No hypocracy in that statement for sure... last I checked only 14 million people in the world celebrate Hanukkah while... ahhh... over 3 billion celebrate Christmas. Besides Christmas no longer has any religious meaning. Its been lost in a commercial money making scam. Who legitimately celebrates Christmas as the day Jesus was born (Except me)?
That is the garbage I really hate. This is the reason so many people are turning against multiculturalism. A lot of immigrants don't want us to change our way of thinking for them. They realize they are coming to our country and while we should make them feel accepted, most don't expect us to bend over backwards. But then you get political correct asinine ideas like this from people suffering from White guilt. Those people deserve swift kicks in the butt.
Touché Mad Hatter, you do make a good point. Still, I feel that I should learn Spanish just so that I might be able to converse with the rest of my city.
Here's a gripe I've had recently (like, for the past decade): Why is o.k. to have all-African-American colleges, but not all-white colleges? (In fact, why is it o.k. to say "white" when describing people, but not o.k. to call others "black?") What is that, but discrimination in another form? Oh, and THIS really enrages me: Why is o.k. that the literary world grants an annual Coretta Scott King award to--I quote--"honor African-American authors and illustrators who create outstanding books for children and young adults"? I'd like to see the uproar in the media--and courts--if someone tried to create The "[insert name of Famous Caucasian's Daughter] Award to honor white authors...blah, blah, blah." I like Dom's reference to "white guilt." How come I, being white, have to put up with what amounts to reverse discrimination, just because political correctness says I should? **Takes deep, cleansing breath**
I agree Ivy. I'd like to point out that in Congress there is a Hispanic Cacus, a Black Cacus, a Womans Cacus but no White or Male Cacus. Yes, I know Cacus is spelled incorrectly, I apologize but you get my point. It is white guilt. It doesn't help integration it hurts it.
Who said it was alright to describe anyone as 'White'? The whole issue is that the words focus on the color of a person's skin rather than their spatial background as many other groups are. The main reason European-descendants are called 'White' or 'Caucasian' (as you used) is because the perceived cohesion between those groups, and the tenacity of our language choices in society, amongst other things. If you look at many things, you'll notice that non-Europeans are a minority. Hell, why do you think they are referred to as "minority groups"? Thus, these awards and political groups give role models and incentives for members of said communities to voice concerns and inspire others. I'm sure you could probably find an award for a specific European group if you looked. How the hell are you dealing with discrimination?
Adamant I agree with you on most parts. But there have been a few cases of reverse discrimination. A number of university, and government jobs, in Canada and the US have specifically stated they only want minorities or women to apply. So white men no matter how qualified are not eligible. And these aren't jobs working with specific groups, they are jobs for general arts teachers, and ordinary government jobs. The issue with the calendar showing all the holidays except Christmas is a very common theme. A number of bureaucrats have attempted to make mentioning Christian holidays almost taboo, while proclaiming other religious holidays. Its not a big thing, and they are usually overturned when the public hears about it, but its becoming more and more common to hear such stories in the news. Not a good trend, but not very serious yet. More worrying are situations like Zimbabwe. The White farmers who helped make Zimbabwe rich were tossed off their land for the crime of not supporting Mugabe. They didn't protest against him, they merely didn't support him. Mugabe claimed they were stealing the land from the proper black citizens and threw most of them out. He broke the land up giving it to his supporters who let the fertile fields waste away. This bankrupted millions of people who relied on the mega farms for a living, and effectively destroying Zimbabwe's economy. No one said a thing, because Mugabe and his supporters claimed that the past colonization was reason enough to remove the Whites. And enough people believed him. Now the country is starving, and has economically collapsed. A number of Zimbabwe's neighbours have started removing their White population from the farms that also support their countries following in Mugabe's footsteps. And still no one says anything. Now I'm not worried that whites or Christians will become second class citizens anywhere in the West, but we shouldn't dismiss things that hurt White people out of hand. Discrimination runs across the board, and the best way to combat it, is to cut it off whenever it rears its head.
I guess a better question (from me) would have been Why do we allow it? My personal answer to that is, I allow it because I am not affronted by being called white. But I agree with your next statement: it shouldn't be necessary to refer to the color of a person's skin at all. We're getting better at it, but it's still ingrained, in many ways. Take literature, for example: In Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, J.K. Rowling refers to Lee Jordan as a "black boy," though she never refers to Harry as a "white boy." (To give her credit, though, in later books she does develop a knack for communicating a character's ethnicity in more subtle ways.) Yes, opportunities for minorities are one of the great things about America. I still maintain though, that we end up talking out both sides of our mouths in the way we approach the minority issue. If we are well-balanced in our approach to non-discrimination, every minority group will have equal opportunities with the majority. I think, though, in many ways we've gone past well-balanced, and tipped the scale in the other direction. I'm glad you asked. I am championing the cause of orphans and street children in Russia, where they are viewed as second-class citizens and denied equal opportunites in society because they have no parents. I chose this work as a way to speak up for people who have no voice in the world.
I just saw this on BBC news, and thought it was incredibly relevant to this discussion (and is fairly close to my views): BBC NEWS | Politics | Christianophobia warning from MP
Great article, Banzai: thanks for posting it. I wish some of that sentiment would work its way west, across the Atlantic.
I think a problem with positive discrimination is that the British government give out targets of how many ethnic minorities and women need to be in certain jobs, and the only way the offices etc can meet them is by excluding white men, which i think just breeds resentment, and is not the way to deal with these issues. Another issue which isn't really on the topic of multiculturalism, but close to it. Is that the government is encouraging migrant workers - who do provide very good skills for the british economy - the problem i have is that i see this as ignoring the problem of the great number of unemployed people who the government should train up for jobs, and instead doing the easy task of taking skilled workers away from a poorer region who have already been trained at a poorer governments expense.
You have a good point Princess. I cant really criticise though as i have irish, gypsy and jewish ancestry. LOL!!!!
I personally have no problem with the sue of white or black when refering to people. Its so much easier to say (and type) black instead of african-american and its so much easier to do the same with white instead of caucasian.
guess what, folks?... there are only about 400,000 'white' people in the whole world and only 18,000 of them live in the US... no one who is commonly called 'white' really is, y'know... only albinos are!... and even they look more 'pink' than white, since their blood shows through their un-pigmented 'white' skin... as for color labels of any kind: Color Me Color-Blind! Black folks’ skin is really just shades of brown, ‘redskins’ aren’t red, but it’s their assigned hue. Orientals are far from the color of gold, but yellow’s how they’re seen by many of you. Brown people are often considered much less of ‘real’ worth than those who call themselves white. And yet, if you’ll really look at our skins, you’ll find that color’s not like day and night. There’s no clear distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’ if only skin tint’s what you let yourselves see. No one called ‘white’ is close to snow’s shade, unless an albino...and they’re pink, actually. Bleached in the sun, all bones are virginal white. Underneath our skin surface, all flesh the same...red. Fat layers are yellow, what we cast off is brown. When any heart stops, we’re all just as dead. Before you start saying what color you are, or what shade that guy over there’s meant to be, give a thought to what’s left when your time’s run out, picture your body after two years or three. Do you really think that your skin’s what you are? Do you really think death gives a hoot for your hue? Do you really think people are white, yellow, brown, red? Do you really think color should matter to you? Those who do, surely lack what keeps hearts on track. Their souls' color? Blacker than black!
Domoviye: The calendar thing is pretty stupid, besides, much of the Latin America celebrates that holiday -- so I don't see it as anything particularly against Euros, though it probably does influence it. I understand the desire to showcase other events, but there is no need to erase Christmas in the process. Although, I imagine everyone can just look at all the lights outside if they forget. As for the government barring jobs (what kind of numbers are we discussing?), I'm not sure how else such a task can be accomplished. Why bring Africa into this? I'm quite sure we all understand that many of the goings-on there are quite backward. Genocide isn't right. The apartheid that took place wasn't right. Slavery isn't right. Et cetera. If their removal did cause the collapse that others are now implementing, I believe that is evidence enough. Ivy: Yes, it appears just about everywhere. I've taken a notice to people describing only minorities if they were pointing someone out to another person. There was also a single case in which a person refused to do so, and to me, it was quite obvious - though I was the only one who knew who she was referring to. The discrimination they face has nothing to do with minorities or multiculturalism, unless you have omitted something. PrincessGarnet / All: What is a better way to deal with these issues? We Americans also face the second problem. Though, admittedly, I've never attempted to figure out a solution.
"Positive discrimination" is a better term than "affirmatuve action." At least it acknowledges that it is still discrimination. I understand the intent is to offset prior injustices and biases that still exist, but the resuts are the same. First, employers, schools, etc get candidates chosen because of criteria that have nothing to do with the qualifications of the position. Yes, quality criteria are also applied, but only within the constraints of less relevant criteria. Second, it only serves to increase resentment between the groups; members of the favored group are blamed for the unfair selection, even where those members had nothing to do with the unfair selection process. In that atmosphere of resentment, how can anyone expect the workforce or classroom, etc. appreciate the value of the diversity that has been crudely hammered into place.
I agree Cogito. The best person for the job should get it, regardless of race, religion or ethnicity.
I don't have the exact number, but news stories bring it up about once or twice a year since the late 90's. It's not a large number. But again it comes down to any discrimination is too much. I'd be just as upset if a news story came out that a black, Asian, or woman was officially told 'do not apply' for a job that did not have very special requirements. I brought Africa into this to emphasis the lack of concern amongst the international community. A lot of organizations decry the things that occur to Black Africans, but when Zimbabwe started removing the White farmers, Mugabe was actually applauded around the world by certain human rights groups for returning the land to the proper people. It was only when Zimbabwe started going down hill that the international community basically stopped talking about it. And this is being used by other African dictators and corrupt governments, South Africa is openly considering breaking up the larger farms, and there have been rumours going on about White farmers losing their lands in countries surrounding Zimbabwe. Again some Western organizations are supporting these efforts seeing it as a proper redistribution of land after the colonization of the past.
Perhaps the solution is that, rather than taking the jobs and presenting them to nationally so that there is a dispute, that more opportunities should be made for certain communities to create such positive influences. This would allow for the most qualified to still take position, but for someone who understands the specific aspects of the problems first-hand to make a difference. In things such as congress, there need not be caucuses based off of race, but the needs faced. The issues should be looked at by all because they can affect all directly, and do affect all indirectly. One last thing: adamant in 2008!
I'd vot4e for yah But Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson will never let you get away with it... I'll have to take them out.
