Racism questions

[Ausmumof3]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

We no longer have explicit preference policies of that nature in the U.S. and haven't for many years.

Interesting.  I don’t think these are government policies as such they are policies of the individual recruiters.   It’s definitely fairly standard here though.  

[Carrie12345]

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

We no longer have explicit preference policies of that nature in the U.S. and haven't for many years.

Firefighters do get extra points on exams for being in marginalized groups. Including my dd for being a female. 
 

Edit: exam may be the wrong term. But it is a qualification ranking for applicants. 

Edited March 12, 2021 by Carrie12345

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

Maybe not officially. I can tell you that certain academic departments are absolutely desperate to hire diverse faculty and get diverse students. 

Desperation doesn't guarantee interviews and jobs. There are no automatic points and no quotas.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Carrie12345 said:

Firefighters do get extra points on exams for being in marginalized groups. Including my dd for being a female. 

Is that union negotiated? That doesn't happen in the military.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Desperation doesn't guarantee interviews and jobs. There are no automatic points and no quotas.

I'm not sure why you're speaking so authoritatively about this, given that my husband has been on many hiring committees in these very departments. I don't think anyone writes these things down, but trust me -- there are extra points for certain features. 

Edited March 12, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Ausmumof3]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I also think that sometimes active affirmative action kind of does bad stuff to people's actual opinions. 

I mention this all the time, but top math graduate schools tend to admit female students who have lower qualifications than male students. And as a result... those female students struggle, because they aren't ready for the work. So in my year at Stanford, I think I was the only female who was allowed in without some degree of affirmative action, and I was also the only one who had no trouble with the program. And I've absolutely seen people who get in on their own merits feel resentful, because then everyone assumes they got in because of their race/gender whatever instead of it being assumed they are equal. 

Yep.  I have a math teacher imply once that maybe my test grade was to do with the colour of my eyes (aside from all the other issues with that statement) I am pretty sure it would contribute to that mindset.  It also made me go through the test and check everything and make sure it was a fair grade!  😬. No one wants to win just because of their gender ...

[Carrie12345]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Is that union negotiated?

I’m not sure!

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Ausmumof3 said:

Yep.  I have a math teacher imply once that maybe my test grade was to do with the colour of my eyes (aside from all the other issues with that statement) I am pretty sure it would contribute to that mindset.  It also made me go through the test and check everything and make sure it was a fair grade!  😬. No one wants to win just because of their gender ...

I've always been somewhat protected by the fact that I have very concrete, measurable accomplishments. So I experienced this less than many other people. But I've certainly heard many complaints. 

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm not sure why you're speaking so authoritatively about this, given that my husband has been on many hiring committees in these very departments. I don't think anyone writes these things down, but trust me -- there are extra points for certain features. 

I'm saying that because any employer stupid enough to do that is asking for a lawsuit.

[Ausmumof3]

2 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

Firefighters do get extra points on exams for being in marginalized groups. Including my dd for being a female. 
 

Edit: exam may be the wrong term. But it is a qualification ranking for applicants. 

Likewise with police officers down here I think.  There’s also significant benefits to having police officers from different backgrounds who have language or cultural knowledge that helps them understand or relate to the issues they are policing so it makes a lot of sense in that context.

[Carrie12345]

14 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I think their progeny can also wind up angry, though! I think the idea that each generation is more enlightened than the next isn’t always borne out...

Of course some may. But we can and do make progress. More and louder could be faster!

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

I'm saying that because any employer stupid enough to do that is asking for a lawsuit.

And departments who DON'T do this get their funding pulled due to political pressure from above! A lawsuit is a more remote possibility than an angry dean. 

This is something I have a lot more experience with than you, lol. I can't speak to how it is in the military, but I can tell you a lot about how it works for top math departments. 

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

And departments who DON'T do this get their funding pulled due to political pressure from above! A lawsuit is a more remote possibility than an angry dean. 

This is something I have a lot more experience with than you, lol. I can't speak to how it is in the military, but I can tell you a lot about how it works for top math departments. 

Yeah, I don't know how math departments work. I've explained before how little respect I have for the behind the scenes operations of higher education institutions.

[Ausmumof3]

https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/ajem-jul-2018-how-overseas-fire-agencies-recruit-for-diversity/
 

This might be of interest to the discussion 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Yeah, I don't know how math departments work. I've explained before how little respect I have for the behind the scenes operations of higher education institutions.

Oh, I can't say I like them, either. I'm just explaining that there is a LOT of pressure about these things in the traditionally non-diverse departments. 

And the problem is that this way of going about it is half-baked, lol. The thing they need to do is make sure to actually encourage kids like my DDs when they are in school, instead of assuming they aren't mathy because they are girls. By the time you get to the "graduate school admission" level, it's too late, anyway. The pool of applicants is what it is. 

[Ausmumof3]

7 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I've always been somewhat protected by the fact that I have very concrete, measurable accomplishments. So I experienced this less than many other people. But I've certainly heard many complaints. 

lol well my test score was definitely valid.  He was just saying it to make the boys feel better.  It was a private school that still had tech studies for boys and home ec for girls.  Just for context.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Ausmumof3 said:

lol well my test score was definitely valid.  He was just saying it to make the boys feel better.  It was a private school that still had tech studies for boys and home ec for girls.  Just for context.

Yuck. Gross. 

[SKL]

Affirmative action still exists.  Also, some places just call it something else, like diversity initiatives.

Yes, there have been successful lawsuits against blatant documented policies, such as officially having a lower score cutoff for women or people of color.  But there are lots of other ways to approach diversity.  And who wants any person of any color/sex to have in important job they can't actually do?

I remember the days when people were considered the "token woman/black" etc. thanks to the way affirmative action used to be executed.  Really doubtful whether this helped minorities.  Hopefully some things have been learned.

[Carrie12345]

9 minutes ago, SKL said:

And who wants any person of any color/sex to have in important job they can't actually do?

That is an enormous myth that should not be perpetuated. 

[Scarlett]

3 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Oh, language is really a sub-issue for me. You can call me a red-headed, two ton chimp if you want so long as a) I can return the compliment with impunity, b) you are required to hire and run me my money based on my talents and skills, and c) I can clean your clock in court if you don’t uphold your end of the bargain. The inability to enforce property rights, fair use, speech, assembly, and public safety laws based on color and ethnicity is at the heart of a lot of today’s disparities, not language.

 

In my neighborhood, especially after the Vietnam war, there was a TON of anti-Asian sentiment expressed. That was only 30 years ago. Before that, during WWII (duh), railroad building and gold rush times, same thing. It comes in waves.

This is what has been rattling around in my head.....so thank you for putting words to it.  I could not put my finger on why the constant critiquing of various words was bugging me. It is because the words aren’t the biggest problem.  While obviously we shouldn’t say words we know bother real issue is one of equality and human kindness.  
 

[Not_a_Number]

38 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

That is an enormous myth that should not be perpetuated. 

What's a myth? The idea that affirmative action can result in less qualified people? I don't know if this happens in the workforce, but it certainly happens at universities. And I think it sucks for everyone involved. 

[Meriwether]

50 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

That is an enormous myth that should not be 

It may not be terribly common, but it isn't a myth.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Meriwether said:

It may not be terribly common, but it isn't a myth.

Given that I've seen it happen in educational settings with my own eyes, it's absolutely not a myth. I don't think it necessarily needs to mean that one shouldn't use affirmative action, but I'd like us to be honest about what affirmative action is going to mean. Either the kids are going to fail at higher rates, or they are going to need higher levels of support. You can't have your cake and eat it too -- if you admit applicants who are less qualified on paper, they are likely to perform less well unless you offset those disadvantages. 

[Tanaqui]

The biggest form of "affirmative action" right now is legacies. Which mostly benefit white males, so.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Tanaqui said:

The biggest form of "affirmative action" right now is legacies. Which mostly benefit white males, so.

Two words...Tucker.Carlson.

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Tanaqui said:

The biggest form of "affirmative action" right now is legacies. Which mostly benefit white males, so.

I have never measured this. What does "biggest form" mean? It affects the most people?

Anyway, I'm sure those kids also aren't qualified. 

[GoodGrief3]

2 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

We no longer have explicit preference policies of that nature in the U.S. and haven't for many years.The only people who explicitly receive hiring preferences get them based on military affiliation/veteran status.

The Indian Health Service still employs Native preference in hiring as a matter of law 

[Sneezyone]

Just now, GoodGrief3 said:

The Indian Health Service still employs Native preference in hiring as a matter of law 

D’you suppose that has something to do with them working for and servicing sovereign nations that also want their people employed?

[Not_a_Number]

8 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

D’you suppose that has something to do with them working for and servicing sovereign nations that also want their people employed?

I don't know if she was saying it's illogical 🙂. Just that explicitly racially based systems do exist. 

[Carrie12345]

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

it's absolutely not a myth. I don't think it necessarily needs to mean that one shouldn't use affirmative action, but I'd like us to be honest about what affirmative action is going to mean. Either the kids are going to fail at higher rates, or they are going to need higher levels of support. You can't have your cake and eat it too -- if you admit applicants who are less qualified on paper, they are likely to perform less well unless you offset those disadvantages. 

No one advocates hiring less qualified people.  
They advocate for equal opportunity. 
If people hire unqualified applicants, they’re a problem of their own making.

Unless one assumes that marginalized groups are inherently less qualified.

[Ausmumof3]

35 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

No one advocates hiring less qualified people.  
They advocate for equal opportunity. 
If people hire unqualified applicants, they’re a problem of their own making.

Unless one assumes that marginalized groups are inherently less qualified.

They aren’t necessarily but if you have 100 applications for a job and 98 are male there’s a decent chance that out of the choice of 98 applications versus the choice of 2 you get more qualified possibilities.  

[Not_a_Number]

56 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

No one advocates hiring less qualified people.  
They advocate for equal opportunity. 
If people hire unqualified applicants, they’re a problem of their own making.

Unless one assumes that marginalized groups are inherently less qualified.

First of all, I have no experience with how this works out in hiring. I can't comment on that. 

The one situation in which I have some experience is the educational setting, where kids in underrepresented groups are absolutely admitted with lower test scores and less impressive profiles. That doesn't usually look like simply racial quotas (I think those have been deemed illegal, correct?), but usually an effort is made to admit more underrepresented groups than would be admitted if you simply admitted everyone without regard to race. This can be done in all manner of ways -- UT Austin, for example, had a policy of admitting the top 8% of every high school, and given that high schools are highly segregated, this resulted in minority students being ON AVERAGE less prepared than non-minority ones. And yes, it was pretty obvious if you were teaching a class. 

The thing I don't like about this kind of policy is that it's a bandaid, just like the policy of admitting more female math graduate students and letting them flounder. If you admit kids with a weaker profile in the name of diversity, you NEED to provide support for them. Otherwise, the rate of program completion for these students will be much lower, since they won't be ready for the level of work. (This definitely happened with the female math graduate students.) And then you again have a real problem on your hands. 

Edited March 13, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Pam in CT]

re anti-Asian racism in the course of United States history

7 hours ago, Thatboyofmine said:

Has Australia always had a lot of anti-Asian racism?    I know it’s happening in the US here but I think that’s because of certain groups continually calling covid the ‘China virus.’  I don’t remember hearing a lot about it before the pandemic. IMO, we’ll always have some racism because we’ll always have idiots in society.  

People v Hall decision of 1854, ruling that the testimony of a Chinese person (as well as a Native American) was inadmissible in court against a white person

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (at a time when whiter Europeans were poring in, and immediately eligible for federal land grants under the Homestead Act)

Japanese Internment camps of 1942-45, when Japanese Americans were systemically rounded up and held in camps as collective policy

There are many other examples.

 

For the last several decades East Asians have slotted into the "model minority" space once occupied by Jews, simultaneously admired and resented for work ethic, discipline and relative overepresentation in math olympiads and Ivies and tech jobs. The "model minority" trope isn't the absence of hatred and racism (as has been evidenced by the virulence of the hatred and violence that erupted with the China Virus smear). It's just a different form.

 

[GoodGrief3]

3 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

D’you suppose that has something to do with them working for and servicing sovereign nations that also want their people employed?

Not sure if you are mocking my post? It was meant to be factual, as you stated this hiring practice does not occur. It’s legally mandated within that system. It’s less about providing employment, and more about Native Americans ultimately directing their health care. 
Editing to clarify that many IHS employees are not working for the tribes directly. They are typically federal civil service or US Public Health Service officers assigned to individual hospitals or clinics. 

Edited March 13, 2021 by GoodGrief3

[Tanaqui]

Ausmom, you're assuming that the 98 white male applicants are exactly equal to the 2 other applicants, I'm not sure that's a safe assumption. Some studies have shown that white men are more likely to apply for jobs where they don't match  the on-paper qualifications.

[SoCal_Bear]

3 hours ago, Thatboyofmine said:

Yes, I agree.   I meant recently.   I haven't heard a lot about it recently, until the pandemic.  

It exists, but it is often covert. While this company got caught at it, there's a lot of this going on behind the scenes. 

This tech company posted a job listing qualification. Non-Asians.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/company-pulls-Bay-Area-job-posting-Asian-15950197.php?fbclid=IwAR0yIn9FwwqiREKiKpBFO7LpJwerXKreeT-HVXr1Ox1i50A71tN6gh88iik

 

Edited March 13, 2021 by calbear

[Rosie_0801]

2 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

Ausmom, you're assuming that the 98 white male applicants are exactly equal to the 2 other applicants, I'm not sure that's a safe assumption. Some studies have shown that white men are more likely to apply for jobs where they don't match  the on-paper qualifications.

I was part of a citizen's jury on gender quotas in the public service for our state a couple of years ago. In the larger corporations where they are already trying to address gender inequality in higher level positions is to instruct HR to find them a balanced, blind shortlist to choose from. If they can't find enough, the powers that be tell them to go find them. Rewrite adverts to sound more appealing to women. Find out where the women are sourcing their information about job opportunities from and advertise there. It can be done because there's more money in diversity and people are motivated towards gender diversity when it is made one of their KPI's.

[Carrie12345]

6 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

They aren’t necessarily but if you have 100 applications for a job and 98 are male there’s a decent chance that out of the choice of 98 applications versus the choice of 2 you get more qualified possibilities.  

It sounds to me like your hypothetical is based on being required to hire for one position from the 2 non-majority applicants, and I don’t happen to be aware of scenarios where that’s an actual and legal mandate.

What I am familiar with is systems that increase the odds of the two “other” candidates getting true consideration for the position in order to counterbalance the known biases that tend to leave them on the bottom of the application pile.

My daughter hasn’t found employment in a fire department. She exceeds the basic qualifications and has experience. I do believe she’s lost out to people with more experience and/or more training even with her “gender boost”. While I feel bad for her as an individual, there’s nothing wrong with that. I just don’t ever want her ignored for being a girl.

 

When I look at the new White House cabinet, I see widely diverse people who generally hold much greater qualifications than previous straight and/or white and/or male and/or cis people.  They simply needed to be given proper consideration instead of being overlooked in a sea of “norms”. 

[Carrie12345]

6 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

First of all, I have no experience with how this works out in hiring. I can't comment on that. 

The one situation in which I have some experience is the educational setting, where kids in underrepresented groups are absolutely admitted with lower test scores and less impressive profiles. That doesn't usually look like simply racial quotas (I think those have been deemed illegal, correct?), but usually an effort is made to admit more underrepresented groups than would be admitted if you simply admitted everyone without regard to race. This can be done in all manner of ways -- UT Austin, for example, had a policy of admitting the top 8% of every high school, and given that high schools are highly segregated, this resulted in minority students being ON AVERAGE less prepared than non-minority ones. And yes, it was pretty obvious if you were teaching a class. 

The thing I don't like about this kind of policy is that it's a bandaid, just like the policy of admitting more female math graduate students and letting them flounder. If you admit kids with a weaker profile in the name of diversity, you NEED to provide support for them. Otherwise, the rate of program completion for these students will be much lower, since they won't be ready for the level of work. (This definitely happened with the female math graduate students.) And then you again have a real problem on your hands. 

I can absolutely agree with providing supports if and where they’re needed. The more everyone succeeds... the more everyone succeeds.

[Sneezyone]

5 hours ago, GoodGrief3 said:

Not sure if you are mocking my post? It was meant to be factual, as you stated this hiring practice does not occur. It’s legally mandated within that system. It’s less about providing employment, and more about Native Americans ultimately directing their health care. 
Editing to clarify that many IHS employees are not working for the tribes directly. They are typically federal civil service or US Public Health Service officers assigned to individual hospitals or clinics. 

No, not mocking, genuinely curious.

[Ausmumof3]

59 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

It sounds to me like your hypothetical is based on being required to hire for one position from the 2 non-majority applicants, and I don’t happen to be aware of scenarios where that’s an actual and legal mandate.

What I am familiar with is systems that increase the odds of the two “other” candidates getting true consideration for the position in order to counterbalance the known biases that tend to leave them on the bottom of the application pile.

My daughter hasn’t found employment in a fire department. She exceeds the basic qualifications and has experience. I do believe she’s lost out to people with more experience and/or more training even with her “gender boost”. While I feel bad for her as an individual, there’s nothing wrong with that. I just don’t ever want her ignored for being a girl.

 

When I look at the new White House cabinet, I see widely diverse people who generally hold much greater qualifications than previous straight and/or white and/or male and/or cis people.  They simply needed to be given proper consideration instead of being overlooked in a sea of “norms”. 

No not a legal requirement it was a company one because they have diversity as a goal which is probably not a bad thing but it needs to start in school/childhood not at the point of employment 

Im sorry about your dd, fire service is very competitive here many people try multiple times.  Maybe forest firefighting is easier to get into.

Edited March 13, 2021 by Ausmumof3

[Ausmumof3]

1 hour ago, Rosie_0801 said:

I was part of a citizen's jury on gender quotas in the public service for our state a couple of years ago. In the larger corporations where they are already trying to address gender inequality in higher level positions is to instruct HR to find them a balanced, blind shortlist to choose from. If they can't find enough, the powers that be tell them to go find them. Rewrite adverts to sound more appealing to women. Find out where the women are sourcing their information about job opportunities from and advertise there. It can be done because there's more money in diversity and people are motivated towards gender diversity when it is made one of their KPI's.

Yep.  This was for a trade so I don’t think they were willing to put that level of money i to recruitment.  As far as diversity goes they do have a lot of different cultural backgrounds just not women. 

[Ausmumof3]

6 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

re anti-Asian racism in the course of United States history

People v Hall decision of 1854, ruling that the testimony of a Chinese person (as well as a Native American) was inadmissible in court against a white person

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (at a time when whiter Europeans were poring in, and immediately eligible for federal land grants under the Homestead Act)

Japanese Internment camps of 1942-45, when Japanese Americans were systemically rounded up and held in camps as collective policy

There are many other examples.

 

For the last several decades East Asians have slotted into the "model minority" space once occupied by Jews, simultaneously admired and resented for work ethic, discipline and relative overepresentation in math olympiads and Ivies and tech jobs. The "model minority" trope isn't the absence of hatred and racism (as has been evidenced by the virulence of the hatred and violence that erupted with the China Virus smear). It's just a different form.

 

My feeling on this there is the belief of oneself as either inferior or superior both of which lead to racism.  One out of a need to be better than someone else and the other out of a deep seated fear that they may be better than you.

[Pam in CT]

re dynamics of the "model minority" and stereotypes that kinda-sorta are "positive"...

4 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

My feeling on this there is the belief of oneself as either inferior or superior both of which lead to racism.  One out of a need to be better than someone else and the other out of a deep seated fear that they may be better than you.

...are kind of a tangent to the OP issues, but, yeah.

There are at least two issues at play. One is the collective aspect of stereotypes, even kinda-sorta "positive" ones.  Jews are good with managing money.  Asians are good at science. Women are natural nurturers. Blacks are good at sports. There's an unvoiced "all" there that is both incorrect as a factual matter, and also erases the individuality of particular people within those putatively "admirable" groups.

The other issue is the (also usually unvoiced) resentment that often accompanies the "positive" stereotype.  And that erupts, unevenly, in observable acts like explicit quotas limiting Jews' admission to top colleges and universities from the 1920-70s; which have evolved to more de facto mechanisms that aim today to similarly limit Asians.  As well as less genteel hostility like synagogue mass shootings and Nazi slogans carried into the Capitol coup attempt, and overt violence against Asians accompanied by the smearing language of the then-sitting POTUS.  Such virulence doesn't suddenly arise out of nowhere; it erupts fast and furious because that vein of resentment is already there.

[Roadrunner]

5 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

re dynamics of the "model minority" and stereotypes that kinda-sorta are "positive"...

...are kind of a tangent to the OP issues, but, yeah.

There are at least two issues at play. One is the collective aspect of stereotypes, even kinda-sorta "positive" ones.  Jews are good with managing money.  Asians are good at science. Women are natural nurturers. Blacks are good at sports. There's an unvoiced "all" there that is both incorrect as a factual matter, and also erases the individuality of particular people within those putatively "admirable" groups.

this. I can never get that point across well. I am an individual. My kids are individuals. Don’t put me in a box. 
 

 

But overall, people can be really terrible. I think it will take generations to see the change in attitudes. It’s not something we can legislate. We can legislate non discrimination, but you can’t legislate what’s inside people’s heads (I hope I am at least getting my thoughts across here). That sort of change is slow and generational. 
And all sorts of racial groups can be racist. While we are all aware of white racism, it isn’t sadly unique to whites. It really sucks to be a minority no matter where you are. There was an incident in San Jose where Asian cops were suspended for anti Muslim posts. I mean minorities could be cruel to other monitors as well. Sometimes I really just don’t like people. 😞 

[Melissa Louise]

On 3/13/2021 at 11:59 AM, GoodGrief3 said:

 

 

Hmm...not sure why I can't get rid of this quote box. GoodGrief, quoted you in error. 

1 hour ago, Dreamergal said:

This past week there was a lot of talk of racism by the royals and the response by Prince William was that his family was not racist. Immediately of course the internet dug up a picture of William and Kate smiling and being carried on thrones literally on the shoulders of people of color in the Solomon Islands. It is in 2012, not even 10 years ago. It would have read differently if it had been the Queen and Prince Philip or even Charles and Diana. 

I have been banging on the royals a lot this week, but this is not about that. I was struck by that because William genuinely believes that his family is not racist  (we shall not talk about the lack of awareness of history, this family is not known for that as Harry's past conduct showed). I also think William does genuinely want to work on making a more equal society. But that is not the point, it is that , this did not happen in a silo. There are teams of people who organized this for them, who should know better and would really be upset if they were called out as racists. But the picture looks racist, is racist, is colonial. 

That is what racism is to me. Should people be expected to know better today ? Or are people being too sensitive ? How much should we excuse as intent and how much should we hold people accountable for ? That is the conundrum.

In my view, we should hold all of us accountable, now and also heroes in history. Let us look at the full history of Churchill, Gandhi, the Queen Mother. They did great things, were inspirations to people but were also flawed and we cannot excuse them as people of their time and not talk about that in any way. We should also do it humbly and not smugly because as we judge prior generations harshly know that we will be, not maybe judged just as harshly by future generations for we are not all there. But we must plod on, doing the work, recognizing we may fall short, but we must.

I agree 100%. I am astounded that people think minorities do not do so. We can do it very well. Perhaps not race, but gender discrimination is just as cruel if you ask me and I lived it. Anywhere there is hierarchy there will be inequality, so we must try for a more equal world. 

You know, as much as it pains me to yet again 'defend' royals, being a life long anti-monarchist, your example there is lacking context.

Many of the Pacific nations are monarchies themselves, and greetings like the above are not demanded by the visiting dignitaries, but offered as form of welcome. Yes, the welcome could be refused; I guarantee the headline would then be 'Royals snub Tuvalu, refuse cultural welcome'.

I happen to think both offering to carry and being carried are wildly inappropriate, but I'm not from Tuvalu. 

Apparently, the royals are still wildly popular in some Pacific nations. In any case, they've got a LOT more to worry about than the optics of a Royal visit, seeing as how they are sinking and all. 

 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Melissa Louise