Is racism acceptable if it is against "whites"?

Post Reply New Topic

Racism, in all, is unacceptable in any sort of form, whether it's blatant or subtle. It isn't right to exclude because of one's race, but to intergrate.

In addition to the fact that affirmative action programs are inherently discriminatory, they also have the ugly side effect of fostering discrimination by creating resentment in people who feel that they were passed over because of their non-minority status, and cause some people to question the competence of minority professionals who may have had a lower bar to entry into their fields. Regardless of the good intent that went into creating these programs, their time is past and they need to go.

Or perhaps they ought to only remain in effect in specific areas if actually necessary. Making them a general principle eternally and ubiquitously serves practically no purpose other than to foster such resentment in the manner you described above. If there is actually "racist" hiring, as per 1960's racism, in a particular area then for that particular area such affirmative action laws would there, and there alone, serve their intended purpose. But where most people don't give a darn, it does only serve to be a cause for resentment. Intelligent people may properly resent the stupid bureaucratic government which can't tell a crane from a crane fly, but others may resent the people who are favorably being affected and in such a case enable the growth, rather than the cessation, of actual racism.

If someone is being discriminated against because they are white, it's still racism.

Anti-white racism may not be "acceptable" but it is more or less condoned. I've noticed that incidences of black-on-white or brown-on-white racism don't seem to attract the same kind of media attention and public backlash as the other way around. When colored people make equally bigoted statements about racial superiority they don't get anywhere as much ire and disapproval as does a white person. There are many factors involved. When people are playing race cards, not everyone is dealt the same hand.

Its dealing with the issue at the wrong level. "Forcing" employers to consider substandard employees simply because they fit a racial template is wrong. If there is an employment gap in an area, maybe there should be more effort to make sure that education and training are more fair, thus increasing the likelihood that the "race" employee is actually capable of getting the job JUST on their skills/merit anyway.

It would be nice if employers cared about skills and merit, but often they'll select substandard employees (regardless of whether they are red, brown, yellow, black, white, indigo, green, purple, orange, or ultraviolet) so long as they are a "good teamplayer". Skills, as in ability to perform the functions of a trade, are secondary to "people skills" which include kissing butt, smiling like the Joker, pretending to be happy all the time, ability to take constant verbal abuse, ability to follow contradictory orders, and ability to be a scapegoat if necessary. It doesn't matter whether you're in a warehouse, an office, or a salesfloor, regarding how able you are to perform your tasks with excellence, all that matters is the ability to act.

That is the point really. It's not about accepting a sub standard minority applicant. It's about not rejecting a (possibly better) minority applicant just because you didn't think that they'd fit in with all the white guys.

At least in the suburb that I live in, I can ask "what white guys"? I am the minority where I live.

Affirmative Action and racism topic

Racism is historical discrimination based on physiological appearance. This is unfair because it will exclude p[eople of colour and physical ability when these qualities are irrelevant to the task. There is also discrimination against women, older workers, and those with physical and intellectual challenges when these have nothing to do with the ability to do the task.

Affirmative action ensures that hiring employees reflects the population diversity, including people of colour, ethnicity, gender, older age and physical/intellectual challenges. This will mean many people are excluded. I see this as an opportunity. I know I have been excluded because of AS, because of my physical strength, my age, and possibly ethnicity/gender. I just keep trying, especially with the help of agencies that assist challenged and other disadvantaged workers.

yes, true. therefore, i think that given the choice of two equally competent individuals, the hiring selection should go to the least advantaged person. white people have a structural advantage in our society, and the only way to change that is to give persons of visible minority status (or disabled or sometimes females) an extra chance to succeed.

people in power rarely want to share that power... and the most powerful people in our society are still able-bodied, NT, white, males. but poeple who hold power hold it jealously and resent having to help others achieve their own rightful places.

there is a slave trade in europe as well, with white people preying on all races including whites, so your point is mute. white people are still enslaving others...

affirmative action hiring processes still require equal qualifications. nothing substandard there. you're creating an issue where there isn't one.

How do you measure 'equal qualifications'? This is going to include a number of judgment calls in most areas, and how do you deal with a large number of fine-grained factors?

If all you do is say 'give preference to minorities in equally-qualified cases, where equally-qualified is defined by you', then it's trivial to get around. If it's trivial to get around, it will have little effect.

If you give people a mandate that they use coarse-grained criteria or use a government-mandated scoring system, then you're making the rankings less sensetive and/or clumsier. While that won't hurt for some jobs, the ones that require high skill and competence will be hurt across the board.

And if you are talking about quota systems, then you are talking about substituting someone less competent for someone more competent in at least some cases. For example, there is a relative lack of women in computer programming. If there was a quota set that said that a computer company must be 50% female, it would be disastrous for any company under that policy. Not because women make bad programmers, but because there are relatively few well-qualified females. There are not enough good female programmers to go around.

If such a policy were implemented, what do you think would be going through the male programmers' minds? Probably not the sort of things that would make feminists happy, I'd bet. It would reinforce stereotypes, and perhaps create new ones.

But if you do nothing the female programmers are just frozen out making it harder for other women to be accepted in the future.

So the economy suffers due to missing out on good workers and you have to import workers from abroad.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt137150.html

i am not familiar with quota systems. can you point me to a study or something that shows it is a bad thing? not speculation, but actual proof or statistic or something that demonstrates that it has been detrimental to any industry or workplace?