RACISM SOLVED on IIDB! "This whole business about whether someone had ancestors who were a slave or slaveholder is just ridiculous. It means nothing."

[thebeave]

In my opinion, inheritance should only be voided if the assets being passed down were found to have been obtained unlawfully by those leaving the inheritance. That should be obvious to any reasonable person.

Seems reasonable. But what about ill gotten gains that originate from a previous generation? Like if you're grandfather was a drug dealer and he passed his wealth to your dad, who then wants to pass it on to you? How far back to we go?

 

[Gospel]

In my opinion, inheritance should only be voided if the assets being passed down were found to have been obtained unlawfully by those leaving the inheritance. That should be obvious to any reasonable person.

Such as by owning slaves? Oh wait, that would cancel out most inherited wealth....

I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. Could you be a bit more specific? The reason I ask is to my knowledge slavery was LEGAL IN THE FUCKING USA. So none of those shitbags obtained their wealth through slavery illegally.

My god some of yall be tripping for real.

 

[Gospel]

In my opinion, inheritance should only be voided if the assets being passed down were found to have been obtained unlawfully by those leaving the inheritance. That should be obvious to any reasonable person.

Seems reasonable. But what about ill gotten gains that originate from a previous generation? Like if you're grandfather was a drug dealer and he passed his wealth to your dad, who then wants to pass it on to you? How far back to we go?

As far back as the law permits under the statute of limitations. It’s as if the moment certain words are spoken, people assume all other laws no longer apply. Do I really need to list every existing law to clarify my point? I think it's pretty clear that what I'm saying isn't unreasonable. If I stole the Mona Lisa five years ago and then passed it down to my son in my last will and testament, does my son get to keep the Mona Lisa?

 

[Gospel]

Hmm, wait. I suppose @Politesse has a valid point. If they gained wealth through slavery after it was abolished, then absolutely—take it all away. They deserve no sympathy.

Edit: And to be clear, I'm specifically talking about those who started using slaves after it was abolished, not those who had slaves before. For some reason, I need to be extra precise around here.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It isn't a hate crime to refuse admittance of a potential student because their scores are lower than other applicants. I'd imagine that if only test scores and grades were used to admit students in the 1970s and 1980s, we'd see a much different ethnic distribution of students in US Colleges today. The whole point of Affirmative Action is to admit the thumb was on the scale 20 years ago and that thumb impacts applicants filing for admission today. It isn't about discriminate treatment of race, disregarding any care for qualifications.

To the best of my knowledge, affirmative action has led to no disparate professional outcomes in the fields it has been used.

Research showing a social issue isn't an issue doesn't get done much. And when it is done it's usually by outsiders. This is a case where the absence of data should not be used as a suggestion there is no data.

You don't have jack, but you don't want that to be held against you. Here is a link to a chart showing car accident related deaths per capita. In the 1970s, something happens, and deaths begin to drop. Multiple things are likely the cause, but there is a very clear change.

I've yet to see one for affirmative action and its impact on any field.

Furthermore, we have what we saw in California. Remove AA and more blacks got degrees because they were more likely to graduate if they weren't in over their head.

Source? From what I see, African American attendance and graduation dropped. Latino went up though.

NPR Article on the results of the ban.

The ban first took effect with the incoming class of '98. Subsequently, diversity plummeted at UC's most competitive campuses. That year, enrollment among Black and Latino students at UCLA and UC Berkeley fell by 40%, according to a 2020 study by Bleemer. As a result of the ban, Bleemer found that Black and Latino students who might have gotten into those two top schools enrolled at less competitive campuses.

...

Faced with plummeting minority enrollment, admissions offices began a years-long effort to figure out ways to get their numbers back up.

Admissions offices pivoted to a more holistic approach, looking beyond grades and test scores. Starting in the early 2000s, the UC system implemented a couple of initiatives to increase diversity: The top-performing students graduating most high schools in the state were guaranteed admission to most of the eight UC undergraduate campuses. It also introduced a comprehensive review process to "evaluate students' academic achievements in light of the opportunities available to them" — using an array of criteria including a student's special skills and achievements, special circumstances and location of high school.

...

Still, the California schools are unable to meet their diversity goals systemwide. Chang says his school is not where it wants to be. It still enrolls far fewer Black and Latino students than their share of California high school graduates — a problem it didn't have before the affirmative action ban.

 

[Politesse]

In my opinion, inheritance should only be voided if the assets being passed down were found to have been obtained unlawfully by those leaving the inheritance. That should be obvious to any reasonable person.

Such as by owning slaves? Oh wait, that would cancel out most inherited wealth....

I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. Could you be a bit more specific? The reason I ask is to my knowledge slavery was LEGAL IN THE FUCKING USA. So none of those shitbags obtained their wealth through slavery illegally.

My god some of yall be tripping for real.

Ah. So in your view, if someone who abuses their position power over others declares it legal for themselves to do so, does that make their actions morally acceptable? I'm not asking what is legal. I know what is legal. A lot of things are legal that shouldn't be, slavery included. I mean, I guess having an internal moral compass is what makes me a "Progressive", but for me that wasn't "progress". I was raised from birth to see certain things as right or wrong, and in trying to determine whch is which, I've never really been tempted to surrender my conscience to the dubious wisdom of the State.

If Trump starts violating laws left and right next term because the Supreme Court has technically declared it "legal" for him to do so while in office, the written laws of this nation will be on his side but I will still consider him a criminal and his looting of the treasury to be theft. And I consider my family's wealth to be blood money for a similar reason, however technically legal our actions may have been in the 1840s. Crime is a complex concept. But every one knows ill-gotten gains when they see them. From the start, we had the legal permission but not a natural right to the labor of our human property.

 

[Gospel]

An older house means more headaches and more chance of something seriously wrong. I don't know what it cost to fix but I know my parent's house turned out to have some serious hidden issues. I wouldn't blame a bank one bit for requiring a lower loan to value on such houses.

However, if an entire area is deliberately and completely denied access to loans for an extended period, it's no wonder those homes would fall into disrepair, leading to a decline in property values. This, in turn, would result in said low 'loan-to-value' ratios you keep hammering about after being told they DIDNT GET ANY FUCKING LOANS AT ALL.

 

[Politesse]

Hmm, wait. I suppose @Politesse has a valid point. If they gained wealth through slavery after it was abolished, then absolutely—take it all away. They deserve no sympathy.

I mean, that would certainly be a good start. And almost more controversial than historical reparations. Holding multinationals accountable for the use of slave labor in acquiring our nation's material wealth is not just difficult but a deeply unpopular project -- too many of our politicians take direct bribes from Ford/GM, Nike, Apple, Amazon, and other major companies that traffic slave-produced goods.

Oh, sorry "forced labor"-produced or "trafficked person"-produced goods. Wouldn't want to use the wrong word and offend anyone important!

 

[Gospel]

In my opinion, inheritance should only be voided if the assets being passed down were found to have been obtained unlawfully by those leaving the inheritance. That should be obvious to any reasonable person.

Such as by owning slaves? Oh wait, that would cancel out most inherited wealth....

I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. Could you be a bit more specific? The reason I ask is to my knowledge slavery was LEGAL IN THE FUCKING USA. So none of those shitbags obtained their wealth through slavery illegally.

My god some of yall be tripping for real.

Ah. So in your view, if someone who abuses their position power over others declares it legal for themselves to do so, does that make their actions morally acceptable? I'm not asking what is legal. I know what is legal. A lot of things are legal that shouldn't be, slavery included. I mean, I guess having an internal moral compass is what makes me a "Progressive", but for me that wasn't "progress". I was raised from birth to see certain things as right or wrong, and in trying to determine whch is which, I've never really been tempted to surrender my conscience to the dubious wisdom of the State.

If Trump starts violating laws left and right next term because the Supreme Court has technically declared it "legal" for him to do so while in office, the written laws of this nation will be on his side but I will still consider him a criminal and his looting of the treasury to be theft. And I consider my family's wealth to be blood money for a similar reason, however technically legal our actions may have been in the 1840s. Crime is a complex concept. But every one knows ill-gotten gains when they see them. From the start, we had the legal permission but not a natural right to the labor of our human property.

The morality of a law doesn’t change the fact that it’s still the law. If we start deciding that a law can be ignored or retroactively enforced based on personal beliefs about what’s moral, we undermine the very foundation of our legal system. That’s why it’s important to approach the writing and passing of laws with the utmost seriousness. Furthermore, there’s no need to hold individuals accountable for past actions that were legal at the time, when America as a nation has both the power and obligation to address its historical wrongs—an obligation recognized in the Constitution’s amendments. Yet, some racist individuals will label this as a ‘handout,’ while being perfectly fine with billions being paid in reparations to Jewish people for atrocities that America itself didn’t commit.

Oh wait, 'reparations' is a trigger word because it's supposedly reserved for Black people 'complaining' about slavery. Conveniently ignoring that the financial aid, military assistance, and diplomatic support they're receiving fits the description of reparation or compensation for the historical suffering of the Jewish people. How so you say? Well what would Jewish people receive in reparations for the holocausts if not what they're receiving? What could possibly top that? Indian reservations? Meanwhile, whatever Black people do receive, like Affirmative Action or DEI initiatives, we have to listen to white people complain about it.

Or the classic argument: 'Who do we give reparations to? None of you were actual slaves.' Meanwhile, many Jewish people receiving assistance today didn’t directly experience the Holocaust, and Indigenous people on reservations should give up their land because those who experienced the genocide aren't around anymore.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He was right. It has no importance on an individual basis. Harris has slaveowner ancestors. So what? Everyone has slaveowner ancestors. Harris has slave ancestors. So what? Everyone has slave ancestors. People have been enslaving one another for millennia and there's no more chance of finding someone to breed with who has no slaves or slaveowners in his or her ancestry than someone who isn't descended from a thief. Heck, half the people in the world are probably descended just from one or another of the slave-girls Genghis Khan owned and impregnated. So what? Most people were slaves in a lot of Western Europe in the Middle Ages and more recently than that in Eastern Europe. Enslaving Slavs was so common our languages named the institution after them. So what? Who cares if some Russian-American's ancestors weren't freed until 1861?

Exactly. Several generations back family trees tend to grow very wide and have both good and bad sorts in them.

I was puzzled about how my ancestral DNA came to be until someone pointed out that it might have come from a sailor. Yeah, makes perfect sense and means that most likely there's a whore 8 generations back. Means nothing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It was considered redlining locally when banks were "discriminating" against blacks. Strangely, though, only on low-down mortgages in "black" areas (or was it areas with no expected appreciation???) The simplest option is that they don't want to write loans that will be underwater a few years down the road. Anything else you have explain why they discriminated only in that situation.

You overlooked the part where some white people in poor neighborhoods were still able to secure loans, buy homes, and move to new areas. Unfortunately, the same opportunities weren't available to black people. Furthermore, white people were simply collateral damage in the deliberate effort to drive down property values in predominantly black neighborhoods by restricting the necessary flow of capital for development. They created the situation then said oh look! It's risky to invest there.

Overlooked what?

Locally at least race made absolutely zero difference in getting a mortgage in a good area.

And nobody's trying to deliberately drive down property values.

 

[Gospel]

And nobody's trying to deliberately drive down property values.

Nobody when? These days? Those days? I have no idea what you're attempting to deny.

 

[Gospel]

He was right. It has no importance on an individual basis. Harris has slaveowner ancestors. So what? Everyone has slaveowner ancestors. Harris has slave ancestors. So what? Everyone has slave ancestors. People have been enslaving one another for millennia and there's no more chance of finding someone to breed with who has no slaves or slaveowners in his or her ancestry than someone who isn't descended from a thief. Heck, half the people in the world are probably descended just from one or another of the slave-girls Genghis Khan owned and impregnated. So what? Most people were slaves in a lot of Western Europe in the Middle Ages and more recently than that in Eastern Europe. Enslaving Slavs was so common our languages named the institution after them. So what? Who cares if some Russian-American's ancestors weren't freed until 1861?

Exactly. Several generations back family trees tend to grow very wide and have both good and bad sorts in them.

I was puzzled about how my ancestral DNA came to be until someone pointed out that it might have come from a sailor. Yeah, makes perfect sense and means that most likely there's a whore 8 generations back. Means nothing.

Oh look, it's two white folks having an imaginary conversation, both responding to something that was never actually said. They’re right that ancestry doesn’t matter for many things—like being a candidate for the presidency. But I did mention it has cultural significance. I wonder if either of you want to stop debating what's imagined and address what I’m actually saying. But hey, I’m used to this from both of you, so it is what it is. Enjoy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Furthermore, we have what we saw in California. Remove AA and more blacks got degrees because they were more likely to graduate if they weren't in over their head.

Source? From what I see, African American attendance and graduation dropped. Latino went up though.

NPR Article on the results of the ban.

The ban first took effect with the incoming class of '98. Subsequently, diversity plummeted at UC's most competitive campuses. That year, enrollment among Black and Latino students at UCLA and UC Berkeley fell by 40%, according to a 2020 study by Bleemer. As a result of the ban, Bleemer found that Black and Latino students who might have gotten into those two top schools enrolled at less competitive campuses.

...

Faced with plummeting minority enrollment, admissions offices began a years-long effort to figure out ways to get their numbers back up.

Admissions offices pivoted to a more holistic approach, looking beyond grades and test scores. Starting in the early 2000s, the UC system implemented a couple of initiatives to increase diversity: The top-performing students graduating most high schools in the state were guaranteed admission to most of the eight UC undergraduate campuses. It also introduced a comprehensive review process to "evaluate students' academic achievements in light of the opportunities available to them" — using an array of criteria including a student's special skills and achievements, special circumstances and location of high school.

...

Still, the California schools are unable to meet their diversity goals systemwide. Chang says his school is not where it wants to be. It still enrolls far fewer Black and Latino students than their share of California high school graduates — a problem it didn't have before the affirmative action ban.

You're not rebutting my point.

Minority students at those two colleges dropped considerably. That's not what I was talking about! Rather, I'm talking about the total across the whole college system. As your source says, they enroll at less competitive campuses--but it doesn't mention the fact that they were more likely to graduate rather than drop out/flunk out. And I consider it a win when someone gets their degree from a 2nd tier university rather than fails to get one from a 1st tier university.

Your source is describing a variety of means of discriminating in favor of black students. They wouldn't be doing that if merit worked. Do you not see how your source is dripping with racism? Just because the victims are Asian and white doesn't make it not racism and not wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

An older house means more headaches and more chance of something seriously wrong. I don't know what it cost to fix but I know my parent's house turned out to have some serious hidden issues. I wouldn't blame a bank one bit for requiring a lower loan to value on such houses.

However, if an entire area is deliberately and completely denied access to loans for an extended period, it's no wonder those homes would fall into disrepair, leading to a decline in property values. This, in turn, would result in said low 'loan-to-value' ratios you keep hammering about after being told they DIDNT GET ANY FUCKING LOANS AT ALL.

AFIAK low down mortgages didn't exist at the time you're talking about.

Note that the discrimination you are referring to was about houses that were most likely built in the 19th century. Lower class urban construction from the 19th, 30+ years old? It probably wasn't in decent shape.

 

[Gospel]

AFIAK low down mortgages didn't exist at the time you're talking about.

As far as I know, loans for property improvement, new homes, and even refinancing were all available during the era of redlining. We’re still talking about that, right? You haven’t stepped through a portal to an alternate reality where we’re having a completely different conversation, correct? All of these financial opportunities were systematically denied to Black people.

 

[Gospel]

My, my, I wonder if people realize that Black folks who purchased their homes for cash actually existed. And why did they do that? Maybe because loans weren’t an option, so they had to save up and buy outright. That's plausible, because, a lot of those old homes didn’t have mortgages, from what I’ve learned. Could it be because the banking system did a good job of keeping certain people out of the home buying market? Leaving only those who were able to save and not need a loan to purchase a house? Curious that.

 

[Bomb#20]

He was right. It has no importance on an individual basis. ... Who cares if some Russian-American's ancestors weren't freed until 1861?

Exactly. Several generations back family trees tend to grow very wide and have both good and bad sorts in them.

I was puzzled about how my ancestral DNA came to be until someone pointed out that it might have come from a sailor. Yeah, makes perfect sense and means that most likely there's a whore 8 generations back. Means nothing.

Oh look, it's two white folks having an imaginary conversation, both responding to something that was never actually said. They’re right that ancestry doesn’t matter for many things—like being a candidate for the presidency. But I did mention it has cultural significance. I wonder if either of you want to stop debating what's imagined and address what I’m actually saying. But hey, I’m used to this from both of you, so it is what it is. Enjoy.

Dude, the imaginary conversation is on you -- the main point of this thread was to put words in thebeave's mouth, and you were one of those doing it. I chimed in only to put an end to all that. If the substantive rump of the thread continues, enjoy. Over and out.

 

[Gospel]

He was right. It has no importance on an individual basis. ... Who cares if some Russian-American's ancestors weren't freed until 1861?

Exactly. Several generations back family trees tend to grow very wide and have both good and bad sorts in them.

I was puzzled about how my ancestral DNA came to be until someone pointed out that it might have come from a sailor. Yeah, makes perfect sense and means that most likely there's a whore 8 generations back. Means nothing.

Oh look, it's two white folks having an imaginary conversation, both responding to something that was never actually said. They’re right that ancestry doesn’t matter for many things—like being a candidate for the presidency. But I did mention it has cultural significance. I wonder if either of you want to stop debating what's imagined and address what I’m actually saying. But hey, I’m used to this from both of you, so it is what it is. Enjoy.

Dude, the imaginary conversation is on you -- the main point of this thread was to put words in thebeave's mouth, and you were one of those doing it. I chimed in only to put an end to all that. If the substantive rump of the thread continues, enjoy. Over and out.

Hey TheBeave, did I put words in your mouth? I’m pretty sure you can speak for yourself. Last I checked, we were in agreement that ancestry doesn’t matter when it comes to running for the presidency—at least on this side of the portal. And no, you’re not some conversation traffic cop. You can’t stop something that never happened. Glad to see you’re making your usual exit— running with one foot tucked neatly in your mouth.

 

[Gospel]

In my opinion, inheritance should only be voided if the assets being passed down were found to have been obtained unlawfully by those leaving the inheritance. That should be obvious to any reasonable person.

Seems reasonable. But what about ill gotten gains that originate from a previous generation? Like if you're grandfather was a drug dealer and he passed his wealth to your dad, who then wants to pass it on to you? How far back to we go?

As far back as the statute of limitations permits.