Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: isn't this is a good thing? Re: VPO

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Bill Nazzaro on July 02, 2003 at 12:01:45:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: isn't this is a good thing? Re: VPO posted by Joe Baker on July 01, 2003 at 10:37:25:

Hey Joe, what took you so long? ;)

Sorry I haven't responded until now, I have been thinking about what I wanted to say.

First of all, I have no desire to debate Affirmative Action. I only brought it up to say that race problems in this country are not ancient history. The last injustice was not slavery which was ended in 1863, but institutionalized racism that has been with us in full force until something closer to 1963.

The paragraph below is quoted from this site.

"Yet the questions of fairness and racial equality remain troubling for most of those not at the ideological poles of the issue. Even a once adamant opponent of affirmative action like John Bunzel, president of San Jose State University, has acknowledged that "perhaps the most important lesson I've learned is that there are no airtight, completely coherent, unassailable, and holistic answers on the question of affirmative action that are not only theoretically perfect, but instrumentally practical. Any intelligent person who wrestles with it is going to be vulnerable and subject to the twists and turns of unintended consequences." Serious advocates both for and against affirmative action could easily share such an estimation."

My posts have been in response to what I perceived to be attempts to foster difference and not understanding. When a group wants to exclude others, it has a right to do so. When a minority group wants to participate with the majority, it can be seen as an attempt for unity, or it can be seen as, "the reactionary in me sees the proponents of "celebrate diversity" as really saying "let me promote MY difference, and if it is either perceived or in fact at your expense, oh well!"

I do not know to what expense, either perceived or in fact, Dale is referring to. Generalities are great for arguments, but lousy for discussion. And yes, I am not blameless in that either.

Let me give some examples to illustrate my point. The Boy Scouts are for boys and the Girl Scouts are for girls. I have no problem with that. And aside from some (Peter Brady and the Sunflower Girls comes to mind) I don't think most people do either. These are exclusionary groups by design, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Now, an example of a minority group wanting to be accepted in the majority would be gays in the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts are not a strictly religious group. Members do not have to be religious to join, and the religions that support scouting do not all agree regarding homosexual behavior. The Boy Scouts have nothing to do with sex or sexual orientation, so excluding someone based on that creates second class citizens.

That is all I was ever trying to say. Language on this public board can be used to foster understanding of others, or to promote a "them vs. us" mentality. When I see the latter, I feel a need to respond.

Bill Nazzaro

Follow Ups: