World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
How Equal are we
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Mehreen
(last edited Sep 20, 2016 05:42PM)
(new)
Sep 20, 2016 05:16PM
Politicians talk about equality all the time. The moot question is, is equality in human race achievable? Or is this just a classic case of the great Orwellian, paradox "All animals are equal. Some are more equal than the others?"
reply
|
flag
I don't believe equality is the question as it is philosophical but the important thing to fight for is equal access to rights.
Tara wrote: "I don't believe equality is the question as it is philosophical but the important thing to fight for is equal access to rights."Were we born equal or not is philosophical. Yes, we fight and we will continue to fight for equal rights in society. But with each step forward, we take two steps backwards. If you look at history, then yes we have come a long way maybe, not enough.
Agree, particularly in light of modern divisive politics in the US and abroad.
Economic equality is a myth or a lie in capitalist countries, while the situ with gender and racial equality is much better I think
I think the correct term I read somewhere is equity. There are situations where equity is needed and some where equality is needed.Equity from what I read is providing someone with the tools needed to perform a job. For instance, a tall man and a short man looking over a fence. The tall man is likely to not need any support but the short man is likely to need a step stool. Equality is providing both of them with a step stool or not. Equity is providing the short man with a step stool.
In my opinion, we are all equal as humans, no one race/gender/religious belief etc etc is superior to another.
Our physical abilities is where we are not equal and where equity needs to come into play. By default, men are stronger than women, whilst women are smarter than men (ehehehe yes I couldn't resist :D)
In the UK, they try equity where possible. In public transport, they provide seats reserved for those less able to stand eg pregnant women, the elderly etc. From an equality pov, that would be discriminating. One could say "why should I have to stand for the duration of my journey when I paid for my ticket just because someone is elderly/pregnant?"
Something that has really riled me that I think could result in world war is a school asking a girl of African descent to take off her braids. Then this morning I read an article about an appeal court saying locs are not suitable for work. This is pure "some animals are more equal than others". I was actually going to start a thread about it. Someone on facebook commented that this is the start of criminalising women of African descent because we are trying to crash the hair industry by choosing to no longer use a lot of hair care products.
Nik wrote,Economic equality is a myth or a lie in capitalist countries, while the situ with gender and racial equality is much better I think...As soon as Agriculture was invented, serious inequality began as the presence of extra calories allowed for the division of labour and the establishment of rulers who do no work and workers who do no ruling.
Hunter gatherer groups can still see forms of inequality - but not to the extent of post hunter-gatherer societies.
Graeme wrote: "As soon as Agriculture was invented, serious inequality began..."Well, there were attempts trying to change that -:)
Not particularly successful ones, but still... Arguably, USSR had a classless society, where all were more or less equal (although at not a high level): no rich, no poor, no homeless, no unemployed, but it had other problems, for example - with civil rights and liberties..
As long as there is a race after a limited (or artifically limited) objects, economic equality is hardly possible - for everyone wants Mercedes or black caviar, but supposedly there is only a limited amount of those...
Why shouldn't tasks be differentiated since ability is differentiated? As for value of contribution, that is Darwinian and has nothing to do with agriculture vs hunter/gatherer etc. even nature follows this pattern. There is no equality nor should there be, in this sense. I like Segilola's description of equity.
SegilolaPlease start that discussion!!
I meant Equality in Orwellian terms not Equity of economics. "All animals are equal some are more equal than the others. This is in terms of social stratification, equity in terms of fairness in every respect such as politics, power play and so on. Economic equity is whether or not there is equitable distribution of wealth which is quite technical.
People are not equal but yes they deserve equal rights. So no, equality is not achievable but I think it is understood that politicians are actually talking about equal access to rights when they say equality and yes, we should keep fighting for this.
No we are not equal. No, we are not given access to equality. No, we don't have equal access to resources. Equality is a mirage in the desert of the human condition. We chase it just to get close enough to find it has just disappeared once again.
And to make it even worse we are told that there is no problem or worse, we are the problem. It reminds me of people who say the ugliest things to someone under their breath and when the person reacts and responds in anger they look like the rude or crazy one.
We are not born equal. The reason Usain Bolt wins races is, besides the fact he trains, he has the optimal leg bone structure. I have seen a report that claimed if you Xrayed sprinters who all trained extensively, you could predict the order, subject only to delayed starts. Similarly, some people are gifted in various ways. Think of Mozart. The key requirement for me is not that people are equal, but they should be given fair opportunity to make what they will of what they have been given, and not be impaired by parents' positions.
Michael wrote: "No we are not equal. No, we are not given access to equality. No, we don't have equal access to resources. Equality is a mirage in the desert of the human condition. We chase it just to get close..."
That's why I used the word mirage. To many this American dream is just that. The point that I have been trying to make.
MehreenI have to disagree because the American dream is not about equality. It's about access to opportunity in a world without equality. You can prove not everyone has equal access but you can't prove that access does not exist. There are too many examples to prove it does.
Well we have to admit we are all Americans but some are more Americans than the other. That's where the problem starts. Sorry to disappoint.
Mehreen wrote: "Well we have to admit we are all Americans but some are more Americans than the other. That's where the problem starts. Sorry to disappoint."Disappoint? Only the naive are disappointed and I'm a pragmatist. We can't begin to address the problem unless we understand it.
Tara wrote: "Mehreen wrote: "Well we have to admit we are all Americans but some are more Americans than the other. That's where the problem starts. Sorry to disappoint."Disappoint? Only the naive are disappo..."
The problem has been addressed by many on this thread alone.
If your conclusion is that there is no American dream then that is your conclusion. My conclusion is that the dream, though flawed, very much exists. I can provide examples to support my opinion until I'm blue in the face, as have others, but it won't necessarily provide stimuli for further discussion if that's not your goal. So I can appreciate the conversation and agree to disagree.
Tara wrote: "If your conclusion is that there is no American dream then that is your conclusion. My conclusion is that the dream, though flawed, very much exists. I can provide examples to support my opinion un..."I never said there wasn't. It's a mirage for many. That's what I am saying as others have also. There's no need to get blue in the face. This is a never ending debate with overwhelming evidence on both sides, I'm sure. We have both chosen to disagree on this instance. Have a good day.
For the record there has been no evidence that the dream doesn't exist. Only lots of valid evidence that not everyone can or has achieved it. The original question asked if it is dead or alive. Further discussions have gone on to explore the quality and structure of it. Have a good day? Lol, okay, I guess I've been dismissed.
Please mark my word. I NEVER SAID DREAMS DIDN'T EXIST. However, for most Americans though it is but empty. Please read all 24 messages to learn what people have said. We cannot be naive to think everyone lives in LALA land although they might "dream" of it. American Dream! What is it after all. I think I'm going to start a new thread on this.
We don't have to be equal to understand each other, just equal in understanding. In other words, if there is a common element or common thread that we share, which if you look deep enough we all do, then there, right there is where our equality lies. As far as the American dream, it is an act of faith. Whether that faith is strong or wavering is up to the individual. Indeed if the faith is strong, hence the American dream can come true and has for many that's why people have risked life and death, illegal status for it because this faith (i.e. American dream) is worthy of believing in.
Temper, temper -:) No need to get agitated, as it's not a precise number, like, I don't know, - the elevation above sea level, or velocity of Niagara falls. Interesting and diverse opinions here.I'm a fan of statistics. For if something works in decent % then it's achievable and real, but if it's only one in a million chance, then - it's a slogan. Like lottery. People win (almost) every week, but the chances are so much less than 1% that I don't even know how that ratio is called in any language-:)
For those who bilieve that American dream is about upward mobility, look what I found:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-e...
It might not be accurate, tendentious, whatever, but if true the study says that 43% born to poor families will become and remain poor adults, while 40% of those born to top 20%, will stay there. Here it gets tricky - for it means that 57% will go up, right? But then how much from the layer above poor would drop down to poor?
Some data reflects - decline, some other - show that the mobility is actually lowest in US and UK and much stronger in Scandinavian countries and Canada...
So I think the dream is not dead, for sure, but I wouldn't exactly claim that odds of moving upwards are exceptionally great -:)
