If racism is wrong, then it shouldn't matter which race.
"The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."
Perhaps Kendi can take a visit to Africa and witness that there are more slaves today in Africa than any other continent, food for thought for a target audience while he writes his next book.
Enjoy some of the earlier writing of Kendi while he went by his previous name (Rogers):
>Caucasians make up only 10 percent of the world’s population and that small percentage of people have recessive genes. Therefore they’re facing extinction. Whites have tried to level the playing field with the AIDS virus and cloning, but they know these deterrents will only get them so far. This is where the murder, psychological brainwashing and deception comes into play.
>Nevertheless, other than not wanting hate to be the weed that stunts my intellectual growth, I don’t hate white folk because I’m a Christian. How can you hate a group of people for being who they are? Similarly, how can you hate a turtle because it won’t keep up?
http://www.thefamuanonline.com/2003/09/09/living-with-the-wh...
He's too busy on the high-paying-racist-grifter-speech-circuit to do that.
White people took everything for hundreds of years. Then, they turned around and said "Oh look, we own everything but let's just forget about skin color now".
Discrimination resulted in massive inequality. The median net worth of a white family is $200k. The median net worth of a black family is around $0. (goes up to $20k if you count recent immigrants, it's $8 if you only count people who were shipped here as slaves).
My position is that, white people took it all. Now they need to share. It's not discrimination to say that you need to undo stealing for hundreds of years and start on a level playing field, before you forget about skin color.
Same family wealth, but clearly cavier kid had the leg up. Maybe better to compare full time wage or something? Personally I would dispense with both race and wealth as metrics.
I don't believe such tribe souls exist, but one thing I'd agree with is that the moment a man makes a decision to benefit from some organisation or nation, he becomes entangled with it, like a bus passenger gets entangled with the bus, and faces consequences for the deeds of the organisation, whether it's "fair" or not.
The phrase "robbing Peter to pay Paul" comes to mind.
Well .. you have to be careful when talking about groups, because at the individual level it's not clear that this is true. In fact, it isn't true.
For example, Ilhan Omar, a Congresswoman from Minnesota, is a black American. Her ancestors didn't suffer American discrimination. She was born in Somalia to a well-connected, upper-class Somali family. Her personal experience still had trials and tribulations that was unique to her, but it was different than the experience of other black Americans.
Couldn't we give a 'hand-up' to the people that need it by focusing on class, instead of race?
As an added bonus, the black kid will then not feel like it needs some kind of special care as opposed to its white mates, because it won't be reminded all the time that it needs special care just because it's a black kid.
It's also a super American racial lens you've got. As if one hundred percent of Black Americans have a tougher family background than the descendants of Chinese coolies or Vietnamese war refugees. Come on, take off that collectivist worldview and view people as individuals. Collectivism is attractive because it simplifies people into one dimensional avatars, but it leads to wrongs such as the racism on display here.
Perhaps it would help you if you knew that ADOS are pretty upset that Yale keeps admitting the sons and daughters of wealthy African immigrants instead of them.
That doesn't make a difference to a morally upright person. But for a racist such as yourself, maybe know that the policy of racism you're advocating for doesn't even help the group you wish it did.
If they want to change our laws, they should go ahead and meet up and see if they can’t put together a good case for bringing back racism as a legal practice. Seems that’s what they’re trying to do actually.
That said they should also be prepared for the consequences of success because that would give implicit license and justification to a much larger and more powerful group of people in their own country to start discriminating on the basis of race again. Or put another way: there isn’t a world where “reverse racism”—an oxymoron by the way—doesn’t lead back to “anti-reverse racism”, aka “racism”.
We can stop being cruel or not, but we can’t justify bigotry in one direction without giving license to bigotry in the other direction. You would have to convince people to stop looking out for themselves and their children, which is like asking people not to be people. It’s an insane proposition to start with.
Probably because judging people their race makes you no better than those that judged people on their race.
Asian immigrants are not struggling to escape the clutches of centuries old intergenerational poverty. It's not even remotely the same thing.
Asian immigrants are escaping intergenerational poverty that they are suffering from today
The children of people we put in concentration camps or accepted as refugees from e.g. the Khmer Rouge should be punished so the daughter of a hedge fund manager can get into a university named after an executive of the British East India Company? Give me a break.
Then you have specific instances of Asian people (systematically) being mistreated in the US. Chinese railroad construction workers come to mind, who were basically treated as serfs and whose lives were considered "expendable". People with Japanese origins were put into concentration camps during WW II, along with societal repressions against anybody who "looked" Japanese, on top of the general racist stance of the time.
Asian-Americans were effectively as segregated as Black Americans for a long long time. While the Asian-American population might not have experienced slave-labor to the same degree, Asian-American communities certainly were for a long time pushed to the edges of society, usually even physically segregated, systematically and ideologically denied access to upwards social mobility, and so on.
In the US there has been discrimination for over 100 years.
Please stop justifying racism.
> In her majority opinion, O'Connor wrote that "race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time," adding that the "Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."
AA will not permit anyone to escape intergenerational poverty. By the numbers, it hasn't done anything to combat it.
"But it doesn't work, so we should keep doing it forever!" seems to be the colleges' position.
Something about judging someone based on the content of their character, and not color of their skin.
I never really understood why we couldn't reach our societal goals by simply focusing on class, instead of race. A poor black American has much more in common with a poor white American, then with an affluent black American, especially as it pertains to access to academic opportunity. Put another way, it isn't clear what problems we're solving by focusing on race, that we couldn't solve better by focusing on class.
Likewise what actually equality is is not thought about.
In other words people fighting this fight have no idea what winning it looks like.
The point is, instead of chasing the fool's dream of finding who was hurt the most in history, we can just make sure everybody has the opportunity to be successful. It's not perfect today but it is still better than hurting one group of people in order to boost another.
Why should we now fly in the face of that in order to advance one race at the expense of others?
Except it didn't actually, as demonstrated, not by words, but by drastically disproportionate representation in every single major institution in the country. This is all an attempt to combat that fact. If that fact ever changes, then this stuff can all go away. Until then, the incorrect argument you (and most of HN it appears) have given is just holding back attempts at progress.
There might be good arguments for why affirmative action is a bad approach but this argument isn't one of them.
One difference is that structural preference can be baked into systems without any bone of bigotry in any of the system's participants.