How do you experience racism/discrimination?

[oil&gas]

.......................
Is it culture (to honor our culture people we need to exclude people that don't belong), part of a natural desire to be with people who are like ourselves (people like us need to stick together), something that comes from the original sin (deep down we've all got evil intentions), or just ignorance (people are stupid)?
.....................

Original sin can be erased by baptism. To fight racism make sure you have
the child cleasned as soon as he was born. There are no easy solutions to
ignorance unfortunately.

 

[gargravarrh]

How's this bozos.

When I was a young teacher, just starting out I was rejected from an ESL teaching position at a private school, it was an asian private school and they said that they were more interested in having white people teach english. Of course I'm not white.

But that said, I have to guffaw at the poor little white boys complaining about affirmative action. Why do you think AA exists in the first place? It wasn't because people were admitting the most qualified...

 

[fuji]

It wasn't because people were admitting the most qualified...

Actually, as a supporter of affirmative action, I disagree with that.

The justification for affirmative action is that the system is biased all the way through. By the time you show up for a job interview, you are the product of a multi-year system that is biased at every stage. Quality of home life, quality of early education, progress through the university system, through social networks, work opportunities provided by families and friends, all lead up to that day that you are sitting there in the job interview hoping to get that leg up.

The principle behind affirmative action is that in a system that is biased at every point, you have to correct that bias at every point.

Which is a very different principle than saying that it is simply there to counter-act unfair hiring practices. That misses the real point. Maybe we are all born equal, but from about five minutes after that, things are anything but equal. Affirmative action is meant to address that.

Another principle behind it is that so long as the entire system remains racially distorted, it will continue to be biased. That unless the people who make up the system reflect the racial mix, there will be inherent biases remaining. So, even if in the short term affirmative actions means not always hiring the best person for the job, it will result in a more effective and efficient society in the long run. In the long run, it really is a waste of human capital to shut out entire segments of the population. But sometimes you need short term pain to achieve the sort of long-term gain that implies.

What is the long-term impact of changing the perception that a certain racial group cannot make good school teachers? Or lawyers? I would say that the long-term benefit of that massively outweights the cost of having slightly worse lawyers and teachers. Affirmative action created role models, even if perhaps those models weren't always the best people for the job. The generation that followed benefited tremendously from that--from the elimination of race as a factor. Huge.

So the principle of affirmative action really is to give a leg up to someone who is qualified, but who might not be the most qualified, in service of a greater good.

That's an uncomfortable discussion to have because lots of people inherently believe that the best person should get the job -- but when the best person is the product of a biased system, it really just isn't all that simple.


Anyone who thinks race relations, gender equity, etc., is a simple problem, easily fixed by the imposition of some simple procedure, is dreaming. These are hard problems, the solutions are imperfect, but better than no solutions at all.

And I believe it has worked--affirmative action started a few decades ago, and we probably put a few losers into jobs over the years--but these days there is a LOT less bias than there used to be, as a result less need for affirmative action. But I think that is a consequence of us having implemented it, and suffered through 20 years of it, to get to a point where the best person for the job really might be a minority and affirmative action is no longer needed. Well it's probably still needed--but we have seen some progress.

In the organization I work for these days it is a non issue. In theory we subscribe to those principles in our hiring practices. In reality we don't have to implement quotas because just hiring the best person for the job has resulted in a pretty diverse racial mix. Once upon a time that might not have been so -- but it is now, and I really think, thanks to the affirmative action programs of the past.

 

[ig-88]

And how do you define who is the 'best' person for the job? For the vast majority of jobs, it's not like there's an SAT score.

It's completely subjective; you're just guessing basing on paper stats who will do the best on the job. In other words, you're trying to predict the future.

Bottom line is, the govt wants a mult-racial work force.

 

[checks]

An SP once told me you have a big dick for an Asian guy.

Yeah, well Asian guys don't your big dick I guess...

 

[TeasePlease]

Actually, as a supporter of affirmative action, I disagree with that.

The justification for affirmative action is that the system is biased all the way through. By the time you show up for a job interview, you are the product of a multi-year system that is biased at every stage. Quality of home life, quality of early education, progress through the university system, through social networks, work opportunities provided by families and friends, all lead up to that day that you are sitting there in the job interview hoping to get that leg up.

The principle behind affirmative action is that in a system that is biased at every point, you have to correct that bias at every point.

Which is a very different principle than saying that it is simply there to counter-act unfair hiring practices. That misses the real point. Maybe we are all born equal, but from about five minutes after that, things are anything but equal. Affirmative action is meant to address that.

Another principle behind it is that so long as the entire system remains racially distorted, it will continue to be biased. That unless the people who make up the system reflect the racial mix, there will be inherent biases remaining. So, even if in the short term affirmative actions means not always hiring the best person for the job, it will result in a more effective and efficient society in the long run. In the long run, it really is a waste of human capital to shut out entire segments of the population. But sometimes you need short term pain to achieve the sort of long-term gain that implies.

What is the long-term impact of changing the perception that a certain racial group cannot make good school teachers? Or lawyers? I would say that the long-term benefit of that massively outweights the cost of having slightly worse lawyers and teachers. Affirmative action created role models, even if perhaps those models weren't always the best people for the job. The generation that followed benefited tremendously from that--from the elimination of race as a factor. Huge.

So the principle of affirmative action really is to give a leg up to someone who is qualified, but who might not be the most qualified, in service of a greater good.

That's an uncomfortable discussion to have because lots of people inherently believe that the best person should get the job -- but when the best person is the product of a biased system, it really just isn't all that simple.


Anyone who thinks race relations, gender equity, etc., is a simple problem, easily fixed by the imposition of some simple procedure, is dreaming. These are hard problems, the solutions are imperfect, but better than no solutions at all.

And I believe it has worked--affirmative action started a few decades ago, and we probably put a few losers into jobs over the years--but these days there is a LOT less bias than there used to be, as a result less need for affirmative action. But I think that is a consequence of us having implemented it, and suffered through 20 years of it, to get to a point where the best person for the job really might be a minority and affirmative action is no longer needed. Well it's probably still needed--but we have seen some progress.

In the organization I work for these days it is a non issue. In theory we subscribe to those principles in our hiring practices. In reality we don't have to implement quotas because just hiring the best person for the job has resulted in a pretty diverse racial mix. Once upon a time that might not have been so -- but it is now, and I really think, thanks to the affirmative action programs of the past.

Affirmative action was a shortcut to an expedient solution. Im not sure that it has "worked". we now have minorities who are incompetent...just like we have caucasians who are incompetent...in top jobs.

I still fundamentally disagree with hiring anyone but the best person for the job.

I agree that it is a program of the past.

 

[Butler1000]

Gook, Rice Eater, Nuprin - they don't hurt my feelings enough. Got anything stronger?

A friend of mine refers to asian people as "nine irons"

A reference to the club with the biggest slant.......

 

[SkyRider]

While far from perfect, Canada, the U.S., Australia, the U.K., etc are far better in racial/cultural/sexual orientation tolerance than many of the alternatives.

 

[SkyRider]

When I was a young teacher, just starting out I was rejected from an ESL teaching position at a private school, it was an asian private school and they said that they were more interested in having white people teach english.

These situations do occur from time to time for different reasons. When I was a young man working for a Jewish accounting firm, many of the Jewish clients wanted me to audit their books because I was not a member of the Jewish community. Their reasoning was that they didn't want another member of the same community to know how much money they were making and what was their net worth.

 

[mynameisearl11]

I was called a 'rice queen' once when I worked at an entry-level at one of the biggest banks in Canada. It came out as a joke and the guy apologized afterward. I could be wrong when I said this but I found that most ppl experienced racism through heated arguements or sick jokes amongst friends or co-workers. My experience with racism or discrimation is that I either confront the culprit or I use the experience to fuel my desire to succeed. Never in my life I would delve on those negative experiences. Racism is every where and it doesn't matter where you live on earth. Therefore,you should use your experience with racism as a motivational tool to get ahead in life. Perfect example,the current Mr. President of the United States

 

[slowandeasy]

In the business I am in, lets just say that most people of certain ethnic backgrounds pay higher prices than others. Also, I will not hire people from certain races. I would never tell them than, but if they ask, it is always easy to tell them that "there was someone more qualified".

Thank you for your honesty. Can I ask if the people who pay higher prices are from the same race as the people you will not hire? If you don't mind sharing
what is the main reason for those decisions?

 

[slowandeasy]

Yes, us poor straight white males. We are no longer treated way, way better than everyone else. We have to settle for being treated way better.

Lol.. not sure if you are being sarcastic or serious. please clarify..

My post about the "rights" of white people (I am not just talking about white hetero males) being eroded is quite serious.

 

[slowandeasy]

This is why I laugh every time I hear about how diverse Canada is...

Don't laugh too hard. It might be interesting to see that breakdown to "caucasian" and also the breakdown
of the GTA and Vancouver vs. the rest of Canada.

There was a time when Italians were not considered white/caucasian. What about hispanics and middle eastern people (what about the
Persians, who consider themselves white)? Nevermind, I see that hispanics are under the non white category.

 

[LaceyLust]

Don't laugh too hard. It might be interesting to see that breakdown to "caucasian" and also the breakdown
of the GTA and Vancouver vs. the rest of Canada.

There was a time when Italians were not considered white/caucasian. What about hispanics and middle eastern people (what about the
Persians, who consider themselves white)? Nevermind, I see that hispanics are under the non white category.

If they're different race but born in canada.. you are canadian.... but it doesnt make them white lol

 

[slowandeasy]

I dont agree that we have the least rights but I do agree that its harder for white males than it used to be.

But white males get privilege too. Most of the time I dont think we even notice that we get it. I know being a white guy helped me land a job, but I needed it and wasn't going to turn it down. I met a new neighbor once who was glad I was white, he told me only f***ing ******'s looked at the place - and he was black! I wonder how many other times I got privilege and didn't even notice it?

This is so true, and represents the nature of discrimination in our society. Not complaining, just the way that it is.

 

[Toronto Girlfriends]

Don't laugh too hard. It might be interesting to see that breakdown to "caucasian" and also the breakdown
of the GTA and Vancouver vs. the rest of Canada.

There was a time when Italians were not considered white/caucasian. What about hispanics and middle eastern people (what about the
Persians, who consider themselves white)? Nevermind, I see that hispanics are under the non white category.

I keep having this debate with a friend of mine who is Italian, as far as society is concerned he is Caucasian and I am not. He wants to convince me Italian people are not Caucasian but I told him unless you have a separate box on government forms for your ethnicity you are Caucasian.

LOL,

Don Ron

 

[slowandeasy]

You are one of the most ignorant men in this Board.

Sadly, he is not...

 

[slowandeasy]

And how do you define who is the 'best' person for the job? For the vast majority of jobs, it's not like there's an SAT score.

It's completely subjective; you're just guessing basing on paper stats who will do the best on the job. In other words, you're trying to predict the future.

Bottom line is, the govt wants a mult-racial work force.

Agree with the first part, but you miss the point. Society needs a multi racial work force, regardless of whether the govt wants it or not.

 

[slowandeasy]

I keep having this debate with a friend of mine who is Italian, as far as society is concerned he is Caucasian and I am not. He wants to convince me Italian people are not Caucasian but I told him unless you have a separate box on government forms for your ethnicity you are Caucasian.

LOL,

Don Ron

I had moved to Toronto from another part of Canada, and I was shocked when my Italian boss told me about the racism he faced when he came to Canada.
Too funny.... I told him he should have met some of the Italians that I grew up with who were extremely racist.

 

[fuji]

Agree with the first part, but you miss the point. Society needs a multi racial work force, regardless of whether the govt wants it or not.

Absolutely, and affirmative action turned out to be the best way we found to achieve it, having previously tried and failed to achieve it other ways.