Infosys accused of racism

I think it's pretty clear they were talking about the U.S., which IS a white majority country where white people DO have an advantage

> If everyone strongly believes that black people are still feeling the effect of slavery(despite not being alive when that was a thing)

That's a historically ignorant characterization. De jure discrimination existed long after slavery ended. Had Bill Gates been born a black kid in the south, he likely would've gone to a segregated school. De facto discrimination continues to present day. When Bill Gates got on stage to announce Windows 95, more than half of Americans didn't think that black people shouldn't marry white people. Do you think all those people admitted that view to pollsters, then went around in their schools, governments, and work places treating black people exactly the same as their white counterparts? Believing in Santa Claus would be less naive.

> give them reparations and conclude that the playing field is level.

People tend to think of that as a bizarre idea, but in reality that's the default way to remedy harms in the American legal system: awarding money damages. Here, the legal entities primarily responsible for the harm (the state and federal governments) are still around and can be held liable. Damages are often estimated by looking at the difference in income resulting from the harm. Here, that's likely north of $300 billion per year (assuming all of the black-white wage gap is explained by discrimination).

> You don't undo harm by harming others, you don't fix racism by introducing racism against others.

That's like saying you don't fix an infection by cutting out the infected tissue, which necessarily involves cutting out healthy tissue around it. Or that you don't fix cancer by collaterally poisoning a bunch of perfectly healthy non-cancerous cells. That's exactly how you fix disease!

The idea that the harms caused by federal and state governments' laws protecting slavery and segregation will go away simply because you get rid of those laws is like believing that a paperclip will unbend itself, or that an overturned boat will right itself. Fantastically naive.

> It's best to just remove the obstacles and let the water flow

Would most Armenians agree?

The problem is that after discrimination has been a part of a society for so long, the default state without intervention is continued discrimination.

That's the fundamental argument. People in the majority/power group across whatever grouping believe the default state is equality. While people who have been on the receiving end of discrimination across generations (who are forced to be more attuned to it) believe the default state is continued discrimination.

History has shown the latter group to be correct, but the argument still happens every decade or so.

At least this part of the system makes sense. There is a two-step process: pleading and merits. The first stage is a filter for the second. At the pleading stage, there is a trade-off between getting the right answer and the expense to businesses of defending litigation. The pleading standard (the level of facts you have to allege to get to the merits) is a knob you can turn to trade-off between those two things. If you make the pleading standard liberal, as it is in the U.S., you'll get the right answer more often because you'll actually delve into the emails, witnesses interviews, etc. to see if the defendant actually did do what the plaintiff says he did. If you make the pleading standard more stringent, you reduce the expense of litigation for companies, but you also deny more meritorious claims. E.g. companies that discriminate don't exactly advertise that fact. If you require a high standard of proof to simply bring the claim (as distinguished from proving liability), then most people who have actually been discriminated against will not be able to recover.