On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Wilma de Soto wrote: > > Dear Mr. Nicolary, > > > Never once did I attribute those statements to Dr. Sowell. What I said was > I considered him to be an African-American white supremist. > > The statement I made was attributed to comments I have read and heard over > and over made by whites concerning Affirmative Action. > > Whenever someone declares, " A less qualified minority got the job", it > infers that anyone who got a job instead of a white person was inferior > whether or not it can be proven. More often than not it is not proven, but > accepted as true because of their perception.
Then I guess you agree with Dr. Sowell then that racial preference breeds resentment and this is a very negative consequence, right? The idea that you feel you can simply dismiss Dr. Sowell as "an African-American white supremist" illustrates that you are _ignorant_ of the statements and conclusions Dr. Sowell has made after in depth study and analysis of the practice of racial preference within a variety of cultures. If you had read "Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study" instead of forming your opinion from second hand sources you would know that his field of analysis included studying affirmative action in India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, and the United States and the negative impact it invariably had in causing racial conflict not harmony. In India, the "minorities" were the the "lower" or "scheduled" castes which makes up 3/4 of the population and the "whites" are the "upper" castes. In Malaysia, the "minorities" are the Malays which are, in fact, the majority and the "whites" are the Chinese. In Sri Lanka, the "minorities" were again the majority population - the Sinhalese - and the Tamils this time playing the role of the "whites". In Nigeria, racial preference has been practiced by every prevailing administration toward one or another tribe and/or ethnic group since they became a nation. In the United States, he explores our own flavor of "racial preference", the mixed consequences and the resultant similarities with the other countries. If you are going to take the stance that he is a white supremacist he must also be a Brahmin/Chinese/Tamil/"Nigerian flavor of the day" supremacist by your logic. > "No, it means you are lacking knowledge. Look it up. My determination > is based on the assumptions you put forth about this individual and how > incongruous they are with actuality." > > Here again, you assert that I said these statements were made by Dr. Sowell. > You also infer that my knowledge is limited (all of us could stand to learn > more, always) and my vocabulary is stunted. Actually, you were telling _me_ what to call someone ignorant meant - I was only correcting you as you were in error. And yes, you are espousing to know the theories of Dr. Sowell enough to make the statements you have made when you clearly have not even bothered to read his work even in summary form can also be expressed in terms of you lacking knowledge on the subject. > I feel the true offense I may have committed to your sensibilities is that I > dared suggest that perhaps the world is not as you thought it was. I > maintain there is room for many points of view, even yours. Your point of view offends me only because it is woefully incomplete and uninformed. > " I think your interpretation of his writings are distorted by your > > underdeveloped black and white view of the world." > > Here I receive this comment as implying that if one does not agree with your > world view, then one is not only wrong, but hopelessly distorted. You really prefer inferring what someone is saying or what someone is implying to what they are actually saying, don't you? I said what I said - the only implications I was making was that you are not seeing clearly as a direct result of you having never taken the time formulate an informed opinion. I mean - at least give the guy a trial before you condemn him. > That in my opinion,is a comment thrown down from "Mt. Superior" to the poor > underlings below. One cannot possibly believe that everyone's life > experiences are going to be the same. What does this have to do with anything? > "I have a feeling that no matter how your ignorance is communicated to you > > you are going to take it as disrespectful because you can't emotionally > > handle or consider the possibility that you are being ignorant or are > > wrong." > > What I take to be disrespectful is disrespect itself. I have not become > emotionally unglued during this exchange, quite the contrary. I have taken > on a very difficult subject that I know bucks the mainstream trend. I never said you had become unglued - just that you seem unable to admit that despite the fact that you know little about Dr. Sowell's writings you still maintain a rather charged and caustic opinion of him. If you have taken on "a very difficult subject that I know bucks the mainstream trend" why am I the only one to challenge you? Actually, I think you would be pleasantly surprised to find that a lot of people would agree with you - and like you have never read a single significant piece of literature actually written by him in his own words. The simple concept that a black man could be against affirmative action is crime enough for condemnation - all other considerations aside. > I have undertaken it alone, without any support from others even though > there may be those who would agree with, but would prefer to share it > offline. and??? > I have not resorted to name-calling or belittling. I have kept a cool head > through all the insults etc. If that is not the case, would please someone > point it out to me where I have become emotionally unglued and abusive and I > would apologize. I don't believe in mincing words. If you feel the need to be engaged in a coddled manner after making an arrogant statements such as yours you shouldn't utter them in a public forum. If you feel mistreated by my words then how do you think Dr. Sowell feels whenever someone such as yourself reduces his life's work down to a statement like: "he is an African-American white supremist"? -- Sam Nicolary > On 4/21/04 9:00 PM, "Samuel Nicolary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Wilma de Soto wrote: > > > >> Dear Mr. Nicolary, > >> > >> If people believe that the inferior and less qualified minorities take jobs > >> from more qualified whites, and Dr. Sowell and others support this > >> assertion, then it would stand to reason that people feel livelihoods are > >> being stolen from superior and more qualified whites. > >> > >> If the assumption is that ALL whites are more qualified than ANY black > >> person, this assumption denotes white superiority. > > > > I think the only assumptions being made here are by you. I challenge you > > to produce a SINGLE statement from Dr. Sowell stating that "ALL whites are > > more qualified than ANY black person". > > > >> Calling a person ignorant has no other value than to debase and demean one > >> who may holds these views. > > > > No, it means you are lacking knowledge. Look it up. My determination is > > based on the assumptions you put forth about this individual and how > > incongruous they are with actuality. > > > >> Perhaps, you feel that the term 'white supremacist' is a pejorative term, > >> and in some contexts it may jolly well may be, but I consider it to be a > >> political reality. I also consider this to be something people would rather > >> avoid as part of their politics while upholding the same sentiments. > > > > I think your interpretation of his writings are distorted by your > > underdeveloped black and white view of the world. > > > >> Lastly, I realize it is hard to disagree and that one's point of view of the > >> world being opposed by others is difficult. I still feel that communication > >> can still be respectful; especially in our community. > > > > I have a feeling that no matter how your ignorance is communicated to you > > you are going to take it as disrespectful because you can't emotionally > > handle or consider the possibility that you are being ignorant or are > > wrong. > > > > -- > > Sam Nicolary > > > >> On 4/21/04 2:50 PM, "Samuel Nicolary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Wilma de Soto wrote: > >>> > >>>> I do realize that other people's points of view can be unpleasant and > >>>> people > >>>> do not always agree, however it is possible to respectfully exchange > >>>> comments without resorting to name calling. > >>> > >>> What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Whether or not I agree > >>> with Sowell's point of view - at the very least it is considerably more > >>> well thought through than any of the statements you have made over the > >>> last couple posts. If you feel it is acceptable to simply dismiss him as > >>> a white supremacist - which the last time I checked is as much > >>> name-calling as my response was to you - I don't see why you should be > >>> exempt from such treatment. > >> > >> > > > > ---- > > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the > > list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see > > <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. > > ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
