|
|
|
|
|
by libertymcateer
3404 days ago
|
|
No, it is not correct. The problem, as above, is not just the socioeconomic background of an individual - it is about whether the power structures in society are, themselves, full of people who bear animus toward unimportant birth-characteristics of certain people - not merit characteristics, not moral characteristics, not regarding intelligence or achievement, but simply being born to parents of a certain ethnic or religious heritage. The playing field is not level. I truly do not know why this point is so hard to communicate. You can be the wealthiest, smartest black man alive - you are never going to be a grand dragon in the KKK. That should be quite obvious. Now back down from that hyperbolic example - what about being a black man in the Mormon Clergy? That was impossible until very recently. Now what about being a black man as a corporate CEO? Definitely doable. There have been 14 such individuals in the history of the Fortune 500: http://fortune.com/2017/01/16/black-women-fortune-500/ # But it may be less doable depending on the organization. Don't you see there is a continuum here? That the qualifications of the individual, including their privilege, are irrelevant when the ladder that individual is trying to climb has a "no [characteristic] need apply" sign at the third or fourth rung? Why is this so hard to understand? # Note that this is a pretty low number. |
|