A fund specifically for white males

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Does anyone find this strange?

There is a guy in Texas who believes white males are missing out on college scholarships and so he set up a fund specifically for white males. The criteria for qualification is:

“Our qualifications are pretty simple. Basically, you have to be at least a 25 percent Caucasian male and have to have demonstrated a commitment to your education with at least a 3.0 grade average, demonstrate financial need, and show you’re contributing positively to your community.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/...lYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDc2F2ZXRoZXdoaXRl

Someone clue me on US weirdness. How do you establish if someone is 25% caucasian? Does 25% caucasian blood officially establish one as caucasian?

Oh yeah for anyone who qualifies I wouldn't get too excited, the fund only offers a pittance:

As of Monday, a few days after the Austin American Statesman published a story on the fund, it had collected only about $3,000, according to Lake—enough to grant five fortunate white males $500 each for the fall 2011 term. The goal is to grant worthy young white men $1,000 apiece for the spring 2012 term.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Does anyone find this strange?

white males is the new minority....

 

[cosmictraveler]

There is a guy in Texas who believes white males are missing out on college scholarships and so he set up a fund specifically for white males

But the Pell Grants are open for ANYONE to have as long as they meet their standards as well.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

But the Pell Grants are open for ANYONE to have as long as they meet their standards as well.

I know. I imagine the guy is tripping out about something else but what I don't get is this 25% white business. What does it mean to be 25% caucasian? How would that be determined?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I know. I imagine the guy is tripping out about something else but what I don't get is this 25% white business. What does it mean to be 25% caucasian? How would that be determined?

Our President is a full 50% caucasian and people still call him "black."

Women (regardless of ethnicity) now outnumber men in the ranks of university graduates. How many more generations will it be before they finally take over the government? And will they become just as bad as us along the way, proving the old adage that power corrupts?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Our President is a full 50% caucasian and people still call him "black."

Women (regardless of ethnicity) now outnumber men in the ranks of university graduates. How many more generations will it be before they finally take over the government? And will they become just as bad as us along the way, proving the old adage that power corrupts?

LOL! I know that's why I could't figure out the whole 25% thing. As of now he could have blacks from everywhere qualifying.

Of course women can be just as bad just look at Margaret Thatcher though I do like some things about her. I doubt women will take over the government. But it would be interesting to know what percentage of women are already in government postings. If women were in government though I tell you we'd outlaw funds favoring men of any hue.

 

[Gustav]

so we have the missus trolling
aiming for subtlety and insidiousness
achieving blatant and overt

/snicker

"us weirdness"??

hahaha

a foreigner now?
cambodian perhaps?

hahahahahaha

 

[Gustav]

lol! I know that's why i could't figure out the whole 25% thing.

lol! Lol! Lol! Lol! Lol! Lol! Lol! Lol! Lol! Lol! Lol! Lol!

 

[Cellar_Door]

Someone clue me on US weirdness. How do you establish if someone is 25% caucasian? Does 25% caucasian blood officially establish one as caucasian?

.

Well no, obviously. 25% is just a figure he's arbitrarily plucked out of the air because within the system he's created there has to be some cut off point, otherwise anyone could claim they were a 'bit white somewhere down the line'.

 

[SilentLi89]

LOL! I know that's why I could't figure out the whole 25% thing. As of now he could have blacks from everywhere qualifying.

Of course women can be just as bad just look at Margaret Thatcher though I do like some things about her. I doubt women will take over the government. But it would be interesting to know what percentage of women are already in government postings. If women were in government though I tell you we'd outlaw funds favoring men of any hue.

So Obama's daughters if they were men, they would be able to qualify for this scholarship. Which kind of seems to defeat the purpose of having a scholarship geared toward white men. If people who consider themselves another race can still apply for it. He should probably bump that percentage up to actually encompass the minority he is trying to help. The ones who can't apply for any other ethnically based scholarship because they are just "white". The guys who are part german, part Irish, part French, and part English...and so on

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

So Obama's daughters if they were men, they would be able to qualify for this scholarship. Which kind of seems to defeat the purpose of having a scholarship geared toward white men. If people who consider themselves another race can still apply for it. He should probably bump that percentage up to actually encompass the minority he is trying to help. The ones who can't apply for any other ethnically based scholarship because they are just "white". The guys who are part german, part Irish, part French, and part English...and so on

The question remains why doesn't he.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

It's up to him I guess who he want's to give his money too, I think it's racist personaly but it is his money, so he can spend it how he feels best if it's not harming anyone.


PS, At-least he is helping somebody it's better than helping nobody at-all

peace.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

It's up to him I guess who he want's to give his money too, I think it's racist personaly but it is his money, so he can spend it how he feels best if it's not harming anyone.


PS, At-least he is helping somebody it's better than helping nobody at-all

peace.

Well there are those who have charged him with racism but if he were really racist wouldn't he simply have bump up the percentage as Silent noted to ensure other races couldn't benefit? 25% includes a lot of people who in the US wouldn't be considered caucasian at all.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I guess a better question would be 'when is white white', or what makes a white person white and not a member of another race. The US seems to have a lot of confusion on this issue, a woman with white skin who's father is black is thought white until her father's race is discovered then she is considered black (they call it passing). Similarly the reverse is true as Fraggle pointed out. For a long time they had some defining system where it took only 'one drop' of black blood for a caucasian to be considered negro. I'm not sure how this works for Asians. Does anyone know how Asian-americans are classified?

 

[quadraphonics]

Our President is a full 50% caucasian

Only if his mother was 100% "caucasian" and his father 100% "African" or whatever. Has that been established?

and people still call him "black."

Correctly, at that. Nobody with his appearance is eligible for white privilege - and the name for people denied white privilege (due to visible African heritage, regardless of what exact percentage) is "black." To be "white," you have to have white privilege - and that requires "passing." Racial designations like "white" and "black" are not scientific descriptions of an individual's specific background - they simply designate who gets white privilege and who doesn't, based on superficial appearance.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Only if his mother was 100% "caucasian" and his father 100% "African" or whatever. Has that been established?



Correctly, at that. Nobody with his appearance is eligible for white privilege - and the name for people denied white privilege (due to visible African heritage, regardless of what exact percentage) is "black." To be "white," you have to have white privilege - and that requires "passing." Racial designations like "white" and "black" are not scientific descriptions of an individual's specific background - they simply designate who gets white privilege and who doesn't, based on superficial appearance.

So what's the criteria? How do they come up with that? And is it the same criteria or distinctions for asians?

 

[cosmictraveler]

Actually white people already have a way of receiving monies, their parents give it to them so that they too can give it to their children. My parents didn't have any government money ever given to them when they were going to college back in the 1910 through 1920's. They actually had to earn money or their parents gave them money in order to go to college. At one time colleges were not as expensive as they are today and were more interested in advancing the education of anyone who wanted to learn without economic hardships. Today costs have risen because of teachers pay and pension plans as well as a host of other things. Many white kids as well as other ethnic peoples have a hard time getting the money it would take to get into a private college because the costs are so high.

I'd like to somehow see to it , through the internet, that anyone can get a college degree without paying but a few thousand dollars for it. If we could look at on line colleges like Phoenix and just improve upon it then make it cost effective as well, then many more people could get a better education. The goal being that it makes everyone capable of improving themselves no matter who they are or what they earn. We then could have a more educated society and improve the quality of life for everyone. :deal:

 

[quadraphonics]

So what's the criteria?

Like I said: superficial appearance, mostly. If you pass, you pass. If you don't, you don't.

How do they come up with that?

Who is "they?"

It's not really consciously planned or explicitly delineated as any kind of rational system. It's mostly just the sum total of the unconscious responses of masses of people to superficial traits. Sometimes deeper cultural traits come in to play, especially for people that can pass on appearance.

And is it the same criteria or distinctions for asians?

It's basically the same, although the level of privilege extended to Asians is generally higher than that accorded to blacks (which isn't saying much).

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Like I said: superficial appearance, mostly. If you pass, you pass. If you don't, you don't.



Who is "they?"

It's not really consciously planned or explicitly delineated as any kind of rational system. It's mostly just the sum total of the unconscious responses of masses of people to superficial traits. Sometimes deeper cultural traits come in to play, especially for people that can pass on appearance.



It's basically the same, although the level of privilege extended to Asians is generally higher than that accorded to blacks (which isn't saying much).

'They' society, those in the US who use this criteria to define the race of another. I mean this is not simply arbitrary since its upheld by law (I will get into that further in the post)

So if a bi-racial Asian has more negro features they are considered black and it they look more white they are white and not asian? Its a confusing system at best. First of all its as if one racial identity trumps the other but in the case of this guys fund he's decided that if someone can prove they are 25% caucasian then they are eligible. What I don't understand is what is the criteria for that 25%.

Also this passing thing is based on how someone looks correct? But if this is the case then why is it overridden if its discovered that someone in the family is black? Mrs. Susie Guillory Phipps who looked overwhelmingly white tried to change the race status on her birth certificate from black to white and was denied by the supreme court.

In 1983, for instance, an appeals court ruled that a Louisiana woman must accept a legal designation of black, though by all outward appearances she was white. The woman, Susie Guillory Phipps, who was then forty-nine, had lived her entire life as a white person. Upon hearing the court’s decision, she told a Washington Post reporter: "My children are white. My grandchildren are white. Mother and Daddy were buried white. My Social Security card says I’m white. My driver’s license says I’m white. There are no blacks out where I live, except the hired hands." Phipps had discovered that the state considered her black on obtaining a copy of her birth certificate in order to get a passport. Her attempt to change the designation eventually led her to court. A genealogist who testified for the state uncovered ancestors Phipps knew nothing about and calculated that she was 3/32 black. That was sufficient to make her black under a Louisiana law decreeing that a person who was as little as 1/32 black could not be considered white.

http://maxweber.hunter.cuny.edu/pub/eres/SOC217_PIMENTEL/census.pdf

So if someone with as little as 1/32 (I don't even know what that means) cannot considered white then its not so arbitrary as skin color, at least not under the law. But what I find interesting is the notion that you can stain white blood. I mean if you think about it a black person cannot be considered white just because they have white blood. I would expect the same is true or asian-americans though I know that the classification situation is more diverse and complex in asia itself. But no matter, the classification system is based on the idea that white blood is pure and a small amount of mixing makes it not white anymore, but black is black no matter what you mix it with. Do I have it right?

 

[quadraphonics]

So if a bi-racial Asian has more negro features they are considered black and it they look more white they are white and not asian?

Pretty much, yeah.

Its a confusing system at best.

It's only confusing if you expect racial designations to provide an accurate accounting of a person's genetic background. If you only expect racial designations to describe what people look like, it's pretty straightforward. Which is exactly its power, and why it's the system we ended up with (rather than something based on genetic pedigree - that would require looking up a person's history in some kind of database before you could assign a race to them).

First of all its as if one racial identity trumps the other

Yeah, that's exactly what happens. Although a lot of bi-racial people do come out looking pretty ambiguous and so get lumped into some kind of "other" race category.

but in the case of this guys fund he's decided that if someone can prove they are 25% caucasian then they are eligible. What I don't understand is what is the criteria for that 25%.

Obviously it's arbitrary - but note that it's actually much higher than the usual bar for such ethnicity-based scholarships (which used to be 12.5%, and has lately been getting watered down to 6.75% - basically anyone with at least one great-grandparent of the ethnicity in question).

However I think that the percentage is somewhat irrelevant: what this guy is counting on is surely that only genuine "white" people - and racist ones, at that - will be interested in applying for such a scholarship to begin with. To which, it would be great if black people subverted this by applying in huge numbers (where they have at least 1 white grandparent, that is - and 20% of them do).

Also this passing thing is based on how someone looks correct?

Mostly - if you can't pass on appearance, then you have no chance of passing at all. That's the first, and highest, bar that one has to clear. But cultural and occasionally even pedigree issues do sometimes come up, once somebody has managed to pass on appearance.

But if this is the case then why is it overridden if its discovered that someone in the family is black? Mrs. Susie Guillory Phipps who looked overwhelmingly white tried to change the race status on her birth certificate from black to white and was denied by the supreme court.

It's an interesting case, but we should note that the racial classification laws that gave rise to it are no longer on the books. These days, the only means through which the state makes legal designations of race is self-identification. Moreover, legal classifications like that have little bearing on the actual mechanics of racism in modern society (back when black people couldn't vote and could be bought and sold, it would have been a different story). What the State of Louisiana or the US Supreme Court might say about her race has no bearing on whether she will (or will not) be perceived as white and so enjoy white privilege.

So if someone with as little as 1/32 (I don't even know what that means) cannot considered white then its not so arbitrary as skin color, at least not under the law.

But, again, "the law" has little to do with anything. She'd lived her entire life as "white," and been accepted as such by her entire family, friends, community, etc. And, by all indications, she continued to live as an accepted white person, with white privilege, since the court case. If this had been back in a time were racial discrimination was still legally enchrined, the story would have been different. But as it is, it's little more than a bizarre lega/historical anomaly, with no real bearing on the mechnics of race in modern society. Nobody checks your birth certificate before deciding whether to discriminate against you - and so that court case didn't render her "black" in any meaningful sense. It certainly didn't revoke her white privilege.

But no matter, the classification system is based on the idea that white blood is pure and a small amount of mixing makes it not white anymore, but black is black no matter what you mix it with. Do I have it right?

That's the one-drop rule, yeah. But that's of little direct relevance to modern society, since such pedigree-based legal definitions of race don't have much to do with anything. These days, the "one-drop rule" amounts to something more like "if you have what looks like identifiable African ancestry, you are black, even if your features are mostly white-looking. Any superficially-identifiable black background renders you black."