The US arms shipments to Britain, and later after the gun runner ship Lustiana, hoping to use its civilian passengers as a shield in breach of the rules of war, led to American popular support for joining with the Allies, which they eventually did to push Germany to defeat despite the newly Sovietised Russia withdrawing.

And it might be that Dixieland and Yankeeland would support the Allies and Axis, and WWI would have had an American theatre, too opening in 1915 or so. And any major war fought in North America in the 20th century would totally alter the form US neo imperial power and hegemony took, if any at all, in the latter part of the 20th century.

As a minimum, a different US would alter how Versaille and Balfour treaties were made and what who agreed to.

I didn’t even mention the Second World War, because the first would’ve been different enough to make it having happened in a familiar form into unlikely.

On the one hand… First World War would’ve ended very differently.

On the other… Maybe eugenics would already be discredited by the 20s with how it went in Dixie.

Call me a poser, but I prefer him in The Skin I Live in.

Thank you, that looks like a good set of hooks for me to get into at a weekend, child allowing.

I very much appreciate the guide. I’ll let you know when I’ve had a fiddle.

I tried using PiVPN to route my phone’s Internet access through my home network, but it kept breaking and I found I don’t have a head for networks.

Would caddy be able to do that in an easier to maintain way?

I got to the pokémon game, and it doesn’t work and I couldn’t work out why and beat my head against it in my freetime for a week until I just gave up… 😭😔

Winning tie breaks is a solid advantage.

UK job applications have the requirements, essential and ideal, written out beforehand so the hirers can’t just add their choice of extra ideal qualities later - does the US generally let firms have such leeway and lack of paperwork with hiring?
(I know that in practice, especially with internal hires, the specification can be written with a candidate in mind to make it much easier for the individual in mind to get the job, but I think that’s a different problem overall.)

Your idea of allowing different organisations and spaces to experiment and see what works is probably the best way to do it.
Giving smaller groups freedom to try things and then studying and itetating is much better than top down intervention, provided while we exist under governments that their is a gov. backstop to stop that freedom being used to impose more discriminatory practice.

Thank you for the time, effort, and thought out replies.

Status aware… I don’t like that. Protected groups… Even worse. Minority groups… Feels odd applying that to women, and various intersections…

Statistically Disadvantaged/discriminated identities?

Ehh, it is hard. I think that’s why govs haven’t managed to do a good job with naming it.

On the main point, I agree that there is often a perception/“PR” problem for these policies.
But then, in the UK where the policy was just “when deciding between two equally qualified candidates, choose the under represented one” still got done in the right wing media as “law mandating hiring on unqualified individuals”, so I don’t think that adjusting would do a huge amount of work.

I think the contention is that I think that colouring hiring policies have been shown to not work, because it’s very hard to implement in practice. At least collecting identity data would stave off the level of head-in-the-sand France reached.
If the hiring process has an interview stage, how to make it identity-blind?
How to deal with the perception of people, especially women, in a management position?

I do agree that the main thing is hitting the underlying perception issues, but how to do that without creating a world where they’re visibly untrue is trickier. But if it was an easy problem there’d probably be less division on how to tackle it.

First, maybe this will help fill in as a starter on the French situation.

Secondly, I do agree that targets and statistics inevitably distort and pervert any goals. So it will tend towards failure, but that’s government. It never really works, and since I assume we’re talking about the system we’re in rather than a new one I don’t think it’s a deal-breaker.

Thirdly, and most pertinently: due to systemic racism/prejudices there is a barrier to various arbitrary socially constructed groups that other arbitrary socially constructed groups do not need to deal with.

By ignoring that there is a barrier to some in the form of systemic prejudice you don’t actually help those more discriminated against groups. You just help the arbitrary groups that are less discriminated against. Maybe you have less inequality overall because the discriminated against group is a minority, but I don’t think either of us think that that makes it “better”.

This is in fact where France has gotten to in its starting to analyse it’s own colourblindness.

Replying to this one because newer. Have read and taken the other reply of yours into account too.

I agree that we’re off on a vibes and feels thing here because we don’t have the data, and obviously it will vary between workplaces and individuals (even if to put systemic issues as individual choice/responsibility just covers for those systemic issues).

We do have data from France showing that their entirely colourblind governance has not helped, despite targeting on socio economic or geographic bounds.

When surely, if colourblind policies would do better at undoing systemic racism, wouldn’t France have had better outcomes from them?

OK, we agree on that.

To what extent do you think that implicit or unconscious bias cause visible minority groups to need to have to work harder and be more exceptional to get a position, role, or responsiblity, or a n on-category specified grant, assistance, or similar?

I think we may be operating on different suppositions, so addressing that rather than wasting time clarifying details about France’s choice to never record demographic stats for things would be best.

Do you think systemic racism exists and is a large problem in the USA or France?

France has always been officially colour blind, and they’re the most racist and racially i equal country in Western Europe.

Colourblind policies don’t help as people in authority’s implicit biases get freer reign.