Say what you mean, and mean what you say
who is chatting on SOLO ChatThe Free RadicalPopular contentWho's onlineThere are currently 3 users and 17 guests online.
Online usersPollElection 2008: Who Will Win? Obama by a landslide 12% McCain by a landslide 19% Obama comfortably 14% McCain comfortably 27% Either narrowly 29% Total votes: 59
 Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
 Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
|
What shall we make of this BS on a day ignored by Objectivists? Submitted by Morris on Sat, 2008-04-05 06:35.
What We Should Remember on Martin Luther King Day Judge People by Their Character, Not Skin Color What should we remember on Martin Luther King Day? In his "I Have a Dream" speech Dr. King said: "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." This statement, made before King became an advocate of "black power," means that in judging other men, skin color should be ignored--that it should not be a factor in evaluating their competence or moral stature. It follows that skin color should not be a factor in taking actions toward other people, e.g., hiring and admitting to universities. What has happened in the years following King's murder is the opposite of the "I Have a Dream" quote above. Color blindness now has been replaced with color preference in the form of affirmative action. No amount of rationalizing can disguise the fact that affirmative action involves implicit or explicit racial quotas, i.e., racism. Consider the realm of work as a case in point. Taking jobs away from one group in order to compensate a second group to correct injustices caused by a third group who mistreated a fourth group at an earlier point in history (e.g., 1860) is absurd on the face of it and does not promote justice; rather, it does the opposite. It promotes racism. You cannot cure racism with more racism. Singling out one group for special favors (through affirmative action) ignores the fact that people are individuals--not interchangeable ciphers in an amorphous collective. Consider a more concrete, though fictional, example. Suppose that since its creation in 1936, the XYZ Corporation refused to hire redheaded men due to a quirky bias on the part of its founder. The founder now dies, and an enlightened board of directors decides that something "positive" needs to be done to compensate for past injustices and announces that, henceforth, redheads will be hired on a preferential basis. Observe that (1) this does not help the real victims--the previously excluded redheads; (2) the newly favored redheads have not been victims of discrimination in hiring, yet unfairly benefit from it; and (3) the non-redheads who are now excluded from jobs due to the redhead preference did not cause the previous discrimination and are now unfairly made victims of it. The proper solution, of course, is simply to stop discriminating based on irrelevant factors. Although redheaded bias is not a social problem, the principle remains the same when you replace hair color with skin color. The traditional solution to the problem of racism is color-blindness, or, from the other side of that coin, individual awareness. For example, in the job sphere there are only three essential things an employer needs to know about an individual applicant: (l) Does the person have the relevant ability and knowledge (or the capacity to learn readily)? (2) Is the person willing to exert the needed effort? and (3) Does the person have good character, e.g., honesty, integrity? The rational alternative to racial diversity, focusing on the collective, is to focus on the individual and to treat each individual according to his own merits. This principle should apply in every sphere of life--from business to education to law enforcement to politics. Americans have always abhorred the concept of royalty, that is, granting status and privilege (and, conversely, inferiority and debasement) based on one's hereditary caste, because it contradicts the principle that what counts are the self-made characteristics possessed by each individual. Americans should abhor racism, in any form, for the same reason. On Martin Luther King Day--and every day--we should focus on the proper antidote to racism and the proper alternative to racial thinking: individualism. We need to teach our children and all our citizens to look beyond the superficialities of skin color and to judge people on what really matters, namely, "the content of their character." Edwin A. Locke Dean's Professor Emeritus of Leadership and Motivation at the University of Maryland at College Park, is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead
( categories: )
|
User loginFeatured BookNavigationSyndicate  The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
 Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
|
BS?
brilliant solution?
Morris...
... this is a beautiful closing line, though, wouldn't you say? All cynicism aside?
"we should focus on the proper antidote to racism and the proper alternative to racial thinking: individualism. We need to teach our children and all our citizens to look beyond the superficialities of skin color and to judge people on what really matters, namely, 'the content of their character'"
I believe in the INDIVIDUAL POWER movement, which encompasses *any* arbitrarily selected group, whether historically abused in the United Police States or not. Your one-time alter-ego was beginning to lean toward this view before his tragic assassination, even if Dr. King was leaning away from this view before HIS tragic assassination, as Mr. Locke points out. Locke's not wrong, though perhaps he could have had more of a feel like that of his closing paragraph throughout the piece. Individualism stands up for *anyone you could possibly think of* and that's what's so amazing about it - its universal WITHOUT being collectivist!
Fake MF
I take it you give extra points for being black too? (I'm actually black, my photo's fake too.)
Morris
Do you endorse or reject Locke's position? What is your position in this matter? If you think that Locke's article is BS, can you explain why? Don't be scare, share your ideas, Objectivists seldom eat kids for breakfast.BTW, have you noticed that the very fact of publishing of this article means that Objectivists don't ignore Martin Luther King day ?
Morris
Fighting racism with more racism only perpetuates, well... racism.
QED
Racism is not significantly responsible for income disparities in the U.S., for the statistics have consistently shown that the Japanese, the Jews and the Chinese are at the very top of the "average income" stats (as well as things like "years of higher education," too.) It should be recalled that immigrants like the ethnic Chinese from Southeast Asia come from as harsh a background as one can imagine -- and that any group has ever faced. Anglos are actually near the median in income. On the other hand, African-Americans who descend from immigrants from the Caribbean are also about at the average, while those from the American South do so much worse.
How does an American employer -- or racist -- distinguish between someone whose grandfather was born in Mississippi from someone whose grandfather was born in Jamaica? Why would a racist care?
Moreover, many of the very highest paid entertainers and athletes in America have been disproportionately African-Americans for some time. How does that happen in a society systematically or institutionally preventing success for this group?
Many ethnic groups have come to this country from situations every bit as bad as American slavery. Many faced the hurdles of visibly belonging to a minority race and various forms of legal discrimination when they got here (which no longer exist against any race). Some of these are now earning on average MUCH more than the average Christian white in America does.
By what magic did this happen?
Asians have not relied on the dole or the state and there isn't any affirmative action for Asians -- indeed, they tend to be victims of it. Going by grades and test scores, for example, they should have college admissions disproportionately higher than the percentage of the population they comprise. They did not enslave or lynch blacks -- yet, they pay the greater price for it-- go figure!
And, still, they are at the very top of the average income stats in America -- not whites.
Too many African-Americans have bought into the psychology of racism -- collectivism -- and it is this which, far more than white racism (which certainly still exists in a marginal way), slows the progress toward economic equality.
Waiting around for "reparations" and the total end of bigoted comments from the ignorant will not help the situation one little bit -- nor will stewing in the juices of a seething resentment as misdirected as the racism which inspired it will.
The truth will set you free, Morris.
Credibility
Morris, stating exactly your detailed, well-reasoned criticism of the Locke article would bolster your credibility here considerably.
Luke Setzer -- Global Organizer -- PROPEL(TM)
http://www.PropelObjectivism.com
My Dear Landon
Look up the word credibility.
Morris
What bullshit?
A sound piece of writing which is being brought up on the day of an unfortunate and tragic event in American history.
Collectivism isn't an alternative or antidote to collectivism.
The civil rights movement had an opportunity to make sure that racist LAWS would never again be on the books. And yet they supported enacting even more ones after having the old ones repealed.
Racist laws are still on the books in the form of affirmative action laws, and the people supporting them expect them to not blow up in their face some day.
Reminds me of the Christians who always push for decency laws/entertainment censorship...Who saw the bible being banned in certain areas.
---Landon
Never mistake contempt for compassion, or power lust for ambition.
http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes