FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Whites need not apply!





smalls
Check out this article.
I'm curious to hear opinions from those that see nothing wrong with this. Of course I would also like to hear from those of you that agree with me....that this is flat out government-endorsed racism.
joshumu
Yeah i would agree that that's discrimination. But it also seems akin to state education grants for minorities. "positive trainee work to someone in a group which is underrepresented at the council". But i can see both sides.
Nameless
I agree that barring whites from something is just as much descrimination as barring any other racial group. It IS racism by any definition. Then again, things like government grants to non-whites is ALSO racist descrimination. I live in Australia and at time get a bit annoyed by grants and bonuses given to Aboriginals - if it's so important for them to be equal, we should stop treating them any differently, full stop.
xalophus
Affirmative action is nothing new.

The theory being -
The government and law discriminate in favour of the minority (or against the empowered majority) to compensate for the discrimination that the minority faces everywhere else and has been facing since ages.

Remember, that's just the theory, since in practice -
Quote:
It had set itself a target that 4.5 per cent of its 8,000 workers would be from ethnic minorities by the end of March 2006, but achieved only 3.6 per cent.

If there are any supremacists here, they needn't lose their sleep yet.


Nameless wrote:
It IS racism by any definition.

I'm inclined to disagree with you here.
Discrimination, yes. But not racism.
Bondings
I wouldn't call it racism either, rather discrimination. But that doesn't justify it of course.

What I do think is appropriate is some minimum quotas. With below the quotas meaning the chance the company discriminates is very high. Like a company with 1000 employies and only 2 are female (cleaning). Unless the gender is really required, this shouldn't happen without any discrimination.
smalls
Bondings wrote:
What I do think is appropriate is some minimum quotas. With below the quotas meaning the chance the company discriminates is very high. Like a company with 1000 employies and only 2 are female (cleaning). Unless the gender is really required, this shouldn't happen without any discrimination.

Bondings, would you agree with allowing something like this to be handled by non-government watchdog groups? In this case, seemingly discriminatory organizations would develop a bad reputation, likely hurting their sales, and their abilities to receive contributions and grants.
Or do you feel this is something that should be handled by the government, using fines and other penalties for seemingly discriminatory behavior? I stress the word "seemingly", because there will always be situations where unbalanced hiring can be rationally explained.
Bondings
smalls wrote:
Bondings, would you agree with allowing something like this to be handled by non-government watchdog groups? In this case, seemingly discriminatory organizations would develop a bad reputation, likely hurting their sales, and their abilities to receive contributions and grants.
Or do you feel this is something that should be handled by the government, using fines and other penalties for seemingly discriminatory behavior? I stress the word "seemingly", because there will always be situations where unbalanced hiring can be rationally explained.

I didn't mean to make it a law. I rather meant that it should be used as an indication that there might be some discrimination. Like someone with a lot of money but without a job might be an indication of the person being a thief.

However I don't like any kind of discrimination, be it 'positive' discrimination or plain racism/sexism.
smalls
Bondings wrote:
I didn't mean to make it a law. I rather meant that it should be used as an indication that there might be some discrimination. Like someone with a lot of money but without a job might be an indication of the person being a thief.

Solid answer!
So...I still haven't really heard from anyone that fully supports this idea. Are there any of you out there?
paulbarter
That does seem a bit harsh. However in South Africa, most of the job offers are BEE (Black employment equity) jobs, which means that if you are not black, you wont get the job. Now the idea is to rectify the wrongs of the past, but the question is, for how long do you uphold this quota and when is the point where everyone is on a fair footing? Surely if this goes on indefinately, then it is racism, there comes a point where the current government has to take ownership of its country and stop blaming the past.
smalls
paulbarter wrote:
...there comes a point where the current government has to take ownership of its country and stop blaming the past.

Well said!
As a side note, I've always though of South Africa's laws regarding employment (and property and business ownership) to be ridiculous.
Soulfire
Today, I was filling out a college scholarship application, and ran across this in the packet:

"What is your ethnicity? You may be entitled to scholarships or benefits based on your ethnic background."

Naturally, I picked African American (kidding). I picked White/Caucasian. But that question kinda made me think... can you say 'discrimination.'

And this is stupid... The idea of "compensating" for discrimination that minorities face by the 'majority' is in theory okay, but overcompensating by turning around and committing the same thing against them is just as bad.
Bondings
Soulfire wrote:
"What is your ethnicity? You may be entitled to scholarships or benefits based on your ethnic background."

Naturally, I picked African American (kidding). I picked White/Caucasian. But that question kinda made me think... can you say 'discrimination.'

I would argue yes, it's a form of discrimination. First of all the question seems pretty weird to me, I don't think it would be legal to ask such a thing (in that case) in Belgium, at least I never heard of a similar one. Ethnicity/colour should never matter.
smalls
Bondings wrote:
....I don't think it would be legal to ask such a thing (in that case) in Belgium, at least I never heard of a similar one. Ethnicity/colour should never matter.

So you're from Belgium? I've always heard pretty good things about Belgium regarding liberty (particularly regarding school choice). Have you ever encountered any forms of what you would consider discrimination at the hands of government in Belgium?
Side note -- It's great to see the founder posting on my topic!
paul_indo
Governments seem to be so busy trying to give the impression that they really care about everyone and that every person is entitled to the same oportunities.

But hey, think about it.

Were you ever bullied at school because you looked or acted diferent from most other kids? maybe your accent, maybe the colour of your hair or you just looked geeky or something?

I was. I once got stabbed in the leg at my new school because my skin was a different colour or maybe just because I was from the city, I don't even really know why.
When I was taken to the headmaster to tell what happened did I tell names? No.
Because I was scared to? No.
Because even by 13 years old I had learnt to deal with my problems myself.
Funny thing was, because I didn't tell names the guy that stabbed me actually ended up being my friend later on. I got his respect and that of the other "tough dudes"

Now, although these things are certainly dissaproved of and laws are made to try and prevent it, there are no compensation packages or special treatment offered to people who suffer because of these things. "Good Looking" people always have a slight advantage over regular people. People with an outgoing personality also have a slight advantage over regular people.
This is just the way life is and we soon learn to face the reality and get our s**t together if we want to compete in the race.

I totaly agree laws are needed to protect minorities but these are the same laws that protect any law abiding citizen, they do not need to be aimed specificaly at a minority. And yet,why do some minorities seem to recieve a "leg up", a special "advance to go" card while others get no help?

Because they are visibly recognisable as not being from the mainstream of their society, because they are vocal about their "problems" and therefore governments are scared to be seen ignoring them. Nothing more than that. It is political expediancy.

Discrimination breeds mistrust and violence, even if it is implemented to help a minority.
Equality is a tough world to live in as we are not all born equal. Some are stronger, some are smarter, some are "beautiful", but is is better to compete under equal laws than to try and compensate for the diferences between us because that only creates greater inequality IMHO.
Da Rossa
I read only the idea from the first post.
No, it is not right. This is racism, regardless of the reasons/criteria of the employer.
smalls
paul_indo wrote:
Discrimination breeds mistrust and violence, even if it is implemented to help a minority.
Equality is a tough world to live in as we are not all born equal. Some are stronger, some are smarter, some are "beautiful", but is is better to compete under equal laws than to try and compensate for the diferences between us because that only creates greater inequality IMHO.

This reminds me of a great short story I once read in elementary school called "Harrison Bergeron". It points out the absurdity of attempting to regulate equality through government intervention. I highly recommend it to anyone. Although it was written by Kurt Vonnegut (kind of a socialist), I think it's a great endorsement of liberty.
nopaniers
I disagree. Here in Britain things are not as well integrated as in Australia. Brighton, for example, has 6% non-white population, but only 3% of the employees at the art gallery were not white. You might say that it's just chance that they happened to employ whites, but I personally doubt it. Most likely it's not blatant, but more inbuilt attitudes (thinking that its strange) which will continue until people see south Asians and black people doing jobs at the art gallery. Particularly in art, it is important to get a good cross section of the community which would give everyone a richer experience. Whatever can be made to integrate British society better should be made.
smalls
nopaniers wrote:
Brighton, for example, has 6% non-white population, but only 3% of the employees at the art gallery were not white.

Two points....
One: This alone does not mean that there is automatically racism or discrimination involved in hiring. I would be curious to see the breakdown of white to non-white applicants. For example, the fact that there are far more female elementary school teachers doesn't mean that principals will only hire women. It's likely because men are (as a whole) less attracted to that particular occupation.
Two: Are there any art galleries that focus on African art, or Asian art? At those galleries, do you think 94% of the employees should be white, just because they make up 94% of the population in the area?
We cannot create a perfect distribution of people in all areas of society, and attempting to do so by force is simply immoral. Consider that as of 1995 women made up only 6.6% of state prison inmates in the US (reference). Does this mean that the US should stop prosecuting men until women make up 50% of the inmates?
milkmandan
i don't think that affirmative action hiring should still be in effect. sure, maybe when people were just beginning to immigrate to north america and when racism was a much larger problem than it is today, however this has been in effect for quite some time.

i think if you're better for the job than the person next to you, regardless of your gender or race, then you should get the job.. end of story. i'm an asian male, but i don't think i should get the job over him just because i'm a minority if he's better for it.
nopaniers
smalls wrote:
One: This alone does not mean that there is automatically racism or discrimination involved in hiring.


They have been reported in the Racial Harrasment Forum for "institutional racism". They are trying to fix that, which I think is the right thing to do.

As for the number of applicants, I saw several applicants from racial minorities in Britain looking for jobs just like this one interviewed on TV (the BBC) last month. I doubt it a case of no applicants.

Quote:
Two: Are there any art galleries that focus on African art, or Asian art? At those galleries, do you think 94% of the employees should be white, just because they make up 94% of the population in the area?


Actually, you'll find that it is full of Chinese art... So the answer is: Yes. There is: That one. So your rant is pretty pointless...

Quote:
Does this mean that the US should stop prosecuting men until women make up 50% of the inmates?


No. However, if a court has been practising institutional sexism or racism by say, excluding black witnesses or female witnesses, then that should not continue. It would be cause for a retrial of whichever women or blacks were convicted by the court.
diverden
I understand the reasoning behind the ad, trying to promote more minority hiring. To practice racism or reverse discrimination in order to promote the hiring of more minorities seems to be inconsistent to say the least. In the US race can be considered as one factor in some areas but can not be used as the only factor in a quota-type system. A scuba diving agency I am familiar with had a complaint filed that there were not enough minority scuba instructors. This was not due to a system or policy of exclusion but a lack of applicants or a lack of interested candidates. The complaint was dropped after it was shown that there wasn't any bias or prejudice involved, simply a lack of applicants. Is it be better to hire unqualified persons who are the right gender, race, ethnicity, just so they can get the numbers up?
QrafTee
Umm, did anyone notice that the article reads:
Quote:
...Asian or Chinese descent.

What do they mean by that? Chinese people aren't Asian? Asians do not include Chinese people, China is not a part of Asia? Yeah, I might be missing the point, but that disturbs me, I mean I know the U.S. has a lot of dumb people with a position of influence, but the U.K.? What is the world coming to?
carlospro7
Refused a job because was white? I never saw that coming
nopaniers
QrafTee wrote:
Umm, did anyone notice that the article reads:
Quote:
...Asian or Chinese descent.

What do they mean by that? Chinese people aren't Asian?


Here in UK "Asian" is often used to refer to people of Indian or Pakistani origin. Typically people from China would be called "East Asian". It's just word usage and it's similar to the distinction between Canadians and Americans.
simp
Uh, how about we eliminate all quotas, either for or against any persons for any reason. Isn't that about as fair as you can get?
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.