Folks, this kind of stuff drives me crazy. Martin Luther King Jr never (to my knowledge) used financial equality as one of his major platform issues. Yet today, on the commemoration of his birthday, this is what the likes of Jesse Jackson are claiming. Further, they've got mainstream news pundits parroting right along.
When did desegregation, voting privileges, and anti-discrimination turn into Socialism? MLK, while not a perfect man, stood for things that were good and right. He went about it a good way. He could have taken a path of violence (i.e. Malcolm X) to achieve his mission, but he did not. However, MLK understood that equality for the Black community did not mean preferential treatment for them at the expense of everyone else.
Yet today, that's what some would have you believe. I strongly support EQUALITY measures, even though I believe that legislation is not the way to change people's hearts. However, I do not support programs that support, award, hire or grant their offerings based on skin color or sexual preference or gender (or age, religious standing, ad nauseum).
Sure, I'm an able-bodied, young, white, male. I am probably in the least protected social class there is. However, I'm OK with that. I don't want protection, per se. I wouldn't get upset because a black (or Indian or Mexican, or whatever) man (or woman) got a job I applied for. I'd get upset if I found out it was not because they were better qualified, but because they had a particular uncontrollable characteristic that they did not choose nor could I elect.
Further, to state that the “Wealth gap” is something that should be litigated, is absurd. There are reasons why different get paid different wages. Certainly, not all are good, but they're not all bad either. Some that I consider could be: demand for your skills, qualification, experience, education, celebrity, geography (i.e., cost of living), etc.
Should color be a basis for wages? Absolutely not! Should gender? Possibly. Costs of anything are about risk. It's the entire premise of the Insurance industry. There is no risk that I (as a male) will need 3 months maternity leave. However, there is a risk that a woman, up for the same position, could need to be paid 12 months salary but only work 9 months. Is it their fault? No. But if we want to talk equality, then maybe if she signed a “won't-get-pregnant” contract, she'd be eligible for the same pay.
Finally, what really drives me nuts is that if you don’t complete agree with these folks, you’re obviously prejudiced. That’s ridiculous. There are plenty of folks that have disagreeing opinions from my own that are perfectly good friends.
Is this whole discussion absurd? Sure. I know that. My point is that equal is equal. Equal is not preferential. Equal is not biased. If you come to me, I'll talk to you and treat you the same whether you're a different color, flavor, smell, or taste than anyone else. I don't care.
Just don't be biased against me because I'm who and what I am. Like me or don’t like me because I’m a jerk or a loyal friend, whichever the case may be. Don’t, however, like or not like me because I’m tall, white, have brown eyes, or have size 13 feet.
Later.