Why not? While Asian immigrants certainly face discrimination they have also certainly experienced much less than black Americans have over the last 300 years.
>Why not? While Asian immigrants certainly face discrimination they have also certainly experienced much less than black Americans have over the last 300 years.
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?
I think this is a reasonable argument, but I also see the other side. Having a racial underclass is bad for society. It leads to children of the race subconsciously believing they aren’t capable of achieving their full potential. Empowering black people is a worthy goal in my opinion, even if they’re rich, because the optics can make a big difference in the lives of children who know believe in themself.
What about empowering all kids that for any reason subconsciously believe they aren’t capable of achieving their full potential instead of focusing on 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 racist thinking to group people into a collective and think that each member of that collective is the same.
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.
The problem is that it's inherently wrong, which I don't expect you to understand given your twisted moral compass.
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.
Admitting rich people is basically the biggest value add ivy’s provide. Ambitious people realize that having a network full of the rich and soon to be powerful is incredibly valuable which is why they want to be in school with them. Given that ivy’s will be admitting large amounts of rich people either way how is it worse to accept some rich minorities instead of just rich white people?
No one deserves anything. Things happen anyway. Clearly everyone has their own definition of fairness. Seems to me that someone at admissions office for the ivy’s has read kendi and was reasonably convinced that his take on reverse racism is correct. You can disagree, but since fairness isn’t a concept that even make sense metaphysically it’s hard to say they’re wrong.
Let me put it another way: the bulk of the abolitionist movement sought to end slavery because slavery was cruel and evil. It wasn’t to reverse the flow of a cruelty and it’s consequences back towards a subset of them or redirect the flow towards a different group of people but to end the cruelty altogether. Fairness is irrelevant here because as you rightly point out, life isn’t fair, but since we legally bar discrimination on the basis of race—a form of law I happen to agree with—Yale should be held accountable per our laws.
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.
And this is called the crab mentality: "My family struggled so much in my childhood, so I want you to struggle as much. I'm miserable and you too should live in misery." People with this mentality really want some company, but this is turned into the crab mentality by their sick minds.
