Positive Discrimination in the UK

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

I for one am sickened by the level of positive discrimination that is present in many professions in the UK the racial and sexual diversity laws have gone too far I myself as a straight, white, male am firmly sat in the least likely group in the UK to attain a job simply because of my sex, race and sexual orientaion.

This wouldn't be a problem many people really find time to ponder (at least not while sober anyway) but being unemployed currently it has struck me as a grave injustice.

For example I have three friends who have applied to join the police in the last two years one of these friends has had to apply three times to even progress past the initial stages of selection.

Can you guess what group this friend fits into?... Yes that's right straight, white, male. The other two (both of which are straight, white and female) were accepted within weeks.

It seems to be guaranteed a job in the UK one must be a lesbianic dwarf of mixed African-Chinese heritage who worships an obscure religion nobody has heard of as best she can, despite being confined to a wheelchair.

If we are all deserving of equality then we should provide equal oppurtunities to everyone. We don't have to make up for anything by overcompensation for in that way you just create the new underclass of tomorrow with the displaced.

The merit of an individual should determine their worth not who/where their parents decided to fuck, who they themselves want to fuck, or which set of genitals they were born with.

It doesn't matter to me if a person is straight, gay, bisexual, bi-curious, male, female, transgender, pre-op, white, black, chinese, japanese, korean, spanish, mexican, indian, mongolian, peruvian or anything else. As long as they can agree that nothing about the state they came into the world in makes then inherently better or more deserving than anyone else.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The merit of an individual should determin his/her worth

Yeah - it should - but where does this principle actually exist in capitalism?

In the US 10 years ago there was all this BS about "reverse-discrimination". I don't believe such a thing exists; it implies that society treats everyone the same in the US and "racism" doesn't exist. And yet with all the talk that minorities get "preferential treatment" and that society "should be colorblind", none of these people crying "reverse discrimination" asked for white males to be incarcerated at the same rates as blacks... to get the same higher interest rates for home-loans as minorities... to get pulled over in white neighborhoods as much as young blacks and so on.

"Reverse racism" doesn't exist, only racism.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

My point is that "positive" discrimination is just as harmful as "negative" discrimination.

You can't fix the unjust oppression of a minority in the past by instituting oppression against somebody else (or yourself.) All opression is unjust and as such it cannot by used to created a more just society. To make society "fair" one must either oppress everyone equally or oppress nobody.

[rouchambeau]

Troll harder.

[Mujer Libre]

This really belongs in OI, but because I think this might prompt a discussion about affirmative action- albeit a discussion that has been repeated several times on the board- I'll leave it up to midnight to decide what to do.

To the OP, this topic has been discussed ad nauseum. See this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/index-frequently-discussed-t55208/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../index-frequently-discussed-t55208/index.html)
for links to previous threads.

[Black Dagger]

Moved to OI.

[careyprice31]

I for one am sickened by the level of positive discrimination that is present in many professions in the UK the racial and sexual diversity laws have gone too far I myself as a straight, white, male am firmly sat in the least likely group in the UK to attain a job simply because of my sex, race and sexual orientaion.

This wouldn't be a problem many people really find time to ponder (at least not while sober anyway) but being unemployed currently it has struck me as a grave injustice.

For example I have three friends who have applied to join the police in the last two years one of these friends has had to apply three times to even progress past the initial stages of selection.

Can you guess what group this friend fits into?... Yes that's right straight, white, male. The other two (both of which are straight, white and female) were accepted within weeks.

It seems to be guaranteed a job in the UK one must be a lesbianic dwarf of mixed African-Chinese heritage who worships an obscure religion nobody has heard of as best she can, despite being confined to a wheelchair.

If we are all deserving of equality then we should provide equal oppurtunities to everyone. We don't have to make up for anything by overcompensation for in that way you just create the new underclass of tomorrow with the displaced.

The merit of an individual should determine their worth not who/where their parents decided to fuck, who they themselves want to fuck, or which set of genitals they were born with.

It doesn't matter to me if a person is straight, gay, bisexual, bi-curious, male, female, transgender, pre-op, white, black, chinese, japanese, korean, spanish, mexican, indian, mongolian, peruvian or anything else. As long as they can agree that nothing about the state they came into the world in makes then inherently better or more deserving than anyone else.

if what you are talking about was ever applied in practice and everyone got jobs based on "merit" and not on whether they are from a group which was historically oppressed, those groups never would have a chance. It is because we don't have this that these groups have been able to achive ein life and have gotten farther ahead than before. And you want to discourage this?

Im not going to flame but your idea of 'equality' in practice would inevidably mean destruction for many of these groups and would result in more inequality.

I am a member of a historically oppressed group. I have Asperger's syndrome, (not severe, very very mild) which makes me a person with a disability. Actually im a member of two oppressed historically groups because Im also a female.

The very kind of thing which you so condemn has given me the chance to have a life I never would have had otherwise.

[graffic]

My point is that "positive" discrimination is just as harmful as "negative" discrimination.

You can't fix the unjust oppression of a minority in the past by instituting oppression against somebody else (or yourself.) All opression is unjust and as such it cannot by used to created a more just society. To make society "fair" one must either oppress everyone equally or oppress nobody.

I don't think "positive discrimination" is as harmful as normal "discrimination". Things usually swing the other way when something bad happens, i.e South Africa. Its just PC gone mad.

It reminds me of the Liberals in the UK at the moment who are campaging for more working class young people to be taken into Universitys, when the obvious fact is that people should be chosen for Universitys on their academic ability not on what socio-economic background their from.

[spartan]

It reminds me of the Liberals in the UK at the moment who are campaging for more working class young people to be taken into Universitys, when the obvious fact is that people should be chosen for Universitys on their academic ability not on what socio-economic background their from.

I think that it has more to do with giving everyone an equal opportunity to succeed (i.e. equality).

Theres nothing wrong with that IMO.

[Demogorgon]

It reminds me of the Liberals in the UK at the moment who are campaging for more working class young people to be taken into Universitys, when the obvious fact is that people should be chosen for Universitys on their academic ability not on what socio-economic background their from.
People should be chosen on academic merit, yes. However people from wealthy families have an unfair advantage at school (and even pre-school!) that distorts the grades they get in A-Levels/Highers upwards from what they would be under normal circumstances.

Hence if you simply want the brightest students at Universities you need to compensate from that by taking more working class student's than you otherwise would. If you simply take the ones with the highest grades, you won't get the best. You will simply get the ones with a socio-economic advantage.

The same is true for just about all cases of affirmative action. It corrects (to a small extent) unfair advantages that exist in the system. Saying Straight White Males are the least likely to get a job is just plain stupidity because the fact is they are so far ahead of everyone else in terms of advantage that very small levels of positive discrimination won't make much difference at all.

The anomaly in these policies though is while they address race/gender/sexuality etc they don't address class, which is the greatest dividing factor of all. Of course I wouldn't expect that under capitalism.

[Tungsten]

And yet with all the talk that minorities get "preferential treatment" and that society "should be colorblind", none of these people crying "reverse discrimination" asked for white males to be incarcerated at the same rates as blacks...
Does that mean you want white people jailed who haven't actually done anything in order to make things "fair", or that you want black people who may be a danger to society released in case the system is viewed as racist? I can see serious problems with both.

[Black Dagger]

when the obvious fact is that people should be chosen for Universitys on their academic ability not on what socio-economic background their from.

The problem is universities like making money - so more and more university places are given to full fee paying students (read: rich kids) - they don't need to have the best marks because in the tertiary education system money trumps academic ability.

In australia for example (i can only imagine how bad it must be in neo-liberal hell-holes like the USA), there is a cap on how many places universities can offer to full fee paying students (people who can pay all their tuition costs upfront) - but it seems like every year this quota is expanded and so more working class folk are squeezed out of courses they got the marks for. Why? Coz sum child of the bourgeoisie wants to do med-law but didn't do well enough to qualify on their academic ability.

The sad fact is 'socio-economic background' has everything to do with who is 'chosen' for universities - just not in the way you think.

[Demogorgon]

The problem is universities like making money - so more and more university places are given to full fee paying students (read: rich kids) - they don't need to have the best marks because in the tertiary education system money trumps academic ability.

In australia for example (i can only imagine how bad it must be in neo-liberal hell-holes like the USA), there is a cap on how many places universities can offer to full fee paying students (people who can pay all their tuition costs upfront) - but it seems like every year this quota is expanded and so more working class folk are squeezed out of courses they got the marks for. Why? Coz sum child of the bourgeoisie wants to do med-law but didn't do well enough to qualify on their academic ability.

The sad fact is 'socio-economic background' has everything to do with who is 'chosen' for universities - just not in the way you think.
Even without that kind of thing, the rich kids are favoured. Here in Scotland University education is free (for undergraduates anyway). There is a £2,000 graduate tax to be paid off in the years after you graduate once you earn a certain amount which does add a cost, but to all intents and purposes we don't have to pay to go to University.

But even that taken into account the rich kids are heavily favoured. First of all, socio-economic background has an immense effect on quality of education. Even if the children of the bourgoisie (or simply unusually ell off workers) aren't paid through expensive private education and personal tutors, they still get to go to the nice suburban state schools, rather than the under funded inner city ones.

Then when we get to the age of 18, those poorer kids who still qualify for uni have additional problems. They cannot necessarilly afford to take four plus years out of employment even with student loans (which need paying back of course) and as a result have to juggle employment and study. Or else not bother going at all. As a result, the wealthy continue to thrive at University at the expense of everyone else. We have one of the highest levels of University graduates in the world, but still the system favours the wealthy so badly it is unbelievable.

I am not disagreeing with your point of course, and I know you already know all this, but I thought it worth clarifying the problem was even worse than you indicate.

[pusher robot]

Affirmative action is in my experience mostly harmful, as it attempts to remedy by outcome-fixing a more fundamental problem, leaving the fundamental problems unfixed.

For example, law schools have frequently justified using far lower admissions standards for blacks by arguing the need to increase black members of the bar. But isn't the real issue why blacks have, on average, so much lower qualifications? In this case, though, it's far more soothing for the guilty white liberals to congratulate themselves on increasing black enrollment because than it is to face some uncomfortable problems with race, culture, and crime - the real problems.

[Demogorgon]

Affirmative action is in my experience mostly harmful, as it attempts to remedy by outcome-fixing a more fundamental problem, leaving the fundamental problems unfixed.

For example, law schools have frequently justified using far lower admissions standards for blacks by arguing the need to increase black members of the bar. But isn't the real issue why blacks have, on average, so much lower qualifications? In this case, though, it's far more soothing for the guilty white liberals to congratulate themselves on increasing black enrollment because than it is to face some uncomfortable problems with race, culture, and crime - the real problems.

Well naturally the real problems are the ones needing addressed. I have a funny feeling we are going to differ on what the real problems are though. I am going to say the problems are racism, the after effects of segregation and the overall fact that a higher proportion blacks are stuck in lower socio-economic brackets than whites. You presumably are going to tell us that blacks or at least black culture is inferior.

[pusher robot]

Well naturally the real problems are the ones needing addressed. I have a funny feeling we are going to differ on what the real problems are though. I am going to say the problems are racism, the after effects of segregation and the overall fact that a higher proportion blacks are stuck in lower socio-economic brackets than whites. You presumably are going to tell us that blacks or at least black culture is inferior.

Well, you're quite the racist, aren't you? To think that there is a "black culture?" Culture isn't defined by race, it's defined by practice. And yes, there is a culture, practiced disproportionately but not exclusively by black Americans, that is severely dyfunctional. Yes, it has roots in racism and poverty. So what? That doesn't mean it should be celebrated or tolerated.

[careyprice31]

Well, you're quite the racist, aren't you? To think that there is a "black culture?" Culture isn't defined by race, it's defined by practice. And yes, there is a culture, practiced disproportionately but not exclusively by black Americans, that is severely dyfunctional. Yes, it has roots in racism and poverty. So what? That doesn't mean it should be celebrated or tolerated.

You're calling this poor guy a racist cause he said there's a black culture?

The black americans did develop a culture which obviously not all blacks follow. But Elvis Prestley based his music partly on black culture's soul train music and so on. Dr. Martin Luther King wanted blacks to refer to themselves as 'african american' which they still call themselves today.

Acknowledging that there is a culture is not being racist, its just stating a fact.

[pusher robot]

You're calling this poor guy a racist cause he said there's a black culture?

The black americans did develop a culture which obviously not all blacks follow. But Elvis Prestley based his music partly on black culture's soul train music and so on. Dr. Martin Luther King wanted blacks to refer to themselves as 'african american' which they still call themselves today.

Acknowledging that there is a culture is not being racist, its just stating a fact.

I was being facetious, trying to mock the tendency of leftists to see racism everywhere.

But the example you give - that's distinctly a culture of "African-Americans." Black Africans, for example, have no part in that culture at all. So it's really a culture born out of common experience, transformation, and environment. Not out of race.

[careyprice31]

I was being facetious, trying to mock the tendency of leftists to see racism everywhere.

But the example you give - that's distinctly a culture of "African-Americans." Black Africans, for example, have no part in that culture at all. So it's really a culture born out of common experience, transformation, and environment. Not out of race.

Oh I wouldnt necessarily say that. It is a culture born from having common experience, transformation, and environment, as you say, that some black people have never really been part of, such as the ones who live in Africa or maybe someone such as Barack Obama because he was born in Hawaii and who had had no part of the mainland black US experience.

However.....

It is also based on race. For a long time this group of people, being made to feel inferior because of their skin color, being known as "N's" with the n word and things like that......then people such as Dr King and Booker T Washington came along, teaching them to take pride in their differentness, that uniqueness is something to be proud of. You are correct in what you say, but that is not all of the story.

[Demogorgon]

I was being facetious, trying to mock the tendency of leftists to see racism everywhere.

But the example you give - that's distinctly a culture of "African-Americans." Black Africans, for example, have no part in that culture at all. So it's really a culture born out of common experience, transformation, and environment. Not out of race.

I only see racism where it is. But what is your point? You are trying to brush off racial inequality in America by blaming Black American culture. Black American culture does sometimes have elements of under class culture that shuns success (who celebrates what they don't and probably can't have?)

Cultures of underclasses almost always develop that way regardless of race, culture whatever. Now you obviously think the solution is to sneer at them. Unfortunately that won't change very much, will it? Got anything better?

[careyprice31]

I only see racism where it is. But what is your point? You are trying to brush off racial inequality in America by blaming Black American culture. Black American culture does sometimes have elements of under class culture that shuns success (who celebrates what they don't and probably can't have?)

Cultures of underclasses almost always develop that way regardless of race, culture whatever. Now you obviously think the solution is to sneer at them. Unfortunately that won't change very much, will it? Got anything better?

Thats alright, Trotskyite, I have this one. He said that the black culture wasnt formed based on race, and to imply that it is, is being racist.

I am rguing that it was partly formed because of race.

Also, the definitions of racism, while they vary in definitions, they all include the belief in the superiority or the inferiority of a race.

Some of the black groups, such as the Panthers, were actually racist under the definition in their methods, but overall the development of a culture partly because of race, or acknowledging the fact of, it not necessarily being racist. It is when superiority or inferiority comes into it that it becomes a racist belief. A culture that teaches one to accept their uniqueness and be proud of who they are or where they came from, is not necessarily being racist.

btw Hello Pusher Robot. My name is Svetlana. I enjoy debate, especially with Right wingers. I am a left winger.

[pusher robot]

Cultures of underclasses almost always develop that way regardless of race, culture whatever. Now you obviously think the solution is to sneer at them. Unfortunately that won't change very much, will it? Got anything better?


Who the hell do you think you are to tell me what I think? You show me one example of "sneering" on my behalf. You're being nothing but a gasbag full of bad faith. Please try to hear what I'm actually saying, all the way up there on your high horse.


You are trying to brush off racial inequality in America by blaming Black American culture.

No, that is evidently what you want me to be doing. What I am actually doing is trying to suggest, ever-so-delicately, that no amount of affirmative action will be sufficient unless cultural factors are also addressed. A cultural shift is not sufficient to solve the problems of racial inequality, but it is necessary, and to the extent affirmative action is used as an excuse not to address this, it is ultimately not helpful.

[pusher robot]

Also, the definitions of racism, while they vary in definitions, they all include the belief in the superiority or the inferiority of a race.

No, I don't think that is correct, at least not in contemporary parlance. For example, if I assume that every black person I meet loves hip-hop, just because hip-hop is part of "black culture," many people would describe that as a racist assumption, even though I have no opinion on the inferiority or superiority of blacks.


I am rguing that it was partly formed because of race.

Also it's not entirely clear, since in many ways race itself is a cultural construct. So while race may affect culture, culture also affects race.


btw Hello Pusher Robot. My name is Svetlana. I enjoy debate, especially with Right wingers. I am a left winger.

Greetings.

[careyprice31]

No, I don't think that is correct, at least not in contemporary parlance. For example, if I assume that every black person I meet loves hip-hop, just because hip-hop is part of "black culture," many people would describe that as a racist assumption, even though I have no opinion on the inferiority or superiority of blacks.

Greetings.

That would be a stereotype. That would be assumed because of the color the people had, but stereotypes and racism are different things. Stereotypes......we all have them. The difference is that stereotypes arent racism in themselves. Stereotypes can potentially lead to racism/discrimination "my culture pwns your culture" that kind of thing. That would be racism and ethnocentrism. Its not exactly the same thing. But steretypes can act as the seed from which racism/ethnocentrism grows.

Interesting that my prof said that in class today he talked about how some ppl think race is a cultural thing. Meaning its not as if I as a white female is genetically different from black female. We are so close biologically then we can interbreed and we are placed in the same species, homo sapiens. Race refers to color. Which I do not believe is a cultural thing. Some scientists believe that humans differentiated into different skin colors as a protection from the elements of millenia ago. For example in Africa, close to equator, where the sun shines hot. Black skin might have evolved as a natural protection against the sun. While white Europeans, living in a colder environment, had not as much need for this type of skin change. How would culture affect that? "If I started acting 'black' according to black culture, Im not going to turn black.

That would not make race a cultural concept. That's biology and evolution, not culture.

[pusher robot]

That would be a stereotype. That would be assumed because of the color the people had, but stereotypes and racism are different things. Stereotypes......we all have them. The difference is that stereotypes arent racism in themselves. Stereotypes can potentially lead to racism/discrimination "my culture pwns your culture" that kind of thing. That would be racism and ethnocentrism. Its not exactly the same thing. But steretypes can act as the seed from which racism/ethnocentrism grows.

Interesting that my prof said that in class today he talked about how some ppl think race is a cultural thing. Meaning its not as if I as a white female is genetically different from black female. We are so close biologically then we can interbreed and we are placed in the same species, homo sapiens. Race refers to color. Which I do not believe is a cultural thing. Some scientists believe that humans differentiated into different skin colors as a protection from the elements of millenia ago. For example in Africa, close to equator, where the sun shines hot. Black skin might have evolved as a natural protection against the sun. While white Europeans, living in a colder environment, had not as much need for this type of skin change. How would culture affect that? "If I started acting 'black' according to black culture, Im not going to turn black.

That would not make race a cultural concept. That's biology and evolution, not culture.

The cultural part is that it's not so simple as "black" or "white." There's a nearly continuous spectrum of skin tone from very light to very dark. Where on that spectrum the racial divisions are placed is entirely cultural. Quick - is Tiger Woods white or black? Is Halle Berry white or black? What about Turks? Brazilians? Indians? Persians? Egyptians? Can you back up your answers using objective, scientific criteria?

[Demogorgon]

Who the hell do you think you are to tell me what I think? You show me one example of "sneering" on my behalf. You're being nothing but a gasbag full of bad faith. Please try to hear what I'm actually saying, all the way up there on your high horse.We could go through a long list of posts you have made here on the subject. I was surprised you weren't banned for some of them, but then again it seems more than likely I was the only person who read them. You have made post after post on the subject in your time here. It is a bit rich to claim you have never said anything of the sort.


No, that is evidently what you want me to be doing. What I am actually doing is trying to suggest, ever-so-delicately, that no amount of affirmative action will be sufficient unless cultural factors are also addressed. A cultural shift is not sufficient to solve the problems of racial inequality, but it is necessary, and to the extent affirmative action is used as an excuse not to address this, it is ultimately not helpful.
And again, beyond sneering at this "inferior culture" what do you propose to do about it?

[pusher robot]

We could go through a long list of posts you have made here on the subject.


We could go through that list - and we would discover that never have I intimated that "sneering" is the answer. I have always maintained that the answer will inevitably have to come from the very people who suffer from it, not from external elements of society. You are the one who apparently believes in the white man's burden to bear down from above and fix what the natives cannot. Well, good luck with that. I don't think it will work.



And again, beyond sneering at this "inferior culture" what do you propose to do about it?

I am not altogether certain there is much I can do about it. Not all change can be externally forced. It might require something unacceptably drastic, like confiscating the children of violent felons and known gang members, or virtual military occupation of certain city zones.

What I do know is that supporting the bad elements who make life miserable for everybody else because you think they're fighting "The Man" is not progressive.

[careyprice31]

The cultural part is that it's not so simple as "black" or "white." There's a nearly continuous spectrum of skin tone from very light to very dark. Where on that spectrum the racial divisions are placed is entirely cultural. Quick - is Tiger Woods white or black? Is Halle Berry white or black? What about Turks? Brazilians? Indians? Persians? Egyptians? Can you back up your answers using objective, scientific criteria?

I think a better question might be, can you back up your answers with objective scientific criteria.

I have already posted some and a theory of how races came to be. This is believed by many scientists.

One reason why there is a broad spectrum of colors of skin is that races have interbred with each other. There are far more interracial couples today than ever. My two best friends incidentally are an interracial couple. He is Chinese Newfoundlander, she is a white Newfoundlander.

If I moved to Brazil I will inevidably develop a dark skin tone because of tanning in the sun. But I will not look like them, nor will I become a memnber of that race .

Again, it is not culture, it is biology and environment.

[Jazzratt]

What I do know is that supporting the bad elements who make life miserable for everybody else because you think they're fighting "The Man" is not progressive.


I agree, restrict me if needs be :p

[Jazzie Boy]

Yeah - it should - but where does this principle actually exist in capitalism? Everywhere lol. If you're hiring people of less quality based on sex or race, than you're going to lose profit. Simple as that. NAMEAN!!!!?

[TC]

if what you are talking about was ever applied in practice and everyone got jobs based on "merit" and not on whether they are from a group which was historically oppressed, those groups never would have a chance. It is because we don't have this that these groups have been able to achive ein life and have gotten farther ahead than before. And you want to discourage this?


The relevant issue isn't "historical oppression" its current oppression. Muslims, blacks and Asians in the UK are being oppressed *now*, and that is socially relevant. Other groups such as Jews, catholics, non-conformists, etc were historically oppressed in the UK but are clearly not oppressed currently and as such need no special assistance.



I am a member of a historically oppressed group. I have Asperger's syndrome, (not severe, very very mild) which makes me a person with a disability. Actually im a member of two oppressed historically groups because Im also a female.

Whether certain groups are oppressed in certain areas is open to debate and interpretation but you must be kidding in claiming membership in a 'historically oppressed group' by virtue of having a basically made up 'syndrome' like Aspergers.

Women also are clearly historically oppressed but I don't think there should be affirmative action for women because gender inequality is based primarily not on workplace discrimination but on patriarchal family obligations and social forces that encourage women to participate in patriarchal social relations. Women disproportionately oppressed but through mechanisms that affirmative action doesn't address meaningfully (getting the job is rather pointless from the standpoint of social liberation if your husband, parents, mother in law and children coerce you into working part time and putting your husband and children first).


The very kind of thing which you so condemn has given me the chance to have a life I never would have had otherwise.

I severely doubt you've gotten any affirmative action benefits from anyone for being female with aspergers, affirmative action is usually reserved for groups that are *truly* disadvantaged currently.

[careyprice31]

The relevant issue isn't "historical oppression" its current oppression. Muslims, blacks and Asians in the UK are being oppressed *now*, and that is socially relevant. Other groups such as Jews, catholics, non-conformists, etc were historically oppressed in the UK but are clearly not oppressed currently and as such need no special assistance.




Whether certain groups are oppressed in certain areas is open to debate and interpretation but you must be kidding in claiming membership in a 'historically oppressed group' by virtue of having a basically made up 'syndrome' like Aspergers.



I severely doubt you've gotten any affirmative action benefits from anyone for being female with aspergers, affirmative action is usually reserved for groups that are *truly* disadvantaged currently.

Oh, please tell me you are joking. I dont believe this.:ohmy:

Non conformists get opporessed all the time, dont you hear the stories of the bullying that goes on in schools and such because the victim was a non conformist?

Women do get oppressed in the workplace. However u right in that the patriarchal society in regards to the family creates the most oppression.

Jews get oppressed still. It wasnt that long ago when it was reported here that people were caught writing anti semetic slogans and such here in canada.

Aspergers is a recognized form of autism which is recognized as a disability. People with disabilities have and still are being oppressed.

U doubt that I have gotten any affirmative action benefits from claiming my status as a person with a disability, an oppressed group?

Just for your information, I have received two huge grants from the university which helps pay my tuition through uni. I have also gotten money which allowed me to purchase both a desktop and laptop which have been invaluable to helping me get through university.

In the future I suggest that you think before you type and dont make assumptions about people when you don't know anything about them.

[graffic]

People should be chosen on academic merit, yes. However people from wealthy families have an unfair advantage at school (and even pre-school!) that distorts the grades they get in A-Levels/Highers upwards from what they would be under normal circumstances.

Hence if you simply want the brightest students at Universities you need to compensate from that by taking more working class student's than you otherwise would. If you simply take the ones with the highest grades, you won't get the best. You will simply get the ones with a socio-economic advantage.

The same is true for just about all cases of affirmative action. It corrects (to a small extent) unfair advantages that exist in the system. Saying Straight White Males are the least likely to get a job is just plain stupidity because the fact is they are so far ahead of everyone else in terms of advantage that very small levels of positive discrimination won't make much difference at all.

The anomaly in these policies though is while they address race/gender/sexuality etc they don't address class, which is the greatest dividing factor of all. Of course I wouldn't expect that under capitalism.

Yeah I agree with you, the current higher education system in the UK discriminates against class. The Labour government with its right wing leader have as usual done a half arsed education policy where by people without the money for University have a student load debt. In other words if your not rich you can go to Uni and pay for your education afterwards, making higher education ,on paper, accessible for all regardless of socio-economic background , but in reality young people with rich parents still get the upper hand. Knowone wants to spend 6+ years with the weight of debt after Uni, hence why university is more accessible for upper and middle class young people.

The current system in the UK is a typical Tony Blair policy. The nickname "Labourtory leader" was him summed up perfectly. While the system on paper gives the false impression (that alot of people buy) that higher educaton is equal and available to all, in reality its not and this works well for whoever runs the country who profit from inequlaity. Private schools benefit the economy, hence why certain wright wing policys are still adopted by supposedly "socialist" governments.

[spartan]

Whether certain groups are oppressed in certain areas is open to debate and interpretation but you must be kidding in claiming membership in a 'historically oppressed group' by virtue of having a basically made up 'syndrome' like Aspergers.

I am sorry but i had to respond to this.

I have Autism and i have known someone with severe Aspergers Syndrome all my life and i can tell you that it isnt some sort of made up disability (Which is what you appear to be implying in your post).

Because it is a severe form of Aspergers, this person doesnt go out of the house often, has no friends or acquaintances since leaving school, is scared of things such as people knocking on the door and strangers, or even distant relatives, coming to visit and thunder and lightning amongst many other things.

Because of the disability, this person basically has no social life at all and always needs someone to accompany them whilst going out.

Like Svetlana said, i suggest that next time you think before you type and dont make assumptions about an entire disability that you seem to not know much about, and have little direct experience of, judging from your (It must be said) quite ignorant post on the subject.

[pusher robot]

I think a better question might be, can you back up your answers with objective scientific criteria.


No, I can't, but that's exactly my point. The answers to those questions are not defined by science but by culture.

Tiger Woods would be considered black in most Anglosphere countries, but would be considered white in much of Africa, despite the fact that his skin is the same color in both places.

Doesn't this tell you something?

[Neutrino]

I for one am sickened by the level of positive discrimination that is present in many professions in the UK the racial and sexual diversity laws have gone too far I myself as a straight, white, male am firmly sat in the least likely group in the UK to attain a job simply because of my sex, race and sexual orientaion.

This wouldn't be a problem many people really find time to ponder (at least not while sober anyway) but being unemployed currently it has struck me as a grave injustice.

For example I have three friends who have applied to join the police in the last two years one of these friends has had to apply three times to even progress past the initial stages of selection.

Can you guess what group this friend fits into?... Yes that's right straight, white, male. The other two (both of which are straight, white and female) were accepted within weeks.

It seems to be guaranteed a job in the UK one must be a lesbianic dwarf of mixed African-Chinese heritage who worships an obscure religion nobody has heard of as best she can, despite being confined to a wheelchair.

If we are all deserving of equality then we should provide equal oppurtunities to everyone. We don't have to make up for anything by overcompensation for in that way you just create the new underclass of tomorrow with the displaced.

The merit of an individual should determine their worth not who/where their parents decided to fuck, who they themselves want to fuck, or which set of genitals they were born with.

It doesn't matter to me if a person is straight, gay, bisexual, bi-curious, male, female, transgender, pre-op, white, black, chinese, japanese, korean, spanish, mexican, indian, mongolian, peruvian or anything else. As long as they can agree that nothing about the state they came into the world in makes then inherently better or more deserving than anyone else.

I'm sorry; I really am.... I can't resist, and I couldn't from the moment I set my eyes upon it.... your username is wrong... it should be "whose"

[careyprice31]

No, I can't, but that's exactly my point. The answers to those questions are not defined by science but by culture.

Tiger Woods would be considered black in most Anglosphere countries, but would be considered white in much of Africa, despite the fact that his skin is the same color in both places.

Doesn't this tell you something?

Yes, when you put it that way, some people do consider some people white and that same person would be considered black in other places.

Like Sean Lennon. He is considered white in Japan but he said in the USA they think of him as Japanese. He is bi racial.

I know what you mean, but race is still a matter of biology. Wether they are from africa or the west, black is black, white is white, and bi racial is still bi racial. Culture does not make races. Biology does.

by the way, I dont have aspergers very strongly, it is very minor. All my life, there has never been a time when I was ever without friends and supporters. I am a very well liked person actually. I have even dated a lot.

I still am considered a person with a disability though and that endows me with all the rights and entitlements of that group.

[pusher robot]

Culture does not make races. Biology does.

I think you're missing my point. Biology makes skin color. Culture makes races. Consider this: biology also makes some people have blue eyes instead of brown eyes. Are blue-eyed people members of a different race? If not, then why is it that skin color defines races but eye color does not? The only reasons are cultural.

[careyprice31]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

My thinking is black is black no matter where the person goes. The Capitalist Colin Powell is black, but even if he went to a country where people thought he was candy - apple red. hes still black.

The scientists who named the different skin types. the anthropologists. And so on. They named the different skin types, and regular people who interpret it differently just because of culture, doesnt change the fact.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Does that mean you want white people jailed who haven't actually done anything in order to make things "fair", or that you want black people who may be a danger to society released in case the system is viewed as racist? I can see serious problems with both.

I do not care about fair or unfair, just destroying and fighting back against oppression. The system is not "viewed as racist" - it is racist. And yes, people in jail should be released - I think jail doesn't do sh** for anybody. Also I think prisons in California are simply a breeding ground for gangs.

When Irish people were discriminated against in the US and denied jobs and beaten by American-born "patriots", guess what: Irish people were disproportionately the ones in prison. "Paddy Wagons" are called by this name because Irish were called "Paddys". Back then, nativeist "patriots" claimed it was not unfair treatment of the Irish, instead they argued that it was because their culture was looser than protestant American culture and they drank. So it was all their fault for having an inferior culture and lesser values, not that they were systematically discriminated against and many were prevented from having stable employment and lives and so turned to crime and prostitution and alcohol.

Now people ignore the systematic oppression of blacks and other groups (higher interest rates on loans for blacks, being left out of the move to the suburbs which allowed the rest of the working class to build equity, not having access to the same quality of jobs and schools and - racial profiling and unequal treatment in the courts). So they blame disproportionately high incarceration rates for blacks on "inferior black culture".

It's the same old song - let's blame society's victims (poor blacks, "white trash", migrants) for society's problems - let's catch and punish the minnows while we let the great white sharks swim by. If you think this is a society without systematic opression and exploitation of working people - especially working people of color, then you are not colorblind, you're just blind.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

You cannot salve the emotional fallout of oppression to make a 'fair society' to acheive a truely 'fair and just' society one must simply provide everyone with the freedom and means to live their life as easily (or as easily as it can be made) as anyone else.

Freedom cannot be written into a list of laws. freedom cannot be administrated, freedom cannot be given, only taken. Freedom is yours. If you will only take it.

You cannot make a person equal with a law written on a piece of paper, anti-discrimination laws are pathetic nonsense. If you have to tell people not to be racist, sexist ****s who hate the disabled or ethnically different in the form of a law you've probably already lost the battle for equality. Make laws that there is to be no prejedice in the decision process by all means but to force an employer to have to have a certain number of people to be employed because of their racial/ethnic background or sex (which has little or no effect on work) physical or mental state is just wrong.

Where as considering the physical or mental state may have a part to play for example one could deny a person with no legs a step aerobics instructor job without prejudice if they simply could not do the job. (prosthetics?)

Who checks these things anyway? Have you ever seen the cops come into your workplace to check you have the correct quota of Males/Females, racial & ethnic minorities and disabled staff?

[Tungsten]

I do not care about fair or unfair, just destroying and fighting back against oppression. The system is not "viewed as racist" - it is racist.
The only possible way the system could be racist was if the system had one set of rules of people for one race and one for another. This kind of thing was abolished in most countries, until it was once again revived under the banner of "affirmitive action".

When Irish people were discriminated against in the US and denied jobs and beaten by American-born "patriots", guess what: Irish people were disproportionately the ones in prison. "Paddy Wagons" are called by this name because Irish were called "Paddys". Back then, nativeist "patriots" claimed it was not unfair treatment of the Irish, instead they argued that it was because their culture was looser than protestant American culture and they drank.
The same question applies: Was there anything written in the law that discriminated against the Irish? If there wasn't, then the system wasn't racist. You seem to be confusing the system with the general attuitudes of people living under it. The system doesn't make people racist. Nor will the system stop people being racist.

If you think you're going to legislate a cultural change, then you're completely out of your mind, as such efforts are counter productive. You seem to think you can legally force people to like one another. This is completely misguided and Stalinist.

It's the same old song - let's blame society's victims (poor blacks, "white trash", migrants) for society's problems - let's catch and punish the minnows while we let the great white sharks swim by. If you think this is a society without systematic opression and exploitation of working people - especially working people of color, then you are not colorblind, you're just blind.I'm able to see the difference between cultural discrimination and discrimination by law, which is more than can be said for you. Incidently, affirmitive action is discrimination by law- no different in principle to laws barring black people from voting.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

It is illegal and immoral to discriminate on the basis of race, culture, ethnicity, sex or religion, yet the english government has done exactly this against the mainstay of it's workforce the straight, white & english (particularly men). It's no wonder 700 english people leave the country a week.

Only a few days ago a friend mentioned to me that upon attending an interview it was easy to work out who would most likely get a job it was the only person in the waiting room with different coloured skin and no penis.

While this comment can be viewed as racist and sexist, or could indeed be an account of the most suited individual attaining the job they deserve there is sense behind it it. To grant (or refuse to grant) anyone a job on the basis of their race, culture, ethnicity, sex or religion is illegal.

It doesn't matter how you spin it, or who it benefits, or how sensitive and compassionate it makes a government look. No matter who is affected, discrimination is against the law.

Thus the UK government has put itself in the wonderful situation of having made a law it is illegal to obey and illegal to ignore.

Yeah I noticed the misspelt name too but what can I say I'm dyslexic and it's already done.

[Black Dagger]

It is illegal and immoral to discriminate on the basis of race, culture, ethnicity, sex or religion, yet the english government has done exactly this against the mainstay of it's workforce the straight, white & english (particularly men). It's no wonder 700 english people leave the country a week.

Oh I totally agree, these days hetero white English men are an oppressed majority! People whinge about the treatment of gays and asians and other immigrants in the UK - but what about real English white hetero men?!

Thankfully there are groups like the BNP to defend their interests huh? :glare:

Are you a supporter of the BNP btw?

[Jazzratt]

Oh I totally agree, these days hetero white English men are an oppressed majority! People whinge about the treatment of gays and asians and other immigrants in the UK - but what about real English white hetero men?!

He's not arguing they're oppressed, he's arguing that they are discriminated against on the job market. I'm fairly certain he is aware that in a wider societal context hetero white men rule supreme.


Thankfully there are groups like the BNP to defend their interests huh? :glare:

Are you a supporter of the BNP btw?

Not every unemployed white man that is pissed off they can't get a job is a frothing racist - of course he doesn't support the fucking BNP.

[Black Dagger]

He's not arguing they're oppressed, he's arguing that they are discriminated against on the job market. I'm fairly certain he is aware that in a wider societal context hetero white men rule supreme.Right - so he's arguing that white hetero men are less likely to get hired (based on the same qualifications) than other demographic groups? If anything, i would have thought that it's the opposite - that white hetero men are probably more likely than any other demographic group to get hired (and in many cases despite being less qualified than other applicants) - they also get paid the most than other groups with the same qualifications- woo!

[Jazzratt]

Right - so he's arguing that white hetero men are less likely to get hired (based on the same qualifications) than other demographic groups? If anything, i would have thought that it's the opposite - that white hetero men are probably more likely than any other demographic group to get hired (and in many cases despite being less qualified than other applicants) - they also get paid the most than other groups with the same qualifications- woo!

Even if it is true that white men are more likely to get a job the way to solve the problem is not to introduce legislation that demands people hire people of a certain ethnicity is not the answer, as he says here:


You cannot make a person equal with a law written on a piece of paper, anti-discrimination laws are pathetic nonsense. If you have to tell people not to be racist, sexist ****s who hate the disabled or ethnically different in the form of a law you've probably already lost the battle for equality.


He's not arguing for people to be treated in a racist manner, he's arguing that reformist laws which put others at a disadvantage are not going to help.

He's also not said anything about pay, so it's a bit fucking presumptuous to mention it - especially as this is a well known fact.