Sounds like it’s saying “or maybe this isn’t real equality?”, which is very counter to what I assume is its intended message, an attempt to convince the reader that equality isn’t the epitome of human fairness.
Well, equality is sometimes referred to in the vain of “everyone is equal” rather than “everyone is treated equal”. I think that might be what it’s saying. When the social idea of equality first emerged, I cannot imagine even for a second that they were like “yeah, everyone should be given exactly the same things regardless of their personal situation”, because nobody striving for an idea LIKE equality would come to that resolution. Like, equity is just what equality should have been in the first place.
I am assuming that it is because people see “equality” as the epitome of human fairness, so it is questioning that.
Sounds like it’s saying “or maybe this isn’t real equality?”, which is very counter to what I assume is its intended message, an attempt to convince the reader that equality isn’t the epitome of human fairness.
Well, equality is sometimes referred to in the vain of “everyone is equal” rather than “everyone is treated equal”. I think that might be what it’s saying. When the social idea of equality first emerged, I cannot imagine even for a second that they were like “yeah, everyone should be given exactly the same things regardless of their personal situation”, because nobody striving for an idea LIKE equality would come to that resolution. Like, equity is just what equality should have been in the first place.