So if two people have precisely the same qualifications and fitness for a role, but one of them has a racial or sexual difference and is either advanced or held back because of it, you could legitimately say that the subjects had been treated unequally.
Even in a country as tolerant and open as Britain, it is undeniable that historically people have been disadvantaged because of their sex, sexuality or skin colour. Roles for which they have been eminently fit and suited have been closed to them because of a characteristic over which they have no say. Not all the bad blood from this has gone away.
Of course the way to dissipate any remaining bad blood would be to visibly and consistently strive to appoint people to positions based on their merit, confident that in the course of time people of ability will rise to the positions which they deserve. But what would be the most divisive way in which to go about trying to address such inequalities? Well, that would be to very visibly and obviously create and institute a mirror version of the old system: to attempt to carve out special privileges for people who look like those who suffered discrimination in the past, and to treat with a special disdain and contempt the people who look like they might have once benefited from discrimination.
Read More
Related
ZH: "White Lives Don't Matter" Academic: "I Resist Urges To Kneecap White Men"
Summit News: Cambridge University Defends (Ugly Indian-Born) Academic Who Said “White Lives Don’t Matter”
DM: Cambridge University backs academic who tweeted 'White Lives Don't Matter' - and PROMOTES her to professor - after she received barrage of abuse and death threats
Summit News: Cambridge University Defends (Ugly Indian-Born) Academic Who Said “White Lives Don’t Matter”
DM: Cambridge University backs academic who tweeted 'White Lives Don't Matter' - and PROMOTES her to professor - after she received barrage of abuse and death threats
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI wish to point out something you may want to consider as you elaborate this argument.
ReplyDeleteThe US Supreme Court, some time ago, interpreted the "civil war amendments" to the US Constitution to mean Constitutional US laws do not require present equal protection under the law, but to be Constitutional a law must be in furtherance of equality.
Groups do not have to be treated equally, but whatever treatment they receive must be in furtherance of equality.
This interpretation became necessary, I believe, due to the fact of US law that black people, with long legal precedent, were treated as subhuman. The precedent is so long in US law as to be found in the US Constitution itself. There was no way US laws could treat everyone as equal when so many people were not equal, or even close, in the society. Nor could these people have hopes of becoming equal if laws continued to codify and institutionalize existing unequal conditions.
Your post is about Cambridge and I don’t pretend to understand what's going on in Britain. I count as a retard when it comes to British politics. I try to pay attention, but it just doesn't stick. (This maybe due to getting most of my knowledge of England and Great Britain from my high school Lit classes...What little of substance I learned was glazed over by my enthrallment to English romantics, which remains.) Still, you have referred to Berkeley, and that is in the US.
Even now, Americans refuse to listen to, or come to grips with, the history of black Americans. This mess involving Antifa, Cornell West, and, alas, BLM, is a case in point, as is much of the crap Unz.com readers and writers have been dishing out for themselves since the George Floyd-Antifa riots.
I haven't deplored the Supreme Court rulings, but the court-ordered actions to enforce them, such as busing during the 70's, have nearly all been disastrous and counter-productive. What the Hell are the court systems doing involving themselves in what clearly should have been the role of the other branches of government? I see a similarity to individual M.D.s, on the spur of the moment, running the nation's responses to the current pandemic. Both are rushing in to a vacuum we shouldn't have suffered to exist.
Interesting points. I don't have much understanding of current racial politics in the US and UK. Apparently, most Black Lives Matter supporters are not black but many if not most are Communists. If that is correct, it would seem that the movement is another case of white exploiting black for their own purposes.
DeleteAn interesting perspective on slavery in the Americas is provided in Charles Mann's "1493". There it is noted that the slave trade was as much a black business as white, African slaves being, at source, the property of African Chiefs who practiced slavery at home, but were ready to trade their property in human beings for sharp metal objects, guns, etc. that white slave traders had to offer.
Mann also explains why, in America, slavery was the key to successful white colonization since European, i.e., initially mainly British, immigrants died like flies from malaria, and after the importation of the first slaves, yellow fever too. Thus, slaves were essential to the development of an economy south of the Mason-Dixon line (which more or less marked the Northern limit of malarial mosquitoes.
While that is no justification for slavery, it means that slavery was likely essential to the creation of the United States. Slavery was also essential to the creation of today's African-American population, which is surely a plus, at least if you are an African-American (and if you are not, in my opinion).
But the biggest losers in the racial conflicts in the Americas were the Amerindians, vast numbers of whom were driven from their ancestral lands, enslaved or murdered.
It is a contempt of the settler for the indigenous race that one now sees with increasing frequency in the white world today, as exemplified by the anti-white race baiting by members of settler groups in Britain and elsewhere.
CS, here is another of your posts of nearly ten years ago:
ReplyDeletehttps://canspeccy.blogspot.com/2011/08/new-american-world-order-how-it-works.html
Uncanny the way this describes what's happening now, and uncanny it was written so many years ago.
If it was/is remotely possible to do something, short of self-immolation, I wish we'd find that something very, very soon.
That piece was my extrapolation from Carrol Quigley's analysis of the Anglo-American plan for global empire, as set forth in his 1966 magnum opus "Tragedy and Hope" and other works, including "The Anglo-American Establishment."
DeleteThat plan for world government originated with Cecil Rhodes who, funded by Rothschild, made a fortune in the South African diamond fields and gold mines.
While building his fortune, Rhodes spent a short time at Oxford University where he attended lectures by the art historian, John Ruskin. From Ruskin he acquired the notion that the superb culture of Europe's elites should be spread to the benefit of all mankind. To that end Rhodes created a secret society to promote Anglo-Saxon World empire. The scheme was diligently pursued by Rhodes' associates, including Lord Rothschild, Alfred Beit, who financed the Cape to Cairo railway, Alfred Lord Milner, who dominated British foreign policy during the early years of the 20th century, the Editor of the Times newspaper, and others.
After WW1 the members of Rhodes' secret society handed off the task of world government to the Americans, who to that end, founded the Council on foreign Relations, to which most US presidents, but not JF Kennedy or DJ Trump, have been members.
What I failed to anticipate ten years ago, was the extent to which Anglo-American civilization has degenerated into little more than a biproduct of the commercial system and the ambitions of odious billionaires who equate money with moral authority, and who seek to deploy technology to impose a tyrannical regime of social control for the maximization of corporate profitability.
But, the best laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley, so with luck, the current drive by Google, Gates and the rest to destroy free society may yet fail.