3 ms·

Why should they "allow and embrace cultures other than those of their founders"? And should they do it for themselves, or out of a sense of obligation?

by nickff 13y ago

sp332 13y ago
Segregation and discrimination create suffering, and those doing the discriminating are responsible. But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition. In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."
- nickff 13y ago
  I personally dislike discrimination because I find it to be one of the lowest forms of collectivism, and it is usually invoked by lazy fools in a vain attempt to see themselves as superior to someone. Racism has also been used to steal from the targets of discrimination, (usually by acts of parliament,) but this has become less common. Your reason seems to be that your normative beliefs dictate that it is immoral for others to discriminate. I apologize if this is an unfair characterization of your point, but I am trying to accurately understand your post. This is a good explanation of why you would not discriminate, but does not mean you would embrace other cultures. You did not answer my basic question though; why should corporate leaders "allow and embrace cultures other than those of their founders"? A failure to "allow and embrace cultures other than those of their founders" is not tantamount to discrimination or segregation.
  - sp332 13y ago
    Not allowing other cultures is discrimination.
    - nickff 13y ago
      Firstly, the earlier post said "allow and embrace", not just allow. Second, I am not even sure how you can unfairly discriminate against a culture, and the problem here seems to be that there is not enough positive discrimination to accommodate differing groups.

Why should they "allow and embrace cultures other than those of their founders"? And should they do it for themselves, or out of a sense of obligation?

by nickff 13y ago

Why should they "allow and embrace cultures other than those of their founders"? And should they do it for themselves, or out of a sense of obligation?

sp332 13y ago

Segregation and discrimination create suffering, and those doing the discriminating are responsible. But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition. In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

nickff 13y ago
I personally dislike discrimination because I find it to be one of the lowest forms of collectivism, and it is usually invoked by lazy fools in a vain attempt to see themselves as superior to someone. Racism has also been used to steal from the targets of discrimination, (usually by acts of parliament,) but this has become less common. Your reason seems to be that your normative beliefs dictate that it is immoral for others to discriminate. I apologize if this is an unfair characterization of your point, but I am trying to accurately understand your post. This is a good explanation of why you would not discriminate, but does not mean you would embrace other cultures. You did not answer my basic question though; why should corporate leaders "allow and embrace cultures other than those of their founders"? A failure to "allow and embrace cultures other than those of their founders" is not tantamount to discrimination or segregation.
- sp332 13y ago
  Not allowing other cultures is discrimination.
  - nickff 13y ago
    Firstly, the earlier post said "allow and embrace", not just allow. Second, I am not even sure how you can unfairly discriminate against a culture, and the problem here seems to be that there is not enough positive discrimination to accommodate differing groups.