[Nepotism is wired in (why wife was talking bout it this morning in connection with her job--how the ranks of the institution she teaches at are now filled with people from India and the office workers are largely East Asian).]
A case could be made that this is an example of just what those who try to maintain privilege are worried about.…
[Nepotism is wired in (why wife was talking bout it this morning in connection with her job--how the ranks of the institution she teaches at are now filled with people from India and the office workers are largely East Asian).]
A case could be made that this is an example of just what those who try to maintain privilege are worried about. "Once I stop cheating, someone else will start. Thus, I move from advantage not to equality, but to disadvantage."
We certainly are imperfect (especially in society as a whole) in understanding 'human nature', but any time we ignore, wish away, or try to legislate it out of existence we're going to be disappointed.
The idea of fairness of opportunity and education is a specifically American idea. I have know people from India and East Asia and they don't have a problem with hiring people of their nationality, race or social class.
Americans do the same thing but understand it is wrong culturally, which is why the idea of tokenism came about.
My mind goes to the cultural acceptability of bribes comparatively between the US / West and much of the rest of the world. I can't help but wonder if things like that and the viewing nepotism as wrong don't partially explain the west's economic success compared to much of the rest of the world. By no means the only factors, nor even saying major factors, but I'd think they are in the mix.
Having a relatively incorrupt system helps. One of the things people forget, however, is that we were pretty corrupt during most of the 19th century. Especially before the Civil Service Reform.
Many administrative posts in the federal government were part of the spoils system (political appointment). Same with a lot of local offices.
Then there were things like Credit Mobilier.
Open bribes were less socially acceptable.. but they still occurred and they occurred in other less visible forms.
I would argue that it wasn't freedom from corruption that accounts for the success. It was largely a combination of culture and less-autocratic forms of government.
I think you're right. Look at a lot of the kids of musicians, actors, artists, et al, who have all the doors open to them and yet don't have the fraction of the talent the parent has.
[Nepotism is wired in (why wife was talking bout it this morning in connection with her job--how the ranks of the institution she teaches at are now filled with people from India and the office workers are largely East Asian).]
A case could be made that this is an example of just what those who try to maintain privilege are worried about. "Once I stop cheating, someone else will start. Thus, I move from advantage not to equality, but to disadvantage."
We certainly are imperfect (especially in society as a whole) in understanding 'human nature', but any time we ignore, wish away, or try to legislate it out of existence we're going to be disappointed.
The idea of fairness of opportunity and education is a specifically American idea. I have know people from India and East Asia and they don't have a problem with hiring people of their nationality, race or social class.
Americans do the same thing but understand it is wrong culturally, which is why the idea of tokenism came about.
My mind goes to the cultural acceptability of bribes comparatively between the US / West and much of the rest of the world. I can't help but wonder if things like that and the viewing nepotism as wrong don't partially explain the west's economic success compared to much of the rest of the world. By no means the only factors, nor even saying major factors, but I'd think they are in the mix.
Having a relatively incorrupt system helps. One of the things people forget, however, is that we were pretty corrupt during most of the 19th century. Especially before the Civil Service Reform.
Many administrative posts in the federal government were part of the spoils system (political appointment). Same with a lot of local offices.
Then there were things like Credit Mobilier.
Open bribes were less socially acceptable.. but they still occurred and they occurred in other less visible forms.
I would argue that it wasn't freedom from corruption that accounts for the success. It was largely a combination of culture and less-autocratic forms of government.
I think you're right. Look at a lot of the kids of musicians, actors, artists, et al, who have all the doors open to them and yet don't have the fraction of the talent the parent has.