"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
The content of one's character is judged based-on merit and how they deal with others. Holding minorities to a lesser standard than whites is reverse discrimination and does not hold true to the words that King spoke on August 28th, 1963. If minorities aren't up to par competing based-on merit, they need to shape-up and start working harder and smarter, instead of complaining about discrimination. Focusing on championing educational achievement in minority communities by the minorities themselves, like Booker T. Washington had done, would be a great start.
But too many minorities feel entitled today because of injustices that occurred in the past. But do you know what? This is America. We aren't limited by a caste society where you must stay in the same social bracket that your parents were born in and perform the same job as them. We have the freedom to be our own people. If your workplace is discriminating against you, then quit and start your own company whose policies of non-discrimination will make you out-compete the competition and put them out-of-business.
Yes, there is still racism in America, but it isn't nearly as bad as it was 50 or 150 years ago. Today's racism is peanuts compared to then. So stop complaining and start working, doing otherwise is a disservice to those that were enslaved and faced heavy discrimination in the past. And if American-born minorities don't start working, then the immigrating minorities will leave them in the dust (and hopefully change the culture of laziness among some of the American-born ones at the same time). Just look at President Obama. He's the son of a Kenyan immigrant (no American slave roots). It's the work ethic that counts.
I remember from my business, government, and society class (MGMT
320) at UW that we discussed how laws in the United States had evolved
to count corporations as People, which also gave them the Rights that
the Citizens of the United States have. A thought just crossed my mind
that made me wonder if the way corporate personhood is currently
structured might violate The Constitution. Amendment XIII
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,
except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject
to their jurisdiction.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Now corporations have "owners" that are its "shareholders", which is where the problem potentially exists. If
corporations are People and have the same Rights as other People that are outlined in The Constitution,
"slavery" means that a person is owned by one or more other persons or entities, and
slavery is illegal in the United States, then...
isn't it illegal for corporations to have "owners" since most
corporations haven't committed a crime to warrant being enslaved or put
into involuntary servitude?
It would seem from this predicament
that either corporations cannot have owners or that corporations should
not be granted full personhood, because of this constitutional
problem. Here's the Wikipedia article for more history on corporate personhood and how it has specifically developed in the United States.