This was a conversation that started on here on the WHYS blog. This was the post from Bob in Queensland….
“On a theatre technicians forum I moderate, somebody has posted a job ad looking the crew to do lighting, sound, wardrobe etc. on a British tour of a musical. The production in question is based on a bible story and the ad specifies that the whole crew must be Christian.”
British law prohibits job discrimination on the grounds of religion but does provide an exemption where there is a genuine operational requirement for a specific religion. I suppose it would be hard to hire an Anglican rabbi for example.
However, we’re trying to work out what operational excuse there could be to insist on a Christian follow spot operator or whatever and, as mods, are debating whether we should reject the ad as illegal.”
It got the WHYS bloggers and us thinking about whether there is ever a situation when discrimination is fair. Is it ok to say you can’t wear religious jewellery to school?
Is it ok to say you want no smokers in a flat share, or no pets? What about women only to work in a lingerie department of a store? Or what about people from certain religions doing certain jobs?
A couple of other stories on this issue. Albinos suffering discrimination in East Africa. Christian registrar who won’t carry out gay marriages. Discrimination in housing, and the South African job market.
Is positive discrimination the answer, or does that simply create divisions?
RSS feed
BBC World Have Your Say 
Hello everyone,
I just read the article linked above about the Sikh girl winning her right to wear her kara to school. At the bottom of the article, it lists the five K’s of Sikhism. One of them is a small sword that represents courage. A good friend of mine from high school is Sikh, and I can tell you that the blade of these ‘swords’ are about the same size as your average swiss army knife. Most high schools have a ban on knives or weapons of any kind. If a Sikh person were to carry the kirpan as a symbol of their faith, could the school asking them to leave it at home be considered discriminatory? Assuming here that the person had no intention of using the kirpan to harm anyone, but just was wearing it (like the girl with her bracelet) as as symbol of religious faith? The Sikh girl won her case because the courts viewed the bracelet not as a piece of jewelery, but as a symbol of her religion. Do you think this same argument would work with the kirpan, if it were deemed not to be a weapon? I suppose you could use the same argument as given with the bracelet… but what do people think?
discrimation in any form cannot be justified.here in Nepal we have shed much of blood to remove descrimation from society.we all are humans and equality should be goal we should aim to achieve.
no discrimation in any fom can’t be justified.here in Nepal we have shed much blood to attain equality.we should value human equality.
For as long as human beings are different and see things differently, they will always have a reason to discriminate even though none exists because of their mindset and prejudice.
@ Nelsoni,
You bring up an excellent point. How do we get around the ‘prejudices’ we all have – the ones that are created by the languages we speak, the countries we live in, the way we are brought up, etc?
Hi WHYSers!
The flat out response to this is “NO”! Christian, or not, white or not, black or not, there can be no justification for discrimination!
Discrimination is the causes of conflict, terrorism, and instability. I think discrimination never be justified. We have lot of examples how discrimination be the results of political violence and cause of revolution across the world. It is high time to stop all kinds of discrimination.
@ Melanie
“If a Sikh person were to carry the kirpan as a symbol of their faith, could the school asking them to leave it at home be considered discriminatory?”
No, they could not be found to be discriminatory. If anything, they would be discriminatory if they allowed a Sikh person to carry a blade. The rule against weapons in schools is in place for obvious reasons. If someone were allowed to carry a blade for religious reasons, then that would mean they were given exemption from the laws based on their religion.
Using valid reasons to reject somebody is justified but is that not discimination is about. The landlord could reject a smoker or pets because they cause smells and stains that cost money and takes time to clean up. That rejection is justifable and fair. Rejecting them because they are black is not justifiable and therefore is discrimination.
Although there is still discrimination in society many today have mixed up discrimination and not being able to get what they want when they want.
One’s suitability for a job is judged on the premise of qualifications, functional competence and knowledge of the subject area. If the role of the theatre personnel is to provide support for the production then anyone can qualify for that job so long as they are trained and possess the requisite skills which are being looked for by the employers!
While, it would be ideal to get a Christian for a Christian production (?), there is nothing that says a Jew, atheist, agnostic, Muslim or Hindu could not carry out the same functions and, effectively, too.
It is not, necessarilly, a religious vocation that the person is performing here, though, it might be tempting to think so. Rather, they are doing a job! Plain and simple!
Are they qualified? Based on assessment are they functionally competent? And, do you actually want work done or the holding of hands while reading the gospel (no dis! I am a Christian!)?
If the answer to the first two questions is yes, then the last one does not apply! If, however, we desire to engage in these fundamentalist practises of discrimination, then, sure hire the person on the basis of religious convictions! Just know that it is both unethical and should be, if not already so, made illegal!
Yes, absolutely, if it’s against white people.
Since white people are inherently racist, and racism is BAD, and one needs to stop something that is bad, and one can do that by not choosing the bad (discriminating against it), then one can discriminate against racism. And since racism=white people, the once discriminate against white people.
You guys follow?
Society tolerates all sorts of discrimination. In the US, males are required to register with the selective service (the draft) at age 18 or risk jail and being denied student loans, and women have no such requirement.
There’s a concept in law called “bona fide occupational qualification” that justifies discrimination, though it’s pretty common sense. The typical situation is a man applying to be a Rockette at Radio City Music Hall. They are all females, and have always been, and always will be and a man wouldn’t be able to file a sex discrimination case if he were denied a job as a Rockette.
I believe so long as the landlord lives in the dwelling, a landlord can even racially discriminate. You cannot force someone to live with someone they don’t want to live with. But it would have to be a roommate situation.
There’s also tons of medical history discrimination. I highly recommend you talk about having taken a medical leave of absence in school (for whatever reason) if you want to make 100% certain that you don’t get hired.
@ Nick in USA
I’m playing devil’s advocate here.
How is allowing the Sikh girl to wear her bracelet in school not giving her an exemption from the school rules based on her religion? Is there a discrimination of sorts because of the kind of object it is (a bracelet rather than a sword)?
Here’s another example. Curious to see if everyone thinks this is discriminatory or not…
The position I have at work this summer is part of a Female Mentorship program. I am a GIS (Geographic Information Systems) analyst. The purpose of the mentorship program is to encourage women to become involved in a field that is typically dominated by men. Men were not allowed to apply for the job posting, and those that applied anyway couldn’t be hired (regardless of their qualifications) because the funding from the Federal government is only to be given to a successful female applicant. During my interview, my employer told me that if no females accepted the job, the whole project would be thrown out and no one would get the opportunity. Although I benefitted from this, I still don’t think it’s fair. Personally, I want to get a job because I’m the most qualified, not because I happen to be the most qualified within my half of the population…
Asad:
Yes, absolutely, if it’s against white people.
Since white people are inherently racist, and racism is BAD, and one needs to stop something that is bad, and one can do that by not choosing the bad (discriminating against it), then one can discriminate against racism. And since racism=white people, the once discriminate against white people.
You guys follow?
Oh, like scholarships and grants for schools? 🙂 I missed out on a lot of those because I’m ‘white’ 😦 Guess it was for the greater good though. *shrugs shoulders*
@ Asad
If I understand you correctly, you say that discrimination against white people is okay…
When I was in University, one of my Indian friends told me that I was not invited to her party on the weekend because “I was too white”. Surprised, I asked her what her response would be if I told her I was having a party but she couldn’t come because she was Indian. She said she’d think me racist. I asked her (and I ask you), what is the difference?
Discrimination in whatever form should not be encourage at all by reasonable people, but, we have a situation whereby those who preach against it:: the Western World, are the main culprits. It is repulsive and in fact, a shame to so do.
It is hereby suggested that any form of discrimination should be criminalized in the same way and form as war crimes.
@ Melanie
The story you write about your Indian friend brings one thing to my mind: often enough these are the same people who, at some other point, will claim that “the whites” just don’t want to understand them and their culture, while it was them who denied a white person access to learn about it in the first place.
@Asad
Saying white people are inherently racist is a racist comment. So then someone with that view is no better than any racist white person.
That view makes no sense and leads to many problems. I went to school around many racist white and black individuals. They have their reasons and I accepted them as they were. Part of my family is very racist and stated they would disown me if I married a white man. I realize they are part of my family, thankfully not close family, but their mentality is backwards. It doesn’t make sense to discriminate against certain people because you were discriminated by them. It was the individual that discriminated against you, not the whole race.
@ Brett
You can get scholarships based upon the place of where your parents were born. I have a friend, with a polish/russian last name, whose parents were born in Argentina, and he got scholarships and grants for being “hispanic” despite being eastern european with red hair and freckles and blue eyes.
@ People
Asad was being sarcastic, he was mocking the reverse discrimination that happens in society.
@ Katharina in Ghent,
I could not agree more. I think it’s so important to make an effort to learn about other cultures – on both sides. The person who has a different culture has to be willing to explain, and the person learning has to keep an open mind. Both have to withhold judgement on the other.
An interesting article with very valid points:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/02/15/whites.only.ap/
“No matter what my ethnicity is, I’m making a statement that scholarships should be given out based on merit and need,”
@Melanie
Some people will not invite certain people because they don’t think the person will feel comfortable or because the other people at the party may not feel comfortable.
Many countries put “affirmative action” into place, so that a government agency or company is required to hire a woman/racial minority/handicapped person if they have the same qualifications as a male candidate. Problem is that the ranking is very subjective and so, in the end, the male candidate is “just that little bit” more qualified than any of the other candidates and gets the job.
In science, another common form of discrimination is writing a job ad in a way that it’s obvious the the employer already has a specific person in mind when he writes the job ad, but the law or company rules require him to make an open search. The reason why I think it’s discriminatory is that there are plenty of very good scientists out there in search of a job, but instead the student of X gets the position in the lab next door… because we already know each other, we already collaborated etc. It’s very bad practise, but nevertheless very “efficient”.
I can only see that discrimination can be relevent and this when someone has a disability which happens to effect the way the work enviroment and other work personnel. I mean this because if there is a disabled person who is employed and that endangers the H@S of the other personnel.
Discrimination is of several types. It is absolutely wrong to discriminate against a person because of his color, religious affiliation, appearance, natural right to exist, nationality,etc. If I were to discriminate against a smoker because cigarette smoke poses hazard to my health, I don’t think I’ll be wrong.
@ Asad_Babyl and steve
I don’t think sarcasm was the intention in that one, hehe.
-Anthony, LA, CA
@Melanie Chassen and Brett
Do you guys know what the scary thing is? Is that there are people seriously holding the view that I just mimicked and you guys have encountered it in your lives and are attempting to ask the person to justify their views.
Of course I do not believe that for a second. I posted that comment in order to see what reaction it would get. I was also hilighting the extreme double standard in “discrimination” today. What is the UK euphemism for racism against native whites? “Positive discrimination”. In the US we have “affirmative action”.
I can engage in lengthy monologues about the faults of these campaigns, but it seems that I don’t have to prove anything to you guys, since both have experienced it. And it shames me that we live in a society which practices such folly.
I will say, that there is NO excuse under ANY circumstances for discrimation of ANY kind if we are to build a society which can live with itself, has pride in its history and can maintain competitiveness in the future.
@ Angela,
Fair enough. The point was that her reason was the colour of my skin. If the other people at the party (or the host themselves) are made uncomfortable by my skin colour, isn’t that discriminatory as well? I’d much prefer to be given a reason other than “you’re too white”. If the colour of my skin was not the true reason, it would have been easy enough for her to give any number of reasons as to why I was not included.
Today, while discrimination is declared illegal in many countries (mostly western), selective discrimination exists. Whereas many groups were critical of the take by white, middle class mean against minorities, take a look around you and you will see it is open season on them and they have little to say about it.
But it goes further than this. Many minority or ‘specialty’ groups seek dispensation from this constraint and will often act in a discriminatory way towards other groups under the guise of cultural or lifestyle sensitivities. You cannot have it both ways, if one section of society is condemned and excluded from establishing conditions for one thing or another, then no other group should be exempt. It is an either all or nothing proposition.
@ Angela in Washington
“I went to school around many racist white and black individuals.”
NOT TRUE! That is a lie. Only white people have the capability and desire to be racist and therefore the people of other ethnicities you witnessed espousing racist views were duds. Some kind of white people trick to justfiy their behaviour, such as putting KKK members in blackface and sending them into the inner city to promote gang violence and racism.
What if I were to discriminate against a criminal who poses threat to society, against a terrorist who kills innocent people without cause.
Asad:
Of course I do not believe that for a second. I posted that comment in order to see what reaction it would get.
I know, I was banking on a good read from you when I saw the topic come up. You didn’t let me down, not one bit 😉
What about statistical discrimination? Here’s a common example:
Men pay more for car insurance than women. This is because statistically, men cause more accidents than women. Is this fair? Discriminatory?
Discrimination can be justified. If I see some gang banger late at night, baggy pants rubbing together, cap tilted to the side, tattoos on their face (especially the tear and 3 dot tattoos), coming down the street, you bet I had one hand on my mace and one hand on my knife. I know a few people stabbed to death or shot for STUPID reasons, and “those” kind of people are the ones who do things like that. Opposed to some skinny dude with glasses and a Star Wars shirt that I’d prob say “may the force be with you” to.
-Anthony, LA, CA
Discrimination is a necessity. People select everything from fresh fruits and veggies to friends, spouses and clothing based upon their powers of discrimination. Where discrimination goes wrong is when applied selection rules have nothing to do with functional requirements. It is the “You can’t be Chef because you can’t cook,” versus “You can’t be Chef because you are (Select any religious group, skin color, or country of origin.),” sort of thing.
I hope all the potential applicants to the job posting on the theatre technicians forum responded, “You’re obviously not Christian, why must I be?”
g
@ Asad
“I will say, that there is NO excuse under ANY circumstances for discrimation of ANY kind if we are to build a society which can live with itself, has pride in its history and can maintain competitiveness in the future.”
Cheers to that! 🙂
Most job discrimination laws in the US only apply to publicly owned firms or companies that do work for contract with the government. Private businesses are free to set whatever requirements for job applicants they want. Most people are at-will employees who can be fired at any time for any reason (or no reason) which means that job security is dependent on performance rather than protection.
I don’t think this is a bad thing. Companies that need people to have certain qualifications shouldn’t be forced to hire people who don’t fit or don’t perform, and those that have outrageous prerequisites are always vulnerable to the market – if the public doesn’t like the way you do business you lose.
Also, I was a retail manager for a few years. Within’ that time, I worked with 6 black people. 5 OUT OF THE 6 WERE FIRED FOR THEFT, opposed to 1 Hispanic and 1 white guy. Guess who I would watch more, you got it. Is that bad? I think its just logic.
-Anthony, LA, CA
@ Brett,
I missed on scholarships for similar reasons. I was male and black and lived in the Caribbean. Not acceptable, but in my estimation, we work with it. A sad truth about the world we live in is that, people are very comfortable discriminating against people they hardly know and have never met. They try and use all sorts of phony excuses to justify their fears and, ulitmately, hatred of these depersonalised ‘others’.
I actually had scholarship applications committee write to me to say that their focus, at this time, was on females from wherever. Or that, the Caribbean is not a place that is a priority for our funding at this time, etc. I interpret that to mean, not so much that I was not qualified to get a/ the scholarship. Rather, that I was not “Third World” enough, not “black” enough, or “too black”, as the case might be, among all other sorts of weird reasons why people discriminate/ hate. Who knows why they do what they do! It is all wrong, that is the point!
@ Anthony in LA, CA
“Discrimination can be justified. If I see some gang banger late at night, baggy pants rubbing together, cap tilted to the side, tattoos on their face (especially the tear and 3 dot tattoos)…”
That’s right, I’ll discriminate where to shoot him, in the head, or in the chest.
@ Raw:
I missed on scholarships for similar reasons. I was male and black and lived in the Caribbean. Not acceptable, but in my estimation, we work with it. A sad truth about the world we live in is that, people are very comfortable discriminating against people they hardly know and have never met. They try and use all sorts of phony excuses to justify their fears and, ulitmately, hatred of these depersonalised ‘others’.
And whats sad and disturbing is that it is for education, both public and private. And it’s being institutionalized and widely accepted and even promoted! It’s an absolutely pathetic attempt to justify discrimination; To give more opportunities for a ‘minority’ to fund his/her schooling than a comparable ‘white’ kid (or any race for that matter).
There is no excuse for discrimination for whatever reasons. People should be judged on their merits, not class, race or colour. Using criteria to exclude types of people from mixing with the rest is a form of segregation and tribalism.
There is a difference between creating a club in which conditions must be met for membership, provided they aren’t explicitly discriminatory in a manner that violates the law, and offering jobs or selling property which clearly excludes types of people because of their colour, race or religion.
People as groups or individuals have the right to be distinct by creating associations or clubs, but there is nothing right with basing it on illegal and universally unacceptable discrimination.
well discrimination is never acceptable.but there are some instances where people misunderstand what we mean.but yes it still exists the same way terrorism does.
even today an asian high school student is discriminated in the US by calling him names or joking about his dressing sense.
But discrimination is quite inevitable because it is coming in from generations and it will take lots of time to reduce it.
Abhinav
@ melanie. To erase prejudice, it’s best to bend iron when it’s hot. Very little can be done to erase discriminatory prejudice from the mindset of this older generation but we can teach the kids growing up the right things to do.
Age discrimination is very common, and probably for a reason. You can’t just going up to be cop when you’re 40. They will want you to be 37 tops usually, so you can work long enough to have 20 years for retirement..
people with disabilities are discriminated against too. Blind people can drive cars..
Discrimination should be limited to areas where it can play a positive function. I wanted to focus on one aspect of your question today; namely the “Christian registrar who won’t carry out gay marriages”.
As a Christian, I am opposed to homosexuality in all its forms and could not, for example, remain in a diocese that advocates the ordination of gay bishops or performs gay marriages.
My position is informed by my reading of the Bible, especially the following references:
————————————————
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly (shameful), and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was meet (Romans 1:24-28).
————————————————
and
So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. (Ephesians, 5:28).
The Bible is more explicit about its prohibition of homosexuality than I am in my own personal life. Therefore, I believe that any Christian who chooses to ignore the Bible’s instructions on this practice (such as your Christian registrar), are knowingly and deliberately thwarting God’s Will through supporting a practice that God clearly (and repeatedly) opposed.
Based on this belief, I totally support “discrimination” against people in the Christian Church who are advocating behaviours that are clearly prohibited by God. I understand that, outside the Church, people have the right to live as they please within the laws of the state or nation in which they live.
Hi WHYS,
My wife is European and we now live together in Uganda. I once went with her to a clinic and there was one fee for me and another for her. I was disappointed to say the least. I personally faced some kind of discrimination in Europe. May be people tend to resent foreigners. Who knows!
Walter- Entebbe Uganda
@ Anthony. Thats not logic. It’s just a mindset you have developed. The actions of Five people has shaped your judgement about other black people you will work with in the future, surely thats not logic.
Steve’s point made me think of an important distinction to be made here. Setting standards should be separated from being discriminatory. At one extreme, someone could claim they were discriminated against for not getting a job because, for example, they did not have enough prior work experience in that field. This is not discrimination. Somewhere along the line, standards have to be set to weed out the candidates that don’t meet them. It’s when standards are of the type where include qualifiers like skin colour that they become discriminatory. I used the example of skin colour because I don’t think anyone would dispute it, but while we’re on the topic, what does everyone think qualifies as a “standard” vs. a discrimination?
Is it gender? (see the female job internship example I gave in an earlier post)
Is it disability?
Is it education?
Language?
etc…
Where is the line drawn between an acceptable qualifier for a job? And a discriminatory one?
@ nelsoni
I work with 2 black women, now and have no problem, but the stereotypical black youth who “acts black” is more likely to be a thief. Just like “ghetto looking” Hispanic kids, or “trailer trash” whites. The thing is, most black youth have that “black act” and are more likely to steal. “Minorities” (which I am a part of) commit more petty theft in California, that’s just how it is.
-Anthony, LA, CA
I am against any form of discrimination. I think is not justifible when the reasons are based on prejudice.
However, there are situations that can be mis-labeled as discrimination. For instance, job requirements that look for certain personal qualitifications or characteristics in the applicants. E.g. I would not label as discrimination the fact that certain employers ask for proof of non-criminal record to job applicants, or specific height and weight measures for security officers.
About affirmative action measures, I think it should be implemented very carefully. And definitely make it temporary (only in order to level the field or reverse the disproportionatelly abscense of certain groups in the labourmarket, schools, etc.).
@Assad
I understand the sarcasm now.
@Andre
So what exactly would you do to those who don’t interpret the bible as you do? Take away their jobs? Imprison them? Send them to a deserted island?
Don’t you think it is best to let God fight *its* own battles?
Why do you think God would want us to discriminate against his *creation*? Surely God doesn’t want us to judge, especially when Jesus said not to judge…
A most interesting discussion!
@ Brett, I think that Abdelilah’s and Melanie’s points are well worth considering here. I rather like Melanie’s efforts to draw attention to the issue of standard as well as Abdelilah’s point about people being allowed to form their own groups, within the ambits of the law.
I am sure there are legitimate reasons for scholarship foundations which try and support ‘minority’ college matriculation. The problem, of course, sets in where the idea of who are what a ‘minority’ is becomes part of the discourse of discrimination. Nothing wrong, in other words, with awarding women and Indians, etc. scholarships/ funding, especially, in mostly white communities, etc., as a way of facilitating their participation.
However, the problem sets in where the issue of standardissation sets in. Are people being given scholarships, jobs, etc. because of their religions, skin colour, gender, or because they are qualified to be in such positions? There is the rub!
As for marriage, gays and Christians. I just wish to add that issues related to marriage should be the purview of the state, precisely, because there is much more at stake than the issue of religious preferences and, with respect, “what God said”! While, I do not wish to suggest there is anything wrong with holding certain beliefs, in and of themselves, what I choose to focus on in the marriage discussion is what a marriage actually means. As someone said yesterday, there are all sorts of issues related to property, insurance, inheritance rights, etc. which a marriage addresses. Legislating it as solely an institution of morality (read love), sometimes, misses the point. Anyone can be in love but they do not have to be married. And also, marriage does not always have to be about religion.
@Anthony
It is sad but most people with a stereotypical “gangbanger” or “thug” look tend to commit certain crimes. However, I don’t understand why some kids fromnice backgrounds tend to gravitate towards this mentality. I can’t stand when I see individuals thats the act in stereotypically ghetto because it makes me look bad.
In college, I would not go to several “ghetto” areas of town. However, many of my white friends went to those areas (for illicit reasons) and would not think anything of it.
@ Anthony, your response confirms my point. How does some one “act black” ? by saying that you have suggested that there is a way black youths act. Such wholesale generalizations does not prove logic but rather points to discrimination because from what you said its likely that any black youth you see is a thief which is not necessarily correct.
@ Raw:
I am sure there are legitimate reasons for scholarship foundations which try and support ‘minority’ college matriculation. The problem, of course, sets in where the idea of who are what a ‘minority’ is becomes part of the discourse of discrimination.
My problem lies in the disproportionate number of scholarships for ‘whites’ vs ‘minorities’. If it is deemed acceptable for this sort of discrimination to take place, there needs to be the ‘pooled’ scholarships for all who apply, and scholarships for EVERY ‘race’. The way it sits now, ‘minorities’ can apply for scholarships in the generic scholarship category and within the minority scholarship category, meanwhile ‘whites’ are limited to the pooled/generic category which they split chances with the privleged ‘minorities’.
I suppose my main problem is the justification that it is alright to discriminate against whites in this regard by shutting them out of certain scholarships, but it is ‘racist’ when the thought of a white scholarship is brought up to level things out. The double standards are sickening. People need to make up their mind you can’t say its alright to descriminate against others but not yourselves.
Nothing wrong, in other words, with awarding women and Indians, etc. scholarships/ funding, especially, in mostly white communities, etc., as a way of facilitating their participation.
And what do we tell the impoverished ‘whites’ in the ‘white’ community? Sorry, you don’t get a chance for assistance…. your white.
@ nelson,
Agreed!
@ Angela in Washington D.C.,
Would you be so kind to explain further the following: “However, I don’t understand why some kids fromnice backgrounds tend to gravitate towards this mentality…”?
While, I think I understand your meaning I am not sure what the term “nice” means in this context. Hopefully, you could explain. Thanks.
@Andre
I agree with you concerning gay marriages in churches but I would not consider that discrimination. Some churches advocate gay marriage and others do not but it is based on beliefs. Someone who supports gay marriage would not necessarily want to go to a church that did not support it. However if you are not working in a religious capacity and choose not to carry out a ceremony because of your beliefs, you should get another job because that comes with the duties.
@rawpoliticsjamaicastyle
I meant to state when you were not raised in an environment where you were worried about finances and had to sell drugs or needed to join a gang because your family wasn’t there. Individuals from affluent backgrounds that choose to act thuggish. There were a lot of people at my high school like that and it was always odd. Their parents gave them everything they could desire but they choose to sell drugs because they wanted to be cool. Their parents were able to get their kids out of trouble by paying people off.
@ nelsoni
Notice at the beginning of that sentence I put “stereotypical”, so you know, stereotypical “act black”, as in the ghetto, gangsta, slangin black. This is all you have to do:
1) Wear really big clothes.
2) Tilt your cap to the side (with the size sticker still on it).
3) Put a little limp in your walk.
4) Instead of hello say “holla at me playa!”
5) Have a long chain with a spinner at the end.
6) Big ol’ diamond (or fake diamond) ear rings on a guy
I guarantee someone who falls under this category (even white or hispanic like this) is more likely to steal than your jock with a crew cut.
I didn’t mean this is how all blacks act, I was talking about the ghetto, stereotypical, but I noticed you didn’t say anything about “trailer trash” or “ghetto hispanic”. Why is that?
-Anthony, LA, CA
@ Brett,
I am agreed with your concerns about “impoverished whites”. However, please let it not be said I was advocating discrimination in any way by suggesting the need for scholarships for so-called “minorities”. More to the point, I am interested in knowing how are the standards for these scholarships, jobs, etc. configured? Having been the “victim” of these “standards myself, you can understand my concern.
It is, unfortunate, that anyone who is qualified to legitimately obtain to which he or she is entitled is denied this on the premise of spurious categories which do nothing to speak objectively to ability and qualifications, etc. That is my basic point.
So many words, so many rationalizations…………..NEVER!!!!, would suffice
@ Brett
Your point is well taken. How would you feel about having completely generic scholarships (no special cases for minorities). Do you think this would be a step in creating a system where those who receive scholarships do so based on their own merits (grades, community service, resume… etc?) Or would this cause more of a backlash? (The argument could be made that this is unfair because the people who are most likely to get the scholarships and have the good grades etc have rich parents, have had more opportunities, have the luxury of ‘free time’ to do community service etc…). This latter point does not represent my own personal belief… I recognize it is a gross generalization but it is still an argument I could see being brought forward.
As something more to think about, it goes the other way too… what about those who are not eligible for student loans because the applications are based on the incomes of the parents? This does not necessarily mean that the parents are funding their child’s education. I know several people who were never eligible for student loans as a result, and really could have used the assistance as their parents (while wealthy) offered none.
@ Angella,
I understand. However, I wonder whether you had considered that people from “nice” neighbourhoods also have their fair share of problems that sometimes are never discussed in these forums? The tragedy being of course, the appropriation of certain necessary (?) conditions of poverty, largely, associated with certain groups (race, class, gender, etc.), as a way of underlining ‘otherness’, angst and all other kinds of social anxieties in society do nothing to help the plight of the genuinely poor. Rather, they serve instead to further alienate the poor by magnifying, if not trivialising some of their concerns regarding the state’s failure to provide safety nets to effectively guard against the manifestations of some of these anti-social practises, etc.
Discrimination is a product of xenophobia and total fear and distrust of strangers. Such habits tend to died when we know others better.
By the way, any confusion with the names rpjs and the one under which I am currently blogging is totally the fault of wordpress. I swear!
Discrimination is not acceptable! Creating a set of guidelines is permissible and should not be confused with discrimination as many people have pointed out.
Sadly I came from a family of bigots. When I was a teenager I was forced to break up with a boyfriend that was black. Unfortunately I don’t ever believe there will be a time when such small mindedness will not exist. The best thing to do is to try to teach tolerance.
I think Luz probably made the point better than I had tried earlier.
If you can exclude somebody for a valid and logical reason then it is not discrimination it is simply a rejection. Discrimination is exclusion for no reason other than your own misconceptions.
Here’s a good one ~
I’m a dental technician and the lab I work in has patients come in for shade checks before their porcelain crowns are made. A few minutes ago a young woman came in who took my breath away – mid twenties, tall, blonde, beautiful and with a figure to die for.
Now, there are obviously many jobs that young woman could get because of her looks that she wouldn’t otherwise qualify for, but there are also many others that she would be qualified for but denied for the same reason.
Both scenarios are classic discrimination. She’s studying to be a doctor but her looks are going to be a handicap to being taken seriously.
It can be justified if you’re B.E.T. (Black Entertainment Television). That show is the MOST RACIST TELEVISION STATION EVER!!! I think everyone should watch it once. You’ll think, wow, and they get away with this. I’d like to see the White equivalent with statements like:
1) My beautiful White brothers and sisters.
2) Whites need to unite against the minority injustice of the world.
3) Why are all Black’s so ignorant?
4) I’m a proud White man!
5) Whites need to help other Whites to get ahead in life.
6) The united White college fund.
Imagine a station called the White Entertainment Television!!! Haha, lol!!!
-Anthony, LA, CA
“Instead of hello say “holla at me playa!”
Anthony that one cracked me up! 🙂
Regarding the theatre group, it may have been better to state that the employee must be comfortable working in an evangelical Christian setting. Given the number of evangelical Christians who would apply for the job, it should not be difficult for the interviewers to find a candidate who satisfies their personal requirements. As a practising religious Shia Muslim, I would not feel discriminate against, because I would not “feel comfortable working in an evangelical Christian setting” and would not have applied.
However, it would be an entirely different situation if I were inundated weekly by evangelical missionaries viting my apartment complex who had been invited by the complex owner and the owner told me to shut up and deal with it or move. If the apartment complex had been advertised as a Christian living commuity, I would never have applied to live there. If mention were never made of a Christian living environment for the complex, then I would expect not be subjected to regular missionising attempts. The same would be true of schools. Unless the school is advertised as per religious or secular/atheist orientation, there is no reason to make restrictions based on religion. Crosses, Star of David, tzitzit, keppa, etc. should be permitted; and obviously religious requirements such as hijab, Sikh turban, and possibly the afore-mentioned tzitzit and keppa should be permitted.
Number of words: 225
@Anthony
I know several people who are far from thuggish that say “holla me me playa”
@ Anthony. Assigning stereotypes to people can wrongly or rightly influence what you think about. The reason I made no mention of hispanics or trailer thrash white was because of this sentence in one of your earlier posts ” The thing is most black youths have that ” black act” and are more likely to steal “. So if I may ask what is the “black act”?
@archibald in oregon
“So many words, so many rationalizations…………..NEVER!!!!, would suffice”
Hear! Hear!
Look, what many fail to understand, especially the guilty bumbling liberal whites is in supporting discrimination in any of its permutations (“positive” or “affirmative”, you give an inch, they’ll take a foot.
Whoever the policy was originaly instituted to benefit, it never will. Soon enough those people, “oppressed minorities” will always want MORE MORE MORE. Until you give them all you have and you’ll be pushed by the wayside yourself.
That’s what’s happening in America with affirmative action now. If you’re black with a half a brain and solid Bs or high Cs, then you’ve got a hell of better shot in getting into an “Ivy League” school than some white kid with an excellent record.
It’s happening with the Islamization of UK today. All opposition to that relegion and idealogy is labeled “islamophobic”. Nevile Chamberlain is reborn!
Putting the interests of the (dwindling} majority aside is expected the minorities and is seen as something they are entitled to.
Here’s a good example from the UK:
Police in Britain Taken Off Beat to Learn About Sex-Changes:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2497487/Po…e-training.html
Compromising the safety of citizens to learn someone’s freakish ways.
@ Angella,
I understand. However, I wonder whether you had considered that people from “nice” neighbourhoods also have their fair share of problems that sometimes are never discussed in these forums? The tragedy being of course, the appropriation of certain necessary (?) conditions of poverty, largely, associated with certain groups (race, class, gender, etc.), as a way of underlining ‘otherness’, angst and all other kinds of social anxieties in society do nothing to help the plight of the genuinely poor. Rather, they serve instead to further alienate the poor by magnifying, if not trivialising some of their concerns regarding the state’s failure to provide safety nets to effectively guard against the manifestations of some of these anti-social practises, etc.
Ok, great, so now I am back in original mode! The cover is blown, guys! LOL! I am not sure why, but computer here seems bent on betraying me! LOL!
@Anthony
I understand your views concerning BET. However, the channel caters to issues that affect black people. Many shows would not be seen on other channels but it is not available in every area. It caters to individials interesting in things that affects blacks like the Golf Channel and ESPN, caters to individuals interesting in golf and sports.
@ Angela in Washington D.C.
Yes, but I’m sure they:
1) Are messing around. I say that too, but in a joking way.
2) Don’t fit the rest of the discription.
-Anthony, LA, CA
@ Angela in Washington D.C.
You know that BET was started by a white guy right? Also, don’t you know that the “black culture” of today is specificaly marketed toward white suburban kids? Come on! BET doesn’t cater to black issues, it caters to a white kid’s desire for a more dangerous, adventurous, cool life without his safety being compromised.
@rawpoliticsjamaicastyle and Agostinho
I understand that people from “nice” neighborhoods have their problems. I was nearly pointly to the fact that some individuals have been afforded things that most people have not had but they act as if they have had no home training. I am also talking about people that I know and the way they acted. Some people have different issues but to choose to break the law when you don’t need to or to choose. I have actually talked to some of those people and they regret acting the way they did because they now have 4 kids by different women and can’t afford to take care of themselves or may have went to jail.
@ Anthony:
That show is the MOST RACIST TELEVISION STATION EVER!!!
My friend works for them as a head graphics designer… Whitest girl I’ve ever met in my life. I can’t get enough of it haha.
I agree with your concerns though.
@ Anthony,
Is it at all possible that there is a need for United Negro College Fund, or whatever it is called? I am certainly not advocating any of what you say above, but perhaps someone here might be able to tell us of the specific experiences of the African-American community that might warrant what is felt as the need for these cultural peculiarities?
I am, of course, not at all convinced that there is need for so-called culture blind television programming. But, perhaps it is that there is need for a wider discussion about some of the issues concerning African-Americans that they feel necessitate these things. I am also not sure, but I prefer the label American, over and above all others, cause in the end it still spells a level of privilege not available to most others (non-Americans, that is!).
I think there has to be a difference between Public & Private organizations.
Certainly in public org’s never but private orgs should be able to operate internally as they believe.
If I want to have a chess club that excludes Coptic Christians I should be able to do so but if I rent out an apartment I must make that apartment available to everyone who meets the income, credit and ability to pay criteria.
The problems with race is that it is not monolithic and we all do not experience it in the same ways, right? African-American culture, I feel, has had the unique distinction of operating in the simultaneous spaces of privilege, insofar as they are Americans as well as disempowerment in terms of the historical meanings/ realities of “blackness” in America. That meams that, among others, the concerns of the community, such as it is, is a varied as the American landscape even inasmuch as there is a black candidate for the American presidency and nearly two million African-American men in that country’s prisons! The point is that, the diversity and texture of black culture(s) cannot be limited to ignorant people and, most certainly, is not understood only through the lenses of a BET television programme.
Fear of the Ghetto
Angela: In college, I would not go to several “ghetto” areas of town. However, many of my white friends went to those areas (for illicit reasons) and would not think anything of it.
My experience in the wrong sides of towns has been varied, or perhaps not. I carpooled once with a group of white college professors to a cultural event. We detoured through a ward that is typically African-American and poor. I failed to sense the fear that others are known to experience when going through such sections of town and commented on this. Our conversation lasted us until we arrived at the event. The professors also experienced the same lack of fear. I have also been through a more rural poor black neighbourhood; and while my heart began to bleed, I again did not feel afraid. I have also lived in a poor Hispanic area of town and got along very well with my neighbours.
I definitely hear you all on being afraid in certain sections of town or avoiding them altogether based on security concerns; and I can understand the fear. I just haven’t experienced it yet for myself.
Number of words: 196
@ Dan,
Whereas, I feel I understand your distinctions between private and public, as outlined above, there is a slight concern. That you have stated what the actions of private clubs are in a public forum automatically shifts the levels of perceptions of the comment. Note, discrimination in any form is wrong!
Determining, however, that there is a Chinese Benevolent Association, for instance, as obtains in Jamaica is a slightly different matter. It’s name as well as its objectives were founded by Chinese Jamaicans with a specific community building focus. As far as I know there is no effort to exclude other people, whoever they are. That does not mean, that these things do not happen. However, by virtue of fostering of community goodwill less focus is placed on how unlike the rest of the community the organisation is, if indeed it is.
Supporting one’s culture cannot be construed to be same as hating someone else. We have to be reasonable, here! What concerns me about what you say is the implicit agreement that private discrimination is somehow more acceptable. If we are to live in freely democratic cultures, the, there can be no place for these kinds of attitudes. We must combat that through education and information.
Hi gang ! ;-)… I do have a question to all of you guys : Can your feeling of being discriminated against in many times be related to or even resulting from your own extreme hypersensitivity ?! Or let’s put it in an other way : I’m practicing Muslim, and I do wear the Islamic Hijab… If I wanted to travel to either the US or the UK, then the 1st question that I’d ask myself before travelling to there would be : How would I be looked upon from the 1st moment I get there ?! As a human being who’s worthy of respect and admiration or as a potential security threat and a fellow who’s falling much much much behind the ”civilised free” world ?! BUT, may be if I saw myself as a human being who’s worthy of respect and admiration, then everyone around me will, soon or later, will eventually start to see me in this way… After all, the way you see yourself with eventually makes you who you are… With my love… Yours forever, Lubna…
@ Shirley
You went down the main streets during the day most likely. I used to go to parties and hang out (back in the day) in ghetto places, and it is scary when you show up (I was dumb and confused back then), and I would always see people with handguns and shotguns. I’ve seen people beat, stabbed, shot, etc. You’re statement is like saying “I went to the drive through animal park, I don’t see why people think it’s so scary in the wild?”.
-Anthony, LA, CA
@ Angella,
I am with you. In fact, I get it. All I am pointing out is that the appropriation of certain elements of what are considered “black culture” is a very dangerous concession in this discussion, in terms of your original point. Dangerous because the conflation with “nice” and “white”, at the very least non-black and “poverty”, “fear” and “blackness” is a common mistake people make in these conversations. So that, there is a way that stupid people who pander to, and trivialise the material conditions of poverty and lack of opportunities are felt to be “acting black”. Whereas, it antithesis is “nice” white folk! Deadly ground on which to tread in these conversations, as all they do in reify oppression.
I don’t think that discrimination can be justified UNLESS someone else can be harmed, as in the case of Smokers/Nonsmokers.
@ Lubna,
I could not agree more. In fact, I discussed my “discrimination” experiences simply as a way of saying regardless of whether one is white, black, red, green or purple, Christian, agnostic, or Muslim this is a reality that we all contend with in some ways. I was shocked to learn that people felt it was okay to deny othes (real) opportunities because of their nationality, heritage or gender, etc. and had the gall to say so to your face without shame. But, again, stupid people are all over. To this end, I have configured my responses in such a way of reflect my awareness of these realities under similar circumstances.
On positive discrimination, perhaps it does help out minorities, but where does that end and idiocy for the sake of it prevail.
I run a small outfit and have not come across this, but should I as an employer hire someone simply because they fall under a quota system and not hire someone because even though they are the best suited, best qualified individual. In a racing team I don’t want mediocre but politically correct mechanics, I want the best man for the job because my life depends upon them doing a proper job. In such employment I don’t think you can sacrifice people’s safety.
@raw
I understand what you mean.
Legislation always fails on one very important point – and one where, when challenged in a court of law, falls flat on its face.
Legislation is made in a big committee room where it is argued about and then by default or compromise comes into law – and that legislation will discriminate against one section of society or another.
My point? Simple – discrimination is wrong – positive discrimination is even worse! But what all this fails to take into account is that most people use common-sense to make a decision – that is what legislation cannot take into account. Law makers are the ones who have the least common-sense as anyone.
Remember – they are educated idiots!
In answer to Selena’s point
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not advocating violence, discrimination or hatred against homosexuals. I was very careful to point that I was focused on my Church and my God. I believe that we who believe that God is opposed to homosexuality should not be ministered by homosexual priests or bishops.
People who belong to a church but happen to believe that homosexuality is not against God’s Word can (and do), meet in their own congregations. My point is that I belong to the part of the Christian Church that believes that homosexual behaviour is a sin and therefore should not be supported by those claiming to follow God. I have no wish to see anyone hurt, humiliated or discriminated against but I do have to right to choose who I associate with and what I believe.
All people commit sins (including myself), but the difference between people who I believe what I do and Christians who believe that allowing gay priests and bishops is that, to people like myself, they are openly advocating sin in God’s Church and, for that reason, I cannot be a member of, or a supporter of, people who advocate such a position.
hello,
it cant be on any grounds .remember the basic premise that all human beings are born equal and only which way the particular society looked upon within the society lead to this discrimination based on religion,caste,creed,colour etc.
basing on this equality factor discrimination doesnt ever exist on earth but sadly present world is saturated with discrimination one way or other .
just remember we are all “part of a piece (humanrace)and piece of a whole(humansociety).
so this discrimation aspect doesnt arise at all if this aspect are followed and if at all its followed discrimination is unjust.
devadas.v
llm(humanrights)
jyothinivas
talap
kannur
kerala
india
The laws of Nature are discriminatory! Discrimination in some exceptional cases can be justified!
Today, while discrimination is declared illegal in many countries (mostly western), selective discrimination exists. Whereas many groups were critical of the take by white, middle class mean against minorities, take a look around you and you will see it is open season on them and they have little to say about it.
But it goes further than this. Many minority or ‘specialty’ groups seek dispensation from this constraint and will often act in a discriminatory way towards other groups under the guise of cultural or lifestyle sensitivities. You cannot have it both ways, if one section of society is condemned and excluded from establishing conditions for one thing or another, then no other group should be exempt. It is an either all or nothing proposition.
Andrew
Australia
On colour, if you (a woman) were raped by a man of a particular colour – would you want to employ someone from that ethnic group? If you had deep seated trauma from that event, would you want to work with someone who represents that trauma day in day out?
A silly proposition to posit? It happened to someone I know who is living with this psychological problem. What do you say to them? You must not discriminate?
+ The bigger and interesting question: Can you discriminate against discriminators? This is the complex philosophical problem we should be addressing. How do you allow freedom, when some of the players deny it to others?
To the headhunter, Sylvia, who won’t employ women of childbearing age: you’re not an astute business person. You’re automatically excluding someone like me, an Ivy League educated woman of childbearing age who has no intention to have children and every intention to work full-time until retirement. The best person for the job could be me or someone like me. To get hired by Sylvia, do I need to state on my CV that I don’t intend to have children?! That’s no one’s business but my own.
GD, Netherlands
Let us not get over-zealous with ’acts’ of discrimination, let’s get back to reason and sensibility and do away with the emotional viewpoints.
@ Lee in Auckland,
I think the point is really the last part of what you say – the best person for the job. Simple! Quota systems, at some level, may be necessary to ensure the matriculation of certain people into certain places, I think. However, those by themselves do not address the real issue of the power imbalances which exist between different social, ethnic, relgious, racial groups, etc. The inclusion of black students in white schools in the fifties in the US, for instance, as a way of ensuring that black students had an equal oppurtunity at what is considered a “good education” did not truly take account of the material conditions of blackness at the time which also impacts learning.
Having no frames of reference for intellectual concepts, as well as the resources and access necessary to do well in a specific set of circumstances are also real issues. These are not appropriately addressed by quota systems in isolation of other state sponsored social programmes to end poverty, discrimination, racism and institutionalised fear of so-called minorities. This is really a discussion about the state and its role in create social, etc. divisions in society.
I equaly dislike, not trust, and exclude everyone except for people just like me, so my discrimination isn’t really discrimination, is it? When you dircriminate against everyone thats kind of equality right?
-Anthony, LA, CA
On positive discrimination, perhaps it does help out minorities, but where does that end and idiocy for the sake of it prevail.
I run a small outfit and have not come across this, but should I as an employer hire someone simply because they fall under a quota system and not hire someone because even though they are the best suited, best qualified individual. In a racing team I don’t mediocre but politically correct mechanics, I want the best man for the job because my life depends upon them doing a proper job. In such employment I don’t think you can sacrifice people’s safety.
Lee
Auckland
in question to the woman who discriminates against women, is it fair to discriminate against all women who might become pregnant solely for the fact that they might get pregnant? That is different than discriminating against someone who plans on having children because you are discriminating based on an inherent aspect of being female that is beyond the control of the individual. It does not seem fair to discriminate based on a physical condition that is not a personal choice, I don’t see how it differs from discriminating against someone with HIV. would you discriminate against someone who has HIV because they are ill?
On colour, if you (a woman) were raped by a man of a particular colour – would you want to employ someone from that ethnic group? If you had deep seated trauma from that event, would you want to work with someone who represents that trauma day in day out?
A silly proposition to posit? It happened to someone I know who is living with this psychological problem. What do you say to them? You must not discriminate?
Serina in Singapore
Discrimination is not a problem if institutionalised. I live in Malaysia where by law, house price for the majority Malays must be 15% cheaper.
” Can discrimination be justified?”
Cui bono?
Who benefits from the discrimination proposed? And how, in what way?
I have to agree with the comment that women can’t have everything… What incentive is there for a business to hire a woman if she is going to leave for a whole year? Training costs money, the time it takes new people to adjust takes time, which is money. Even if a new hire comes in with most of the knowledge she needs, you still need to train and integrate her into the office twice – when she joins, and when she comes back after having a child. And then you need to train a third person to take her place for the year she is gone… I don’t understand how business people in Great Britain can stand this.
I wouldn’t hire a woman under those circumstances.
I agree with Kareen.
Insofar as religion is concerned, you cannot in good conscience ask someone to do something against their beliefs — unless their job requires that they do so. In that case, they have taken the position understanding the requirements and they cannot allow their personal beliefs to impact the performance of the job. If one cannot execute the job, the solution is simple: find another job.
As for children and jewelry, etc — children are called children for a reason. If a child cannot find a way to express his originality without wearing gaudy, disruptive, or flamboyant jewelry, then perhaps they do not need to attend public school. Public schools are places of learning — religion should not be brought there by anyone.
As for private businesses, an employer should have the right to hire whomever they wish. If they feel that someone is not a good candidate for a position, that is their right as the employer. The government should have no say in these matters; the government and the public are ill-equipped to tell a business owner how to keep their business solvent and successful.
A question to Mwaura from Kenya: What do you do if you are running a business and your employee goes away for a year?
Women are allowed months of maternity leave if they are pregnant. An expectant mother can’t be expected to work the entire time they are expecting, but what is a single mother to do for money? True, they are in a bad situation, but the woman is the one who is responsible for the situation, not her employer.
Umm call me ignorant… but if I am a small business operator and I am required to pay a whole year’s leave to someone.. and then hire another person to fill that position what am I supposed to do?
I am not a charity… I cannot subsidise someone to have children regardless of the necessity to perpetuate the species. Then I go out of business and no one has a job!
I feel sympathy for the perspective of the business operator, but why punish them if they are simply looking to survive.
Why is training someone in your business as a temporary replacement seen as a bad thing or such a burden? That person gains valuable experience and the work force skillset is expanded. They can then get a better job and rely less on others.
This just goes to show the blatant hypocrisy of Christians against anyone who isn’t christian. Would they accept a gay Christian? Or a woman priest? I don’t think Jesus would be so bigoted. Shame about his followers.
There are so man studies in America that show that it actually costs to be Black. Gaps in health care, and often even basic public services, all amount to shortened lives for Blacks in America as minority group. Since there’s been no effective way to squash that discrimination, then we as individuals and as a government must be discriminating in our cases. That’s what would be new.
Rejecting a woman on the grounds of her being “a pregnancy risk” is cruel.
when would we have children if we study until 30 to be sufficiently qualified? Is child birth only for the low level unqualified people? or for unemployed?
The state should support the employers and the mothers alike. Abundant and affordable childcare at or close to work, take over the major part of the maternity leave pay etc. This is part of the basic quality of life level that we should all have, not a luxury.
The woman not employing women because they might get pregnant is so worng. Not only is she a sexist she’s an ageist as well. But at the end she is only harming her business. She’s not employing the best people but the safest people. I bet she doesn’t employ mothers with teenage children!
The business woman has a point. These are tough economic times, but what of married people?
@ Andrew in Australia,
Surely, you make a good point. However, I think we sometimes get carried away with assuming that, by saying there is need (?) for quotas, etc. that that is the same as advocating selective discrimination, for instance. The point was raised earlier about standards. I ask the question throughout in relation to the questions posed by Anthony regarding the BET example he outlined.
While, I am not a cheerleader for BET, I do understand that people have a right to be whichever way they choose. That means also, being racist or whatever else they so choose that is not a condition of blackness or whiteness, or any other ‘ness’ for that matter. Sadly, it is human. Consequently, we need clearly articulated standards and provide people with real opportunities for attaining them in whichever field.
All too often the “standards” are complicit with a type of privilege that is exclusionary and almost always lowers or raises the bar on certain applicants depending on their cultural alikeness or dissimilarity to said standards.
Can discrimination be justified?
Yes,if discrimination means being decisive,discerning and differentiating.
There is a debate about ordination of women and gay preists in the Anglican Church at the Lambeth Conference,the UK state should step in and say that dicrimination against women and gays is not allowed in the UK and therefore the Cof E must employ them and allow full career progression ie there is a unitary code of law in the UK and everybody and organisation must adhere to the law.
stefan in prague says,
this just goes to show the blatant hypocrisy of christians against anyone who isn’t christian. would they accept a gay christian? or a woman priest? i don’t think jesus would be so bigoted. shame about his followers.
Everyone saying that you should NEVER discriminate, if you’re waiting for something, and you had to sit next to either an average looking man reading a book, or a homeless looking person, with tattoos on his neck, who would you choose? Yep, just about everyone would choose the average man with the book.
-Anthony, LA, CA
+ You can’t treat everyone the same, when the “everyone” isn’t willing to extend the courtesy and treat “everyone” the same. I think it is completely acceptable to discriminate against people when there own discrimination will harm others. You should be able to fire a religious person who is unwilling to fill a prescription for the morning after pill, because of their own discrimination.
We would know what is real discrimination when the one that discriminates can be intelligently debated and win the arguement. The racists and homophobes I know don’t have an intelligent reason to hate.
the libertarian guy talking right now must be from the majority!
A very high percentage of disabled people are unemployed while they could work, and no newspaper is taking their cause as the libertarian man says.
Firing people for conditions or status.. Sometimes would be fine. Would you want a drug addict being a police officer? They would get fired if it were found out they were addicts.
The libertarian candidate is not describing the US as it actually is, he is presenting a skewed image of our policies and beliefs.
Please let’s stop including smokers in a discussion about discrimination. Smokers spew poison at others, and often start fires. It’s a voluntary behavior, in no way comparable to being of one or another race, sex, or ethnicity.
NBA is comperable to broadway shows though. And there is always a token black men and/or a black woman. However you wont find a token asian, arab etc. Discrimitation is bad positive as well as negative.
Look at these minorities whining about their lot!
Please, the majority doesn’t owe you anything! Stand in line like everybody else, strive to EARN the same respect as the majority, to acquire an education and experience, and you will get the opportunities you DESERVE.
It’s always easier for people to take the shortcut and exploit the white guilt of liberals.
we would know what is real discrimination when the one that discriminates can be intelligently debated and win the arguement.the racists and homophobes i know dont have an intelligent reason to hate.
Kevin in trinidad
today’s discussion is becoming entrenched in specific examples, but I think one of the speakers (a man, not sure whom) hit the nail on the head when he said that we have the right of one individual (person or business) to discriminate vs the right of another person not to be the subject of discrimination.
both rights are valid, but which individual’s rights trumps the other person’s rights depends on the situation
concerning the theatre christian ad, i think it’s fine for the entire crew to be christian if the crew is expected to engage in purely christian activities as part of the production… e.g. if the entire crew is expected to lead the audience in a christian service, that might be ok
but if the crew is only doing typical crew work, the theatre company should not be allowed to discriminate on religion.
Will in Manhattan, Kansas, USA
If we as a society want to benefit from the talents and skills of women in the workplace, then we must create a level playing field in the competition between men and women in the workplace. We also as a society need the women to bring about the next generation, so we ought to see to it that women’s essential role of childbearer and mother does not put them at a disadvantage. The only reasonable way to do this is to see to it that employers do not suffer losses because of pregnancies in the workforce, i.e. the state must compensate employers with the cost of a suitable temp, while the female staff is in involved in her essential work of procuring a future for us all. In other words: creating a level playing field is the responsibility of all of us, and so must rest with the taxpayer.
Niels Sorensen
Copenhagen, Denmark
@ Serina in Singapore,
Rape is rape. It is a violent crime which must be viewed for what it is and not a factor of race relations. Surely, rape is used as a tool of violence during wars and especially during extreme racial conflicts like African Slavery in the so-called “New World”, as well as during wars between nations and in prisons. It is part of the psychology of fear that is used to demonstrate control of the ‘other’.
Hiring anyone, regardless of whether person looks like a rapist (whatever that means!) is not about culture or race, or even gender, etc., it is about competence and qualification. Remembering what we are at work for almost always helps, I think!
Counselling and the redress from the justice system for rape victims are almost always recommended under such unfortunate circumstances.
@Anthony
I would actually just stand up, especially after the incident on the Greyhound bus.
@Steve
Firing an addict is different because companies policies state that certain behaviors are not permitted.
To Asad_Babyl: you are a minority. It’s just a case of street, town, country, continent etc. So you are whining about minorities but fail to see your uniqueness which make YOU a minority.
@ Jonathan
Smokers do? How about white people? They spew poison and bombs on the oppressed minorities of the world.
Let’s keep them out of sight lest they spew their poison at US!
@kim, sf
That’s a pretty toothless claim. Care to elaborate?
And the guests on the show today, like most days, seem to be mentally handicapped. For example, I don’t which one from africa made this claim about a minute ago but it was something along the lines of:
“…affirmative action…that a very beatiful because without affirmative action there would be no civil right movements.”
Insightful commentary by the guests as usual.
PLEASE! That libertarian vice-nominee does not represent America!
In the “free market” he envisions, if a Microsoft executive fired someone because of their sexuality or something, they would not be put out of business, a taco stand, maybe, but not supergiant corporations, in his world they’d be untouchable!
How does he feel about sexual harassment? It’s a natural human drive, right? The boss’ secretary should buy some pepper spray and the government should stay out of it, right? Let the market sort it out if it comes out in the news that he’s been groping his secretary!
That guy is ridiculous!
HAH! “People are human, even in America”
Quote of the century! On so many levels!
I loathe the Libertarians, most think we are still living in the 18th Century!
I will like to present this form in discrimination in Belgium.
Alot of foriegners (Africans) in the western world ( Europe) are undergoing diverse forms of discrimination. In Belgium where I live, it is almost impossible for an African to be granted accomodation in the private sector. The landlords alway claim the houses are not available when the house is being solicited by an African. Alot of African students in this country will sooner or later become homeless.
The truth is that an average Belgian citizen knows that it is tru, but they can`t help it. It is a sad situation.
Yours sincerely
Emmanuel
@Balázs
The NBA and WNBA does not have token black anything.
The Libertarian’s views are, as we say in southern Indiana, quite a load of bovine fecal matter. Shaping society by “letting business do as it pleases” has resulted in, results in currently, and will always result in, slavery. Maximum profit occurs when you steal.
g
I have to say that i admire this discussion. Discrimmination is just that. But there are dumb laws in exsistance such as “hate laws” and gender laws. Hir -missing Fragment-
@ Angela
But being an addict is still a stutus. It would be like not hiring someone becuase they are a homosexual. However we don’t seem to have problem with not hiring for firing addicts, despite the fact that is only a status. Being an addict is not the same as as using drugs. Being a homosexual is not the same as actually engaging in homosexual acts. Say if the addict does their drugs only on their own time and not at work?
A question for your libertarian contributor: does he think that the social conscience he speaks about, that would pressure a business not to discriminate, would have developed to the same degree without the existence of anti-discrimination laws? I’m thinking of the struggle to end discrimination in the sixties, which would almost certainly not have happened in that way without the carrot AND the stick.
“Please, the majority doesn’t owe you anything! Stand in line like everybody else, strive to EARN the same respect as the majority, to acquire an education and experience, and you will get the opportunities you DESERVE.”
Asad ~ Spot on!!!
@ Anthony,
The problem is not with your choice of who you sit beside but, I suspect, how you make such a choice. How do you determine “average looking” and “homeless looking”? Those are cultural stereotypes which are very often flawed and are used as justification for all forms of hysteria in society.
As for stefan’s point about shame on Jesus’ followers, I could not agree more! Hate is hate! Plain and simple! There is no getting around it! Trying to justify hatred under and in whichever form does not change is super destructive and extremely limiting capacities.
Come on! Jobs are about networks, PR & relations. If you don’t know the right person even if highly skilled you won’t get the best jobs. Armando. D Belgium
To james in portland:
That kind of regulation might be fine for large corporations where an internal policy of discrimination equates to institutionalized discrimination. This situation is NOT applicable, however, to small businesses — which are the majority of businesses in the United States. They are subject to influence of public opinion, boycotts, etc.
The libertarian candidate is not representing history of discrimination here in the U.S. He claims that the free market always renders affirmative action unnecessary, but this is not true. If a majority group ostracizes a minority group, affirmative action is necessary to prevent the ostracized group from being shut out. Affirmative action was necessary here in the U.S. during the mid-late 20th century, although it is not as necessary anymore. -Will
In response to the caller from the US who said the free market will regulate this issue on it’s own, I would like to point out the current mortgage crisis in this country as an example of how the free market can cause disaster when unregulated. I am a Real Estate Broker in the State of Oregon and the free market has caused almost everyone I know in this market to fear for their jobs. I have had to take part time work just to keep my Real Estate Career. I believe that government regulation and oversight is needed in this issue, just as government regulation and oversight is desperately needed in the Mortgage market right now.
Thank You,
Jocelyn Reed (Jos a linn)
Bend, OR
@ Vennessa
And this comment from a woman. Nice…
@Steve
I think you just said the funniest thing I have heard all day. “Being a homosexual is not the same as actually engaging in homosexual acts.” Thanks for the laugh.
It’s not so much whether discrimination can be justified, but whether it is even discrimination at all.
Jobs aren’t utopias in which all human beings have the requirements. If you work at Hooters, part of the job description is well, hooters. If you work at Abercrombie you are suppose to look young and attractive. This isn’t discrimination it is simply part of the job requirements. To be a model you need to be pretty. To be a teacher you need to be comfortable teaching in front of people. To be a mechanic you probably can’t be in a wheelchair.
Jobs can also have, yes, physical or aesthetic requirements! Asking for them isn’t discrimination, they are simply part of the job.
Anyone who thinks that the federal or state governments are actively enforcing the civil rights laws should do more research. While there are lots of complaints, enforcement actions are really rare. thousands of complaints are pending with the federal agencies. When I refer someone to a government agency regarding a complaint, I advise them that it could take years to process and that they might not receive any compensation at the end.
Lynn M Clark
Ohio, USA
I am an American as well, and suspect the American libertarian has probably never been in a position to worry that he will suffer discrimination based upon illogical fear. It does not require an in-depth knowledge of ancient or recent history to know that the U.S. has for decades operated for decades with institutionalized discrimination based on both fear and ignorance. Until human brains evolve away from where they are now, institutionalized discrimination could easily happen again…anti-discrimination laws are required and unfortunately they are best thing the U.S. can do, aside from raising its children to be open minded and purely objective.
Paul
@ rawpoliticsjamaicastyle
OK.
A dirty man in dirty clothes with un-cut hair/beard with some tattoos on his neck.
or
A clean cut man with clean jeans and a pressed collard shirt.
Who would you rather sit next to if you had to? Hmmmm….
-Anthony, LA, CA
@Will
I completely agree with you
@ Angela
Steve is right. If you think this is funny just google “ex-gays”. You wont be laughing after… 😦
@ Venessa,
Regarding your endorsement of Asad’s point about the majority not owing you (whoever that is!) anything, I just want to disagree. Insofar as saying that, if the majority constitutes governments which are fundamentally aimed at awarding privilege through the disenfranchisement of certain groups, whether historically in the form of colonialism did in terms of the massive transfer of wealth from the colonies to the so-called “mother country”, then, such a premise would need being revisited.
These types of policies seriously handicap generations of people by the simple act of policy that refuses to acknowledge the historically prejudiced and inequitous power relations articulated between certain nations and groups of people as a result of factors, sadly, like race, gender, etc/
Discrimination is unacceptable. It is rank in our social structure, inhabiting every facet and strata of our society. The discussion being had on the program is a good one, however, no change will happen until discrimination is removed from sectors of our society such as insurance. Insurance is a banner-bearer for how bad discrimination can be to the general public. The point about lawyers is also a good one, if we listened to the lawyers, we would not have fax machines, photo copiers, video cassettes, etc. Control of our system of society is out of control! Why has government shifted its responsibility of encouraging procreation and continuation of the species to the small business owner. Why is this ‘legal racket’ of insurance shifted to the small business owner as well? Fix the problem, please…
Thank you.
Just as skin color might reduce a person’s ability to get a job, affirmative action reduces someone else’s ability to get a job. It is not fair to condemn discrimination and praise affirmative action. Affirmative action is a step in the wrong direction. The only way to counter discrimination is to eliminate it, not counter it with more discrimination.
Discrimination cannot be justified. But is racism not discrimination? Are the British and Anglo-Saxon Americans not the worst racists and, hence, the worst discriminators in the world? What are you doing about that vice? What is the one million man march meant to achieve in the USA? Why was it begun?
Why has no African government a permanent seat with veto power at the UN? Why is every Muslim taken as a terrorist even though who a terrorist is and terrorism have no universal definition and understanding?
Concerning the people with HIV, it is mischievous to use discrimination instead of self-protection against infection or conscious sensitive reaction to infection possibility. Self-protection or conscious sensitivity reaction to infection possibility, the attitude of people towards those who have HIV or AIDS, does not mean discrimination.
If people are advised against chastity, virginity and abstinence, ARE ADVISED TO HAVE SEX AND USE CONDOMS, if they refuse to abstain from sex and they are infected with HIV, and if some people who have HIV are advised to go ahead and have sex even with those who do not have HIV, based on that they use condom, although no condom is absolutely safe, why should the people who practice chastity, abstinence, virginity and sex with only their wives, and, therefore, are free of HIV not protect themselves against infection by those who have HIV or AIDS?
Moreover, and note this, the BBC report yesterday said the the USACDC discovered 56,000 new cases of HIV in the USA, 40% more than was estimated. Does self-protection not make sense, at least based on this discovery which was said to be possible because better equipment and method was used?
Prince Pieray Awele Odor
Lagos, Nigeria
@Balázs
There may be ex gays but I consider a person who engages in acts to be homosexual, even if they choose not to engage in those acts again. However, that is my personal view.
@ Anthony,
To even posit this as your response is offensive on too many levels. However, having said that, I would very much like to higlight that how we look at the world is very much our own purview. To suggest, however, that our personal tastes and idiosyncracies should be adopted into policy, as might be inferred by your self righteous reply is bit problematic, at least for me.
I am not desiring to tell anyone how to choose, or even what to do. My simple point is that sensitivity has never been known to kill any of us. Of course, if we do not possess it then that is a whole other matter by itself. No?
Discrimination cannot be justified. But is racism not discrimination? Are the British and Anglo-Saxon Americans not the worst racists and, hence, the worst discriminators in the world?
Why has no African government a permanent seat with veto power at the UN? Why is every Muslim taken as a terrorist even though who a terrorist is and terrorism have no universal definition and understanding?
Pieray
There’s a red line under my comment saying that it is ‘awaiting moderation’ – surely not by me??
@rawpoliticsjamaicastyle
“@ Venessa,
Regarding your endorsement of Asad’s point about the majority not owing you (whoever that is!) anything, I just want to disagree. Insofar as saying that, if the majority constitutes governments which are fundamentally aimed at awarding privilege through the disenfranchisement of certain groups…”
That’s a cute statement. What’s next a reference to “Jah” being the only true way to some form of relegious enlightenment?
If you’re going to make bold claims about other people’s government like you did, then back them up with some direct evidence.
“fundamentally aimed at awarding privilege through the disenfranchisement of certain groups…”
I suppose you mean the US government? Those rich fat white Americans oppresing poor hardworking black people longing for a return to Zion again huh?
Please!
@ Keith,
A most insightful point which, certainly, cannot be argued with. My preference, however, is to discuss how might states present their citizens – all their citizens, with opportunities and incentives for advancement, however we choose to define that? That to me is a much larger issue than the question of Afirmative Action, which I support in part, though only just. Why? Because, the equity we seek does not come about through Afirmative Action in isolation of a real effort to narrow the gaps between different groups and people, specifically, those who have been historically privileged at the expense of others. There can be no denying that part of the experiences of modern as well as ancient (?) Capitalism has been the result of labour exploitation strategies whether in the form of African Slavery, as the most obvious example, or Latin American sweatshops and substandard production in other unnamed parts of the world.
To allow “the best”,which means,one person’s perception of “the best” just perpetuates old prejudices.I had a feeling Libertarianism was an elementally bad thing.I am sure of it now.
@ rawpoliticsjamaicastyle
Hehe, your response tells me you would choose the clean cut guy. And whats wrong with that. Most homeless are either crazy, on drugs, or lazy/bad people. Thats just how it is.
-Anthony, LA, CA
I wonder if the Liberatarian from the USA can give a few sucessful examples, or even one, of countries where this seeming magical way of living, where life is so improved by getting rid of most government entities and letting the so called free market and the hugely powerfull businesses that have such influence in our lives do as they please, pursue only profit, and …..everyone is so much better off than we are now? Not that I like things the way they are… but… where are these utopias?
@Balázs
I looked up ex gays but it still seems that some of those people still have same sex feelings. I do not look upon individuals differently gay or not. However, I can understand how one might change their sexuality. So I apologize for my either comment to both you and Steve.
This clearly means that as a system Capitalism requires the exploitation of labour, on several levels, for it to work. More often than not, it is certain groups who suffer the most under these unfair and unbalanced regimes of power. Something must, therefore, be said for that kind of exploitation and efforts made to address it. If Affirmative Action as a policy instrument seeks to bring redress, albeit questionable, to these circumstances then it is understandable that they should be pursued.
However, I think that there is more to Affirmative Action than getting twenty women of Native American extraction, etc. into university. There is the also the equivalent need to establish parity and to bring everyone up to standard. There can be no relaxing of standars to seek redress, even within the face of the need to lift some up to reach the water. No?
@ Anthony,
I can see yours is the singular aim of creating mischief. I will acknowledge your comments, accordingly. Thanks for your insights!
Hello,
Only a human being can understand another human being. Because of our selfishness and egoistic attitude we tend to discriminate. TO me there is no justification. In reality discrimination leads to nothing good but hatrate and tribalisme and seperation.
The day a human being will be able to create another human being, then discrimination will be justified.
Thanks
00243997136202
That should have, more appropriately, read: “creating mischief, if not injury….”
@ rawpoliticsjamaicastyle
No, not creating mischief, I like uncovering hypocrisy. 🙂
-Anthony, LA, CA
@ Angela
That’s what I meant. And I think the original post mean this as well. As I understood it. You can be a drug addict even if you’re clean, as well as gay even if you don’t have sex, and an alcoholic even if you’ve given up. However people will still discriminate againts you. That’s why it’s not funny. But we might be on the same side here 🙂
I don’t know who your “American” expert was, but he was offensive and wrong in most regards. I would complain, but he does represent the NeoCon viewpoint and, considering our president, I suppose we deserve it in some way. This commentator is wrong that there is a “free” market, he is wrong that government always gets it wrong, he is wrong that businesses decide on the basis of merit, and he is wrong about any ethics in business. He is also wrong about profit being the only valid motive for society. I hope you at BBC are aware of all this.
On discrimination…it is conditional…it is not a black and white issue. It has always occurred and always will but we can weed out the worst excesses.
G Rosenthal
Tualatin, OREGON, USA
God created man on His own image, why on Earth should christians of all the people discriminate. Gideon Kiptoo -KENYA.
There is absolutely no discrimination in hiring a christian to head a christian org, unless its used to denote color, sex,tribe or race favouritism! Osca Nbi
It is unfair to discriminate on issues beyond our ability for example height, tribe when joining the military here in Kenya.
Its Johanson in Nakuru Kenya
What do you think of this? Would you sit next to him on on a bus?
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jeW3ilDtCjbVpvyL4Pqui5_m-fUg
Naturally man is a discrimanatory being. Religion, Culture, wealth and language only facilitate discrimination.
Discrimination has nothing to call as positive in itself. Positive discrimination is a fancy disguise for revenge or pay-back time.
@ Asad,
I will make no references to “Jah” as you seem to feel that all Jamaicans do. It is perhaps good that Kareen spoke to other issues here, as another Jamaican in forum. If nothing else showing the extent of our diversity, I think, albeit on a blog.
As for references to “rich, fat white American men”. No, that was not my intention either. Rather, simply to highlight that your flawed logic overlooks the nuances occassioned by history. Here, I am referring specifically to how Britain became a very rich nation at the expense of her colonies and how some of those colonial policies, sadly, continues even in the present.
If it were that you required explanation a simple request would have sufficed rather than your oblique references to a certain kind of religious fundamentalism suggested in your ascription of “Jah” to me, as well as the notion that I am, somehow, arguing on the basis of emotion.
Discrimination is a terrible crime and those who make it should be punished as criminals and sent on trial for the harm caused to the victims.
@ Anthony,
I can imagine you do! Far be it from me to deny you the pleasure!…Uncover away!
Naturally man is a discrimanatory being. Religion, Culture, wealth and language only facilitate discrimination.
There is no reason what so ever, for any kind of discrimination when it comes to employment, either in color, sex or faith.
It is unfair to discriminate on issues beyond our ability for example height, tribe when joining the military here in Kenya.
@ Asad
“Do you guys know what the scary thing is? Is that there are people seriously holding the view that I just mimicked and you guys have encountered it in your lives and are attempting to ask the person to justify their views.”
Agreed!
@ Anthony
“1) My beautiful White brothers and sisters.
2) Whites need to unite against the minority injustice of the world.
3) Why are all Black’s so ignorant?
4) I’m a proud White man!
5) Whites need to help other Whites to get ahead in life.
6) The united White college fund.”
I’ve thought about this many times. BET is filled with sentences where if you inserted white for black or black for white would be enough to cause a riot. At the very least, it would cause some huge fines from the FCC or take that particular show off the air.
There is absolutely no discrimination in hiring a Christian to head a Christian organisation, unless it’s used to denote color, sex, tribe or race favouritism!
God created man on His own image, why on Earth should Christians of all the people discriminate.
@ Asad,
As for “longing for a return to Zion”, I think you have me confused with the cartoon characters in your ongoing narratives about US superiority and in direct relation to your self declared narratives of immigrant gratitude.
Mercifully, for me, I made no references to either of those claims – that is, Zion as a respite for “weary souls” – whoever they are and, the US as the saving grace for all.
Unfortunately Here in Sierra Leone discrimination is everywhere in offices you name them. If you are not belonging to a particular tribe or class then you are looking for a favourable job to live at least a decent life forget it my dear. What is wrong with Africa?
@ Armand
“Discrimination has nothing to call as positive in itself. Positive discrimination is a fancy disguise for revenge or pay-back time.”
Well put!
@ Angela
“I understand your views concerning BET. However, the channel caters to issues that affect black people. Many shows would not be seen on other channels but it is not available in every area. It caters to individials interesting in things that affects blacks like the Golf Channel and ESPN, caters to individuals interesting in golf and sports.”
So does this mean that you would be perfectly ok with it if I started WET? I could show it in Atlanta, where white people are the minority.
Discrimination by law is wrong, but all interviews are a form of discremination and all applicants must be ready for this.
@ Melanie Chassen
I’m playing devil’s advocate here.
“How is allowing the Sikh girl to wear her bracelet in school not giving her an exemption from the school rules based on her religion? Is there a discrimination of sorts because of the kind of object it is (a bracelet rather than a sword)?”
I think the difference is obvious in this case. The bracelet poses no threat to other students, while the sword does. At the same time, I don’t think barring jewelry is justified, so I would probably let everyone wear bracelets. If there were a justification for banning them, I wouldn’t let the Sikh girl wear one. No discriminations means no exceptions as well.
It is a breach of humanrights to deny women because of child bearing or Hiv/Aids.
It’s unfortunate that Florence was sacked because she was HIV positive. She should have been allowed to work and her insurance cover restricted.
the libertarian’s views were totally skewed.
the US has the highest levels of poverty in all industrialized countries with the highest disparity of wealth between the super-rich and poor. a disproportionate number of poor people are of minority groups that have been discriminated against throughout history. children growing up in situations of severe poverty are at a complete disadvantage. their “merit” is stifled before it can even develop.
the growth of big business has only added to and supported these situations of institutionalized discrimination.
I understand basing decisions on merit, but at a higher level things are not equal and somehow society should work together to overcome that, whether it be through affirmative action programs or otherwise. it would be one thing if his idea of letting the free market reign actually created a healthy, inclusive society, but in reality it does not.
@ rawpoliticsjamaicastyle
I’m arguing that the US is saving grace for all?
What should I be saying then? That Jamaica is? You’ve had independence for decades and yous till haven’t achieved anything!
What about the entirety of Africa? What have they done for their people but starve? Even BJ Clinton says that the biggest problem with fighting aids there is not lack of funds.
Is the colonial white man keeping you down?
It is amazing to see that we have come so far yet we are still so far. Discrimination in whatever form, be it a police man pulling over an African-American because he is in a nice car, or a lighting and sound technition being hired because they are Christian. The descrimination law in Britian is understandable but sets humanity back fifty years.
Positive segregation is justifiable within the context of suitability and practicality.
When I told a friend of mine that restrictions should be put on the number of kids africans should have, she told me the struggle begins with me – that education is the key. People need to be educated first to change their perceptions about albinos.
I’ve fought discrimination all my life. Needing Christians for Christian organisation is ok. Demanding a particular sect is not.
Positive segregation is justifiable within the context of suitability and practicality
oh dear oh dear,
we are all equal before god………, apparently not.
well another proof on how tolerant religion is. Thank the non-existing god that i am an atheist.
Dear,BBC.It is not good to discriminate for any reason.From Babagana,Maiduguri,Nigeria.
@ Asad
“I suppose you mean the US government? Those rich fat white Americans oppresing poor hardworking black people longing for a return to Zion again huh?”
You put these words right in his mouth. He didn’t even remotely make mention of any of these things.
Good day
l am very much surprised by the lady, (unfortunately l could not get her name) from Britain l think. l own a couple of businesses, and would never not hire a female because, either they are at child bearing age, or HIV+, fat, tall, colored, albino or any other range of comparison.
Unless the decision to hire someone is purely strategic or financial people as long as they are qualified for a job, one should simply hire them by merit.
l sympathize with the lady in Nairobi. Kenya must create laws to punish such companies. Also the insurance companies should never disclose the HIV status of potential clients. If they can not, they must not be allowed to even conduct any test or medical exams.
BBC tell flourence to come to the gambia to get cured of aids.m.l.k. Gambia
Its unfortunate that Anam was sacked because she was HIV positive.She should have been allowed to work and her insurance cover restricted.
Joseph Luvisia.kenya
It is a breach of humanrights to deny women because of child bearing or Hiv/Aids. Etyang
Discrimination is a double edged sword that we all go through at one point or another.its a pity but at times justifiable.
Paul from kenya.
Discremination by law is wrong, but all interviews is a form of discremination and all applicants must be ready for this rhock.
Discrimination of any form is an abuse against one’s human rights. It should be eleminated in all civilised societies. F.M. AI-GBAHAN, FREETOWN.
My dear Asad,
It seems like you have me confused (again!) with “all black people”, whoever they are! Once could be understandable; twice? Not so much! So, here’s to ensuring that there is no mistake about my own meanings.
I speak for myself and that is about it. I happen to live in Jamaica and, unlike you, do not share the same attitudes about immigrant responses to living in the US. Good for you, you were facilitated in achieving specific ends that you feel were somehow impossible under other circumstances. That is admirable. Among others, it suggests that the ‘American Dream’ is, in fact, working and for that, we are all grateful!
For, if nothing else, when the independence train comes to halt in these parts there is always that to fall back on. Indeed, while I am at it, let me also say that I will choose only speak to those as the substantive issues worth addressing from your poorly reasoned assertions against me above.
What you should choose to argue or not is entirely your own affair. As for me, I wish to continue to discussion about discrimination and when might there be justifications for same, if ever. I am not the spokesperson for Jamaica, nor its Independence Movement and choose, therefore, not to comment on that, at least not in this forum.
@ Nick in the USA,
Perhaps “Zion” (?) saw how prevailed upon I was by these remarks and sent you to the rescue! Thanks for that!
I apologize for making another comment but I believe its important with respect to discrimination in employment and whether or not its valid.
Imagine a group of people, say Group A, captures another group, say Group B. Group B and their children are turned into slaves and made to work long hours. The women in Group B are frequently raped by men in Group A. All of the children in Group B are born into slavery and frequently exchanged or sold between men in Group A, even the children fathered by rape. This situation continues for many, many generations.
One day the people of Group B rise up in rebellion. Eventually, peace is achieved and Group A and Group B are said to be equal before the law.
However, although Group B built the society with the blood, sweat, and lives of their fathers and mothers, they do not have any of the wealth of the society, own any of the businesses, and little land of value. The people of Group B were historically denied education or training except to perform manual labor o0r low skilled tasks.
Group A declares we now live in a society in which everyone is equal. Group A states no one should receive special consideration in employment or before the law, otherwise, Group A states its just another form of discrimination. Group A believes they personally have never discriminated against anyone and are not responsible for the crimes of history or what their fathers may have done.
Group A continues to enjoy the fruits from the crimes of history and their fathers. Group continues to enjoy the wealth acquired by their fathers at the expense of Group B. Group A continues to enjoy a first class education from childhood to adulthood. Group A continues to recognize and almost exclusively associate with members from Group A. Group A continues to own the vast majority of businesses, espcially the larger corporations. Group A continues to dominate the higher levels of government and businesses.
Group A insists they have no debt to Group B and that Group B must rise by its own motivation and skills, as does everyone regardless of which group they may be a members.
This is the situation faced in many countries where discrimination in employment is an issue. A situation in which the power is not equally distributed among all groups in that society. There is a recognized difference among the groups.
I believe every human being has certain universal rights which includes basic survival needs such as food, shelter, medical care, clothing, education, access to a wide range of information from universal sources both within and outside of their society, and employment. And freedom from arbitrary discrimination, harm, and threat of harm.
@Katharina die ostereicherinen auslander
I had a German teacher from Austria she had zero awareness of other peoples culture maybe it was the first time she left her valley or something and she was fond of goat cheese,the kind of german she spoke was almost as uninteligible as swiss german.
She only had two people of minority origin in her class ,myself and a Chinese girl ,unfortunately she would not call on us in class and would make sure we did oral presentations only after the white kids, I complained about discrimination .The head of the department only gave her some cultural sensitivity training.
@ rawpoliticshonduranstyle
No, that was Jah!
@Melanie
re:kirpan
some people where a necklace with a small knife pendant or others have a keyring fob with a mini swiss army knife.
“These types of policies seriously handicap generations of people by the simple act of policy that refuses to acknowledge the historically prejudiced and inequitous power relations articulated between certain nations and groups of people as a result of factors, sadly, like race, gender, etc/”
My opinions here only reflect my views of American culture.
I don’t personally believe that modern corporations have maintained their position through the exploitation of African Americans. 50 years is a long time to be profitting from paying African Americans lower wages. There are plenty of wealthy new corporations that were unable to benefit from the use of slave or lower pay labor.
In my opinion, the African American community is it’s own worst enemy. They have failed eachother time and time again. If I were a leader in the black community, I would oust profiteers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and focus on making internal changes within the community, than blaming external circumstances.
@Nick
If a WET channel started I could not say anything about it. However, I am slightly different because I am from an area where the Klu Klux Klan and the Black Panther party are still around and active.
@ Raw Politics
“Perhaps “Zion” (?) saw how prevailed upon I was by these remarks and sent you to the rescue! Thanks for that!”
Haha, I am an equal opportunity B.S. Detector. If someone has grossly misinterpreted a statement or labeled someone unjustly, I usually try to call it out.
@ Nick in the USA,
I certainly would agree with parts of what you have had to say in relation to my post. However, I wish to suggest by this argument that the complexity of under-development runs the entire gamut, in that it takes into account more than just the issue of economics. While, Capitalism as an institution served to under develop many parts of the world and not just subsections within a group (eg. African-Americans), and by that, as noted above, I referring to the transition from British Mercantilist economic policies into the Industrial Revolution and later Capitalism, there is no escaping the tragedy of under development in its all embracing onslaught on specific groups of people.
The specific case of African-America I think is a complex one, but not beyond being solved or considered appropriately. The reality being that the very label African-American is largely political and does very little, in my view, to achieve the larger nationalist vision of a black consciousness which resides in harmony with American trans-nationalism. It is perhaps useful that the American House of Representatives (?) recently apologised for slavery. However, what is instructive here is that nothing was said about what such an apology may, or could mean.
Whoever is moderating this blog has not let my comment refuting rawjamaica through. It contained nothing for which it outght to have been censored.
Please let it through.
@ Nick in the USA,
You are welcome! Much obliged.
In furtherance of my earlier point, I am simply trying to say that the efforts to see “blackness” as somehow (more) unique than all other identities, whether in the US, or outside of it, is perhaps at the heart of what handicaps blacks everywhere, but more specifically in America. In that regard, there has to be an acceptance throughout all of America and especially African-Americans that black history is US history. If we can decide on what that means in the context of an apology like that recently then we may begin to have the discussion needed to solve what are years of compounded psychosis, both inside of as well as outside of that community.
@Nick
It is true the African American community has several problems. Additionally if you ask most black individuals, they do not support Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. The problems run deep and will not change until parents start raising their children, which is hard when you have children young and you have to work to support them.
Additionally, you need people to want to support themselves and not rely on the government for finances. I was just reading an article the other day about individuals, after Katrina, who were being evicted from their trailers because of the formedehyde. Most people would have tried to plan for the change. Several people did not plan and are now suffering because they were waiting for the gov’t to tell them what to do next. One of my mother’s friend’s knew months before hand that she would be losing her job but she did not prepare to get a new job. Thankfully she did not rely on the gov’t but she relied on her friends and family to help her. All African Americans are not the same and it is unfortunate that people tend to only focus on the individuals that are not contributing.
Does having a BET further the cause? I don’t think so, though I am sure there are those will disagree. Frankly, I am not interested in BET per se, but what that means in the wider context of the advancement of this group of people in a country which professes to be the “home of the free and the land of the brave”. This, while, ther are two million plus black men in US prisons, most charged for non-capital crime but who are left to rot in “the system”. These thing must impact any community.
Indeed, at last count Jamaica’s residential population was 2.9 million with an equivalent number who live outside of its borders. Fixing any problems of the ‘nation’, however constituted, has to take account of the value its all its peoples. Not just some, all! Until America is involved in the African-American solution, in a real way, then the problem continues, I think.
@ Asad,
Not to worry, my name is: rawpoliticsjamaicastyle! Not “rawjamaica”, or “rawpoliticshonduranstyle”! You might appreciate that those are two different countries.
Indeed, I am happy to report that for the second time since blogging here, one of my comments were not posted. That, of course, might be undestandable under the current circumstances. So, Asad, in the interests of keeping the peace, I shall revert to one my earlier comments: “Perhaps “Zion” (?) saw how prevailed upon I was and sent (Nick) to the rescue! Thanks for that!” All hope is not lost! Common sense still abounds, thankfully!
@raw
I might be pessimistic but all of America will NEVER get involved an African American solution. The problems rests with the fact that most individuals deny that there is a problem. One has to admit that discrepancies exist in a system. Since there is afrimative action, we all know that there are no differences and if anyone is disadvantaged- it is white americans.
@ Michael
I fully agree with your sentiments — nicely put. However one small point is the paragraph beginning with this sentence: “Group A continues to enjoy the fruits from the crimes of history and their fathers…”
Using this kind of rhetoric puts Group A on the defensive, and understandably so. For example, I am a white american (Group A?). all of my great-grandparents came over to the US from Ireland in the late 1800’s. Ireland (like many other countries) was severly persecuted by the British Empire for centuries so my ancestors had nothing to do with slavery in America. But does that lessen my responibility to face the current system of inequality and help repair it as a fellow American today? of course not! it is everyone’s responsibility, whether your ancestors were slaves, slave-owners, or none of the above. insinuating blame doesnt help matters especialy when it is far removed.
we need to acknowledge, as you nicely pointed out, that scars from the past cause many of the problems in society today. As all of the data and research shows, it isnt enough to just say we are equal after generations of persecution — actions need to be taken.
Wayne Root is a detestable man and NOT representative of the views of most Americans. His opinions are that of a schoolyard jock, picking his kickball team with only one thing on his mind… WIN WIN WIN. This mentality has led my country straight into the toilet over the last eight years, and hopefully a change is imminent come November.
Jason
Seattle
@ Angella,
Thanks for that insight. It is precisely what I wished to tease out in terms of speaking to issues related to Affirmative Action and whether or not that might be an appropriate way of addressing discriminatory imbalances in American society. Indeed, I do believe that at the heart of the Affirmative Action discussion is whether or not there is actually a problem. Like you, I am agreed that there is one. However, most of American apparently does not.
Generally, there is a sense that ‘white America’, whoever that is, feels very prevailed upon by ‘black people’, whoever those are, getting breaks ‘that they have not earned’! On what premise did they ‘not earn them’? The years of unpaid labour, rape, destruction and desolation of black culture and black families?
Or was it, the unceremonious public defrocking and whipping in the market places and the equation of blacks with animals? The spontaneous abortions caused from burying pregnant mothers up to their necks in the fields as part of the ‘population control strategies’ during slavery? Or, was it the dessecration of the black body as the ultimate embodiment of all that is permissive and sexually, if not morally reprehensible? I would love to know!
@ Angella,
And that is only but the start because there are all the other aspects of the modern day incarceration of entire generations of black youth in the public prison system as but others of the ways that America and the world, too, turns a blind eye to the African-American/ African Holocaust and the costs of its consequences. So, yes, until all America sees black America as Americans and until African American see themselves as ‘true Americans’ then we are no closer to a solution. Does that mean Affirmative Action and Quota Systems as the likely solution? I do not know, but it does make you wonder when we begin this discussion about discrimination and whether it is okay to do that!
@ Colleen,
I completely overlooked to have said thanks for that very insightful response above. The truth is these are difficult issues which can, unfortunately, dissolve into a mess of unpleasant emotions. It is useful, though, I think that we are at least giving vent to their discussion here.
Just a reminder – Keep contributions short, clear and avoid offensive language.
Hi Angela and rawpoliticsjamaicastyle,
I think maybe many people white and black and all shades can see that there has been and still is a problem. But what would the solution be? What is your best ideas about stopping prejudice once and for all? Government can’t make people like others, or respect them.
Yes, avoid offensive language.
@ raw
I wasn’t aware that those were two different countries?
And oh well, I guess we’ll meet again in another discussion.
Also, it’s Jah, not Zion who is preventing my comments from getting through.
@ portlandmike,
But that is precisely the point. It it is not, really, about like, though it may have something to do with respect. Note, where I said that African-Americans are at the heart of the problem, though not necessarilly, its creators. It would be a purely academic matter, however, for us to say these things and not explain theor meanings. It is not enough to simply say well there is a problem, we also have to be able to define the contours of that problem as a useful means of addressing it. In that regard, raising the profile of the discussion, hopefull, free of acrimony that historically occassions the race debates in America and else where might be a start. Information, educatio and awareness has to be the first point of contact, in my view.
@ Raw Politics
“Generally, there is a sense that ‘white America’, whoever that is, feels very prevailed upon by ‘black people’, whoever those are, getting breaks ‘that they have not earned’! On what premise did they ‘not earn them’? The years of unpaid labour, rape, destruction and desolation of black culture and black families?”
This is an excellent point. I can’t claim that there isn’t a divide between the two groups, but I’m not willing to accept that the divide is caused by breaks I’ve received from being white. As Colleen noted, a great many of us (myself included), have absolutely no ties to slavery and our ancestors came over here as poor as anyone. Hearing claims that we have been advantaged instantly puts us on the the defensive.
Unfortunately, I don’t see a political answer to this equation. The only way out, is mixing of the races. Which I have absolutely no problem with.
People still feel that to discuss race, even here in Jamacia, is sign that one has anarchistic designs; is committed to overthrowing governments and is filled with hatred. That I am invested with a cause, such as it is, is really just that an investment. Nothing more nothing less. The translation of such concerns into real issues about which people need to become concerned must, by necessity, I think follow some kind of logic and structure. Starting debates like these, engaging policy makers to make them aware and to, as well, use media opportunities to liberate entire generations from the prejudice of homogeneous thinking about groups of people, issues, etc. Education. Educatio. Education! That has to be upper most in our consciousness. Anything less is a disservice to yourself and humanity!
@ Nick in the USA,
But the problem is political! It has to be. It was a political system that, for better or worse, attracted your ancestors as the potential beneficiaries of poltically constructed vision of nation which had, at its forefront, a foregrounding of “whiteness” as the be-all and end-all of “life in America”. That would suggest that, whether I, myself, am the direct recipient of ill gotten gains that I live in a system which parcels out benefits accordingly make me complicit to its maintenance. It means that, as much removed as I am, by sheer virtue of years, history and experiences, I carry within me the seeds of a past as yet unresolved.
To the extent that I may be considered “a spokesperson”, I have to make the case based on this information, fully, prepared to accept that not all will see the vision and even those who do will not support it. That’s life. We work with it, but try our best in spite of. No?
@rawpoliticsjamaicastyle,
I agree. I wrote a longer message, but edited for brevity. But… I lived in Jamaica for 15 years. I loved it. My life had so much more meaning when I was living close to the ground, and in a yard. Respect and “liking” came with knowing who you were. I never felt so “safe.”
Now back in the states for three years, I have not been in any neighbor’s house. When I pass people with other skin color than mine and say, “Hi!” they look the other way.
@ Angela
“I might be pessimistic but all of America will NEVER get involved an African American solution. The problems rests with the fact that most individuals deny that there is a problem. One has to admit that discrepancies exist in a system. Since there is afrimative action, we all know that there are no differences and if anyone is disadvantaged- it is white americans.”
I think there are very few US citizens who would argue that there isn’t a divide between African Americans and Caucasion Americans. As far as most caucasions go (sorry for generalizing), our argument is against the way the situation has been presented to us. The reason people like Asad are so defensive is because whites are constantly being told that we have been given unfair advantages throughout our lives. Those of us who know we haven’t grown up with advantages, take offense to this and deny those claims. That certainly doesn’t mean that we believe there is no economic and social divide between the two races.
@ Asad
I’m sorry that I continue to use the phrase African American. I completely agree that it does nothing more than to divide people and point out a division between people.
Sorry, that last post should have said:
@ Raw Politics
I’m sorry that I continue to use the phrase African American. I completely agree that it does nothing more than to divide people and point out a division between people.
My dear Asad,
If you insist – have a great evening, morning, night! Whatever! It’s all the same to me! Be at peace!…Until then, be good!
@ Nick in the USA,
It’s all good! I am not that sensitive. Of greater concern to me is whether we are understanding each other. For there is always a temptation to, somehow, assume we know what we mean and leave with completely disparate information on the same issue. My basic point is: call it what you will, but even the issue of labelling is part of how the problems of race continue currently.
It is hard, of course, for people who live outside of these experiences, whether directly or intellectually, to always inhabit them with the same levels of intimacy. That is life! Still, the education must go on. Race is one of the defining issues of our time. Sad but true! And, especially when the question of discrimination is brought up, all the alarm bells go off with it! LOL!
@ raw
i don’t think most immigrants were attracted by “whiteness” or “blackness” of america. most immigrants are leaving a bad situation and looking for something better a.k.a the American Dream (whether reality or not). extrapolating the “us vs. them” mentality further does not help improve things today. we need to accept and understand the tragedies of the past and present and move forward as a unified force. and i agree that education is the most important factor followed by political action.
@ portlandmike,
I have heard of the real distinctione between so-called “island culture” and the metropole. I do not try and make much of it, though, because for many “islanders” I might be considered “untraditional” as I feel I live in the world and not just Jamaica or the Caribbean. To that end, I disrupt these stereotypes at my own convenience. In other words, there are days when you really would prefer not to be “nice” and just go about your business! But, I suspect this is part of who we are (?). LOL!
@ Raw Politics
“It was a political system that, for better or worse, attracted your ancestors as the potential beneficiaries of poltically constructed vision of nation which had, at its forefront, a foregrounding of “whiteness” as the be-all and end-all of “life in America”. ”
For many of our ancestors, the reason for coming to the country was a lack of food. They were starving. Many of them were sent straight to the war or straight into the sweathouses. They may have had it mildly better than slaves, but it was no picnic.
Furthermore, the nation was controlled by whites because there was no african nation that could even control it’s own population at the time. Had my ancestors gone to Africa at that time, they would have been running from spears and blow darts.
The USA was not founded under the idea that whites would profit from the use of blacks. Yes, slave trading was beneficial to those ultra rich few who were able to own slaves, but these were the exceptions, not the rule.
I just listened to the liberation’s last argument. My problem here is that there is no guarantee, that just because a person go hired because of affirmative action, this person was not just as qualified as the person who didn’t get hired. Maybe I am being too sensitive, but I have an issue with the fact that this guy keep assuming that everyone who gets in because of affirmative action, as not as good a candidate as the other person who didn’t get in. I go to a really good university in the states, and being black, I realize that some of the reason I got in may be because of affirmative action. But since I have gotten here, I have proved again and again that not only do I belong at this school, but that I got here because of my merit, because of what I could do. So it offends me that he is assuming that just because affirmative action is a possible reason for why a person gets a certain job, then the person was not a capable candidate to begin with.
@ rawpoliticsjamaicastyle,
Yes different cultures are worlds apart when it comes to what “discrimination” means.
I think that the problem will be solved in about ten or fifteen more generations when we all look pretty much the same. I once wrote Mutabaruka a letter to make this same point… lol
@ Nick in the USA,
I get the point that you make. However, it does not diminish the value of what I saying. In the overall scheme of things we are also speaking to a set of discursive practises for materialising social reality. While, there are poor whites and “white trash” as I have heard said here earlier, there is no denying that blacks in America are disproportionately more disadvantaged by the American political and economic system. It does not change the history of Africans in America, nor does it make it invalidate the owning of such opinions as truth.
Said another, it certainly was no picnic for early white settlers, however, it was definitely the case that the construction of the ‘nation’ of America, largely, occured through the creation of an underclass, which at that time as well as today remains people, largely, of African descent.
@ portland mike,
LOL!
@ Nick in the USA,
The challenge with ‘race mixing’ insofar as one of the earlier points you made on this issue, is that if it is done to somehow disavow the political concerns of ‘black agenda’, whatever that means, then I have a problem with that. After all, being black is not the equivalent to being racist. Though, and here is the troubling point, it is generally felt that because we live in what could, effectively, be considered “a white world” where blacks are significantly disadvantaged then there is the temptation to feel that all white people are, “naturally”, racist. This, of course, is obviously nonsense! But, you might imagine, then, why a discussion like this is problematic, no?
The point is we have to continue the dialogue, however, while we do that we also have to recognise and call injustices for what they are. Having an investment in universal rights and freedoms does not make me any less a member of “my community” – whatever that means.
I would hope, however, it means I am informed. Discrimination is not a clear cut discussion; that is, when we get into questions about what we mean by “privilege”, I think.
raw,
i was brought up in a manly , in fact pretty much only, white society during the 60/70′ in swizterland. my first real exposure to different races came in the eightie when i went o colleg in manchester UK. i was actually shocked at the sublime racisme that was on display at the university. in many ways, and this may sound totaly stupid, i was glad that i was brought up where i was, since i did not have any real conncept of racisme, since there “was no race to hate”. some swiss are highly xenophobic, but that is something different. i for one arrived in manchester and embraced all the new cultural differences with an open mind. since nobody tried to close it previously.
@ Jens,
Good for you! I certainly can appreciate not having a concept of something. For my part, I think the race discussion is occassioned by a great deal of fear about how unlike each other we are. This may sound real soppy, but I actually like people! By that I mean, we can learn so much more about each other by, as you say, being open. I enjoy all the textures and tones that come with that. What I am put off by is the extent to which, we are so bent on focussing on differnce we loose sight of some of that beauty. In fact, to do the reverse is just as bad – we are alike, no need for discussions of much else.
Thanks for your insights, though. Appreciated. Indeed, let me say thanks to WHYS! This has been quite an experience; that is, in addition, to be censored for, in retrospect, not-so-nice comments made in reference to Asad! Mind you, I thought I was within the boundaries of decorum, but apparently the editors felt different! That being said, thanks a million guys! This will be the topic of my next blog! Just have to find the time to write and post it.
raw,
we all bleed red blood and that should be the common thread of dealing with one another. you have had culturely a completly differnt upbringing that me, but that should, as you said, contribute to the whole facet know as world culture. i could not imagine a world that would only know swiss food, nor would i find a purely chinese food etc world very applealing.
the difference is what makes us so unique and race by any standart is not even skin deep…….
Sometimes, discriminations can be justified, in certain jobs!
I know, i have a learning disability.
Dennis
Syracuse, New York
USA
@ Raw
“The challenge with ‘race mixing’ insofar as one of the earlier points you made on this issue, is that if it is done to somehow disavow the political concerns of ‘black agenda’, whatever that means, then I have a problem with that. ”
Could you please clarify this statement. If all people were of mixed origin, then there would be no black or white agenda.
My home computer has been down for a month and someone has let me use one of their’s, so I am able to respond to this question, outside of work.
There is a difference between “prejudice” and “discrimination.” Prejudice is referring to the attitudes and thoughts, while discrimination specifically refers to behaviors. Thus, one can be prejudice without practicing discrimination.
We can’t talk about discrimination without talking about power, privilege, opportunities and a systematic denial of them all.\
That is why, the majority can’t be discriminated against.
Or, maybe, I should say that the majority will not feel the discrimination, as minorities will. Andk there are policies that support this discrimination, unlike that of discriminating against the majority.
Scholarships are given to white impoverished people, so the assumption that black or other minority populations get all of the scholarships is false.
I am totally blind and there are agency policies that keep me out of the work place.
“you must have a valid driver’s license.” Now, I have a state Identification card, but not a driver’s license. And, the job in question has no driving responsibilities
Yet, this policy makes it difficult for me to get employment. While I will relent that it might be an unintended consequence and that this policy was not directly implemented to discriminate against individuals who are unable to drive for visual reasons: it certainly is convenient and not being revoked anytime soon.
Also employers will give the excuse “our insurance will increase, if we hire disabled individuals.”
This Is an outright lie, but serves it’s purpose.
@Anthony,
Many channels had white entertainment networks, they just did not have to name it as such.
The desire behind BET was to portray more African-American people in positive roles. But, if you take a look at many TV channels, white people are already portrayed in a myriad of roles and facets.
It still amazes me why we must feel offense or jealousy when we are viewing those who are different than we are.
Can’t we celebrate those differences?
@Andre,
Since my Christian views concerning abortion differ from Planned Parenthood’s philosophy, I, as a social worker, decide not to submit my application for employment. And, I won’t feel discriminated if they don’t hire me because my values differ from their philosophy. My values are my choice and this is the difference.
First,
@ Nick in the USA,
I would be more than happy to clarify.
I believe that there are those of us who feel that the only way of righting an injustice is either by burying ir or denying its existence. If race mixing, such as it is, is to be the solution to the egregious crimes of African slavery, then, I will have to pass. It suggests, by itself, a state bereft of morality, in that it denies as a way of addressing the problems. The challenge with “agendas” is that they are not, in and of themselves, necessarilly bad, it is how we articulate them and allow others to catch the vision. Something you said to me earlier stuck in my head, even in my absence, that your ancestors did not have a picnic when they first arrived in the US. I am certainly am not suggesting this at all.
In fact, I was not even referring specifically to “your ancestors”, whoever they may have been. I am, however, speaking to the historical constructions of the American space, as a world example even, in which certain ideas about power are normalised and generalised as the “conditions of the many”. By which I mean, I speak to a specific set of historical circumstances which define, if not problematises the “concerns of black folk”, such as they are. It means that, unlike the implied generalisation that all white people are the same in that statement about your ancestors, whoever they are, and whether they had a picnic I am highlighting that a historically corrupt and imbalanced political system (of ideas) ensured that even in the current realities African-Americans are still not having a “picnic”.
Just this evening on the ride home from work, there was a news story on Outlook that the USDA systematically underdeveloped African-American farmers and farms, simply, it would appear, because of the colour of the skins. Something has got to be wrong with a system which insists that, “no, we are all the same and we did not have a picnic (your words!)” but which nonetheless denies the existence of problems like these, themselves, rooted in a set of historical practises. The reality is that there is no escaping how prejudice impacts and undermines, in many instances, the real life chances of those against whom it is directed. The untold damage created, for instance, in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, insofar as the waters of the Atlantic as the literal graveyard for millions of Africans, during the period, has not yet been quantified.
I had the experience of travelling back from Trinidad to Jamaica and looked out the plane window while we were over Hispaniola (Haiti/ DR) and saw the vast body of water between there and the next landfall – the western coast of Africa we are told, and had a serious sense of horror about what it must have been like for those millions of millions who either jumped to their deaths, or who were thrown overboard because they were considered expendable. This, while many, we are also told, were not accustomed to and or had never seen the sea before. Can you imagine that horrowr?
Have we begun to understand all the millions who will never see justice whether this or in any other lifetime if we pretend that these are not real issues? So that, if by race mixing, whatever that means, we are engaging in that to deny the existence of race, I will have to pass! Unlike you, I am not so sympathetic.
However, if by “race mixing” we are referring to seeing all peoples as equals deserving of respect, the same rights and freedoms, then, sure, bring it on. The question is, how do we understand that equality? What might we learn from this equality?
And this, does not mean I am opposed to “race mixing” as you call it. It means that I am interrogating these ideas about justice, equality and human rights. Are we to assume that because entire communities do not live in the flesh anymore they are, somehow, unworthy of justice? Is it the same thing to say that becasue my own family’s ancestors had life challenging, it dismisses the significance of a case like this? Who is my family anyway and how are they connected to this? Just some thoughts….!
discrimination is as natural and ingrained as any human survival trait I can think of. Every where, in every society we discriminate in favor of our own family, tribe, community. It is natural to look after our own. Its just that now it has become politicaly incorrect so we’ve become more subtle about it. For example working religion into the conversation with the job applicant instead of being up front about it.
@ Raw
That was some serious posting. It is not my contention to deny the horror of slavery. I also have no problems admitting that many whites in the USA are descended from slave owners. However, there have been injustices done to every race throughout history. We can remember these situations, and do everything possible to ensure that these horrors are never repeated. However, there is no way to reconcile with an African who jumped off a slave ship 200 years ago.
My argument is that mixing races, would eliminate racial discrimination in the future because there would not be separate races.
Furthermore, I would argue the causality of African Americans not having a picnic. I personally believe that, although American society is not entirely innocent, the root cause of African Americans “not having a picnic” is a result of their own subculture. As you know, African Africans are also not having a picnic. I don’t believe anyone would contend that this is also a result of the slave trade. There are millions of people currently living in third world countries, that were more or less untouched by British colonisation, who are also not having a picnic. Recently, our attention was drawn to Burma, where a society has run itself into the ground without foreign influence.
If we are willing to admit that the current situation of African Americans is partially resultant from the slave trade, then I feel we should also accept the possibillity that it is partially resultant from the blending of African and American cultures i.e. inherent traits from African culture were passed down from parents to children, which resulted in what we now recognize as African American culture. This may be the root cause of the disparity between whites and blacks in american society. This is just one of many possibilities in a complex situation. I think we should be willing to accept that African American like African culture may in itself result in a lack of what we in the states refer to as “success”. Again, I’m not trying to put all African Americans in the same boat, I’m just saying that there is a large portion of African Americans who have refused to adopt the parts of American culture that make a person “successful”.
@ Nick in the USA,
I want to think that the concession made much earlier about the role African-Americans have had to play in a situation in which they have come to find themselves was established. This does not exculpate the rest of the political systems which engendered and profitted from the existence and entrenchment of slavery whether now or years ago! Unlike, your reading I am not as optimistic about “Africans who jumped overboard”. I read that as part of the legacy of horror bequeathed to us in the modern age in our super-inflated, violence riven, hate filled cultures that we currently inhabit. I see these as part of a larger cycle of horrors that threaten to overwhelm us because rather than addressing them through admission and real committment to fixing the problems they present for us, we choose however to see these “issues” as artefacts in a museum. They are fit only to be seen but not contended with. The problem, of course, with the horrors of the African-American holocaust is that it is still denied and there is no museum that houses the damaged histories of those descended from this painful web of human cultures.
One of Asia’s largest budget airline had to deny claims that they are proposing weighing passengers, presumably with the intention of charging levies against heavy passengers.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/news/airasia-x-denies-plan-to-weigh-passengers/2008/08/05/1217702022645.html
Some may see this as a rational business decision as a plane’s flying weight directly affects its fuel consumption, but others may see it as a form of discrimination.
Genetics and health problems may affect a person’s weight and therefore charging them a weight levy would then be unfair. If a person’s weight problem is cause by his/her choice of lifestyle, however, would this still be ground for discrimination?
And, while I feel for the pain of the Burmese people and in particular am revolted by the horror visited upon it by its government, I cannot equate this pain in the same way with that which I feel in relation to my post. I do not wish to appear flippant but you might appreciate the significance of the difference, at least from where I sit.
The difficulty I have with your post is not so much that these are not valid concerns, but rather its insistent refusal to acknowlege the pain of the crime. That some slaves died is neither here nor there. After all, Africans were complicit in its creation to the extent that many sold their country men into the horros of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, whether wittingly or not. It does not, however, change the gravity of the impact of that kind of population transfer, the vast majority of which were sacrificed to the deceptively halcyon waters of the Atlantic. Indeed, the pain of that trauma has not yet seen the light of day! Where is the consciousness? Where is the acknowledgement? Where is the committment to ensuring that this never happens again? Ever? And, where are the programmes, plans and policies to meaningfully redress and memorialise this tragedy? Where?
According to the Queen, sometime ago, in response to the Rastafarian community here (and, I swear this is not by longing to return to Zion, a-al earlier comments by an unnamed individual!), African Slavery was not a crime and, therefore, cannot be viewed as part of the record of human rights abuses committed under Empire in the recent histories of the world!
This, while entire civilisations were derascinated and totally underdeveloped; robbed of their wealth and potential wealth through the forcible expulsion, removal and termination of many of its peoples! These are serious issues! We cannot just put a gloss on them and say, well, the answer is miscegination! No! Where is the decency? Where?
@ Tom,
That’s an interesting one! Pick it up in the morning! Lata!
@Nick
Greed and ambition (American Culture) need to be coupled with opportunity to make a person be successful. Its only since the sixties that the African American have been allowed to sit anywhere other than the back of the bus. Bit difficult to come from the ghetto or a farm in the deep south and go to Harvard. so its going to take a bit longer than a couple of generations. Last I heard they represented only 13% of the population so they have made a pretty big impact on sport, music and film so far. Couple of more generations and this won’t be an issue.
@Tom
ever sat on a plane next to someone who was overflowing their seat? I say weigh em and charge em and give them a bigger seat.
Sorry I came to this discrimination debate a bit late, but I just noticed this comment on the ‘Talking Points 5th August’ thread:
Bob in Queensland August 5, 2008 at 11:17 am
“I’m being careful not to name the company or the play for exactly that reason–and I think we’ve done them a favour by pulling their ad. We’ve asked what possible justification they could have for the restriction and I’ll pass their excuse on if we get a reply. To put it in perspective, I’m not religious at all but have done several sound installations in churches.”
I’m wondering why the strong words here, Bob. “What possible justification” and “excuse.” Seems like you have made up your mind that the Christians are guilty of some gross injustice here when all they are really doing is closing ranks and aiming for an “in house” production – if that pun works. Since you are not religious, why are you being so religious about squeaky clean political correctness?
Christians in today’s world are coming under extraordinary attack, often physical, from a really incongruous alliance of Muslims, atheists, anarchists, homosexuals and others throughout the planet. Even the Western world, which apparently so values its “freedoms,” is intent on limiting the freedom of Christians to worship for fear of “offending” people of other faiths. Against that background, I think it’s perfectly understandable that Christians would want to draw the wagons into a circle from time to time.
The important concept of “discrimination” has received a completely unjustified bad press and has assumed powerfully negative connotations, particularly during the apartheid era when to discriminate was virtually on a par with being a mass murderer.
Thing is, discrimination is as natural as breathing. It is what helps you avoid being run over by a truck when you cross the road.
Didn’t want the last comment to get too long, in case it might cause people eye strain, but this anecdote might shed some light on my argument. Many years ago I applied for a job at left-wing newspaper. Having had no response to the CV I had prepared and sent them, I phoned them. I was told frankly, “Sorry, but you are the wrong colour for the job.” Now if they were only prepared to employ purple people with yellow spots they should have specified that in the ad, as the Christians did in theirs. Would have saved me a lot of time and trouble.
I mentioned a while back that there is a black journalists association in South Africa. Non-blacks not welcome. This is fine, as long as white journalists are also allowed to form their own exclusive group. Problem is, they would be jumped on by the PC brigade if they tried. They would have the book thrown at them.
It does seem a bit strange though, that black people, under no threat of discrimination, prejudice or attack in the new rainbow nation, would want to discriminate against other hues. Also, one would think that journalists, of all people, would be bit more open-minded about these issues.
This couldn’t have racist undertones could it? Can’t be, black people can’t be racist!
i want bto give Nepali prespective on discrimation in our society.Nepal was a hindu kingdom before abolision of monarchy now it is a secular state.According to hinduism our society have been divided into four groups.firstly the brahimins[learned ones],chettris[warriors],vaisyas[craftsmen],sudras[untouchables].The so called brahmins and chettris are the higher castes.these people have controlle4d the country for centuries.the so called lower caste people vaisyas and sudras have been discriminated by higher caste for centuries.these people were not allowed to enter any hindu temples and people of higher caste have refused to eat food and water given to them by lower caste people.this type of discrimination have prevailed for centuries.and if people of higher caste ever marry people of higher caste it was a big issue.so we have faced this kind of discrimination.so what i feel is that discrimination of any form can be legitimised.we should join hand and fight against discrimination.
@ Bryan
Why the strong language? Because, on this one I’m expressing my own view that the wording of the ad is unacceptable–and illegal under British law. I make no claims of being unbiased on this one, other than to say I would be equally unimpressed by a Jewish, Muslim or atheist theatre company trying to place a similar restriction. I don’t know if you heard last night’s show by the way, but a top London employment lawyer was one of the guests and he confirmed my view of the legal situation.
I do wish you had got the job at the “left wing newspaper” if only for the amusement value. However, if the paper has a stated left wing editorial policy I may see their logic–for journalists. However, the situation I cited was a bit more akin to them also insisting on left wing press operators–and I wouldn’t support this either.
Rick August 6, 2008 at 3:49 am,
Having just read your comment, I find myself in rare agreement with you – if you are the Rick with whom I am generally in disagreement.
@ rawpoliticsjamaicastyle, Shirley,
Your posts got me thinking about how little I really know about the history of slavery… so I put “the history of slavery” into the new powerset article search for wikipedia, and spent the rest of the evening reading… I got half way through. Slavery it turns out has been a major part of human living, of commerce, of history. Perhaps “slavery” has become a taboo subject to discuss, and “slavery” has come to mean slavery from Africa to the U.S. from Jamestown to the end of the Civil War
“In Carolingian Europe (7thC) approximately 20% of the entire population consisted of slaves.”
30% of the African Slaves went to Brazil. A thousand slaves were freed there in 2007 in one mission.
Islam plundered slaves from Africa from the 9th Century on. “…historians estimate that between 11 and 17 million slaves crossed the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara Desert from 650 to 1900 AD.[114][115]”
African nations themselves plundered each other for slaves… and it appears from my first reading that perhaps 30% of all populations in Africa were enslaved.
“According to Human Rights Watch, there are currently more than 40 million bonded laborers in India,[234] who work as slaves to pay off debts; a majority of them are Dalits.[235] There are also an estimated 5 million bonded workers in Pakistan.[236] As many as 200,000 Nepali girls, many under 14, have been sold into sex slavery in India.”
http://www.powerset.com/explore/semhtml/History_of_slavery?query=history+of+slavery
Slavery:
Don’t forget the millions of people who work long hours for a minimum wage.
That is also slavery.
Thanks Bryan, yes it is I. Wonders never cease!
@selena
one definition I would put on slavery is than you don’t have the option to leave. You can leave your job at McDonalds, if only to work for Burger King.
portlandmike August 6, 2008 at 8:54 am,
Your comprehensive comment regarding slavery should burst a few bubbles.
selena,
Nope, it ain’t slavery. It’s working minimum wage for long hours. We have to be wary of broadening our definitions until they become meaningless, as in the Nelson Mandela “torture” debate.
BTW, I saw a comment of yours on another thread saying you’d learnt from the points I’d made. I hope it was mostly a positive experience. If so, thanks.
Bob,
You and I know that if Muslims had put in a Muslim-only ad there would have been no haughty indignation, such as you expressed to the Christians. I guess you would not have run the ad but I have no doubt you would have formulated your response in the politest possible fashion. The BBC behaves in pretty much in this way, tiptoeing on eggshells around issues affecting Muslims. This has become written in stone in the PC Bible. Or perhaps I should say Koran? To “offend” Muslims has become a heinous crime for the politically correct.
Rick, yes, they certainly don’t.
@nick and raw,
I am not against race mixing.
But, to think that it will solve the problem is, in effect ignoring the problem. There would still be arguments and privileges on skin color – which is lighter and has more white features, etc.
It would be better to respect differences: not make everyone carbon copies of each other.
Besides, race mixing does not help my problem much. I am seen as “blind” first and foremost. So, it has not solved the root of prejudice and discrimination.
@nick
it is not just black/white, it is the hue and tone of skin color. race mixing would not solve anything. Discrimination would still be present, but instead of black/white, it might be light/dark.
There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance.
Many black people and other minorities (the darker the more significant) feel tolerated, not accepted and certainly not celebrated for their differences.
Amen, Raw!
Yep, many white people here will, in one breath say that it was a horrible crime, but not want to deem it a “human rights abuse. they still, in some sense, are proud of their ancestors.
thats 2 Bryan (reply to selena) whats going on??
must be the jp influence haha
Could be. I noticed quite a while back that you said you had read the Jerusalem Post. Not quite the rabid Zionist rag you thought it was, right?
@Jamily5
You states that many individuals don’t want to see slavery as a human rights abuse, which I totally understand. However, I also beleive that individuals should be proud of their ancestors. Their actions may have not harmed other people but it was their job.
Many of my friends are decendents of slave owners but they are proud of their ancestors becuase it is part of them.
Jamily5
I meant to say their actions have harmed other people but it was their job.
@selena~~
No, working long hours for low wages is not slavery. I remember that you said words don’t have any real meanings, but they really do. If we just throw them around, how can we discuss anything?
Slaves get NO wages; it’s how you can tell they’re slaves.
@Angela~~
For the record, homosexual orientation is different from homosexual activity not because orientation can (purportedly) be “changed,” but because people don’t always act on their desires. The US military and several major churches make this distinction: it’s the act that’s forbidden. (Why was that so funny to you?)
Mike, kudos. I did that same kind of reading, both at Wiki and also whatever docs Google pulled for me. A lot of that reading devolved into skimming, but it was educational nonetheless (spelling?)
Have you considered yourself finished with the reading? Or do you plan to turn it into a project? Once I get myself into a more urban area, I hope to pic up reaing W.E.B. DuBois again. His ~Soul of the Black Man (not sure of exact title) is an eye-opener.
Jonathan, earning pennies per tonne of produced goods to pay off a never-ending “debt” to sharks is slavery.
Number of words: 104
@Johnathan
It was funny, although I apologized for being cynical, because their are several men out today that have sex with men but do not beleive that they are gay or homosexual. I have this attitude because espesially in DC and Atlanta their are several men on the “Down Low.” These men have sex with men but do not consider themselves gay or bi. I am actually scared to date people because of this phenom.
As I stated earlier, I did not mean to offend anyone.
@Steve
I apologize for my earlier comment.
@ Jamily and Raw
What purpose would labelling slavery a human rights abuse serve? I have no problem calling it a human rights abuse, but it happened in a time before human rights existed. The Spanish Inquisition was also pretty rough, but does that mean that Jews and Protestants should be given jobs in Spain? Ancient Egypt was also pretty unpleasant for the Jews, but does that mean that they should be first in line when they go see the pyramids?
What is your proposition? How do you feel that the whole of American society can reconcile slavery? Do you propose that white people, who are or aren’t descended from slave owners, make concessions to African Americans until there is economic equality? What would these concessions be? Do you feel it’s proper to punish a group of people for the sins of their forefathers? Should the children of Nazis give part of their salaries to Jews?
Quote from Wikipedia:
“Over half of all white immigrants to Colonial America during the 17th and 18th centuries consisted of indentured servants.”
What special priveleges should be given to the descendents of these indentured servants?
@ Bryan
I know no such thing and believe I would have reacted the same whatever the source of the discrimination.
@angela,
So, what are they proud of?
I understand, maybe, being proud of the other accomplishments, but it is a stain on their character and I would find it just as detestable as other crimes against humans.
BTW, I find Thomas Jefferson and many of the “so-called founding fathers” complete hipocrits and would not be proud of their actions.
@Nick
The historical accounts regarding the plight of indentured servants was horrific also. I remember reading stories describe the life of an indentured servant and sometimes they were treated worse than slaves.
Additionally, I think an apology or a historic site is more deserving than actual monetary payout. An apology from the government for past actions, not from individuals or their family. People get too “caught up” when there are discussions regarding reparations. However, I realize that my ancestors were slaves and their has been ill treatment towards Afican Americans but a payout would cause more problems than anything else. Especially, since we were not the ones that struggled. Other individuals may want to take money but I think a site dedicated to the individuals that died and struggled would be worth more than anything. There are sites but these are not sanctioned by the government. I am not sure if they have several plantations in Kentucky but there are several in South Carolina. They represent the southern charm and the injustice but more attention is brought to the positive attributes of these locations.
@Nick
You wrote:
What purpose would labelling slavery a human rights abuse serve?
The same purpose that calling the “holicost,” for what it is.
(bad speller, forgive???)
People could no longer minimize the effects of slavery.
I have heard many white people say:
“Slavery happened a long time ago, why focus on it.”
But, then, their underlying prejudices and inadvertent behaviors suggest that they have not moved from the mindset of their forefathers.
Thus, this minimalist reaction only serves to make the conversations about slavery, the imbalance of power, any prejudicial attitudes and all that might surround this kind of discussion irrelevant.
then, when a black person does talk about discrimination, they are labeled a whiner and complainer because we want to put our blinders on and say that “we are now an equal, fair and just society.”
But even after laws are changed, attitudes will prevail for years to come.
solution???
An equitable distribution of power… ..
oh, well,
nothing will truly change until passive tolerance is replaced with active acceptance.
And, that can not be legislated.
Hi guys,
Just reading through the comments overnight and wanted to add, in light of portlandmike’s entry above, that, the crime of slavery is not (just) a black issue. Human rights abuses, if left unchallenged, continue to be just that and can precipitate other further abuses occassioned by the unresolved issue(s). The crime of labour exploitation, sweat shops, forced marriages, child trafficking, human trafficking, forced prostitution, cultural derascination (that is, being denied one’s right to (one’s) cultural heritage, etc.), the denial of an education, abrogation of rights and the curtailment of civil liberties and other freedoms, poor health care, bad education, denial of the right to choose, etc. – all of these are the legacies of enslavement caused by the crimes of human rights abuses!
The very mention of the word ‘discrimination’ repulses most people, and I because none of us want to be unfairly denied an opportunity to improve ourselves economically or otherwise. However, I think discrimination is such a broad term, and to say generally that discrimination can never be justified and should therefore be fought against in all its manifestations is impractical and impossible.
Consider this experience:
A friend recently wanted to buy a piece of land, and went through all the discussions with the owner who was very willing to sell off. However, at the last moment when the owner got to know what tribe my friend belonged to, he rudely pulled out of the deal.
This was discrimination. But again, I believe the owner has the right to determine who to do business with, though he exercises that right based on the wrong/ prejudiced perceptions.
Alot of us feel distant from the issue for two main reasons, I suspect:
1: That this is ‘black issue’ which naturally follows on, the assertion that, they are somehow complicit in the maintenance of ‘their situation’ and, if so, they alone should ‘fight the battle’.
2: Concerns about human rights are very much political issues which, often place us in contravention with entire political systems, societies and cultures. Not many of us want that, so we revert to the first point and, somehow, try to deny the complexity and comprehensiveness of the issues by making them into concerns about race. That being the case, then, we can feel better about ourselves by suggesting that, we had life hard too (no dis, but this is actually true!).
In that regard, there is no real reason to care and, thus, we continue along our merry way in the vain hope that by pretending we do not know we are somehow insulated from action. My basic point is, as one former student said to me, African Slavery, British Colonialism and all the complexes which have resulted from these are issues which impact all the actors in the piece not just one group! That we desire to construct the issue in this largely one-sided ways tells us clearly the problems very much continue even in the present.
So that, there can never be a basis for discrimination. Plain and simple!
@ Ernest,
While, your point is valid, I think we have failed to define carefully what it is we mean by “discrimination” here. Following on yesterday’s example of the Christian theatre group using the words to the effect “Only Christians need apply” for their advertised job opening it sparked a debate about exactly that. What do we mean by discrimination and are there instances in which we feel that this is acceptable? If so, explain.
In my view, No there are never instances in which it can be justified. After all, issues related to how people act, in terms of the traversing and negotiation of public spaces, necessarilly, suggests that they should be constrained by certain universal policies of decency. These should be premised, as much as is possible, on principles of rights and freedoms for all. Not just some. All.
As a result of which, it lead us into the realms of Affirmative Action and the Africn-American Holocaust – a term I am aware that not many choose to use in talking about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, largely, because it is not percieved in this way. However, it does not change the facts of that history, which we also said was part of the problems which beset us in the present. Some claimed that whites were discriminated against by scholarships and programmes which seek to fund minority education opportunities.
While, I disagree in principle with terms like ‘minority’ as well as ‘discrimination’, there is no escaping the fact that certain communities of people have been historically denied access from real resources in society, which have fundamentally impacted their life chances. That would mean, then, that there is an urgent need to set this process right, especially considering that it was no accident which lead to where they now are in society. Through a process of continued and systematic under development we, effectively, are exterminating in vast numbers certain groups of people felt to be none-peoples! The question is: What is the role of programmes like Affirmative Action, etc., in such a state of affairs? That naturally boomerangs back to the question of what are human rights and how might these be protected? What is the role of history, too, in this discussion?
@raw
I completey agree with you
So, if human rights are defined as rights for all peoples and not just specific groups which coalesce around terms like race, gender, nationlity and ethnicity, religion, etc. then we might begin to appreciate the subtle nuances and sharp complexities in this discussion. Is it, therefore, ever right to discriminate? We take that to mean:
Is it ever right to deny someone else their rights? (What are rights; who makes those decisions and whose rights? How will those be defined and protected in the interests of all?, etc.)
Thanks, Angella! Welcome!
@ Jamily5
“The same purpose that calling the “holicost,” for what it is.”
What is the purpose of calling the holocaust what it was?
“But, then, their underlying prejudices and inadvertent behaviors suggest that they have not moved from the mindset of their forefathers.”
Which prejudices and behaviors are we talking about? How can we be sure that the prejudices of today are not a direct result of interaction between whites and blacks. For example, I moved to Chicago from a town of 8000 that had less than 20 African Americans. I knew almost nothing about modern African Americans, but I was quite sympathetic to them because I had studied slavery in school. Therefore, my opinions about the shortcomings of modern African American society came from my direct interaction with modern African Americans. In other words, it only takes so many squirrels biting you on the finger before you decide that you don’t want to feed the squirrels anymore.
@ All
Currently, I have never met a human being who denied that slavery happened and that it was terrible.
@ Angela
I agree, there should definitely be a historic site dedicated to slavery.
Are you familiar with this site: http://www.usnationalslaverymuseum.org/museum_main.asp
I’m not sure why the government should apologize though. Since, no member of the current government had anything to do with slavery. In my opinion, an apology without having done something wrong is patronizing and pandering.
Furthermore, although I think it’s necessary for all americans to recognize and learn from our history, I’m not sure how this would help the current situation of African Americans.
it only takes so many squirrels biting you on the finger before you decide that you don’t want to feed the squirrels anymore.
Great point.
On a side note I used to have a squirrel I would feed when I was younger, it would come right up and eat out of my hand and hang out next to me. I know, I know, not the smartest idea, but it sure was neat 🙂
@ Raw
“While, I disagree in principle with terms like ‘minority’ as well as ‘discrimination’, there is no escaping the fact that certain communities of people have been historically denied access from real resources in society, which have fundamentally impacted their life chances. That would mean, then, that there is an urgent need to set this process right, especially considering that it was no accident which lead to where they now are in society.”
How do you propose that we set the process right for “communities of people [who] have been historically denied access from real resources in society.” Furthermore, how do you suggest we qualify these people. Shall we do a geneology search of all those white folks who came to the americas as indentured servants? Would not, simply having a need for assistance, trump historical factors that may have resulted in the decline of a minority subculture?
@Nick
It may not be the same individuals but the institution (government). This is regarding the reparations debate not to help the current state of African Americans. The current state of African Americans can only be addressed when everyone starts to pay attention and decide there is a problem and things need to change. Some of the problems rests with the legal systems and other problems will not change until I don’t know when. I just want to ensure I do the best for myself and ensure that I can support myself without relying on anyone, which I currently am.
must be christian? I suppose you could advertise this in a privately funded christian publication. But i suppose even then “prefer” might be a way to keep the door open to evangelizing to non-christians. There must be a purpose behind the exclusive request. Not knowing that purpose just leads to 331 entries and a tremendous amount of lost worker productivity. is it right to discriminate against people who waste time.
@ Nick in the USA,
I am just so happy for your question, for if nothing else is betrays the very point to which I speak. Among others, you ask about what is the point of an apology. However, a question like that only comes from those for whom such an apology has no significance. Indeed, recently, the Australian Government apologised to the Aboriginal, more like the Original Australians for all the crimes which were committed against that group by the Australian Government in terms of the forcible removal of children from their families, etc.
Then, there was the Pope, who initially, argued as a Cardinal that the Priest Sex Abuse Scandal was not a real issue (I am paraphrasing here) for the Church to apologise, until he became the Pontifical Father. Indeed, among the most instructive of the points made during his papacy is the statement to the Eastern Orthodox Church that the Church today is the same yesterday and tomorrow.
The Church of England and the head of the Baptist missions in that country also apologised for slavery, given the complicity of the Church as a universal body in the creation, maintenance and the profiting from these immoral institutions. Yes, apparently, even Christians can fall very far from Grace and the recognition of the two Churches explains that, despite the removal of distance and years, as well as time basic human decency is still that – basic!
The hierarchic construction of the notions of identity embedded in such categories of organisation like race, gender and even sexuality ensure the continuation of this “survival of the fittest” mentality, whereby we sanction the elimination, destruction even the torture of entire groups of people who, historically, “do not look like us”. That could also mean, “do not act like us”, “do not speak like us”, etc. In that regard, race is invoked as part of the privilege. Then, it was that notwithstanding that there was quite a significant number of “mulatoes” in the colonies they were not to be considered “white”. Now, it is that, “there is so much mixing that goes on” these issues are no longer important. But, the catch is that the “no longer” dissolves into serious relativism, as it was never important, really. And is never likely to be.
My point is, we are not just speaking to five minute sound bytes that might be appropriate for whichever purposes, but a consciousness about our responsibiliites to human societiies all over. History has, for better or worse, shaped the experiences of the African-American communities across the Trans-Atlantic routes to which slaves from Africa were taken. Indeed, its practise precipitated the rise of Indian and Chinese Indentured Labour, specifically in the Caribbean. These took their cues from the Amerindian Holocaust and quite possibly some forms of European Feudalism. The difference being that the three hundred-plus (some will say longer) period of focus on Africans offer them the dubious honour of being, of the group, the most destroyed by sheer numbers. This does not take anything away from others, but potently speak to just how unjust man can be in his relations to other men.
But, I shall stop here, for now…
More will appear soon at my websites: http://rawpoliticsjamaicastyle.blogspot.com, or http://rawpoliticsjamaicastyle.wordpress.com. In any event, I would be more than happy to talk outside of this forum. Thanks to the editors for obliging me, but you might appreciate these are issues that also go beyond the limits of what a news forum might allow us to get into.
Best!
@ All who are still with this thread,
My eyes have been opened about slavery, and when I think of it I will no longer just think of slavery in America. There were slaves, African slaves, everywhere, including Africa. No country can claim, “We never had slaves here.”
The suffering that humanity has gone through to get to this point is overwhelming, and I believe that there are two historys of the world. There is the history of the powerful, and that is the one we all get a dose of in school, and there is the history of slavery, and that horrific story has not been told to us by the educators.
Here is one amazing factoid, “Along the Amazon river and its major tributaries, repeated slaving raids and punitive attacks left their mark. One French traveler in the 1740s described hundreds of miles of river banks with no sign of human life and once-thriving villages that were devastated and empty.”
Another point made in this long article is that, there is a difference between freeing one group of enslaved people, and abolitionism.
@ portlandmike,
Thanks for that!
No, course not. Or so I thought. But if one has faced discrimination all his life, there comes a time when the chance(s) to get your own back are too good to pass.
“Treat a friend like an enemy, and they will be your enemy.”
White America did everything it possibly could, and more, to right the wrongs of slavery – fought a civil war over it, abolished it and in the end made sure that black Americans enjoy even greater rights than their white compatriots – for example by being admitted to university ahead of whites who have higher grades.
Reparations after all this time and after generations have come and gone? Frankly, this is just playing on the abundant amount of white guilt that somehow still remains in spite of all the amends that whites have made. Rather than talking about reparations we should be talking about shedding white guilt once and for all. America is the greatest country in the world and blacks who are lucky enough to be living there in the twenty-first century should be energetically working to keep it great, rather than figuring out ways to be a drain on it.
Some people just ain’t got a clue how fortunate they are.
Bryan ~
I think you have said it best and I agree with you completely.
discrimination cant be unjustified and will never be justified either.even when you do good,there will always be a group that will unjustify your goodness hence discrimination.
THE LAST DON
i play GEMS,not games
Venessa August 7, 2008 at 12:23 am,
Thanks Venessa. I appreciate that.
This is a Theological argument. The play is based upon the bible story. Well of course the Old Testament is Jewish and most of the people who came across Jesus were too. Jesus himself was a Jew. However Islam was not created until after 600AD so you could argue that no one of Islamic persuasion should be able to take part as they have little concept of Christianity. The Question of Christians taking part is also important because Constantine Christianity is largely Orthodox but neither ,particularly the Roman Church was in being at the time since the earliest that they were formated is 313AD.The Bible as we know it was not formated until 325.The first Pope was not selected until about 383 So if you want to be politically correct you would have to have members of the Jewish faith with a Pauline, Petrine or Gnostic adherrence and I am not sure that such jews still exist. Which leaves us with a problem because Christianity is a sect of Judaiism which may not be approved of by Orthodox Jews. So if we are talking about Biblical times we have a little conundrum- who can legitimately represent the formative years of the Chritian faith? Islam- no, Christians- problematical, Jewish possibly.
No never as it means we are operating from a position of ignorance when we discriminate; we can overcome this by repalcing religion with spirituality and philosophy, especially eastern philosophy which has a more realistic take on what truth is. Discrimation is an inability to accept things as they are and an inability of people to extricate themselves from the influenes that foster such thinking, When it comes to the issue of gays we don’t even know why people are gay, we just decide to discriminate against them.
bernadette
Nairobi
I don’t like to speak in rhetorical way or politically correct one so; I prefer to talk about religions’ practices rather than about “religion”. I’m absolutely convinced that religions’ practices are a private affair, as to have a pet or to smoke.
Under this point of view I think that every private affair practice never has to overwhelm others private or collective ones affair. Every other consideration could potentially be called discrimination.
On this bases the job advert looking for theatre technicians having specified that the whole crew must be Christian could be considered a way to convice people that their application for a job could be seen more attractive, by the employer, if they embrace the Christian faith.
I think about it as a market oriented requirement rather than discrimination.