BNW Brave New World
Samenzwering, verborgen agenda's en geheime geschiedenis. De zoektocht naar de wereld die achter de façade van alledag ligt.
Wel degelijk, het had ook om een andere willekeurige voorbijganger kunnen gaan. Dat is nu net waarom mensen in de VS aversie voelen t.a.v. zinloos politiegeweld. Dat Floyd een strafblad zou hebben of drugs zou gebruiken is verder volstrekt niet relevant.quote:Op maandag 17 januari 2022 21:05 schreef HowardRoark het volgende:
[..]
Dit is natuurlijk niet correct. George Floyd was geen willekeurige voorbijganger en de doorslaggevende factor was hier huidskleur.
Neuh, godzijdank hebben we hier niet in die extreme mate te maken met politiegeweld. Maar het klopt inderdaad dat men daar protesteerde tegen zijn dood omdat het ook een andere willekeurige voorbijganger zou kunnen overkomen en mensen in de VS niet zelden angstig zijn zodra er politie opduikt.quote:Dit voorval werd als typerend gezien voor het leven van de zwarte Amerikaan. Misschien zelfs wel de zwarte mens in de westerse wereld. Die zogenaamd nergens veilig is en overal wordt gediscrimineerd.
Dan doe je de onvrede die er leeft met betrekking tot het politiegeweld toch schromelijk tekort. Maar goed, dat valt wel in lijn met de rest van deze reeks.quote:Deze leugen, aangewakkerd door verdere polarisatie van Democratische politici en journalisten uit de MSM die hun kans schoon zagen een slag te slaan in aanloop naar de toen naderende verkiezingen, heeft voor de uiteindelijke massahysterie gezorgd. De miljarden aan schade, duizenden gewonden en tientallen doden nam men maar even op de koop toe.
George Floyd was dus geen willekeurige voorbijganger. En jij denkt echt dat als dit een pakweg Aziatisch, blank of Latino persoon was geweest de ophef net zo groot was geweest? Hihi, natuurlijk niet.
'I moved to Peru and shaved half my head and wrote for Teen Vogue. If I can come back from the depths of leftism, trust me, anyone can.' - Gina Florio
Hihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihihi.quote:Op maandag 17 januari 2022 21:50 schreef HowardRoark het volgende:
George Floyd was dus geen willekeurige voorbijganger. En jij denkt echt dat als dit een pakweg Aziatisch, blank of Latino persoon was geweest de ophef net zo groot was geweest? Hihi, natuurlijk niet.
Ja, wel. Het had net zo goed iemand anders kunnen overgekomen.quote:
George Floyd was dus geen willekeurige voorbijganger.
Nee, de ophef is groter omdat het om weer om een donkere man gaat. Die hebben daar aanmerkelijk vaker mee te maken.quote:En jij denkt echt dat als dit een pakweg Aziatisch, blank of Latino persoon was geweest de ophef net zo groot was geweest? Hihi, natuurlijk niet.
Hihi, wat een emotie weer.quote:
Het is natuurlijk te gek voor woorden dat die hele situatie zo'n wereldwijde massahysterie heeft opgeleverd. Er zijn nu standbeelden en murals gemaakt van een drugsverslaafde crimineel. Het geeft aan hoe de westerse wereld is afgegleden.
Hoeren neuken, nooit meer werken.
Behalve dat ene zinnetje weet je verder blijkbaar maar weinig van MLK want er mist weer eens context. Ja natuurlijk heeft hij gelijk daarin maar in zijn toespraak kwam deze quote pas nadat hij eerst een aantal voorbeelden gaf (wo onderwijs) hoe racisme zich geworteld heeft in de infrastructuur van de VS met alle gevolgen vandien voor de zwarte bevolking. MLK was dan ook een groot voorstander van affirmative action om die achterstand in te halen en hij zou nu juist meer welkom zijn bij de Democraten. In die tijd vonden ze hem maar lastig.quote:Op maandag 17 januari 2022 17:41 schreef Chivaz het volgende:
[..]
Hij was ook een marxist, neemt niet weg dat hij groot gelijk had dat mensen niet moeten worden beoordeeld op hun uiterlijke kenmerken maar op hun karakter.
MLK zou in beide partijen niet welkom zijn geweest.
Het is al net zo'n misrepresentatie van de werkelijkheid als het onderwijzen van CRT op scholen:
quote:William J. Bennett’s Aug. 12 commentary is the latest example of a recent trend in conservative public relations--opponents of affirmative action claiming to be the heirs of Martin Luther King Jr. They invoke the sentence from King’s 1963 speech looking forward to the day his children would be judged by “the content of their character,” not the “color of their skin.”
Bennett conveniently ignores one fact--King was a strong supporter of affirmative action. In “Why We Can’t Wait,” published in 1963, he argued that given the long history of American racism, blacks fully deserved “special, compensatory measures” in jobs, education and other realms. Four years later, in “Where Do We Go From Here?” he wrote: “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him.”
Bennett’s piece not only misrepresents King but reduces the civil rights movement’s complex outlook to the quest for a “colorblind society.” In fact, as King wrote, the movement’s goal was far broader: to “make freedom real and substantive” for blacks by overcoming pervasive racial inequality and absorbing them “into the mainstream of American life.” King saw affirmative action as one of many measures--some colorblind, some not--needed to counteract the legacy of centuries of discrimination.
En dan krijg je dus ditquote:For the first time, we’re observing the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. holiday under new laws in multiple states that ban the instruction of “divisive” interpretations of our racial past. The assaults have given new weapons to an enduring faction in American society that has long resisted the reckoning that his life’s work demanded.
In King’s day, this faction was known as the “Massive Resistance,” an effort to organize and frustrate the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education ruling and efforts to build multiracial classrooms. Today, this faction is known as the “anti-CRT” effort, which seeks to proscribe race-related curricula, books or trainings that offer a discomforting view of our past and its current implications.
Teachers, public officials and students are in a particularly unsustainable bind. They’re charged with honoring King as a figure while disavowing the ideas that he lived and died to advance. They’re being asked not merely to defer King’s dream of racial equality but to decommission it altogether.
King would likely take bitter note of the all-too-familiar dynamics behind today’s backlash. After the 2020 global movement for racial justice in the United States and beyond in the wake of the savage police killing of George Floyd, legislatures in 32 states have relied on what is patently a lie — that antiracism is antiwhite — to fuel the antidemocratic crusade against what they call “critical race theory.”
For more than 30 years, scholars have employed critical race theory as an analytical tool. The right has rebranded it as the new racism, as wokeness run amok, as a threat to innocent schoolchildren and as a stalking-horse for the demise of “Western civilization” itself. The theory has become the target of coordinated efforts to stigmatize and erase generations of antiracist knowledge, advocacy and history. The objective is both to disappear antiracism’s history and to deny its contemporary salience.
King himself is a prime casualty in this effort. Apostles of the McCarthyite crackdown on critical race theory have exploited him as a mouthpiece for their cause, reducing him to a solitary, decontextualized line from the “I Have a Dream” speech about a future in which his four children were to be judged not “by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
Some use King’s words to erase his deeds and those of millions more who rose up to “make good the promises” since Reconstruction. In Tennessee, for example, the Moms for Liberty sought to ban Frances E. Ruffin’s children’s book “Martin Luther King Jr. and the March on Washington” by framing its descriptions of segregation and the violence meted out against King and others as traumatizing and racist. The Moms argue that Ruffin’s portrayal of white racism against people of color “will sow the seeds of racial strife, neo-racism, neo-segregation, and is an affront” to King’s ideals. This reveals precisely what comes of a persistent and willful ignorance of King’s legacy.
The sheer power on display to turn King against himself — a process that has been underway since the first day this holiday was celebrated — is a grim reflection of the way opponents have long subjected antiracist thinking and activism to distortion, misappropriation and redefinition. The brazen casting of critical race theory as the contemporary villain following 2020’s racial reckoning is no surprise.
The King holiday and Black History Month are an excellent opportunity — perhaps the only opportunity — to course-correct, contest and redirect the misconceptions about King’s legacy and its interface with critical race theory. Recovering the real King begins by freeing his image from the clutches of those seeking to substitute truthful education with a saccharine narrative built on illusions, delusions and lies.
Dr. King was an “inconvenient truth teller.” His insistence on the urgency of racial justice put him at odds with moderate whites in the South, and his denunciation of imperialism put him at odds with allies more narrowly focused on the freedom struggle within U.S. borders.
For telling these truths, in life, King was often criticized rather than celebrated. At the time of his death, polls showed that most white people held an unfavorable view of him. The FBI, under J. Edgar Hoover, framed him as a national security threat. Some Black leaders were hardly convinced of his tactics — his civil disobedience was too radical for some, his nonviolence too accommodationist for others. But for King, the demands for racial justice were not to be won through a popularity contest or by painting a comforting picture of the U.S. social order. Nor was King’s an identity-obsessed demand for recognition. He offered a clear-eyed assessment of a would-be democracy in a state of disrepair. Confronting it at its source was the only way forward.
It’s no accident that the firestorm over critical race theory has singed King’s message: King was, in fact, a critical race theorist before there was a name for it. A core observation of the theory is the recognition that the promise of liberation extends beyond the elimination of formal segregation and individual-level prejudice. Critical race theory explores how racial inequality was historically structured into the fabric of the republic, reinforced by law, insulated by the founding Constitution and embedded into the infrastructure of American society. Similarly, King observed in 1967 that “the doctrine of white supremacy was embedded in every textbook and preached in practically every pulpit,” entrenched as “a structural part of the culture.”
Accordingly, King’s appeal in the March on Washington in 1963 was grounded in the assertion that the promise of a fully inclusive American democracy — one that lived up to its oft-stated ideals — required creative confrontation with a republic out of step with its promises. He rebuffed those who found fault in the tensions created by placing our norms and our realities in sharp relief.
King famously wrote a letter rejecting the counsel of white moderate allies who argued for a gradualist accommodation to the prioritized sensibilities of those who didn’t experience the sting of segregation. As a father, he conveyed the anguish of his own children, who couldn’t understand why they weren’t allowed into the Funtown amusement park, which barred Black visitors, while the joy of white children was privileged. He argued elsewhere that “justice for black people cannot be achieved without radical changes in the structure of our society.”
King centered the promise of equal access to the ballot — now under concerted assault — at the heart of his prophetic mission. He fought to win passage of both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, and he understood that the provisions of each law were part and parcel of the same struggle for true and lasting racial justice. While he hailed the landmark voting reform as “a great step forward in removing all of the remaining obstacles to the right to vote,” he also insisted that the vote be used to “rid the American body politic of racism.” King would instantly recognize the mutually reinforcing objectives of denying the ballot, an indispensable instrument of reform, while also silencing the substantive case for reform by whitewashing the country’s racial past.
Contrary to countless assertions from the right, King did not endorse colorblindness. It wasn’t the remedy for dismantling the ugly realities that white supremacy had produced. Like today’s critical race theorists, King understood that American racism was systemic and demanded systemic remedies. He was forthright in acknowledging that anti-Black racism “was not a consequence of superficial prejudice but was systemic.” Throughout his career, King set his sights on institutional-level change, calling for solutions built on the race-conscious analysis of inequalities across our society.
King invoked a “bank of justice” to be mobilized against the many structures of racial oppression to ultimately realize “the security of justice” for all Americans. This commitment explicitly extended to the mode of race-conscious practice that now goes by the name of affirmative action.
When questioned whether he would support such outlays, King bluntly replied, “I do indeed,” and went on to explain: “Can any fair-minded citizen deny that the Negro has been deprived? Few people reflect that for two centuries the Negro was enslaved and robbed of any wages — potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America’s wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation.”
Much of King’s legacy may never be taught in public schools, if this manufactured panic that demands critical thinking about racism be expunged from curricula and libraries continues. In North Dakota, for example, King’s understanding of structural racism would contradict the state’s newly minted edict that racism cannot be taught as anything more than an individual’s prejudice and bias. His understanding of the historical debt created by centuries of uncompensated labor flies directly in the face of Oklahoma’s prohibition of material suggesting that current generations bear any responsibility for the actions of their ancestors.
Not only did King clearly recognize that antiracism must address built-in headwinds that unnecessarily disadvantage some groups over others, but so does, incidentally, the Supreme Court, as seen in its many rulings. Yet an instructor seeking to explain King’s expansive vision of justice or a professor highlighting legal cases about institutional discrimination will be in jeopardy if they teach these ideas in some states that have adopted such laws.
King’s ideas could also fall under efforts in states such as Oklahoma or Texas that forbid the use of classroom materials that might create guilt or discomfort in public school students. King’s description of a social order in need of repair would trigger complaints that current generations are made to feel responsible for the sins of our past. New Hampshire, meanwhile, has proposed legislation forbidding antiracist critiques of the nation’s founding and history.
Indeed, under most of these laws, King’s concrete work and documented analysis of racism’s enduring legacy in American society would be suspect. In his final speech, on the eve of his death, he said he might not get to the promised land with us. This prophecy would rest uneasily in curricula that sanction assumptions that we haven’t already become that society that King dreamed we would one day be.
This imposition of a fairy-tale account of America makes King’s sacrifice utterly illegible. It is a memory-holed vision of the past better suited to George Orwell’s dystopian reveries than to a nation seeking to redeem its promise of genuine, expansive and democratic self-rule.
Nationwide, lawmakers are legislating that our schools and workplaces turn away from King’s mandate to make good on the country’s broken promises, and wallow instead in the wages of this ignorance. It is an ignorance that grows out of an earlier effort to impose an approved orthodoxy about the American past. One of the enduring consequences of the United Daughters of the Confederacy’s textbook campaigns was the persistence of Confederate propaganda and Lost Cause mythology masquerading as the truth about the history of the Civil War and its aftermath. The United Daughters ensured that millions of children inherited a view of America’s past grossly warped by the whitewashing of slavery and the violent Redemption, when white Southerners called for a return to white supremacy, that followed Reconstruction. The democratic crisis we face today is an unrecognizable spasm from that past, illegible in part because our educational system and national myths have not overcome these past manipulations to embrace this history.
To truly honor King’s memory, then, we must defeat the faction that facilitated the U.S. Capitol riot, put democracy on life support, and continues to demand that critical interrogation of its past be censored by law. King implored that we put our bodies on the line to face the organized forces of white reaction in his day — and it’s clear that he’d be fighting in exactly the same way to preserve his prophetic legacy in our own day, when the right to equal education, to vote freely and to realize true cross-racial justice are once more under bitter attack.
Reclaiming his legacy is to realize that there is no daylight between a truly democratic society and a racially just one.
Nog een prachtige quote van MLK over hoe de witte bevolking in hun suprematie iedere keer weer bepaalt als er een beetje vooruitgang is geboekt dat het nu toch echt wel genoeg is:
Herkenbaar vind je niet?quote:"Whites, it must frankly be said, are not putting in a similar mass effort to reeducate themselves out of their racial ignorance. It is an aspect of their sense of superiority that the white people of America believe they have so little to learn. The reality of substantial investment to assist Negroes into the twentieth century, adjusting to Negro neighbors and genuine school integration, is still a nightmare for all too many white Americans...These are the deepest causes for contemporary abrasions between the races. Loose and easy language about equality, resonant resolutions about brotherhood fall pleasantly on the ear, but for the Negro there is a credibility gap he cannot overlook. He remembers that with each modest advance the white population promptly raises the argument that the Negro has come far enough. Each step forward accents an ever-present tendency to backlash."
-- Where Do We Go From Here: 1967
Oh en dit is ook heel herkenbaar. Deze geschiedenis herhaalt zich op dit exacte moment:
Je ziet, alweer komt zijn overtuiging overeen met die van de Democraten en op geen enkele wijze met die van de Republikeinen. Die stemmen stuk voor stuk tegen de Voting Rights Act
MLK Day
Echt! Lees nou eerst eens wat voordat je je mening komt ventileren maar intuseen geen idee hebt wat voor man het was. MLK had ook gelijk toen hij zei dat (het gros van de) witte mensen er geen moeite voor doen om zich te informeren (ze weten het immers al?!), doodleuk beweren dat alles nu toch hunkydory is en dat negers gewoon niet moeten zeuren:
Nog veel meer quotes van MLK in een lang draadje want die toespraken/ boeken ga je natuurlijk toch niet lezen
Paar voorbeelden eruit:
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door Kijkertje op 18-01-2022 05:59:31 ]
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”— Bertrand Russell
Met een landslide verliezen van een Democraat in Florida moet wel fraude zijn natuurlijk!
quote:A Florida Republican who last Tuesday lost a congressional special election by a landslide in a heavily Democratic district has declined to concede the race, according to CBS Miami.
Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick — a Democrat who pledged to fight for $1,000 monthly checks for Americans and who backs progressive policies such as the Green New Deal and "Medicare for All" — easily defeated the Republican Jason Mariner in the race to succeed the Rep. Alcee Hastings, who died in April.
With all precincts reporting, Cherfilus-McCormick defeated Mariner 78.7% to 19.6% in Florida's 20th District — a 59.1-percentage-point victory. She received 43,663 votes to her opponent's 10,883 votes.
But in a move reminiscent of former President Donald Trump, who continues to dispute his election loss to President Joe Biden, Mariner has made claims of irregularities in the South Florida district.
"Now they called the race — I did not win, so they say, but that does not mean that they lost either, it does not mean that we lost," the Republican told CBS after the race was called.
Before the polls closed for the special election, Mariner filed a lawsuit alleging ballot issues in Broward and Palm Beach counties, the two populous Democratic-leaning jurisdictions that anchor the district.
"We'll also have some stuff coming out that we've recently discovered," Mariner told the TV station without elaborating.
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”— Bertrand Russell
je heb t er maar druk mee.quote:
Met een landslide verliezen van een Democraat in Florida moet wel fraude zijn natuurlijk!
[ twitter ]
[..]
Plaats hier uw advertentie
Fraude!
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”— Bertrand Russell
Als het serieus mogelijk is dat een zwaar gestoorde gek straks weer meedoet aan de presidentsverkiezingen, dan heeft Amerika echt ene emorm probleem. Iemand die verkiezingen en rechtspraak ontkent zou gewoon weer mee kunnen doen aan verkiezingen? Ten eerste: waarom zou die persoon dat doen als de verkiezingen fake zijn? Ten tweede, mag een zwaar idiote gek gewoon weer meedoen? Serieus????
Dit is geen misrepresentatie. Raciaal essentialistische ideeën die zijn onttrokken uit CRT worden inderdaad onderwezen op Amerikaanse scholen.quote:Op dinsdag 18 januari 2022 02:18 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Het is al net zo'n misrepresentatie van de werkelijkheid als het onderwijzen van CRT op scholen:
Je realiseert je hopelijk dat dit een op-ed betreft van één van de key figures binnen de CRT-school of thought, die hier stelt dat MLK zogenaamd echt een voorstander was van dergelijke ideeën. Kortom: MLK wordt hier simpelweg gebruikt om het eigen radicale gedachtegoed verder te legitimeren.quote:
Het is veelzeggend dat je hier komt aanzetten met tweets van Nikole Hannah Jones, of all people. De vrouw die openlijk heeft toegegeven dat haar 1619 Project een poging is om de Amerikaanse geschiedenis te herschrijven. En daarmee de woede op de hals haalde van vele historici, die stelden dat er van haar hele gecreëerde narratief weinig klopt.quote:
Nog veel meer quotes van MLK in een lang draadje want die toespraken/ boeken ga je natuurlijk toch niet lezen
Paar voorbeelden eruit:
[ twitter ]
[ twitter ]
[ twitter ]
Bron: 'Los Angeles Blade. Los Angeles' LGBT newspaper covering the latest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender news in Southern California and around the world.'quote:
En dan krijg je dus dit
[ twitter ]
Nog een prachtige quote van MLK over hoe de witte bevolking in hun suprematie iedere keer weer bepaalt als er een beetje vooruitgang is geboekt dat het nu toch echt wel genoeg is:
[..]
Herkenbaar vind je niet?
Hihi, ik dacht dat jij van de vermeende kwaliteitsjournalistiek was? Opvallend dat een of ander gay krantje daar nu ook al onder lijkt te vallen. Om dan met een bizar voorbeeld te komen van een overduidelijk dwaze vrouw en dat te presenteren als de norm. Heb je verder ook nog concrete voorbeelden van de zogenaamde spook der witte suprematie? In de tijd van MLK kon je dat argument nog maken. Anno 2022 gelukkig niet meer.
'I moved to Peru and shaved half my head and wrote for Teen Vogue. If I can come back from the depths of leftism, trust me, anyone can.' - Gina Florio
Jeetje wat een ontzettend lange en vooral onnodige post.quote:
[..]
Behalve dat ene zinnetje weet je verder blijkbaar maar weinig van MLK want er mist weer eens context. Ja natuurlijk heeft hij gelijk daarin maar in zijn toespraak kwam deze quote pas nadat hij eerst een aantal voorbeelden gaf (wo onderwijs) hoe racisme zich geworteld heeft in de infrastructuur van de VS met alle gevolgen vandien voor de zwarte bevolking. MLK was dan ook een groot voorstander van affirmative action om die achterstand in te halen en hij zou nu juist meer welkom zijn bij de Democraten. In die tijd vonden ze hem maar lastig.
Het is al net zo'n misrepresentatie van de werkelijkheid als het onderwijzen van CRT op scholen:
[..]
[ twitter ]
[ twitter ]
[..]
En dan krijg je dus dit
[ twitter ]
Nog een prachtige quote van MLK over hoe de witte bevolking in hun suprematie iedere keer weer bepaalt als er een beetje vooruitgang is geboekt dat het nu toch echt wel genoeg is:
[..]
Herkenbaar vind je niet?
Oh en dit is ook heel herkenbaar. Deze geschiedenis herhaalt zich op dit exacte moment:
[ twitter ]
Je ziet, alweer komt zijn overtuiging overeen met die van de Democraten en op geen enkele wijze met die van de Republikeinen. Die stemmen stuk voor stuk tegen de Voting Rights Act
[ twitter ]
MLK Day
Echt! Lees nou eerst eens wat voordat je je mening komt ventileren maar intuseen geen idee hebt wat voor man het was. MLK had ook gelijk toen hij zei dat (het gros van de) witte mensen er geen moeite voor doen om zich te informeren (ze weten het immers al?!), doodleuk beweren dat alles nu toch hunkydory is en dat negers gewoon niet moeten zeuren:
Nog veel meer quotes van MLK in een lang draadje want die toespraken/ boeken ga je natuurlijk toch niet lezen
Paar voorbeelden eruit:
[ twitter ]
[ twitter ]
[ twitter ]
De reden dat MLK voorstander was van affirmative action is vanwege Jim Crow en de gevolgen daar van op de arbeidsmarkt.
Vind jij nu werkelijk dat 60 jaar na dato er nog reden is voor affirmative action?
We hebben door heel de VS zwarte CEO’s, congressleden, senatoren, burgermeesters, rechters en als kers op de taart een half zwarte president.
Die tijd is lang geleden al aangebroken dat men elkaar als gelijkwaardig gaat zien en elkaar individueel gaat beoordelen ipv op uiterlijke kenmerken waar jij blijkbaar groot voorstander van bent.
Er is nu geen enkele wet meer van kracht die zwarte mensen achterstelt of op een of andere manier benadeelt.
Dus mijn vraag aan jou is nu, wanneer is het eindelijk genoeg? Wanneer hebben we nu jou gedroomde resultaten behaald en wat is daar precies voor nodig om dat te behalen?
Is dit waar dan?
I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.
Dit zal ze ook niet kunnen beantwoorden. Het is simpelweg de geïndoctrineerde overtuiging dat zogenaamd alles nog min of meer hetzelfde is als vijftig of honderd jaar geleden. En verschillen in uitkomst zijn dan het vermeende bewijs van dit alles.quote:
[..]
Jeetje wat een ontzettend lange en vooral onnodige post.
De reden dat MLK voorstander was van affirmative action is vanwege Jim Crow en de gevolgen daar van op de arbeidsmarkt.
Vind jij nu werkelijk dat 60 jaar na dato er nog reden is voor affirmative action?
We hebben door heel de VS zwarte CEO’s, congressleden, senatoren, burgermeesters, rechters en als kers op de taart een half zwarte president.
Die tijd is lang geleden al aangebroken dat men elkaar als gelijkwaardig gaat zien en elkaar individueel gaat beoordelen ipv op uiterlijke kenmerken waar jij blijkbaar groot voorstander van bent.
Er is nu geen enkele wet meer van kracht die zwarte mensen achterstelt of op een of andere manier benadeelt.
Dus mijn vraag aan jou is nu, wanneer is het eindelijk genoeg? Wanneer hebben we nu jou gedroomde resultaten behaald en wat is daar precies voor nodig om dat te behalen?
Om dan nog maar te zwijgen over de dogma's van CRT, waar gesteld wordt dat racisme gedrenkt zit in alle instituten, systemen en heersende theorieën, waaronder jurisdicties, liberalisme, objectiviteit en meritocratie. Dit zijn namelijk slechts façades die dienen om blanke mensen te bevoordelen en mensen van kleur te onderdrukken.
https://www.wsj.com/artic(...)-omicron-11641573991quote:
'I moved to Peru and shaved half my head and wrote for Teen Vogue. If I can come back from the depths of leftism, trust me, anyone can.' - Gina Florio
Let's Go Brandon
Als je in discussie gaat met een trol, wint hij. Als je een trol beledigt, wint hij. Als je tekeer gaat tegen een trol, wint hij. Het enige waar trollen niet tegen kunnen, is te worden genegeerd.
Anders plaats je de tekst. Grootste deel van het stuk zit namelijk achter een betaalmuur.quote:
https://www.wsj.com/artic(...)-omicron-11641573991
Het is trouwens frappant dat het een opiniestuk betreft.
Op maandag 3 februari 2014 08:10 schreef Enchanter het volgende:[/b]
In discussie gaan met Koos Vogels :') , een grotere mongool is er niet :r
In discussie gaan met Koos Vogels :') , een grotere mongool is er niet :r
Ik weet niet welke browser je gebruikt. Maar er zijn add-ons te downloaden die je mening betaalmuur laten omzeilen. Maar goed, vooruit dan maar:
quote:New York’s Race-Based Preferential Covid Treatments
New guidelines say whites may not be eligible for antibodies and antivirals, while nonwhites are.
New York state recently published guidelines for dispensing potentially life-saving monoclonal antibodies and oral antivirals like Paxlovid to people suffering from mild to moderate symptoms of Covid-19. These treatments are in short supply, and they must be allocated to those most in need.
According to these guidelines, sick people who have tested positive for Covid should be eligible to receive these drugs if they have “a medical condition or other factors that increase their risk for severe illness.” These include standard criteria like age and comorbidities like cancer, diabetes and heart disease—but, startlingly, they also include simply being of “non-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity,” which “should be considered a risk factor, as longstanding systemic health and social inequities have contributed to an increased risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19.”
Consider the following cases: A middle-aged investment banker born in Colombia shows up at a physician’s office in Manhattan; a laid-off middle-aged worker of Italian ancestry shows up at a doctor’s office in Rochester, N.Y. Neither has medical risk factors, but both have mild to moderate symptoms of Covid-19. The wealthy Colombian-American could be given Paxlovid; the laid-off auto worker would be turned away. You can construct thousands of these comparative cases using well-off Hispanics, Asians or blacks and working-class whites.
This is unfair and possibly illegal. With these kinds of regulations, the Democrats who control New York reinforce the racial and ethnic divisions that grew during Donald Trump’s presidency. These state officials have been abetted by social scientists who collect survey data in a manner that, intentionally or not, confirms their presuppositions.
There is no question that medical factors can increase the risk of certain individuals getting diseases. Living or working in proximity to a toxic environmental site can also increase this risk. There are also certain racial-ethnic groups that are especially prone to certain diseases. African-Americans are susceptible to sickle-cell anemia; Ashkenazi Jews are often lactose-intolerant. There isn’t any study we have seen that, controlling for other factors, such as income, education and residence, shows clearly that Americans of Hispanic, African or Asian ancestry are at greater risk for severe Covid-19. There is no valid medical argument to justify New York state’s criteria.
That is not to deny that social scientists have produced studies that show that there is a proportionally greater incidence of severe Covid-19 in Hispanic and African-American communities than white communities. These studies are based either on disaggregating different communities or on data from questionnaires that ask people being vaccinated or tested about their race, ethnicity and gender. When you limit the question to those possibilities, you get the answer you asked for.
But when you ask about the relationship between income and the incidence of Covid-19, you get an answer that suggests that the laid-off auto worker might also deserve some consideration from the New York health officials. Researchers from Stanford’s Department of Epidemiology and Population Health found a positive correlation between income inequality and county-level Covid-19 cases and deaths in the U.S. Emory University researchers found a similar correlation with poverty levels.
Findings like these aren’t definitive, but they are suggestive. It is probable that a good part—perhaps most—of the observed racial disparity in Covid effects is attributable to factors that can be loosely grouped under class: income, education, poverty status, occupation, health-insurance status, housing and so on. The way to test this would have been to collect individual-level data on such variables in addition to race, ethnicity, age and gender. But that has not been done, so only racial disparities, uncontrolled for class factors, have been reported.
As one example of what such studies might find, Kaiser Family Foundation survey data on vaccination rates revealed that black and white college graduates were vaccinated at roughly equal (high) rates, while there was a yawning chasm between these college graduates and their noncollege counterparts of the same race. Clearly then, the observed disparities in vaccination rates between blacks and whites have a lot to do with the higher noncollege proportion among the black population.
All this suggests that the racial lens on Covid disparities is inadequate. A broader lens that included class factors would be unlikely to suggest to public health officials that the Indian-American CEOs of Alphabet and Microsoft ought to get priority over white Walmart clerks and hospital orderlies. Who should receive scarce Covid treatments should be based on genuine medical risk factors such as age and comorbidity, but class disparities can be relevant to deciding where to spend money to increase access to public-health benefits including vaccination and testing.
Liberal political scientists and many Democratic officials seem determined to ignore class divisions and instead divide the country up by race and ethnicity. This practice, which is unpopular outside elite media, universities and nonprofits, contributed to the rise of Mr. Trump. If it continues, Democrats could pay a lasting political price, which could threaten the welfare of groups Democrats want to help.
'I moved to Peru and shaved half my head and wrote for Teen Vogue. If I can come back from the depths of leftism, trust me, anyone can.' - Gina Florio
Hihi zeiken over msm maar tegelijkertijd deze wel illegaal bekijken is dat de maga moraliteit?quote:
Ik weet niet welke browser je gebruikt. Maar er zijn add-ons te downloaden die je mening betaalmuur laten omzeilen. Maar goed, vooruit dan maar:
[..]
