If not abolished.....If a black man becomes president, and two women are right up there in the running for the VP or presidency, hasn't affirmative action achieved its goal. If a two womena and a black man achieve this level of success, doesnt it prove that the playing field is a bit more level?
Nope.. That's like saying you can't possibly be prejudice/racist against black people because you voted for Obama. Or you can't be sexist because you bought something by a woman. Politics works different than day to day life. Affirmative Action is a necessary evil in a country that claims to be such a progressive one, but loves to celebrate its differences every chance possible
“I hated every minute of training, but I said, ''Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.''” Muhammad Ali
Love takes up where knowledge leaves off. Saint Thomas Aquinas
Nope.. That's like saying you can't possibly be prejudice/racist against black people because you voted for Obama. Or you can't be sexist because you bought something by a women. Politics works different than day to day life. Affirmative Action is a necessary evil in a country that claims to be such a progressive one, but loves to celebrate its differences every chance possible
I see your point, dont necessarily agree with it totally, but point well taken
If not abolished.....If a black man becomes president, and two women are right up there in the running for the VP or presidency, hasn't affirmative action achieved its goal. If a two womena and a black man achieve this level of success, doesnt it prove that the playing field is a bit more level?
No. By arguing that affirmative action is not necessary, it's supporting the idea that just because one Black person makes it into office, the system of racism that effects millions of others has suddenly been eradicated. Which is simply tolkenism that is used by people in power to make it seem like those who argue for social justice are whiners and complainers, and that they have the same opportunities as everyone else. There is no way that Affirmative Action should be abolished because it is still needed in this country because years of oppression has set people of color back far beyond that of whites, regardless of the race of the president.
If not abolished.....If a black man becomes president, and two women are right up there in the running for the VP or presidency, hasn't affirmative action achieved its goal. If a two womena and a black man achieve this level of success, doesnt it prove that the playing field is a bit more level?
No. By arguing that affirmative action is not necessary, it's supporting the idea that just because one Black person makes it into office, the system of racism that effects millions of others has suddenly been eradicated. Which is simply tolkenism that is used by people in power to make it seem like those who argue for social justice are whiners and complainers, and that they have the same opportunities as everyone else. There is no way that Affirmative Action should be abolished because it is still needed in this country because years of oppression has set people of color back far beyond that of whites, regardless of the race of the president.
So then at whoat point do you considere the playing field to be level? What has to happen in this country for someone to say that affirmative action is no longer needed and cannot be justified?
If not abolished.....If a black man becomes president, and two women are right up there in the running for the VP or presidency, hasn't affirmative action achieved its goal. If a two womena and a black man achieve this level of success, doesnt it prove that the playing field is a bit more level?
No. By arguing that affirmative action is not necessary, it's supporting the idea that just because one Black person makes it into office, the system of racism that effects millions of others has suddenly been eradicated. Which is simply tolkenism that is used by people in power to make it seem like those who argue for social justice are whiners and complainers, and that they have the same opportunities as everyone else. There is no way that Affirmative Action should be abolished because it is still needed in this country because years of oppression has set people of color back far beyond that of whites, regardless of the race of the president.
So then at whoat point do you considere the playing field to be level? What has to happen in this country for someone to say that affirmative action is no longer needed and cannot be justified?
What is your opinion on the matter? When is the playing field even? Is Affirmative Action still necessary?
If not abolished.....If a black man becomes president, and two women are right up there in the running for the VP or presidency, hasn't affirmative action achieved its goal. If a two womena and a black man achieve this level of success, doesnt it prove that the playing field is a bit more level?
I think that affirmative action is up for debate right now. Many people misunderstand what it is. Too many, even. But this scenario could not strongly support an argument that AA is no longer necessary.
To make the argument contingent upon Obama winning suggests that AA is only about the appearance of success. If he were to lose, would you ask the same question? I think it is more important to study how Barack got to the point where he is now, as opposed to the outcome of his endeavor. Not saying that the outcome is not relevant. Not saying that I agree with the entire notion, either. But it makes more sense if someone were to argue from that approach.
If not abolished.....If a black man becomes president, and two women are right up there in the running for the VP or presidency, hasn't affirmative action achieved its goal. If a two womena and a black man achieve this level of success, doesnt it prove that the playing field is a bit more level?
No. By arguing that affirmative action is not necessary, it's supporting the idea that just because one Black person makes it into office, the system of racism that effects millions of others has suddenly been eradicated. Which is simply tolkenism that is used by people in power to make it seem like those who argue for social justice are whiners and complainers, and that they have the same opportunities as everyone else. There is no way that Affirmative Action should be abolished because it is still needed in this country because years of oppression has set people of color back far beyond that of whites, regardless of the race of the president.
So then at whoat point do you considere the playing field to be level? What has to happen in this country for someone to say that affirmative action is no longer needed and cannot be justified?
I would say that folks would be more apt to considering it no longer justified when we see greater equity in socio-economic statistics. For instance, the income gap, poverty rate, unemployment rate, educational gap, etc. Using the success of certain individuals to justify ending AA reeks of tokenism.
If not abolished.....If a black man becomes president, and two women are right up there in the running for the VP or presidency, hasn't affirmative action achieved its goal. If a two womena and a black man achieve this level of success, doesnt it prove that the playing field is a bit more level?
No. By arguing that affirmative action is not necessary, it's supporting the idea that just because one Black person makes it into office, the system of racism that effects millions of others has suddenly been eradicated. Which is simply tolkenism that is used by people in power to make it seem like those who argue for social justice are whiners and complainers, and that they have the same opportunities as everyone else. There is no way that Affirmative Action should be abolished because it is still needed in this country because years of oppression has set people of color back far beyond that of whites, regardless of the race of the president.
So then at whoat point do you considere the playing field to be level? What has to happen in this country for someone to say that affirmative action is no longer needed and cannot be justified?
What is your opinion on the matter? When is the playing field even? Is Affirmative Action still necessary?
I think if a man like Obama become president, its hard for anyone to have any more excuses.
If not abolished.....If a black man becomes president, and two women are right up there in the running for the VP or presidency, hasn't affirmative action achieved its goal. If a two womena and a black man achieve this level of success, doesnt it prove that the playing field is a bit more level?
No. By arguing that affirmative action is not necessary, it's supporting the idea that just because one Black person makes it into office, the system of racism that effects millions of others has suddenly been eradicated. Which is simply tolkenism that is used by people in power to make it seem like those who argue for social justice are whiners and complainers, and that they have the same opportunities as everyone else. There is no way that Affirmative Action should be abolished because it is still needed in this country because years of oppression has set people of color back far beyond that of whites, regardless of the race of the president.
So then at whoat point do you considere the playing field to be level? What has to happen in this country for someone to say that affirmative action is no longer needed and cannot be justified?
There was an article that stated that it would take Black people about 200 years to be equal with whites in terms of economics because of the exploitation that they have. If that is true of economics, it is truth to power in terms of politics and social inequality. The point that I'm making is that Affirmative Action will be needed until institutionalized oppression by way of racist-sexist capitalism. Affirmative Action will no longer be justified when such a system as this is eradicated for a structure that supports egalitarianism. Until then, Affirmative Action is justified.
