Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Either they're all ok or none are ok. Ibram X. Kendi is making a few points in the quoted passage. The first is that it's not enough to just say "no more discrimination" after the entire system has already been set up to discriminate. That just results in a system that perpetuates discrimination. To illustrate with an example: you and I sit down to play a game of Monopoly. Except instead of letting you play from th…
Your analogy doesn't work because it assumes anything that happens to your ancestors necessarily affects you directly for every generation that comes after, forever. Your monopoly example is using a game that you and I play in directly against each other, when the reality is we have no idea how much positive or negative impact the ancestors of any given person has had on their lot in life. Do you think people in Appa…
No, that's not what I said. The point is that the state of the system interplays with the rules governing the system. You can't ignore the state of the system and declare the game fair by looking at just the rules.
> when the reality is we have no idea how much positive or negative impact the ancestors of any given person has had on their lot in life.
I mean, we do though. Generational wealth is a thing. American slavery isn't even the distant past; the last person born into slavery died within living memory.
> If the concern is that we want to help those who need financial assistance, or educational assistance or whatever then there are ways to do that with means testing
Right, which involves a process of discrimination to correct for past discrimination.
> not by relying on a Sherwin Williams color chart held up against your skin.
Of course there are better ways to do things than this terrible strawman you built.