Eventually, yes, but meanwhile let’s not kid ourselves. You do get the part about the existence of privilege often being unconscious, I hope. One can pride oneself on being colorblind when one is actually not. Hypocrisy and self-delusion are common human traits.
If the results don’t reflect true colorblindness, then to some degree they have to be imposed until unconscious privilege becomes conscious.
So we agree that the OP’s “Members complain that they are being discriminated against” is inaccurate?
Sure, which ignores the systemic advantages that white people have. So, the white guy gets the job. He passes on his advantage to his kids. The black guy doesn’t get the job. His kids don’t inherit the advantage. Instead, they get the systemic disadvantages. Then, when they all grow up, once again, the white guy gets the job. Rinse. Repeat.
As soon as we provide the same level of quality education (and all that entails such as school supplies and decent school infratructre and so on) and safe neighborhoods to grow up in and three square meals a day for kids K-12 and reasonable financial support to go to college then I am right there with you.
That thread is just a liberal pile on, not a thought provoking discussion.
Thank you for a concise explanation of the OP’s argument.
The NRA is a group. “White people” are not a group in a meaningful sense. The definition of “white people” has changed dramatically over time, and the “group” is much too large and lacking in hierarchy to have any type of unified message or directive.
White Privilige theory is becoming more and more like ancient astronaut theory everyday. It’s basically a series of gee whiz observations superimposed onto a narrative.
That is not a accurate summation of the position. There is very little desire for a “white people get everything” system outside of nationalist types. The argument is that individuals should be evaluated on an individual basis. A very simple goal to shoot for, though it’s implementation will never be perfect.
This makes the prediction that those on top will always be on top. However, 57% of those raised in the bottom income quintile, will move up into higher quintiles as adults. This also ignores the immigrant experience where millions of people have moved to this country not even speaking the language and have seen their children succeed.
Ever hear of the poverty cycle? In short poor people tend to stay poor and the longer you are poor the more difficult it is to break out.
So you feel the old system which gave the good jobs and college openings exclusively to white people wasn’t based on racism. It was just an acknowledgment that white people were invariably better than non-white people.
You may not have distanced your argument as far away from racism as you imagine.
Exactly. You can’t pretend it’s a fair race when some people get to start on the fifty meter line and some people have to start on the hundred meter line. Well, obviously, you can pretend it’s fair and plenty of people do; “Hey, we’re all running towards the same finish line, aren’t we?”
No the old system was that the race in political favor got the good jobs and college openings and the races not in political favor were either shut out or subject to quotas. The civil rights movement was about replacing that system with one where everybody get a shot at good jobs and college openings regardless of race. Some people want us to return to the old system where favored races get favored now that they think their preferred races will benefit.
This entirely and SHOCKINGLY ignores the real issue here.
Government penalized a private enterprise for not offering a benefit to another private enterprise.
WTF is THAT???
Where does that end?
What is the justification for government to demand that company A give a monetary advantage to company B?
No, I don’t. I don’t prefer the old system; I prefer a system where the best-qualified candidate gets the job or the college slot.
That didn’t happen under the old system, which was based on the assumption that minorities were inherently incapable of being the best-qualified candidate, and therefore must be excluded. It also doesn’t happen under affirmative action, especially with quotas, where you have to give a fraction to people who aren’t white. So I don’t prefer that system either.
ElvisL1ves disagrees with you. He said
Apparently the government didn’t penalize Delta any more than Delta penalized the NRA.
Regards,
Shodan
Right, they didn’t add a tax, they just rescinded a tax break they hadn’t given yet.
If they still gave tax breaks on jet fuel to other customers, then that’s a discriminatory practice and indefensible. I haven’t been able to easily find if that’s what happened or not, but the phrasing of some reports say the break would have been across the board. Cagle’s tweet (that’s how Republicans do it these days) does say it’s intended to target Delta specifically, though.
So apparently Georgia has hurt / failed to help / pick your language *all *operators who buy fuel in Georgia, with all the ripple effects on the economy that you’d expect, just to spite one of their largest employers. And Jeff Bezos has no doubt noticed.
Which is why State Privilege theory has much more explanatory power than White Privilege.
Since you have such a craftsman’s eye for judging these distances, how far from racism is the argument for race-based hiring and admissions policies?
The argument by ElvisL1ves is just plain stupid.
Government demanded a specific accommodation between two specific corporations.
That is NOT free market enterprise.
Government has NO business doing what they did. It should be an impeachable offense.
Consider where that is going. How is it any different than the state requiring Facebook to give some free ad space to Yahoo, or requiring Texaco to give the NRA a price cut at the pump?
In America, government CAN define a platform of regulation that affects all those who compete. But, having our government pick winners and losers is NOT their job.
Claiming that policies designed to compensate for systematic racism are racist in themselves is a tough argument to make, but let’s see you try.
I said Georgia’s action is politically and morally indefensible and unwise as policy, not that it’s illegal. In the end they didn’t change anything except their brand image.