Almost any discussion about racism is pointless because it's almost always based on political correctness, dogmas, propaganda and self-evident truths that nobody has bothered to question. Even the word itself is never properly defined. When you really get to the bottom of it, you find that almost all of the "racism" supposedly practised today is not racism at all, while things that could pass off as racism (either in the loose or strict sense of the word) are ignored for various reasons. I've also noticed that some of the biggest racists are actually those who are always accusing others of racism and preaching endlessly about tolerance. For instance, when the subject is about cultural differences, they quickly turn it into a race issue, because they think it's about race. Strangely enough, that doesn't stop them from pointing out that all races are the same and there are no practical biological differences between them, even though they just effectively argued that cultural differences = racial differences. These same people may also advocate affirmative action, AKA treating people differently based on their race.
I've heard the term all the time growing up in Canada. I never found it racist, nor did I stop to think if it were racist.
Upon stopping and thinking now, I still don't see how it can be racist. That's essentially like saying the term "caucasian" is racist because it means people are "different", somehow.
It's a bit much, I think, and similar to what ElJeffe said, the UN can go eat a bag of dicks.
Well, if the Iranians were asking people to identify as "non-Shi'ite" on census forms and job applications eveyone would be up in arms over it.
We have always gotten away with it of course because the intentions have been benign - employment equity and things like that. Again, the language isn't racist like the thread title suggests - it's about as neutral and non-offensive as you can get - it's merely the implications of this kind of government policy.
Am I the only one who sees the problem with this term? Shit, just eliminate the "visible" part and it's fine.
For those who can't seem to grasp it -- are white people not "visibly" white? Like, when you see a white person, you don't notice their whiteness by sight? Or let's say there's a majority black neighborhood in Toronto, they are then the "visible" minorities and the white people are just white? It defines white as the neutral, basic state of being, something that we "don't notice" (yeah right) and then everyone who is non-white is suddenly "visible" for their difference.
If there's one thing the feminists really nailed its how minor language patterns can really have a profound effect on culture and identity. I'm actually a little shocked that everyone here is so quick to dismiss the UN's completely valid concern, and that no one has strongly asserted that "visible minority" is indeed a problematic term.
And really, what would the term lose if you just said "minority"? Nothing.
Am I the only one who sees the problem with this term? Shit, just eliminate the "visible" part and it's fine.
For those who can't seem to grasp it -- are white people not "visibly" white? Like, when you see a white person, you don't notice their whiteness by sight? Or let's say there's a majority black neighborhood in Toronto, they are then the "visible" minorities and the white people are just white? It defines white as the neutral, basic state of being, something that we "don't notice" (yeah right) and then everyone who is non-white is suddenly "visible" for their difference.
I'd say this is more a problem with the word "minority" than the word "visible." Either way, there's no way to talk about minorities et. al. without carrying the implication that there is a majority against which they are being compared.
If there's one thing the feminists really nailed its how minor language patterns can really have a profound effect on culture and identity.
Yeah, if by "nailed" you mean similar to way one would "nail" a fly on your friend's forehead with a sledgehammer. Yes, it's good to recognize that words carry implicit connotations, but at the same time you can never avoid implicit connotations, so trying to carefully build awkward connotation-neutral constructions can easily become futile and annoying.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I'd say this is more a problem with the word "minority" than the word "visible." Either way, there's no way to talk about minorities et. al. without carrying the implication that there is a majority against which they are being compared.
Yeah, fine -- minority is a term which delineates difference, but I'm sorry I agree with the UN that "visible minority" is racist. It defines whiteness as invisible, and everything else as something which you simply can't help but see.
No, I'm sorry -- white people are visibly white just as much as latinos are visibly brown, I mean what the hell? The term itself draws undue attention to a person's physical appearance, which is really not at all what these things are supposed to be drawing attention to.
Yeah, if by "nailed" you mean similar to way one would "nail" a fly on your friend's forehead with a sledgehammer. Yes, it's good to recognize that words carry implicit connotations, but at the same time you can never avoid implicit connotations, so trying to carefully build awkward connotation-neutral constructions can easily become futile and annoying.
Oh right, feminists, we're supposed to hate them. Look, back in the 1950s and 1960s there was a lot of language usage which -- YES -- had a rather profound effect on our culture, and it was largely the feminists who did the necessary arguing to bring these types of issues appropriately to our attention. I'm at work so I don't really have the time or the inclination to look up all the relevant info, but long and short of it they once did a study where they presented a story with all the pronouns blank in it to like first graders and asked them to fill in the pronouns. Overwhelmingly the students filled them in with masculine pronouns. I hope you can also see how first-graders already swallowing these gendered identity roles could prove a problem further down the line.
The Green Eyed Monster on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I'd say this is more a problem with the word "minority" than the word "visible." Either way, there's no way to talk about minorities et. al. without carrying the implication that there is a majority against which they are being compared.
Yeah, fine -- minority is a term which delineates difference, but I'm sorry I agree with the UN that "visible minority" is racist. It defines whiteness as invisible, and everything else as something which you simply can't help but see.
No, I'm sorry -- white people are visibly white just as much as latinos are visibly brown, I mean what the hell? The term itself draws undue attention to a person's physical appearance, which is really not at all what these things are supposed to be drawing attention to.
Traditionally, a great deal of discrimination has been based upon visible racial characteristics. "German Americans" might be a minority in the US, but don't really face the same hurdles that "African Americans" do. The term "visible" is not meant to imply that some minorities are invisible, but rather that some minorities carry distinct visible physical traits.
That is, a white guy would be a visible minority in Uganda.
Traditionally, a great deal of discrimination has been based upon visible racial characteristics. "German Americans" might be a minority in the US, but don't really face the same hurdles that "African Americans" do. The term "visible" is not meant to imply that some minorities are invisible, but rather that some minorities carry distinct visible physical traits.
That is, a white guy would be a visible minority in Uganda.
Right -- white people also carry distinct visible traits, which is why it's stupid to say one is the majority, and on is the visibly minority. You could say one is the visible majority, and one is the visible minority, but then that would just be redundant, and would go back to my point that they should just drop the "visible" part.
The other point is that because race has been rather safely defined in any intelligent person's mind as more of a construct than a real genetic happening, we've since moved to this idea of "ethnicity". If we are then ostensibly tracking people based on cultural traits which differentiate us, why highlight the "visible" part of it? Why not just say (and really, this is what everyone else does that the UN isn't criticizing -- Canada no need to be so defensive) Chinese, Mexican, Native-American, British-Canadian, French-Canadian, etc. etc. instead of "visible minority" which just draws undue attention to outmoded ideas about race and genetics.
I'd say this is more a problem with the word "minority" than the word "visible." Either way, there's no way to talk about minorities et. al. without carrying the implication that there is a majority against which they are being compared.
Yeah, fine -- minority is a term which delineates difference, but I'm sorry I agree with the UN that "visible minority" is racist. It defines whiteness as invisible, and everything else as something which you simply can't help but see.
Not really. First of all let's accept the fact that the majority of people in Canada are caucasian. This means that people of other skin tones are in the minority. Since we see with our eyes and not with our butts, there is nothing wrong with the term 'visible minority' since it is the most efficient, and least discriminatory way to identify those who are most likely to be singled out because "thems is different from us".
Right -- white people also carry distinct visible traits, which is why it's stupid to say one is the majority, and on is the visibly minority. You could say one is the visible majority, and one is the visible minority, but then that would just be redundant, and would go back to my point that they should just drop the "visible" part.
I actually think that adding the word "visible" in front sort of softens the term "minority".
The other point is that because race has been rather safely defined in any intelligent person's mind as more of a construct than a real genetic happening, we've since moved to this idea of "ethnicity". If we are then ostensibly tracking people based on cultural traits which differentiate us, why highlight the "visible" part of it?
My guess is because it's the Number 1 thing that instigates racism. They look different than us.
Why not just say (and really, this is what everyone else does that the UN isn't criticizing -- Canada no need to be so defensive) Chinese, Mexican, Native-American, British-Canadian, French-Canadian, etc. etc. instead of "visible minority" which just draws undue attention to outmoded ideas about race and genetics.
Because we would be listing half of the world nations each time, which would be a waste of ink and paper. Think of the environment, man!
I just think the whole thing is a waste of time - there are more important things for the U.N. to worry about.
Dortmunder on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Traditionally, a great deal of discrimination has been based upon visible racial characteristics. "German Americans" might be a minority in the US, but don't really face the same hurdles that "African Americans" do. The term "visible" is not meant to imply that some minorities are invisible, but rather that some minorities carry distinct visible physical traits.
That is, a white guy would be a visible minority in Uganda.
Right -- white people also carry distinct visible traits, which is why it's stupid to say one is the majority, and on is the visibly minority. You could say one is the visible majority, and one is the visible minority, but then that would just be redundant, and would go back to my point that they should just drop the "visible" part.
I suspect that the intent of Canada's wording is to draw a distinction between a "visible minorities" with physically distinct traits (like dark skin etc.) and "invisible minorities" generally without distinct physical traits (like French Canadians).
The other point is that because race has been rather safely defined in any intelligent person's mind as more of a construct than a real genetic happening, we've since moved to this idea of "ethnicity". If we are then ostensibly tracking people based on cultural traits which differentiate us, why highlight the "visible" part of it? Why not just say (and really, this is what everyone else does that the UN isn't criticizing -- Canada no need to be so defensive) Chinese, Mexican, Native-American, British-Canadian, French-Canadian, etc. etc. instead of "visible minority" which just draws undue attention to outmoded ideas about race and genetics.
The reason that I object on some level to the redefinition of all this hoo-hah into terms of "ethnicity" is because the heart of racism often is that someone has physically distinct visual traits which have nothing to do with their breeding, nationality, language, culture, or anything else.
I mean - it strikes me as a bunch of liberal academicians wanting to define racism out of existence.
Yeah, if by "nailed" you mean similar to way one would "nail" a fly on your friend's forehead with a sledgehammer.
Oh right, feminists, we're supposed to hate them.
I don't hate feminists. I just think it's easy to take semantic & semiotic deconstruction a little too far. It's better to be aware of the limitations in our language and how they affect our thinking than believe that we can construct a magic language of precisely connotation-free words.
I find the phrase "visible minority" a little silly anyway. What's wrong with "ethnic minority?" Is this mostly a Canuckism?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The other point is that because race has been rather safely defined in any intelligent person's mind as more of a construct than a real genetic happening, we've since moved to this idea of "ethnicity". If we are then ostensibly tracking people based on cultural traits which differentiate us, why highlight the "visible" part of it? Why not just say (and really, this is what everyone else does that the UN isn't criticizing -- Canada no need to be so defensive) Chinese, Mexican, Native-American, British-Canadian, French-Canadian, etc. etc. instead of "visible minority" which just draws undue attention to outmoded ideas about race and genetics.
The reason that I object on some level to the redefinition of all this hoo-hah into terms of "ethnicity" is because the heart of racism often is that someone has physically distinct visual traits which have nothing to do with their breeding, nationality, language, culture, or anything else.
I mean - it strikes me as a bunch of liberal academicians wanting to define racism out of existence.
Sorry I can't fully respond to everyone, I'm at work and I just want to do this one quickly because it's easy.
This is along the lines of saying "we say 'mailman' because mail carriers often are men." It's justifying problematic language by saying its supported by problematic behavior. The whole point is that language is easy to change and can demonstrably have a real effect on people's sub-conscious ideas and attitudes, and thus it's a positive thing to make our language reflect our better ideas and not necessarily our poor behavior.
And the "liberal academician" thing is a misguided jab. Liberal academicians love to talk about racism, it's exactly them who are calling this term racist. It's just that they also support the platform of avoiding language which re-enforces cultural assumptions and values that they disagree with.
Every time I see the phrase "visible minority" I imagine a stereotypical flaming gay man wearing tight pants and a pink scarf gesticulating excitedly. I mean, he's a minority and it's visible, right?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Here's the thing. I'm a Canadian, born in 88. The vast majority of my generation doesn't give two shits about race, orientation or religion. Most of my friends who could be considered "minorities" don't care what you call them, as long as it's not a slur.
Someone called my one friend African-American, and she nearly bit his head off. Her mom's from Jamaica, and she was born in Canada. I think the problem here is that the colour of your skin no longer indicates where you're from, or even what culture you're used to. It was convenient when white people were from Europe and black people were from Africa, but it's not that way anymore. For all intents and purposes, almost all of my friends are very "Western," but by no means are all of them "white." Hell, if you talked to some of them on the phone you'd never be able to guess the colour of their skin.
In the end, I agree with getting rid of the term "visible minority" in the legal system and just calling it like it is. The term is pretty much dividing things between "white & aboriginal" and "other." The way things are going here, it's not like whites are the majority by a whole lot. They say we'll be a minority in some cities in the next decade or two.
PS., In some parts of Waterloo, anyone who isn't Asian is already the visible minority. When I go there, I immediately feel dumber, and not as good at video games.
I'm wondering about this CBC story. Is it the media, or the report itself that seems be making a bigger deal out of semantic douchebaggery than the real discrimination that still goes on in Canada.
The vast over-representation of First Nations people in the prison system is just sort of chucked in at the end of the story as an afterthought.
The other point is that because race has been rather safely defined in any intelligent person's mind as more of a construct than a real genetic happening, we've since moved to this idea of "ethnicity".
I'm guessing that the undercurrent in this sentence implies that anyone who does not agree that race is a social construct is a dumb racist and possibly a Nazi as well. This is another problem with discussions about racism: it's always a moral issue, and if you want to be a good person, you'll believe in the correct self-evident truth. If you believe in dogma X, you're a good person, and if you believe anything else, you're plotting an ethnic cleansing. I use the word "dogma" because that's what it really is.
This dogma isn't enforced with much consistency. It's acceptable to say that black people are bigger and stronger than white people, and better at many sports. It's acceptable to say that Japanese (or Asian) people are smarter than white people. The latter belief of course establishes that some people are more intelligent than others, so there would be no reason to think that black people couldn't be less intelligent than white people. This, of course, is completely unacceptable, and morally wrong.
It's not really about science or logic, it's about white liberal guilt and the general hysteria surrounding the subject.
My guess is because it's the Number 1 thing that instigates racism. They look different than us.
How would you define racism? I'm asking because in 99% of the cases where I've seen someone accused of racism (or where I've been accused of it), it hasn't been a race issue at all. While there are people who hate others simply because they look different, I doubt this is the leading cause of "racism." In most cases it a) is not about race, and b) has logical and rational reasons behind it. Unfortunately, when a cultural group that happens to consist of non-white people is distrusted or even hated, people immediately assume that the distrust must be a result of their race (but, if the group is white, then the race variable ceases to exist for some reason).
Distinguishing someone by skin color is offensive, I guess, to a lot of people. Primarily, it's calling someone black.
White is okay.
What the hell are you talking about? What is everyone talking about?
This discussion is about the difference between the terms "minority" and "visible minority." The UN has not declared census taking racist. The US has not declared the recogniztion of ethnic differens as racist. The UN has not declared the term minority racist. The US has simply said that "visible minority" is problematic because it defines white people as invisible or normal, and other ethnicities as being somehow suddenly "visible" where white ethnicity isn't. It furthers the tradition of defining European traits as "normal" and everything else as "other."
So yes, get all upset because -- no wait, never mind, don't do that, because you're getting upset about some this that isn't even in the fucking discussion.
The other point is that because race has been rather safely defined in any intelligent person's mind as more of a construct than a real genetic happening, we've since moved to this idea of "ethnicity".
I'm guessing that the undercurrent in this sentence implies that anyone who does not agree that race is a social construct is a dumb racist and possibly a Nazi as well. This is another problem with discussions about racism: it's always a moral issue, and if you want to be a good person, you'll believe in the correct self-evident truth. If you believe in dogma X, you're a good person, and if you believe anything else, you're plotting an ethnic cleansing. I use the word "dogma" because that's what it really is.
This dogma isn't enforced with much consistency. It's acceptable to say that black people are bigger and stronger than white people, and better at many sports. It's acceptable to say that Japanese (or Asian) people are smarter than white people. The latter belief of course establishes that some people are more intelligent than others, so there would be no reason to think that black people couldn't be less intelligent than white people. This, of course, is completely unacceptable, and morally wrong.
It's not really about science or logic, it's about white liberal guilt and the general hysteria surrounding the subject.
For putting words in my mouth, I'm not going to be polite -- no, the undercurrent in my sentence doesn't imply anything about Nazis or ethnic cleansinig, dumb-ass.
Secondly, the part I've chosen to color salmon is not acceptable to say, where the fuck are you getting this shit? It's exactly those types of racial and ethnic stereotypes that most people "hysteric" with liberal guilt would emphatically disagree with. They're based on stereotypes, nothing more, nothing less. It's pure horse shit man.
How would you define racism? I'm asking because in 99% of the cases where I've seen someone accused of racism (or where I've been accused of it), it hasn't been a race issue at all. While there are people who hate others simply because they look different, I doubt this is the leading cause of "racism." In most cases it a) is not about race, and b) has logical and rational reasons behind it. Unfortunately, when a cultural group that happens to consist of non-white people is distrusted or even hated, people immediately assume that the distrust must be a result of their race (but, if the group is white, then the race variable ceases to exist for some reason).
I don't understand your point at all and your question is overly leading. I use the same definition of racism as most anyone else, do you want me to post a dictionary term? I think it's something along the lines of "someone being discriminated against because of their ethnic or racial group".
I've not read the thread in full, but I wanted to chip in and say that I find absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out that people are, in fact, different. It's perfectly okay to refer to a group as 'the blacks,' for example, or to say that white people in general might be better suited than others for a covert mission to the Arctic. It's when we start attributing negative or positive factors to those differences, based on nothing but assumption, that you start getting on shaky ground.
Willeth on
@vgreminders - Don't miss out on timed events in gaming! @gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
Well, I was trying to come up with something that would mean that the colour of their skin would actually make a difference. In a covert mission, the white guy's going to be harder to spot.
Willeth on
@vgreminders - Don't miss out on timed events in gaming! @gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
How would you define racism? I'm asking because in 99% of the cases where I've seen someone accused of racism (or where I've been accused of it), it hasn't been a race issue at all. While there are people who hate others simply because they look different, I doubt this is the leading cause of "racism." In most cases it a) is not about race, and b) has logical and rational reasons behind it. Unfortunately, when a cultural group that happens to consist of non-white people is distrusted or even hated, people immediately assume that the distrust must be a result of their race (but, if the group is white, then the race variable ceases to exist for some reason).
I don't understand your point at all and your question is overly leading.
Actually I think that was a question for me. I would define racism as treating someone differently (negatively) because they are racially different from you. And the easiest way to identify someone as being racially different from yourself is by the way they look.
Which, by the way, is also why I think the term 'visible minority' is fine. It distinguishes from 'religious minority' or 'criminal minority' or any other kind of minority you want, and it identifies those who are most likely to be discriminated against (from us white folk) because of the colour of their skin.
Why the fuck is the white guy naked and bald in the snow?
Yeah, it was a bad example, but I know you can still see my point. There are always going to be situations where certain people's race or natural ability will make them more suited to a task than others. That's something to be embraced, not avoided because of overt political correctness.
Willeth on
@vgreminders - Don't miss out on timed events in gaming! @gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
For putting words in my mouth, I'm not going to be polite -- no, the undercurrent in my sentence doesn't imply anything about Nazis or ethnic cleansinig, dumb-ass.
I think I was making a very reasonable assumption because most people have that exact undercurrent in their posts.
Secondly, the part I've chosen to color salmon is not acceptable to say, where the fuck are you getting this shit? It's exactly those types of racial and ethnic stereotypes that most people "hysteric" with liberal guilt would emphatically disagree with. They're based on stereotypes, nothing more, nothing less. It's pure horse shit man.
In my experience those things are acceptable to say. At the very least they are much more acceptable than saying that black people are less intelligent and so forth. The idea seems to be that racial differences can be acknowledged if they are not negative towards non-whites.
I don't understand your point at all and your question is overly leading. I use the same definition of racism as most anyone else, do you want me to post a dictionary term? I think it's something along the lines of "someone being discriminated against because of their ethnic or racial group".
Most anyone else does not actually use that definition. Even when a person is criticizing a culture, he is accused of racism. Even when a person is objecting to the behavior of a cultural group, he is accused of racism. Even when he has clearly articulated rational reasons for his opinions, he is a dumb, irrational racist. The word "racism" has been misused so badly that it can no longer be taken seriously.
It's when we start attributing negative or positive factors to those differences, based on nothing but assumption, that you start getting on shaky ground.
Why the fuck is the white guy naked and bald in the snow?
Yeah, it was a bad example, but I know you can still see my point. There are always going to be situations where certain people's race or natural ability will make them more suited to a task than others. That's something to be embraced, not avoided because of overt political correctness.
An individual's natural ability cannot be judged by their race.
Or do I need to introduce you to the fucking gigantic Chinese guy whose arms are so long he could reach in to a dolphin's stomach.
Because, you know, Asians are short and tiny.
Just because a racial group tends to have a feature does not mean you can safely assume INDIVIDUALS of that race have that feature.
Just because a racial group tends to have a feature does not mean you can safely assume INDIVIDUALS of that race have that feature.
Of course not, but that isn't racism. Now, this would never happen, but let's say that we know the stereotype that, in general, most Asians are better mathematicians than other races to be fact. If, then, I need to employ someone to work closely with numbers, and I have to choose from a group of people about whom I know nothing other than their race, would I be wrong to choose the Asian? Simply logically, he has a greater chance of being able to do the job well than any other candidate.
I realise this is an incredibly simplistic and reductionist way of looking at it, and I'm aware that it is really not as simple in the real world. But what I'm trying (and struggling) to illustrate is that a person's race CAN influence their behaviour, their skills and so on, and that's not something to be ignored for the sake of political correctness.
Willeth on
@vgreminders - Don't miss out on timed events in gaming! @gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
They used to think that being JEWISH gave you an unfair advantage in basketball, and that they were the natural players of the sport.
Because they lived in ghettos. They were poor so they needed a game that was easy to play without a large area. What do you know, blacks are now living in ghettos and are considered good at basketball. Coincidence?
Just because a racial group tends to have a feature does not mean you can safely assume INDIVIDUALS of that race have that feature.
Of course not, but that isn't racism.
It is, you are ascribing traits to a racially discriminated subset of the population. (as in the proper meaning of discrimination).
Now, this would never happen, but let's say that we know the stereotype that, in general, most Asians are better mathematicians than other races to be fact. If, then, I need to employ someone to work closely with numbers, and I have to choose from a group of people about whom I know nothing other than their race, would I be wrong to choose the Asian? Simply logically, he has a greater chance of being able to do the job well than any other candidate.
I realise this is an incredibly simplistic and reductionist way of looking at it, and I'm aware that it is really not as simple in the real world. But what I'm trying (and struggling) to illustrate is that a person's race CAN influence their behaviour, their skills and so on...
Are you actually stating that you believe a person's race influences their abilities? Or are you stating that the average members of different racial groups would likely have different culturally reinforced strengths?
Because the two are wildly different.
As for
and that's not something to be ignored for the sake of political correctness.
It's not about political correctness, it's about morality and ethics, and the commitments governments have and have made to racial equality.
Sure one can think up a hypothetical where racial discrimination would make sense, but you yourself stated that such an event could never occur. Any such choice if made in a real life situation would nearly always be harmful, and could be replaced by an evaluation and discrimination based on something slightly more relevant (perhaps mathematical ability?)
Are you actually stating that you believe a person's race influences their abilities? Or are you stating that the average members of different racial groups would likely have different culturally reinforced strengths?
Because the two are wildly different.
If I had to pick, it'd be the latter.
I'm really too sleep deprived to make a decent case right now, as I had a counterpoint a second ago and it's just completely leaked out of my head. I will say, though, that my point about political correctness has value - on a job application form, for example, you more often than not have to give your ethnicity and background.
Surely this should not be necessary. If a person can do a job better than another, then it shouldn't matter what race they are. But if it turns out that if 10 white people and 10 black people applied for 12 jobs, and 3 white people and 9 black people got them, because they were the best candidates, then great. But if the company needs to hire equal amounts of each race in order to be PC, then what happens? People who are better suited to the job miss out. The company's productivity is worse that it could have been.
Willeth on
@vgreminders - Don't miss out on timed events in gaming! @gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
True, but let us pretend for a second that all races are not equally represented by society (it is really not that difficult at all) and that A) There exists inherent bias in the system against some minorities (e.g. employers less likely to possibly hire them) The reason for being under-represented in "the system" is historical disenfranchisement.
Could it not be argued that it would make sense to provide greater aid to those belonging to minorities in need, to both counterbalance the inequality of society at large, and to try and integrate such people into all levels of society so such discrimination ends?
I'm not claiming that it should be, I honestly don't know. But it is a valid position to take.
If a person can do a job better than another, then it shouldn't matter what race they are.
Abso-fucking-lutely. Regardless of whether the profession in question math teacher or arctic explorer or anything else.
But if it turns out that if 10 white people and 10 black people applied for 12 jobs, and 3 white people and 9 black people got them, because they were the best candidates, then great. But if the company needs to hire equal amounts of each race in order to be PC, then what happens?
Nothing good.
But what if 10 white and 10 black people apply for 12 jobs. 5 of the black people and 7 of the white people are the most qualified for the position, however the company when left to its own devices would higher 9 white people and 3 black people. Then what happens?
What if the government insists on the company hiring six of each color, then what happens?
Could it not be argued that it would make sense to provide greater aid to those belonging to minorities in need, to both counterbalance the inequality of society at large, and to try and integrate such people into all levels of society so such discrimination ends?
I think that would probably end up tipping the scales the other way, to be honest. That's not equality, that's forced inequality.
But what if 10 white and 10 black people apply for 12 jobs. 5 of the black people and 7 of the white people are the most qualified for the position, however the company when left to its own devices would higher 9 white people and 3 black people. Then what happens?
What if the government insists on the company hiring six of each color, then what happens?
The latter results in pretty much the same thing as I postulated; the former is why we need to have those indications of race and creed on the forms in the first place, I guess. I just question what the company uses it for every time I have to write 'White British' on a form.
Willeth on
@vgreminders - Don't miss out on timed events in gaming! @gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
Posts
Almost any discussion about racism is pointless because it's almost always based on political correctness, dogmas, propaganda and self-evident truths that nobody has bothered to question. Even the word itself is never properly defined. When you really get to the bottom of it, you find that almost all of the "racism" supposedly practised today is not racism at all, while things that could pass off as racism (either in the loose or strict sense of the word) are ignored for various reasons. I've also noticed that some of the biggest racists are actually those who are always accusing others of racism and preaching endlessly about tolerance. For instance, when the subject is about cultural differences, they quickly turn it into a race issue, because they think it's about race. Strangely enough, that doesn't stop them from pointing out that all races are the same and there are no practical biological differences between them, even though they just effectively argued that cultural differences = racial differences. These same people may also advocate affirmative action, AKA treating people differently based on their race.
Upon stopping and thinking now, I still don't see how it can be racist. That's essentially like saying the term "caucasian" is racist because it means people are "different", somehow.
It's a bit much, I think, and similar to what ElJeffe said, the UN can go eat a bag of dicks.
We have always gotten away with it of course because the intentions have been benign - employment equity and things like that. Again, the language isn't racist like the thread title suggests - it's about as neutral and non-offensive as you can get - it's merely the implications of this kind of government policy.
For those who can't seem to grasp it -- are white people not "visibly" white? Like, when you see a white person, you don't notice their whiteness by sight? Or let's say there's a majority black neighborhood in Toronto, they are then the "visible" minorities and the white people are just white? It defines white as the neutral, basic state of being, something that we "don't notice" (yeah right) and then everyone who is non-white is suddenly "visible" for their difference.
If there's one thing the feminists really nailed its how minor language patterns can really have a profound effect on culture and identity. I'm actually a little shocked that everyone here is so quick to dismiss the UN's completely valid concern, and that no one has strongly asserted that "visible minority" is indeed a problematic term.
And really, what would the term lose if you just said "minority"? Nothing.
I'd say this is more a problem with the word "minority" than the word "visible." Either way, there's no way to talk about minorities et. al. without carrying the implication that there is a majority against which they are being compared.
Yeah, if by "nailed" you mean similar to way one would "nail" a fly on your friend's forehead with a sledgehammer. Yes, it's good to recognize that words carry implicit connotations, but at the same time you can never avoid implicit connotations, so trying to carefully build awkward connotation-neutral constructions can easily become futile and annoying.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
No, I'm sorry -- white people are visibly white just as much as latinos are visibly brown, I mean what the hell? The term itself draws undue attention to a person's physical appearance, which is really not at all what these things are supposed to be drawing attention to.
Oh right, feminists, we're supposed to hate them. Look, back in the 1950s and 1960s there was a lot of language usage which -- YES -- had a rather profound effect on our culture, and it was largely the feminists who did the necessary arguing to bring these types of issues appropriately to our attention. I'm at work so I don't really have the time or the inclination to look up all the relevant info, but long and short of it they once did a study where they presented a story with all the pronouns blank in it to like first graders and asked them to fill in the pronouns. Overwhelmingly the students filled them in with masculine pronouns. I hope you can also see how first-graders already swallowing these gendered identity roles could prove a problem further down the line.
That is, a white guy would be a visible minority in Uganda.
The other point is that because race has been rather safely defined in any intelligent person's mind as more of a construct than a real genetic happening, we've since moved to this idea of "ethnicity". If we are then ostensibly tracking people based on cultural traits which differentiate us, why highlight the "visible" part of it? Why not just say (and really, this is what everyone else does that the UN isn't criticizing -- Canada no need to be so defensive) Chinese, Mexican, Native-American, British-Canadian, French-Canadian, etc. etc. instead of "visible minority" which just draws undue attention to outmoded ideas about race and genetics.
Not really. First of all let's accept the fact that the majority of people in Canada are caucasian. This means that people of other skin tones are in the minority. Since we see with our eyes and not with our butts, there is nothing wrong with the term 'visible minority' since it is the most efficient, and least discriminatory way to identify those who are most likely to be singled out because "thems is different from us".
**MERGE** no need for a double post..
I actually think that adding the word "visible" in front sort of softens the term "minority".
My guess is because it's the Number 1 thing that instigates racism. They look different than us.
Because we would be listing half of the world nations each time, which would be a waste of ink and paper. Think of the environment, man!
I just think the whole thing is a waste of time - there are more important things for the U.N. to worry about.
I suspect that the intent of Canada's wording is to draw a distinction between a "visible minorities" with physically distinct traits (like dark skin etc.) and "invisible minorities" generally without distinct physical traits (like French Canadians).
The reason that I object on some level to the redefinition of all this hoo-hah into terms of "ethnicity" is because the heart of racism often is that someone has physically distinct visual traits which have nothing to do with their breeding, nationality, language, culture, or anything else.
I mean - it strikes me as a bunch of liberal academicians wanting to define racism out of existence.
I don't hate feminists. I just think it's easy to take semantic & semiotic deconstruction a little too far. It's better to be aware of the limitations in our language and how they affect our thinking than believe that we can construct a magic language of precisely connotation-free words.
I find the phrase "visible minority" a little silly anyway. What's wrong with "ethnic minority?" Is this mostly a Canuckism?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
This is along the lines of saying "we say 'mailman' because mail carriers often are men." It's justifying problematic language by saying its supported by problematic behavior. The whole point is that language is easy to change and can demonstrably have a real effect on people's sub-conscious ideas and attitudes, and thus it's a positive thing to make our language reflect our better ideas and not necessarily our poor behavior.
And the "liberal academician" thing is a misguided jab. Liberal academicians love to talk about racism, it's exactly them who are calling this term racist. It's just that they also support the platform of avoiding language which re-enforces cultural assumptions and values that they disagree with.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
WE ARE DIFFERENT YOU FUCKING AHHGAHGHHHAGH *drowns in a pool of stupidity*
Acknowledging differences isn't goddamn racism.
Someone called my one friend African-American, and she nearly bit his head off. Her mom's from Jamaica, and she was born in Canada. I think the problem here is that the colour of your skin no longer indicates where you're from, or even what culture you're used to. It was convenient when white people were from Europe and black people were from Africa, but it's not that way anymore. For all intents and purposes, almost all of my friends are very "Western," but by no means are all of them "white." Hell, if you talked to some of them on the phone you'd never be able to guess the colour of their skin.
In the end, I agree with getting rid of the term "visible minority" in the legal system and just calling it like it is. The term is pretty much dividing things between "white & aboriginal" and "other." The way things are going here, it's not like whites are the majority by a whole lot. They say we'll be a minority in some cities in the next decade or two.
PS., In some parts of Waterloo, anyone who isn't Asian is already the visible minority. When I go there, I immediately feel dumber, and not as good at video games.
That pretty much sums it up, yeah.
Distinguishing someone by skin color is offensive, I guess, to a lot of people. Primarily, it's calling someone black.
White is okay.
The vast over-representation of First Nations people in the prison system is just sort of chucked in at the end of the story as an afterthought.
This dogma isn't enforced with much consistency. It's acceptable to say that black people are bigger and stronger than white people, and better at many sports. It's acceptable to say that Japanese (or Asian) people are smarter than white people. The latter belief of course establishes that some people are more intelligent than others, so there would be no reason to think that black people couldn't be less intelligent than white people. This, of course, is completely unacceptable, and morally wrong.
It's not really about science or logic, it's about white liberal guilt and the general hysteria surrounding the subject.
How would you define racism? I'm asking because in 99% of the cases where I've seen someone accused of racism (or where I've been accused of it), it hasn't been a race issue at all. While there are people who hate others simply because they look different, I doubt this is the leading cause of "racism." In most cases it a) is not about race, and b) has logical and rational reasons behind it. Unfortunately, when a cultural group that happens to consist of non-white people is distrusted or even hated, people immediately assume that the distrust must be a result of their race (but, if the group is white, then the race variable ceases to exist for some reason).
This discussion is about the difference between the terms "minority" and "visible minority." The UN has not declared census taking racist. The US has not declared the recogniztion of ethnic differens as racist. The UN has not declared the term minority racist. The US has simply said that "visible minority" is problematic because it defines white people as invisible or normal, and other ethnicities as being somehow suddenly "visible" where white ethnicity isn't. It furthers the tradition of defining European traits as "normal" and everything else as "other."
So yes, get all upset because -- no wait, never mind, don't do that, because you're getting upset about some this that isn't even in the fucking discussion.
Secondly, the part I've chosen to color salmon is not acceptable to say, where the fuck are you getting this shit? It's exactly those types of racial and ethnic stereotypes that most people "hysteric" with liberal guilt would emphatically disagree with. They're based on stereotypes, nothing more, nothing less. It's pure horse shit man.
I don't understand your point at all and your question is overly leading. I use the same definition of racism as most anyone else, do you want me to post a dictionary term? I think it's something along the lines of "someone being discriminated against because of their ethnic or racial group".
It's just that the racial one is the most obvious.
But I assure you, there's a serious difference between being a visible or an invisible minority.
One gets the staring eyes, the other gets to hear jokes about their ancestry told right to their face.
Not to mention how many CULTURES are visible minorities... people with head scarves and turbans and yamakas and whatever.
That's not even getting in to people with non-harmful Sub-Cultural affiliation getting treated like shit by some people.
And then there's still "White" cultures getting treated like shit. People still dis the Irish and so forth.
@gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
Sure, I'll agree with "Let's avoid trying to switch an Inuit tribe with a Masai tribe for reality TV."
But it's not like being black makes you allergic to snow.
@gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
Actually I think that was a question for me. I would define racism as treating someone differently (negatively) because they are racially different from you. And the easiest way to identify someone as being racially different from yourself is by the way they look.
Which, by the way, is also why I think the term 'visible minority' is fine. It distinguishes from 'religious minority' or 'criminal minority' or any other kind of minority you want, and it identifies those who are most likely to be discriminated against (from us white folk) because of the colour of their skin.
Yeah, it was a bad example, but I know you can still see my point. There are always going to be situations where certain people's race or natural ability will make them more suited to a task than others. That's something to be embraced, not avoided because of overt political correctness.
@gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
In my experience those things are acceptable to say. At the very least they are much more acceptable than saying that black people are less intelligent and so forth. The idea seems to be that racial differences can be acknowledged if they are not negative towards non-whites.
Most anyone else does not actually use that definition. Even when a person is criticizing a culture, he is accused of racism. Even when a person is objecting to the behavior of a cultural group, he is accused of racism. Even when he has clearly articulated rational reasons for his opinions, he is a dumb, irrational racist. The word "racism" has been misused so badly that it can no longer be taken seriously.
Why?
An individual's natural ability cannot be judged by their race.
Or do I need to introduce you to the fucking gigantic Chinese guy whose arms are so long he could reach in to a dolphin's stomach.
Because, you know, Asians are short and tiny.
Just because a racial group tends to have a feature does not mean you can safely assume INDIVIDUALS of that race have that feature.
Of course not, but that isn't racism. Now, this would never happen, but let's say that we know the stereotype that, in general, most Asians are better mathematicians than other races to be fact. If, then, I need to employ someone to work closely with numbers, and I have to choose from a group of people about whom I know nothing other than their race, would I be wrong to choose the Asian? Simply logically, he has a greater chance of being able to do the job well than any other candidate.
I realise this is an incredibly simplistic and reductionist way of looking at it, and I'm aware that it is really not as simple in the real world. But what I'm trying (and struggling) to illustrate is that a person's race CAN influence their behaviour, their skills and so on, and that's not something to be ignored for the sake of political correctness.
@gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
You know.
They used to think that being JEWISH gave you an unfair advantage in basketball, and that they were the natural players of the sport.
Because they lived in ghettos. They were poor so they needed a game that was easy to play without a large area. What do you know, blacks are now living in ghettos and are considered good at basketball. Coincidence?
It is, you are ascribing traits to a racially discriminated subset of the population. (as in the proper meaning of discrimination).
Are you actually stating that you believe a person's race influences their abilities? Or are you stating that the average members of different racial groups would likely have different culturally reinforced strengths?
Because the two are wildly different.
As for It's not about political correctness, it's about morality and ethics, and the commitments governments have and have made to racial equality.
Sure one can think up a hypothetical where racial discrimination would make sense, but you yourself stated that such an event could never occur. Any such choice if made in a real life situation would nearly always be harmful, and could be replaced by an evaluation and discrimination based on something slightly more relevant (perhaps mathematical ability?)
I'm really too sleep deprived to make a decent case right now, as I had a counterpoint a second ago and it's just completely leaked out of my head. I will say, though, that my point about political correctness has value - on a job application form, for example, you more often than not have to give your ethnicity and background.
Surely this should not be necessary. If a person can do a job better than another, then it shouldn't matter what race they are. But if it turns out that if 10 white people and 10 black people applied for 12 jobs, and 3 white people and 9 black people got them, because they were the best candidates, then great. But if the company needs to hire equal amounts of each race in order to be PC, then what happens? People who are better suited to the job miss out. The company's productivity is worse that it could have been.
@gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
Could it not be argued that it would make sense to provide greater aid to those belonging to minorities in need, to both counterbalance the inequality of society at large, and to try and integrate such people into all levels of society so such discrimination ends?
I'm not claiming that it should be, I honestly don't know. But it is a valid position to take.
Abso-fucking-lutely. Regardless of whether the profession in question math teacher or arctic explorer or anything else.
Nothing good.
But what if 10 white and 10 black people apply for 12 jobs. 5 of the black people and 7 of the white people are the most qualified for the position, however the company when left to its own devices would higher 9 white people and 3 black people. Then what happens?
What if the government insists on the company hiring six of each color, then what happens?
The latter results in pretty much the same thing as I postulated; the former is why we need to have those indications of race and creed on the forms in the first place, I guess. I just question what the company uses it for every time I have to write 'White British' on a form.
@gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!