Animal Farm and Positive Discrimination

Very deep. I like the post and the question. I don't have an answer.

 

This is very tangential reply to the point I made that the decks are stacked against anyone who isn't welcome in places where the movers and shakers operate.
I gave you some examples.
Those who are welcome constitute the white privileged and guard their privileged position very effectively.
Offers of meaningful equal playing fields by whites to others rarely happen.
And those like you blame those who are sidelined for being sidelined by those who are in positions to sideline them.
It is one step closer to blaming slaves for being slaves and not taking advantages they are offered by slaveowners.
It is a perverted game which has been played for a very long time.

 

is there black privilege in NBA and NFL?
using your logic, it appears to be
or is it the best players are recruited, and the vast majority of the best player just happen to be black
business and corporations aren't any different than sports teams when it comes to recruiting employees (players) they hire (recruit) the best they can and if the majority of the best just happens to be White Asian Hispanic Black, then so be it
and if you consider that racist than so is the recruiting practices of the NBA and NFL hell all of professional college and high school sports for recruiting based on one's attributes and skills that make them excel in particular sports even if it means the vast majority of one race is recruited over others

 

I saw an episode of Jerry Seinfeld's interview show, which takes place with the interviewee driving a car specially selected for them, from Jerry's large collection (all of which is irrelevant to this post; and I am not a Seinfeld fan). But the episode interviewed Stephen Colbert. Seinfeld asked him, if he had the choice, would he choose to be smart, or to be funny. What do you think he answered?
Without pausing to think, Colbert answered, "funny;" and Seinfeld, clearly satisfied by that answer, immediately concurred.

I initially thought that was kind of a stupid answer; though, of course, in their cases, being funny was what made them happy (& made both, more money than either would likely have made with a commensurate amount of Intelligence, in lieu of comic ability). So, would you agree that, for them, this would be the right choice?


.

 

@Pixie

My answer to your original question is a little complicated. Generally, I think employers should have the right to hire the most qualified people for the jobs they have.

But what if two job candidates, one white and one black, have equal qualifications? In that case the fairest thing to both may be to look at the racial makeup of the community at large and the company in question and seek to make them as equal with each other as possible.

 

So if your father leaves you a house and car, you must not use them, you must give them away to someone who's father didn't.

Teach the productive people their efforts to advance their children are futile, teach those who don't that their is no need for them to do so. If poverty and stupidity was good enough for great grandpa, it's good enough for you.

No need for change. What was good enough for people 200 years ago is good enough for today. Think about that.

This, carried to a general culture model- is why some cultures remain in the dark ages while others lead the way to the future.

Nobody should drag you out of which you want to be part of. nobody should force you to remain there. Most who are in "dark age" culture mindsets think like you- that it is unfair you don't have what the others have without having to actually build it.

 

no such thing as equal qualifications no two humans are exactly the same
one's race should never be considered a qualification or a disqualification it is racist to do either

 

No one is equal ....if so we would all be the same....same background, same parents, same experiences. The concept of equality is directed to the concept that all people are equal under the law. And that all people have the same rights under our constitution.

It's not about fairness...cause a "fair" world can not exist.

 

what is fair is equal opportunity not equal outcome which liberals' seam to judge equality on

 

I don't think equal opportunity is correct entirely....someone who grows up in a solid grounded family, with a mother and father committed to their children's upbringing and future is going to have (if parents plan ahead) a savings set for their children's future education. That child from that family will have greater opportunity for a head start towards his/her future.

A child brought up in a single parent home, ending up with no savings on hand for college has greater obstacles and less opportunity for higher education. Their opportunity is to either work for scholarships or stay in a job and build a resume for advancement. But they have the ability....the opportunity...to make good choices and advance to the point where they can create more opportunities for their children.

Fairness--no. But there are always opportunities to improve your situation.

 

And this is why our basketball and football teams are dominated by white players, right?
Now perfection does not and never has existed. We do however, continue to improve our world. Most of us do anyway.
Some, typically the more imperfect mindsets, just continue to demand others make their world perfect right now. They don't have solutions, just complaints.

I run a small corporation. I've been doing this for over 50 years.
IF every black person I hired was a top performer- I'd be recruiting black people.
IF every black person I hired was a disaster, I'd be avoiding black people.
However, there are good and bad just as there are everywhere, so I've hired based on merit. Not just work skills- but character and attitude.
Black is an identifier, just as is a police uniform, or the brand of car you drive.
When an identifier represents a common and typical characteristic of the group, that will fit into the perception of those in the group So- predominant characteristics of any group become either a positive or negative indicator for all in that group. Recognizing that is not racial discrimination- it's common sense.
The key to the importance of that is "typical characteristics". The fact you choose Dobermans to guard your junkyard does not mean you discriminate against Chihuahuas.
If white dogs frequently were vicious and black dogs were not, you would avoid white dogs. That is perception earned by conduct of the group. Individuals vary- but the group of individuals determines the perception of the individuals in it by those typical characteristics- or at least what we believe are typical. Everyone in every group deals with this. Conservatives, liberals, Catholics, fat, short, bald- every group is subject to this.

You seem to think white people in America invented black slavery.
You are ignoring the facts posted many times, which clearly prove that African blacks were capturing and selling African blacks as slaves in Africa over 1,000 years prior to any white person setting foot in Africa.
White people didn't go to Africa to create slavery, it was already a thriving business. And the whites who became buyers were not Americans, but Europeans. Less than 4% of all the slaves taken to the new world ever came to America.

You are ignoring the fact that is was white people- Americans, British- who put an end to slavery in most of the world. Over a half-million white Americans were killed in the process.
I say most of the world... because Africa still has 9 million people in slavery today. Far more that the total that lived in America at any time.
This is a continent with black supremacy, black government and predominantly black population.

Doesn't matter to you? Obviously you see that differently.

 

It (highlighted) is not common sense.
It is bigotry. It is treating individual human beings like collections of dolls.
People are not dogs and I am not interested in history nor Africa. However I am interested in th slavery in the white west where something CAN be done about it.
Human slavery and trafficking is not uncommon.
However since you are, I take it that you know that the UK freed slaves in 1833. It took the USA until 1865 and a bloody war, and until Rosa Parks instituted changes in 1955 in how black people were treated in reality.
Now what should I consider Americans to be? Institutional racists who need a kick up the backside to obey their own laws? Because your history and the KKK are white?

 

Usually, the swords of criticism are double edged. No exception here. Shall we discuss the UK's imperialism that created an empire of colonialism, ruthlessly ruling over millions of people in India, Africa, N. America and Australia for a hundred years ending around 1867?? Guess you missed that part in your history class.

India, before the British came, had the worlds second most powerful economy. In 1800- India still had almost 5 times the share of the world's manufacturing output that Britain had. Over 30 million people, a tenth of India's population, died of starvation under British rule. That was several times larger than the entire population of Britain at the time.
Most of those belonged to the poor backwards castes- a system the British kept intact. British domination was systemic; it attacked the culture and knowledge of the people. British information system, books, and education system designed for perpetuation of its rule, magnified every flaw, real or imaginary, in the Indian system, manifold. At the same time, all the good in India was attributed to foreign invaders or influence. The effect of this British view of India has been so devastating, that the 30 million backward castes killed by starvation by the British exploitation are almost forgotten today, and the onus of wretched condition of Indian poor has been shifted to the upper castes, when in reality it lies somewhere else.
The ravaging of India by the British has left damage that to this day has not been fully repaired. And this is only one of a great many places where the British did this. By comparison to American agricultural slavery, the British were vastly more harmful to a variety of people and nations- and at the same time.

Seems that your lack of interest in history has left you making conclusions about things you don't know poo about.

This is very well documented, you can find a great deal on the conduct of Britain when they decided to own the world and rule all the people in it. Assuming you can stomach it.

Try this one just on India:
http://www.srimatham.com/uploads/5/5/4/9/5549439/how_the_british_ruined_india_.pdf

 

You won't find me defending colonialism. You are whipping a dead horse here.
However the slave trade wouldn't have been pursued without "customers".

 

I'd go with that.
All I ask is equal OPPORTUNITIES.
Unfortunately the obtaining those equal opportunities often lies in the remit of white people...education, housing, investment.
Some white people call it black people taking without giving and relying on the old trope of the lazy black guy sitting in a rocker on the porch.
You have to have something to be able to give it back. That will come later when the black guy is employed and starts paying taxes.

 

Like I said, privilege.

The fact that your great great grandpa could vote and have access to education has resulted in you having an advantage over people whose great great grandparents were used like livestock.

why can’t you just acknowledge that much?

 

The British weren't customers to the colonists- they didn't pay for those they dominated, they just took them....
I've worked on many projects in places on this side of the world that were formerly British colonies, some until quite recently. The Bahamas, the Caymans, Belize, the Turks and Caicos, more than half the island nations of the Caribbean were "British" at one time. South America had many too.

Slavery- was introduced in America by the first BRITISH colonists, in N Carolina, 1670. Literally- the British had colonized what is now the USA, and the British who came here created the slave market here.
THEY were the first buyers of slaves here.... BRITISH; America didn't exist as a nation yet. The government allowing this and regulating this was BRITISH.

And if something is not for sale... there are no customers. Get your priorities in order. Blacks were selling blacks 1000 years before western civilizations were buying blacks. They already had customers.

Now I don't hold with the idea that you are responsible for what others from your nation did long before you were born. Neither do I hold with denying it, or using it as some kind of weapon to diminish people today who were never part of that. It's history, it happened- and the world went on. BUT- if you make that the game.... you play by the same rules.
Tomorrow will be shaped by how well we manage today. IF YOU LET IT.

The world is a work in progress.

 

Why don't you acknowledge that what happened 200 years ago is not my fault or yours? Nor my responsibility?
The first slavers were not white, they were black- long, long before any came to be slaves in America.
There are 9 million slaves in Africa TODAY. That is a continent of black majority, black supremacy- and a quality of life for it's black people vastly lower than the quality of life of black Americans today.
Besides, my great XX grandpa wasn't even here, my family immigrated here from Germany and France around 1870. I'm part American Indian too- and my people in that lineage were done great harm as well. Past history. The fact my Indian ancestors didn't get to vote is no longer relevant.

IF "privilege" controlled you today, you wouldn't have opportunity- there would be no blacks holding office or playing sports or becoming millionaires-but all these things are true and common.
The system has corrected flaws from the past. In the future, it will be correcting flaws from the present- including the idea that your great-great grandchild owes somebody else's great-great=grandchild an apology for you not knowing someday what you do today will be considered injustice then.

Every time in history, people have done what they felt was necessary. IF you are determined to correct all injustice, why don't you go on back a couple thousand years? Slavery and oppression weren't invented in America 300 years ago. They were imported as necessities by the descendants of people who thought such things were normal and necessary. They didn't just decide to be mean; it was how life was.
Let it go- and let us grow.

Those who won't- are usually using this line of thought to profit or benefit in some way. Like the BLM spokesman saying that looting was just reparations, and didn't matter because the stores had insurance.
They try to get you to agree- so that it the looting becomes righteous, and no longer a crime.... thus "fixing" the future.

 

for over 60 years blacks have been given one hand out after another unfair preferences through affirmative action unfair advantages to enter college and with all that it has barely moved the needle
and yet here you are demanding more and more
how much more money and how many years more of failure before you realize it isn't working
and all you do is blame the failure is on racism

 

I acknowledge that none of us are responsible for anything that happened 200 or even 100 years ago.

We don’t deserve any credit or blame for it. Yet some people openly talk about the advantages their family has earned them like they deserve it.

They want credit for what happened 200 years ago, but no blame. They want it both ways.

 

I cant read this.
There is no punctuation. It makes no sense.
I have to hope that some black people can write better than this.

 

NON-WHITES have been ahead of whites in the wealth/privilege stats in America for bloody years. Your dusty trope is freaking ancient.

 

Okay then, go ahead and create a society in which everyone is forced (force being the only means to such an absurdist end) to be equal. You'll be in charge with the other elites of course. You'll want to study up on Communist Chiner in the meantime. You'll need tactical ideas.

Or you could celebrate the individualism that a captialist democracy allows you .. to the point of being free to express your hatred of same. Try having such individual ideas when you're conforming at gunpoint.

 

Celebrate individualism, then complain that the younger generation are all self-centered narcissists, and blame the communists for it.

 

Opportunites aren't given, they are SOUGHT.

Under the remit of white people? What ****ing decade is it where you live? 1980's?

As for housing, America is a democracy. NO ONE is prevented from pursuing the purchase or rental of property. NO ONE.

Education is free.

Investment is a personal choice.