For someone who likes to post on topics like reparations, discrimination, and affirmative action, you seem to have given remarkably little thought to them. Think about it, you've just argued that everyone but white males should be covered by affirmative action but if conditions change then we could cover them too...so what does that mean, everyone gets covered? Then what is it? It's a nothing program at that point. Since you want to spread out reparations to cover a multitude of actions beyond slavery, you can see at a point everyone would deserve reparations too. You seem to lack any sort of coherent overarching ideas about these issues.
That's actually a good question, since there is a total disconnect between why AA was created and why it exists now. It was created to give African Americans a lift up after decades of legal discrimination. It's purpose now is to provide diversity by preferential hiring of everyone who isn't a straight white male.* * And apparently Asian males who seem to be considered white for diversity purposes. Get a load of this NPR article! Google's White Male-Heavy Staff Underlines Tech's Diversity Problem So Google has a problem having all of those white males, but when you look at statistics by ethnicity whites are 61% of Google employees and Asians are 30%. Which means whites are underrepresented and Asians are over represented at Google. This is in the same article by the way, so go figure that the writer couldn't read his own charts or just couldn't accept the data and wrote the article anyway/
AA like so many other Fed Programs has been taken off course. It is not helping those of whom it was intended to, so it sounds like it needs to be revised and not terminated.
This is exactly what I mean when I said that you've given surprisingly little thought to these issues. I had said it should be reformed pages ago, and my reform, to return it to it's original purpose, you disagreed with. You don't seem to have a clear idea what you think is wrong nor do you have a clear idea of how to fix it. Not surprisingly since you can't pinpoint anything wrong with it specifically, merely to say it should be "revised."
What I do understand is Kemet/Kamit is a reference to ancient Egypt. Ancint Egypt was not a pacifistic society surrounded by aggressive societies. I note that I have supported my assertion by providing references; I note you have not. Your opinion of my opinion matters not at all. You can 'hollah and scream all you like', Africans are no more peaceful than any other race. Let it go .amigo.
