2011-07-02, 11:11 PM
KhainiWest Wrote:Scholarships for the poor are for the poor, but race does have a factor of who's first in line for them or not. I don't know where you're going with this but to outright deny that being hispanic/african american doesn't yield any form of pity card is just outright lying.
Did you even read past the first paragraph of my post? The reason they have such a pity card is because of history, like I said, it's not the color of the skin but the history attached to the color of the skin.
KhainiWest Wrote:A scholarship should be focused on either hard income families or people who work for them. I don't find it right that my friend who is a women and also Hispanic pays 1/3 less than I do because she has people sponsor her for those irrelevant details. pineapple, it aggravates me more that people who can actually afford college actually apply for scholarships, save it for the people who do in fact need them. When some spoiled brat whos father is a 1 star general can get 25,000 towards college, throwing out kids who are in fact poverty level, just because they had the money to push that tutor, it's wrong.
Yeah thanks for rephrasing what I already said.
Erebus Wrote:I'm actually all for this. Things like these were originally instituted because of the living standards still active post the civil rights movement. But it's been slowly fading and giving away free "stuff" because they are specifically a certain race is wrong, they should, at most, base it off living conditions.
You emphasized on what "free stuff" entails ("un-earned" money) but you didn't add anything I didn't already say.
KhainiWest Wrote:In fact in the next 25 years I can guarantee a civil war, and it's gonna be the "have's" vs the "haves not", and I have a feeling the east is going to lose this time, based on the fact that the minorities fill a bigger piece of the pie chart then whites. It's that simply I don't know whats so hard to get.
First off - I'm finding it hard to tell whether or not you're trolling with such a statement.
Secondly - You need to understand it's not about race percentage. It's about history. Let's say that American history was reversed race wise, ya know, White Native Americans, white slaves, white people getting their land taken by Indian settlers with manifest destiny, Martin Luther King is now (insert stereotypical white name here), there's an immigration problem with to many Canadians sneaking across the border, and Bob Mark O'Donald is elected as the first white president in the united states in 2008, etc... Do you think that even if white people somehow came up with the current standing of today by population standards only, but had all the economic problems of "minorities", that white people would still be treated with the idea they are automatically better off... if you said anything other then no, I question your sanity.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: "It's about history". Take a few hours to crack open an American history book, and you'll see that generally the people who got the short end of the stick were the minorities and women. And if you've ever lived without the help of your parents income and experienced the "real world" (which with the resources of today is no where close to how it was in the 40's and 50's), you'd know that getting on your feet after a few HUNDRED years of being pushed around is a bit difficult, so because of that, they get a little help (which you call pity). Which you and I have already agreed upon, is a bit "out of date".
