…y what metric you make the points you do or how it became a contest between races. Surely it’s not? You make mention of breast cancer, but surely breast cancer is not a conspiracy by Caucasians against Asian Americans? With any defined groups, you’ll always find some differences in outcomes if you look hard enough. T…
Christopher J. Ferguson
It doesn’t have to be a contest on an individual level. The real question for the leaders is this: how do we distribute resources when they are limited? This is a realistic question that leaders of all kinds deal with every day.
I use breast cancer as an example: black women have 1.higher rates of 2.more aggressive cancers at 3.younger ages. They also get less care, overall, than white women for this disease: fewer diagnostic images, more time elapsed prior to treatment, surgery etc.
As the leader of a society, if you see that one group of people is significantly more affected at younger ages, why would you hesitate to put the resources in that direction? It is clear that, as a group, black women are suffering at higher numbers percentage-wise, at younger ages, AND with more aggressive cancers. Equality tells us that this is the group that should get the MOST resources, not the least.
Yet, once again, for yet another generation, we see that white women get the bulk of resources. These are all statistically documented realities. Now, if there is enough for everybody (a situation in which I have never, in 35 years of professional work in corporations, ever seen), everything is kumbaya and hunkie-dory. Then everyone gets enough.
This hardly ever happens: resources are virtually always limited in every setting, and in particular in settings in which most people want to be. Doesn’t everybody want Adele’s Grammy award? How many people will get it? Zero sum discussions are real at higher levels where appealing things that people want are negotiated, and because of that, they need to be discussed.
In all fairness, who should get these resources first???
The group in which we see greater problems on a group level: black women. This is obvious to me even though I am not a black woman, based on reality and facts.
Why is there any hesitation??? Why do the resources keep going to white women?
That was the point of bringing up breast cancer. A truly equitable society, when faced with limited resources (the only reality negotiated at higher levels), should be giving those resources to those who need them most. Why, instead, are they giving them to their (white) daughters, wives, mistresses, and mothers???
Evidence also shows that Asians as a group have intermediary outcomes when it comes to breast cancer: more aggressive cancers diagnosed at a younger age than white women as a group and older than black women as a group. This is a cogent reflection of our social reality and hierarchy. Our bodies express this hierarchy in physical terms.
Why would an equitable society continue to provide the most resources to those who need them least and the least to those who need them most?!