» Mon May 14, 2012 4:10 pm I never said that prejudice and inequality doesn't exist anymore, however, trying to make up for things in the past by creating more inequality now doesn't help anyone.
If somebody else wants to correct this misperception, they're welcome to, but I'm getting a little wrung out here.
I'll just leave you with a thought exercise. Consider the disparity between rich people and poor people. Then go read http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/. Now apply what you learn/know, to majority-minority relations. If you still don't get it...
I don't see why I, who has never kept a slave or made any profit from black slavery, should owe a black man anything, who has never been a slave, solely based on the color of our skin. Nor do I see why I should owe a woman something because another person with the same private parts was treated unfairly by someone with the same private parts as me.
You don't see how you've benefitted? Your whole world is structured around you. You consume entertainment and food and clothes that cater to you every day. When was the last time you saw a movie about a black superhero that got the numbers that white superhero movies get? I can think of exactly one: Blade (and Catwoman would have gotten those numbers, because it features a WASP-y black woman, but it was just an awful movie). Actually, compare the number and quality of black superheroes with the number and quality of white superheroes. The result's totally disproportionate. Extrapolate this out to just about every aspect of your life.
This is why people like Tyler Perry make so much money: the people to whom he caters feel (and are) disenfranchised. Sure, he plays on racial stereotypes (it's pretty difficult to get movies green-lit if they aren't about mammy-types or gangsters), but at least his movies are all about black people.
Again, this doesn't really apply to women. While there are imbalances in some areas that do need redress, overall the sixes in first-world countries are operating on an even keel.
And also, should it go all the way and encompass all groups in the world? Should a Muslim, for instance, be forced to employ a number of Christians thanks to extensive slavery and opression by Islamic nations? Should an American with a lot of Swedish heritage be forced to employ a certain amount of Sami thanks to offenses carried out by the Swedish nation? Would you also divide black people into different groups, based on whether or not they came there as a result of slavery back in time, or if they recently emigrated to the US?
That would be great. Obviously, it's never going to happen. It's hard enough to get one country to do anything, as this thread illustrates.
I personally think that getting people to think along individualistic lines is a much better way of getting rid of racism than to focus on different "races" all the time.
That's one aspect of it, sure. But there are a lot of people who think they aren't racist, who actually are. I'd guess they're actually the predominant kind of racist, nowadays. What do you do about those people?
Not to mention that a free market favours companies that choose merit/skill over "race". If a company doesn't hire competent personell while another does, based on prejudice, it has less of a chance competing with the non-racist company, thus the companies that go beyond "race" end up making a bigger profit which is the best motivation around for companies.
I can agree that a non-racist company has a better chance of making better profits than a racist company. But let's look at the customer side of things. If a racist has a choice of going to a WASP-y store or a "diverse" store, which store does the racist pick? Here's another example: high-end boutique clothing stores. How many of those stores have black employees? Now consider what kind of impression it's assumed black people make on a brand.
Let's say that's not even a consideration. Let's say that customers don't care who gives them their fries and shake. Let's say the company hires in exact proportions, according to racial breakdowns in the area, the people that it should. How many of the black people are in administrative, management or executive positions vs doing grunt work? As I've indicated, white people are generally considered to be more capable than minorities. This results in more white people being promoted more often for higher-up positions than minorities -- disproportionately so.
I'm sure in most cases this isn't even a conscious decision. I'm sure a lot of people who "have black friends" make these kinds of choices every day. That doesn't make it any less racist or injurious.
It's not just about numbers. It's also about the quality of those numbers. If I deserve a car, it matters whether I get a trabant or a porsche.
If the group which is looked down upon offers less due to lesser skills, however, then it shouldn't have the jobs anyway, discriminated group or not. If they lack skill for other reasons, like poor education, then it's up to the people in charge of the education to fix that and not the employers.
Except, employers can pitch in, too. They can hire the people and teach them the appropriate skills. That way, instead of waiting another 100 years for redress (which might never come, anyway, since government intervention is usually a botched endeavour), minorities need only wait 50 in order to be on an even footing with the majority. Social change happens when a large number of people make a concerted effort. Forget about it, otherwise.
The reasoning on this thread leaves me scratching my head. If you can help, you should help. But it doesn't have anything to do with me.
Inequality involves, and hampers, everyone, not just those it directly affects.
.
