Are you Positive it is Discriminatory

[reason]

I watched part of a TV celebrity quiz show recently. The money won was to be donated to a charity selected by the winning celebrity. You all know the format. The charity selected by a black contestant was the Afro Caribbean Leukaemia Trust. This kind of grated on me somewhat. Why on earth is there a charity set up that favours only the Afro Caribbean community? Surely this is part of the fuel that keeps the positive discrimination fire alight. If someone wanted to set up a charity that favoured only white folks then there would be all sorts of questions asked. In fact, I do not believe The Charity Commission would even entertain the idea of an application from such an organisation.

To be clear, I am not a racist. But, although I do not condone or fall within this subsection of society, I can understand the mindset of those people who use the positive discrimination lean on things in areas such, say, recruitment in the police service to wave the flag of racism in a way that they feel is a justified and proportionate response. Yes, it is a good thing to have full representation from all areas of the community but is it still a good thing if the person selected for a high position in government/civil service/police/whatever was chosen for their ethnicity, religion (or lack of) or sexual orientation? No, it isn't. The best person for the job should be based on skills and ability.

Going against the grain of Positive Discrimination creates an easy target for those who like to shoot the "you are a racist" bullet but I cannot help but feel that it is partly due to the rising number of publicised cases of positive discrimination that support for organisations such as the BNP is swelling. Perhaps those whose opinions are swayed in this way lack a certain amount of intellect and are possibly less well educated as others, but nevertheless, support for the far-right does appear to be growing. Maybe in a generation or two the momentum gathered will be harder to slow down. A worrying thought.

What really prompted me to post this was not actually the contestant. That only provoked me into thinking some thoughts. What actually pushed me to write this was that after making a little effort to look further I discovered that a treatment for leukaemia suffers involves a bone marrow transplant. An afro Caribbean sufferer can only receive marrow from a donor of similar ethnicity. So my lack of education caught me out here. The charity does deserve to exist and does deserve to receive funds from all who wish to give. I shall bung them a fiver if only to make myself feel better for jumping the gun.

 

[Eidolon]

It just goes into the same pile as black history month, gay pride, and such. For whatever reason, society deems it appropriate to have events and organizations that cater to non white and non straight and pretty much everything else non anglo saxon.

Its perfectly fine to have a black heritage day, but as soon as a white person attempts to get a white heritage day, he is considered a neo nazi. Same thing with gay pride parades. Groups of gays and lesbians can have all the pride they want, but as soon as a group of straight people try it, they are seen as homophobic. By the way, that pile I referred to in the fire sentence was bullshit.

There is a scholarship that my school offers, however its only available to blacks. Here's the real funny thing, it supposed to be for black achievement but the requirements for it are merely a 2.0 GPA, and a 900 on the SAT. Basically, a complete idiot could get that scholarship as long as he/she was black ( I think they review the candidates and chose however many of the top qualifiers for the award but still the minimum entry standards are piss). Try to create a scholarship for whites only, and fucking Jesse Jackoff, err, jackson comes and plays the race card.

Its complete bullshit.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I always jump to the conclusion that people who whine about "positive discrimination" are just looking for a culturally acceptable outlet for their racism. I also always hole that my conclusion is wrong... let's find out, shall we? :twisted:

BTW...Bravo, for admitting that you were wrong about the Afro Caribbean thing. I feel a little better about you already.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

It just goes into the same pile as black history month, gay pride, and such. For whatever reason, society deems it appropriate to have events and organizations that cater to non white and non straight and pretty much everything else non anglo saxon.

I don't think it's really fair to say that homosexuality is "non anglo-saxon." Sure, it would have been frowned upon as it has been - unjustly - in most societies, but homosexuality would certainly have been around.

I think the reason for these various events and organisations is that they're not the norm. The people involved are in minorities and quite often, as sadly tends to happen, discriminated against or misunderstood as a result. The base state of British culture could be said to be something like white, christian and straight (clearly I'm simplifying). So these values/majorities/inclinations/whatever aren't seen as misunderstood, whereas other religions or cultures or groups would feel the need to clarify certain issues to the majority who do not, strictly speaking, belong.

What would be the point of a "white pride" march anyway, unless you're in a country where whites are a minority with a history of prejudice and violence? I think it's pretty understandable if a group of people, a minority, decide to go for some solidarity and consciousness-raising - especially if that group has suffered thanks to a lack of understanding in the past.

I'm not condoning the positive discrimination aspect; I'm condoning the nurturing of better understanding of minority groups, if they want to promote themselves.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I don't think it's really fair to say that homosexuality is "non anglo-saxon." Sure, it would have been frowned upon as it has been - unjustly - in most societies, but homosexuality would certainly have been around.

I think the reason for these various events and organisations is that they're not the norm. The people involved are in minorities and quite often, as sadly tends to happen, discriminated against or misunderstood as a result. The base state of British culture could be said to be something like white, christian and straight (clearly I'm simplifying). So these values/majorities/inclinations/whatever aren't seen as misunderstood, whereas other religions or cultures or groups would feel the need to clarify certain issues to the majority who do not, strictly speaking, belong.

What would be the point of a "white pride" march anyway, unless you're in a country where whites are a minority with a history of prejudice and violence? I think it's pretty understandable if a group of people, a minority, decide to go for some solidarity and consciousness-raising - especially if that group has suffered thanks to a lack of understanding in the past.

I'm not condoning the positive discrimination aspect; I'm condoning the nurturing of better understanding of minority groups, if they want to promote themselves.

That's exactly what it is. When you're in a culture where you're the minority, especially one like America with its long history of slavery and racism and general bigotry, being a minority means you start from a disadvantaged position. It is a fact that straight white men have an advantage that they are born with. All the other stuff is there to make up for that advantage.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

I always jump to the conclusion that people who whine about "positive discrimination" are just looking for a culturally acceptable outlet for their racism. I also always hole that my conclusion is wrong... let's find out, shall we? :twisted:

I'm with Reason on that one; it's not racist to dislike a system where, for example, a candidate for a post is chosen more because of their ethnic background (or their disability) than their skills for the job in hand. My local council has, for the last few months, stated on all job offers that they are especially interested in applications from people with disabilities, as they are under-represented in their workforce. Which implies that there's some kind of quota of black/asian/muslim/disabled/martian employees to top up, rather then simply taking the most suited person for the role regardless of who they are. That's not an initiative I could ever get behind. If there's genuine discrimination at work in an organisation that discourages anyone other than fine upstanding whites, then that needs to be addressed; but ideally the colour of skin, country of birth or sexual preference should be entirely secondary to the ability of the person to perform the role required of them.

I'm obviously sticking to workplace-related issues, but you can see my point. Disliking positive discrimination isn't racism. Positive discrimination IS racism, or can be.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

being a minority means you start from a disadvantaged position

You phrased it somewhat more clearly than I did. Nice.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Well, we live in an imperfect world, and the "positive discrimination" stuff is an imperfect answer. But, seeing as how straight white males have a automatic unearned advantage over everyone else, it is hardly kosher of them to while when other people get a manual unearned boost to partially make up for it. It is like a race where straight while males have always been given a 30 second head start complaining that they still get the head start on time, but a few other people have their starting line moved up a few feet ahead.

 

[RichardMNixon]

My undergrad had an Africana Studies major. Our joke was that we had a white-history major too: they called it History.

We also had Irish Club, German Club, etc. which are technically white-centric organizations.

Another thing to note is that sometimes the name is the only thing discriminatory. We had a pretty prominent minority scholarship with the goal of getting blacks into science Ph.D. programs, but white men could still receive it, it was just marketed towards minorities.

While I am generally against affirmative action, there's other things in there that aren't often considered. An example is that medical schools don't need to let in a certain number of blacks just to keep the school diverse, rather they need a certain number of black doctors because black doctors are more likely to serve black patients and work in urban areas with inadequate medical care.

 

[obsidianavenger]

Well, we live in an imperfect world, and the "positive discrimination" stuff is an imperfect answer. But, seeing as how straight white males have a automatic unearned advantage over everyone else, it is hardly kosher of them to while when other people get a manual unearned boost to partially make up for it. It is like a race where straight while males have always been given a 30 second head start complaining that they still get the head start on time, but a few other people have their starting line moved up a few feet ahead.

that doesn't really wash with me. thought the head start was prominent in the past, with the removal of sanctioned racism and sexism in government thats not really the case anymore, except in a historical sense, ie minority groups are more likely to be poor because their ancestors were poor, because they were discriminated against.

but they were not discriminated against by anyone living... and no one living has been institutionally discriminated against. and yes i know, racism unfortunately still exists, but i mean as a matter of public policy. you would punish the sons for the sins of the father, for some sense of cosmic justice? its like original sin... lol...

racism and sexism are absurd and wrong. so i never understood the idea of fighting racism with racism, or fighting sexism with sexism. if individuals or private business want to be discriminatory, whether in the positive or negative direction, thats their decision. but to make it a matter of public policy that the government needs to make up for something a bunch of dead people did hundreds of years ago... eh.

the better strategy to me seems to be educating people on the inaccuracy of racist and sexist claims. try to erase it instead of perpetuating it.

 

[Nogre]

being a minority means you start from a disadvantaged position.

No, it doesn't. I'm gay, I'm an atheist, and I'm a vegetarian. In fact, just about the only "majority" traits I have are being a white male. Yet I haven't been disadvantaged at all when it comes to things that should grant me special priveleges. There were/are black people at my schools that had the exactly same educational opportunities as I had, had the exactly same parental support, and not one single disadvantage that could have set them back academically.

Certainly some people are disadvantaged, but we no longer live in a world where the lines of the disadvantaged can be drawn by skin color, sexual orientation, or any other line than those people who truly are feeling effects that can be objectively established. Financial disadvantages, sure. If a student gets a 3.9 when they're raised by a single mom that could barely pay to go to school at all and another student earns a 3.9 when they were given everything as a child, had all the extra study books, a private tutor, and tons of other extra advantages bought by parents, then the first student's achievement is more impressive. So affirmative action is perfectly understandable. It recognizes a greater level of achievement because you also have overcoming those disadvantages.

But if you think I would ever claim that straight, Christian, omnivores have an advantage that needs to be made up for in affirmative action, you're sorely mistaken. Have I faced any discrimination? Nothing major that was direct, but I've had a lot of stress related to that. But I hardly think that would ever give me a claim to affirmative action, even if I had been repeated called a faggot throughout high school, or even beaten up once. Class-based affirmative action makes up for a real, objective disadvantage, but simply basing it off being a minority is absurd, plain and simple.

 

[reason]

I always jump to the conclusion that people who whine about "positive discrimination" are just looking for a culturally acceptable outlet for their racism. I also always hole that my conclusion is wrong... let's find out, shall we? :twisted:

BTW...Bravo, for admitting that you were wrong about the Afro Caribbean thing. I feel a little better about you already.

An interesting post Joe. I am not sure how I should process its content as I am aware that context is easily lost in these arenas and I may be misunderstanding you. "...let's find out, shall we?" comes across as a challenge.

From time to time I do raise my concern, perhaps even dislike of positive discrimination (PD). I do not believe that I am looking for an acceptable outlet for my inherent racism although I accept that those who are truly racist would take this route. And let's face it, if these people wanted to highlight a black guy getting the job over the (more suited?) white guy then what more publicly acceptable method is there? I doubt whether this would be the case if the PD cases were involving disabled or gays. Just cannot see the argument holding the same weight. The barriers for the disabled and the gay community are in the whole gone? There are always going to be individuals who will form small communities or cults or whatever to go against this, but hey, free speech and so on. It is good to keep things mixed up a little and keep everyone on their toes. But the general psyche of the nation (at least here in the UK) is that there is a fair crack at the whip for those individuals now. Maybe not quite so for females seeking higher positions in public or private companies and that will likely be there for some time yet, however veiled it is. I digress...!

So let's find out Joe. I shall offer a couple of scenarios and welcome your analysis....

I am walking down a quiet street and ahead of me I can see 5 or 6 black males aged around 18 or 19. They are being generally loud and posturing to each other in the way young males do when they are testing the barriers of the hierarchy within their group. Would I cross the road or take another route albeit a longer one? I would certainly consider it and would feel I ought to but think I would force myself to walk past them anyway rather than let them know they put the wind up me somewhat. But the thought in my head was there! The stereotypical young black guy will rob or stab me! Does that make me a racist?

Consider the same thing but with black females. I would walk past without a thought. Does that make me sexist?

White males? I would do the same as if they were the black males?

How about if they aged 11 or 12 years old. Oddly, this scares me more and I would perhaps take the other pavement. Why? Because I am big and ugly enough to defend myself against an adult or perhaps a couple of them but I am far more defenceless against children even when they think they are adults. Does this make me ageist?

And you say Joe, that you feel a little better about me already. Does this mean that I started in your opinion as someone you felt bad about as opposed to being more nuetral and that I had to make you feel better in order to gain your acceptance? Does this make you me-ist?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

An interesting post Joe. I am not sure how I should process its content as I am aware that context is easily lost in these arenas and I may be misunderstanding you. "...let's find out, shall we?" comes across as a challenge.

From time to time I do raise my concern, perhaps even dislike of positive discrimination (PD). I do not believe that I am looking for an acceptable outlet for my inherent racism although I accept that those who are truly racist would take this route. And let's face it, if these people wanted to highlight a black guy getting the job over the (more suited?) white guy then what more publicly acceptable method is there? I doubt whether this would be the case if the PD cases were involving disabled or gays. Just cannot see the argument holding the same weight. The barriers for the disabled and the gay community are in the whole gone? There are always going to be individuals who will form small communities or cults or whatever to go against this, but hey, free speech and so on. It is good to keep things mixed up a little and keep everyone on their toes. But the general psyche of the nation (at least here in the UK) is that there is a fair crack at the whip for those individuals now. Maybe not quite so for females seeking higher positions in public or private companies and that will likely be there for some time yet, however veiled it is. I digress...!

So let's find out Joe. I shall offer a couple of scenarios and welcome your analysis....

I am walking down a quiet street and ahead of me I can see 5 or 6 black males aged around 18 or 19. They are being generally loud and posturing to each other in the way young males do when they are testing the barriers of the hierarchy within their group. Would I cross the road or take another route albeit a longer one? I would certainly consider it and would feel I ought to but think I would force myself to walk past them anyway rather than let them know they put the wind up me somewhat. But the thought in my head was there! The stereotypical young black guy will rob or stab me! Does that make me a racist?

Consider the same thing but with black females. I would walk past without a thought. Does that make me sexist?

White males? I would do the same as if they were the black males?

How about if they aged 11 or 12 years old. Oddly, this scares me more and I would perhaps take the other pavement. Why? Because I am big and ugly enough to defend myself against an adult or perhaps a couple of them but I am far more defenceless against children even when they think they are adults. Does this make me ageist?

And you say Joe, that you feel a little better about me already. Does this mean that I started in your opinion as someone you felt bad about as opposed to being more nuetral and that I had to make you feel better in order to gain your acceptance? Does this make you me-ist?

Sure, it was a challenge... in the same way that you weren't sure of my motives, I wasn't sure of yours. So, instead of just going with my gut instinct, I decided to give you a chance.

Let's go last one first... I'm anti-"positive discrimination"-ism-ist? I find that excessive complaining about so-called "positive discrimination" is a sign of possible racism. It is certainly something that explicitly racist people love to use as an argument, because it holds some appeal to many other members of the majority.

As for the rest, you're admitting to possible "implicit racism" and other biases, but you are smart enough to understand that your subconscious bias is not a rational guide.

The issue I think comes down to fairness. It is unfair that minority groups suffer an inherent disadvantage in pretty much every society. It may also be unfair to some individuals that room is made for minorities to make up for that other unfairness. It is one of those balancing acts that, at least to me, seems like the best of bad choices. I can understand that other people would prefer other choices, but I can't understand how some people can claim that NOTHING should be done to correct institutional bias and implicit racism.

 

[Shapeshifter]

I sometimes have been thinking along similar lines - not concerning races or homosexuality - but feminism, simply as I don't perceive the other two as a problem in my surroundings. Well, feminism isn't a problem either but it always got me irritated when women started to act all superior and whatnot. Uhm, I just wrote a couple of lines about my thoughts on feminism, but I just erased them because it's a complex issue, but luckily not a big one these days as we're on the right way in Europe. So - just the point I wanted to get across on topic:

I also sometimes thought that there's something wrong with some groups being able to push forward and, as you say "celebrate" their heritage/orientation/view while the counterpart of it is being crucified for trying to do so. But in the end, it's quite obvious that in the big picture, there's good reasons why this is the case. People of different races, homosexuals (and women for that matter) simply have been oppressed entities in the past (and still are in wide parts of the world) and now have an extended demand for recognition. And simply being part of the previously/partially oppressing unit puts you in a bad position to go out celebrating. This is imho an understandable effect in a social network.

So; Yes - in very strict (and narrow-minded) rational thinking, it's a bit daft not being able to "represent" ones viewpoint/race/whatever. But: in actual (and a bit broader) rational thinking, even the simple act of "celebrating" the viewpoint or culture of oneself is a bit pointless. Just like it's pointless to be proud of ones motherland. I mean, if you're black - you're born black, no reason to be proud of it. Same goes for the nationality, or for being a woman. So, at the end of this trail of thought, celebrating such a standpoint or building a league to support it only even makes sense when it's a minority/oppressed standpoint. And as such, this kind of celebration is valid, while the celebration of the opposing viewpoint is rather not.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

being a minority means you start from a disadvantaged position.

No, it doesn't. I'm gay, I'm an atheist, and I'm a vegetarian. In fact, just about the only "majority" traits I have are being a white male. Yet I haven't been disadvantaged at all when it comes to things that should grant me special priveleges. There were/are black people at my schools that had the exactly same educational opportunities as I had, had the exactly same parental support, and not one single disadvantage that could have set them back academically.

Certainly some people are disadvantaged, but we no longer live in a world where the lines of the disadvantaged can be drawn by skin color, sexual orientation, or any other line than those people who truly are feeling effects that can be objectively established. Financial disadvantages, sure. If a student gets a 3.9 when they're raised by a single mom that could barely pay to go to school at all and another student earns a 3.9 when they were given everything as a child, had all the extra study books, a private tutor, and tons of other extra advantages bought by parents, then the first student's achievement is more impressive. So affirmative action is perfectly understandable. It recognizes a greater level of achievement because you also have overcoming those disadvantages.

But if you think I would ever claim that straight, Christian, omnivores have an advantage that needs to be made up for in affirmative action, you're sorely mistaken. Have I faced any discrimination? Nothing major that was direct, but I've had a lot of stress related to that. But I hardly think that would ever give me a claim to affirmative action, even if I had been repeated called a faggot throughout high school, or even beaten up once. Class-based affirmative action makes up for a real, objective disadvantage, but simply basing it off being a minority is absurd, plain and simple.

"Data" is not the plural of 'anecdote"...

They did a study a couple of years back, where the researchers sent out job applications with identical resumes, and changed the names on half of them to sound "more black" and made the other ones were more "white-sounding" names... and the ones where the fictional applicant might be assumed to be black got significantly less calls backs than the more neutral names. Implicit racism is real, and is a real barrier to economic progress.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I sometimes have been thinking along similar lines - not concerning races or homosexuality - but feminism, simply as I don't perceive the other two as a problem in my surroundings. Well, feminism isn't a problem either but it always got me irritated when women started to act all superior and whatnot. Uhm, I just wrote a couple of lines about my thoughts on feminism, but I just erased them because it's a complex issue, but luckily not a big one these days as we're on the right way in Europe. So - just the point I wanted to get across on topic:

I also sometimes thought that there's something wrong with some groups being able to push forward and, as you say "celebrate" their heritage/orientation/view while the counterpart of it is being crucified for trying to do so. But in the end, it's quite obvious that in the big picture, there's good reasons why this is the case. People of different races, homosexuals (and women for that matter) simply have been oppressed entities in the past (and still are in wide parts of the world) and now have an extended demand for recognition. And simply being part of the previously/partially oppressing unit puts you in a bad position to go out celebrating. This is imho an understandable effect in a social network.

So; Yes - in very strict (and narrow-minded) rational thinking, it's a bit daft not being able to "represent" ones viewpoint/race/whatever. But: in actual (and a bit broader) rational thinking, even the simple act of "celebrating" the viewpoint or culture of oneself is a bit pointless. Just like it's pointless to be proud of ones motherland. I mean, if you're black - you're born black, no reason to be proud of it. Same goes for the nationality, or for being a woman. So, at the end of this trail of thought, celebrating such a standpoint or building a league to support it only even makes sense when it's a minority/oppressed standpoint. And as such, this kind of celebration is valid, while the celebration of the opposing viewpoint is rather not.

Great post, better than I could have put it.

Celebrating something like race or gender only makes sense if it is response to bigotry against that group. Groups that haven't faced that bigotry have nothing to respond to.

 

[5810Singer]

IMO at some point you have to draw a line in the sand about past injustices. The sins of the father can't be perpetually passed on to the children, and children's children.

There has been violent conflict between Catholic and Protestant on and off in the UK for 500yrs, only today a police officer was the victim of a car bomb attack in Northen Ireland.
The only way that any peace and understanding has been achieved has been for both sides to lay aside their weapons and prejudices, and to talk in a spirit of equality and peace.

At some point all issues like this have to be resolved this way, otherwise you end up with a perpetual vendetta, and noone is safe or happy.

 

[JacobEvans]

There is a huge difference between celebrating being part of a race, and aiding members of a disenfranchised one.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

IMO at some point you have to draw a line in the sand about past injustices. The sins of the father can't be perpetually passed on to the children, and children's children.

There has been violent conflict between Catholic and Protestant on and off in the UK for 500yrs, only today a police officer was the victim of a car bomb attack in Northen Ireland.
The only way that any peace and understanding has been achieved has been for both sides to lay aside their weapons and prejudices, and to talk in a spirit of equality and peace.

At some point all issues like this have to be resolved this way, otherwise you end up with a perpetual vendetta, and noone is safe or happy.

Really? Speaking of "sand", some injustices started thousands of years ago, and continue today. More importantly, you can't reasonably tell the oppressed folks that it is THEIR job to put aside the past while the oppressors simply shift tactics. Injustices don't go away by telling the victims to sit down and shut up about it.

 

[5810Singer]

IMO at some point you have to draw a line in the sand about past injustices. The sins of the father can't be perpetually passed on to the children, and children's children.

There has been violent conflict between Catholic and Protestant on and off in the UK for 500yrs, only today a police officer was the victim of a car bomb attack in Northen Ireland.
The only way that any peace and understanding has been achieved has been for both sides to lay aside their weapons and prejudices, and to talk in a spirit of equality and peace.

At some point all issues like this have to be resolved this way, otherwise you end up with a perpetual vendetta, and noone is safe or happy.

Really? Speaking of "sand", some injustices started thousands of years ago, and continue today. More importantly, you can't reasonably tell the oppressed folks that it is THEIR job to put aside the past while the oppressors simply shift tactics. Injustices don't go away by telling the victims to sit down and shut up about it.

And conflicts don't go away if you live in a permanent state of resentment, animosity and revenge.

At some point you have to talk peace.

Joe, do I have to establish my credentials as a non-racist person, before you'll accept my views as non-racist?
If so how do you suggest I achieve that?

I ask this without any rancour or sarcasm.