A 246 year head start for whites vs slaves. No other system of slavery on earth was as uniquely cruel as the system America's white people created for blacks brought to America. NO other slave system made slaves permanently slaves, generation after generation after generation.
GENERATIONAL Other slaves systems had ways to gain freedom.
I am going to give you a basis for Affirmative Action policy, and ask you to look at why white people owe black people, and possibly other people of color, a break. The issue is white people do not like the Affirmative Action policy of the United States.
"The Underlying Attack in the Harvard Admissions Lawsuit"
By Jeffrey Toobin October 15, 2018
"A lawsuit claiming that Asian-American students were victims of illegal discrimination in the Harvard College admissions process goes to trial in Boston this week. The plaintiffs assert that Harvard uses what amounts to an unlawful quota system, which results in qualified Asian-Americans being denied admission, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But, at its core, the lawsuit reflects the American conservative movement’s legal and political assault on people of color, which has been endorsed and abetted by President Trump. The Trump Administration has sought to limit voting rights, backing voter-suppression efforts; it has demonized immigrants; the President himself has repeatedly targeted prominent African-Americans for abuse. The Trump Administration is also supporting the Harvard lawsuit."
Go read the story, then read why Affirmative Action is the absolute LEAST white America can do for blacks and other people of color, notwithstanding the Asians that feel slighted at Harvard.
In a race, say 400 meters, if one runner gest a 100 meter head start, what is wrong with helping the people who are 100 meters behind at the start?
REPEAT FOR EMPHASIS: White people have a 246 year head start on black people who were brought to America as slaves!
Lynching!
Vicious German Shephard dogs unleashed on black kids, women, and men by police! Police beat kids, and water hosed school kids.
"The National Memorial for Peace and Justice"
https://eji.org/national-lynching-memorial
"The Memorial for Peace and Justice was conceived with the hope of creating a sober, meaningful site where people can gather and reflect on America’s history of racial inequality."
More.
"The memorial structure on the center of the site is constructed of over 800 corten steel monuments, one for each county in the United States where a racial terror lynching took place. The names of the lynching victims are engraved on the columns."
More.
"EJI believes that publicly confronting the truth about our history is the first step towards recovery and reconciliation.
A history of racial injustice must be acknowledged, and mass atrocities and abuse must be recognized and remembered, before a society can recover from mass violence. Public commemoration plays a significant role in prompting community-wide reconciliation."
"LYNCHING IN AMERICA: CONFRONTING THE LEGACY OF RACIAL TERROR"
THIRD EDITION
https://lynchinginamerica.eji.org/report/
Rape!
[I can add stories of Murder, and Humans treated as chattel (property, like a cow or a chair), No religion allowed, No way to earn freedom, EVER, Children sold out of families!]
"Recy Taylor, Who Fought for Justice After a 1944 Rape, Dies at 97"
By Sewell Chan Dec. 29, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/29/obituaries/recy-taylor-alabama-rape-victim-dead.html
"Recy Taylor, a 24-year-old African-American sharecropper, was walking home from church in Abbeville, Ala., on the night of Sept. 3, 1944, when she was abducted and raped by six white men."
Boys from 14 to18 years old raped Racy, and were protected by white society.
Some people miss the point of a documentary file on her plight. I am not clear on what this author felt he was adding to the story, perhaps he felt if done different it would be more believable?
“The Rape of Recy Taylor”: An Essential, Flawed Documentary at the New York Film Festival"
By Richard Brody October 3, 2017
"With Nancy Buirski’s documentary “The Rape of Recy Taylor,” which is screening at the New York Film Festival on Tuesday night, I’m breaking a self-imposed rule of not writing negatively about festival films. "
Richard should have stuck with his rule . . . the critique adds nothing of value to the important message of how bad racism can be in America. Richard explains why his critique is pointless in the first paragraph, so do not bother reading it. Just know he felt compelled by his own inadequacies to write the critique. That is my opinion.
"I’m doing so because the subject of the film, and Buirski’s approach to it, reaches beyond the frame into fundamental practices in documentary filmmaking and even further, into the woeful state of American society today. Also, I’m doing so because, regardless of the inadequacy of the film’s artistry, I hope that the film gets a theatrical release and is widely seen, because what’s good about it is more than good, it’s essential, which is what makes its shortcomings all the more conspicuous and frustrating."
So why are you doing this? Better made 40 years ago? Use of some images and music somehow diminished the message? Emotionally simplistic?
What Richard wanted was an impassioned liberal rant; often called "snowflake" or "libtard" film. What we get is a film trying to be as fact-based as circumstances allow for a racist gang rape by six (6) teen age boys taught to hate and disrespect black people, girls and women. Rape! An inhuman male weapon of hate!
Nancy Buirski’s documentary “The Rape of Recy Taylor,” was an attempt to describe how racist white people are in America, and to display the tory so it can get across to those conservatives who otherwise do not want to hear another liberal snowflake libtard rant against their veiws.
Is it fair to have a program intended to balance hundreds of years of slavery, racism, murder, rape, lynching, family destruction, unjustified, illicit, cruel treatment of people of color AND other minorities in America?
"The Rise and Fall of Affirmative Action"
With a lawsuit against Harvard, Asian-American activists have formed an alliance with a white conservative to change higher education.
By Hua Hsu 15 October 2018
"Asians were being discriminated against in the college-admissions process, and among those taking their spots were the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action, like African-Americans and Hispanics."
So in 2018, through a complex series of administrative policies and choices by government agencies, Asians are outside Affirmative Action.
Let's talk about quota for women while we are talking about compensating for bias and discrimination. Look at what Jeff Jacoby wrote in the Boston Globe:
"What Board Directors Really Think of Gender Quotas"
Margarethe Wiersema, Marie Louise Mors November 14, 2016
https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-board-directors-really-think-of-gender-quotas
"In Europe, Denmark is another outlier. The largest companies are required to set a target for the number of women on their board, but there are no clear guidelines on what that number should be. The boards of the largest Danish companies (OMX20) are 21.9% female, according to the most recent figures available, while for all publicly listed companies that figure is just 7.9%."
I expect good and bad results from anyone appointed to a corporate board, notwithstanding their sex.
" . . . in 2008, when Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt wanted to put in place quotas like those in Norway, she met strong resistance from both men and women. For example, the minister of equality and the vice director of the Danish confederation of industries, both women, were strongly opposed to quotas – the belief was that it would lead to selection of unqualified women or selection purely on gender.
Nearly a decade later, our interviews indicate that both men and women directors express these same fears that quotas will lead to less qualified directors. For examples, as a Danish male director and former CEO said: “I know a few women sitting on boards in large Norwegian or Swedish companies, where I have really been surprised and I think it is much beyond their abilities — and I think this is a result of the quota system.”"
As I said, so what does this guy think of men he has met? Are hey ALL great? Why is it that if women are required to be on the board that they will be less qualified? AND what is the problem in improving the overall selection process, perhaps negating the "good old boys" club approach, and doing favors for men who might not be best for the job?
"As one former male CEO and director in Norway remarked, “In my opinion, what happened in Norway when affirmative action was introduced was that the entire recruitment process of boards was sharpened. The requirements were clarified, the election committee’s responsibility was acknowledged. And the focus on the composition of the boards in general was improved."
"California's Bad Idea: Gender Quotas for Corporate Boards"
Jeff Jacoby Posted: Sep 17, 2018 9:35 AM
Jacoby says quotas belittle women (originally in the Boston Globe) as the quotas say women cannot get these jobs on merit alone. Are you kidding!? How idiotic and blind can a man be about gender bias in corporate offices. Has Jeff been in a cave all his life or is he just a male chauvinist pig? Jeff, it is MALE BIAS AGAINST WOMEN that requires women to work twice as hard to achieve twice as much to have any chance for consideration for a job on a corporate board!
Jeff even reports women hold 1 in 5 directorships on Fortune 100 company boards, so 20%. Jeff reports only about 20% of companies in the US public equity market have all male boards. Jeff! These numbers are meaningless when bias is obvious! Numbers can show only numbers, and do not reveal bias.
The Wall Street Journal jumps on the "Jeff Train" with BS about public companies represent shareholders? Are you kidding? What does the representation have to do with quotas for women? Shareholders do not care who is on the board IF THEY MAKE MONEY! Is the WSJ telling us women do not make money for shareholders when they sit on the board?
Johanna Sigurdardottir, in The New York Times, argued with these chauvinists. As the first female prime minister of Iceland she led her country out of the brink of total economic collapse. And what about Merkel in Germany, May in the UK. Women are not less than men in any way, so stop whining abut quotas to combat male bias!
If gender quotas must be used to fill the boards, what about race? YES, WHAT ABOUT RACE!
I rest my case!
