F*ckin equality
- Thread starter SwissMiss
- Start date
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
Is your member name some sort of pun on my last name? Huh? Huh you beastard, speak!
No. I do not support affirmative action... Or, as I like to call it: keep the jobs away from the gays and blacks.
I believe the person with the best qualifications for the job should get the job, regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation.
(Drunk)
No. I do not support affirmative action... Or, as I like to call it: keep the jobs away from the gays and blacks.
I believe the person with the best qualifications for the job should get the job, regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation.
(Drunk)
"Positive Discrimination"
Ascribed characteristics are traits one is born with and has done nothing to earn. Achieved characteristics are things earned through individual effort. Race, for instance, is an ascribed trait. It requires no individual effort, no pain, no strain, no striving; only that one be born to one set of parents rather than another. That is why it is so terribly unfair to discriminate against someone because of their race, gender, age, ethnicity, and so forth. Being held responsible for something one does not control is the height of injustice. In fact, this sort of thing is particularly loathsome because it runs so counter to what America, at its best, is all about. In this America no one is born to a life of inferiority. In this America you are judged by what you can do, not by what you can't control.......
Ascribed characteristics are traits one is born with and has done nothing to earn. Achieved characteristics are things earned through individual effort. Race, for instance, is an ascribed trait. It requires no individual effort, no pain, no strain, no striving; only that one be born to one set of parents rather than another. That is why it is so terribly unfair to discriminate against someone because of their race, gender, age, ethnicity, and so forth. Being held responsible for something one does not control is the height of injustice. In fact, this sort of thing is particularly loathsome because it runs so counter to what America, at its best, is all about. In this America no one is born to a life of inferiority. In this America you are judged by what you can do, not by what you can't control.......
I believe that in the beginning AA was a help but now as times change I really think that we should look at it again to see whether it is still of value to those it was intended to help or not.
Simple question
A very simple question:
• If Affirmative Action ended today, do you pretend that people in America would be treated equally regardless of their ethnicity?
(A) If you think the answer is, "Yes," you're wrong.
(B) This does not, however, propose a solution.
(C) What do you suggest insofar as making opportunity truly equal?
My perception of ethnic-related issues is that people wish to set equality compared to the effort they believe they put into society, and not into the rewards or the apportionment of the benefits of society.
Thus, if we pretend that all people are equal in any way aside from before the law at birth, yes, equality comes when no consideration is given to ethnicity.
However, how superficial is that consideration?
• You are born.
• You have parents/family.
• You go to school.
• You have friends.
• You get a job.
• You grow up and be equal.
In reality:
• You are born to a degree of affluence unique compared to anyone else.
• You have parents and a family that are unique compared to anyone else's.
• You go to a school that is of differing quality than the next.
• You have friends who are not perfect, and who are subject to the same diverse factors you are.
• You get a job that might pay you more than the labor is worth, or might pay you less than the labor is worth.
• You call this equality if you're doing better than most, you call it a rigged system if you're doing worse than most. If you're on par with most, the fringes of society cater to you to a certain degree: the poor aspire to be you, the rich want to appear to be like you in order to win your favor.
Another way to look at it is through an anecdote from a few years ago.
• A friend of mine from a mixed-race family sat down to Thanksgiving dinner. He was one of three blacks in a roomful of moderately-conservative and conservative whites. So anyway, Uncle Dave, trying to keep the conversation interesting, launches into his dittohead routine, talking about how being white, Christian, and male is getting to be dangerous. Society punishes the white Christian male for the condition of his birth, &c., ad nauseam. White Christian males are the target of mass discrimination. At which point, my friend apparently went through the deliberate act of setting his knife and fork across his plate according to some custom I am unfamiliar with, and politely asked Uncle Dave, "Well, don't you think it's about your turn?"
Now, some of us might disagree with the degree of discrimination white Christian males are subject to, but my friend makes a point: Why is this trouble any more unique than any other?
I've been beaten for my ethnicity? Not nearly as badly as a couple of darker-skinned people I know. But woe is me? Hardly. Life goes on.
Somebody stole my woman? Get used to it. Happens to everybody.
Taxes too high? Take a number, get back in the line.
Now, I personally think that it's not unfair to "discriminate against" the "white Christian male" insofar as much of what is being treated as discrimination is merely the stripping away of unfair privilege. In this case, equality means the preservation of social and economic privileges reserved to only a certain portion of society.
But let's take Uncle Dave's point as if it's real and legitimate: You feel discriminated against? Discrimination is wrong. There's something ideologically askew in using discrimination as a counterbalance against itself--the problematic aspect of Affirmative Action most commonly and inappropriately lamented--but the simple fact is, Dave, everybody goes through it. And as a white Christian male, you've not had to put up with much. You feel discriminated against now? Keep pushing that attitude and see what happens in a few years when it all comes apart.
Yeah, Dave ... it happens to everybody. Buck up, quit complaining, and take it like a good boy.
In the meantime, you're welcome to end Affirmative Action just as soon as you have something better to put in its place that does not depend on ideological presumptions spoken loudly against by the reality of relevant conditions.
But a simple question exists of whether or not Americans, left to their own devices, will work and play nicely with people of other ethnicities. The preponderance of evidnece suggests othewise. There is much work to be done before that happens, and equality, to me, does not involve sacrificing nonwhite ethnicities to the potential of white people ever figuring it out. History speaks against white people ever figuring it out; the European-descended culture that has become this alleged beacon of diversity--and for the most part, we do better than many if not most--still depends on old divisions that will continue to foster superficial ethnic disparity.
There is much work to be done. How should we go about it, if Affirmative Action is so repugnant as to require ending it?
A very simple question:
• If Affirmative Action ended today, do you pretend that people in America would be treated equally regardless of their ethnicity?
(A) If you think the answer is, "Yes," you're wrong.
(B) This does not, however, propose a solution.
(C) What do you suggest insofar as making opportunity truly equal?
My perception of ethnic-related issues is that people wish to set equality compared to the effort they believe they put into society, and not into the rewards or the apportionment of the benefits of society.
Thus, if we pretend that all people are equal in any way aside from before the law at birth, yes, equality comes when no consideration is given to ethnicity.
However, how superficial is that consideration?
• You are born.
• You have parents/family.
• You go to school.
• You have friends.
• You get a job.
• You grow up and be equal.
In reality:
• You are born to a degree of affluence unique compared to anyone else.
• You have parents and a family that are unique compared to anyone else's.
• You go to a school that is of differing quality than the next.
• You have friends who are not perfect, and who are subject to the same diverse factors you are.
• You get a job that might pay you more than the labor is worth, or might pay you less than the labor is worth.
• You call this equality if you're doing better than most, you call it a rigged system if you're doing worse than most. If you're on par with most, the fringes of society cater to you to a certain degree: the poor aspire to be you, the rich want to appear to be like you in order to win your favor.
Another way to look at it is through an anecdote from a few years ago.
• A friend of mine from a mixed-race family sat down to Thanksgiving dinner. He was one of three blacks in a roomful of moderately-conservative and conservative whites. So anyway, Uncle Dave, trying to keep the conversation interesting, launches into his dittohead routine, talking about how being white, Christian, and male is getting to be dangerous. Society punishes the white Christian male for the condition of his birth, &c., ad nauseam. White Christian males are the target of mass discrimination. At which point, my friend apparently went through the deliberate act of setting his knife and fork across his plate according to some custom I am unfamiliar with, and politely asked Uncle Dave, "Well, don't you think it's about your turn?"
Now, some of us might disagree with the degree of discrimination white Christian males are subject to, but my friend makes a point: Why is this trouble any more unique than any other?
I've been beaten for my ethnicity? Not nearly as badly as a couple of darker-skinned people I know. But woe is me? Hardly. Life goes on.
Somebody stole my woman? Get used to it. Happens to everybody.
Taxes too high? Take a number, get back in the line.
Now, I personally think that it's not unfair to "discriminate against" the "white Christian male" insofar as much of what is being treated as discrimination is merely the stripping away of unfair privilege. In this case, equality means the preservation of social and economic privileges reserved to only a certain portion of society.
But let's take Uncle Dave's point as if it's real and legitimate: You feel discriminated against? Discrimination is wrong. There's something ideologically askew in using discrimination as a counterbalance against itself--the problematic aspect of Affirmative Action most commonly and inappropriately lamented--but the simple fact is, Dave, everybody goes through it. And as a white Christian male, you've not had to put up with much. You feel discriminated against now? Keep pushing that attitude and see what happens in a few years when it all comes apart.
Yeah, Dave ... it happens to everybody. Buck up, quit complaining, and take it like a good boy.
In the meantime, you're welcome to end Affirmative Action just as soon as you have something better to put in its place that does not depend on ideological presumptions spoken loudly against by the reality of relevant conditions.
But a simple question exists of whether or not Americans, left to their own devices, will work and play nicely with people of other ethnicities. The preponderance of evidnece suggests othewise. There is much work to be done before that happens, and equality, to me, does not involve sacrificing nonwhite ethnicities to the potential of white people ever figuring it out. History speaks against white people ever figuring it out; the European-descended culture that has become this alleged beacon of diversity--and for the most part, we do better than many if not most--still depends on old divisions that will continue to foster superficial ethnic disparity.
There is much work to be done. How should we go about it, if Affirmative Action is so repugnant as to require ending it?
This is another one of those practices that meant well but under the employement of racist employers it is used as a means to get a few Ethnicites in to fill the quota.
I agree Tiassa, there is nothing better to surrogate AA for now so as unfair it maybe it does get some Minorities jobs, even if they are pity hirings for the buisnesses to fullfill their Moral requirements and evade the bad eye of negative publicity.
The argument comes down to "The job should go to those who are qualified"....agreed, but there are so many competent workers out their for one job, take away AA and the preffered ethnicity gets that job.....the worker is certainly qualified for the job but he/she is further helped by their genes.
Ethnic discrimination by employers would mostly end overnight if the “downtrodden” met expectations. I work at a company that hires East Indians by the drove. While they might have an accent and a ten-syllable name, they communicate well and do good work. If they can thrive in America despite their initial disadvantages, I can hardly feel sorry for any able-bodied person born here.
If your name is Kineisha or Joe Bob, there’s less chance your resumé will be read. Why should employers take the time if experience tells them you’re likely not worth their time? People might need to change their name or otherwise conform. I’ve had to change my career tactics in response to the East Indians. It’s called competition, not discrimination.
When people are treated unequally it's usually because they deserve it and not because of ethnicity.
Last edited:
I support Affirmative Action yes I do..
Notions of race amongst white communities don’t really hold much sway anymore, because the only white people concerned with race are neo-nazis and nationalists and they are basically viewed by all thinking people as a joke. But amongst non-whites racial self-perception is still quite prevalent. This is mostly an inadvertent consequence of their fight against white oppression; being discriminated against on racial grounds has necessitated that they unite as people to move forward in that struggle. Thus racial unity is a big theme for them, historically. The same is true about Israel and China. Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, then, are very sensitive to western (American) aggression, because they view it as being racially motivated, even though it’s not really (it’s just plain old fashioned imperialism). This is very dangerous because the non-white world quite heavily outnumbers the white world, and this war on terrorism has proved that military superiority is not as much of an advantage as one might think it is. However, if the American power elite was fully representative, comprising of African/Asian/Islamic -Americans, instead of just Jews and Whites, foreign nations would not treat them with such contempt. A person only becomes aware of himself or herself as “different” when that difference is made evident to him on a daily basis. If there were political equality all notions of difference would dissolve. This really needs to happen or else we are all going to fucking kill each other. Finaticism is abounding throughout the world in new a dangerous ways. Anti-Semitism, Anti-Americanism, Zionism, Islamic Jihad..all this shit is being caused by the perception that States are acting on racial and religious grounds. There are so many secularities hating and planning to kill each other at the moment that it’s just sad. But it can be so easily solved - America can easily break free from the yoke of its racist perception by becoming a truly multicultural polity.. it would not even cost them anything but some initiative.
Notions of race amongst white communities don’t really hold much sway anymore, because the only white people concerned with race are neo-nazis and nationalists and they are basically viewed by all thinking people as a joke. But amongst non-whites racial self-perception is still quite prevalent. This is mostly an inadvertent consequence of their fight against white oppression; being discriminated against on racial grounds has necessitated that they unite as people to move forward in that struggle. Thus racial unity is a big theme for them, historically. The same is true about Israel and China. Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, then, are very sensitive to western (American) aggression, because they view it as being racially motivated, even though it’s not really (it’s just plain old fashioned imperialism). This is very dangerous because the non-white world quite heavily outnumbers the white world, and this war on terrorism has proved that military superiority is not as much of an advantage as one might think it is. However, if the American power elite was fully representative, comprising of African/Asian/Islamic -Americans, instead of just Jews and Whites, foreign nations would not treat them with such contempt. A person only becomes aware of himself or herself as “different” when that difference is made evident to him on a daily basis. If there were political equality all notions of difference would dissolve. This really needs to happen or else we are all going to fucking kill each other. Finaticism is abounding throughout the world in new a dangerous ways. Anti-Semitism, Anti-Americanism, Zionism, Islamic Jihad..all this shit is being caused by the perception that States are acting on racial and religious grounds. There are so many secularities hating and planning to kill each other at the moment that it’s just sad. But it can be so easily solved - America can easily break free from the yoke of its racist perception by becoming a truly multicultural polity.. it would not even cost them anything but some initiative.
White women have been the biggest group helped with AA, so why do people always associate it as a black/white thing?:bugeye:
The jobs minorities get with AA are typically janitor, construction, etc. hard labor type work, that doesn't pay well.
The jobs minorities get with AA are typically janitor, construction, etc. hard labor type work, that doesn't pay well.
This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time. Guess what: sometimes people's 'ascribed characteristics' have a major impact on whether or not they are qualified for a job. Short people are inherently inferior basketball players. People with poor eyesight are inherently inferior jet pilots. Large people are inherently inferior jockeys. People with severe asthma are inherently inferior runners…the list goes on.
The bottom line is that some people are inherently more or less qualified for certain jobs because of characteristics that they are born with and have no control over. This seems so obvious that it's amazing anyone could disagree with it, but apparently a lot of people do.
Why are the downtrodden trodden?
This is pretty much exactly why things like Affirmative Action begin.
Forgive the appearance of condescending tone, it honestly rolls off the tongue better this way:
• Once upon a time there were some people who were treated very badly and forced to live very inefficiently. One day it happened that they were no longer forced to live inefficiently. Ever since that day, people have wondered why the people didn't become efficient overnight, and have held the remaining inefficiency against the formerly-badly-treated people ever since.
What's actually sad is that Steven Brust, amid a political temper tantrum smack in the middle of Teckla pinned the situation exactly. Unfortunately it's been so long since I've read that particular volume that I'm not finding the passage to quote here.
There is, to put it simply, a cycle at play that needs to be broken. AffAct is a counterbalance to the cycle, and is not capable of breaking it.
What happens if we visit the Dean controversy? Should AffAct be a race or class issue?
And therein lies an interesting question because AffAct has and will continue to make inequality more of a class issue than a race issue.
Think of the ideal: Let's cut off all the compensatory countermeasures and pretend that people will all do their part and those who gain will humbly gain and those who sacrifice (yet again) will do so happily. Thus we hang a generation of blacks and Hispanics in this country and let's pretend there's no backlash in the form of crime or revolutionary politics. Is it worth it? It is certainly easier than pretending people are smart enough to stop making simplistic connections between ethnicity and condition and holding those against the future.
Like my friend said to his Uncle Dave: "Don't you think it's about your turn?" It occurs to me to ask if that's really the only way to do it? If we fix it in stages, someone is always being thrown to the wolves. Can we get a representative cross-section of the population in the sacrificial lambs, or must ethnicity always bear such a heavy correlation?
And here we enter the cycle.
This is pretty much exactly why things like Affirmative Action begin.
Forgive the appearance of condescending tone, it honestly rolls off the tongue better this way:
• Once upon a time there were some people who were treated very badly and forced to live very inefficiently. One day it happened that they were no longer forced to live inefficiently. Ever since that day, people have wondered why the people didn't become efficient overnight, and have held the remaining inefficiency against the formerly-badly-treated people ever since.
What's actually sad is that Steven Brust, amid a political temper tantrum smack in the middle of Teckla pinned the situation exactly. Unfortunately it's been so long since I've read that particular volume that I'm not finding the passage to quote here.
There is, to put it simply, a cycle at play that needs to be broken. AffAct is a counterbalance to the cycle, and is not capable of breaking it.
What happens if we visit the Dean controversy? Should AffAct be a race or class issue?
And therein lies an interesting question because AffAct has and will continue to make inequality more of a class issue than a race issue.
Think of the ideal: Let's cut off all the compensatory countermeasures and pretend that people will all do their part and those who gain will humbly gain and those who sacrifice (yet again) will do so happily. Thus we hang a generation of blacks and Hispanics in this country and let's pretend there's no backlash in the form of crime or revolutionary politics. Is it worth it? It is certainly easier than pretending people are smart enough to stop making simplistic connections between ethnicity and condition and holding those against the future.
Like my friend said to his Uncle Dave: "Don't you think it's about your turn?" It occurs to me to ask if that's really the only way to do it? If we fix it in stages, someone is always being thrown to the wolves. Can we get a representative cross-section of the population in the sacrificial lambs, or must ethnicity always bear such a heavy correlation?
The “people” haven’t become efficient because they don’t want to. It doesn’t take a hundred years.
Michener, the author, has a good story about how American farmers of yesteryear couldn’t find good seasonal workers. First they tried East Europeans and Russians, who did the work fine, but the problem was they saved every spare penny and soon bought their own farms. Then they tried East Asians, who saved every spare penny and soon bought stores and restaurants in town. Then they tried the Mexicans, who not only partied away much of their earnings but also promptly returned to Mexico after the picking season ended. And Mexicans it has stayed to this day.
There’s nothing wrong with the Mexican culture or the black culture or any culture. Some cultures are better qualified on average for success in business, others in sport, others in you-name-it. Affirmative action applies to business and education mostly. It implicitly acknowledges that some cultures are more qualified on average in business and education, and tries to level that by raising some cultures up and lowering others. But the leveling is just coddling, because some cultures are better qualified on average.
Everybody should stand on their individual merits and limitations. Given equal schooling, there’s no reason a black kid can’t do as well as an Asian kid. I don’t buy anything about what happened to their grandparents. If someone feels they are a victim of discrimination, they can seek a payout in the courts. With affirmative action, there are millions of such victims.
Michener, the author, has a good story about how American farmers of yesteryear couldn’t find good seasonal workers. First they tried East Europeans and Russians, who did the work fine, but the problem was they saved every spare penny and soon bought their own farms. Then they tried East Asians, who saved every spare penny and soon bought stores and restaurants in town. Then they tried the Mexicans, who not only partied away much of their earnings but also promptly returned to Mexico after the picking season ended. And Mexicans it has stayed to this day.
There’s nothing wrong with the Mexican culture or the black culture or any culture. Some cultures are better qualified on average for success in business, others in sport, others in you-name-it. Affirmative action applies to business and education mostly. It implicitly acknowledges that some cultures are more qualified on average in business and education, and tries to level that by raising some cultures up and lowering others. But the leveling is just coddling, because some cultures are better qualified on average.
Everybody should stand on their individual merits and limitations. Given equal schooling, there’s no reason a black kid can’t do as well as an Asian kid. I don’t buy anything about what happened to their grandparents. If someone feels they are a victim of discrimination, they can seek a payout in the courts. With affirmative action, there are millions of such victims.
Zanket
Zanket:
This sort of rhetoric always confuses me because at once it is true and untrue. It sits in a gray zone so that its meaning depends entirely on the presuppositions affecting a person's perception.
No, the simple fact that one's great-grandparents or some-such were born under the slave system doesn't have any real effect.
But consider, for comparative purposes, the experiences of the Bush Dynasty, in which affluence and opportunity is the norm, and the black American family that had to claw its way through working-class industrialization, Jim Crow, civil rights, and now a backlash from the population that is tired of trying to compensate for a century-old deficit that has not yet necessarily been erased.
Take that dark skin of low birth and feed it the incestuous opportunities that the Bush family has enjoyed, and yes, you, too, can see a failed businessman ride to the top on his family's name. Who knows? You might even get something better.
The only real difference is whether or not dark skin could escape the political scandals surrounding DUI arrests and possible cocaine offenses. On the sarcastic note, there is also the difference surrounding whether or not the dark skin could survive the arrest.
No, what happened to the grandparents is not a direct issue, but the history surrounding that period still ripples through American society.
And that's where such statements as not buying anything about what happened to their grandparents becomes a touch confusing.
Zanket:
Perhaps you can help me with something.
This sort of rhetoric always confuses me because at once it is true and untrue. It sits in a gray zone so that its meaning depends entirely on the presuppositions affecting a person's perception.
No, the simple fact that one's great-grandparents or some-such were born under the slave system doesn't have any real effect.
But consider, for comparative purposes, the experiences of the Bush Dynasty, in which affluence and opportunity is the norm, and the black American family that had to claw its way through working-class industrialization, Jim Crow, civil rights, and now a backlash from the population that is tired of trying to compensate for a century-old deficit that has not yet necessarily been erased.
Take that dark skin of low birth and feed it the incestuous opportunities that the Bush family has enjoyed, and yes, you, too, can see a failed businessman ride to the top on his family's name. Who knows? You might even get something better.
The only real difference is whether or not dark skin could escape the political scandals surrounding DUI arrests and possible cocaine offenses. On the sarcastic note, there is also the difference surrounding whether or not the dark skin could survive the arrest.
No, what happened to the grandparents is not a direct issue, but the history surrounding that period still ripples through American society.
And that's where such statements as not buying anything about what happened to their grandparents becomes a touch confusing.
True. All history does that.
Are you responsible for the crimes of your father? If no, then neither should you be compensated for injustice your father suffered. Seems fair to me.
Suppose your mother dies after giving you a valuable painting she stole. Is the painting yours free and clear, to be used to benefit you and yours? Or should the 22nd century Tiassa Dynasty be held accountable? In our justice system it’s the former, after the statute of limitations on the crime has expired. Seems fair to me.
(Insert Title Here)
My counterpoint:
• Your father owns a company that has an office in Liberia. Upon his death you inherit the company. Certainly, you take measures on your conscience to correct the immediate, glaring disparities, but does the fact of his death exempt the company or its executives from making proper amends for the crimes of the past?
Every once in a while, the case of indigenous American tribes comes up. Crimes of the past, stole the land, attempted genocide ... look into the running nightmare that is BIA. The amount of money pilfered from the tribes over time has been pegged as high as a half-trillion dollars. And these are responsibilities the US government sought to undertake when negotiating treaties.
Did your great-great-great grandfather negotiate a bad treaty with a tribe somewhere? Does the current generation still see the effects of that treaty? The theft is still ongoing.
What is the argument for equality? That people afforded equal opportunity and common circumstance should perform similarly if not equally? When in the history of the United States has African-descended skin ever been afforded equal opportunity and common circumstance?
Take the Emancipation Proclamation, for instance: freeing black slaves was the right thing to do, but it's a shame that it only occurred of necessity. The Proclamation was politically timed, and an effort to crush the southern economy. Sure it got the job done, but black freedom was less important than the federal government's authority over the states.
And there's a symptom I would love to document professionally or whatever. We all endure it sometime in our lives.
• An improvement in circumstance is expected to bring an immediate satisfactory result. The blacks are free, why aren't they as "well-mannered" and "educated" as their former masters? (Oh, gee, could it be the forced illiteracy and the perverse social arrangement imposed upon them?) We've fought and hated blacks with Jim Crow laws and made such a mockery of "separate but equal" that the notion had to go; but why couldn't the blacks, with third-hand textbooks and expected them to create a first-class education. Take an illiterate and throw him into a college class, say three-hundred level history. What? He has the opportunity. He's in college. Why isn't he performing? Is it the dark skin? Because it can't possibly be the poor schooling, discriminatory laws, and racist enforcement of those laws, could it?
• The people at the top seem to wish equality to happen without ever having to give anything to the lower groups. In a vacuum, this is possible, I suppose, but in reality we see constant finagling to further consolidate the wealth and opportunity to fewer hands.
We have enough problems; we need to solve the race issues so we can see other problems clearly. But asking the traditional losers of race issues to simply get over it, put on a smile, and take part and trust the traditional winners and schemers of race issues, which winners have never shown a certain human integrity warranting trust, simply isn't practical.
In fourth grade, I was attacked for my ethnicity, and then punished by the school for being held down and beaten on the grounds that I was involved in a fight. I've never forgotten that, and if I ever meet the teacher responsible for that (Pete Fenton), I might actually forego my pacifism and demand of human dignity so I can drag his fat ass behind a truck for a mile or so. And then I'll ask the courts to lock him up for being involved in a race crime.
Now ... the thing is that I can't possibly allow myself to carry this through the rest of my life. Except for the fact that I see the pattern repeating itself over and over, and if it was wrong when I went through it on such a small scale, I don't see how it's right in the macrocosmic application.
And that's a primary factor in my sympathy to ethnic minorities suffering any degree of oppression. The whole cycle has to be broken completely before the sensitivity goes away. But breaking the cycle demands too much of the folks at the top, so apparently it's better to just keep demanding of the lower groups, exacting a larger toll over a longer period, in exchange for immediate greed.
So says me. Er ....
Specifically, well, I can't see what benefits I received from his crimes that are unusual compared to the next person. To the other, though, my family name isn't going to carry me to the White House.
My counterpoint:
• Your father owns a company that has an office in Liberia. Upon his death you inherit the company. Certainly, you take measures on your conscience to correct the immediate, glaring disparities, but does the fact of his death exempt the company or its executives from making proper amends for the crimes of the past?
The inheritor should be expected to at least return the stolen goods.
Every once in a while, the case of indigenous American tribes comes up. Crimes of the past, stole the land, attempted genocide ... look into the running nightmare that is BIA. The amount of money pilfered from the tribes over time has been pegged as high as a half-trillion dollars. And these are responsibilities the US government sought to undertake when negotiating treaties.
Did your great-great-great grandfather negotiate a bad treaty with a tribe somewhere? Does the current generation still see the effects of that treaty? The theft is still ongoing.
What is the argument for equality? That people afforded equal opportunity and common circumstance should perform similarly if not equally? When in the history of the United States has African-descended skin ever been afforded equal opportunity and common circumstance?
Take the Emancipation Proclamation, for instance: freeing black slaves was the right thing to do, but it's a shame that it only occurred of necessity. The Proclamation was politically timed, and an effort to crush the southern economy. Sure it got the job done, but black freedom was less important than the federal government's authority over the states.
And there's a symptom I would love to document professionally or whatever. We all endure it sometime in our lives.
• An improvement in circumstance is expected to bring an immediate satisfactory result. The blacks are free, why aren't they as "well-mannered" and "educated" as their former masters? (Oh, gee, could it be the forced illiteracy and the perverse social arrangement imposed upon them?) We've fought and hated blacks with Jim Crow laws and made such a mockery of "separate but equal" that the notion had to go; but why couldn't the blacks, with third-hand textbooks and expected them to create a first-class education. Take an illiterate and throw him into a college class, say three-hundred level history. What? He has the opportunity. He's in college. Why isn't he performing? Is it the dark skin? Because it can't possibly be the poor schooling, discriminatory laws, and racist enforcement of those laws, could it?
• The people at the top seem to wish equality to happen without ever having to give anything to the lower groups. In a vacuum, this is possible, I suppose, but in reality we see constant finagling to further consolidate the wealth and opportunity to fewer hands.
We have enough problems; we need to solve the race issues so we can see other problems clearly. But asking the traditional losers of race issues to simply get over it, put on a smile, and take part and trust the traditional winners and schemers of race issues, which winners have never shown a certain human integrity warranting trust, simply isn't practical.
In fourth grade, I was attacked for my ethnicity, and then punished by the school for being held down and beaten on the grounds that I was involved in a fight. I've never forgotten that, and if I ever meet the teacher responsible for that (Pete Fenton), I might actually forego my pacifism and demand of human dignity so I can drag his fat ass behind a truck for a mile or so. And then I'll ask the courts to lock him up for being involved in a race crime.
Now ... the thing is that I can't possibly allow myself to carry this through the rest of my life. Except for the fact that I see the pattern repeating itself over and over, and if it was wrong when I went through it on such a small scale, I don't see how it's right in the macrocosmic application.
And that's a primary factor in my sympathy to ethnic minorities suffering any degree of oppression. The whole cycle has to be broken completely before the sensitivity goes away. But breaking the cycle demands too much of the folks at the top, so apparently it's better to just keep demanding of the lower groups, exacting a larger toll over a longer period, in exchange for immediate greed.
So says me. Er ....
The company is liable as long as it survives, and its owners including investors take that risk.
To be even more fair, why have a statute of limitations at all? How about return not just the goods, but also any benefit derived from the goods, with interest? And if the inheritor can’t pay, then future generations pay until the debt is gone. Hey, your mother’s cousin’s great-great-great-grandma’s uncle stole a penny from my father’s second-cousin’s great-great-great-grandpa’s aunt, and we’re the only heirs. I want my million dollars! I’ll set up a payment plan to make sure you & your descendents pay in full. Only $500 a month for 100 years!
What about who they stole the land from? Maybe Kennewick Man’s descendants can be found with DNA testing. Today’s Indians deserve no more than equal opportunity.
The theft is ongoing only in the same way that you’re still benefiting from that penny. An industrious Indian should have no problem succeeding.
Whether people afforded equal opportunity reach equality is up to them (see the farmers’ dilemma above). Blacks get equal opportunity now and have for a generation.
Why didn’t he learn to read? I grew up in a poor predominantly black neighborhood. The school was good. My friends & I learned handwriting in kindergarten. That was over 30 years ago. I didn’t see any discrimination. My mom remains friends with one of the black moms there; her kids have done well for themselves.
They give equal opportunity.
The easiest way to solve race issues is with strong equal opportunity laws. Not with further discrimination.
They don’t have to trust anyone. If they’re a demonstrable victim of discrimination, a lawyer will be happy to take their case.
And your ethnicity relates to your punishment how?
As long as there are ethnic minorities there will be perceived oppression related to the ethnic differences that distinguish them. It’s real oppression only if there is unequal opportunity.
You said you were punished because you were involved in a fight. That sounds like a school policy designed to prevent the expensive lawsuits that occur when the school chooses sides (probably just a few lawsuits less than when they don't choose sides). It was your parents' responsibility to take your side, not the teacher's, who might have been fired for responding differently. Your parents could have pressed an assault charge against the perps on your behalf.