Strongman leader who uses nationalistic rhetoric isn't?
The below is surely just pure nationalistic jingism
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Dut...amed-Maharlika
So are you. How much of your privilege, healthcare and education have you given up to make the world a more just place? Spouting virtuous platitudes on the internet sure makes you feel better than Mr. Chips though and that's all that counts. That warm fuzzy feeling you get from retweeting this week's woke hashtag.Original Post Deleted
Can you find any serious proposals on that? If I remember that comment was in relation to the Catholic Church celebrating the 500th anniversary of Catholicism in the Philippines to which Duterte responded with why the fuck should we celebrate being conquered by Spain? That name has been suggested for decades, never got anywhere.
Here is one undisputed fact. In virtually every western country, minorities are disproportionately represented in lower classes. Here's another undisputed fact: In many sectors, women still make less than men.
Studying the history and the causes of these imbalances is important in order to reach for parity, it has nothing to do with shame and everything to do with looking at the obstacles that are in the way for that parity to happen. Or you can pretend that these things don't exist and look away in order to keep enjoying your privilege.
Some of the people that whine about affirmative action in universities should perhaps have a look at the legacy system. Then you learn that kids of graduates from a university have preferential treatment and since the vast majority of graduates were historically white, it's not too hard to connect the dots. I doubt Bush 43 would have gotten into Yale on merit. You can't change the past and it's not shame to try to redress the abuse and find ways to remove the additional obstacles that certain population have in achieving success.
What is shameful is looking the other way and portraying racism education in a way that demeans and reduces it to a glib sentence.
Last edited by Aramis; 18-09-2020 at 11:06 PM.
Then you have the flipside where due to affirmative action, Asians (also a minority of course and certainly never a privileged one with head taxes and all other sorts of historical injustice) have to score higher on SAT than even White kids just to be considered for the same spot. Harvard in court for this issue now.
Sure there are issues, there always will be. You could just as much blame the legacy system for those lack of spaces. You can also look at whether asians are disproportionately represented. Fair is a subjective concept and so is merit. If you look at the obstacles that one may have overcome to achieve a particular grade, the higher one may not necessarily have the most merit.
Personally, I believe that the path to a better society is to try to find a way where everyone can feel like they're in the race by at least trying to even the odds out for those who have a lot of obstacles whatever they may be. It could be money, race, religion, sexual orientation, family issues. Everyone has obstacles, some have more than others and if we can identify ways to get more people over that line, I believe everyone wins. Having minorities in inspirational positions is one way to get more people over that line because it demonstrates the possibilities.
The Asian American history is one of immense hustle and struggle in the face of an oppressive and hateful society. The fact that the kids now are essentially penalized for their parent’s ability and spirit to overcome adversity goes against everything affirmative action represents
Using names as a proxy for skin colour or skin colour for affirmative action or the reverse is both clumsy and wrong. It is the socio economic disadvantages that matter. By you a hillbilly, hick or from the projects. There are a lot more black and hispanic urban poor.