Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
The Use of Racist Language (and Canada)
D-Card
Registered User
Registered User
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/08/canada-minorities.html
Basically, the committee called Canada out on its use of the term "visible minorities" as an official government classification. It also mentioned inferior treatment of First Nations citizens and police agression towards Blacks.
Now, I found the language point to be very interesting. I have grown up with the term "visible minority" in common usage, and I never really batted an eye at it. I also never thought that it really applied to me, even though I suppose it technically does. However, now that I think about it, it is kind of...racist. As in, it singles out "them peoples what look different" from the Europeans.
Anyways, what are your thoughts on this, or language like this in general? Do the classifications the government gives us have any meaningful effect? Does it affect our perceptions of each other, or does it reflect perceptions already in place? Is it all just a big Stephen Harper conspiracy?
the article wrote:Canada should reconsider using the term "visible minorities" to define people facing discrimination, a United Nations anti-racism watchdog reports, suggesting the phrase itself is discriminatory.
Among those is the use of the term "visible minorities," which the committee says "may not be in accordance with the aims and objectives of the Convention."
The convention is the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which says distinction based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin is discriminatory.
It calls on Canada to "reflect further" on the use of the term visible minorities.
Basically, the committee called Canada out on its use of the term "visible minorities" as an official government classification. It also mentioned inferior treatment of First Nations citizens and police agression towards Blacks.
Now, I found the language point to be very interesting. I have grown up with the term "visible minority" in common usage, and I never really batted an eye at it. I also never thought that it really applied to me, even though I suppose it technically does. However, now that I think about it, it is kind of...racist. As in, it singles out "them peoples what look different" from the Europeans.
Anyways, what are your thoughts on this, or language like this in general? Do the classifications the government gives us have any meaningful effect? Does it affect our perceptions of each other, or does it reflect perceptions already in place? Is it all just a big Stephen Harper conspiracy?
D-Card on
Posts
European immigrants and their descendants tend to have very different experiences when compared to people from a visible minority. The whole DWB racial profiling thing is a perfect example of this.
So, when I say Negro now, people act as if I'm committing some sort of atrocity, and I don't let it get to me. After spending a few years around that sort of element, I've learned that they find any term that acknlowledges the racial differences between us to be offensive.
Maybe others see it differently, but it seems to me that they're trying to tip-toe around the fact that we are different. In my book, that's more offensive than some arbritrary word.
Second, I can understand finding visible minority offensive as it suggests a difference between visible minorities and other minorities who, by contrast, must be invisible. This suggests a lack of importance and also precludes their protection under the visible minority law.
Interestingly enough, if everyone was afforded equal protection under every law, this wouldn't be an issue. But equal protection for everyone would just be racist, wouldn't it?
Well, it never used to have any negative connotations. It's what the blacks themselves preferred to be called. And then one day they decided they preferred "black", and that if you called them "negroes" you were a racist.
Whee, labels.
Re: the OP, "visible minorities" is a useful and non-racist term, and the UN can eat a dick.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
Like Grid System said, we are not going to start listing off half of the countries on the planet whenever referring to non-caucasians.
Was it a slow day at the U.N. or something? Don't they have more important stuff they could be doing?
Which gives rise to qualified applicants being overlooked because the quota requires another minority of some sort and sometimes, the minority applicant isn't the best candidate for the job. Unless you're suggesting that the minority applicant is always the best candidate?
AN IMPASSE!
Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: WaffleMous#1483
Personally, it bothers me. Realistically, I see why they have/use the term. People need to come to grips with that fact that sometimes, just soemtimes, something that bothers you isn't actually wrong/evil thus requiring a permaban.
Quotas haven't been legal in the United States since the 70s.
my unofficial autobio will be accompanied with tips on how to smile
cause I've found that when they don't see you frown, they never know that you're a threat
and they don't sweat you when you came around
Yet people still do it. Oh well, tough luck brownies!
Also, the government always acts in your best interest, political lobbys are benevolent in nature, and businesses operate solely to benefit their customers.
As for people discriminating in hiring practices, yes, they still do it. However, it isn't to the detriment of the better qualified minority candidate. That individual still gets a job somewhere. It's to the short-term benefit of the less qualified candidate who is hired and the short and long term detriment of the discriminating company. Unless your assertion is that every HR person everywhere is racist, being more qualified means getting the job.
I suppose it's always nice to be able to claim racism, though.
But one thing I've always disliked has been identity politics.
Being turned down for a job isn't to a person's detriment? Well I never. And I didn't call you a racist; don't play the anti-racist card on me.
Personally, I really don't care what people use as labels -- colours (black, white, brown, yellow, red), nationalities (Jamaican, Scottish, Indian, Chinese, Native), regions (African, European, South Asian, East Asian, Native), or hyphens (African-Canadian, European-Canadian, South Asian-Canadian, East Asian-Canadian, Native-American). I've heard that the terms "yellow" and "red" are now offensive, though.
It's hard to keep up!
Honestly, as someone in biology, I wish we didn't have to use these unscientific labels, but I realize it's necessary for describing someone to the police, pointing someone out in a crowd using the least amount of words possible, etc. But I don't even have a label for myself! My mom is from Guyana, and my dad is from Sri Lanka. What the hell do I call myself? Mixed? Brown? Black? I tend to stick with Canadian, thank ye. I know very little of my parents' cultures, I hate curry to death (the smell, taste), I speak with a General American accent, so if no one knew exactly how I looked, I would be labeled white. Yet, based on how I look, the UN is pressuring the government to come up with a new label for me, and therefore I am entitled to different treatment based on that. Hell, I don't care if that treatment is beneficial, I don't want it. I want everyone to be treated on how they act, not how they look. Sounds cliché, but it's what a lot of us "coloured people" want.
Just when you think we're progressing, too.
Pokeymanz: 4081 1995 6825 (If you add me, let me know!
I like that.
I don't think the U.N. is looking for a new label at all - rather, it sounds like you and the U.N. are on the same page. They don't want people singled out for being different either, even if it does carry benefits.
Oh yeah, I feel like a moran now. You know when you're reading something, and you either: read the same line twice, or, think you've already read that line, so you skip it? Yeah, the latter happened to me.
I guess my I like sticking it to the man instinct took over!
Okay, I'll complain about the government. I think they're out to get me. On the census form from last year that I filled out for us online, they forced me to choose four ancestral countries for my parents. I kept trying to go to the next section, but everytime I clicked NEXT, it would tell me in red letters I'd have to enter four countries to proceed. So I just stuck in a bunch of countries like Libya, Vietnam, Nepal, Scotland for my parents.
Two weeks later, they're forcing me to take part in a Statistics Canada phone poll every month. Damn gummyment.
The real point of my newer post was to complain about how they force us to choose four countries, even if we have no damn clue. We have to be labeled, it doesn't matter what we choose, as long as it's convenient. I wish they'd, at the most, just ask where our parents came from, and leave it at that.
Pokeymanz: 4081 1995 6825 (If you add me, let me know!
Strangely enough, someone can come up to me and call me some of the worst derogitary terms relating to my aboriginal heritage, and I'd probably just laugh it off.
But call me "canadian"? Oh no, that I cannot abide.
Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: WaffleMous#1483
-canadian from toronto
Because they are retarded. Honestly, they did not think this one all the way through when they brought it up at the big U.N. table.
Now, I don't think it's that huge a deal but can sort of see the merit in the U.N.'s statement - mainly because, like I mentioned before, I don't very much like identity politics to begin with (which is what the term "visible minority" caters to).
I don't really have a solution to this, though. I suppose you could identify by geographic extraction...But what constitutes an Asian? Is it someone from China? India? Russia? What about a European? A Swede or a Sicilian? Blah. I'm with AJ on this one; identity politics are the suck.
I couldn't agree more.
I also don't see any reason why white minorities can't be included under "visible minorities".
The Italian population in Toronto? Visible minority. French population? Visible minority.
Seriously, what's the UN gonna do, issue a harshly worded memo?
Seriously though, there's not too much difference between "visible minorities" and "them people that's not like us" other than the former sounds prettier.
It's funny how people are railing against the U.N. over this because their stance is perceived as being nothing but namby-pamby extreme political correctness. In reality, the U.N.'s argument is the complete opposite - that our use of "visible minority" is an unnecessary and potentially counter-productive/harmful attempt at political correctness.
"Visible minority" is close to being Canada's equivalent to "affirmative action" - but because it is so broad, the U.N. is saying that it's a poor policy that emphasises division and "differentness".
edit: my point is that you can tell people are a different culture despite the fact that they aren't brown.
Well, now that we're into semantics, "discrimination" applies to any technique that can excise a portion group from the total sample pool. So I guess "Penny Arcade Forum Goers" and "hey, you there!" are discriminatory statements.
But I'm being stupid, go on.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Statistics Canada:
Visible minority -
Chinese
South Asian (e.g., East Indian, Pakistani, Punjabi, Sri Lankan)
Black (e.g., African, Haitian, Jamaican, Somali)
Arab/West Asian (e.g., Armenian, Egyptian, Iranian, Lebanese, Moroccan)
Filipino
South East Asian (e.g., Cambodian, Indonesian, Laotian, Vietnamese)
Latin American
Japanese
Korean
Other
I'm just going to keep on thinking the whole thing is retarded though.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
There are many "invisible" minorities. But if nobody -realizes- that you're a minority, they're not going to treat you as a minority.
Armenians, for example. When and where they are visible (some have very distinct features), they tend to take a lot of flak.
Others, nobody realizes they're not just British-blooded people who happen to have a slightly largish nose, maybe from getting hit by a basketball once.
People who can pass still feel the effects of racial disempowerment--a lot of which just have to do with feeling alienation from popular culture, negative self-image, and so on.
Yes, but that's also what most teenagers and sub-culturists feel as well.
Invisible minorities have social issues, yes.
Visible minorities have -economic- issues.
One is slightly more immediate.