Racial Discrimination

[Axmann]

I find this to be discrimination. Just because their isn't a White collage fund doesn't mean they want to get "ahead". Thats taking a racial side to issues. What does being black or white have to do with being homosexual?

And the reason for the parades is for acceptance. Something that straight people don't need cause its always been there.

You should find "negro college fund", etc. to be discrimination, not me pointing out that it's unfair.

Those groups are the embodiment of discrimination. They are also racist.

What would happen if we had a "white college fund"? Why isn't that fair? How come blacks can do it, but whites cant?

Whites are discriminated against more than blacks. We need rights more than blacks right now.

 

[Donald Trump]

I moved your post because it would have caused that thread to have gone off topic if it were discussed in the 'Homosexuality' Thread.

I disagree, white people have always had the power, the US president is a mulatto, but how many black senators are there? How many black supreme court judges?

There's also no reason why there can't be a white college fund. The reason for there being one for black people is that a lot of them don't have the money to be able to receive a tertiary education, which will put them at a disadvantage and will continue the cycle.

You also mentioned that you felt that black history month was racist, again I disagree, as every other part of history is about white people. There should be a Native American history month too, but they're under represented.

 

[Warbsywoo]

I have to agree with Morrissey. The reason why there are many support groups and funds out there for African-Americans is because of the financial inadequacies of their communities. Many white communities are affluent, or at least more affluent than those of people with color. >.>

Also check and check on whites being the focus on most of history.

 

[Sir Kenneth]

In any society it is important to protect the rights of the minority groups. Whether they be ethnic, religious, or sexual. A black college fund provides financial help to an ethnic group which statistically has a lower level of education than white Americans. If you set up a white college fund, you would be denying minorities, who are already at a disadvantage in this field, the help which you are willing to offer the ethnic majority.

The difference between a white and a black college fund, is that a black college fund tries to bridge the educational gap between white and black americans, where as a white college fund would further widen it. Hence on is racism and one isn't.

 

[CassinoChips]

As someone who attended an HBCU (Historically Black College/University for the uninitiated) I feel that there needs to be more black college funds/funding/funding groups. Much of the black community is stuck in a cycle of poverty, and education is the best way to break out of that cycle. Talking to fellow students about their background and upbringing and views on life and society, it always amazed me how markedly different their outlook was compared to mine (I'm decidedly not black, if you didn't already know). Especially the black males. I really can't put it into words, but there's a sense of fatalism and a lack of vision of the future in a lot of cases, just because of the poverty they face on a daily basis. That always struck me. And it's not like I'm some richy-rich white kid from the hills. My family is very much blue-collar. I ate the government cheese when I was a youngin'. And yet, I expected to go to college, get a degree, get a job, all that. Ask some of my classmates, and in some cases they were surprised that they even graduated high school.

To sum up, it's not a bad thing to help those who need help. And to piggyback on the others, there already is a united caucasian college fund. It's called society.

 

[Axmann]

And why do blacks, as you have all affirmed, have statistically higher rates of poverty?

1. Because they make up less of the population. Polls on issues such as these are not balanced to reflect the population differences.

2. Blacks typically don't want to work. It's not a racist statement, it is just the truth. You have all said that blacks have higher poverty, but you never really touched on why this is.

Blacks in our society are no longer discriminated against in jobs, so there is no longer an excuse for them to pin their constant failures on.

Since when is it not stipulated that 1, humans are naturally opportunisti; and 2, blacks think they deserve reparations for past actions which did not have anything to do with them?

They complain about how horrible they are treated, and EXPECT to get things like negro college fund, etc.

Since when is treating one race better than another not racist?

Since blacks decided that they are entitled to better treatment.

And that, as they say, is that.

 

[Sir Kenneth]

And why do blacks, as you have all affirmed, have statistically higher rates of poverty?

1. Because they make up less of the population. Polls on issues such as these are not balanced to reflect the population differences.

2. Blacks typically don't want to work. It's not a racist statement, it is just the truth. You have all said that blacks have higher poverty, but you never really touched on why this is.

Blacks in our society are no longer discriminated against in jobs, so there is no longer an excuse for them to pin their constant failures on.

Since when is it not stipulated that 1, humans are naturally opportunisti; and 2, blacks think they deserve reparations for past actions which did not have anything to do with them?

They complain about how horrible they are treated, and EXPECT to get things like negro college fund, etc.

Since when is treating one race better than another not racist?

Since blacks decided that they are entitled to better treatment.

And that, as they say, is that.

What does the population difference has to do with the statistics? The US Census declared in 2007 that 25,5% of all black Americans live in poverty, compared to 10,5% white Americans. White Americans make up 80% of the population where as black Americans make up only around 13. This naturally means that there are more poor white Americans than black Americans, but it doesn't change that poverty is more widespread in the black minority.

Where are the statistics on black Americans being less willing to work than white Americans? It's quite a brash statement to make about a group of people without having any solid proof to back it up. I suppose you could look at employment statistics and find that more black Americans are unemployed, but that would probably be a pretty gross generalisation to make. It might as well indicate that black Americans are still being discriminated against.

It is not racist to treat people of one ethnicity different than another, when it is done to further the social, educational, and economic equality in society. It would be nice if we were all 110% equal, but in most cases I'm afraid we aren't. People are different and should be helped according to those differences. Some people need more help than others, and if they get that help, then hopefully one day there will be no more need for initiatives like a black college fund.

 

[GanjaKat]

tbh, im not going to get tied up in your conversation, coz it seems axe feels he MUST be right in these situations... tho your pretty wrong...
but here is my opinion... as a UK citizen

if blacks, or even any other race, come here, get a PROPER job, speak the language, make there way in life, pay there bills and all that, then fair enough, whats the problem, but when they come to our country, exept everything on a golden platter, and dont even bother to learn our countrys language (you know the ones, they live on every street and only talk to a select few people who immigrated from the same country) then why should they be aloud to live here like that... taking our tax money, taking our jobs. now i know that last comment contradicts what i said but i mean it in a justified way, there is a diffrence between having a job, and working cheap labour even tho its illegal to be paid that little ammount so that you get the job priority over english born people... i dont really care if anyone takes offence to this because, imo you dont really have a need to, it only MY opinion, and i think its a fair one tbh. and plus if anyone does take offence keep it to yourself because im sure most of you have read the administrator news

In reply to axe, watch "blowling for columbine" it is a documentary about the columbine shootings but goes into detail about poverty in the black community and crime rates ect, and you will see that us white folk are just as bad, mabie worse in these statistics, but there is one case on there where a black woman, worked 18 hours a day 24/7 split between 3 jobs with over 80 miles to travel between them all, all so she can support her family, so how is that black being lazy and not wanting to work.. its not that at all. its that black have always been considered "less" than us, which is totally fucking wrong, but so find it more of a challage to be able to get, let alone matain a job, especially in more high profile jobs, where people tend to snub people they consider lower classes. do you ever wonder why blacks have a much higher crime rate.. mabie its because us white have treated them like shit for centurys.. or mabie its because they are seen as bad people for what ever reason, ever notice you dont see, white man kills again, or white man shoots blah blah, even tho its just as common as a black commiting a crime, but no they dont show it on the news, all you hear on the news is black did that, black did that, im sure at least in US it might change evn a little after the nbew presidential ellections n shiz, but its never going to be a equal fight is it..

sorry i rambled on but i have friends of many races and tbqh imo whites are the worst of them all, and yet we are treated the best in many countrys around the world

 

[Donald Trump]

And why do blacks, as you have all affirmed, have statistically higher rates of poverty?

1. Because they make up less of the population. Polls on issues such as these are not balanced to reflect the population differences.

Because there's less of them, they're poorer?
That doesn't make any sense, at all.

2. Blacks typically don't want to work. It's not a racist statement, it is just the truth. You have all said that blacks have higher poverty, but you never really touched on why this is.

Wow. That's astonishling racist and stupid, and wrong.

Since when is it not stipulated that 1, humans are naturally opportunisti; and 2, blacks think they deserve reparations for past actions which did not have anything to do with them

You're not trying to justify slavery are you?

Since blacks decided that they are entitled to better treatment

I must have attended the meeting that all we black people decided to have and say that we weren't going to work.

Your arguments are based on some kind of 19th century view of black people. They'are completely illogical and devoid of any facts at all. When you can manage that, please do reply, until then keep your antediluvian ideas to yourself.

 

[Shu]

Axxman I have been told to hold back on seriously lashing out at you, but now seriously, you are just starting shiznit for your own enjoyment or mocking the forums in general. Since I haven't said anything in the past, I think I will now.

You know exactly what you are doing. If you do mean the things you are saying, then you are a racist. Plan and simple, I don't like you as a person. I have respected your opinion in the past, but according to this statement sir, you completely lost all respect.

2. Blacks typically don't want to work. It's not a racist statement, it is just the truth. You have all said that blacks have higher poverty, but you never really touched on why this is.

Blacks in our society are no longer discriminated against in jobs, so there is no longer an excuse for them to pin their constant failures on.

Your arguments are ignorant. They have no justifications, no statistics, and they are hate fueled. I would suggest getting counseling of your own. I could get down right personal, but I don't want to get infracted because you are not worth it.

 

[Regenark]

This is a really fragile subject. basically I don't care what anyone's skin color is. I think it is friggin bull$^%# to judge someone because there skin pigmentation is different than yours. so what- what baffles me is how your skin color has ANY relevance to you or your personality. anyways i don't think that racial discrimination is right in any sense of the word. people tend to leave their senses when it comes to how they treat people of a different minority and/or religon.

 

[M1ghty Mous3]

I concur with Shue. I think Axx is just plain and simple, a racist. Now is this is not a personal attack, no, not at all. Why he thinks how he does, we don't know, only he does. But that doesn't mean he has teh right to discriminate against another race of peopel just because of what he thinks.

To each his own. But when "his own" begins to start attacking peopel who he puts in a general catagory, they throw the term out the window. I don't have as many balck friends as i do white, but the ones i do, are actualy very smart people.

Theres Chappelle, yess his name. He's what you would consider a Spiritual wanderer. He graduated 4 yrs ago. He has taught me much about religion that i wouldn't know now. He's also taught me soem about the human nature. To call hi ma" white man in a black mans body" would be completely out of the picture. He is who he is. That's all i can ask.

Barr. While he might be your "typical" black fellow he's actually more then that. SUre he loves his rap, weed and sex. But that's not to say he's not a bad person in the slightest. Yes he's a lil lazy at times, but he garduated this year, and wasn't held back. He's taight me about business by means of drug deals. Not teh best way to learn., i know, but i learned none-the-less. To call him your typicla black man is also an insult. He might appeal ot the generalizations of what a black person is, but he's far from it when yo uget to know him.

Long story short, not everyone can be generalized as most would like. IT's all about how society has veiwed a certain race in the past. Yes times have changed, and greatly, but there is still alot of disctimination around. And to be honest, it sickens me. When a man walks down the street and is considered a thug because he has baggie pants, over sized shirts, and rap from his ipod blaring, it's very sad that your average white person won't get to know him because he's been taught that what he sees is wrong. Society needs to grow the fuck up.

 

[Cerberuswaltz]

This is a really fragile subject. basically I don't care what anyone's skin color is. I think it is friggin bull$^%# to judge someone because there skin pigmentation is different than yours. so what- what baffles me is how your skin color has ANY relevance to you or your personality. anyways i don't think that racial discrimination is right in any sense of the word. people tend to leave their senses when it comes to how they treat people of a different minority and/or religon.

Okay! Now, before I post, I just want you to know I'm not trying to "attack" you or defend this person that was banned, I'm just putting in an opinion of what I've seen and believe. I don't believe in arguing, I just believe in sharing ideas and possibly learning something new.

So! To start, I also believe it is wrong to judge someone on their skin colour, but as Mouse said it so, discrimination exists, and it's sad. As
people, we make various judgments about various things. I know I
unintentionally judge a girl who dresses skimpy at times, branding her
a whore. And I'm not proud, but I do it. And at times I realize this and
think, "I need to watch myself."

Sometimes we stray from how we think, or the mood we are in can affect how we act or think. Sometimes we are immature, other times we feel like being an adult. So, if someone makes a statement on how they think, how can it be wrong? Why not, instead, ask them why they think it or so?
Of course, I'm still not defending the person, as I don't know them, but I'm saying in general.

And at times it might be relevant to go by skin colour. Despite who we
are, some people fit into the stereotype. Though it might not be a good
thing to say, it's true. Stereotyping is bad, but it depends on how you use
it and how often you use it. Stereotypes don't exist for a reason, you know. I've seen people who do fit the stereotype, but that doesn't mean all of them do. It's a matter (of what I believe) on how you choose to deal with it, and how you can differentiate both if they do or do not.

If you've met an Asian, there is a good chance they'll fit into the "smart stereotype" category. Or, if you've met a gay person, they'll have a lisp
possibly and have good fashion taste. In my town, most Native Americans
who come into our store buy jewelry or fabric. Not ALWAYS but most times. So, to say people shouldn't judge on skin isn't really a way to end a conversation. If you've heard the song, 'Everyone's A Little Bit Racist' from the musical Avenue Q, there are a few lines in there that would relate.
The main one being, "Look around and you will find, no one's really colour blind."

And in fact, it's true. You can't see someone and say, "Oh you're just a person." Because in the back of your head, or at one second or another you'll address the fact that their skin is different. Skin colour is what makes a person a person. It's something that makes us beautiful, like curly hair, green eyes, or soft skin. Again, it's just a matter of how you treat it.

So, in short, discrimination is horrible, but making a small, harmless judgment (so I believe) is never wrong. We do it to everyone. As
long as we know stereotypes aren't always right and that people can break them, then I think people can be alright in some cases.

Closing, colour does matter how we treat people (either in a good way or bad way). But it's just judging in general and how people think. I just don't think it's a "winning" line to say one doesn't care about colour. I do agree, though, that people tend to leave their senses behind. I hope you don't think that this is rude, but I only wanted to offer what I believe so that
maybe you might think of it or not.


As far as the main subject goes, more college funds should be give to black people. After all, if you want to go to college, it should be obvious you're wanting to do something for society and yourself. So, why not help someone out if in the end they'll help you out?

 

[Vladislak]

In my mind racism is any time in which someone is treated differently (better or worse) because of their race. Giving benefits to one particular race simply because they are the way they are can be just as bad as treating them poorly.

Personally, I think all college funds should be based purely on a persons character, not their appearance or heritage. There are always people who deserve aid in a particular race, but there are also always undeserving people.

Let's say there are two people of two different races, one of them is a lazy, arrogant, drug addict, and the other is an intelligent, ambitious, law-abiding person.
I think it's obvious who would deserve a college fund, giving the lazy person money solely because of his or her race while refusing to give money to the other just because of his or her race is ridiculous.

All I'm saying is that aid should never be given or refused solely because of race. The fact that a college fund was created for a particular race implies that someone decided that race needed a fund. Which implies that all the other races always have it better off than them.

While in some cases that's probably true, I'm sure there are some people who aren't doing as well as other people, and those people deserve aid because they aren't doing as well.

So I have no problem with a college fund that gives people aid based on whether or not they need it, but if the only difference between two people is race, then they both deserve equal treatment.
That goes both ways, African Americans deserve to be treated the same as Caucasians, and Caucasians deserve to be treated the same as African Americans.

 

[CassinoChips]

Let's say there are two people of two different races, one of them is a lazy, arrogant, drug addict, and the other is an intelligent, ambitious, law-abiding person.
I think it's obvious who would deserve a college fund, giving the lazy person money solely because of his or her race while refusing to give money to the other just because of his or her race is ridiculous.

How would you determine laziness? I'm incredibly lazy, and yet I have a 3.5 gpa. Some of the hardest-working people I know are thrilled to have a C average. Is a person who has no extracurriculars, no job, more or less lazy than a person involved in clubs/sports/full- or part-time jobs, etc.?

And arrogance? If arrogance precluded a person from going to college, the Ivy League would go bankrupt. (I kid.)

Bottom line, laziness and arrogance are subjective descriptions, and, coincidentally, one of those tags was often applied to a particular group of people as a way to rationalize not giving them aid.

All I'm saying is that aid should never be given or refused solely because of race. The fact that a college fund was created for a particular race implies that someone decided that race needed a fund. Which implies that all the other races always have it better off than them.

While in some cases that's probably true, I'm sure there are some people who aren't doing as well as other people, and those people deserve aid because they aren't doing as well.

Your argument would hold more water if there was only one source of aid available, and if the UNCF precluded everyone else from getting aid, or the same amount of aid.

So I have no problem with a college fund that gives people aid based on whether or not they need it, but if the only difference between two people is race, then they both deserve equal treatment.
That goes both ways, African Americans deserve to be treated the same as Caucasians, and Caucasians deserve to be treated the same as African Americans.

And in the land of fairy tales and gumdrops they would be. But the reality is that the African-American community has yet to recover from centuries of slavery, racism, and the Man. Education is the key to empowerment, so giving the black community a leg up that they sorely need is a way to level the playing field, and possibly reach that future where there is true equality.

 

[Vladislak]

How would you determine laziness? I'm incredibly lazy, and yet I have a 3.5 gpa. Some of the hardest-working people I know are thrilled to have a C average. Is a person who has no extracurriculars, no job, more or less lazy than a person involved in clubs/sports/full- or part-time jobs, etc.?

That would be up for debate, my argument was never whether it was possible to determine laziness, it was who deserves something more

Bottom line, laziness and arrogance are subjective descriptions, and, coincidentally, one of those tags was often applied to a particular group of people as a way to rationalize not giving them aid.

Actually, I went out of my way not to apply any "tags" to a particular group of people. I purposely said "Let's say there are two people of two different races" and did not elaborate on what race would fit what person. They could be any ethnic group, so it's not "particular" at all.

Your argument would hold more water if there was only one source of aid available, and if the UNCF precluded everyone else from getting aid, or the same amount of aid.

That's irrelevant, my argument was based on how I thought things should run. Although I will admit, I never did elaborate on how many aid sources I was considering. Ideally there would only be one source.

And in the land of fairy tales and gumdrops they would be. But the reality is that the African-American community has yet to recover from centuries of slavery, racism, and the Man. Education is the key to empowerment, so giving the black community a leg up that they sorely need is a way to level the playing field, and possibly reach that future where there is true equality.

Keep in mind that I never said I was opposed to giving people a helping hand because they are at a disadvantage; using the African American example, I'd have to say that if every one of them needed a helping hand then I'd be more than happy to hear that they get help.
My argument was basically saying that it should be based on the needs of individuals, not whole groups.
I understand that African Americans as a race have suffered terrible wrongs, please don't misunderstand that. But that doesn't mean it's impossible for an African American to not need aid. A billionaire doesn't exactly need as much aid for college as someone who's really suffering.
You can't possibly assume that every individual person of a particular ethnic group is suffering, or that every individual person of a particular ethnic group is prospering, the world simply doesn't work in absolutes like that. Every person is different, all I'm saying is that these differences in individuals should be taken into account when giving out aid.

If there's a person dying on the street while another is living in luxury, then help the dying person, and any ethnic group could fit into either of those places. A white man could be dying on the street, same with a black man, or any ethnicity you can think of.


As for the comment on realism, I agree. It is the land of fairy tales indeed. These arguments are purely based on how I think things should happen. But if everything worked how I would like it to then things like slavery and racism wouldn't exist.

I never said it was realistic, just that it would simply be ideal.

 

[Donald Trump]

Keep in mind that I never said I was opposed to giving people a helping hand because they are at a disadvantage; using the African American example, I'd have to say that if every one of them needed a helping hand then I'd be more than happy to hear that they get help.

There's an application process, they don't just give out money to black people. I'm fairly sure that it's means tested. The people that are applying are people who need it.

I understand that African Americans as a race have suffered terrible wrongs, please don't misunderstand that. But that doesn't mean it's impossible for an African American to not need aid. A billionaire doesn't exactly need as much aid for college as someone who's really suffering.
You can't possibly assume that every individual person of a particular ethnic group is suffering, or that every individual person of a particular ethnic group is prospering, the world simply doesn't work in absolutes like that. Every person is different, all I'm saying is that these differences in individuals should be taken into account when giving out aid.

Like I said it's not given to anyone who is black.
There's not a level of people with needs. There are those who need it and don't. Those who do need it are given the funding they need, it's not an example of inverse racism.

If there's a person dying on the street while another is living in luxury, then help the dying person, and any ethnic group could fit into either of those places. A white man could be dying on the street, same with a black man, or any ethnicity you can think of.

There are charities for people starving on the streets. No one is trying to apply the same idea of a charity based on race to other forms of charity. Black people that served in the army aren't going to be given more money that white people.
African-Americans are poorer and have a greater need for a College fund than white people. Ideally they'd be a fund for Native Americans and Hispanic people, who have arguably suffered more than African Americans, though that's neither here nor there. The UNCF was set up because African Americans needed aid the most.

As for the comment on realism, I agree. It is the land of fairy tales indeed. These arguments are purely based on how I think things should happen. But if everything worked how I would like it to then things like slavery and racism wouldn't exist.

I never said it was realistic, just that it would simply be ideal.

In an ideal world wouldn't everyone get aid and the help they need?

 

[Vladislak]

I agree with just about everything you've just said. But I'm not sure you understand what I'm trying to get across here.

I'll try a different approach...
In all honesty I think categorizing humans into ethnic groups in and of itself is pointless; people are people. If a person is hurt, help them. Things like whether or not they are African American, Caucasian, Native American, Hispanic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Male, or Female should have no place in determining how inclined you are to help them.

So someone has a different color skin, so what? That doesn't make them different from other people in any way. It's because people saw them as different that they put them through so much suffering.

If one ethnic group is suffering, there are generally two explanations:
1. The circumstances they are in are simply unfavorable, in which case effort should be put into improving the circumstances rather than the state of the ethnic group itself.
2. People are still so ignorant that they see them as different and treat them differently.

While it's generally a combination of both, more than likely the second one is the issue here, otherwise it would simply be a coincidence that the ethnic group happens to be in unfavorable circumstances.

Note: When I say different I mean different in a bad way, there's no problem with being unique or proud of your heritage. In fact, I encourage it.


P.S. About an ideal world... My ideal world would be one in which people would never even need aid. But I was originally referring to an ideal method in which to fix the problem brought up in this thread, not necessarily to fix the entire world. That would take a lot of typing to try and do that, I'm not even sure if it would be possible... But it would be possible in an ideal world. xD

 

[CassinoChips]

I'll try a different approach...
In all honesty I think categorizing humans into ethnic groups in and of itself is pointless; people are people. If a person is hurt, help them. Things like whether or not they are African American, Caucasian, Native American, Hispanic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Male, or Female should have no place in determining how inclined you are to help them.

Try going with that policy the next/first time you get robbed.

Officer: What did the assailant look like?

You: Oh, he was just a person.

But really, this is irrelevant to the topic. The topic isn't whether or not we should view black Americans as a separate entity and define them as an ethnic group. The topic is whether, as a separate ethnic group, there should be a fund set up solely for the black community in order to give them better access to education without having a similar fund for white Americans, Asian Americans, what have you. And then of course, whether or not doing so is racist.

Basically, the question is whether the UNCF is a racist concept. Not whether race should or shouldn't exist.

1. The circumstances they are in are simply unfavorable, in which case effort should be put into improving the circumstances rather than the state of the ethnic group itself.

Wouldn't the best way to do that be to improve their chances of attaining a higher education? It is in my book.

 

[Vladislak]

Try going with that policy the next/first time you get robbed.

Officer: What did the assailant look like?

You: Oh, he was just a person.

But really, this is irrelevant to the topic. The topic isn't whether or not we should view black Americans as a separate entity and define them as an ethnic group. The topic is whether, as a separate ethnic group, there should be a fund set up solely for the black community in order to give them better access to education without having a similar fund for white Americans, Asian Americans, what have you. And then of course, whether or not doing so is racist.

Basically, the question is whether the UNCF is a racist concept. Not whether race should or shouldn't exist.

Well it simply stemmed off of that topic in an attempt to get to the heart of the issue and resolve the problem at hand. By looking at how race could function in an ideal world we can determine just how far off from ideal our world is and consequently whether or not certain aspects of it are morally wrong and racist.

BTW there's a difference between describing someone as having a certain characteristics and assigning them a particular status based on those characteristics. You can describe someone as bald, but that doesn't assign them to a particular group of people and they aren't looked on as different than other people. As I said previously, there's no problem with being unique, it's being classified by your characteristics that is what I was talking about.

Wouldn't the best way to do that be to improve their chances of attaining a higher education? It is in my book.

Precisely. But you're missing the point.

By saying "the circumstances they are in are simply unfavorable", I mean it has nothing to do with their race and more to do with the circumstances that they happen to be in. Any person of any race can be born into unfavorable circumstances, and that is when people should step up and aid them.

My entire argument was meant to remedy the second scenario in which people are simply foolish enough to see them as "different" from other people in a negative way.

If you want to give aid to those in the other scenario (being in unfavorable circumstances) then by all means do so. If you can go to the houses of the poor and/or homeless and give them aid then I encourage you to.

The issue in the end is whether or not race itself determines if your circumstances are favorable or unfavorable, if it doesn't then it's an ineffective way of determining who needs aid and who doesn't.

Back to the example of the bald person being just as able as a person with hair... Plato once used the same analogy to prove whether or not gender should be a determining factor in deciding who is best suited for a basic job. He determined that the differences between men and women are negligible for the majority of jobs out there, just as the difference between a bald man and a man with hair are negligible when considered for a job like shoe making or woodworking.

The difference between the capabilities of ethnic groups under the same circumstances are even more negligible; if two men are raised the exact same way in the exact same environment but one is black and one is white, then they are likely to be equal in capabilities (provided there are no significant genetic handicaps).
That right there proves that it is not the ethnic group, but the circumstances that make one man more capable than another. This is where my argument sprung from in the first place.


Perhaps I should be a bit more bold with this; If anyone here can prove to me that race is the primary factor in determining whether or not a child is born into unfavorable circumstances then I will agree to rest my case.

If not, then clearly mankind needs to find what is the determining factor of whether a child is born into unfavorable circumstances and give aid based on that, thereby cutting it off at the root of the problem.
If there is no primary determining factor, then there simply should be no prerequisites to being given aid other than the circumstances of individuals rather than groups.