Freedom from racism

The parking bays, restaurant and blind bus driver are all quite understandable.
 
xtermin8or said:
Equity legislation is not racism, it is corrective action, and the average white person is not being punished or opressed, as the employment figures and distribution of wealth in the country very clearly show.
Click to expand...

racism |ˈrāˌsizəm| noun
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief : a program to combat racism.

It meets the criteria for racism, what you are saying is that it is justified racism. But I guess we can play with words all day and not agree.
 
BobbyMac said:
Obviously you only consider one side of the picture then. If positive discrimination benefits one group of people, for example on a racial basis, then obviously it negatively impacts everyone else, hence what is considered fair for one is not fair for the others - thereby creating a contradiction in terminology. Fair discrimination is a contradiction of terms.

Discrimination, by definition, is unfair. How would you ever define discrimination to always be fair to everyone involved? It's simply not possible.
Click to expand...
By qualifying it with the word positive discrimination.:D
Seriously, positively discriminating against disabled people and women in general does not arouse similar protests. The prostests arise wrt the racial discrimination. Could that be the result of people not wanting to admit that they are racially priviledged? Some women are very priviledged but that does not stop them from benefitting from AA. First step to understanding this starts with accepting that one woman empowered is a positive contribution towards the empowerment of all women as a group. Whether she, as an individual was disadvantaged is immaterial to the fact that women as group are disadvantaged even though a disadvantaged man who's being overlooked would obviously feel agrieved.
 
Last edited:
Bageloo said:
By qualifying it with the word positive discrimination.:D
Seriously, positively discriminating against disabled people and women in general does not arouse similar protests. The prostests arise wrt the racial discrimination. Could that be the result of people not wanting to admit that they are racially priviledged? Some women are very priviledged but that does not stop them from benefitting from AA. First step to understanding this starts with accepting that one woman empowered is a positive contribution towards the empowerment of all women as a group. Whether she, as an individual was disadvantaged is immaterial to the fact that women as group are disadvantaged even though a disadvantaged man who's being overlooked would obviously feel agrieved.
Click to expand...
The bottom line is discrimination is unfair. Whatever example you choose to throw at it is irrelevant, as it is unfair. Adding "fair" or "positive" into the mix does not change the meaning of the word discrimination and it furthermore does not change the context. To do so is to create a contradiction in terms.
 
icyrus said:
racism |ˈrāˌsizəm| noun
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
Click to expand...

Your definition supports the idea that Employment Equity legislation is indeed not racism. The legislation does not say that preference should be given because blacks are better than whites
 
BobbyMac said:
Obviously you only consider one side of the picture then. If positive discrimination benefits one group of people, for example on a racial basis, then obviously it negatively impacts everyone else, hence what is considered fair for one is not fair for the others - thereby creating a contradiction in terminology. Fair discrimination is a contradiction of terms.

Discrimination, by definition, is unfair. How would you ever define discrimination to always be fair to everyone involved? It's simply not possible.
Click to expand...

No, this is what you do not seem to understand, white people are not being negatively affected, the distribution of wealth in the country is an indication of that - the unemployment rate amongst whites is yet another indicator -

Once again I will explain what is discrimination - it is from latin meaning to distinguish, therefore

Fair Discrimination - Good
Unfair Discrimination - Bad

This is the simplest way I can explain it to you, if you still don't get it, there is no hope left
 
xtermin8or said:
No, this is what you do not seem to understand, white people are not being negatively affected, the distribution of wealth in the country is an indication of that - the unemployment rate amongst whites is yet another indicator -

Once again I will explain what is discrimination - it is from latin meaning to distinguish, therefore

Fair Discrimination - Good
Unfair Discrimination - Bad

This is the simplest way I can explain it to you, if you still don't get it, there is no hope left
Click to expand...
What's this got to do with white people?
Discrimination = bad. Irrespective of what word you prefix it with.
 
xtermin8or said:
No, this is what you do not seem to understand, white people are not being negatively affected, the distribution of wealth in the country is an indication of that - the unemployment rate amongst whites is yet another indicator -

Once again I will explain what is discrimination - it is from latin meaning to distinguish, therefore

Fair Discrimination - Good
Unfair Discrimination - Bad

This is the simplest way I can explain it to you, if you still don't get it, there is no hope left
Click to expand...
I find your logic interesting. Are you saying that because white people are wealthy (some of them) and white people have jobs (not all of them) that we must take this as the norm amongst that community and use it as an excuse to discrminate against them because the "indicator" says they won't mind.

Isn't this what Mbeki is doing? - which doesn't make it right either He's using a couple of small examples to paint an entire race. It's called stereotyping and I don't like it.
 
Skeptik said:
I find your logic interesting. Are you saying that because white people are wealthy (some of them) and white people have jobs (not all of them) that we must take this as the norm amongst that community and use it as an excuse to discrminate against them because the "indicator" says they won't mind.

Isn't this what Mbeki is doing? - which doesn't make it right either He's using a couple of small examples to paint an entire race. It's called stereotyping and I don't like it.
Click to expand...

No, what I am saying is that despite complaints from the white community, that they are suffering so much because of AA and BEE, the truth is that the legislation has not negatively affected the average white person.

Mbeki was showing that even after all these years, racism against blacks still exists, and that we have to fight against it

AA and BEE is not racism but fair discrimination - let me once again unpack this concept

Racism is a belief in the superiority of one race over others

AA and BEE is therefore not racist - as it does not set out that one race is superior than any other

Discrimination means to distinguish or see a difference, if that difference is used unfairly - not allowing a white person into a restaurant, purely because he is white, that is bad - if it is used fairly - not employing a blind bus driver to ensure safety of passengers - that is good

therefore you have fair and unfair discrimination

AA and BEE is fair discrimination as it gives preference to suitably qualified persons from designated groups - these groups have suffered decades of opression - which is a fact we have to face whether we like it or not.
 
xtermin8or said:
Your definition supports the idea that Employment Equity legislation is indeed not racism. The legislation does not say that preference should be given because blacks are better than whites
Click to expand...

Ah but the legislation doesn't address who is advantaged and who isn't - it treats the situation of a poor white and a rich well connected black the same as it does a rich white and a poor black. In essence its not about empowering the disadvantaged but about empowering blacks. Race race race. Hmm...
 
Last edited:
xtermin8or said:
No, what I am saying is that despite complaints from the white community, that they are suffering so much because of AA and BEE, the truth is that the legislation has not negatively affected the average white person.
Click to expand...

I guess there is a distiction between 'Average' now... Averagism! Down with Averagism! an Average free Freedom day!
Please define what an 'Average White Person' is.... its a definition that has a sliding scale.
 
Last edited:
icyrus said:
Ah but the legislation doesn't address who is advantage and who isn't - it treats the situation of a poor white and a rich well connected black the same as it does a rich white and a poor black. In essence its not about empowering the disadvantaged but about empowering blacks. Race race race. Hmm...
Click to expand...
Do not individualise the concept. AA is about empowering previously disadvantaged groups. Blacks/women/disabled people as groups are still under represented in many spheres of the economy. Whites are still overly represented as a group. What you are refering to is individuals that deviate from the norm. Do you now get this or must I draw pictures?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X