Well fuck me...an original thought from Yannis. You're to be congratulated. I thought all you were capable of was "Cut and Paste."
You are making race an issue, period. Is making race an issue right, yes or no? If the answer is no, you can't be pointing to what others are doing to rationalize what you are doing if you think making race an issue is wrong.
YES ....I SEE THAT WHEN ANN COULTER AND DICK THE TOE SUCKER MORRIS AND NEWSMAX AND VARIOUS AND SUNDRY RIGHT WING BLOGS ARE THE SOURCES THEN WE SHOULD ALL STAND UP AND LISTERN. YES INDEED
Race is an issue whether we admit it openly or not. I like open and clear accounting. The fact that both Obama and Clinton made both race and gender a key issue, further legitimizes it. Just what do you think most people think when they hear "change?" Deep down? What do the liberal media push for? What does the rest of the world think about this election? What makes Obama's and Clinton's campaigns "historic"? Let's be honest, race if first row center in this, no question about it. Not the only, or the most important thing, mind you: I believe that the economy and the war are far more important issues for most Americans.
Once you actually look at the personal experiences of individual black people applying for jobs, or other normal necessary social functions, it is overwhelmingly obvious that it is racism rather than government laws which cause the problem. Before anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action, there was *even more* racial discrimination in hiring. There is a huge variety in treatment to black interviewees from interview to interview over a given time period, despite the laws remaining unchanged. Why would there be such changes if it was government laws, not racism, that caused the problem? The obvious reason is that some interviewers are total racists, the majority are mildly prejudiced, and only a minority give equal treatment. Just talk to some black people who are applying for jobs, and listen to their stories, it may well be an eye-opener.
Yeah, there is still rampant discrimination in the employment market in pretty much all countries. To some extent that's an advantage for people who don't hire based on race, as you can pick up the more talented people at lower rates and probably they'll be more motivated to work for someone who gave them a fair crack at it. A more insidious problem is that some hirers who aren't racist at all will be aware that even though they aren't racist, many clients ARE. For example what if its a fact that more of your customers will buy from a white person than a black person? It would then be a purely business decision to hire the white candidate. They might be worse in other respects, but the racism the black salesperson would get from customers could outweigh that. Thus with no racism by the employer, and looking purely at merit, the black person is the wrong person to hire if you want to maximise sales. That's the reality of running a business in a fucked up racist society, and why some people favour government laws like affirmative action or, less controversial, barring racism in hiring. A purely free market solution may actually result in far more racism persisting for much longer than if government force is used to make it illegal in hiring, housing, accommodation etc. This doesn't necessarily justify it, but it is important to be aware of the potential outcomes of various possible policies. That's one nice thing about trading, you don't have to deal with this bullshit. But most businesspeople don't have that luxury.