What's your metric of indication that a nation is post-racial?
Is it when there's prefect, proportional representation in the industry?...or when people stop trying to count "how many of each type of person is in a movie?" and strictly focus on "who's the best person for the job?"
Let's flip it and look at an inverse scenario. The Science & Engineering fields. Asians are over-represented in S&E. 13% of the industry is Asian Men, 5% is Asian Women, even though Asians as a whole, only make up just under 5% of the population. (they make nearly 25% of the people at the Doctoral level in the industry)
View attachment 173614
In that particular field, every other group (including Whites) are underrepresented to a degree due to Asians being over-represented by nearly 4:1.
Is that considered an issue as well? I think Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics need team up and raise awareness about this grave injustice happening to us in the sciences.
Clearly the field should be split out at
73% White
12% Black
5% Asian
3% Mixed Race
7% Other
Anything breakdown that deviates too much from the US Census numbers (shown above) must me evidence of some sort of systematic discrimination, right? ...or is that only considered to be the case in fields where the deviation in representation favors whites?
I was being facetious there...but you obviously get the point I was trying to make.
Why is it perfectly acceptable to say "because, the best person for it got the job" when it's fields where minorities tend to do better in? Why is nobody accusing the NBA of unfairly favoring Blacks, and discriminating against Asians & Hispanics? Or, the example above about Asians in the sciences that I elaborated on?
Abbreviated version: Why is it that deviation from the census numbers is only considered
evidence of a systematic problem when that deviation favors whites (specifically, white males)?