Racism?

[Digby]

I truely am not a racist person , i invite all races and nationalities in my home and i actually enjoy friendships with persons of other races . I myself am of white ,English ,french ,jewish decent .

In the last few months ive had much envolvement with persons of other races espeically first nations peoples ,as in my fishing operations now i very often am involved with business relations with first nations peoples . Ive actually had 2 natives liveing in my home as guest and i found them both to be out standing guest . So i have no problem with first nations peoples or any other race for that matter.

I am wondering if our goverment is not going to far in racism against certain races . I as a White man feel that im becomeing the victim .

I know that it is very hard to get sympathy as a white man when talking about racism . One time i actually called the provencial department of human rights and told them a story about being discriminated against .

The Answer I got Shocked me ! A man on the phone said yes sir you are being discriminated against but you are not black , nor native or a woman and we are only here to serve miniorities . So then I asked , what I would do as a white male , the answer was I don't

know sir .

My question is ? does any body beleave our forfathers when writing our constitution actually intended to put certain races above other races ? Or was their goal to make all Equal ?

Like this native fishing right thing , Do you think Natives should have gareenteed rights that others don't have , or was our for fathers wishes to keep every body with equal rights?

At what point in Canada did one race ever have more rights to fish then a other ? now days millions (maybe even hundreds of millions are being shelled out of tax payers money to buy up the fishing rights for the native community. In Nova scotia i think native population runs about 1% of our population . and i suspect at this time the goverment has bought about 30% -50% of all fishing rights for our native community .

At no point was any race ever given more access to the ocean ,the native community just was not interested in fishing untill recent years . and even now its not about fishing but collecting royalties .

Isn't the racism being commited against the white community ?

In my comunity a lobster licence cost 850,000 to buy

In a native comunity the goverment has bought more then natives can even use , alot are leased back to white men for 30% .

A boat cost a member of the white community 400,000 -1,000,000 or so .

A native community pays almost nothing , the first 200,000 usally a grant ,if not all .

We have to pay taxes . In most cases they don't

A young member of the white community has almost no hope of entering the fishery .

In the native community their almost being drug out of their houses to go .

Maybe their was some wrongs commited against our native comunity in the past . But why is it right to make this modern generation pay for all past sins?

I honestly think this Country has lost its wisemen and judges when i see the reality on this topic . I honestly beleave this approach our goverment and judges have taken is racism at the highest degree , and some day its going to add up to big troubles in Canada .

[Unpolarized]

Digby,

Good topic and an issue I struggle with personally. I will use a different example to discuss the same basic principle.

First, defining the terms.Some would define racism as discrimination plus power. In our society, the people with the most power , one can argue, are white middle class males. The arguement goes on to propose that to empower minorities then some of the natural advantage (and power) of the powerful must be given to some of the less powerful in order for things to equalize.

I agree with that too a point but it has tempered a bit by my time in Nunavut.

A little background - The territory of Nunavut was established in 1999 as part of a land claims agreement that gave the Inuit a vast tract of land, essentially the territory of Nunavut. It also gave Inuit corporation and the Government of Nunavut a wack of money, a lot of mineral rights etc. It also mandated that the Government of Nunavut hire a certain percentage of Inuit employees and they have a preferential hiring practice so that in many cases if the Inuit employee has60% of the qualifications they get the job over a fully qualified person.

Affirmative action is if all things being equal, you hire the minority person or the purple haired peson or whoever is the target group. I have no problem with this approach. Background on employment equity

In Nunavut what is happening is that vastly underqualified people are being put into positions that they can not cope with or deal with. It causes social strife, stress in the work place and often sets people up to fail.

So, I support trying to help people who are often discriminated against (such as disabled people who are often not given a fair shake, aboriginal groups etc) the trend to go too far to over compensate often creates more problems.

I am not very well versed in the fishing issue but it strikes me as very problematic that anyone can fish as much as they want to, regardless of the stocks ability to regenerate. Is this happening? It also is a problem to dump vast amounts of money at aboriginal groups to empower them. the Davis inlet stories certainly point to this.

The answer eludes me but no one is being served very well by the status quo

I think it is hard to call white men in general victims. I think you can argue that you are being discrimated against but that its not racism. Is it fair - no probably not. But there are tons of studies and anecdotal evidence that lots of other groups are systematically discriminated against and somehow we as a society need to make sure that does not happen without hurting others. Study

Its a touchy issue for many an emotionally charged so I hope we can have a respectful and useful debate. Thanks for starting the thread.

[Digby]

There is not alot of wide open fishing at this time by native groups , There is some lobster poaching done in summer months under native food fishing rights .

A few years Back a Native was charged with fishing eels in a brook with out a permit . When DFO took it to court the natives won as some foolish judge ruled that natives was garenteed the right to fish in a treaty wrote in the 1700s .

So then Our goverment went in a panic as they figgured their would be no way to ever stop natives from fishing no matter how distructive they was to a fish stock.

So the goverments only hope of stoping it was to reign millions of dollars on our local native bands in return for them signing to come under DFO management . At this time almost all of the MIc Maw bands have signed in return for millions of dollars in boats in licences . I only know of 2 bands in Nova scotia that have not signed . Indian brook and Bear river .

When a band signs DFO rewards them with millions and millions of dollars in licences and boats and gear all as gifts . I suspect hundreds of millions of tax dollars have been spread here to put out this fire which i beleave was created by a foolish judge .

As in star treck Captain Kirk and crew was not suppose to use his power to change the course a society was taking . DFO did the opposite and this 1 percent of the population that never fished in history mostly because of their own will . now owns i figgure 30 -50% of all fishing rights ,given to them as gifts to sign up under dfo management . But its completly distroyed the future of most of the white community who now have little hope of fishing the ocean like their ancesters .Now they can only hope to fish and pay royalties to Native bands .

Along with the free licences came millions of dollars in new fishing vessels and gear mostly as gifts also .. Some native bands have been made extreemly wealthy from this . In most cases this new found wealth only finds a few pockets and alot of natives remain in poverty.

Now we don't have an equal society we have people coveting native blood , people fighting for status .

The Young White community is loseing hope of ever being able to fish like their ancesters have , so they mostly don't care for the resources and turn to total disrespect of goverment and fishing laws.

What is not owned by Natives now mostly is owned by a small handfull of men .

Goverment money has been used to totaly disrupt the natural flow of society . In my opinion its going to lead to a big mess in Canada in the future .

In the 1700s All men was aloud to fish the treaty was to make them equal not set them high above every body else . I beleave our Goverment and its judges to be fools on the way they handled this matter .

[PocketRocket]

Try get a government job without being able to speak French fluently, even if you live in a primarily English-speaking community.

Even if the job does not require you to deal with the public on a daily basis.

"Biligual", the job posts say. But try tell them you speak English and Italian or German or any other language.

Forget it.

[Digby]

Another point I want to make is when the goverment set about buying up the licences and quotas for these native bands ,little care was given to keep communities equal .

The area im from Digby County Nova scotia was in history one of the main areas for ground fishing .We use to have many ,many plants operating with hundreds of people employed ashore in fish processing . Trawling in Canada actually started in this area from a norweigion coming here running from the German army during the second world war . In the past i would say Digby County had as much fishing activity as any other County of Nova Scotia .

The problem in Digby County was back when trawling started their was no restrictions on who could own fishing licences or how many they could own . So most the fishing licences ended up owned bye a hand full of fish buyers .As the fisherman just fished the boats for these fish buyers .

But this made a very good target for the goverments check book . the majority of groundfish quota bought was bought out of Digby and Annappolis Counties of nova Scotia . I know one man who personally owned 3,000,000 lb of ITQ quota the goverment paid him 6 dollars a lb or 18,000,000 dollars , an other got 12,000,000 some got 6 million .a handfull of men owned all this areas history even though hundreds and even thousands made their living off this quota . Now Digby County looks like a goast Town in its fish plants . you can find probly 30 plants all fallen down in ruins . Nothing was put back to replace what was taken out by goverment .

What was taken out was given mostly to native bands in cape breton . So the fishing rights of Digby County now are mostly owned by natives in cape breton . They would have a 2 day steam in a boat to even get to the fishing Grounds of Digby County . So the natives mostly just lease the quotas and boats to people from yarmoth county . So millions of tax Dollars was used to put tax payers of Digby County out of work . The Money now goes to non tax paying natives in cape breton .

Digby Countys residents now mostly just watch trawlers from other areas now just clean up their fishing grounds .that their ancesters fished for the last few hundred years .

I know if it was recorded by DFO (which they would not dare to record ) Digby County probly was number 1 in fishing activeity in the past (before 1990) And now almost every plant is in complete ruins and Digby County might come in last Place in groundfish activity now . ALL DONE WITH GOVERMENT MONEY !

The result is ALBERTA bound for alot of our young men .

Other communities where the natives have set up to lease out their fishing rights . had almost no Groundfishing in the past before 1990 . Now they are thrieving ,building new plants . ect . Goverment money was used to Completley put one community out of work and transfer the money to different communities .

I think when it all comes public the native buyback program will make quebec sponser ship look like small potatoes . I suspect hundreds of Millions of tax dollars have been wasted in this field . but the scary thing is Now the new owners of the resources won't even have to pay taxes , so if 50% of our resources are now in the hands of non taxpayers . by tax dollars won't that mean somebody in the future will pay alot more . Or else our Country is in for alot less money in its bank account .

Another thing to remember these natives are all duel citazens . They might not even be spending their dollars back in our country . Alot of them are from Boston . They come here from Boston and get local Bands to adopt them.

Every fishing boat once its Native owned is a part of the reserves . And no Taxes , Not even aloud to look at their books . So we will never even be able to find out where the money is going , It could all be going to Bahamas in offshore Bank accounts .

I just think we have lost our Wisemen in Goverment!!!

[fryingpan]

I wonder how many Natives that have been sold these liscenses are actually staying within their quota. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that a lot of them are going way above it. I think the government was very foolish about spending all that money without even thinking about the outcomes for the taxpayers (the ones who finance their little expeditions).

I think that affirmative action needs to stop right now. There are very few benefits that result from punishing the descendants of people who may or may not have discriminated. They work hard to get where they are only to find that someone less qualified than them gets the job. Their ancestors actions weren't their fault, why do they have to suffer?

Institutions such as universities often use affirmative action to hire teaching staff. This is rather unfortunate for the students who have to pay thousands of dollars to go to university. They must now have to deal with staff that do not speak or write in English. Not only that, but most of these teaching assistants don't even know the subject matter that they are supposed to be teaching. As a result, the students do not get the service that they paid for. And those student loans have to be paid back, regardless of what you do or do not learn.

[betsy]

If you're male....and happen to be white, you'll have a tougher time getting good employment. It doesn't matter whether you're qualified for the job and have a good amount of experience. You still lose out to someone who hardly qualifies simply because of your gender and the color of your skin.

[thom_PC]

As a young male (21) with 1/4 aboriginal heritage, I feel I should offer my opinion.

I am not considered to be part of any minority as I appear predominantly white and I do not normally identify myself as an aboriginal nor do I hold a status card. Having said that, I suppose that in relation to this discussion I too would be a "white-male" although I do have other options.

I agree with the idea of reverse racism. I have heard recently that the OPP, among other government organizations actually prefer to hire those of minorities. I believe the concerns with "reverse-racism" are more than valid. I am more than positive that if I chose to get my status card and willingly identified myself as a "minority", I would have an easier time obtaining employment. The reason I will not do this is because it is my belief that I was born in Canada and am thus a Canadian. It is my belief that I am entitled to all the benefits of being a Canadian, and feel that receiving these benefits requires paying all of the taxes associated with them.

[scribblet]

If you're male....and happen to be white, you'll have a tougher time getting good employment. It doesn't matter whether you're qualified for the job and have a good amount of experience. You still lose out to someone who hardly qualifies simply because of your gender and the color of your skin.

You are right. Reverse discrimination is never right, we just need to enforce the current laws against discrimination in hiring.

Most Canadians abhor racial discrimination, yet support the notion of one group receiving preferential treatment based on ancestry or skin colour. All people should be treated equally, including natives, they should be full and equal citizens and not 'apart' on reservations.

[geoffrey]

If you're male....and happen to be white, you'll have a tougher time getting good employment. It doesn't matter whether you're qualified for the job and have a good amount of experience. You still lose out to someone who hardly qualifies simply because of your gender and the color of your skin.

You are right. Reverse discrimination is never right, we just need to enforce the current laws against discrimination in hiring.

Most Canadians abhor racial discrimination, yet support the notion of one group receiving preferential treatment based on ancestry or skin colour. All people should be treated equally, including natives, they should be full and equal citizens and not 'apart' on reservations.

Agreed. The idea that because the 'natives' got here first they deserve extra benifets is ridiculous. It may sound racist, but its actually further from it than the current reservation (ie ghetto) system.

There should be no affirmative action, no reserves, no payments for past wrongs (again, saying we are responsible for our past 'white' ancestors actions, awfully racist) and no hiring initives that support minorites.

Thats the only way to eliminate racism in our society.

[fryingpan]

If you're male....and happen to be white, you'll have a tougher time getting good employment. It doesn't matter whether you're qualified for the job and have a good amount of experience. You still lose out to someone who hardly qualifies simply because of your gender and the color of your skin.

You are right. Reverse discrimination is never right, we just need to enforce the current laws against discrimination in hiring.

Most Canadians abhor racial discrimination, yet support the notion of one group receiving preferential treatment based on ancestry or skin colour. All people should be treated equally, including natives, they should be full and equal citizens and not 'apart' on reservations.

Agreed. The idea that because the 'natives' got here first they deserve extra benifets is ridiculous. It may sound racist, but its actually further from it than the current reservation (ie ghetto) system.

There should be no affirmative action, no reserves, no payments for past wrongs (again, saying we are responsible for our past 'white' ancestors actions, awfully racist) and no hiring initives that support minorites.

Thats the only way to eliminate racism in our society.

It will also let people who are the most qualified and hard-working get the jobs they deserve. This will result in better service and higher productivity. There are fewer things worse than highly qualified and experienced people forced out of the job market due to affirmative action.

[tapanga12]

i so agree

like now you can't say the word 'black' without someone being offended. They changed the song 'Baa baa Black sheep' to 'Baa Baa rainbow sheep' because it decriminated against 'black' people? like how does a black sheep offend some people .

The government wants to change 'black history month' to 'heritage month' and i think thats a great idea, but dark people don't like that idea. Canada is a fair country with equal rights for every culture/race/colour but yet the people who have always wanted equal rights (dark people) don't seem to want it when there higher up. 'Black history month' is prejudice because it puts the 'black' group higher than everyone else.

I am 14years old and i am not racist at all, but i don't want to end up being descriminated agaisnt and used as slaves in like 10years by dark people because now we finally have equal rights and i don't want to change.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Of course you guys knew I had to weigh in on this.

Here is my recent thought on racism.

I think it's funny how it is politically incorrect to say something like "black people are more violent than white people" (I don't believe this, I am just picking a random example statement)

yet it's not considered politically incorrect to say something like "aboriginals are a very compassionate culture."

see the double standard here? it's ok to make vast generalizations, but only if they are positive.

I love catching "politically correct" types in these statements and pointing out that what they just said was a form of racism or prejudice.

Has anyone else noticed that its ok to be prejudice to the positive?

[Slavik44]

Of course you guys knew I had to weigh in on this.

Here is my recent thought on racism.

I think it's funny how it is politically incorrect to say something like "black people are more violent than white people" (I don't believe this, I am just picking a random example statement)

yet it's not considered politically incorrect to say something like "aboriginals are a very compassionate culture."

see the double standard here? it's ok to make vast generalizations, but only if they are positive.

I love catching "politically correct" types in these statements and pointing out that what they just said was a form of racism or prejudice.

Has anyone else noticed that its ok to be prejudice to the positive?

Well thats certainly an interesting hobby you got, I personally like playing hockey and other outdoor sports, but hey whatever floats your boat. My point would be however that when you say Natives have a compasionate culture you are not degrading anyone elses culture, you are not saying natives have a more compasionate culture.

--------------

now my opinions on afirmative action,

If you can find a group that has been discriminated against in the past, you will generally find that the effects of this continue on generations after the discrimination has ended. Because if you discriminate against hiring women, 30 years down the road, the upper chain of command will be disproportionately a bunch of white old farts, not because they were neccasarily the best candidates, but because the competition was cut short, from an early age by discrimination. In my opinion affirmative action can help get the ball rolling but should only be a temporary measure, until we build a foundation upoun witch to work. In other words affirmative action should not be about getting a black, or a female, or black female CEO, but affirmative action should be used to bring up the number of "minorities" in lower level positions so that they can gain expirence neccasary to advance their career, affirmative action should act as the tool to get them in the door and to keep them inside that door until we have ended the generational lag of discrimination that affects people well after discrimination has ended. Unfortunately for us politicians have a way of screwing up even the most simplistic things, but it is not reverse discrimination but rather an answer to a serious problem, a generational lag of lingering discrimination. To solve this it may very well mean that we have to slow down the promotion of non-minority people within the ranks to ensure that effects of discrimination does not perpetuate itself over and over again generation after generation. Unfortunately with our teams of walking dinosaurs this process has become contencoius because it is delaying an inevitable generational change that should hopefully lead to a better equality in the work place, oh and in the sake of being politicaly correct my apologies to the dinosaurs.

[Renegade]

We actually discussed a similar topic before Discrimmination

It may surprise people to know that the Charter only prohibits discrimination against "disadvantaged grouips" (women, racial minorities, aboriginals, older people, etc). Discrimination against "advantaged" groups (ie mostly white males) is permitted, even encouraged.

[scribblet]

We actually discussed a similar topic before Discrimmination

It may surprise people to know that the Charter only prohibits discrimination against "disadvantaged grouips" (women, racial minorities, aboriginals, older people, etc). Discrimination against "advantaged" groups (ie mostly white males) is permitted, even encouraged.

I am aware of that, so for all you white males out there, it is legal to discriminate against you.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Of course you guys knew I had to weigh in on this.

Here is my recent thought on racism.

I think it's funny how it is politically incorrect to say something like "black people are more violent than white people" (I don't believe this, I am just picking a random example statement)

yet it's not considered politically incorrect to say something like "aboriginals are a very compassionate culture."

see the double standard here? it's ok to make vast generalizations, but only if they are positive.

I love catching "politically correct" types in these statements and pointing out that what they just said was a form of racism or prejudice.

Has anyone else noticed that its ok to be prejudice to the positive?

Well thats certainly an interesting hobby you got, I personally like playing hockey and other outdoor sports, but hey whatever floats your boat. My point would be however that when you say Natives have a compasionate culture you are not degrading anyone elses culture, you are not saying natives have a more compasionate culture.

--------------

now my opinions on afirmative action,

If you can find a group that has been discriminated against in the past, you will generally find that the effects of this continue on generations after the discrimination has ended. Because if you discriminate against hiring women, 30 years down the road, the upper chain of command will be disproportionately a bunch of white old farts, not because they were neccasarily the best candidates, but because the competition was cut short, from an early age by discrimination. In my opinion affirmative action can help get the ball rolling but should only be a temporary measure, until we build a foundation upoun witch to work. In other words affirmative action should not be about getting a black, or a female, or black female CEO, but affirmative action should be used to bring up the number of "minorities" in lower level positions so that they can gain expirence neccasary to advance their career, affirmative action should act as the tool to get them in the door and to keep them inside that door until we have ended the generational lag of discrimination that affects people well after discrimination has ended. Unfortunately for us politicians have a way of screwing up even the most simplistic things, but it is not reverse discrimination but rather an answer to a serious problem, a generational lag of lingering discrimination. To solve this it may very well mean that we have to slow down the promotion of non-minority people within the ranks to ensure that effects of discrimination does not perpetuate itself over and over again generation after generation. Unfortunately with our teams of walking dinosaurs this process has become contencoius because it is delaying an inevitable generational change that should hopefully lead to a better equality in the work place, oh and in the sake of being politicaly correct my apologies to the dinosaurs.

Nope. Most businesses are meritocracies. All AA does is spead up an inevitable process for optics. WOmen, minorties et al will naturally move up the ranks over time if their performance merits it.

[Slavik44]

Nope. Most businesses are meritocracies. All AA does is spead up an inevitable process for optics. WOmen, minorties et al will naturally move up the ranks over time if their performance merits it.

Yeah no shit thanks for the news, my point was that the effects of discrimination linger long after the actual discrimination has left, I was argueing that AA can help ensure this process happens and happens at a faster rate not that this process absolutely requires AA to happen but there can be benifiets.

[geoffrey]

Nope. Most businesses are meritocracies. All AA does is spead up an inevitable process for optics. WOmen, minorties et al will naturally move up the ranks over time if their performance merits it.

Yeah no shit thanks for the news, my point was that the effects of discrimination linger long after the actual discrimination has left, I was argueing that AA can help ensure this process happens and happens at a faster rate not that this process absolutely requires AA to happen but there can be benifiets.

Speeding up societial change from a policy point of view has always failed. People's opinions are far more dogmatic than regulations on paper.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Speeding up societial change from a policy point of view has always failed. People's opinions are far more dogmatic than regulations on paper.

Exactly. And it can create a backlash..."why is s/he in that position? are they qualified or is it because of their race?"

[Slavik44]

Nope. Most businesses are meritocracies. All AA does is spead up an inevitable process for optics. WOmen, minorties et al will naturally move up the ranks over time if their performance merits it.

Yeah no shit thanks for the news, my point was that the effects of discrimination linger long after the actual discrimination has left, I was argueing that AA can help ensure this process happens and happens at a faster rate not that this process absolutely requires AA to happen but there can be benifiets.

Speeding up societial change from a policy point of view has always failed. People's opinions are far more dogmatic than regulations on paper.

I am not talking about speeding up societal change, I am talking about bringing somethign up to the level of our current society.

[Renegade]

If you can find a group that has been discriminated against in the past, you will generally find that the effects of this continue on generations after the discrimination has ended. Because if you discriminate against hiring women, 30 years down the road, the upper chain of command will be disproportionately a bunch of white old farts, not because they were neccasarily the best candidates, but because the competition was cut short, from an early age by discrimination. In my opinion affirmative action can help get the ball rolling but should only be a temporary measure, until we build a foundation upoun witch to work. In other words affirmative action should not be about getting a black, or a female, or black female CEO, but affirmative action should be used to bring up the number of "minorities" in lower level positions so that they can gain expirence neccasary to advance their career, affirmative action should act as the tool to get them in the door and to keep them inside that door until we have ended the generational lag of discrimination that affects people well after discrimination has ended. Unfortunately for us politicians have a way of screwing up even the most simplistic things, but it is not reverse discrimination but rather an answer to a serious problem, a generational lag of lingering discrimination. To solve this it may very well mean that we have to slow down the promotion of non-minority people within the ranks to ensure that effects of discrimination does not perpetuate itself over and over again generation after generation. Unfortunately with our teams of walking dinosaurs this process has become contencoius because it is delaying an inevitable generational change that should hopefully lead to a better equality in the work place, oh and in the sake of being politicaly correct my apologies to the dinosaurs.

Slavik, I understand what you are saying, however what got society into this mess to begin with was a emphasis of race over merit. Society should have learnt something and learnt that race or gender should absolutely not be a factor in determining advancement, it should strictly be based upon merit. Yes, it will take some time before previously discrimminated groups achieve the representation which is reflective of their merit.

AA tries to artifically induce this with disasterous results. AA is intended to address a problem of racial and gender discrimmination, but yet it itself is an example of racial and gender discrimmination. (Kind of like trying to teach a kid not to be violent by hitting him). AA lowers the bar for certain races/genders to try and advance those minorites to equal representation. Well what effect does that have? For those selected for advancement, they now have self-doubt about the reasons for their advancement and may be left with the feeling it is because of their minority status rather than merit. For those passed over who are not part of a minority, it breeds resentment and racial backlash and the feeling of being discrimminated. So has AA actually solved anything?

As a further point, AA, tries to bring minorities to representative levels. How do we determine what those levels are? If women are 50% of the population, does that mean they shoudl be 50% of the executives of the company? If so why? Women make different career choices then men. For many family is a priority over work. As such they may be under represented in executive ranks becaue of personal choices they have made, not necessarily because of discrimmination. Should AA still force a 50% representation despite the fact that there are other reasons other than discrimmination which result in over or under representation of certain groups?

One other point is that AA seems to be a one way street. AA seeks to equalize minoritiy representation in desireable areas, but ignores undesireable ones. For example the prison population is overwhelmingly male. Should we implement an AA program and lower the bar and impose harsher punishments on women so that we have equal representation for both genders in the prison population?

[geoffrey]

Nope. Most businesses are meritocracies. All AA does is spead up an inevitable process for optics. WOmen, minorties et al will naturally move up the ranks over time if their performance merits it.

Yeah no shit thanks for the news, my point was that the effects of discrimination linger long after the actual discrimination has left, I was argueing that AA can help ensure this process happens and happens at a faster rate not that this process absolutely requires AA to happen but there can be benifiets.

Speeding up societial change from a policy point of view has always failed. People's opinions are far more dogmatic than regulations on paper.

I am not talking about speeding up societal change, I am talking about bringing somethign up to the level of our current society.

Are you kidding me? You'd actually rather have people hired based on their skin colour than merit?

Disgusting. Affirmative action is just that. No place in a democratic society.

[Slavik44]

Are you kidding me? You'd actually rather have people hired based on their skin colour than merit?

Disgusting. Affirmative action is just that. No place in a democratic society.

Let me make this perfectly clear, even though most minorities do not suffer from discrimination like they did in the past the affects of this discrimination still linger today. Because they still linger today, they can provide people who were not discriminated against with an advantage, an advantage based upoun past wrongs. The discriminationof yesterday affects the people of today, not only does it affect those who were discriminated against but it also elavates those who were not discriminated against. And therefore we continue to perpetuate the discriminationof the past because the discrimination of the past not only put up bariers it also allowed for other people to be eleavated over such minorities.

Next I do not belive we should make your local black pimp the head of General motors, but I do belive we can give consideration to skin colour when hiring for low level positions. Because at low level positions it is not hard to find people who can perform the required tasks perfectly fine, in that way we are not hiring someone under qualified to do the job, We are meerly hiring one qualified person over another qualified person, this done in cases where there is little substantial difference between the candidates, and in my previous posts I did say that there have been problems implementing this, so that AA can go to far, but that doesn't change the fact that it can also do good.

A little affirmative action is a bit like a progressive tax system, we are taking from everyone but we ask a little more from the rich, in the Case of AA those who have collectively benifieted from past wrongs. However unlike taxes if AA were implemetned responsibley it would be over before you die and those you leave behind would not face the prospect of AA.

[Renegade]

Let me make this perfectly clear, even though most minorities do not suffer from discrimination like they did in the past the affects of this discrimination still linger today. Because they still linger today, they can provide people who were not discriminated against with an advantage, an advantage based upoun past wrongs. The discriminationof yesterday affects the people of today, not only does it affect those who were discriminated against but it also elavates those who were not discriminated against. And therefore we continue to perpetuate the discriminationof the past because the discrimination of the past not only put up bariers it also allowed for other people to be eleavated over such minorities.

Slavik, maybe you would care to explain why Asian and Jewish households, despite being the subject of discrimmination for decades, have the highest educational and income levels compared even to native born white households. All of this without AA.