Black History Month.

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

But the problem goes deeper than simply access to information about a field. There are plenty of fields where participation by outgroups has been systemically discouraged and a lack of representation begets a lack of participation. 

Name them. 

[Moonlight Graham]

6 hours ago, Black Dog said:

There's lots of scholarships, awards and other funding out there for people with different backgrounds, ethnicities and fields of study, what's the big deal.

It's racially discriminatory.  And it's not like there's scholarships just for poor white people, so what you said isn't true.  There's more scholarships exclusively for some races over others.  You make a "whites only" scholarship and people would lose their sh!t, and they should.

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, Black Dog said:

That doesn't really answer my question.

Like?

Like the effort to get women into police forces and fire departments through special recruiting, lowering standards, and special training given to candidates. Or the efforts being made to get women to take STEM courses? Why does it matter if women don't want to be police or geologists?

[Moonlight Graham]

5 hours ago, Black Dog said:

Do you think financial or other hardships are equally distributed across all racial groups, genders, religions, and ethnicities?

Do you think the distribution of financial hardships across races in Canada is caused by their skin colour?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Black Dog said:

"Asian" people tend to do better when you ignore the disparities that exist within that grouping.

The vast majority of Asian people (Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian, Filipino, Korean) to name a few, are demographics of people that earn quite well, as well as regarding their education level. The ones I mentioned, also make up the largest part of the demographic you're eluding to.

Look at the bottom of the demographic, and what is likely? Racist systems? Unfairness?

Or a lack of English? A lack of education?

Refugees who came in with bad odds, and didn't have the skills, education or language, to pull themselves out of it? Is this systemic, though?

I grew up around Cambodian refugees in Canada. They were poor just like us. Every single one I knew or was friends with, had parents working menial jobs, because their lack of English made it as such that they were incredibly limited in opportunity. This was a very common theme.

Look at second and third generations of these people, however. Its a different picture.

Many Asian people, truly push education and family. You look at cultures like India, China and the like, and its critical.

I can all but guarantee you those who remain poor on a generational level, do not. It has nothing to do with system equality.

3 hours ago, Black Dog said:

It's kind racist to lump more than 25 million people (U.S. Asian population) into one group and define them by stereotypical traits. 

Like what, being better educated and having strong senses of community? This is racist? Seriously? How?

Sorry, but I don't get victimhood. I get empowerment.

My mother was a single mother who was a refugee from Haiti. No English, whatsoever. Couldn't find good jobs, so had to work garbage jobs, and do multiple, just to put food on our table.

She didn't have time for victimhood, so taught us how to read and be passionate about books. Sports. School.

She had no education, but all of her kids and their offspring, are highly educated. To you, she'd be a victim due to her poverty and struggles.

I see people like this, and see powerhouses. Strength. Poverty to me, was simply circumstance. I never felt I was inferior, and your mindset puts people like this in such boxes.

Believe in government hand outs, but that hand has strings attached to it. I'll point someone in the right direction--you believe in hand holding.

[Zeitgeist]

5 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

The vast majority of Asian people (Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian, Filipino, Korean) to name a few, are demographics of people that earn quite well, as well as regarding their education level. The ones I mentioned, also make up the largest part of the demographic you're eluding to.

Look at the bottom of the demographic, and what is likely? Racist systems? Unfairness?

Or a lack of English? A lack of education?

Refugees who came in with bad odds, and didn't have the skills, education or language, to pull themselves out of it? Is this systemic, though?

I grew up around Cambodian refugees in Canada. They were poor just like us. Every single one I knew or was friends with, had parents working menial jobs, because their lack of English made it as such that they were incredibly limited in opportunity. This was a very common theme.

Look at second and third generations of these people, however. Its a different picture.

Many Asian people, truly push education and family. You look at cultures like India, China and the like, and its critical.

I can all but guarantee you those who remain poor on a generational level, do not. It has nothing to do with system equality.

Like what, being better educated and having strong senses of community? This is racist? Seriously? How?

Sorry, but I don't get victimhood. I get empowerment.

My mother was a single mother who was a refugee from Haiti. No English, whatsoever. Couldn't find good jobs, so had to work garbage jobs, and do multiple, just to put food on our table.

She didn't have time for victimhood, so taught us how to read and be passionate about books. Sports. School.

She had no education, but all of her kids and their offspring, are highly educated. To you, she'd be a victim due to her poverty and struggles.

I see people like this, and see powerhouses. Strength. Poverty to me, was simply circumstance. I never felt I was inferior, and your mindset puts people like this in such boxes.

Believe in government hand outs, but that hand has strings attached to it. I'll point someone in the right direction--you believe in hand holding.

So well written.  It’s all about empowerment. Have to build people up, and different individuals require different things.

 I think Black History Month has value because everyone gets to learn about accomplished black people.  It’s inspiring and it helps for people of any minority to see people who look like them in positions of great responsibility and status.

We all need to see more heroes, guides and mentors of all colours and backgrounds, because otherwise people literally don’t learn how to act and conduct themselves in healthy ways.

Many (most?) of the problems for young people stem from a lack of good guides and mentors. 

Edited March 7, 2024 by Zeitgeist

[Moonlight Graham]

9 hours ago, Black Dog said:

"Asian" people tend to do better when you ignore the disparities that exist within that grouping. It's kind racist to lump more than 25 million people (U.S. Asian population) into one group and define them by stereotypical traits. 

Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Canadians make higher incomes than white Canadians.  Filipino and Southeast asians make less than white Canadians.  Do you think this has to do with their race and how they're treated racially in Canada?

South asians (brown people) in Canada make more than white Canadians but black and hispanic people in Canada make less.  Is this due to how these racial groups are treated in Canada?

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/36-28-0001/2022001/article/00004-eng.htm

Why should a caucasian or asian or Jewish person have jobs literally taken from them and given to someone else just because that someone else is black and their family comes from e.g. Jamaica or Somalia etc.  it's not in any way the fault of a caucasian or asian or Jewish job applicant or student that the education and/or socioeconomics in Jamaica or Somalia are not as good as other countries or cultures.

If you want to better yourself in Canada then work for it and make good life decisions for you and your kids just like everybody else.  If you want to help disadvantaged people then do it by a criteria that's non-discriminatory and actually makes sense like income.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Many (most?) of the problems for young people stem from a lack of good guides and mentors. 

Exactly.

My mother was a great role model to me. One of my uncles led a simple life. But that life, and him being a man of honor, was huge to me, as I really looked up to him.

I was surrounded by gangs and violence. I was lost as a youth, but my mother's strength kept me from fully veering on the wrong side of the tracks, so to speak.

Many of my friends who weren't so lucky, turned into felons, homeless, drug addicts or dead.

I remember a high ranking gang member who I was weary of, told one of my best friends how much he looked up to me.

Friends who were always kicked out of their homes, being welcomed in mine by my mother, admit to me how jealous they were of me. They had never felt love like the love she gave them.

Many of those friends, turned out successful in life.

That old saying rings true:

I just don't understand how you expect a community to pick themselves up, when their own government is selling to them that they are inferior and victims.

Imagine if I told you I couldn't get a job because I was bullied in grade school. 

Many of these victim groups haven't even experienced the trauma and point to generational trauma.

Enabling bad behavior doesn't fix social issues.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 Do you think this has to do with their race and how they're treated racially in Canada?

Well kind of. Canada goes to the countries where those races exist, because they know they can get the most productive and best suited citizens for the job to come here and work. They're not picking Americans because that would be too expensive.

No it's not directly because of race but indirectly so. It's the circumstances, kind of like when slaves were kidnapped and brought here.

[I am Groot]

15 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

The vast majority of Asian people (Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian, Filipino, Korean) to name a few, are demographics of people that earn quite well, as well as regarding their education level. The ones I mentioned, also make up the largest part of the demographic you're eluding to.

Look at the bottom of the demographic, and what is likely? Racist systems? Unfairness?

Or a lack of English? A lack of education?.

People think Asian and tend to mean Chinese, Koreans, Thais, and Vietnamese, but technically, Pakistanis are also Asian, as are Afghans and Syrians and Yemenis

[I am Groot]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well kind of. Canada goes to the countries where those races exist, because they know they can get the most productive and best suited citizens for the job to come here and work. They're not picking Americans because that would be too expensive.

No it's not directly because of race but indirectly so. It's the circumstances, kind of like when slaves were kidnapped and brought here.

Not sure what you mean here. Canada doesn't choose its immigrants in that sense. We don't 'go' anywhere. We take what applications we get and process them without regard to what country or region they come from. And the more people come here from one country, the more applications we get from that country.

If we were deciding suitability/best fit for Canada we'd get most of our immigrants from Europe. That is where the most economically successful immigrants come from. And they're likely to come with less cultural baggage and integrate faster.

[Moonbox]

1 minute ago, I am Groot said:

If we were deciding suitability/best fit for Canada we'd get most of our immigrants from Europe. That is where the most economically successful immigrants come from. And they're likely to come with less cultural baggage and integrate faster.

What he's saying (I think) is that things are reasonably good in Europe.  They aren't emigrating en masse.   We are taking Ukrainian refugees, but we're not getting many Danish or Norwegians applying, are we?  

[WestCanMan]

On 2/19/2024 at 4:56 PM, taxme said:

So, we are once again suppose to be celebrating Black History Month. 😇

It's actually "revisionist history month". 

Nothing against black people in general, but the people who are telling all of these stories are the same ones who manufacture things like the "whites were the only slavers ever" theory, the 205 kids in a mass grave narrative, the G Floyd narrative, the covid narrative, the Jussie Smollett narrative, the Jan 6th narrative, the mostly peaceful protest narrative, the Nick Sandman narrative, the Freedom Convoy extremists narrative, etc. 

Nothing that you hear during black history will be more than 33% true.

There will be some names and dates that are correct, but any sentence that starts with "the whiteys did [1] 'it' [2] 'because'" is based on [1] an 'it' that sorta happened but not really, and [2] the because is always a lie. The easiest thing to do in any false story is create your own 'because' and assign it to the people you're writing about.

Case in point, Donald Trump. He could cure cancer and the MSM will say "it's because he's racist". The easiest thing for these liars to lie about is the because and they do it with metronome consistency.  

[Michael Hardner]

56 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

1. We take what applications we get and process them without regard to what country or region they come from. And the more people come here from one country, the more applications we get from that country.

2. If we were deciding suitability/best fit for Canada we'd get most of our immigrants from Europe.

That is where the most economically successful immigrants come from. And they're likely to come with less cultural baggage and integrate faster.

1. Ok, I thought we had different policies per country.  I guess I was confusing Entry Requirements with Economic Migration.  Mea Culpa.

2. Western Europe.

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

What he's saying (I think) is that things are reasonably good in Europe.  They aren't emigrating en masse.   We are taking Ukrainian refugees, but we're not getting many Danish or Norwegians applying, are we?  

Well, I did think they recruited from certain countries which they don't.

I think Black Dog's question moves past assumptions and addresses whether this makes sense or not.

We all know racism exists, we know that American Black culture was born out of slavery, and we know that other groups, who come here voluntarily, do better than average.

But do racially based programs help?  Do they make sense?

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

People think Asian and tend to mean Chinese, Koreans, Thais, and Vietnamese, but technically, Pakistanis are also Asian, as are Afghans and Syrians and Yemenis

Unfortunately. I guess I lucked out, as had exposure to tons of these cultures, via grade school and via business.

Plus, have dated women from Thailand, the Philippines, Cambodia, and so on which also helps.

I consider places like Bali, Bangladesh, and so on when thinking of demographics of those who are considered to be the have nots forgotten by those considering Asians as a whole.

Plus, the women in Bali are next level beautiful. O_o

I had approached some while in Hong Kong, as can usually put a finger on where you're from from features or accent, so was drawing a blank.

I quickly realized there would be a massive language barrier with some.

I also realized why there were so many at bars half naked dressed like they were on a do or die mission, desperately trying to snag wealthy foreigner.

Not surprised to see prostitution rings featuring Asian women, typically featuring typical countries, or women who barely spoke English.

 

[Black Dog]

19 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

That’s your mistake.  The laws and policies aren’t discriminatory, no matter how much you want people to think they are, unless you’re talking about DEI race-based hiring and admissions.

"The laws and policies aren't discriminatory!"

The idea that people weren't discriminated against in hiring before DEI came around is completely at odds with reality.

19 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Like the effort to get women into police forces and fire departments through special recruiting, lowering standards, and special training given to candidates. Or the efforts being made to get women to take STEM courses? Why does it matter if women don't want to be police or geologists?

Because some of them might be good at it and make valuable contributions to their fields? What a dumbass question.

[Black Dog]

12 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Canadians make higher incomes than white Canadians.  Filipino and Southeast asians make less than white Canadians.  Do you think this has to do with their race and how they're treated racially in Canada?

South asians (brown people) in Canada make more than white Canadians but black and hispanic people in Canada make less.  Is this due to how these racial groups are treated in Canada?

No it's partly due to selective recruitment of highly educated Asian immigrants from certain countries.

Quote

 

Why should a caucasian or asian or Jewish person have jobs literally taken from them and given to someone else just because that someone else is black and their family comes from e.g. Jamaica or Somalia etc.  it's not in any way the fault of a caucasian or asian or Jewish job applicant or student that the education and/or socioeconomics in Jamaica or Somalia are not as good as other countries or cultures.

 

I've never actually seen any evidence this happens.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

No it's partly due to selective recruitment of highly educated Asian immigrants from certain countries.

Well that's what I thought but I couldn't find evidence.  Of course we recruit highly educated people, which leads to strange racist tropes like "Chinese people are really good at Math"...

 

But I could not find a cite.

[Zeitgeist]

20 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

"The laws and policies aren't discriminatory!"

The idea that people weren't discriminated against in hiring before DEI came around is completely at odds with reality.

Because some of them might be good at it and make valuable contributions to their fields? What a dumbass question.

You seem to like the idea of government coercion or social engineering, yet you can’t explain why doing so is good or necessary.  Making sure that people who choose to enter a field and who demonstrate that they can do the work have those opportunities open to them is what counts.  Encouraging people to use their talents and take risks is also helpful.  Telling people they should enter a particular profession in order to meet an artificial equity metric with arbitrary targets is problematic for many reasons.

I’m sure there are many women who could be good auto mechanics who would rather do other things.  Simply stating that we need to get the female percentage of auto mechanics to reflect the percentage of female adults in society, throwing money at it as an incentive, and using discriminatory policies that make it easier for women to become auto mechanics and harder for men isn’t necessarily helping men or women. It’s probably a waste of resources, destructive of meritocracy, discriminatory, and arguably coercive.

Edited March 7, 2024 by Zeitgeist

[Black Dog]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

You seem to like the idea of government coercion or social engineering, yet you can’t explain why doing so is good or necessary.  Making sure that people who choose to enter a field and who demonstrate that they can do the work have those opportunities open to them is what counts.  Encouraging people to use their talents and take risks is also helpful. 

Well the issue is a lot of fields (STEM for example) have done a poor job of providing those opportunities on their own.

Quote

Telling people they should enter a particular profession in order to meet an artificial equity metric with arbitrary targets is problematic for many reasons.

 

No one is doing that.

Quote

I’m sure there are many women who could be good auto mechanics who would rather do other things.  Simply stating that we need to get the female percentage of auto mechanics to reflect the percentage of female adults in society, throwing money at it as an incentive, and using discriminatory policies that make it easier for women to become auto mechanics and harder for men isn’t necessarily helping men or women. It’s probably a waste of resources, destructive of meritocracy, discriminatory, and arguably coercive.

And there's women who want to be auto mechanics who don't become auto mechanics because that's a field that has been hostile to women. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well that's what I thought but I couldn't find evidence.  Of course we recruit highly educated people, which leads to strange racist tropes like "Chinese people are really good at Math"...

 

But I could not find a cite.

Recruitment isn't the right words so much as the people who choose to immigrate from these societies are ones with the resources to do so. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

"Chinese people are really good at Math"...

But they are. They literally are.

You don't have engineering that runs laps around anything the US could ever dream of, without having a nation full of gifted engineers. Some of the world's best.

Literally the top countries regarding math, are mostly southeast Asian.

How is it racist if its true?

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

No it's partly due to selective recruitment of highly educated Asian immigrants from certain countries.

You're clearly reaching. 

Pakistan was lower on the list than India. I dare you to tell someone from Pakistan apart from someone from India from appearance alone.

It would be like telling an Indonesian apart from a Filipino.

My wife told me this was racist, then I challenged her. She couldn't. 😭

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

And there's women who want to be auto mechanics who don't become auto mechanics because that's a field that has been hostile to women. 

I worked in offices that were hostile to me. Whats your point.

You're in a male dominated environment. Grow a set, or go back to baking.

I had to suck it up, working with catty women, adapted and earned their respect.

If a woman's work speaks for itself, respect will follow.

Giving her a job because she has a vagina, is a low qualifications bar to set.

[herbie]

19 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

woman's work

Woman's work performance is what I hope you meant.

Using the term 'women's work' negates any argument made after the nineteenth century.
Know female truck drivers, tire service and processor operators, auto mechanics in their 20s and women that work the sawmill lines because they were as good as or better than some men.
And many in the tech field.

And the only black woman I know is a school principal.

Edited March 7, 2024 by herbie

[Black Dog]

21 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

You're clearly reaching. 

Pakistan was lower on the list than India. I dare you to tell someone from Pakistan apart from someone from India from appearance alone.

It would be like telling an Indonesian apart from a Filipino.

My wife told me this was racist, then I challenged her. She couldn't. 😭

What does that have to do with anything we're talking about.

19 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

I worked in offices that were hostile to me. Whats your point.

You're in a male dominated environment. Grow a set, or go back to baking.

I had to suck it up, working with catty women, adapted and earned their respect.

If a woman's work speaks for itself, respect will follow.

Exhibit A for why DEI programs are needed. What a caveman.

Quote

Giving her a job because she has a vagina, is a low qualifications bar to set.

It's fascinating that you assume a woman couldn't be qualified on merit. Does that apply to different races as well?