Skip to comments.Diversity, Inc.
Posted on 12/28/2011 7:07:34 AM PST by Servant of the Cross
Diversity places appearances above the content of our character.
Affirmative action was the logical sequel to the civil-rights legislation of the 1960s. The initial reasoning was attractive enough. New guarantees of equality of opportunity were insufficient to achieve the promised social parity, given the legacy of slavery and the existence of ongoing racial bias. Therefore, to counteract the effects of historical discrimination, the race of individuals must be weighed into contemporary hiring and admissions practices. The key was to avoid the word quota. That did not sound very affirmative for a program that supposedly was about growing (or enriching) the pie, not a crass zero-sum game of taking a college spot or a job from one person and giving it to another on the basis of race.
Second, although slavery was confined to the Confederacy, there was the general assumption that, as blacks in the postbellum era had migrated northward, they were subjected to all sorts of bias, and so the recompense was to be a national, not just a southern, obligation.
Third, it was soon clear that all sorts of groups other than blacks could lodge historical claims against the supposedly dominant white culture. Soon Latinos, Native Americans, and Asians likewise petitioned for inclusion in set-aside and compensatory programs. The subtext was that these groups, given racial bias, would not intermarry and assimilate as quickly or to the same degree, and would not do as well economically, as had other terribly persecuted minorities like Jews, Italians, and the Irish, who after decades of discrimination seemingly had morphed into the so-called white majority.
As these original victimized groups experienced success (though at differing rates), and as a legion of other cadres sought inclusion in the preference industries, affirmative action insidiously was replaced by a new euphemism, diversity ...
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Exactly right. Even during the War Between the States slavery wasn’t limited to the Confederacy.
He also lacks the moral courage to just speak the obvious truth plainly: AA was a race spoils scam from the beginning and was never anything else. Now we have a privatized form of welfare - people in jobs that they don’t perform well because they never were as well qualified as others who lacked the gender/race “qualifications”. Now sodomites are joining the ranks of the “entitled”.
Compare and contrast slavery in the ‘Confederacy’ versus in the ‘North’.
“Anti-racism” is nothing more than anti-white.
Post a thread on the idiocy of 'Affirmative Action' and a Civil War thread breaks out?
Nah, just an aside. But I didn’t think all that much of the AA part of the piece either.
Diversity is simply the rationale used to justify hiring women and minorities over more highly qualified white men.
He calls AA an 'experiment', 'corrupt', 'unworkable', 'illiberal', 'counterproductive' and he calls for its entire dismantling. (who else is advocating this right now?) What exactly is lacking?
AA was never an experiment. It was intended to function just as it does, and I am fairly sure VDH knows it.
By analogy, some people who know better think it is tactically clever to write “unions once served a legitimate purpose, but today...” The historical truth is that unions were always violent, lawless, and left-subversive. They terrorized workers and employers who didn’t want their “services”. Calling AA an “experiment” is much the same thing.
This isn’t a blanket condemnation of VDH.
This site has an interesting overview:
There's a subset of FReepers who completely lose their minds any time the words "slavery" and "south" are used in the same article. Just ignore it and move on.
the irony is that slavery was historically RARELY based on skin color. Even to this day when slavery exists in the sudan, it is not based on race but rather the point of a gun.
How does the left account for reparations for those enslaved who happen to be “white”? the answer is the can’t and don’t.
This will hurt rat diversity, IMHO. Most will probably join the bitter clingers.
Liberals view the world statically. It’s a zero sum game. Somehow their brains don’t register improvement. Yet, they tend to be totally enamored with tech.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.