It is never less than amusing when a bunch of older male WASPS, in short, the people most likely to be in a situation of making the rules, come together to decide things about race policies.
Personally, I just love the wording. They always have to stick the word 'blind' in there, as if it's a disability to not be constantly aware of the fact that a person is black, or Mexican, or Asian.
Also, speaking as a minority, it's more than a little insulting to have to be singled out when it comes to these policies. Why can't you just say something generic like 'no one will be discriminated against for x, x, and x' (of course, it'd be cool if the x's didn't have to be specified, but there's still a lot of discrimination against people with histories of mental and sometimes even physical illness), as opposed to 'people of x, x, and x will not be discriminated against'? Does that mean everyone else will face discrimination (sorry, young white males)?
On a concluding note, the government is a silly place and it'd be awesome if we could rip up half of it and start over.
1 comment:
The reason that society is incapable of addressing the racial issue is because we view it from a perspective which is not conducive to real analysis. We talk all around the fundamental, underlying reasons for racism, and make it an emotional issue. How does one expect to cure the cancer without focusing on the cancerous cells and the biological reasons for cancer? Focusing on the symptoms is an ineffective mechanism to employ. Racism serves a far more complex pragmatic function than we are generally willing to acknowledge.
Post a Comment