Zimbabwe Government Passes Law on 51% Black Ownership

[Formaldehyde]

Once racial equality is finally a reality instead of a myth, I will agree with you 100%. Until then, we will continue to need affirmative action and extraordinary laws in countries with long histories of white exploitation of blacks. Take the US and Zimbabwe, for instance.

 

[gugalpm]

True, but colonialism still exists in a different form. The victim nations of colonialism are no longer de jure colonies, but de facto ones.

That's is a different kind of colonialism than that practiced by the European Powers in the XIX century.

He means like the US and Latin America and SE Asia.

Latin America, yeah.

Economic influence ≠ colonialism.

 

[The Imp]

Once racial equality is finally a reality instead of a myth, I will agree with you 100%. Until then, we will continue to need affirmative action and extraordinary laws in countries with long histories of white exploitation of blacks. Take the US and Zimbabwe, for instance.

But "race" is a idiotic social construct! I would much rather prosecute people for their crimes based on the fact that they committed it against another human rather then a sliding scale based on the supposed "race" of the victim and perpetrator.

Affirmative action does nothing more then re-instill in people a hardened sense of "race" consciousness, among the higher and lower class "races". You can't get rid of the idea of race as a meaningful social meme when you keep on perpetuating it through reliable means of communication, namely the affected "races" themselves.

You might do some good with AA, but you ensure that racial thought lives on indefinitely.

 

[The Imp]

That's is a different kind of colonialism than that practiced by the European Powers in the XIX century.



Latin America, yeah.

Economic influence ≠ colonialism.

No... it is being practiced right now.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Latin America, yeah.

Economic influence ≠ colonialism.

It does when that influence is such that you can strongarm them into accepting trade agreements to their disadvantage, and you invade them when they try to do something about it and you re-impose a regime that will make previously mentioned trade agreements with you. Its colonialism without the fancy name, but with all the exploitation and evil.

 

[Bill3000]

I'm going to have to agree with gugalpm. Brazil doesn't deserve to be independent.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Affirmative action does nothing more then re-instill in people a hardened sense of "race" consciousness, among the higher and lower class "races". You can't get rid of the idea of race as a meaningful social meme when you keep on perpetuating it through reliable means of communication, namely the affected "races" themselves.

So your solution is to ignore the problem and hope it gets better? They tried that after the Civil War. It didn't work. It wasn't until the Civil Rights Act was finally passed and blacks were given more opportunities that things eventually got a bit better. But there is clearly a long way to go. If anything, we seem to be sinking back into de facto segregation and separate and clearly unequal schools in a lot of communities.

You might do some good with AA, but you ensure that racial thought lives on indefinitely.

It's not "indefinitely". It is until humans learn to no longer discriminate based on race or any other reason, such as sex. Or do you think ignoring the disparity between women's and men's salaries and their relative positions within corporations will also stop that inequity?

 

[Tee Kay]

The best we can do is make all citizens have the same rights and same access to opportunity as individuals before the law, regardless of race, creed, gender, etc. Social/cultural discrimination is something that's going to have to be eliminated over time. Affirmative action and this sort of thing attempt to force the end social discrimination by increasing race consciousness and, well, instituting discrimination against certain groups to favor others. It doesn't eliminate the underlying problem which is racism itself.

 

[amadeus]

Another part about affirmative action is (as people like Thomas Sowell, etc. allege) that programs like affirmative action serve to help middle-class blacks at the expense of poor whites. Since affirmative action was created to correct a social ill directly tied to economic position, it seems to be doing the opposite of what it was intended to do.

 

[Yared]

Why?

Any state, country, whatever that doesn't want to be colonized must be able to defend itself first. If you can't do that, you don't deserve to be independent.

That's completely relative. A country like Sweden would not be able to defend itself against the US (it might put up a fight but in the end, without anyone else's help - we're talking being able to defend itself - it'd fall).

I get the first part of your post, but the second one that a country doesn't deserve to be independent, is bogus...

 

[say1988]

Or do you think ignoring the disparity between women's and men's salaries and their relative positions within corporations will also stop that inequity?

There is a difference between legislating equality than giving the minority an advantage. Equality is good.
But if the government said that all women must be paid 10% more than men doing the same work, that would be bad.

To give an example:
The most famous example of affirmative action in the US is college admissions where visible minorities are given an advantage over whites. Not equality, an advantage. They are given an advantage on the theory that the minorities face more difficulties in getting good grades and money for school. And yes, for a large part this is true, but it completely ignores that there are significant numbers of upper and middle class minorities and lower class whites.
This system should be based on the life and experiences of individuals rather than their race.

Laws such as equality in pay are reasonable because they don't result in a decrease in pay for men, while this Zimbabwean law will force them to sell their assets and control of any corporations. Likely for far less than it is worth.

Even if we believe affirmative action to be a good thing:
Do you think the vast majority of the black population can afford to purchase equity in these companies?
Or will there just be a shift a wealth between the wealthy whites and the already wealthy blacks. Causing the wealth of the country to be even more concentrated among a very small black elite.

 

[Mise]

Business as usual for Zimbabwe. Why not just let Obama take control over everything? I'd say he was about 51% Black.

 

[Yared]

Business as usual for Zimbabwe. Why not just let Obama take control over everything? I'd say he was about 51% Black.

He could get away with calling himself 75 % black.

edit:

Actually, your post brings up one big question: what about mulattoes?

 

[Narz]

A law mandating control of 51% of a country by it's own citizens I can support (shoot, I wonder how much of America is even owned by Americans) but not based on race, that is just a recipe for all sorts of drama & an excuse to just give up on an already pretty f-ed up country.

 

[Mise]

He's a native African too, born in Kenya.

 

[aneeshm]

Or do you think ignoring the disparity between women's and men's salaries and their relative positions within corporations will also stop that inequity?

I've always wondered about this. In such a scenario, wouldn't it make sense for a person - any person - to get together with a bunch of women, form a company entirely of women who are paid above the "women's" rate but below the "market" rate, and completely wipe the floor with the competition given this magnificent cost advantage?

 

[amadeus]

I've always wondered about this. In such a scenario, wouldn't it make sense for a person - any person - to get together with a bunch of women, form a company entirely of women who are paid above the "women's" rate but below that of the "market" rate, and completely wipe the floor with the competition given this magnificent cost advantage?

That question has been asked numerous times to people that think there is an inherent gender bias in wages, and the responses never seem to "disprove" this idea. One such thing I remember hearing was that men hire men and pay them more because they need their company, and even though a woman would be cheaper, he'd rather take less of a profit so he has someone in his company he can identify with. Don't forget that the oft-used sources for these damning figures rarely take into account that women simply hold more lower-paying jobs than men.

Look at the labor force and the education they're receiving (in the U.S.) today; most college students are women, so it makes sense that in another 20 or 30 years women will on average probably earn more than men. Will it be because of inherent gender biases? No, because of economics -- women will be (or should be) taking higher-paying jobs.

 

[Mise]

To say that there's nothing cultural about the wage discrepancy between men and women performing the same jobs in the same companies is foolish and wrong, just as it's wrong to say that it's entirely down to discrimination. There are many reasons why some people earn more than others; and part of the reason why women earn less is that bosses sometimes tend to discriminate against them, for reasons unrelated to their work. Some old guys really are still stuck with the mentality of old, where men were promoted and women worked under them. These guys aren't CEOs or departmental heads, they're simply middle-management types, who aren't smart enough to get beyond a management role they've held for 20 years, aren't fresh enough to adapt to the modern world, but aren't crappy enough to get fired. Upper management just wait for them to retire, rather than risk losing a lot of good experience and disrupt the department.

There are a lot of other reasons why a female might earn less than a male for the same job. Saying that it's nothing to do with latent discrimination is wrong; saying it's entirely to do with latent discrimination is also wrong. It's a rich picture, which is why it has been so hard for corporations and governments alike to fix it through policy.

 

[Lillefix]

I think the discrepancy has more to do with that men are tougher negotiaters than women, when it comes to discussing salary.

 

[Mise]

I think the discrepancy has more to do with that men are tougher negotiaters than women, when it comes to discussing salary.

Yes, that's another part of the reason. Another reason is that corporations are slow to adapt to the changing make-up of employees. For example, corporations often reward people for simply how long they've worked in a company, meaning that taking a few years off work to start a family costs a women a lot more than it ought to, if the company had rewarded them for talent instead. It's easy to see why corporation's do this -- years worked is an easy, lazy proxy for experience, and experience is an easy, lazy proxy for ability. It's much easier to increase someone's salary by 2%+inflation per year than it is to have a manager have a tough conversation with their employee, and reward people who have genuine ability. But in many corporations (and actually in most of the public sector), that's how pay increases are rewarded. It's not explicit discrimination - it's just really bad management practice.

And if you think that that only exists in "old fashioned" or "poorly managed" companies, even modern, fast paced companies are also guilty of not responding to a changing workforce. Most companies expect high flyers to work long hours, in many different departments, and in many different countries. It wants workers to be in the office at a drop of a hat, and abhors "casual hours" or working from home. That makes it very difficult for women to start families.

But it's not like that is inevitable. That's not the only way to work. Barclays Bank, for example, offers up to 5 years off for any employee, with a guarantee that they can return to the same job at the same salary. And many other firms offer similary packages. So who do you think a high-flying professional who wants to start a family is going to work for?

So, aneeshm's partly right -- there are companies that offer packages more suited to women, and they are being rewarded for that. But he's also quite wrong to put forth such a stark, extreme, black and white scenario, because that's just not the way the world works......