Well...not exactly. Diversity is the result of selecting people 'regardless' of race.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Honors Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. With Homepage Tribute
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sadly, this is a naive simplification of the issue. You are looking at the end and not the beginning.
I do agree with your comment, "People should never be given a job based on their race.". However this worked out fine when white supremacists wanted to do just this and US congress did not want to act, during the 50's and 60's and continued to allow segregation and discrimination.
However, what happened during that shameful past is still prevalent today in the USA and elsewhere, wherever there is power, voice and audience for promoting supremacy of any race, creed or colour. It is naive to think otherwise.
It took the USA 20 years after defeating Nazi 'racial oppression' and supremacy abroad and 'restoring world order' to be able to clean up its own back yard with the 1964 Civil rights Act & then the 1965 Acts respectively. Let's be frank.., the US was dragged kicking and screaming into this based on internal and external pressures at the time. Implementation of that law arguably took much longer to enforce.., if you actually believe the employers in the USA [everywhere..] operate in line with the law even today.
Real change requires thought, contemplation and usually the pain and suffering of those wanting change. So being a gay man from the 'South', Tim Cook simply understands and identifies with oppression and this is certainly not "Making it something it's not".
Happy MLK day!
What are you talking about? It's not a simplification so much as your over-analyzation and gross analogies to supremacists. There's nothing wrong with diversification as long as it is done within a pool of people that are all qualified. I don't care what race someone is if they're qualified. You used the word "naive" twice. You really have no idea what I was saying, but felt inclined to go off on some tangent. Of course that kind of garbage still exists today ... I wasn't saying it doesn't. Just because a majority of some company's board members are of a certain skin color does not automatically make that company racist is all I was saying. There is a lot of pointing fingers going on that only serves to perpetuate racism.
Not necessarily controversial for Apple, but definitely controversial on MR. There are definitely people here that have shown how "anti-black" they are. Rather than focusing on the nature of the situation, they spend more time on the person's ethnicity as a negative.
I was truly astounded how many racists came out of the woodwork when Obama was elected president ... especially among friends ... who I'm no longer friends with because of it. Articles like these always have a way of sifting out the hateful bunch.
No its not because there is no universal rule that the racial makeup of, for example, software engineers experienced in prolog matches the racial makeup of the population in general. Diversity is just a rule to force hiring people of a specific race over people with a better match to the experience and knowledge required. And that is racism.
How do you know they are not qualified...? Like I said, you are focusing on the end and not the beginning.
Creating diversity is more about end game opportunity than it is about simply giving somebody (or not) a job because of the colour of their skin etc.
What about a non-white child from an unprivileged background showing potential beyond his / her environmental expectation getting a scholarship to go to Oxford, or Harvard, to realise his / her potential, is this the same thing?
It is not so unlike a non-white, or minority Director given the 'opportunity' to do as good, or better job than his white / straight peers and rise to CEO surely?
What if that same child graduated higher than his peers and showed higher ability, only to be refused entry to the 'gentleman's club' that is at higher level corporation business, based on colour, sex, or sexual orientation?
It is not all about giving non-whites white peoples jobs, it is more about giving opportunity to allow non-whites / minorities to be allowed to do that job they are more than qualified to do, yet are unable to break the glass ceiling.
Do you think Tim Cook would be in his position 20 years ago? I am 100% sure he was not given his current job because he is Gay. He was given the job in spite of being Gay and allowed to show that he is now able to run arguably the most successful company in the world, as good as a straight man could. Possible better, as surely he would have been replaced by one by now...
This is what the Civil rights (and any other civil liberties) movement is all about and therefore in context to this, I do not feel my last post was off on a tangent as you may think.
Again, Happy MLK Day!
I don’t think a lot of people realise how prejudiced they are, myself included. It’s only when it happens to you that you really get to know.
I’m not saying what race/sex/religion I am but examples;
When your daughter is hurt by a man of another, significantly different race.
Your sons sexuality doesn’t fit the norm of society.
The list goes on but you see what I mean.
No, its inhuman.
Americans are no more entitled to anything than any other peoples on this planet.
To say un-American means that those in Somalia, Samoa, Lybia, or any of the 195 other countries in the world ARE somehow entitled to be treated as "less" because they are un-American.
Most people discussing diversity mean when an effort is made to select people from many backgrounds and/or races to fill positions for which there are more people competing than there are slots available.
If the ability to do what the position requires is made secondary to the need for diversity, that is racism. Competition should depend on competence and nothing else.
So, if they had a tax law that enabled "white people only" to pay less than 1/2 of their tax liability, i.e. allow them to route their money through a entity in the Bahamas or some such, but prevented Asians, Afroamericans, hispanics and the like from doing the same that would be OK ?
Because that is what is happening, your locally owned businesses can't do the "let scam the tax payer" tax loophole (because they were not rich enough to lobby for and get that tax break). They pay full taxes. The rich are gaming the system, getting the rules change for their benefit at your expense.
Why did Twelve Years a Slave not get made in the 1960s? And why was it directed by a British director?
What about all of the customers like you and me and everyone else at Macrumors?
So Apple are focusing on black people.
I wish they'd focus on giving us a black iPhone.
[doublepost=1453149744][/doublepost]
Lots of diverse hair colours there; don't see what the problem is.
I wish they'd focus on giving us a black iPhone.
[doublepost=1453149744][/doublepost]
Clearly
Lots of diverse hair colours there; don't see what the problem is.
This idea is (1) invented, (2) historically recent (ca. 1960's/1970's) and (3) nonsensical. It supposes that a shareholder, who might own stock for a few milliseconds during a period of speculation (=gambling), should take priority over customers and employees (on whose work the entire enterprise of the company rests and who may have worked for the company their entire working life or indeed the company's entire existence).
I do not bash Apple indiscriminately, but in this case, I think their tax avoidance is sleazy. In the long wrong Apple's brand might very well be at stake if they get a reputation for ruthlessly exploiting tax loopholes and tax havens. That won't benefit anybody.
A little too simplified and generic.
All companies make sure that they keep as much as possible of all the money they make.
Assisted by tax codes created by governments they avoid taxes like the plague and that is not always pleasant to admit.
Also, more like: The working class elects the politicians who are supposed to have their best interests at heart.
Unfortunately the working class seems very divided in what that is AND many of the working class don't even go to vote. Then they complain about the results.
BTW: This won 2nd price in a biggest lie contest:
I'm from the government . I'm here to help!
Well said, Sir.
Frankly, I'd like nothing better than for every single employee of Apple to be a white, God-fearing Christian man, with a wife at home looking after the children, if it means Apple giving us the best possible products.
Diversity is nothing less than a sop to the devil. If Tim Cook wished to be truly colour-blind, he would hire on talent alone.
The truth is that Steve Jobs cared so much about what Apple made that he only hired A players; Tim Cook lacks such devotion to excellence, and thus has decided to focus on diversity. It is also a sign that the iPhone has run its course for the foreseeable future. There is nothing much to be gained, so there is no need for the crême de la crême, at least in the eyes of Cook. Unfortunately, it means that we true Apple lovers have had to endure years of mediocrity from the once-great Apple.
Apple used to have a purity of purpose embedded in their culture. Cook's abandonment of this principle and embrace of repulsive celebrity trash is diametrically opposed to that philosophy and marks the most visible representation of where Apple has gone wrong. Only if Apple remember their simple creed will they rise again: focus on the product.
Yeah but to be fair here, the majority of those movies feature a symbolic character made by an American global corporation that is the design of the rich modern capitalist society we live in.
So I guess it shouldn't be surprising another American global corporation that feeds of the modern capitalist world celebrates past heroes in the name of advertising and marketing.