|
|
|
|
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/26/2008 7:30:16 AM |
Were you in favor of the government stepping in and telling families how and where they were going to go to school?
I'm not... but that had to do with the failure of the mechanization of HOW desegregation was achieved, rather than the goal of desegregation itself.... for most people, anyway. It was so inconvenient (and many times dangerous!) for the students to commute to school, and the schools in minority neighborhoods were SO bad... that it was just unworkable.
Thurgood Marshall, who later became a justice of the Supreme Court, argued the "Brown vs. Board" case in front of the Supremes in 1954 and could have argued it two ways...
1) make all schools truly equal in black and other communities and find a standard which could be applied equally and to all schools which would truly reflect equal quality of education.
OR
2) Let black children attend white schools.
So publicly funded schools were then desegregated...
Which led the way to the court later finding that not enough black children lived in white neighborhoods for them to get an equal education, which the previous decision had guaranteed... so, they tried to have equal proportions of black/white students in all schools...
The problem is not yet solved... and this was one of the reasons for the big political swing to the right that the US took in the 80s...
but then we have to ask, is it possible for us to solve such a problem or merely try to meet higher standards in minority communities?
Tough problem... especially for many black kids now who realize the value of an education, yet have to attend schools with gangstas... | |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/26/2008 9:29:31 AM | | So, maybe Thurgood Marshall should have argued the first point instead of the second. Maybe we would not have some of the difficulties we now have? | |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/26/2008 9:41:28 AM | Glock34, it's very similar in a lot of the Chicagoland area as it is to Detroit the way Scherri described it in post 195 (right below your last one). There are known "black" neighborhoods and schools, known Mexican ones, and ones that are predominantly neither or just predominantly non-Hispanic white.
That affected me directly in a way because the public h.s. I went to was one that had been greatly changed by enforced "busing laws" which basically forced the school integration. So it was integrated, and it wound up being by the time I was there about 65% black, about 20% Hispanic descent (almost all of whom were Mexican), and the remainder "other, Asian, non-Hispanic white, etc."
It's in the heart of a suburb that lies very near the city , but is a predominantly Afr.-Amer. suburb. In those years (late 80's - early 90's) no one was getting along. The black and Mexican kids were at each other's throats (as is still often the case today around Chicagoland); Italians and the few Greeks who were there kind of had their own "clique"; and there were East Asian kids who hung mostly with each other, and a couple tables (lunch tables) of other white kids (mostly "stoners" or whatever you called them, heavy metal long-haired guys) who stayed with each other.
So, a lesson in enforced integration still resulting in self-segregation based on race or ethnicity. You can't change human nature, is part of it, but also it has to be considered that we were ALL young rowdy kids, so.... they're only going to "get along" so far, as they're not very mature. Am I opposed to busing laws and enforced school integration? Maybe to a point, but I realize the intentions were good, and all in all it wasn't a disaster. Everyone there did get a truly rich "melting pot"-type experience that's for certain.
And for those who didn't want their kids to be there, black , Mexican, or other, they could always pony up 5 or 10 grand per year if they could afford it and send them to one of the local private (mostly Catholic-run) high schools. So in the end the gov't wasn't really truly "forcing" it upon everyone, I suppose. | |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/26/2008 1:45:03 PM | Flyguy, in response to your post 182, please explain how I gave "further evidence" for it. I did use quotes from a previous post in my responses. Uh, oh, you didn't make the same mistake I did? | |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/26/2008 8:49:45 PM |
Remember something, Glock. We're all borne of black people. Really? Says who? Is that supposed to mean something to me? Was that suppose to "fire" me up? Is your argument that poor that you have to resort to pulling little tidbits? Actually, we all came from Adam and Eve, and they more than likely were of a tan complexion, not black. I know the whole "black" thing is very important to you but sorry to disappoint.
Actually, yes Glock, I was attempting to stir your level of consciousness, 'fire you up', as you say. You'll have to forgive my deeply sarcastic tones.
Well, maybe not.
But, I did try to clarify the proposition that, according to researchers in the field of archeology, their best evidence suggest's that the cradle of man's earliest ancestors were from Africa. I posted the article for your reference.
Having been borne into a strict fundamental religious family (Church of Christ), I have knowledge of the story of Adam and Eve. However, my education, post HS, had much to do with the changed opinions I share. So, the Bible thumping doesn't go very far with me anymore, you're preaching to the choir already, and while you're entitled to your dogmatic right wing christian iron fisted opinion, it just no longer bodes well with me.
Did you ever see the movie, American Beauty? You remind me soooooooo much of the military father next door. If you haven't seen the movie, then it's really a non-issue. But, I'd suggest trying to have a more educated, open mind with regards to mans creations. You're really starting to come across as beligerant. Just the name Glock alone has it's insinuations. You obviously identify yourself with very militant views, and I'm afraid my anti-social conditions jusr flair up sometimes.
We're like oil and water. | |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/26/2008 9:30:38 PM |
So, maybe Thurgood Marshall should have argued the first point instead of the second. Maybe we would not have some of the difficulties we now have?
It appears that this must be the solution, if there is one.... as you said. Bussing just didn't work.
Another development about the "equal education" issue.
When congress developed the bussing solution, it was using all the school districts in states as a measure of equality. It could never be actualized, because many school districts in outlying areas are totally white. Would we be able to bus students 200 miles in a state like California to equalize the black/white enrollment in all the state's school districts?
Of course not.
Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled (I think it was Milliken vs. Michigan or something) that only area which could be equalized by busing of students was individual school districts and the boundaries of the area to be equalized were usually within the limits of a city.
In some states, the amount spent per student ranged from $3,000 in poor neighborhoods of New Jersey, to $9,000 in another school district in Cherry Hill, just a mile or two away.
Some schools in NYC are in old delapidated structures of unused theatres... although they charge very high rent.
Some school districts in school districts that have students with a 70% college grad rate spend less than Oakland, which spends huge amounts of money per student, but has a very low grad rate...
It's a very complex problem.
| |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/26/2008 9:39:12 PM | I'm not questioning researchers in the field of archeology suggesting mans earliest ancestry frmo Africa. However the assertion is that if it originates from Africa it has to be black. This simpy has not been proven to be the case at all.
It is not unusual for someone's post HS education to convincingly change someones mind with evolutionary propaganda. Although more and more leading PhD's are changing their minds about the theory of evolution as they learn more of the extreme complexity of life and the universe. Preaching? Hardly. I could care less what you think about creationism, evolution or me. But I was not as you say, "Bible thumping" and simply stated my view, my opinion. If that comes across as "Bible thumping" so be it. But it seems interesting that when someone disagrees with you that their opinion is categorized as "dogmatic, right wing, christian iron fisted."
Yes I did see American Beauty and thought all the characters in the movie were sick. But of course that's Hollywood for you. I was just thinking about how you remind me of "meathead" from All in The Family. Now there was a atheistic left winger if there ever was one.
Now do you mean by being "more educated", changing my mind so that I agree with your opinion? All I learned in school WAS evolution, yet through research on my own did not buy into that evolution bit. Didn't add up to me.
What next? Want to talk about my hat now? | |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/26/2008 10:27:56 PM |  If evolution doesn't add up for you, then you must not add very well and it kind of proves the natural selection theory in a way. You must not be very technology inclined and you're very lucky to have figured out how to work a computer.
If you are not aware that species evolve not only over thousands of years, but every single day in science labs all over the world where scientists are investigating genetic mutations, then your head must be deep into some crevice where current events don't penetrate.
Do you not know about hybridization? Antibodies? Viruses being able to mutate to a degree where last year's flu shots don't repel this years' flu strain?
I rest my case... | |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/27/2008 12:20:12 AM | Glock, here's what I came up with. You decide.
The Greatest Journey
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0603/feature2/index.html?fs=www3.nationalgeographic.com&fs=plasma.nationalgeographic.com
The Genographic Project
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/
According to the writings I found, the dawn of civilization started in Ethiopia some 150,000-200,000 yrs ago.
The Genographic Project is the scientific followup to the archeological findings.
DNA tracing has produced lineage and mapping, starting around this timeframe, up through current times.
Interestingly......there would appear a controversial aspect.
In a nutshell,
"the Project inherently conflicts with indigenous interest", says Debra Harry of the Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism, an advocacy group that has called for a boycott of The National Geographic society, IBM, and Gateway Computers, the source of funding for the Waitt Foundation. "The fundamental question the project is asking is "where do we come from?". That's not a question that is of interest to us as indigenous people. We already know where we came from".
The point of this is.... all fingers point to Africa as the cradle of man, the earliest ancestors.
In the mid-1980s the late Allan Wilson and colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley, used mtDNA to pinpoint humanity's ancestral home. They compared mtDNA from women around the world and found that women of African descent showed twice as much diversity as their sisters. Since the telltale mutations seem to occur at a steady rate, modern humans must have lived in Africa twice as long as anywhere else. Scientists now calculate that all living humans are related to a single woman who lived roughly 150,000 years ago in Africa, a "mitochondrial Eve." She was not the only woman alive at the time, but if geneticists are right, all of humanity is linked to Eve through an unbroken chain of mothers.
Now from this, hypothetically speaking, I know of no other continent on the face of the earth that has black ancestry in the same way Africa does. Asia, N.,C., & S. America's, Europe, Australia..... all of these have some degree of blacks living in them. But none have the concentration of blacks that Africa does. With exception to S. Africa, Johannisburg (British colonizing) , most of Africa is entirely populated with blacks; Nairobi, Kenya, Nigeria, Mali, Sudan, Congo, Somalia, Uganda, Namibia, Botswana, Mozambique, Tanzania, and of course,,,,, Ethiopia..... these are countries...of nearly 100% black people, the entire continent, almost entirely black.
So, while you may choose to lament there to be some arguement as to how whites may have magically inhabited that land some 200,000 yrs ago, which suddenly became almost fully inhabited by blacks, thereafter, the migration routes outlined in the preceding articles illustrate otherwise.
None of us actually knows what happened or if Mitochondrial Eve was white or black. There appears much harping over that simple aspect, but my hunch, poised with my "evolutionairy propogandist mind" suggest connecting the dots and just accepting that.....given the overwhelming studies that have shown our ancestral dating to come from Africe 150000-200000 yrs ago....and given the overwhelming odds that Africa then, as now, is almost entirely black.... yes..... I nod affirmatively... that it would be difficult, if not impossible to prove otherwise, that our origins are of black decent.
IOW's, I don't need to have the writing on the wall in order to understand. I'm not waiting for them to finally say it's so. Maybe you do, but I doubt you'll ever find a reasonable answer in the Bible. And, yes you were thumping your Bible, by stating Adam & Eve were your answer to creationism, that, in addition to the Intelligent Design theories you bemoaned.
I guess it's too bad the Indigenous Society can't simply legislate for someone to put a labels on the Waitt Foundation or the companies funding their research like the religious right did with textbooks illustrating and defining the processes of evolution, aye? Gee, wouldn't that simplify things.
Sorry, Like I said..
Oil....water.... | |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/27/2008 7:58:34 AM | No, evolution doesn't add up to me, blame my counting all you want. But don't only blame my counting, blame the scientific community as well. You even called it the "natural selection THEORY". Stop calling it a theory and call it LAW. Why doesn't the scientific community call it law? THEORY: A proposed but unverified explaination.
No, maybe I'm not technologically inclined, yet here we both are...
I never said genetic mutations don't occur but they are variations, just like the breeding of different types of dogs. But a more important question to ask in regards life at the molecular level is not how do these mutations occur, but rather how did life begin at that level to begin with. Because again, even at the highest level in the scientific community you have disagreement amoungst the "leading" evolutionary scientists. Perhaps they need to get with you so you can set them straight?
Even the top scientists agree that in order for the organic materials and proteins etc, to come together at just the right way to creat life at the most simplistic form of life, the odds would be so huge as to called impossible.
Oh, and the flu shots you get....they only protect against the KNOWN flu strains anyway, not the new.
I rest my case | |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/27/2008 8:27:11 AM | Oh, and the flu shots you get....they only protect against the KNOWN flu strains anyway, not the new.
Wrong. They predict what strains might be a problem.
http://www.cdc.gov/FLU/protect/keyfacts.htm
Each vaccine contains three influenza viruses-one A (H3N2) virus, one A (H1N1) virus, and one B virus. The viruses in the vaccine change each year based on international surveillance and scientists' estimations about which types and strains of viruses will circulate in a given year.
I don't even know how that ties in to this conversation because I haven't been reading this thread for a page or so, but I wanted to provide the correct info on that. :) | |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/27/2008 8:41:17 AM |
But a more important question to ask in regards life at the molecular level is not how do these mutations occur, but rather how did life begin at that level to begin with. Because again, even at the highest level in the scientific community you have disagreement amoungst the "leading" evolutionary scientists. Perhaps they need to get with you so you can set them straight?
Why is this the more important question? It might be more important for those who want to argue the case for a bible story, but it's not more important for the scientific study of evolutionary processes.
Even the top scientists agree that in order for the organic materials and proteins etc, to come together at just the right way to creat life at the most simplistic form of life, the odds would be so huge as to called impossible.
Hmmm. Can you name them please? The "top scientists" I mean? | |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/27/2008 8:55:19 AM | I was responding to someone elses post. You CANNOT predict what and how a strain is going to mutate. As the previous poster stated, which I agree, the strains mutate. How are you going to "predict" how it's going to mutate? You can't. They can only give you a vaccine based on strains they know about. Even your "keyfacts" quote refutes your assertion and supports what I am saying! Nice one. | |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/27/2008 9:22:55 AM | [Why is this the more important question? It might be more important for those who want to argue the case for a bible story, but it's not more important for the scientific study of evolutionary processes. ]
HUH? Are you serious? Is that how science works? If it has ANY religious, particularly creationist overtones, ignore it? I am amazed that you would even say anything that rediculous. When a scientist has a theory he is suppose to reply on others in his discipline to test it objectively to see if the theory is true or not.
[Hmmm. Can you name them please? The "top scientists" I mean?]
Michael Behe, Stephen C Meyer are a couple. | |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/27/2008 9:37:19 AM |
I was responding to someone elses post. You CANNOT predict what and how a strain is going to mutate. As the previous poster stated, which I agree, the strains mutate. How are you going to "predict" how it's going to mutate? You can't. They can only give you a vaccine based on strains they know about. Even your "keyfacts" quote refutes your assertion and supports what I am saying! Nice one.
You really are quite cranky, aren't you? ;) The key facts I posted came from the CDC (Center for Disease Control) and I'm sorry, but they are the authority....that's who tells the drug companies what vaccines to manufacture....and the quote said they estimate. You are right, though, you cannot predict how a strain is going to mutate, which is why the flu shot is not always effective. Last year the flu shot we gave was worthless. | |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/27/2008 9:46:25 AM | Cranky!? perhaps you should go and read your post of 132 and tell me about cranky?
Pahaps you just don't like being called out on something and have to be right ALL the time (opps there I go being "cranky" again)
[The key facts I posted came from the CDC (Center for Disease Control) and I'm sorry, but they are the authority....that's who tells the drug companies what vaccines to manufacture....and the quote said they estimate. You are right, though, you cannot predict how a strain is going to mutate, which is why the flu shot is not always effective. Last year the flu shot we gave was worthless]
As far as the rest of your post, I just added what you failed to mention in your previous post. But thanks for stating it again. | |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/27/2008 9:46:49 AM | 
I reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally don't want to get into an argument about evolution... but if you haven't come that far...then may whatever invisible being it is you believe created us walk with you. I'm a believer also, but I don't have an anti-science agenda so I'm able to understand that stuff a little better than some other people, is the way I see it...
There are no facts, only beliefs.
I believe people who generalize about other individuals regarding their beliefs and attitudes based on what ethnic or cultural group they belong to, live in an imaginary world. | |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/27/2008 9:57:37 AM |
HUH? Are you serious? Is that how science works? If it has ANY religious, particularly creationist overtones, ignore it? I am amazed that you would even say anything that rediculous. When a scientist has a theory he is suppose to reply on others in his discipline to test it objectively to see if the theory is true or not.
Overtones? I'm not sure what you mean. If something has no scientific basis, then scientists shouldn't take it into consideration in doing their work. While there may be some creationists who are also scientists, creationism itself has nothing to do with science.
So....for example.....while it might be interesting to try to locate, from a scientific point of view, a common human ancestor....Adam and Eve (such as they are) are irrelevant. See the difference?
But it seems to me that this whole discussion just comes down to you not wanting to believe that you might have a "black" evolutionary ancester. Am I wrong?
| |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/27/2008 10:00:09 AM | Post 132? Yep, I sure was cranky. See, it's ok to admit it. I'm not sure what you mean by saying you added something to my post, but whatev. And no, I don't have to be right ALL the time, but when I am, I am. And when I'm not, I admit it. See, it's ok to admit that too! It's all good, just breathe.  | |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/27/2008 10:00:52 AM |
( Glock) No, evolution doesn't add up to me, blame my counting all you want. But don't only blame my counting, blame the scientific community as well. You even called it the "natural selection THEORY". Stop calling it a theory and call it LAW. Why doesn't the scientific community call it law? THEORY: A proposed but unverified explaination. Considering you've opted out of the cradle of man debate, I'll try and help you out a bit here concerning evolution, as it appears this is the course this wave has gone. Blame the scientific community? IF anything, they've all but done YOUR reading for you.
Was Darwin Wrong?
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html
Take a few minutes and read what the worlds top scientist have to say with regards to human existence, and the proven or disproven theories on evolution.
Bare in mind, evolution IS theory. But then again, electricity and gravity are two THEORIES. No one seems to be disputing those theories because, well, they're well proven the0ries, much like Darwins Theories on Evolution.
Theories are based on countless hypothesis, which eventually are deemed acceptable views of particular ideas. They're accepted, even though they're not visible.
If you are skeptical by nature , unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence , you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory . The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory . Even electricity is a theoretical construct , involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact . That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along. The rest of us generally agree. We plug our televisions into little wall sockets, measure a year by the length of Earth's orbit, and in many other ways live our lives based on the trusted reality of those theories.
The evidence is there," he added. "It's buried in the rocks of ages."
I don't write the stuff, I just pass it on.
The essential points are slightly more complicated than most people assume, but not so complicated that they can't be comprehended by any attentive person. Furthermore, the supporting evidence is abundant, various, ever increasing, solidly interconnected, and easily available in museums, popular books, textbooks, and a mountainous accumulation of peer-reviewed scientific studies
I dont' need to be a geneticist to understand the finer points of the evolutionary processes discussed. Nor, do I need to actually SEE electricity as involving electrons, those tiny units of charged mass swirling around at the speed of light, in order to accept the hypothesesis.
Evolutionary theory, though, is a bit different. It's such a dangerously wonderful and far-reaching view of life that some people find it unacceptable, despite the vast body of supporting evidence . As applied to our own species, Homo sapiens, it can seem more threatening still. Many fundamentalist Christians and ultraorthodox Jews take alarm at the thought that human descent from earlier primates contradicts a strict reading of the Book of Genesis
I still haven't fully rested my case on this, but I'm convinced enough to at least consider the overwhelmingly supportive scientific data in favor of Darwins Theories.
Thump thump thump | |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/27/2008 11:36:00 AM | I thought the thread was about racial undertones in an election... not a species of origin debate. But, maybe I misunderstood the original post.
The Racial Undertones, thus far, have come from Obama...himself. He insists on saying in speechs... how different he looks from the previous Presidents... .but, yet America still has a long ways to go. Geez. The Candidate himself is using the racial undertones. And, not even undertones... flat out statements. It's not McCain doing it. If McCain did... the Liberals would work him over. It's called Double Standard.  | |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/27/2008 11:41:34 AM |
The Racial Undertones, thus far, have come from Obama...
He does look different from an person who's been a US president...
Are you disputing that?
What do YOU mean by "racial undertones". He's been pretty up front about who he is. What makes that an "undertone"? | |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/27/2008 11:47:58 AM |
Ahhhh... again-many allegations.
Zero examples....
Name one example of Obama's "racial undertones", or I might think you're using a very underhanded way of criticizing him.
Source please.
Not every post has to have tons and tons of copy and pastes and/or links. We are capable of stating the obvious and the obvious in this case Sir... is to give you the pleasure of 'googling' all of Obama's speeches and read them. It is quite obvious it's there. Go for it. Too many links for me to bother putting. It's common knowledge.
Kinda like your statement as follows:
Tough problem... especially for many black kids now who realize the value of an education, yet have to attend schools with gangstas...
Please give exact citations to support the above statement.
If you are going to ask for 'citations' on everything someone else says...be prepared to cite every single thing you state. | |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/27/2008 11:58:27 AM | Please give exact citations to support the above statement.
If you are going to ask for 'citations' on everything someone else says...be prepared to cite every single thing you state. Come now, Padawann , you know thats not how it works, darlin. It is only those who speak against majority opinion that must do that. Duh.
Citation: Popular Demand 101
www.all2gether-now@getaclue.com *mischievously chuckles* | |
|
| Racial undertones in play in election
Posted: 7/27/2008 12:35:39 PM | maybe but yesterday she posted that the Baby Boomers were overwhelmingly favoring McCain, which isn't even close to accurate according to every poll I can find.
getting into a reference war won't bring much to the debate but citing statistics with no basis won't either. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
