"Anti-racist" is a codeword for anti-white

[Guest]

Those who deny that systemic racism/xenophobia still creates barriers in Canada are intentionally in denial, and are part of the problem.

How do you explain a black man in the country long enough that he's lost his Caribbean lilt, university educated here, well qualified, promising phone inteerview, gets to the waiting room for face-to-face interview ... and is told the position is already filled ... by a very embarrassed secretary: Interview cancelled and the boss wouldn't even show his face.

Systemic racism is everywhere in Canada.

He didn't need any special consideration, just a fair chance, but he didn't get it.

I think the Chinese fellow who owns the company should be prosecuted. To the fullest extent of the law.

[Moonlight Graham]

...and I don't believe that the way to end discrimination is to discriminate against someone about whom it can only be assumed that their colour/race is an advantage, and for someone about whom it can only be assumed that their colour/race is a disadvantage.

...

It's not that racism doesn't exist, it's that it exists here far less than it does in other parts of the world (opinion - no links) and the way to fight it is to continue to outlaw discrimination.

Well racism and sexism etc. are still significant in this country no doubt. But this isn't even the only problem. Racism/sexism and other factors that occurred in the past, even if all racism/sexism and discrimination completely vanished, still have left these groups at a socio-economic disadvantage. It's been shown in studies that people who grew up with parents and grandparents etc. who were poor with low education (no matter the race) will be more likely to be poorer and less educated than if they came from generations of more wealth and higher education. Well-educated parents tend to stress good education and performance for their children, while less-educated parents tend to do so at a lesser rate. In other words, generational habits get passed on. That's just institutionally one factor among many. Another example is that over 80% of jobs are filled through informal means and are never advertised publicly, many jobs filled by people already known to employers.

Problem is I don't know how any of this could really be solved. I agree affirmative action is far from an ideal solution.

[BC_chick]

Why would you find it hard to believe? Where do you LIVE anyway? Nine times out of ten when I encounter a visible minority member their English is heavily accented. And it's not 1% of our population growth. It's actually MOST of it. It was 1% of our POPULATION, though that has fallen back a bit of late.

9 times out of 10 for what age group? 60 year-olds, I can believe because they can't shake their accent even after 30 years in the country. But for anyone 40 and under 9 out of 10 seems really high. And I say this living in a city that's 50% non-white.

[jacee]

I think the Chinese fellow who owns the company should be prosecuted. To the fullest extent of the law.

No that wasn't the case.

[Guest]

Well, he should have been. He would have been if I was in charge.

[jacee]

Well, he should have been. He would have been if I was in charge.

There was no "Chinese fellow".

[GreatJob!]

Racism/sexism and other factors that occurred in the past, even if all racism/sexism and discrimination completely vanished, still have left these groups at a socio-economic disadvantage.

sounds racist to me... are you saying these "groups" will never rise to an average socioeconomic level EVEN IF the playing field is even? That their very history (which is unalterable) will continue to handicap their development?

[GreatJob!]

9 times out of 10 for what age group? 60 year-olds, I can believe because they can't shake their accent even after 30 years in the country. But for anyone 40 and under 9 out of 10 seems really high. And I say this living in a city that's 50% non-white.

60 year olds?

The Immigration act was revised only in 1967 and started to take effect in the early 70's to include a larger intake of immigrants and especialy a higher population from the third world.

every year since the early 70's canada has taken in 225 000 to 275 000, of these populations only about 6 to 8% where english speaking... http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-314-x/2011003/tbl/tbl3_2-1-eng.cfm

its very unlikely that argus is off by much.

also, if you live in a city that is half "non-white" (let's imagine its toronto) that works out to:

that's right nearly half the people are foreign born (knowing that every year 85+% of immigrants are non-white) that means that virtually every non-white you see (with the exception of 30-40% of under 25 year olds- second generation visible minorities) is a recent non-english speaking non-white person.

[Moonlight Graham]

sounds racist to me... are you saying these "groups" will never rise to an average socioeconomic level EVEN IF the playing field is even? That their very history (which is unalterable) will continue to handicap their development?

They could rise in socioeconomic standard certainly, it may just take quite a long time to be equal with whitey. Even if the playing field is even, whites still start with an advantage (higher socioeconomic status).

[GreatJob!]

They could rise in socioeconomic standard certainly, it may just take quite a long time to be equal with whitey. Even if the playing field is even, whites still start with an advantage (higher socioeconomic status).

well certainly not all "minorities"... I mean asians in the latest top 10 university indexes in the country are doing well above whites. http://www.wantchina...=20110301000005

http://www2.macleans...1/10/too-asian/

and with the exception of Japanese students (which constitute a small minority of asians), all of these students come from relatively poor countries. Some of them: Nepal, Cambodia, East Timor: DIRT POOR.

so i'm not sure I see the correlation... anyways as a practical startegy, wouldn't the best policy to achieve equality be: let everyone compete equally? Because I'm not sure that giving artifical support to someone and preferrential admissions (otherwise unobtainable) actually benefits anyone (even the recipients). Its artificially contrived... just like giving platform shoes to a short person doesn't really make him taller... and either way... such practises are bound to be flawed since its just not true that EVERY black person comes from a broken home and has been suffering from low socioeconomic levels. So some of the benefactors of this practise actually have no legitimacy in receiving these "bonuses".

I think the MOST decent thing to do if you're going to entertain affirmative action: is give affirmative action to people based on poverty and socio-economic levels - regardless of race.

I don't understand why no one is talking about this solution.

Edited December 19, 2012 by GreatJob!

[GreatJob!]

They could rise in socioeconomic standard certainly, it may just take quite a long time to be equal with whitey. Even if the playing field is even, whites still start with an advantage (higher socioeconomic status).

that's still a little bit of a racist comment, because it plays into the "inherent inferiority" argument put forth by racists. If your argument ever gained popularity, people would be heavily against the continued importation of african immigrants for instance, on the basis that these groups take too much time to "get their act together". That they need a long sponsorship paid for by the rest of society at the expense of everyone else... just to make certain immigrants "rise to our level"... nevermind exceed it or help everyone's standard increase.

No... I think these groups are not so stupid in fact, and if motivated and treated as equals, can achieve much more.

Edited December 19, 2012 by GreatJob!

[Canuckistani]

I think the MOST decent thing to do if you're going to entertain affirmative action: is give affirmative action to people based on poverty and socio-economic levels - regardless of race.

I don't understand why no one is talking about this solution.

Bravo. Bravo. That applies to helping Indigenous Peoples as well as anybody else. No more racist and sexist programs, just making sure that everybody gets a good shot. A poor white boy growing up faces many more challenges to develop himself than the son of a chief on a reserve or the son of a Chinese millionaire immigrant or the daughter of a white professional couple.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Canuckistani

[Bonam]

I think the MOST decent thing to do if you're going to entertain affirmative action: is give affirmative action to people based on poverty and socio-economic levels - regardless of race.

I don't understand why no one is talking about this solution.

Because affirmative action is a racist program based on racist principles and promoted by racists, not by people genuinely interested in realistic solutions that will help to produce a better society.

[g_bambino]

And people in Canada don't, on the whole. How about requirements that applicants speak Mandarin - is that racism? Just one example.

How about a hair style?

The definition of "racism" is being greatly abused.

[Argus]

Those who deny that systemic racism/xenophobia still creates barriers in Canada are intentionally in denial, and are part of the problem.

If you can't show what the systemic barriers are then they aren't there.

How do you explain a black man in the country long enough that he's lost his Caribbean lilt, university educated here, well qualified, promising phone inteerview, gets to the waiting room for face-to-face interview ... and is told the position is already filled ... by a very embarrassed secretary: Interview cancelled and the boss wouldn't even show his face.

Systemic racism is everywhere in Canada.

That's not systemic racism. That's individual racism. Apparently you don't know the difference.

[Argus]

9 times out of 10 for what age group? 60 year-olds, I can believe because they can't shake their accent even after 30 years in the country. But for anyone 40 and under 9 out of 10 seems really high. And I say this living in a city that's 50% non-white.

I rarely encounter anyone under 20 but then again that group is unlikely to have the necessary experience, skills and qualifications to be a part of any judgement as to why X % of non-whites don't make up that % of a given business or profession. It would also be affected by the fact that, let's face it, most young people get jobs through family connections. I know that was the case with me in my first two jobs. If their parents are immigrants they may not have the same connections.

[Canuckistani]

I rarely encounter anyone under 20 but then again that group is unlikely to have the necessary experience, skills and qualifications to be a part of any judgement as to why X % of non-whites don't make up that % of a given business or profession. It would also be affected by the fact that, let's face it, most young people get jobs through family connections. I know that was the case with me in my first two jobs. If their parents are immigrants they may not have the same connections.

We know that since our immigrant stream has shifted from Europe to Asia, immigrants have a much harder time catching up with Canadians. But that's not because of racism, but that they don't have the language skills nor recognized educational background that the Europeans had.

[The_Squid]

... they don't have the language skills nor recognized educational background that the Europeans had.

Europeans from Sweden, Italy and Germany back in the day had language skills and were educated? Hardly....

Maybe now, as they often learn some English in school, but this is a recent development.

[Canuckistani]

Europeans from Sweden, Italy and Germany back in the day had language skills and were educated? Hardly....

Maybe now, as they often learn some English in school, but this is a recent development.

Yes, post WWII they were. You want to go back further than that, all they needed was a strong back and farming or logging skills.

[GreatJob!]

Europeans from Sweden, Italy and Germany back in the day had language skills and were educated? Hardly....

Maybe now, as they often learn some English in school, but this is a recent development.

they did however come from very similar educational backgrounds, professed a very similar religion, and spoke an indo european language (related in many ways to our own). Their societies functionned in much the same way as our own. They also came from societies with mores vitrualy indistinguishable from our own at the time. The difference between the Sweden of 1890 to 1930 and canada of the same time was virtually nill , with actually some swedes coming from a relatively more advanced culture.

[jacee]

We know that since our immigrant stream has shifted from Europe to Asia, immigrants have a much harder time catching up with Canadians. But that's not because of racism, but that they don't have the language skills nor recognized educational background that the Europeans had.

Not because of racism?

Can you prove that?

http://dontai.com/wp/2012/02/11/employment-discrimination-and-ethnicity-in-toronto-canada/

Applicants with English-sounding names with Canadian education and experience received callbacks 40 percent more often than did applicants with Chinese, Indian, or Pakistani names. Conditional on listing 4 to 6 years Canadian experience, being foreign educated (whether at a highly ranked school or not) did not affect callback rates substantially… Adding more language credentials, additional Canadian education, or extracurricular activities had little impact on these overall results… Overall, the results suggest considerable employer discrimination against ethnic Canadians and immigrants.

This in Toronto, btw.

Edited December 22, 2012 by jacee

[Argus]

Not because of racism?

Can you prove that?

You don't get to ask people to prove a negative.

As for people with English sounding names getting called more often, perhaps that's because employers fear the others don't have a proper command of the language. Which does not constitute racism, btw.

[jacee]

You don't get to ask people to prove a negative.

As for people with English sounding names getting called more often, perhaps that's because employers fear the others don't have a proper command of the language. Which does not constitute racism, btw.

It does if they make that assumption without checking language skills, based on the sound of their name.

Oh yes it does.

[Argus]

It does if they make that assumption without checking language skills, based on the sound of their name.

Oh yes it does.

No, in fact it does not. It might well constitute prejudice, given that the actual description of prejudice is to 'pre judge' but it's not racism, which assumes the superiority of one race over another.

[jacee]

No, in fact it does not. It might well constitute prejudice, given that the actual description of prejudice is to 'pre judge' but it's not racism, which assumes the superiority of one race over another.

Ah yes ... splitting hairs now ... because you'd rather be called prejudiced than racist?

How 'bout racial prejudice?

You ok with that?

Really Argus. This is ridiculous.

Edited December 22, 2012 by jacee