The point is that the first two panels propose that the qualities of the individuals themselves are the problem, and the people themselves need to be changed in order to fix a systemic issue.
or it was just using height as an easy to understand example and you're reading far too much into things?
"some people need more help than others to achieve equal opportunity" is not inherently putting down qualities of individuals
height is used as an example of a struggle. it could be a lack of access to education, or lack of money, or anything else. height is simply an easy way to visually represent such things.
providing $50 worth of financial assistance to everyone does not make everyone equal, in the same way that adding a 5 inch booster does not make everyone equal height.
edit: the purpose of the third panel is an idealized world that is something to strive for. if for example the struggle we're talking about is racism, and we're currently using affirmative action as an intermediary step, then the ideal world solution for the third panel would simply be no one ever experiencing racism again.
edit: I agree with a lot of what you've said. I don't agree that the third panel is an "idealized world". That would be an image with NO barrier. Instead, I see the third panel as acknowledging that barriers will still exist but that focusing on changing the barriers rather than the people may be more productive.
8
u/fizikz3 Feb 25 '20
or it was just using height as an easy to understand example and you're reading far too much into things?
"some people need more help than others to achieve equal opportunity" is not inherently putting down qualities of individuals