4 ms·

> That somehow seems worse. Why? > What is the non-controversial topic you think was raised/created by this piece, which it should not have done? I think I a

> That somehow seems worse. Why? > What is the non-controversial topic you think was raised/created by this piece, which it should not have done? I think I already addressed this with my last comment. Saying historical context is still true and implying solutions won't work because of something that happened decades ago. > simply educating more women and minorities to be engineers won’t solve the problem - an argument that the new historical study supports. > Mims isn't trying to say those conditions are the same. Don't those statements contradict each other?

eesmith 9y ago
As far as I can tell, you are picking at a small part of the topic. I think you are making the "not all men" argument. I really don't care to discuss it any more. I found the underlying historical research quite interesting and insightful. While your original comment, even after I finally was able to read the article, made it sound like you objected to the "digging up of skeletons" that Hicks did. I think it's instead that you disagree with the shallow interpretation that some WSJ commenter made. shrug. Okay, great. I still think it's worthwhile to dig up skeletons. > Don't those statements contradict each other? No. "It's the best time ever to be a Native American", because (for example) the US government no longer forces them to send their children to Indian schools where they aren't allowed to speak their language. But it's still not great to be a Native American compared to other peoples, for a large number of metrics.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dominotw 9y ago
  >I really don't care to discuss it any more. ok i understand. thanks for engaging.