And Back to Racial Discrimination

[rturner76]

I think they probably looked at the law and tried hard to figure out the extent to which they could racially discriminate.

The way it was described is they would give consideration to minority and female applicants first. The executives would also be given a financial incentive for reaching what I can only describe as a racial or gender quota.

That may not be the legal definition of saying "we aren't looking to hire white men unless there's no other option and we discriminate against them heavily"....but it may be that the distinction between that and the hiring process they created is not meaningful.

Straddling that line is what makes this tricky to challenge. They are an investment firm after all. They can afford really good lawyers.

I would simply say that you should consider whether or not you would consider this discrimination against you if it were written to give priority to everyone else, and a financial incentive to hire everyone other than black men. You have personally expressed situations far more ambiguous as racial discrimination to me in other conversations.

In this particular situation, I can understand them wanting to diversify their workforce in order to diversify clientele.

I think their goal was to reach people who are not normally investors. Diversity isn't just blacks and Mexicans. There are also Russians, Arabic speakers, and other immigrants or children of immigrants who can communicate across language barriers and be trusted more by people in their community. I have a feeling that there will still be plenty of white men getting hired as well. They didn't say whites are disqualified.

As far as giving priority to everyone but blacks, I believe a good amount of that goes on already in an underhanded way.

ETA: If I personally ran a company where half of the workers are black in an area with a low black population, I would look to diversify my staff. Not with any one race in mind but with the idea of reexamining our hiring process to see how the lop sided numbers came about and how we could get more people of different backgrounds to represent the company.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In this particular situation, I can understand them wanting to diversify their workforce in order to diversify clientele.

When I hear "investment bankers" I tend to think hedge fund managers, corporate investors, venture capitalists....those parts of the financial sector. I'm pretty new to private investing so if anyone knows more than me....please correct me.

I don't think of the average "mom and pop" financial advisors who help people with their retirement plans.

If I'm right, their clientele is far more concerned with the money a client has....to the point where they would work with a super intelligent mouse looking to get into the cryptocurrency if that mouse had a few million to play with. I don't know how much "diversity" matters at that point.

Again though, I can't be more clear about this....I could be ignorant of the kind of investment bankers these people are. If any poster who works in the financial sector can clear that up...I'd consider the possibility of your suggestion here.

 

[rturner76]

Again though, I can't be more clear about this....I could be ignorant of the kind of investment bankers these people are. If any poster who works in the financial sector can clear that up...I'd consider the possibility of your suggestion here.

I don't work in the financial sector but I think the company was trying to tap into more blue-collar and nontraditional investors.

One thing I know from commission-based income is you start with your "sphere of influence" meaning people you know and people you meet through people you know. By diversifying your workforce, you can tap into different demographic spheres of influence. It's not a political statement but an income strategy. You figure the people who invest are already invested. The untapped markets is where they need to go for new investors.

I'm sure it's not part of the strategy to dump white guys with good portfolios to bring in unqualified people of color. They would just lose money if they did that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't work in the financial sector but I think the company was trying to tap into more blue-collar and nontraditional investors.

One thing I know from commission-based income is you start with your "sphere of influence" meaning people you know and people you meet through people you know. By diversifying your workforce, you can tap into different demographic spheres of influence. It's not a political statement but an income strategy. You figure the people who invest are already invested. The untapped markets is where they need to go for new investors.

I'm sure it's not part of the strategy to dump white guys with good portfolios to bring in unqualified people of color. They would just lose money if they did that.

Let's assume they are equally qualified applicants no matter what characteristics.

If we had a scenario where a community or region had an influx of wealthy Nigerians...I can understand why a company of any kind would value applicants who had a cultural understanding of Nigeria and spoke the language.

If that's the case, they should be selecting for that. They could, for example, give preference to those who speak the language and know the culture. It's not a reason to exclude by race....but it would be perfectly understandable and ethical if they ended up with an increasingly black workforce as a result. I think we can agree on that, right?

 

[rturner76]

Let's assume they are equally qualified applicants no matter what characteristics.

If we had a scenario where a community or region had an influx of wealthy Nigerians...I can understand why a company of any kind would value applicants who had a cultural understanding of Nigeria and spoke the language.

If that's the case, they should be selecting for that. They could, for example, give preference to those who speak the language and know the culture. It's not a reason to exclude by race....but it would be perfectly understandable and ethical if they ended up with an increasingly black workforce as a result. I think we can agree on that, right?

I think a business can adjust its staff to reflect the demographic they are trying to give service to as long as they are not dismissing applicants based on race.

 

[RDKirk]

That makes sense going by demographics in those fields. Why would you think they are specifically feminists though and not just liberals and/or progressives?

The most significant "culture war" going on in the United States is actually the war being fought between traditional white women and radical feminist white women. Radical feminists are fighting to overturn the "white male patriarchy." Traditional white women feel that the white male patriarchy (such that it is) works in their favor and are fighting to preserve it. Their war is not obvious because both sides are using proxies to fight most of the battles.

Traditional white women are using white men as their primary proxy; that's unsurprising because they're...traditional. But that's the reason why Trump got 53% of the female white vote. Make no mistake, the white men fighting for white male patriarchy have their wives cheering--and prodding--them on.

Radical feminist white women are using a varied array of minority groups as their proxies, all that they are claiming "intersection" with. But radical white feminists have a different meaning of "intersection" from that of minority groups.

To black women, for instance, they stand at the "intersection" of several different kinds of discrimination, and so "intersection" is the sum of all the different ways they're oppressed.

Radical white feminists, OTOH, define "intersection" as the sum of all people who oppressed. Interestingly, though, radical white feminists wind up taking the lead of each of these movements rather than merely being "allies."

For instance, "canceling" originally began as black women withdrawing their support from black celebrities who were discovered to be working against their own interests. That was taken over by SJWs (who are overwhelmingly white women) who appear to be "cape-ing" (championing) for all other people "oppressed by the white male patriarchy," but in fact, the war against the white male patriarchy is their own war.

 

[bekkilyn]

The most significant "culture war" going on in the United States is actually the war being fought between traditional white women and radical feminist white women. Radical feminists are fighting to overturn the "white male patriarchy." Traditional white women feel that the white male patriarchy (such that it is) works in their favor and are fighting to preserve it. Their war is not obvious because both sides are using proxies to fight most of the battles.

Traditional white women are using white men as their primary proxy; that's unsurprising because they're...traditional. But that's the reason why Trump got 53% of the female white vote. Make no mistake, the white men fighting for white male patriarchy have their wives cheering--and prodding--them on.

Radical feminist white women are using a varied array of minority groups as their proxies, all that they are claiming "intersection" with. But radical white feminists have a different meaning of "intersection" from that of minority groups.

To black women, for instance, they stand at the "intersection" of several different kinds of discrimination, and so "intersection" is the sum of all the different ways they're oppressed.

Radical white feminists, OTOH, define "intersection" as the sum of all people who oppressed. Interestingly, though, radical white feminists wind up taking the lead of each of these movements rather than merely being "allies."

For instance, "canceling" originally began as black women withdrawing their support from black celebrities who were discovered to be working against their own interests. That was taken over by SJWs (who are overwhelmingly white women) who appear to be "cape-ing" (championing) for all other people "oppressed by the white male patriarchy," but in fact, the war against the white male patriarchy is their own war.

Interesting. Definitely a lot of liberal feminism in what you describe. I had wondered for a while why liberal feminists seemed to champion for every cause and for every "oppressed" group (besides actual biological women) and your description makes a strange sort of sense in that regard. It's in any case definitely not the feminism that I've associated with and apparently have been very unaware of until just a few months ago when the whole J.K. Rowling thing erupted and I found out that modern liberal feminism seemed to be anything *but* how I'd define feminism and in fact seemed very anti-woman in general. It seems that this feminism actually promotes "the patriarchy" in the sense that it directly operates against the interests and rights of biological women, including and perhaps especially traditional women.

The feminism I was raised with didn't want to topple men, but rather wanted to *partner* with men with neither being subservient. The "patriarchy" was was anything that promoted domination and got in the way of that partnership.

It's like we can't trust anything to be accurately descriptive anymore. I know "woke" had its origins in a similar sense to "canceling" but its changed and what started out as one thing has become something else altogether along with a whole lot of virtue signaling.

 

[bekkilyn]

So this morning I bought the book "Faces at the Bottom of the Well" by Derrik A. Bell and Michelle Alexander because I wanted to get a better idea of Critical Race Theory from some of the more original sources. I've only read the Introduction so far and included some quotes. The first quote is just the introductory blurb, but the rest are from Michelle Alexander in the Introduction writing about her first experiences with Bell and his writings and ideas.

I can already tell that neither of these individuals are Buddhists since they most definitely do not embrace the concept of impermanence!

But more seriously, just from the introduction's description it seems that Bell has given into despair and that there is no hope or optimism or dream, which in MLK's case is considered only a fantasy.

"Black people are the magical faces at the bottom of society’s well. Even the poorest whites, those who must live their lives only a few levels above, gain their self-esteem by gazing down on us. Surely, they must know that their deliverance depends on letting down their ropes. Only by working together is escape possible. Over time, many reach out, but most simply watch, mesmerized into maintaining their unspoken commitment to keeping us where we are, at whatever cost to them or to us."

"Racism is permanent in the United States of America, utterly indestructible."

"Over and over again, whites have shown a willingness to support the most brutal forms of racial oppression (or ignore them) while proudly calling themselves freedom-loving Christians. Our nation’s perpetual civil war rages on."

"I couldn’t help but wonder: If racism is permanent, then what is the point of the struggle? His suggestion that meaning and purpose could be derived from the mere act of resistance rang hollow for me. I wanted to make a difference, bring us closer to Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, and yet Bell seemed to say that King’s dream was nothing more than a fantasy."

"Now here he was, writing stories suggesting that nothing that any of us might do inside or outside courtrooms would ever change, in the long run, the political calculus for white Americans. Black interests, he said, will always be sacrificed for white gain."

"Throughout all of the parables in this book, Bell advanced his “interest convergence theory,” the idea that whites have never (and would never) support efforts to improve the position of black Americans unless it was in their interest to do so."

"....the best we could do, as racial justice advocates, is seek to mitigate the harms of white supremacy and take full advantage of the moments in which whites could see that their interests were aligned with our own, recognizing that these moments would rarely last for long."

"Racism in this country is permanent, he insisted, no matter what we say or do."

"I now understand that accepting the permanence of racism in this country does not mean accepting racism."

"Facing the inconvenient truth that America may suffer from an incurable, potentially fatal disease helps to clarify what we’re up against. It offers the opportunity to clarify our goals."

"But if we broaden our view and sharpen our focus, we just might see that our liberation struggles aren’t limited to our national borders and that our movements, if we take them seriously enough, can help to rebirth this nation and reimagine our world. A new country might be born, one with new heroes, new founding mothers and fathers."

"Perhaps our movements—the rebellious spirit that gives life to them—will outlive this country and help to make another world possible."

 

[RDKirk]

Interesting. Definitely a lot of liberal feminism in what you describe. I had wondered for a while why liberal feminists seemed to champion for every cause and for every "oppressed" group (besides actual biological women) and your description makes a strange sort of sense in that regard. It's in any case definitely not the feminism that I've associated with and apparently have been very unaware of until just a few months ago when the whole J.K. Rowling thing erupted and I found out that modern liberal feminism seemed to be anything *but* how I'd define feminism and in fact seemed very anti-woman in general.

Anti traditional women.

Radical white feminists are playing "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and supporting everything that is opposed to the "white male patriarchy" of the US. That's why they also support Islam.

 

[bekkilyn]

Anti traditional women.

Radical white feminists are playing "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and supporting everything that is opposed to the "white male patriarchy" of the US. That's why they also support Islam.

I definitely have a lot of catching up to do when it comes to this topic!

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think a business can adjust its staff to reflect the demographic they are trying to give service to as long as they are not dismissing applicants based on race.

Ok...we generally agree. I think most people do.

What if we got more specific? I can think of a few circumstances where it matters. If we had an acting role where passing for a Chinese person was needed...I would have no issue with hiring an Asian to fit the bill. Obviously they wouldn't have to be ethnically Chinese....they are acting....but they would have to pass for it convincingly. That's an exception where one has a necessity of hiring a certain race for a job.

If we go back to my example of the Nigerians, what if the investment bankers learned that it didn't matter if any employees spoke the language or knew the culture....the Nigerians simply wanted to work with black men? They might be sexist...or racist....or it could be an unconscious bias they aren't even aware of. It doesn't really matter if the bankers want their business.

Would that justify the bankers changing their hiring practices to discriminate in favor of black men?

It's a serious question...I'm not pulling it out if nowhere. There's a very similar argument being made in schools about children paying more attention to teachers who look like they do. They aren't saying that the children are racist...but they are at the very least saying they might have an unconscious bias that affects how much they pay attention to teachers.

I don't know if we agree on the answer. I know that I don't think it's a valid reason to change hiring processes...even if that hurts the business' bottom line. I understand the argument though...I think I can argue both sides. I would only argue for the side I'm arguing for now....I don't think it's a valid reason for hiring when we consider business ethics.

What do you think? I'm not going to call you racist or anything if you disagree with me. I want to know what you genuinely believe.

 

[rturner76]

Would that justify the bankers changing their hiring practices to discriminate in favor of black men?

No. There should be no discrimination in hiring. However, I don't believe that setting a goal for a more diverse workforce is unethical as long as you do not deny white males the chance to interview the same as everybody else.

It's a serious question...I'm not pulling it out if nowhere. There's a very similar argument being made in schools about children paying more attention to teachers who look like they do. They aren't saying that the children are racist...but they are at the very least saying they might have an unconscious bias that affects how much they pay attention to teachers.

I think this is true. We look to our parents, aunts, uncles, and cousins for role models so it would stand to reason that adults who appeal to those roles would make a student feel more comfortable. For example, it seems like there are some differences in the way cultures show they are angry with body language and vocal tone.

I don't know if we agree on the answer. I know that I don't think it's a valid reason to change hiring processes...even if that hurts the business' bottom line. I understand the argument though...I think I can argue both sides. I would only argue for the side I'm arguing for now....I don't think it's a valid reason for hiring when we consider business ethics.

No, not in a perfect world.

 

[RDKirk]

So this morning I bought the book "Faces at the Bottom of the Well" by Derrik A. Bell and Michelle Alexander because I wanted to get a better idea of Critical Race Theory from some of the more original sources. I've only read the Introduction so far and included some quotes. The first quote is just the introductory blurb, but the rest are from Michelle Alexander in the Introduction writing about her first experiences with Bell and his writings and ideas.

I can already tell that neither of these individuals are Buddhists since they most definitely do not embrace the concept of impermanence!

But more seriously, just from the introduction's description it seems that Bell has given into despair and that there is no hope or optimism or dream, which in MLK's case is considered only a fantasy.

"Black people are the magical faces at the bottom of society’s well. Even the poorest whites, those who must live their lives only a few levels above, gain their self-esteem by gazing down on us. Surely, they must know that their deliverance depends on letting down their ropes. Only by working together is escape possible. Over time, many reach out, but most simply watch, mesmerized into maintaining their unspoken commitment to keeping us where we are, at whatever cost to them or to us."

"Racism is permanent in the United States of America, utterly indestructible."

"Over and over again, whites have shown a willingness to support the most brutal forms of racial oppression (or ignore them) while proudly calling themselves freedom-loving Christians. Our nation’s perpetual civil war rages on."

The qualification made here is "in the United States." Why that qualification?

If it's not a truth worldwide, then it can be true in the United States.

If it is a truth worldwide, then it's a common condition of man like any other sin, and can be mitigated by social compact like any other sin.

"I couldn’t help but wonder: If racism is permanent, then what is the point of the struggle? His suggestion that meaning and purpose could be derived from the mere act of resistance rang hollow for me. I wanted to make a difference, bring us closer to Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, and yet Bell seemed to say that King’s dream was nothing more than a fantasy."

"Now here he was, writing stories suggesting that nothing that any of us might do inside or outside courtrooms would ever change, in the long run, the political calculus for white Americans. Black interests, he said, will always be sacrificed for white gain."

"Throughout all of the parables in this book, Bell advanced his “interest convergence theory,” the idea that whites have never (and would never) support efforts to improve the position of black Americans unless it was in their interest to do so."

There is nothing surprising or new about his "interest convergence theory." It's been known for thousands of years that any human transaction, if it is to be successful, must conclude with both parties feeling they have gained something valuable to them. Who expects altruism in this world?

Even the classical hedonists of ancient Greece could understand how keeping the poor from falling too deeply into poverty was in their own long-term interests. White abolitionists were not motivated by a love of black people, but by a desire to save white souls. And there's no shame in that. There have been debates in these forums about whether Christian agape is really about some mystically induced, purely altruistic "unconditional love for all mankind" or, rather, a desire for pain avoidance or a desire to hear "well done, my good and faithful servant" one day.

Interest convergence is the essence of all successful human interactions.

"....the best we could do, as racial justice advocates, is seek to mitigate the harms of white supremacy and take full advantage of the moments in which whites could see that their interests were aligned with our own, recognizing that these moments would rarely last for long."

"Racism in this country is permanent, he insisted, no matter what we say or do."

"I now understand that accepting the permanence of racism in this country does not mean accepting racism."

"Facing the inconvenient truth that America may suffer from an incurable, potentially fatal disease helps to clarify what we’re up against. It offers the opportunity to clarify our goals."

"But if we broaden our view and sharpen our focus, we just might see that our liberation struggles aren’t limited to our national borders and that our movements, if we take them seriously enough, can help to rebirth this nation and reimagine our world. A new country might be born, one with new heroes, new founding mothers and fathers."

"Perhaps our movements—the rebellious spirit that gives life to them—will outlive this country and help to make another world possible."

I have not yet seen in CRT any steps actually toward or even a view of that brave new world. All I see at this point is the effort to tear down the white male patriarchy, and yet another non-white concept that white radical feminists are running with as another battering ram against the white male patriarchy. But they have not vision beyond that.

I'm a Christian, so ultimately I must strive for reconciliation. Even if I were not a Christian, the fact is that white people aren't going anywhere, black people are not going anywhere, and nobody else is going anywhere, so reconciliation is a practical necessity.

 

[RDKirk]

I think this is true. We look to our parents, aunts, uncles, and cousins for role models so it would stand to reason that adults who appeal to those roles would make a student feel more comfortable. For example, it seems like there are some differences in the way cultures show they are angry with body language and vocal tone.

But that is culture, not skin tone.

Here is the thing about culture in an example:

Take a bunch of black kids from south Chicago. And some from north Omaha. And some from SE Washington DC. And some from SE Dallas.

Put them into an auditorium to watch a theatrical production of "Romeo and Juliet." Now, "Romeo and Juliet" was written 500 years ago by an Englishman who'd never been 200 miles from the place he was born. It was written before blacks had ever been kidnapped from Africa and brought to America.

Yet, those black kids from black American ghettos will mostly understand Shakespeare's diction. More importantly, they will understand his story. They will get the plot, the motivations of the characters. They will understand what Shakespeare is saying. They'll totally get it. That's because those black ghetto kids share Shakespeare's culture.

Now take those same kids in that auditorium and bring in a griot from Ghana. Have that griot recite to them in Ghanian a 500-year-old Ghanian folk story. First, the kids won't understand the language. And even if you translate the language, they won't get the story. They won't understand the motivations of the characters. They won't get the point. That's because those black ghetto kids do not share that griot's culture.

I can pretty much assure you, there are difference in the way I--as a black man raised in a middle-class setting in southern small towns half a century ago--have some differences in the way I show anger with body language and vocal tone from those kids.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The most significant "culture war" going on in the United States is actually the war being fought between traditional white women and radical feminist white women. Radical feminists are fighting to overturn the "white male patriarchy." Traditional white women feel that the white male patriarchy (such that it is) works in their favor and are fighting to preserve it. Their war is not obvious because both sides are using proxies to fight most of the battles.

I'm not sure who you see defending the "white male patriarchy". Obviously we all read or see different things. Do you have an example?

A link would be nice but even one from memory would be interesting.

Traditional white women are using white men as their primary proxy; that's unsurprising because they're...traditional. But that's the reason why Trump got 53% of the female white vote. Make no mistake, the white men fighting for white male patriarchy have their wives cheering--and prodding--them on.

I can't help but notice you used quotes around "white male patriarchy" at the beginning of this post....but didn't in this section.

Is that a concept you believe has validity or were you using the quotes because it's literally a concept the feminists use?

Radical feminist white women are using a varied array of minority groups as their proxies, all that they are claiming "intersection" with. But radical white feminists have a different meaning of "intersection" from that of minority groups.

Postmodernism has infected these movements and their ability to express ideas. I haven't considered a contradiction or deliberate attempt by radical feminists to misconstrue the term to gain advantage....

Fundamentally though, this seems to be a tactic all of these groups use. The term white supremacy used to describe a rather specific racial ideology. Critical race activists have stretched it to describe all of modern western civilization.

It's exactly why I so frequently ask people to define what they mean by certain terms they use. Often these concepts are vague and contradictory. I can literally point to examples of activists blaming white allies for being silent....and then blame them for trying to speak about the "oppression" certain groups as if they had no right to do so.

I think a lot of well meaning white people are genuinely confused about what is being asked of them.

To black women, for instance, they stand at the "intersection" of several different kinds of discrimination, and so "intersection" is the sum of all the different ways they're oppressed.

That's a pretty accurate description. I think it's interesting that taken to it's logical conclusion....we'd have to acknowledge that we all have unique individual experiences.

It would be a rather unique incident if a bunch of people tried to create a society that acknowledges the unique nature of individual experiences and then tried to protect them with individual rights.

Wild idea indeed.

Radical white feminists, OTOH, define "intersection" as the sum of all people who oppressed. Interestingly, though, radical white feminists wind up taking the lead of each of these movements rather than merely being "allies."

Allyship seems to be a tough thing to define itself. To some groups it seems like the sort of person who stands in solidarity with others even if they don't share the same identity groups.

Yet others seem to describe it as a subordinate person who is to put in an effort to atone for the deeds of others by sacrificing all self interest and devalue their own experiences.

For instance, "canceling" originally began as black women withdrawing their support from black celebrities who were discovered to be working against their own interests.

See? There it is...is allyship defined by a requirement for allies to deny their own interests? I don't know what gets asked of a black ally. Actually I don't recall any black people described as allies....they get called advocates or activists, as if there's a recognition of their contributions...if a white ally does this, they get accused of "centering" themselves. It's as if the white activist is expected to serve the interests of others....perpetually...and it often gets described as "lifelong" work.

Personally, this isn't a very appealing idea. I like to work towards a goal...and I think the effort should be recognized whether the goal is reached or not. Perhaps this is a direct result of a lack of clearly defined goals. Defund The Police is a good example....and it meant completely different things depending upon who you asked. When a goal is a constantly moving target....one can expect the effort to be lifelong and the disappointment of never reaching it is constant.

That was taken over by SJWs (who are overwhelmingly white women) who appear to be "cape-ing" (championing) for all other people "oppressed by the white male patriarchy," but in fact, the war against the white male patriarchy is their own war.

That's an interesting take. I think there's some rather easy and obvious solutions too...

1. If you can't clearly define a term or describe a concept...don't use it. Use a term or concept you can describe.

2. Describe the goal....not just a problem. There's a huge number of these activists who want a pat on the back for raising awareness. It's hard for some people to take that seriously, particularly when the person trying to raise awareness displays a lack of awareness.

3. Consider the input of outsiders. Idealists are good at pushing people to strive for better...but they rarely seem able to envision a path to their goals. Pragmatists are too often shouted down for considering solutions deemed insufficient for their high minded goals. If you only have a complaint without a real solution (defunding the police and believing all women aren't real solutions because of the existence of crime and innocent men)....then perhaps that person should step aside when someone has a solution. I can understand that sometimes it can be hard to consider solutions from outsiders....what if they work? The idealist won't get any credit for raising awareness....or even worse, they leave the activists without the emotional high of claiming righteous struggle against the morally inferior.

I can see why MeToo might seem like feminists stealing the momentum of a black movement against police brutality. That's the very nature of identity politics. It's hard to maintain a coalition based upon differences between groups...particularly when any group begins to realize solidarity offers nothing for that group.

Successful coalitions offer a goal that has a good place for everyone in them...not just a place of perpetual subordination.

 

[Whyayeman]

The most significant "culture war" going on in the United States is actually the war being fought between traditional white women and radical feminist white women.

I don't think so. It is -possibly - just currently the noisiest in America. The biggest issue by far is racism. We just need to ask the question: which has killed more people; feminism or racism...

What if we got more specific? I can think of a few circumstances where it matters. If we had an acting role where passing for a Chinese person was needed...I would have no issue with hiring an Asian to fit the bill. Obviously they wouldn't have to be ethnically Chinese....they are acting....but they would have to pass for it convincingly.

One of the best recent performances I have seen at the Royal Shakespeare Stratford was a black actor playing the King in one of the histories (forgotten which - sorry). Theatre is pretending - it turned out audiences could pretend the actor was King just as easily with a black actor in the role.

 

[bekkilyn]

I don't think so. It is -possibly - just currently the noisiest in America. The biggest issue by far is racism. We just need to ask the question: which has killed more people; feminism or racism...
.

I'd suggest you're both kind of onto something, though I don't think it's so specific as racism or feminism but rather in a broader sense of traditional values versus "woke" values which would of course include issues such as racism, women's rights, etc. (And I know that the term "woke" didn't start out to mean all the things it's used for today but I'm not sure what else to call it..)

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't think so. It is -possibly - just currently the noisiest in America. The biggest issue by far is racism. We just need to ask the question: which has killed more people; feminism or racism...

What does that question tell us?

One of the best recent performances I have seen at the Royal Shakespeare Stratford was a black actor playing the King in one of the histories (forgotten which - sorry). Theatre is pretending - it turned out audiences could pretend the actor was King just as easily with a black actor in the role.

Yeah I'm not saying it's always necessary. If being ethnically Chinese is important to the role...it would look weird to have Denzel Washington as the character. Imagine a story about slavery in the US with an all white cast.

I'm not saying race is always important to a job....I'm simply pointing out examples where it can be legitimately considered so.

 

[Whyayeman]

"woke" values

This is a term that has very little use in British English. Whenever I see it - invariably here on these forums - I think there is something mocking or pejorative lurking behind it.

Racism is a real issue everywhere. American society is stained by the legacy of slavery, complicated no doubt by unresolved tensions and hostilities which still reverberate after the Civil War. The UK has a long history of white supremicism (actually in many minds British supremicism) so cannot escape the same judgment.

These problems are more than employment issues; they permeate pretty well all aspects of our cultural lives. I think that while economic issues like employment are important they are very far from the whole. We can discuss them in an academic way and define certain things as racist in a general way till the cows come home, but cannot escape the obvious elephant in the room; overwhelmingly certain easily identified cultural groups live at a disadvantage in our societies.

 

[Whyayeman]

What does that question tell us?

One easy answer is that racism is a deeper and more urgent issue than feminism in the present day and historically. That is not to denigrate feminism, arising as it does from deep historic issues too. (And actually, maybe the death toll is not so different after all.)

I don't want to start a hare here.