High Seas Segregation

FYI, 'Minorities" can be "Caucasians", i.e., hispanics of european descent.
If we can't get our anthropological facts straight in the context of our nation's history, then you can't really have an educated discussion on racial/ethnic relations, or for that matter USN's directives.
 
You probably missed my earlier post of why I say caucasian...my brother is an albino, and my parents did not allow us to classify people by skin color, i.e. white, brown, black, etc. Also, back in my day, of check the square, it was caucasian, not white, especially for college apps.

If your defense of a position is to critique a poster on proper terminology, than to me you lost the fight. You know which race I am implying when I say caucasian, everyone knows. Terminology regarding race is not at issue here, or are you stating that it is?

Crap in my life time, the term for AA has changed multiple times. First it was *****, than it was black, than it was AA, and I think we are socially back to the term black again. I just stick with African American because I feel it is the safest term.

Shoot me for not using the term white. If it makes you feel better by me saying white and not caucasian, then you will have to not feel good because I will continue to use that term, along with African American, and Hispanic or Latino. That was a part of my upbringing, I respect my parents for teaching me skin color is genetic and should never be used as a descriptor.
 
MakeItHappen said:
FYI, 'Minorities" can be "Caucasians", i.e., hispanics of european descent.
If we can't get our anthropological facts straight in the context of our nation's history, then you can't really have an educated discussion on racial/ethnic relations, or for that matter USN's directives.
Click to expand...

When the US Navy speaks of diversity, they are not talking about anything else but skin color.

The poor white kid from the trailer park in Appalachia, raised with no running water or electricity, barefoot, who happens to make it to college and OCS to become a naval officer, will NOT be given these advantages.

However, they will be given to the naval officer who is black , the son of two Beverly Hills doctors, raised in private schools, living in a $20 million mansion, and and chauffeured in a Rolls Royce by the butler his entire life.
 
I am against Affirmative Action, because as someone who was an educator in the public school system for @7 yrs. I realized quickly that skin color is not the problem, it is socio-economic issues that are the problem.

The poor white kid from the trailer park in Appalachia, raised with no running water or electricity, barefoot, who happens to make it to college and OCS to become a naval officer, will NOT be given these advantages.

However, they will be given to the naval officer who is black , the son of two Beverly Hills doctors, raised in private schools, living in a $20 million mansion, and and chauffeured in a Rolls Royce by the butler his entire life.
Click to expand...

I 1000% agree with you. the poor white kid as you stated, is as others have deemed a member of the "good old white boy system".

It is interesting because people talk about how the majority of welfare recipients are minorities, when in reality there are just as many "white" (just for you MakeIt) on the rolls. However, the "white" kid doesn't get that URM when it comes to college, but the minority does.

Let me give you a personal anecdote. Our friends have a DD at college on a full ride because she marked the box hispanic. Her mother is 100% hispanic, Dad is white. Here's the "you have got to be kidding me moment". Her grandparents (Mom's folks) were born in the US. Her grandfather served and retired as an officer in the US Army. Yet, even as a 4th generation American, with no economic issues (DAD was an AD AF officer, Mom has a Masters and is working) she got full ride because she is 50% minority according to the system.

Want true diversity, than let's start looking at people that are disadvantaged not based on skin color, but the environment that they are coming from.
 
JAM what is your personal assumption when they speak of diversity? Not trying to be antagonistic or facetious, just curious of your exact definition of diversity regarding this matter.
 
My personal definition is not the issue - it is what the Navy defines as diversity.

I read the 'memo' posted on Salamander's site and no where does it mention a specific race.
I do know when the academies talk about 'diversity' and utilize their 'diversity outreach officers' this does transcend race. They are looking for that poor white kid from Appalachia whose parents only graduated from 8th grade who grew up without running water or electricity.

Conservative publications like the Washington Times as well as folks like Luigi and Cdr Sal love to jump on the 'diveristy' bandwagon and make giant leap to conclusions. They are truly nervous and afraid the status quo could be affected and the numbers of white, males who are running the country will drop. Stuff like this is threatening to them and they are unable to recognize that demographics are changing.
 
Just_A_Mom said:
That is your assumption.
Click to expand...

No, it's the truth (for those who are willing to open up their eyes).

If I took --

a white Canadian-American Lutheran lobsterman from Maine,
a white German-American Baptist hillbilly from Kentucky,
a white Jewish Israeli-American K-street lawyer,
a white French-American Athiest surfer-dude from LA,
and a white Swedish-American Catholic pig farmer from Nebraska

A very diverse mix of ethnicity, economic class, geography, religion, and life experiences.​

-- would that satisfy the Navy's definition of diversity?

Those with their heads in the sand raise their hands.

Of course it wouldn't, because when the Navy says "diversity" they mean "skin color."

If we took "race" off the sheets as a category for defining "diversity" there is no way that an all white group, made up from a very "diverse" group as listed above, would ever qualify under Gary Roughead's diversity definition.

Id rather see them follow Martin Luther King's vision than Gary Roughead's.
 
Just_A_Mom said:
My personal definition is not the issue - it is what the Navy defines as diversity.

I read the 'memo' posted on Salamander's site and no where does it mention a specific race.
I do know when the academies talk about 'diversity' and utilize their 'diversity outreach officers' this does transcend race. They are looking for that poor white kid from Appalachia whose parents only graduated from 8th grade who grew up without running water or electricity.

Conservative publications like the Washington Times as well as folks like Luigi and Cdr Sal love to jump on the 'diveristy' bandwagon and make giant leap to conclusions. They are truly nervous and afraid the status quo could be affected and the numbers of white, males who are running the country will drop. Stuff like this is threatening to them and they are unable to recognize that demographics are changing.
Click to expand...

"folks like Luigi" :rolleyes:

It was only a matter of time until "JustAMom" resorted to the personal attack to attempt to start a fight and get the thread closed.
 
Canadian-American Lutheran Lobsterman??? would like to see that. more likely would be Catholic.

would that satisfy the Navy's definition of diversity?

Not quite. Your selection is good but gerrymandered. keep mixing it up and add -
a sharecroppers from Mississippi, the Mexican American grape pickers from California, Chinese-American dry cleaner from Seattle.
It was a good start though.


when the Navy says "diversity" they mean "skin color
Click to expand...
Then how do you explain the Naval academy offering a diversity outreach visit to a economically disadvantaged white male?
 
Pima said:
You probably missed my earlier post of why I say caucasian...my brother is an albino, and my parents did not allow us to classify people by skin color, i.e. white, brown, black, etc. Also, back in my day, of check the square, it was caucasian, not white, especially for college apps.

If your defense of a position is to critique a poster on proper terminology, than to me you lost the fight. You know which race I am implying when I say caucasian, everyone knows. Terminology regarding race is not at issue here, or are you stating that it is?

Crap in my life time, the term for AA has changed multiple times. First it was *****, than it was black, than it was AA, and I think we are socially back to the term black again. I just stick with African American because I feel it is the safest term.

Shoot me for not using the term white. If it makes you feel better by me saying white and not caucasian, then you will have to not feel good because I will continue to use that term, along with African American, and Hispanic or Latino. That was a part of my upbringing, I respect my parents for teaching me skin color is genetic and should never be used as a descriptor.
Click to expand...

I've followed the thread since inception.

Not sure about your albinism comment since all races are affected, but great for your parents to teach you to see through color.

I have not stated a position on the original post and I am not "fighting" with anyone.

Facts are facts. Again, not understanding the difference between race/ethnicity is a concern.

Why use any descriptors at all? Since you don't see skin color, why do you have to see race or ethnicity? After all, race and ethnicity are genetic.

That's been the problem from Day One when our founding fathers chose to see Blacks as chattel and counted as 3/5 person for apportionment purposes. The stereotypes and BS have continued to this day.

Pima, this isn't an attack. Posters on all sides don't get this race/ethnicity thing. I'm sorry that we even have to talk about it. Unfortunately, history is not kind and those who perpetuated the misconduct have given us what we reap. And history didn't start in 1975.
 
I will say that diversity, in the eyes of the military, also includes "Gender". But other than that, most definitely they are speaking skin color. It doesn't matter if you're an inner city black American who is 7th generation American, or a wealthy 1st generation black American who's parents came here from the Caribbean. You are both considered minorities. And politically correct, you will be referred to as African Americans. Same with hispanic; whether you have lived in Wisconsin for 5 generations and don't know one word of spanish; or your parents crossed the border before you were born, and english is a 2nd language to you. Both will be treated the same as a minority.

See, my solution is simple:
1. Define what the "Correct" society would be. Color doesn't matter; sex doesn't matter; people are judged on their performance only; etc....
2. Dictate that that is the way it will be. (In the military, you CAN do this). Those who don't/won't comply, get rid of them. There are plenty of quality people wanting to come into the military. Especially in these economic times.

Affirmative action is divisive. Diversity is good during the "hiring" process; assuming that "Quality" is not compromised for the sake of diversity. Diversity needs to be "REDEFINED" to not mean just color and sex. It needs to include backgrounds and perspectives on life. Individuals from diverse economic and social backgrounds. Rich, poor, middle; east coast, west coast, rural, etc.... This is the diversity we need. Not to "REPRESENT" their PEOPLE, but so the military has a better overall perspective. This is so simple. Problem is; we allow politicians and special interest group affect the military. Use to be that the military lead the way to social advancement. Now, they are a follower.
 
LineInTheSand said:
Mongo said:
Hence the new efforts. It is not about some ambiguous political correctness but about financial survival. They will be held accountable for the results of their actions.
Click to expand...

So are you implying that sociaeconomic, racial, or gender groups are not keeping pace with the qualified masses (majority), and need to be grouped separately?

I fail to see how this applied to "finacial survival". They have a bloated budget and a serious Navy identity crisis. The "blue water" Navy touts the LCS, rescue swimmers, and it's "Global Force for Good". Gone are the days of the 16" deck guns, explosions, or kills. So what finacial survival are we talking here?

Either it's good and right, and should be front and center in the public eye, or it's not. If it's underhanded or less than acceptable, I can imagine an internal memo would be the way to go. If not, DMS would seem the way to notify.
Click to expand...
All I am saying is that the demographics of the United States is changing. The base from which the Navy has recruited in the past is shrinking. The competition for qualified recruits is becoming more intense. Increased competition usually involves incentives. Incentives usually cost money. Money that could be better spent elsewhere.

The same similiar scenario applies to retention.

The bigger the recruiting and retention base, the fewer the incentives to maintain a qualified fleet.
 
Mongo said:
All I am saying is that the demographics of the United States is changing. The base from which the Navy has recruited in the past is shrinking. The competition for qualified recruits is becoming more intense. Increased competition usually involves incentives. Incentives usually cost money. Money that could be better spent elsewhere.

The same similiar scenario applies to retention.

The bigger the recruiting and retention base, the fewer the incentives to maintain a qualified fleet.
Click to expand...

Did the demographic change/continue to change because it was forced or because it was the natural progression? Would the same apply for a service in the military?

Job's aren't easy to find for many right now, and retention is up, not to mention the fact that many services will shrink their work force. I think the "incentives" notion is of keeping people in doesn't apply as much in 2010. The incentive these days is to "have a job", which is why promotion boards have become a blood bath.
 
Mongo said:
All I am saying is that the demographics of the United States is changing. The base from which the Navy has recruited in the past is shrinking. The competition for qualified recruits is becoming more intense. Increased competition usually involves incentives. Incentives usually cost money. Money that could be better spent elsewhere.

The same similiar scenario applies to retention.

The bigger the recruiting and retention base, the fewer the incentives to maintain a qualified fleet.
Click to expand...

Sorry, not buying it. The facts show that the military doesn't have to do anything "Special" to recruit or retain quality military personnel. Not with our current economy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/13/AR2009101303539.html
A Historic Success In Military Recruiting
In Midst of Downturn, All Targets Are Met

For the first time in more than 35 years, the U.S. military has met all of its annual recruiting goals, as hundreds of thousands of young people have enlisted despite the near-certainty that they will go to war.

The Pentagon, which made the announcement Tuesday, said the economic downturn and rising joblessness, as well as bonuses and other factors, had led more qualified youths to enlist.
******************************
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/10/AR2009051002172.html
Military Recruiting Faces a Budget Cut
Obama Plan Would Spend 11% Less

Citing the Pentagon's recent success in meeting its manpower needs, the Obama administration is proposing to cut the Defense Department's budget for recruiting by nearly $800 million, or 11 percent, for 2010.
****************************
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/16/military-academies-surge-applications-recession/
Military Academies See Surge of Applications During Recession

ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- Applications have surged at the nation's three top military academies as tough economic times coincide with stepped-up recruiting efforts by the Army, Navy and Air Force schools, making the prospect of free college and a steady job look sweeter.
 
One year a trend does not make.

90% of Philadelphia youth are ineligible for military service.
Nationally 75% of Youth are ineligible for military service.
http://cbs3.com/local/military.philadelphia.report.2.1750594.html

http://www.missionreadiness.org/

This will only get worse over the next 10 or so years as elementary aged kids approach high school.
While Academy applications are up, going forward there will be a larger and larger number that will be found ineligible. You can have a million applications but if they aren't qualified, it will do you no good.
 
most definitely they are speaking skin color
Click to expand...
Prove to me how you know this? Are you on CNO's staff or are you simply making this statement from personal experience of 20 years ago?
If this is true then how does a white male from a small town get invited to a "diversity weekend"?
 
Just_A_Mom said:
Prove to me how you know this? Are you on CNO's staff or are you simply making this statement from personal experience of 20 years ago?
If this is true then how does a white male from a small town get invited to a "diversity weekend"?
Click to expand...

Find me a white male on the Admiral's list of diversity candidates.

I'll wait. :rolleyes:
 
Just_A_Mom said:
One year a trend does not make.

90% of Philadelphia youth are ineligible for military service.
Nationally 75% of Youth are ineligible for military service.
http://cbs3.com/local/military.philadelphia.report.2.1750594.html

http://www.missionreadiness.org/

This will only get worse over the next 10 or so years as elementary aged kids approach high school.
While Academy applications are up, going forward there will be a larger and larger number that will be found ineligible. You can have a million applications but if they aren't qualified, it will do you no good.
Click to expand...
What in the world does this have to do with the price of rice in china???? Are you saying then that the military needs to LOWER their entrance standards for enlisted and officers entering service???? No, I didn't think so. So what does it matter if 90% of philadelphia or BFE isn't qualified. What DOES matter, is that there are more than enough qualified people eligible for military service, and they are enlisting and applying for commissions in numbers greater than seen in 30 years. And it shows that the military is NOT HURTING to get new members OR retaining the ones they have.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top