Godmachine
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Messages
- 10,472
Apple has BINDERS of Women and Minorities!!!
BINDERS!!!
BINDERS!!!
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Criticism About Diversity Causes Apple To Changes Bylaws
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
- Status
discrimination (dɪˌskrɪmɪˈneɪʃən)
n
1. unfair treatment of a person, racial group, minority, etc; action based on prejudice
2. subtle appreciation in matters of taste
3. the ability to see fine distinctions and differences
4. electronics the selection of a signal having a particular frequency, amplitude, phase, etc, effected by the elimination of other signals by means of a discriminator
Obviously, what he's saying is it would between the talented and the untalented.
I was just making fun of his poor spelling
Steve Jobs is turning in his grave. That would have never happened during his tenure, even though he himself was Syrian and would have been randomly selected for additional screening by the TSA if it weren't for his success.
Here's a hint; Don't change the board of one of the most profitable companies on Earth. Clearly the current board is doing a perfectly fine job.
(I will always deny that I wrote anything good about Apple.)
FearTheCow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,678
Pardon me for crapping on your anti-whitey rant, but the vast majority of african slaves were enslaved by fellow african tribesmen.
I also hadn't realized that the actions of 1 person or even a small minority represented everyone else in that ethnicity.
I would be amazed at just how much bull shit is in your post, but I am beyond amazed at what liberals are willing to say to try and push their agenda on others.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
The Portuguese were the largest players in the slave trade for a long time. In the US, something like 10% of families owned slaves in the southern slave states. Several northern states outlawed slavery back in the late 1700's. Let's not downplay the role of slavery in the US, but blowing it way out of proportion and claiming all white US citizens are responsible is hypocritical.
You need to be accurate or informed in order to crap on it. We are talking about slavery here in the US. So your theory is that fellow African tribesman existed in America, ran cotton fields and enslaved fellow Africans on ships they built? Hmm. Who was Araminta Harriet Ross running from? Her brother?
That was a little tongue in cheek, but I can sort of see where you are trying to go. The thought process goes like this. Because African tribesman in Africa sold slaves to other cultures (who let's be honest here were invading their country) that completely absolves the person who purchased the product from any responsibility to morality at all even though future atrocities occurred long after the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade was shut down. Right? If that's your premise you are free to use it but any person can see that's pretty ridiculous. If not down right ignorant of the human condition.
Your point would go a lot farther if you weren't trying to minimize the effect of slavery....in 2014. Your ancestors can't be blamed for that. That's all on you. You can't say I have nothing to do with it and then go on to contribute to same mindset in the present day.
BTW Slavery in America was anything but "small". An entire war was fought in part because of slavery's beneficial economic effect within certain areas of the country.
I'm just amazed at how that entire post included not a single original thought that wasn't plucked from the asses of the smallest minds in America. If your mouth is going to write the checks then your brain should be able to cash them.
D
Deleted whining member 223597
Guest
Next, I get called a Nazi and responsible for everything my country did in WW2. You heard it here first :roll eyes:
I'm getting tired of people trying to always get special treatment. Slavery was over 150 years ago. It wasn't right, no one is arguing that, but stop trying to get special treatment for it NOW. Everyone should be treated equally, no matter race/ethnicity/etc.
I'm getting tired of people trying to always get special treatment. Slavery was over 150 years ago. It wasn't right, no one is arguing that, but stop trying to get special treatment for it NOW. Everyone should be treated equally, no matter race/ethnicity/etc.
chinesepiratefood
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2005
- Messages
- 2,629
Why is it funny? Why would they commit to hiring anyone before actually interviewing them?
You do know that legal discrimination against blacks was still occurring through the 1960's, right?
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
In a handful of states. There were also pogroms, Serbian led rape camps and attempts at genocide in Europe in the 1990's.
FearTheCow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,678
Blacks ENSLAVED each other and sold those they enslaved to others, including whites, so whites were slave owners, but were not the ones rounding up their neighbors for a quick buck. But hey, lets ignore that blacks fucked themselves over and just blame whitey right?
What does slavery have to do with anything today? not a fucking thing.
And?
public policies that disenfranchised and harmed black americans didn't end 150 years ago.
that said, slavery has a tremendous impact on the way our communities are in modern times. you're absolutely incorrect when you say that slavery doesn't have anything to do with today--economic relationships, home ownership, property values, informal discrimination are all a short list of things that are directly impacted by the legacy of slavery in this country.
your response indicates you're not particularly interested in a history lesson, though, so I won't waste as much time or effort as kac77 did in trying to explain anything about it in this thread.
D
Deleted whining member 223597
Guest
Well if you keep bringing it up and starting to make a big deal out of it, do you think it will ever end? Stop taking such offense to everything. There are always going to be small discriminations, not matter what your color or ethnicity is. It's just something people do. I don't get all up in arms when someone calls me a Nazi or asks me something stupid like that because taking offense to such stupid things just shows ignorance.
NukeDukem
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,659
I get that it's fashionable to blame everything on us evil pasty-white skinned WASPs, but the fact is the Spanish were the big time slavers back in the day. The majority of African slaves ended up in Latin America, not the southern US. I am still waiting for the "Reverend" Al to blame the Mexicans for holding down the black man. I guess he will after Latinos become the majority population.
I still haven't gotten my reperations check from the Roman Empire or Germans... this is ludicrous! I'm a victim God dammit, and any problems I have or challenges I face in life are someone else's fault, because I'm an American and its my right.
But you're absolutely right, Will Smith's kid definitely faces more challenges in life growing up than some white kid growing up in a trailer park in some little town in Alabama in the boons with parents addicted to meth.
So without a doubt, its certainly racist to just try and fill positions with the most qualified candidates held to a single standard regardless of race or gender, when we should be giving Jaden an unfair advantage because, you know, slavery and stuff.
BTW, does it bother anyone else that white are underrepresented in the NBA? We should implement a quota system and handicap black prospects, since according to a movie I watched white people can't jump which provides an unfair advantage.
The other uncomfortable truth is that European and American slave traders, while a link in the chain, have never once in history actually enslaved a single soul in Africa, at least there is no historical record of this which it would be as a long standing common industry.
One might ask, why were slaves for such a long period almost exclusively from Africa, and the answer is simple; slavery was a common practice in African culture, and African warlords and kings that have practiced slavery since well before European ships hit their shores were happy to sell their slaves at a high price to foreign traders.
So European/American slave traders were just as the name implies, and purchased and transported slaves on the African slave market, enslaved by Africans. Other than Africans enslaving other Africans, the only foreign entity that I am aware of to actually aprehend and enslave people were the Muslim traders, which is rather ironic when you see a black panther wearing an African continent shaped pendant and adopting the Muslim faith.
And last thing to chime in on here is the idea that everyone with European ancestry should be punished and held to a higher standard based on nothing more than their skin color, when an individuals ancestry might be from recent impoverished Irish immigrants that came from nothing or were themselves essentially endentured servants in the bottom rung of society, with plenty of challenges of their own and absolutely no historical involvement in the slave trade.
ScottSwing
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 590
So CEOs of corporations are usually old white men. Have you missed the last 200 years of American capitalism?
ScottSwing
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 590
Nice misquote there, douchebag. What they actually said was:
You make it sounds like women were ineligible before.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
Yea, several of my ancestors were indentured servants.
Both of you obviously believe that there isn't any record of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade which allows you (you think) to really kind of improvise and rewrite history as you see fit. Sorry but slavery was a business and it's well documented where ships came from and even if they experienced resistance (gasp!).
So how would you like me to disprove your BS today? Do you want to go ship by ship, price of slaves, country of origin? I'll give you one ship for now. But there are quite a few voyages from Africa where the slaves were not willingly sold as you claim. Because we are dealing with actual companies that generated income from the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade they took really good notes.
Ship: Good Fellowship
Country of Origin: Great Britian (London)
Company: RAC
Year of Voyage: 1686
Destination: Barbados
Number of Slaves: 400
Number of Slaves Alive at Destination: 246
Price of Healthy Slaves: 17.59 (Pounds)
Price of Sick Slaves: 9.48 (Pounds)
African Resistance: Attacked from shore (I know this is plain English but another way we can put this is that they didn't walk up to Shaka Zulu and exchange currency.)
Percentage men*
52.7%
Percentage women*
36.3%
Percentage boys*
10.6%
Percentage girls*
0.4%
Percentage male*
63.3%
Percentage children*
11.1%
Sources:
http://www.slavevoyages.org/
Transport Costs and the Slave Trade
We can go all day if you want. Have an opinion. I really don't care. But this...
..makes me think you are smoking something really good. You know why it's uncomfortable? Cause you pulled it out of your ass that's why. Apparently without treating yourself with lube, dinner, or apparently a history book either.
Were there some tribes that exchanged slaves for goods. Sure. But that wasn't the norm. Far from it. Hell if you even knew the history of Haiti you would have figured that out. There's a good number of minorities on that island speaking French and France doesn't own that territory anymore. Imagine that.
Somehow I don't believe you really understand the irony in your statements.
There is no need to rewrite history, as vast sums of money over long periods of time were involved so the "triangular slave trade" was very well documented with the full and active participation of African merchants and kings, and yes shipping has been attacked by pirates from time to time with small coastal vessels then just as now.
If you can take your blinders off, try reading a bit about the Dahomey kingdom along the African coast, and how they attacked central Africa for slaves, their domestic use of slaves and sale of slaves to European traders for goods, and in fact even ritually sacrificed slaves on a regular basis.
Their kingdom alone accounted for approximately a quarter of all slaves brought out of Africa. They represented one of the nine African kingdoms and their ports well documented in the exchange of African slaves from warring each other and the interior and the European merchant ships that brought valuable goods for their exchange.
The merchant ships didn't carry the manpower or weaponry to conduct raids either, and ship manifests should make that abundantly clear that security was merely adequate for self-defense, with every effort to minimize crew and make all available tonnage and space available for goods as with any merchant vessel. For example, you can see that while firearms were frequently brought, these were in the hold and in far greater quantity than the available men could use, as they were merely one of the highly desirable goods that African kings would accept in exchange for a portion of their slaves.
Here is a typical route for one ship involved in the slave trade:
Regarding WHY Africans were selling Africans into slavery, that is also well documented:
http://africa.unc.edu/outreach/ASA/slavery_and_trade.pdf
Why were African merchants willing to sell slaves to Europeans? Were they “selling their own people”?
---Like most of the rest of the world, slavery was well-established in West Africa. It varied in texture,
including caste or lineage slavery, military slavery, and especially labor slavery, as land was allocated
according to need and ability to work the land.
---Long-distance trading was an occupational specialty that West and West-Central Africans held in high regard.
---The Atlantic hinterland of black Africa contained a grid of trade routes dotted with commercial settlements. These formed a network that permitted traders to travel widely among communities where they could employ local associates as their aids and agents.
---Trans-Saharan trading included a number of commodities, including slaves.
---Europeans worked hard to furnish desirable trade commodities to African merchants
---Revenues such as taxes and tolls kept African elites amenable to the enterprise.
---The majority of people sold to Europeans as slaves were prisoners of war, thus outsiders, and this was an acceptable fate for prisoners throughout most of the world.
--- Africans did not identify on racial or national lines, but on very local levels and along lineage lines.
They were not selling “their own,” any more than Europeans were purchasing “their own.” No “African” or “Black” identity in Africa during the slave trade.
---There was African resistance to the slave trade in various locations from time to time, but not frequent.
Here is a typical route for one ship involved in the slave trade:
Regarding WHY Africans were selling Africans into slavery, that is also well documented:
http://africa.unc.edu/outreach/ASA/slavery_and_trade.pdf
Why were African merchants willing to sell slaves to Europeans? Were they “selling their own people”?
---Like most of the rest of the world, slavery was well-established in West Africa. It varied in texture,
including caste or lineage slavery, military slavery, and especially labor slavery, as land was allocated
according to need and ability to work the land.
---Long-distance trading was an occupational specialty that West and West-Central Africans held in high regard.
---The Atlantic hinterland of black Africa contained a grid of trade routes dotted with commercial settlements. These formed a network that permitted traders to travel widely among communities where they could employ local associates as their aids and agents.
---Trans-Saharan trading included a number of commodities, including slaves.
---Europeans worked hard to furnish desirable trade commodities to African merchants
---Revenues such as taxes and tolls kept African elites amenable to the enterprise.
---The majority of people sold to Europeans as slaves were prisoners of war, thus outsiders, and this was an acceptable fate for prisoners throughout most of the world.
--- Africans did not identify on racial or national lines, but on very local levels and along lineage lines.
They were not selling “their own,” any more than Europeans were purchasing “their own.” No “African” or “Black” identity in Africa during the slave trade.
---There was African resistance to the slave trade in various locations from time to time, but not frequent.
Here is a typical route for one ship involved in the slave trade:
LOL. Did you even bother to look at the date of that map? 1752. The trans atlantic slave trade started in the 1500's.
See this is the great thing about prejudices. Even though it's easily proven slaves were taken against their will. And even when I'm showing you records of voyages pulled from UK archives you put up a map talking about 1752 and somehow you think you are making a point.
D
Deleted whining member 223597
Guest
Keep trying to find excuses and ways to get special treatment, it really works in the US.
Hmm. Do you think Native Americans would agree?
In addition I don't know why you think your comment is effective. You have no idea what kind of treatment or even success I had, or how it was obtained. You didn't ask so how would you know?
FearTheCow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 2, 2006
- Messages
- 6,678
How about instead of saying "it effects everything," you actually list how it effects anything? How is a black down the street any different then me in any of the things you listed? Oh wait, I see you already gave yourself an out to not answer by saying you wont waste time actually answering the questions.
Well then please explain to us the relationship between Portugal and the African kingdoms in the earliest years of the slave trade. If you like, you might also touch upon the African kingdoms such as the Dahomey (as already mentioned), the Oyo, Abomey, and the Asante that were African empires that practiced wide spread slavery and traded slaves to Europeans.
Here's African Slave Trade for dummies from a white but also gay liberal so hopefully you don't consider the source too biased:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnV_MTFEGIY
The one thing he didn't touch upon that I might add is that there actually weren't that many slaves brought to North America in the slave trade, but conditions were so much better in North America (unlike South America with very low life expectancy) that the population of slaves grew quickly enough to make the expense of cross-Atlantic slave trade for replacement laborers unnecessary. Brazil and the Caribbeans actually represented almost the entirety of the active slave trade, which continued well after England and the United States abolished slavery. Here's a timeline for your edification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline
And yes, Europeans and the Chinese were the first to abolish slavery, and African and Middle-Eastern nations the last.
No one can reasonably know the challenges that any individual encounters, that is the entire point, but you are the one championing the idea that institutionalized preferential treatment such as affirmative action are necessary and justified because of the history of black slavery in the United States. The whole counter-argument already made is that its ludicrous to punish someone just because they are white as somehow having been historically involved in the slave trade or that a random poor white child somehow has more advantages in life than Will Smith's kid and thus should be held to a different standard.
Everyone here can agree that people should be treated equally in a color-blind fashion with positions awarded based solely on skill-set and general qualifications, and NOT altered to meet some kind of racial quotas giving different treatment to one race over another to somehow compensate for events that occurred outside our lifetimes.
Somehow I think you're oblivious to the message I was trying to convey. You think I was making some crack at the expense of women and minorities, but I was actually remarking about the society that has accepted the notion that skin color or genitalia should be treated like some sort of special condition, if we're all equal.
And the fact that you came to that flawed conclusion is precisely why I posted the MLK quote. Those who claim to love him the most are often those who have embraced exactly what he opposed; the ingrained belief that people should be treated differently based on traits over which they have zero control.
D
Deleted whining member 223597
Guest
It's not really relevant to the discussion, that's why I didn't ask. Ask yourself this, why are there certain scholarships specifically for Women, Hispanics and African Americans? Seems like special treatment. Why can't it just be scholarships for all that are based on academics or other school related items, not race/gender?
Also, I don't remember saying Native Americans had it good. Some do, but in general they got the worst of it. They got voting rights last, and their lands were invaded. Oh and their population got decimated much worse.
Did anyone ever say that no other trade routes existed? No. Have I said that African tribes never had or sold slaves? No. Yet, here you are posting some Youtube clip from some "white but also gay liberal" as if I give a shit about political affiliation or sexual orientation. There's a reason why I've avoided throwing any political affiliation into this thread. Reason? Because I have conservative friends who know more about slavery than you do (which I try to remind myself). This isn't about liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, or libertarian. This is about knowing enough about slavery so that you don't say ignorant stuff like:
You are giving me information from YouTube and I'm providing you with information researched from scholars in the US, UK, Canada, and New Zealand. At some point a light bulb should go off ( or on) .
Actually I wasn't. The irony isn't that I think you made some crack. It's that you are making one and you don't even know it (aside from the fact that I didn't conclude anything in my previous response to you...now did i?).
...and the MLK quote just makes it all more comical.
Stop avoiding the question, what evidence do you have of armed European raiding parties, and what percentage of Africans from the African slave trade do you estimate came from such ventures and based on what source? This back peddling, speaking in circles, and vague language are tiring and unproductive.
I'll be as direct and short as possible: Slavery was common in West coast African culture before the first European and Middle-eastern traders made contact, and slaves primarily came from Africa for such a long period because of this fact. The business model for human trafficking involved African merchants and kings selling African slaves to European traders in exchange for desirable goods (textiles, guns, alcohol, etc), and later in the triangle trade route pattern, with the notion that warships full of soldiers and cavalry taking over villages by force to capture slaves for transport as completely absurd with no historical evidence or even logistically practical. Slaver traders were merchants and traders of goods with skeleton crews, not large armed parties capable of overthrowing the armies of African empires.
I'll be as direct and short as possible: Slavery was common in West coast African culture before the first European and Middle-eastern traders made contact, and slaves primarily came from Africa for such a long period because of this fact. The business model for human trafficking involved African merchants and kings selling African slaves to European traders in exchange for desirable goods (textiles, guns, alcohol, etc), and later in the triangle trade route pattern, with the notion that warships full of soldiers and cavalry taking over villages by force to capture slaves for transport as completely absurd with no historical evidence or even logistically practical. Slaver traders were merchants and traders of goods with skeleton crews, not large armed parties capable of overthrowing the armies of African empires.
How? My comment was entirely and only about society and our attitudes, not about any groups in particular. Oh, but please...do tell me what it means in your head.
Actually very.
Probably because study after study shows that women and minorities even when you adjust for education level make less and have a harder time succeeding due to the societal climate.
Now I'll ask you a question. Now that you know this, it can be said that you are under the assumption that when all things are equal (education level, economic class, etc) that everyone is treated the same. Therefore there's no need for special treatment. However, what do you do if that's not the case?
I'm not saying you did. However, I mention that group because of your application of the term special treatment and how that term can be applied to probably the most persecuted minority group in America.
- Status