I am guessing the lack of AA programs is because they are not really needed for people of Asian origin or descent. They can normally make their own way into most fields and rank among the highest earners in the country. There are not really any large derelict asian neighborhoods and Asian kids arent really dropping out of schools in large numbers.

Try to catch up a bit please. I am not suggesting any of the Japanese people had any loyalty to Japan because of their Japanese heritage. My point is: it is as fallacious to assume all Japanese Americans were enemy supporters then, as it is now to assume that all Islamic Americans are enemy supporters. Both are equally moronic assumptions in my opinion. Rasczak claimed that the two were different because one is a nationality and the other a religion - I was rejecting that point completely.

Where has anyone made such an assumption or claim and what does any of this have to do with the topic of the thread?

That would make no sense. Which AA program don't make sense. If past discrimination is not an automatic cause for "people not being able to make their own way" then why do we need them in the first place? And why, if we do, should they be assigned by race? If we must have these programs, the basis for assigning them should be based on an individual's background.

Why Denzel Washington's son should benefit from AA programs when a child of an immigrant from Cambodia shouldn't is beyond me.

If one of us has catching up to do, it's you.

I don't recall Rasczak ever posting that all American Muslims were 'enemy supporters'. He has posted plenty of interesting statistics about support for Shar'ia among Muslims and the like.

But he's yet to say (or imply) that all American Muslims are 'enemy supporters'.

First of all, Umm, What?

Second, Most AA programs are designed to help people from certain backgrounds who for one reason or another are not represented fairly in professional fields. Very few of them are based strictly on race and most are on financial background. Denzel's son would probably not get in unless he is striclty exploiting a race based program because at some point he would have to reveal his daddy's income. If the immigrant from Asia has been legalized than don't worry, the kid would find a place.

Sorry, but you don't seem to know what you're talking about. (Forgive my bluntness.) When I say AA programs, I'm talking about the ones like where black kids, for example, get accepted to a college with lower entrance exam scores, than a Asian kid would need to be accepted. People from the Appalachian region I'm sure are under-represtened in the legal proffessions, but they have to score higher than Denzel Washington's kid to get into law school because they have to check the caucasian block if/when they apply.

When race based quota systems are employed income isn't figured in. That's why they're called race based, not income based.

It wouldn't have hurt to have been more explicit. AA encompasses quota programs and lowered standards as well as more benign systems, too. I've seen AA programs where all they do is try hard to get minority candidates to apply.

When asked to explain what I was talking about at the beginning of the thread I said:

People gotta read the whole thread.

"These programs are employed by colleges and universities. Typically, someone who is black or hispanic doesn't have to score as well on their entrance exams or have held as high a grade point average as a whitey to be accepted."

Not true. In case of quotas when you specify that 80% white and 20% minorities or anyother number, all students classified as minorities will still compete against each other and the ending admissions score is quite high. Like this case

COLOR-BARRED STUDENT

But all this is a mute point since the supreme court has already decided that school districts cannot consider race in admissions. Most colleges have already moved to financial background based systems.

I don't think I ever named anybody in particular as having the belief that all Islamic Americans are anything. I was highlighting a parallel in the fact that a general feeling of xenophobia was behind the idiotic internment of Japanese in the 40's, as well as behind a very real anti-Islamic sentiment today. As it happens, Rasczak has clearly demonstrated an anti-Islamic sentiment. He didn't specifically raise it in this thread, but no regular reader of these forums could reasonably deny it. It appears in dozens of threads (and no, I am not going to waste my time going to itemize them for you).

I personally have seen no 'interesting statistics about support for Shar'ia among Muslims and the like' (there was 1 thread along those lines but I didn't find it at all compelling).

'All' can reasonably be seen as a figure of speech anyway - only the most extreme xenophobes would really believe 100% of their chosen hate-recipients are this that or the other (most people at least acknowledge there are exceptions to any rule). Perhaps I would be safer to use the term 'most' than 'all' to avoid that misunderstanding in future.

I don't like any religion. Islam gets more of my attention because its Muslims who are far far far in the lead in the race to bomb the most innocent people from day to day. Should Hindus or Christians start catching up, you'll see me giving them attention too correlative to their weekly amount of terrorist activity.

I have not done very much research into AA but my impression is that it was established to aid those that early America actively oppressed, thus stunting their growth as a productive part of the economy. I believe this encompasses those of Native American, Mexican and African descent. Be it Oppression, War or Slavery, these cultures were undeniably hurt by the American Government in one way or the other. From my understanding, while Asians were never shown the respect of equals in America, they were also never actively opposed by the government until the World Wars.

At least, that is how I've come to think of it. Forgive me if I show my ignorance.