Affirmative Action

[dUSt]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305668035' post='2242978']
So what your telling me is you take it as a matter of Faith, as a given. I can accept that asa position, I just don't agree with it.
[/quote]
Right, we just disagree.
You think it is discrimination if a white person doesn't get a job based on race, at a place that is already 99% white. I do not.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1305668382' post='2242982']
Right, we just disagree.
You think it is discrimination if a white person doesn't get a job based on race, at a place that is already 99% white. I do not.
[/quote]


I think that any decision made on the basis of the colour of someones skin is immoral, regardless of who isdoing it or for what reason. I think codifying it is even more wrong as it makes the individual sin, a corporate sin.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1305668237' post='2242981']
This is a very poor analogy, although, it does lend some insight into the way some of you think: Hiring black people is the equivalent of shooting grandchildren. Nice.
[/quote]


The analogy runs like this

System A Affirmative Action has function C, punishes decendents for the sin of their ancestors

System B Shooting abortion doctors grandchildren has function C -- punishes decendents for the sin of thier ancestors



They are analgous.... they may not be proportional, butthey are not analgous.

[Winchester]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1305668382' post='2242982']
Right, we just disagree.
You think it is discrimination if a white person doesn't get a job based on race, at a place that is already 99% white. I do not.
[/quote]
Percentages have nothing to do with whether you are discriminating between one thing and another. If you buy 99% of your fruit quota in grapes and then buy 1% in nectarines because they are not grapes, you discriminated. Same with races. Discrimination does not depend on anything but drawing distinctions between one thing and another. Percentages and power differences don't play into it. You might argue that the damage to one person will be less because of his privilege in society, but to say that a hiring decision is not based on discrimination doesn't hold water. That's what hiring is based upon. It's inherently discrimination and what we're discussing is which criteria are acceptable. If race is a criteria, the part of the discrimination will be based upon race, just as if education is a factor, there will be discrimination based upon education.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305668555' post='2242987']
I think that any decision made on the basis of the colour of someones skin is immoral, regardless of who isdoing it or for what reason. I think codifying it is even more wrong as it makes the individual sin, a corporate sin.
[/quote]
Well, this is good news for all the people who wanted to see Tom Cruise play Martin Luther King Jr in an upcoming film.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305668735' post='2242989']
The analogy runs like this

System A Affirmative Action has function C -- punishes decendents for the sin of their ancestors

System B Shooting abortion doctors grandchildren has function C -- punishes decendents for the sin of thier ancestors

They are analgous.... they may not be proportional, butthey are not analgous.
[/quote]
It would only make sense if:

1. affirmative action was punishment
2. shooting abortion doctors was an acceptable form of punishment

Neither are true, so I don't get the analogy.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305669406' post='2242993']
Percentages have nothing to do with whether you are discriminating between one thing and another. If you buy 99% of your fruit quota in grapes and then buy 1% in nectarines because they are not grapes, you discriminated. Same with races. Discrimination does not depend on anything but drawing distinctions between one thing and another. Percentages and power differences don't play into it. You might argue that the damage to one person will be less because of his privilege in society, but to say that a hiring decision is not based on discrimination doesn't hold water. That's what hiring is based upon. It's inherently discrimination and what we're discussing is which criteria are acceptable. If race is a criteria, the part of the discrimination will be based upon race, just as if education is a factor, there will be discrimination based upon education.
[/quote]
Affirmative action doesn't say "hire this person because he's black". If being black was the only criteria, then 50 Cent could get a job as a brain surgeon.

[dUSt]

Again, ([i]I think this is now the fifth time I've made this point[/i]) nobody has convinced me how a company who is made up of 99% white employees can be discriminating against white people. I honestly just don't get it.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1305671053' post='2243005']
Affirmative action doesn't say "hire this person because he's black". If being black was the only criteria, then 50 Cent could get a job as a brain surgeon.
[/quote]
Affrimative Action says don't hire that person because it would exceed our quota of whites and we need a minority. That is tokenism.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1305670753' post='2243003']
Well, this is good news for all the people who wanted to see Tom Cruise play Martin Luther King Jr in an upcoming film.
[/quote]
Tom Cruise? Really Dust, I mean you couldn't have gone with Brad Pitt or something?

But lets look at your objection.
Would it be morally wrong to refuse Tom Cruise a part playing Martin Luther King solely becuase Tom Cruise was White..... YES!

Would it be morally wrong to refuse Tom Cruise a part playing Martin Luther King, becuase Martin Luther King, the person portrayed in your film was black, maybe.

20 years agothat arguement would have held water, but now? I don't know.
Tom Cruise played a fat bald guy, Gweneth Paltrow played a grossly overwieght women, Linda Hunt played a man, Eddie murphy plays old jewish men, Robin wiliams and Patrick Stewart play gay men, Zoe Saldana played a 10 foottall blue women.


Why couldn't a white man play a black man?

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305675419' post='2243015']
Tom Cruise? Really Dust, I mean you couldn't have gone with Brad Pitt or something?

But lets look at your objection.
Would it be morally wrong to refuse Tom Cruise a part playing Martin Luther King solely becuase Tom Cruise was White..... YES!

Would it be morally wrong to refuse Tom Cruise a part playing Martin Luther King, becuase Martin Luther King, the person portrayed in your film was black, maybe.

20 years agothat arguement would have held water, but now? I don't know.
Tom Cruise played a fat bald guy, Gweneth Paltrow played a grossly overwieght women, Linda Hunt played a man, Eddie murphy plays old jewish men, Robin wiliams and Patrick Stewart play gay men, Zoe Saldana played a 10 foottall blue women.

[b]
Why couldn't a white man play a black man?[/b]
[/quote]

It would work better on stage than in a film. When films try to be color-blind, they sometimes miss the note. In the [i]Lord of the Rings[/i] films, the Fellowship is entirely white. In the musical, Boromir was cast as a black man (both in Toronto and London, IIRC). Cora and Alice, the sisters in [i]Last of the Mohicans[/i], are both played by white women. In the book, Cora is meant to be black (they have different mothers)...but explaining all of that on film could be confusing, so they just gave her darker hair.

In the case of [i]Jesus Christ Superstar,[/i] casting black men as Judas and Simon the Zealot (and a Native American woman as Mary Magdalene) portrayed the disciples of Jesus as 'all people' (though there were some who objected to Judas being cast as the black man...) But it was on the stage before it was on film. Lots of effort was made to mix up ancient and modern in that film, so the casting choices at least fit, even if they were slightly anachronistic.

In the case of portrayals of real people in film, lots of effort is generally put into getting the look/voice/clothes/mannerisms correct. A good actor could portray any range of characters believably, certainly. Cary Elwes can be Robin Hood, Ted Bundy or Pope John Paul II (and has played all three rather well, in my opinion). Anthony Hopkins can be C.S. Lewis or Hannibal Lector. The [i]range[/i] isn't the question, but whether or not the audience will be convinced that they see the historical character brought to life. In the case of the life of Martin Luther King, Jr, ignoring the issue of race would not bode well for the film. I can see the possibility of an artistic reason to cast MLK as a white man (and perhaps the president of the US as a black man), but it would have to be with a hyperawareness of race, not obliviousness to it.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305675419' post='2243015']
Why couldn't a white man play a black man?
[/quote]
Because they are white.

[Winchester]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1305678422' post='2243024']
Because[s] they[/s] he [s]are [/s] is white.
[/quote]
Anthony Hopkins played Othello.

[Jaime]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1305673437' post='2243012']
Affrimative Action says don't hire that person because it would exceed our quota of whites and we need a minority. That is tokenism.
[/quote]

and if you are forced to hire a hobbit, that's Tolkienism

[Winchester]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1305671053' post='2243005']
Affirmative action doesn't say "hire this person because he's black". If being black was the only criteria, then 50 Cent could get a job as a brain surgeon.
[/quote]
It does, however, add race as a factor, whether relevant to the job or not.