h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

(Presumably WA's last was a reply to me)


As it hapens, a rexcently ex-colleague was one of the few Chinese to climb from Stoker to MEO.

Edward,

I think your question regarding the ethnicity of the Officers addresses my concerns 100%. We have a very successful shipping company, reknowned for it's technical and personnel standards, a world class company. Blue Funnel employed Chinese crews for well over a hundred years, they provided well paid work for generations. These crews were loyal and happy. Some joined ships for their maiden voyages and didn't leave until the ship was scrapped maybe thirty years later.

Forgive me if I jump to the conclusion that your question 'How many Officers' infers that Blue Funnel should have been applying the tenets of the Race Relations Acts and employing a 'fair' proportion of ethnic officers. They didn't because the system was set up to recruit and train officers from Britain. How much would it cost to educate Chinese crew to pass professional exams that took around ten years to train for? And by the way Oil Companies are returning to British officers on their tankers because of their safety record.

What in fact happened was the decline of the British Merchant Navy left a vacuum filled in part by Chinese owned ships manned by Chinese officers and crew and built in China. All without the need for any Race Relation Acts, just market forces.

Also I assume Stoker to MEO was Royal not Real Navy.

No - Merchant.

As it happens, Merchant Manning is a field I'm curremntly working in, with some delightful Scandiwegian Academics.

I'm not sure that I'm making a specific point about what the Blue Flue should or shouldn't have done with its Chinese contingent. My only comments are:
- They *did* unceremoniously dumb them in large numbers, post-WWII. This was racist.
- They lost a valuable resource which could have inexpensively been converted to ossifers. This was dumb.
- In general, the Chinese and other ethnic minorities remain - sespite some sucesses - disgracefully underepresented in prodessional jobs - indeed, in jobs in general.

This is not merely disgraceful. It's also stupid. If we squander resoources, we're undercut. Simple, Adam Smith economics.

(But you need to wind forward to Marx to figure out the societal impacts. )

Have you taken into account that Blue Funnel virtually lost it's fleet during WW2?

Yes. But they laid off their Chinese employees to build it back up with non-Chinese.

(They weren't the only ones)

I'm not sure about that. Certainly from 1968 to '78 there were only Chinese and Brits on Far Eastern routes and Nigerians, Ghanaians and Sierra Leones on the West African runs. After that we start to see major changes and the demise of the Ocean Steamship Company.

"1) The book that this woman is flogging recommends that racist incidents be reported to the councils as often as possible. Presumably, records will be kept."

As I said before, of course records should be kept. Records should be kept in case parents complain, so that the school/nursery can explain what happened and what was done in response. There is nothing in even the Telegraph article to support the supposition that some sinister "records" will be kept on five year olds.

"2) Empty hyperbole? Positive Action is racist and sexist discrimination, let's not beat about the bush. In addition Harriet Harman plans to bring in legislation encouraging further discrimination and making it illegal for white males to sue."

For what it's worth, far from being a "cheerleader" for these proposals, I'm not in favour of all that's being proposed. But let's be clear about what is being proposed. I don't have any problem with equal pay audits - that seems only sensible. But on the discrimination point, all that is being proposed is that, in cases of a *dead heat* between two candidates, an organisation can favour a BME or female applicant if they are under-represented, and if that's the justification, the other applicant has no grounds for legal action. What's *NOT* being proposed is widespread positive action such as quotas or guaranteed interviews. Not that you'd know it from the majority of the media coverage or your inaccurate summary above.

The reason I'm against it is that in all my time interviewing, I've never known a "dead heat" because I've never known two exactly equal applicants. Generally when there are tough choices to make, it's because two candidates have strengths in different areas. One of the hardest choices is experience versus potential, but there is always a way of making that choice with reference to the published person specification, and making a decision about what qualities are more important.

What I'm not clear on is whether a white male could challenge a decision that went against him that was justified on the grounds of "dead heat" to see if it genuinely was a dead heat. Reading between the lines, I think that an employer would still have to prove that it was a "dead heat" before an employment tribunal or they would automatically lose in the same way that the onus is on the employer to demonstrate that they *didn't* discriminate in racism cases - i.e. they must be able to fully justify and explain the decision. But I think the proposal just means that if an employer can justify "dead heat", they'll be able to successfully defend the case. If/when the legislation becomes law I'm sure I'll get a briefing on it from the HR people and I'll share it here. But I would be amazed if what's being proposed is anything other than saying that "dead heat" is a defence, not that legal action is impossible.

"3) Did you read the link from the Asian medical student?"

Yes.

"4) Yes, I remember your chastening link about cv names. I wonder what would happen were the experiment to be repeated with Asian firms, or curry houses or the Hackney Empire? There's only one kind of racism that's frowned upon though."

I suspect that the result would be much the same, unfortunately. Although it might be hard to do with curry houses because a waiter would be required to have a good knowledge of Indian cuisine to answer customers' questions. Personally, I frown on *all* forms of racism and prejudice. The idea that the "anti-racists" on the left think that only white racism is a problem, and that minority groups are incapable of prejudice is just wrong.

"The point is, racial imbalances in life are not always the result of racism but racism is cited as the be-all and end-all."

Again, it isn't. Sometimes I think you're attacking a straw target, rather than actually what anyone said. In my last post I specifically referred to class as an issue. In previous discussions I've said quite a lot about class discrimination, and the lack of opportunities and prejudice against white working class people in certain deprived areas. There seems little doubt to me that the son of Asian doctors growing up in the leafy suburbs has, all other things being equal, better life prospects than the son of white unemployed parents in a sink estate. But racism is what's being discussed at the moment.

"Yup, I'm prejudiced. I'm prejudiced against the type of people that are so dim as to think "their" media sources are unbiased whilst everyone else's are."

Nicely side-stepped. But don't you think the racism vs prejudice point is an important one?

I guess it depends what you mean by bias. I've said this before,but a key point is the difference between news and comment. Comment is biased - it's someone's argument. In determining bias in news reporting, the questions are (1) is this story worthy of its prominence, (2) is it accurate, (3) are the facts distorted (e.g. is the headline and first paragraph a fair summary of the story, are quotes taken out of context or partially used).

I have regularly seen news articles in the Hate and the Express that are biased according to 1, 2, and 3 above. The Hate and the Express do this on a daily basis. And you posted a link to a Telegraph one, which was disappointing, because I rather respect the Telegraph as a quality newspaper with views opposed to my own.

I haven't seen the Times, Guardian, or the Independent print *news* stories that are distorted in the same way. They are every bit a biased in terms of their *comment* sections, but in comment sections you know what you're getting.

I'm open to examples and persuading otherwise, of course, but it seems entirely wrong to assume equivalence without evidence.

>>SWL: It would be more useful if you could quote something from your extensive clippings file on the representation of British-born medical students of Asian background or origin. If this information is in the sources you read.<<

Whether SWL can prove it or not, it is true that British-born medical and dentistry students are disproportionately from Asian families. I work in the field, it's a well-known fact. It's also got a pretty simple reason - the whole point of moving to a new, wealthier country is so you and your family become wealthier, healthier, happier and more free. Nothing wrong with that - it's wholly admirable. Doctors, dentists, vets and engineers are all well-paid, respected professionals - if you're trying to improve your position in life, these are the jobs to aim for.

So we're seeing a lot of young people from second- or third-generation immigrant families (definately not just Asian) going for those courses because they have those aspirations that kids of historically British families don't have.

In fact, the change has been so seismic in the past few years that organisations like AimHigher and university outreach departments have shifted their focus away from BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) kids onto the white working class kids (especially boys) who've been traditionally left to their own devices. When I run events now, I'm always asked about how many white working class kids I had attend.

Just a quickie -

The Guardian uncritically presented the story about Harriet Harman, specifically the quote "Part-time women receive 40% less pay than full-time men". http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/26/gender.equality

The Times was more illuminating -

"She was eloquent yesterday, telling us that a part-time women worker is paid 40 per cent less than her full-time male equivalent. Movingly, she asked: “Do we think she is 40 per cent less intelligent, less committed, less hard-working, less qualified? It's not the case. It's entrenched discrimination.”

Well, no, if you put it like that. But try turning the matter round. If you compare that intelligent, hard-working woman, not with a full-time male equivalent, but a part-time male worker, you know what you find? She's paid more. In the year to April 2007, according to the Office for National Statistics, weekly median gross earnings for a woman working part-time are £145.60; for a man, £137.80. Is the part-time male less committed, less intelligent"

Sorry, the link is http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4221357.ece

It also goes on to say "The really interesting comparison isn't between women and men but between single, childless women and men. If you compare women who aren't married or cohabiting with men who aren't married or cohabiting, you know what? The pay gap goes the other way. Hourly pay for the women is £8.82; for men £8.72."

Hmm. If the post is for (say) a Diversity Officer...and the candidates are one BME and one White...I'd want a good deal of convincing that any number of degrees held by the white person would make her/him more qualifies than somebody who has lived the experience of racism.

Curry Houses:
'Course...we're seeing more and more white people working in them...although the best ones are (of course) still Asian run. Only last week, I was in Center Parcs and I noticed that their curry house now has white waiting and kitchen staff (it didn't used to).

Also...I eat at a particular pub in Glasgow. One of my prime reasons for frequenting it is its French chef who produces peasant cooking justlike his Tante Marie. So sue me.

SWL: The fact is that there simply aren't the suitably felxible full-time jobs for women. Women are unable tom meet their full-time earning potential. Sounds like discriminatio to me.

Although I'd somewhat agree with anyone who suggested that pay commissions are not the solution. Creches. Affordable, high-quality childcare. Just like in civilised countries. Or massively higher allowances for childrearing mothers.

>> ...Squiggles: Don't come the reactionary auld fart. It's silly pose and you know it. May you rest in your dearly anticipated grave content in the knowledge that the world is in no worse hands than it's ever been. <<

Pose?
Moi?

Uhm, but would it be alright with you if I curl up into the classic fetal position in this grave you so 'dearly anticipate' on my behalf? I've heard chances are good that if I return to a pre-natal posture I get to go round again.


~jwf~

Schools are required to report to governors on all racist incidents, the reporting medium does not allow a distinction between name calling and wearing a white hood. They are both 'incidents'.

Positive discrimination is still discrimination, it is wrong to lower standards to allow members of the perceived minority group entrance. Regardless of whether they are black, female, or homosexual.

Onto universities and there is a great deal of disquiet in academic circles about the fees charged to foreign students. Effectively students consider themselves to be buying a degree - "I've paid £30K, where's my degree ?" There is also concern about staff having to accept poorly presented papers from students whose command of English fails to match those required by the course. It is suggested they buy their English qualifications from 'language colleges'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7358528.stm

I stay in a multi storey flats in Glasgow I pet neighbours and passers by's dogs every day

I am from a muslim family

We never made a big deal about dogs

We had 4 neighbours with varying amounts of dogs as we grew up

It was fun

In fact, my only problem is that they are really annoying at barbecues

only if you get the relish wrong

They are best par-boiled before grilling of course, but yes, the relish is the key to good hot dogs.

~jwf~

"Positive discrimination is still discrimination, it is wrong to lower standards to allow members of the perceived minority group entrance. Regardless of whether they are black, female, or homosexual.

It is a fabrication put about by racists and those too closed minded to accept the truth that positive efforts to recruit from gropups underrepresented in certain areas of employment is about "Lowering standards" this is far from being the case.

Positive discrimination works on getting people who are able into jobs and studying even if sometimes their *paper* qualifications do not match up, but this is not always the case. As has been proven time and time again in white dominated countries like the ones most of us live in many white employers subconciously discriminate against job seekers from other ethnic groups and sometimes actively discrminate against them.

Its an attempt to redress this imbalance.

And please dont say it causs racism because it only enflames it in people who already feel that way already.

one love