That's an ill-considered question, because opportunities aren't a zero-sum game. The rationale behind affirmation action (whether you think it's a good thing or not) is that it provides opportunities to people who are otherwise generally denied them, with the ultimate goal of normalizing the provision of those opportunities to the groups it's set up to help.If white women have been the primary beneficiaries, who have been the primary victims of affirmative action? Who's oppertunities were taken and given to white women?
Put simply: the intent behind it is to help to erode stigmas around certain groups which reduce their participation in society, and there is absolutely no evidence that this has made any group worse off on aggregate. Women entering the workforce (and the subsequent erosion of the stigma surrounding women having careers), didn't make men (least not white men) poorer as a demographic.
Then why bring it up like it's a point worth making? If the creation of a totalitarian state with the power to dispose of any group it doesn't like is necessary for racial segregation to be achieved with minimal resistance, then all you're really doing is moving the problem, because the implementation of such a state in a formally democratic society would almost certainly necessitate violence in one form or another.My question was "how violent were dhimmies?"
I don't think you think I was suggesting that the Chinese are going very easy on the uyghurs either. Your comment that it's possible that it doesn't necessarily lead to violence (but results instead in a situation where one group dominates another completely with all of the moral problems that creates), is what I wanted to highlight. I'm glad you've given that ground.
You're asking me to explain why a willingness to peacefully coexist is the antithesis of violence? I've already explained why I reject the equivocation these questions are based upon.Two questions remain that I'd like to ask you. First why do you consider seperatist movements inherently violent? If people wish to govern themselves, isn't it inherently violent to prevent that rather than allow them? And if that isn't violence isn't, then how is that different from either dhimmies or uyghurs or chaz or slavery, where a group is completely dominated as to not be given that level of self-determination?
How about we consider the stronger possibility that this violence is the result of a lack of cultural integration rather than too much of it? Because all of the evidence we have suggests that the more culturally integrated two groups are with one another, the less violence exists between them.If minimization of violence is a goal, have you taken into account the larger number of violence that happens in multicultural societies compared to monocultural ones? Can we weigh that off against the violence produced by the segregating act?
Given the historical record alone, I absolutely would argue that forcefully segregating people is more violent than working to bring them together.
The majority of racial minorities in the United States aren't immigrants, and even if you could successfully incentivize the ones who are to leave, you'd still risk alienating their naturalized relatives. Who says these people wouldn't be fighting for a homeland, anyway? If they were born and raised in the United States, the United States is their home, and you're arguing for a belligerent attempt to remove them from it. A violent reaction, under those circumstances, is entirely understandable.Why would people who moved to the US for economic reasons get violent when alternatively they could be financially incentivised to just move again?
They’re not fighting for a homeland, why would they risk bloodshed. I don’t think your hypothesis stands up to the smell test.