Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
No, it's not. Racism is the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races (Princeton), encouraging actions accordingly to maintain their intrinsic superiority.
AA laws are designed to compensate for the racism that still exists in this country. Give it a thought for a minute: White men wrote those laws. They were not created by Black men to "put Whitey in their place," as so many would like to believe.
Calling AA "racist" or "reverse-racist" is just a knee-jerk reaction to the law by people whom it has not directly benefited, or who may have lost an opportunity that they believe might have otherwise gotten--but notably, it is rare that are they able to prove their assertion.
And it is an indication of the continued existence of racism in this country that the law in some form is still needed. Think about this: The discussion is about Affirmative Action. That includes, race, color, sex, nationality, sexual preference, and religious preference. How did it become centered on race?
|
I would agree with most of the above, however, the fact that AA, or 'positive discrimination' (an oxymoron if ever I heard one) as it's called in the UK, is described as being necessary to compensate for the racism that exists worries me.
I don't for one second deny that racism exists - it surely does - but if all we do is pass laws to
compensate for it, then all we are doing is exacerbating the problem and potentially disaffecting innocent people with good intentions in mind.
Racism (or any form of discrimination) is an evil that needs to be tackled at root cause, not legislated around to mitigate the symptoms of.