A enraging expose from Jon Oliver on voting rights.

[AniThyng]

The romulan republic : what is your position on affirmative action and race quotas? Do you believe that such is necessary to correct systemic imbalances that will only be exacerbated by "equal" treatment?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If TRR is going to automatically dismiss the actual indigenous people themselves and what they're saying about this, I cannot have this debate. It would be absurd to have it when their voices are not being acknowledged. You can mock me for not counting to get pounded, but my objective is to change peoples' minds and if I believe that there's no prospect of doing so, why should I waste hours of my life I could spend doing other things, talking to people who profoundly disagree with all I see that is fair and just?

StandingInFire, anyone could of course become part of a Native state. What they could not do is become part of the reservation, which would be a component of that state. So whites living on reservation land (which isn't honestly a bad thing, it's the one group of people who unambiguously have to negotiate fairly with indigenous people in modern society) would have the right to vote for the state government, but, of course, can't participate in the tribal governance of that particular reservation. This is the way it works now, it would just be that the state is made up exclusively of reservations.

Joun_Lord: I made a proposal about adding states comprised of discontiguous groupings of affiliated Indian reservations. You are now trying to tarry that idea with a comparison to all kinds of horrible things not allowed anywhere in the USA. I explicitly also said that indigenous groups have a right to autonomy in general compliant with the UN Declaration of Human Rights; which actually bans all of these things, it's just the UN has no damned enforcement mechanism. I really think it's a red herring, but you can believe this is a problem if you want to because I'm not going to change your mind.

I love how TRR is trying to goad me into continuing the debate. He seems to forget I'm 31 and have a professional career and family now, and literally don't have the time for this. If it was any other issue I'd not have even started. I merely hope someone actually reads the links, understands the debate, and possibly stretches their mind a bit. I don't like oppressing people, as strange as that may sound, but people with attitudes like this have made me a party to the oppression, and force me to at least raise the subject of their continued racist oppression of indigenous people in public. You can now, of course, mount your high towers to mock me for leaving. But since another 100 days of posting would come to the same result (both TRR and myself utterly convinced we're right and the other is a moron), I'll skip the waste of time, thanks muchly, and I long ago learned that being called a coward on the internet is a compliment.

[The Romulan Republic]

The romulan republic : what is your position on affirmative action and race quotas? Do you believe that such is necessary to correct systemic imbalances that will only be exacerbated by "equal" treatment?

Different topic, but since this is at least tangentially related I'll answer it.

In theory, affirmative action and race quotas should not be necessary or just. Ideally, how people are treated should not be affected by their race. However, that is merely an idealized hypothetical- I recognize that their are systemic injustices and disadvantages that make it harder for many minorities to succeed, and I don't think its unreasonable to take steps to redress that. But I would hope that it is implemented in a more subtle and nuanced way than simply having a quota for each race. More like: we will take a certain number of applicants from each race (presumably based on the portion of the population they represent), then evaluate them based on a range of characteristics, while factoring possibly disadvantages as a result of racism into our decision. But I freely admit this is a subject I am not an expert on.

To be honest, its not an issue I feel terribly strongly about either way. That may seem like an evasion, but its true.

[The Romulan Republic]

If TRR is going to automatically dismiss the actual indigenous people themselves and what they're saying about this, I cannot have this debate. It would be absurd to have it when their voices are not being acknowledged. You can mock me for not counting to get pounded, but my objective is to change peoples' minds and if I believe that there's no prospect of doing so, why should I waste hours of my life I could spend doing other things, talking to people who profoundly disagree with all I see that is fair and just?

I do not dismiss what the indigenous people say at all. Unfortunately I'm not aware of any here, so I'm left with you arguing on their behalf. Anyway, disagreement is not the same as dismissal. Also, again, I have stated that I do not think reservations should be abolished without the consent of the Native people.

I love how TRR is trying to goad me into continuing the debate. He seems to forget I'm 31 and have a professional career and family now, and literally don't have the time for this.

I'm sure you do have other things to occupy your time, and if that is your reason for not continuing this I accept that. Like I said, I've ducked out of debates myself because I was otherwise occupied. That's not, however, the reason you previously gave.

If it was any other issue I'd not have even started. I merely hope someone actually reads the links, understands the debate, and possibly stretches their mind a bit. I don't like oppressing people, as strange as that may sound, but people with attitudes like this have made me a party to the oppression, and force me to at least raise the subject of their continued racist oppression of indigenous people in public. You can now, of course, mount your high towers to mock me for leaving. But since another 100 days of posting would come to the same result (both TRR and myself utterly convinced we're right and the other is a moron), I'll skip the waste of time, thanks muchly, and I long ago learned that being called a coward on the internet is a compliment.

On the contrary, I am constantly reconsidering and adjusting my beliefs. I simply don't find your arguments terribly reliable or honest.

Incidentally, this will, I hope, be my last post on this subject in this thread. I was mainly arguing against Duchess of Zeon, who is apparently bowing out. And while I may respond to posts that I feel are misrepresenting/slandering me, I otherwise have no desire to continue this discussion here. I am going to follow through on what I said earlier and create a separate thread for discussing indigenous rights and multiculturalism versus ethnic separatism- I have only held off on doing so this long because I wished to confirm that this would not be deemed spammy or playing moderator by the mods. If anyone wishes to continue the discussion with me, I'll be happy to do so once the new thread is up.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Thank you. That kind of maturity is very rare here.

[StandingInFire]

... So whites living on reservation land ... would have the right to vote for the state government, but, of course, can't participate in the tribal governance of that particular reservation. This is the way it works now, it would just be that the state is made up exclusively of reservations.

You honestly don't see a problem with this if they are given full state rights (i.e. that reservation is a state so the line between tribal and state government disappears)?

The romulan republic : what is your position on affirmative action and race quotas? Do you believe that such is necessary to correct systemic imbalances that will only be exacerbated by "equal" treatment?

While not directed at me affirmative action and race quotas to me are racism in and of themselves and should never be used. If their are problem that face a certain race, e.g. high unemployment in urban area heavily populated by black people, you find out the root cause and fix it, not force people to hire someone for a job they may be less qualified for than another candidate but are needed to meet racial requirements. If you are spending money on setting and monitoring affirmative action and race quotas you can spend that money solving the actual problem. When your solution to discrimination is discrimination its not a solution.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, Duchess was proposing that multiple reservations be included in each of these states. Therefore, one of these newly created 'native states' might well control territory on several non-adjacent reservations, and even control some land that isn't on any reservation in particular.

So being a resident of the state and not of the tribal governments would be the equivalent of, oh, being a resident of the state of Texas, but not a resident of any county within the state of Texas. It could be a legal problem, but it wouldn't exactly be hard to create a bureaucratic structure for solving it.

While not directed at me affirmative action and race quotas to me are racism in and of themselves and should never be used. If their are problem that face a certain race, e.g. high unemployment in urban area heavily populated by black people, you find out the root cause and fix it, not force people to hire someone for a job they may be less qualified for than another candidate but are needed to meet racial requirements. If you are spending money on setting and monitoring affirmative action and race quotas you can spend that money solving the actual problem. When your solution to discrimination is discrimination its not a solution.

So, just to be clear, your opposition to affirmative action is based on the grounds that it is inherently wrong? And not on the grounds that it is ineffective?

Do I have that right? I just want to be clear before I say anything further to you on the matter.

[AniThyng]

The romulan republic : what is your position on affirmative action and race quotas? Do you believe that such is necessary to correct systemic imbalances that will only be exacerbated by "equal" treatment?

While not directed at me affirmative action and race quotas to me are racism in and of themselves and should never be used. If their are problem that face a certain race, e.g. high unemployment in urban area heavily populated by black people, you find out the root cause and fix it, not force people to hire someone for a job they may be less qualified for than another candidate but are needed to meet racial requirements. If you are spending money on setting and monitoring affirmative action and race quotas you can spend that money solving the actual problem. When your solution to discrimination is discrimination its not a solution.

Surely finding and fixing the root cause in of itself means you have specifically identified a problem that requires some form of special treatment in order to solve? Granted in the American context where it appears that the law and authorities are heavily biased against blacks perhaps talking about equal treatment is premature...

But what I had in mind was more along the lines of how if you erase affirmative action and race quota's, the group that actually gains the most is inevitably going to be the already dominant group since they can leverage advantages that no law purporting equal treatment can alleviate, unless you idea of equality is to use the law to strip everyone of any advantages they may have e.g. greater wealth and economic status, better schooling environments and home environments etc.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I think that if we want to eliminate inequality, ensuring better schooling would be a great place to start.

Putting cameras on every cop, on every police car, and in every police building would be a great step as well.

[StandingInFire]

So, just to be clear, your opposition to affirmative action is based on the grounds that it is inherently wrong? And not on the grounds that it is ineffective?

Do I have that right? I just want to be clear before I say anything further to you on the matter.

Yes you are correct in that assessment of my opinion. However it is ineffective (see below).

Surely finding and fixing the root cause in of itself means you have specifically identified a problem that requires some form of special treatment in order to solve?

To an extent yes but there is a big difference between forcing people to hire/choose less qualified candidates to meet arbitrary requirements based on race and solving a problem which is most likely not race related at all but a localized problem in an area that happens to coincide with race population concentrations.

But what I had in mind was more along the lines of how if you erase affirmative action and race quota's, the group that actually gains the most is inevitably going to be the already dominant group since they can leverage advantages that no law purporting equal treatment can alleviate, unless you idea of equality is to use the law to strip everyone of any advantages they may have e.g. greater wealth and economic status, better schooling environments and home environments etc.

My view on that is the money spent on affirmative action/race quotas is solving a problem by addressing the symptom not the cause, it ultimately will do fairly little good for the amount of effort/funds allocated to it. To actually solve the problem such as poverty for example in a community, you would need to set the quotas so high to have an actual meaningful impact, and then it can still actually benefit not the intended audience as more affluent people of that race can also use the quotas. Plus you are merely shifting the poverty from one race onto another (as someone would not get hired in place of that person) so your net gain is zero, arguably negative since you spent money to get zero gain.

Ideally there should be laws against things that let people abuse situations of power in their favor, such as the university system in the US where if you come from a family that donates a lot to a school you get at the front of the line even if you are less qualified for it, I forgot the name for this system (also imo universities would be best covered by the government so a persons/families wealth/political situation has no effect on admission only individual merit does).

[Ziggy Stardust]

solving a problem which is most likely not race related at all but a localized problem in an area that happens to coincide with race population concentrations.

Wait ... are you seriously arguing that there is absolutely no relationship between race relations and poverty/disenfranchisement in the U.S.? And that's it is just a complete coincidence that all of these slums and ghettos are inhabited primarily by minorities? How could you possibly say something like that with a straight face? I'm not even commenting on affirmative action, I just mean the ludicrous conceit that the problems affirmative action are aimed at addressing are "localized" and not related to the deep-seated racial problems this country has had throughout its history.

Plus you are merely shifting the poverty from one race onto another (as someone would not get hired in place of that person) so your net gain is zero, arguably negative since you spent money to get zero gain.

What is the median income in the United States for a white person? Now, what is the median income in the United States for Hispanic and Black people? I encourage you to look those numbers up. You will notice that the median income for the former is significantly higher than those for either of the latter. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, here. You don't seem to understand the basic logic behind affirmative action: on average, a white person that misses out on a job opportunity isn't being forced into squalor and poverty, like you absurdly insist. Most white people not only come from a more affluent background, but often have established social networks of friends and family that have the resources to help support them. It is easier for a white person to go out and find another job. This is not true of most minorities: there is a dearth of legitimate job opportunities available. Losing out on one position has a disproportionately higher impact due to the lower number of overall opportunities. Further, they are more likely to come from a less affluent background, and are less likely to have friends/family that are living at a level high enough that they can support an adult without a job.