only reason Cubans are successful is because money was thrown at them from the beginning?
My brother-in-law might find that very interesting. And here I though he was a self-made man.
That is not what I said. I have already clarified this point. What guarantee do I have that if I repeat it you will listen this time? Let me simplify it.
The economy with Cubans was very very poor.
The economy was bolstered with 1.6billion dollars.
This allowed businesses to quickly get started, and it allowed education centres, health centres etc etc to cope with the massive influx of people.
If the government had invested money, and the Cubans had sat on their arses and done nothing - it wouldn't have worked.
Thus, the hard work of the Cubans, bolstered by governmental aid, lead to a successful economy.
If you think that the facts somehow undermine your brother's achievements then so be it. My own older brother went to the US with very very little, but with the US government he has now been able to purchase his own business. My brother worked very hard in jobs he hated for little money and I don't think that what financial aid he received undermines that hard work.
™ Version 4.2