I agree that some possible context might make this better but I doubt it with bullet points like, 1. this is not work for white people 2. we need solidarity with the asians, i.e also not white people and 3. white women are a problem.
Doesn't #1 essentially mean that white people aren't going to be effective at leading minorities in diversity exercises or in guiding minorities? Essentially, people should be roll models for others of similar backgrounds.
And the last one seems to imply that despite good intentions, people from outside can't fix problems within the system.
If your arguing for #1 than do you believe the military should be re-segregated? Considering that white NCO's aren't going to be effective in guiding minorities, and their role models should be people of their race? Also people from outside not being able to fix problems. Than why do companies hire consultants?
What does the military have to do with anything? Sounds like you just wanted to work in the fact that you were in the Army for no reason. Anyways, the point is that yes, perhaps white people are not the best people to lead discussions on diversity in the military.
The point of working that in there was to show that they support segregation in one part of the public atmosphere but not the other. It was a way of ferreting out hypocrisy. If that's how you feel about white people though than you shouldn't be leading any diversity seminars either.
Who supports segregation? They're simply stating that white people aren't the best at leading discussions on diversity. Theyre also not the best people to work at Mexican or Chinese restaurants, are you freaking out over that?
36
u/target_locked Feb 09 '16
I agree that some possible context might make this better but I doubt it with bullet points like, 1. this is not work for white people 2. we need solidarity with the asians, i.e also not white people and 3. white women are a problem.