Several days ago I discussed a proposal by the Detroit city councis to create an “Africa Town,” a black business district with loans and other government favors that would be limited to blacks.
Predictably, some ethnic groups object to being excluded from government benefits because of their race.
Members of Detroit’s Latino, Asian and Arab communities demanded a public apology from the City Council on Tuesday, denouncing the body for embracing an economic development plan that would exclusively benefit black business owners.
During a protest rally, leaders of the various ethnic communities said they want the council to rescind the resolutions it passed supporting the plan, and they want to meet with the council to correct what they say is offensive rhetoric in a report that forms the basis of the council’s plan to create a black business district to be known as African Town. The plan also would create a loan fund only for blacks.
Indeed, some of the objections were based on principle:
“We are opposed to any government action that distributes public money based on race,” said Marisa Ming, executive director of the Asian Pacific American Chamber of Commerce in Auburn Hills.
UPDATE [2 Oct. 3:10PM]
An article in the Detroit News has more (Thanks to Fred Ray):
It’s wacky, irresponsible, arguably racist, almost surely illegal. Mostly, though, the Detroit City Council’s $30 million-a-year plan for Africa Town is a painful wail of the city’s abject failure to help black Detroiters move forward….
They based this action on the report of creative thinker Carl Anderson and his PowerNomics Corp. – a $112,000 report that argues the city’s black majority is acting like a minority, despite political power, spending power, and the power of sheer numbers.
And – try to follow this – because the majority isn’t starting businesses or owning the means of production or even spending its own $11 billion within the city limits, city government needs to re-invent segregation.
PowerNomics, Anderson’s idea, is a kind of Advanced Victimization Theory with a twist of immigrant envy.
As part of its Andersonism, the City Council voted to name black Detroiters the city’s “under-served majority” – a new super-minority class entitled to special funds no other group could apply for.
The funds would, in the PowerNomics universe, be used to transform Detroit into “the Pan African capital.”
This would – theoretically – enable black Detroiters to start acting more like immigrants, who harness energy and a sense of community to create and own businesses.
John,
By the prinicples you yourself espouse in here, do you think that a group called the “Asian Pacific American Chamber of Commerce” in Auburn Hills should even EXIST, and if so, for what purpose?
–Cobra
Cobra, not to speak for John, but I don’t approve of ethnically-based lobbies whatever the race. That said, they have a legal right to exist.
I’d think that an “Asian Pacific American Chamber of Commerce” isn’t exactly an ethnically-based lobby but rather a trade association for people who have business interests in both America and Asia and the Pacific fringe.
I can offer no hard evidence for that, but at least the French American Chamber of Commerce in Los Angeles is a private, non-profit association dedicated to promote business and cultural exchanges between France and Southern California and doesn’t seem concerned with ethnically-based lobbying at all, if you bother taking a look at their web.site:
http://www.frenchchamberla.org/index.htm
Kenneth, from the APACC page it’s clear that they’re an advocacy group for Asian-American business owners.
Cobra, as Michelle said, this is a private organization, and that makes all the difference. Such groups should not exist but neither should they be outlawed.
Cobra – Michelle, Kenneth, and Nels have answered for me better than I could myself. I myself don’t like anything being organized on a racial basis (ethnicity is not quite the same thing, and so I don’t feel quite so strongly about that), but certainly private groups, I think, should be allowed to organize on pretty much whatever basis they they want. In that regard I consider myself somewhat analagous to an atheist or agnostic who still would freely support the right of churches to exist. But I wouldn’t provide government support to any or all of them or give their members preferences in employment, public contracts, college admissions, etc.
Africa Town?
Have you heard about the ruckus in Detroit? The Detroit City Council wants to declare the dilapidated city “Africa Town” and siphon off more taxpayers’ money for yet more skin color preferences. In other words, they expect the public to pay for thei…
Cobra — let me offer two words that explain the difference.
Public. Private.
Private groups can organize on whatever basis they choose in a FREE society — including race/ethnic bases. They may even discriminate.
Public organizations may not do so in a FREE society.
Wow, I’m stunned, a statement against an AA program by the only ethnic group that gets screwed worse than whites by AA programs. Go figure.
John (and Fred), thanks for the update. Good heavens.
What surprises me is the statement about the money allowing the black majority to start acting like immigrants. Has it occurred to these folks that to act like immigrants they would have to stop being victims, and that a new victim-mentality program will do just the opposite?
What I get from the posters here is the idea that racial and ethnic collectivism to acquire wealth and political power in the face of documented, white majority bias is a “bad idea?” Can you please tell me what evidence is out there that would allow me to believe that non-white immigrants would’ve gained the same level of success they have today WITHOUT economic balkanization and ethnocentric organizations? To me, it’s natural that if somebody won’t allow you access to something, create it yourself.
Or are the posters in this blog AGAINST minority entreprenuership?
–Cobra
Cobra, w.r.t your question:
Or are the posters in this blog AGAINST minority entreprenuership?
If you believe that is true, why are you here? If you don’t believe that, why say something so outrageous except to provoke a heated reaction?
Again and agian, posters here have made the same point:
It is not a problem if African-americans create these organizations to help themselves. In fact, there already exist such organizations. But, government (federal, state or local) must not be doing these things. For governments to give preferences to specific communities, racial or religious, is to start upon a very dangerous path, one which eventually ends with totalitarianism.
Cobra,
What I get from the posters here is the idea that racial and ethnic collectivism to acquire wealth and political power in the face of documented, white majority bias is a “bad idea?”
No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. But this proposal is nothing like how “non-white immigrants” have historically banded together. Bonds of kinship and country (or often province or even city) of origin, well-understood principles of negotiation and trust, traditions of mutual aid when a member of the community is in trouble, &c. all pay a role. And I’ve no doubt that recently-arrived immigrants do patronize mostly businesses owned by other immigrants of same or similar origins, both because in many cases (grocers, restaurants, some sorts of clothing, foreign-language books and newspapers, &c.) they can’t get what they want to buy from any other source, and partly because it’s easier to make a transaction where there’s cultural common ground, beginning most obviously with a common language. None of this is mysterious.
But we’re talking about a city that’s 87% Black, Cobra. Subtract the immigrant population that the City Council is so exercised about, and bear in mind that a lot of immigrant-owned businesses do cater primarily to other immigrants in the way I just described, and think what that might mean. Hell, how can you go on about white majority bias (away from Blacks and in favor of Latinos, Asians, and Arabs, apparently, which will be news to a lot of people in this country) when with a majority that large Black-owned businesses can’t sustain a customer base. There just aren’t enough non-Blacks to make that huge a difference.
And yes, I know that there are per capita income differentials involved. And I know that Black net worth is relatively lower even than income, and that that alone makes it harder for Black businesses to get startup loans. If the City Council really wants to do some good, it might consider underwriting loans for “high-risk” clients — of any race.
Private backers might do the same. Or Black businessmen could just do formally what immigrant groups have long done informally, namely form mutual-aid organizations in which each business’s risk is sort of pooled among all, so that in a sudden emergency the others provide a cash infusion (or aid-in-kind, or whatever) to bail the failing business out. I see no problem with any of this.
Vish writes:
“For governments to give preferences to specific communities, racial or religious, is to start upon a very dangerous path, one which eventually ends with totalitarianism.”
The United States of America did exactly that for nearly TWO CENTURIES. It participated in preferential treatment for white male citizens at the national, state and local levels. That is IRREFUTABLE. Vast wealth and political power was accumulated during that time period.
I’m not posting anything that even a CURSORY study of American history wouldn’t reveal. I question the motivation for this sudden lust for a color-blind society by the dominant group, who have benefitted the most from the previous system.
Vish, when you say that it’s “dangerous” for a government to practice racial preferences, you must be admitting that America is “dangerous”, because preference programs are the ONLY THING THIS NATION HAS KNOWN since its enception. I find it interesting that there is a “problem” with it in 2004. Could it be the recipients of the preferences don’t look the same as the recipients of 40 years ago?
Vish, another point is…the posters don’t like ethnic or racial collectives altogether, no matter if they’re government sponsored or not.
>>>”Cobra, not to speak for John, but I don’t approve of ethnically-based lobbies whatever the race. That said, they have a legal right to exist>>Cobra, as Michelle said, this is a private organization, and that makes all the difference. Such groups should not exist but neither should they be outlawed.>>I myself don’t like anything being organized on a racial basis (ethnicity is not quite the same thing, and so I don’t feel quite so strongly about that), but certainly private groups, I think, should be allowed to organize on pretty much whatever basis they they want
–John
This is my point, Vish. I asked in the other post on this subject if the African Town project was 100% privately funded, would people still have a problem with it. I received a resounding “YES,” so we’re beyond the point of government preferences here.
I’m just interested to know from you Vish, if you and other “anti-preference” bloggers are as vehemently against the existance of racial collectives when they are made up of the MAJORITY. The exclusive country clubs where business deals are made; the interlocking directorates where old money and family names control the destiny of institutions; the insulated zoning boards of segregated commuinties across America. Vish, I don’t hear a PEEP about the American culture of fraternalism, cronyism, backscratching and selective mentoring that dominates the landscape. We’re not even going to MENTION that Sunday is the most segregated day in America during religious services.
I’m not trying to raise anybody’s tempeture. I just want to know why collectively organizing in the face of obvious segregation is only bad for minorities, and not the group that instituted the segregation in the first place.
Michelle,
>>>Or Black businessmen could just do formally what immigrant groups have long done informally, namely form mutual-aid organizations in which each business’s risk is sort of pooled among all, so that in a sudden emergency the others provide a cash infusion (or aid-in-kind, or whatever) to bail the failing business out. I see no problem with any of this.
Cobra,
I question the motivation for this sudden lust for a color-blind society by the dominant group, who have benefitted the most from the previous system.
I question the Detroit City Council’s sudden distaste for it, when the apparent targets are recent immigrants who haven’t spent much time exploiting Blacks or anyone else, at least not in this country.
I mean, how can this be about white privilege? The white population of Detroit is practically unnoticeable, and thinking that it is rabidly racist against Blacks but outgoing and friendly toward other non-white minorities is odd.
I have you on the record saying that racial collectives are a bad idea.
No, actually, I think you have me on record as saying that a privately-funded Africa Town is a “very silly” idea. And that I have a “problem” with it.
Racial collectives are not the same as racially-restricted covenants in a business district, which is what we are talking about here. Your hypothetical wasn’t about a Black mutual-aid business collective; it was about “privatizing” the Africa Town concept. In practice that would mean an individual or a consortium of individuals buying up a large chunk of Detroit’s business district, and forbidding leases to anyone not Black within the amalgamated property. I am not sure that that would be legal; I rather think not. (Residential racially-restricted leases have been unenforceable for decades.) I do think that it would look silly, be a financial disaster, and in general do no good whatsoever. I mean, all of f’ing Detroit is “Africa Town” demographically; won’t it look pathetic to set up a sort of upscale-ghetto theme park in the middle of it?
“Why, oh Why is it a problem when African Americans do the SAME THING?”
Black businesses getting together and pooling resources to help other black businesses would be a refreshing change in economic tactics. Why, oh Why don’t they do exactly that instead of demanding that others do it for them with others’ money? Or, laughingly, that the entrenched minority immigrant businesses be made to suffer so that blacks can ‘feel’ successful rather than ‘be’ successful? Doesn’t it embarrass you just a little to know that the tactics you defend target what every other American considers the most vulnerable communities, i.e., newly arrived non-english speaking minorities? They do not arrive with great wealth. They arrive with the ambition that drove them to leave their homes and a work ethic that puts most Americans to shame. They look for economic opportunities where others are unwilling to risk their lives and what little capital they have. That and a determination to serve the needs of their customers is the reason that majority black Detroit apparently prefers to patronize non black owned businesses. To demand that these humble icons of American entrepreneurship (spellcheck be blessed!) be discriminated against by legal edict of the ‘majority minority’ is pathetic and unworthy of support from any community.
mikem, what you said. Bravo.
Cobra, small correction: I was misled by a phrase in the original article (I mean the Detroit paper’s one, not John’s), that suggested that this was to be a “Black business district.” I gathered at the time that it was to be for Black business-owners only, but apparently the idea was not to forbid other tenants, just to give anyone Black a large leg up in applying for loans to open in that particular part of town, and various other Black-only concessions. In other words, my racially-restrictive-covenants analogy overstated the case; I apologize.
I do wonder, by the way, how they were going to measure Blackness. Would a Kenyan immigrant rate? A Haitian immigrant? A Jamaican immigrant? A Black Cuban immigrant? (I don’t know if it has cropped up in the Detroit debate, but there are long-standing gripes from various Black community leaders in other cities that Africans and West Indians immigrate and then take all the good jobs. Puzzling, if racism is really the primary barrier.) How about a man with a Black great-grandparent?
Michelle,
Exactly WHO would consider “an upscale ghetto theme park” pathetic? Suburban Detroit whites who decided not to live with African Americans ANYWAY? If that’s the case, who CARES what they think. And exactly WHY should minority groups seek an approving ‘attaboy” from those who don’t have their best interests in mind in the first place?
Same question to you, Mikem, and a follow-up..are you stating that white American history depicts an UNWELCOME environment for nearly ALL immigrants, including those who were white themselves. Would you care to justify that position the dominant white majority took against immigration?
–Cobra
Cobra, this was addressed to mikem but I’ll answer it:
. . . are you stating that white American history depicts an UNWELCOME environment for nearly ALL immigrants, including those who were white themselves. Would you care to justify that position the dominant white majority took against immigration?
Why, yes, I would say that. If you don’t believe it, look at the case of the Irish in the 19th century, or the case of the Eastern and Southern Europeans in the early 20th. Look at the early history of IQ testing, and the means by which people from the “wrong” countries were rejected as “feeble-minded,” &c. at Ellis Island.
If I may say so, for one who is constantly accusing me and others here of not knowing our history, you seem to have a lot of historical blind spots.
Michelle,
I know perfectly well how horribly the white American majority treated immigrants of all stripes. I just wanted Mikem to acknowledge history and ADMIT IT HIMSELF.
We agree on something after all, Michelle.
:-)
–Cobra
“If that’s the case, who CARES what they think.”
Fair enough. And I wholeheartedly agree with your implied characterization of the black community’s attitude toward criticism. But I think you do care, otherwise you would not spend so much intellectual energy rationalizing educational and economic measures that are objectively racist and discriminatory.
I am 50 years young :) and accepted the need for anti-white discriminatory practices for most of my life in order to jump start the normally slow process of assimilation for blacks (and women, another matter) into the political, economic and academic marketplaces that had been all but denied to them previously. But after two generations, I am now unwilling to see my grandchildren of either gender legally discriminated against without protest. That unfortunately, and I mean that sincerely, seems to translate into white racism (my term) for your ears and there is nothing that I or any of the more eloquent commentators here can do to change your view. I won’t go against my principles by burning down your business or rationalizing white on black crime, or calling for legal discrimination of blacks etc., but I will no longer be cowed by accusations of racism that seem to accompany any call for a color blind society. I have read the ugly racist accusations made against black commentators who consider Martin Luther King to have been a great and wise man. I consider myself to be in good company in the views that I hold.
“…are you stating that white American history depicts an UNWELCOME environment for nearly ALL immigrants, including those who were white themselves.”
Yes, emphatically. I’m third generation Irish immigrant, so I have been ‘home-schooled’ in that aspect. The Italians also. The Germans less so because they had already established themselves to a degree when the German wave arrived. Asians of any nationality and much worse than the three former. Jews of any nationality, and to this day continuing internationally. Just look at how antisemitism has become acceptable in leftist circles in the U.S. and in Canada. Also, your current “white majority” is largely made up by those same immigrants a few generations removed. America is a nation of immigrants.
With that said, and recognizing the much greater barriers blacks faced between Emancipation and the Civil Rights Act, once the Act was passed it was followed by a slew of economic, political, and educational measures specifically targeted at helping the black community. None of the previously mentioned immigrant communities received such massive support (as a racial or ethnic community, rather than as economically deprived).
“Would you care to justify that position the dominant white majority took against immigration?” ( A ‘Purple Heart’ for this one.)
NO, NO, NO. Never attempted to. But I find it deliciously ironic that you challenge me to justify a practice that you have been defending with moral certitude for several days. You should stay away from wielding immigrant rights as a moral club while you concurrently rationalize anti-immigrant measures in majority black Detroit.
Mikem,
>>>I am 50 years young :) and accepted the need for anti-white discriminatory practices for most of my life in order to jump start the normally slow process of assimilation for blacks (and women, another matter) into the political, economic and academic marketplaces that had been all but denied to them previously.
Read my remarks. It’s “the normally slow process of assimilation”, NOT the normally slow process of black assimilation as if blacks are incapable or inherently slow to assimilate. Black assimilation HAS been slow and seemingly purposeful on the part of that community. The drumbeat of racial identity politics and skin color economic and educational preferences that you demand be continued will make permanent what for every other ethnic group is a process. The “racist” majority white population instituted wide spread discrimination against itself to speed up the process that previous ethnic groups had accomplished on their own. With such unprecedented assistance for two generations now you continue to demand that blacks be treated as ‘special wards’ of the American community, which is almost entirely of immigrant origin and which frankly has become resentful of the refusal of the black community to address problems that originate within its’ own ranks. The black (and black on white) crime rate is incredibly high yet any attempt by blacks or whites to address such disparities, and that does not give the perpetrator victim status, is rejected as racist. In the general population and especially among immigrant communities, a sense of ‘personal responsibility’ is considered a positive characteristic. But racial politics has transformed it into a racial ‘buzzword’ with a negative (racist) connotation. One that must be avoided, especially on American campuses. I don’t believe that the majority of blacks feel that way, but its opinion leaders certainly do and repeat with little (see Cosby) protest from the community.
The black community has received an incredible amount of moral and economic support from the ‘racist’ American community in the last forty years. Targeting other more recent immigrant and minority populations for obvious economic discrimination, which you defend in Detroit, is embarrassing to those who have defended blacks against discrimination in the past. It also draws unfavorable comparisons between ethnic groups that should be avoided in the interests of ‘majority minority’ Detroit community.
“… in effect, “White Town” exists throughout the surrounding suburbs of Detroit.” So then we can presume that “Black Town” already exists in majority black Detroit, in effect of course. What is your point? Frankly Cobra, if the black community in Detroit won’t support black businesses, why do you expect white suburbanites to do so? The point you make about immigrants starting out in low income areas is on the mark, but it does not strengthen your argument. In fact it puts your rationalizations in a deservedly unfavorable light. You’re ‘picking on’ an admirable community of immigrants and minorities that deserve praise and gratitude for serving the black community despite the higher crime rate that urban areas suffer from and the resentment of people like you. What is it that stops black Detroiters from saving money, renting a store front and doing the same? There is great risk in starting a business, but also greater rewards. Everyone has trouble raising outside capital for business ventures, of any size. But banks are profit driven by design, and would lend money to Saddam just as quickly as Ghandi if the risk and profit were the same. They don’t care who, just what. But your point about capital assumes the opposite. Racism among the lenders is possible, but certainly counterintuitive. My guess is that any bank would love to be able to point with pride at the number of black businesses it provided start up capital for, especially a bank operating in black majority Detroit.
Mikem,
You have many good points. I too believe that it’s essential for African Americans should support African American busisnesss. But you’re missing, I think, a big issue in assimilation. White controlled legislators wrote laws specifically designed to DISCOURAGE, if not OUTLAW “assimilation” of African Americans into American Society. There was a long period of time, in many parts of America where it was illegal to teach a black person to READ or WRITE. There were a whole variety of laws against educational, business social, legal, and of course marital relationships between blacks and whites, that didn’t apply to white ethnic immigrants. As poorly as many European immigrants were treated by the dominant WASP society, inevitably, bloodlines merged, and within a relatively short period of time, as you so aptly put, those who were once outsiders became the insiders.
A walk through any mall, or schoolyard would have even an observant person hard-pressed to pick out which European country of origin the people you see came from. But that isn’t the case with African Americans.
I don’t agree with you that this isolation was initially self-inflicted by African Americans. I feel that after nearly four centuries on this continent, there are things that are learned, assumed or taken for granted
on both sides. I belief that people, on the whole, when left to their own devices, will flow like water to the path of least resistance.
I disagree with you on “unprecedented assistance.” I’m sorry, but no Affirmative Action program ever trumped FREE LAND, given away to mostly white citizens during the Homestead Act in the 19th Century. Owning land is a fast lane to the creation of wealth in America. The GI BILL, mostly aiding white veterans from WW2 go to college. It was mostly WHITES who received Veterans Administration Loans that helped create the suburbs as we know them, in places like Levittown, NY. Now, if you don’t want to acknowledge these things were examples of assistance, I don’t know what to tell you. Most African Americans want the same things in life you do, Mike. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not bumper sticker slogons, but one of the things the Founders got right. Something to aspire to.
–Cobra
Cobra, whenever you are confronted with the reality of problems that black Americans need to address within their own community, you drop back and punt. You immediately cry out “We can’t and it’s your fault.” Guess what. The adolescent years are behind, you’re 40 years old and it’s time to move out on your own and be held responsible for your actions. The ‘myth’ of black racism is a myth only on campus. If you want to wage political and economic war with the immigrant and non black minority populations than go for it and be prepared to lose. Nobody, and I mean nobody, holds the ‘African American as victim’ in lower regard than they. That is especially true of black immigrants who feel absolutely no reluctance to employ racial epithets, having been immunized from criticism by their skin color. If you want to hear an earful of disgust, just make the mistake of confusing them for you in any sense. But, it’s your battle and if it’s true that a people are measured by the strength of its’ enemies, then you will indeed have that satisfaction.
Mikem,
Well, there you go again. Whenever you make comments such as this one:
>>>Cobra, whenever you are confronted with the reality of problems that black Americans need to address within their own community, you drop back and punt. You immediately cry out “We can’t and it’s your fault.” Guess what. The adolescent years are behind, you’re 40 years old and it’s time to move out on your own and be held responsible for your actions.>>”The biggest problem in the city of Detroit — and it’s true of all urban areas — are black leaders and white leaders who continue to use and hide behind the myth of a color-blind and race-neutral society and use it as an excuse not to deal with this dilemma,” Anderson said.
Cobra, I guess I have given you too much credit. Although your comments do reveal a lack of familiarity with the concept of self assessment, I had thought your years at the School of Racial Identity would have left you more familiar with the use of ethnic subsets when discussing racial discrimination. But of course you are just acting out the ultimate whine by finding unspoken racism in my use of “their own (black) community.” Oh well, at least you didn’t accuse me of questioning your patriotism, just your Americanism. Trying to keep your opponents backpedaling with constant invocations of “RACISM!!” doesn’t hack it anymore. This is not campus and no one will pretend that you have a valid point just to salve your hurt feelings and low self esteem. Stand on your own two feet, be willing to be judged by the same standards as everyone else and your life will be enriched beyond measure. Then when you achieve success it will be earned, not gifted from a sad and resigned public.
Mikem says:
>>>This is not campus and no one will pretend that you have a valid point just to salve your hurt feelings and low self esteem. Stand on your own two feet, be willing to be judged by the same standards as everyone else and your life will be enriched beyond measure. Then when you achieve success it will be earned, not gifted from a sad and resigned public.”
Some questions for you MikeM. Where on ANY POST I’ve ever made on this blog is the suggestion that I have “low self-esteem?” LOL, some would think given some of the responses I get that my self-esteem is bit too HIGH. As far as hurt feelings are concerned, c’mon Mike. This is a weblog, for goodnessake. If you were my father-in-law, I might be moved, but..you’re not.
You see, you’ve fallen into the trap that the anti-affirmative action types often do. You want me to practice in something you don’t really believe in yourself, which is some “totally merit based, color-blind society.” I’ve got news for you, Mike…America’s NEVER BEEN THAT society. You yourself, in your own words outline a rigid separation between yourself and “those in the black community.” Now, I didn’t call you a “racist”, did I? But if you don’t believe in true color-blindness across the board, in all aspects of life, your argument against racial preferences rings hollow. You would be the equivolent of a prohibitionist bartender.
Lastly, success is its own reward. There are different definitions of success for different people. You’re in absolute denial of American history of you think all groups were offered the same, equal chance at wealth, health and prosperity. Of course, absolute denial of reality despite facts on the ground is a common theme amongst many conservatives lately.
–Cobra
“You yourself, in your own words outline a rigid separation between yourself and “those in the black community.”
Here you go again. My use of racial subsets to discuss racial discrimination provides for you a deep insight into my belief system. Yes Cobra, I do not feel part of the black community. In fact, by definition I am not (gasp!) part of the black community. There is also a rigid separation between you and the Asian community that you wish to discriminate against in Detroit, but I would not thump my chest as you do for making a rather obvious observation.
Equal opportunity, not equal results. Unequal results, which you have repeatedly used as the final proof of the need for racial discrimination against non blacks, is unavoidable in a merit based system. You should applaud a merit based system as the best hope for ‘any particular ethnic or racial subset’ (I dare not say it) that you think you speak for, instead of assuming that it will leave ‘any particular ethnic or racial subset’ behind.
Yes Cobra, you have repeatedly described your opponents here, including me, as racist. Did you think using “klansmen with nice clothes and good PR” and “people who long for the days of lynching and Jim Crow”, instead of “racist” itself, would leave us confused as to what you were calling us? If I called you a murderer, could I then protest that I did not say you were a criminal? Please. This is life, not a classroom. Take responsibility for what you say. Take responsibility for success and failure in your life and stop looking for convenient excuses.
Mikem writes:
>>>Did you think using “klansmen with nice clothes and good PR” and “people who long for the days of lynching and Jim Crow”, instead of “racist” itself, would leave us confused as to what you were calling us?>>My use of racial subsets to discuss racial discrimination provides for you a deep insight into my belief system. Yes Cobra, I do not feel part of the black community.
You used “klansmen…” to describe neo conservatives in general. You used ” long for…lynching, Jim Crow …” to describe those opposed to affirmative action. Now you childishly insist that your remarks were meant only for someone else and not the commentators whom you directed them against.
I have the right to speak up for any ethnic community that I choose to defend. It may be outside of your experience to care about ‘others’, it is not outside of mine. My particular interest in what is happening in Detroit is the extent of the hypocrisies employed by its leaders to impose racial discrimination on the most vulnerable communities. Rather bullyish. I was heartened to read yesterday that several black community leaders have spoken out against the plan and expressed their embarrassment that a community once the victim of discrimination would be seen to employ it against a ‘minority minority’. Refreshing change from your all victim/all the time defense of racial preferences.