This part-post was made a while ago and was appended to the end of another post. I’m repeating it here because I don’t know that it was read by many and I think its points remain true:
If there are fewer suitable applicants who happen to have one skin colour or another it is completely acceptable that there be different proportions of each ethnicity. What possible benefit can there be in ensuring a ethnically representative civil service? Do all black people have a particular take on filing that we cannot possibly do without? Is there something that Asian’s can bring to the Freedom of Information Act that a white person cannot fulfil? Of course not. Ethnicity has nothing whatsoever to do with competence and, if it did, it would come out of a meritocratic interviewing process, not out of quotas.
And the generalisations have another dimension too. Immigrants from Jamaica may share a cultural attitude but it is unlikely that their English-born children will. But the quota would not make that distinction anyway because it is based on skin colour. If you’re from Tooting, Delhi, Leicester or Addis Ababa you’ll be treated the same - more valuable to the Civil Service than someone of ‘native’ colouring (even if that means they’re Polish or Greek).
Discuss.
March 24th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
How can discrimination based on skin colour alone, be considered ‘positive’?
March 24th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
It can’t… It’s an ideological position without logic. Much like all other bigotry!
March 25th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
You forget that ALL WHITE BRITISH PEOPLE are RACIST. Or so we’re led to believe… Hmmmm… That’s why we need such wonderful Government schemes.
March 26th, 2006 at 11:10 am
As someone who has been around real white racism, and experienced real racism as a minority; I can assure you, if any group of people are not racist, it is white British people. That’s why I always find this stuff hilarious…
If anything, the British sense of fair play trumps almost any bigotry in this country, or at least, has done. But positive discrimination policies may end up stoking bigotry in the name of fair play.
August 17th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
It’s interesting to note all of these views - I am not going to be stupid enough to voice my own views as I don’t have the necessary knowledge and statistics to do so. The basic point/issue that I *think* that you’re trying to get to above is that representation of ethnic minorities should be based on merit and not colour.
This is an interesting issue as there are meant to be significant numbers of individuals who perform at levels that are superior to their peers whilst still not ‘making the grade’ in regards to attaining employment that compares to their level of education and their level of intelligence (let’s say, that these individuals manage to outperform their peers on IQ tests that were made by individuals who were predominantly of the same ethnicity as the peers of said individuals).
This would be, scientific proof of certain forms of racism (though I don’t have the statistics at hand - but even using the common tool of media manipulation such as the Guardian yields the observation that employment levels of individuals that are of a particular skill/intelligence level is still dependent upon racial/ethnic background). Everyone knows that the Guardians stance is pro-Israel and anti-Islam (poor scapegoats, it almost makes you wish that we had someone *decent* to hate - like the Soviets or the Chinese, rather that a bunch of pyjama wearing fundamentalists, but I digress….).
The point I’m trying to make in this rant is this - how high should the UK set its anti-racist standards? Are the British enlightened because they don’t shove their ethnic minorities into Gulags, or is it because they are meant to treat them equally?
Let’s dissect the above a little closer :
“Do all black people have a particular take on *filing* that we cannot possibly do without?”
Let’s logically extend it to something like :
“Do all black people have a particular take on *life* that we cannot possibly do without?”
Wow - look at that, that’s just one verb away from genocide.
See my point now?
The best situation is to have a firm policy understood by all that allows some form of meritocratic based representation (say, something like the most intelligent members from each group represent each group - rather than having black mental health policy being determined by a white closet fascist). Then it would not be necessary to have blogs like this as their would be universally accepted, universally respected, unquestioned rights for each group as humans (ie: like ‘human rights’ - except an idiot like Cameron wouldn’t be allowed to modify them, akin, I suppose to genetically modifying 6 billion people so as to re-define what humans, and hence their rights, actually are).
Hope that the above hints at a sane solution. Though if you don’t like a black guy, there’s no reason you can’t lynch him (most CCTV cameras can’t receive black - they’re too busy with all the other colours).
August 18th, 2006 at 11:09 am
You cannot avoid the closet facist, sadly, and to try and ‘fix’ it so that he doesn’t cause trouble is not going to work!
You said “something like the most intelligent members from each group represent each group - rather than having black mental health policy being determined by a white closet fascist”…
“Each group” doesn’t mean anything — they’re all human beings and to try and alleviate discrimination based on race by highlighting people’s race is illogical.
Changing “filing” for “life” is a trick — you could change any number of sentences by replacing one verb with another and they’d be horrendous.