Is color-blindness a legitimate racial attitude?

The conservative argument against affirmative action and related policies is pretty simple: Bob has a better resume` than Larry; just because he's white shouldn't disqualify him - at least not by law. This is based on an individualist ethic, as most conservative policies are.

Here's a word that's probably new to some here: collectivism. Conservatives make limited use of this ethic; we believe the individual's pursuit of wealth can result in a vibrant free market. The economy therefore benefits at the expense of the less successful individual. Collectivism is most pronounced in this case when the individual accepts hardship for the sake of the economy rather than voting someone in who will make him successful. The essence of collectivism is in JFK's quote: "Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country."

Now liberals see each race as one collective unit and argue that whites must be given a counterweight (affirmative action) because of its members who promote racism. Popular examples are Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity. Liberals do not believe racism will fade away on its own until characters such as these are ousted from the mainstream consciousness. This results in all the heated debates over "political correctness" that we see.

This also causes some of the more apparently frivolous complaints, such as those against a recent book which used Asian cultural elements for non-essential comical effect. I don't think I identify as much with my race as other peoples do with theirs, so I don't understand this uproar very well. Maybe I have dissociated from my race because of the backlash from slavery, similar to how I dissociated from the Republican Party for various reasons.

I only get mad about race when an individual is disrespected because of it, which unfortunately does still happen. So should collectivism ever be applied to race?

"The economy therefore benefits at the expense of the less successful individual."

I disagree with this comment or understanding of capitalism and free markets. Less successful individuals have the ability to pursue methods to become successful . Taking that away , or the incentive to try is what limits growth, limits new ideas, limits the over all living of standard . The amount of minorities who have come to this country freely has long been larger then any group or race forced to come here . the basis for coming here has always been a better life and opportunity. Affirmitive Action in regards to exploring new ways to allow for those who normally may not be offered an opportunity because of where they live or culture they are in limits their knowledge of opportunity is a good idea. Example of my train of thought here is I see nothing wrong with the government advertising besides main stream media outlets for opportunities. In fact limiting knowledge to opportunities to the good old boys limits our ability to get the brightest and best .

However to base any employment decision or education acceptance based on race above ability has always been and always be morally wrong and destructive to any free society.

Figures, the one thread in which I had to give some background would reveal too much about my opinions... Lol. I try not to show where I stand at the first so I don't influence responses.

Mick wrote:"The economy therefore benefits at the expense of the less successful individual."

Less successful individuals have the ability to pursue methods to become successful .

Of course... I never said they didn't. But giving welfare to the unsuccessful individual is poisonous to the economy. This is not to say that minimal welfare is wrong; a little poison can have a positive effect.

Mick wrote:Taking that away , or the incentive to try is what limits growth, limits new ideas, limits the over all living of standard .

Again, agreed.

Mick wrote:Example of my train of thought here is I see nothing wrong with the government advertising besides main stream media outlets for opportunities.

Government jobs, or private jobs advertised by government?

Mick wrote:In fact limiting knowledge to opportunities to the good old boys limits our ability to get the brightest and best .

Yes, limiting knowledge is bad. But I think affirmative action is about outcomes (jobs) rather than opportunities.

Mick wrote:Affirmitive Action in regards to exploring new ways to allow for those who normally may not be offered an opportunity because of where they live or culture they are in limits their knowledge of opportunity is a good idea.

...

However to base any employment decision or education acceptance based on race above ability has always been and always be morally wrong and destructive to any free society.

How is it ever right to base acceptance on race at all, in the realm of law? Is it wrong to do so as a private entity?

"Government jobs, or private jobs advertised by government?"

Say when advertisements go out for a teachers position. Are the positions advertised in areas that possibly may have a higher percentage of minorities or those with income levels in their neigborhoods lower ? Thus the best person for the job may be limited to gaining access based on historical prejudices. , Like advertising on Craigs list instead of just the local paper . You get a different audience through Craigs list, in that case i believe a younger audience .

I think you may have a different understanding of Affirmitive Action , actually it is not all race based , in fact much is outreach. I told my kids and their friends to try to enlarge their circels of people they know , if nothing else but for job opportunity . How many jobs do people get based on who they know , and the opportunity they found out about throuh their contacts. So if minorities or the poor say have say a historical history of being denied employment based on race or poverty status, where thery live.. their circels are smaller to gain knowledge of job opportunities. Affirmitive Action originally did not have race preference from what I understand. I thought King was even against that from I understand . Not sure .

I find setting job goals based on race wrong for all concerned , points given to race applicants wrong , or any kind of basis of giving a job based on race wrong.

Is it Ok in the private sector, it is never OK . Laws regarding it however appear to be legislating morality in the sense , such as hate crime laws . Discrimination laws that signal out selected groups I also have a philsophical disagreement with because when ever you select a group to be protected , in a sense you lift that group above the rest. was it neccesasay or practical , perhaps at one time . I find the victim mentality more hurtful then anything .

I don't think I'd object to ads run by the government for government programs (which "Independent" School Districts actually are). If government is advertising a truly private enterprise, wehlll... That sounds a lot like Welfare, Business Edition.

Mick wrote:I think you may have a different understanding of Affirmitive Action , actually it is not all race based , in fact much is outreach. I told my kids and their friends to try to enlarge their circels of people they know , if nothing else but for job opportunity . How many jobs do people get based on who they know , and the opportunity they found out about throuh their contacts. So if minorities or the poor say have say a historical history of being denied employment based on race or poverty status, where thery live.. their circels are smaller to gain knowledge of job opportunities. Affirmitive Action originally did not have race preference from what I understand.

Apparently you're using the real, untainted definition, but the civil rights movement appropriated the term and shaped it into a much more specific one. See here.

Mick wrote:I thought King was even against that from I understand . Not sure .

First two results from Google for "affirmative action" mlk OR "martin luther king":

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/affirm25.htm (liberal)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html (conservative)

Mick wrote:I find setting job goals based on race wrong for all concerned , points given to race applicants wrong , or any kind of basis of giving a job based on race wrong.

Is it Ok in the private sector, it is never OK .

How would private-sector discrimination (yeah, let's call it what it is ) be different from, say, giving to charity? The philanthropist gets to choose who gets his money; why shouldn't the employer likewise be allowed to choose whom he hires?

Mick wrote:Laws regarding it however appear to be legislating morality in the sense , such as hate crime laws . Discrimination laws that signal out selected groups I also have a philsophical disagreement with because when ever you select a group to be protected , in a sense you lift that group above the rest. was it neccesasay or practical , perhaps at one time . I find the victim mentality more hurtful then anything .

I agree, and so do these black folks: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/13/video-glenn-beck-devotes-entire-show-to-black-conservatives/

Welcome to the community, mtptl! Can you cite the study you got that from?