Quote:
Originally Posted by Autumn
Right, but I wasn't talking about crimes. I was talking about saying "the businesses only hurt themselves." To suggest in any way that the businesses were the victims of their policies is really going off track I think.
|
It's off track in the sense, that as you said, you can't compare that loss to the loss suffered by African-Americans in America's history, of course. But that isn't really the point. The point is that if a company refuses to hire black people - that company is at a serious disadvantage to a company that goes after the best people regardless of race. That itself is going to promote change. That encourages everyone to break through prejudice with their success and accomplishments. That's the ideal kind of change - though it's easier said than done in reality.
Sports teams in the 50s and 60s, college and pros, surely had a lot of racists in the front office and head coaching ranks - but they also wanted to win and make money. And in sports, with statistics and game outcomes, it's really trackable, and very concrete, how well everyone is doing. It is quite clear when an African-American (or anybody) is helping a team, unlike in business, where it might not be so clear who's contributing what. (Giving a white guy an office job over a superior black guy is not as noticeable as starting a white guy over a superior black player in a sport), I think that's part of why sports were generally ahead of the curve in a racial sense. The Red Sox were a blatantly racist team for decades, and they were subsequently a non-factor for decades. Now, even completely ignoring the PR catastrophe it would be, if any team refused to hire minority athletes, they would suck, so that way of thinking has gone away.