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

>>A lot of crap is talked, usually by you, about institutional racism. And yet, within a generation of modern immigration beginning, we have a black, female leader of the House of Lords, a Muslim Admiral, BME judges, Archbishops, chief constables, Lords and civil leaders in every field. This isn't tokenism when it is so widespread.<< An utterly simplistic and meaningless statement. It's* percentages* that matter. My impression is that it *is * very much tokenism until the *percentage* of top prople in our society begin to reflect the percentage of those people in our society. Crikey we've had a long enough period of public schoolboys/Oxbridge, often not the ssharpest knives in the drawer running things. The working classes being excluded. So now the blacks are excluded. SAMO SAMO, for UK plc. I've been watching the 'Apperentice'. I found it hugely funny when that twit of an ex Army Officer public schoolboy, got his comeuppance the other week. How anyone that thick ever got on the programme is beyond me. But there's probably thousands like him out there. What I want is a country where eventually we don't even have to question these things, because people really do get on, on merit, whatever their colour or sex. Think what a really fantastic and succesful country England really will be then. In the meantime a bit of affirmative action is needed to break down the barriers of prejudice perpetuated by the silly old farts >>You on the other hand, along with your little cheerleader, quite obviously trawl through the journals of people looking to take offence.<< http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/F2102830?thread=3819126 post1 >>Really not worth the trouble. He seems to have a profound ignorance of the nature of public message boards.<< SWL Hmmmmm! Ignorance is bliss eh. SWL?

Normally, I treat your posts with the same disdain as a turd in the street Fanny, but on this occasion -

You witter on about the Never-Never land where everyone gets on by merit It doesn't exist, never has existed and never will exist because it refuses to acknowledge individual free will. You even acknowledge that some people are thick. How are they going to get on in a meritocracy? You say merit is the only watchword - but support quotas that don't judge people upon merit but on skin colour.

You can't put a coherent argument together for the life of you, beyond a wish for a nirvana without a clue how to get there.

Percentages "don't" matter. They are meaningless of themselves. Did you look at the link? It's a list of the top companies to work for as decided by the staff themselves. One of them is 95% female. That shows an obvious imbalance, yet it's one of the happiest companies in the UK.

We all want a country where race is irrelevant, but we won't get there by force. Discriminate in any shape or form and you breed resentment and distrust. If that is accepted as a trueism when people discriminate against blacks, why is it dismissed out of hand when the discrimination is applied to whites?

I deplore discrimination on any racial or gender grounds. Relevant ability should always be the only criteria.

>>You witter on about the Never-Never land where everyone gets on by merit It doesn't exist, never has existed and never will exist because it refuses to acknowledge individual free will<<

I'd be very interested to hear you expand on this statemeent.......

University Chemistry Degree courses currently are oversubscribed by Indian girls. Nobody knows why, but there are far more young Indian girls studying chemistry (and the life sciences too) than the demographics suggest. In fact, Asians by percentage make up a far greater percentage of the NHS than you would expect. There are no quotas and there are no targets - but one ethnic grouping is over-represented. Nobody, and certainly not me, is ascribing any ulterior motive to this other than Asians appear to have a natural gift in this area.

Sikhs regard military and police service as honourable professions and are well-represented in both, but Hindus tend to regard such occupations as demeaning and this is reflected by the numbers of Hindus in both.

Some of the top mathematicians are Chinese. In fact, stick your head into a bookies or a casino and check out how many Oriental faces you see It's something they happen to be good at.

These are of course, generalisations, but only for the purposes of making a point.

If we accept that Indian girls are particularly good at chemistry for example, when all those girls start coming out of Uni & hit the workforce, we're going to see a rise in the number of Indians working for ICI, Pfizer etc.

But - if you impose a quota system based on demographics, you have to exclude a lot of them. If 30% of graduates are Indian but the quota says you can only have a 3% (say) mix of Indians in the workforce, you have to unfairly discriminate.

I've argued before that equality of opportunity is more relevant than equality of outcome. Have a level playing field from the outset and just accept that there will always be a certain proportion of every ethnicity that will fail.

1. >>Asians appear to have a natural gift in this area.<<

2. >>Sikhs regard military and police service as honourable professions<<

3. >>If we accept that Indian girls are particularly good at chemistry for example<<

Now I feel we may be getting closer to the crux of things. Statemrnt 1 is particularly interesting as it suggests that Asian may have a genetic, or as you say *natural*,( I mean what else does *natural* mean?) predisposition for chemistry.

I think that these apparent biases by different races have just come about for cultural/historical/social reasons. And in a modern multicultural succesful England, which we might visit in say 100 years from now, none of these biasses would exist. Okay there may be a very few people that wish to continue certain professions for tradional reasons, but it wouldn't be the sort of thing that was generally ascribed as *natural* to any one ethnic group.

True, as people mix they lose their cultural roots. But the scenario you describe is the antithesis of multiculturalism which urges the celebration and preservation of individual cultures. The thirty year multiculture experiment has brought us ethnic ghettoes, terrorism, and gangsta-rap violence. Even the govt and the CRE admit multiculturalism is a recipe for division.

I don't want people to lose their cultural roots. It's difficult I'll admit. I just don't want other people's biasses to be interpreted as innate. Culture evolves however it will though.

Actually we do pretty well here. For christ sakes some people can still speak Cornish.......

For eample I regularly visit the Italian part of Soho. There are Italian restaurants cafes. and delicatessants there. The families have been there for yonks, They still fly the Italian flags outside their cafes. They are very much Italian but also English. And it would be interesting to find out what their children and grandchildren are now doing. Prtobably fairly typically English jobs but still connected to their original heritage hopefully. And not just saddled with being thought of as innately oh so over emotional Ities!

And the Italians primarily came over post-WWII, before multiculturalism and quotas. They seem to have adapted quite well without needing special status. As have the Chinese, Jews, Poles, etc etc.

yes and carribeans blacks were brought over here en masse in the 1950s to do jobs that whites wouldn't youch with a barge pole. Plus they had 2or 3 hundred years of being viewed as 'slaves' to deal with. The descendants of African slaves taken from West Africa to work on sugar plantations for white masters. The lowest of the low. Less than human. Animals.

Don't be stupid SWL, do you really think a black person can be accepted as an equal overnight with all that cultural baggage? If working class whites can so easily discriminated against for hundreds of years, do you really think the blackman can be given an even playing field, without a bit of force?

How condescending and patronising to imagine that black people are incapable of grasping the same opportunities presented to them as others. Might you do some research and discover the roots of Chinese immigration and the uses Chinese people were put to in the Empire as coolies and slave labour? The Chinese had just as torrid a time of it as the blacks but you don't hear them whining continually about it and using it as an excuse for failure.

"without a bit of force" - what are you suggesting? You appear to be implying that unfair pressure is justified in order to redress a balance. But in fact, that is exactly what quotas and the like are all about isn't it? It's not about fairness at all. It's a chance to hit back at "whitey" and see how he likes a bit of discrimination.

Two wrongs don't make a right and the excuse that the great great grandparents had a hard time of it won't wash. It's bullshit of the highest order and is demeaning to ordinary black people who want to be treated as equals, not some pathetic basket-case victim requiring special treatment. In fact, the attitude you display is truly racist because it makes assumptions about people based entirely upon their skin colour.

Didn't take you long to revert to type did it?

>>it makes assumptions about people based entirely upon their skin colour.<<

There you go again, falling back upon something innate, natural, genetic and literal. I know that's how you always see everything. *Simply*. If you understood what I actually said, you'd realise it's about politics. But I think it's completely beyond you, SWL.

"You compare employment practices with shoplifting and theft. You may know a lot about the latter, but you demonstrably know nothing about the former.

I can compare thee to a summers day and make a good comparison if i so choose. Just as much as I can compare illegal employment practices to illegal removal of goods from shops because they are both illegal.

Feel free to put a counter argument showing Im wrong or carry on bleating that Im wrong. You're call...



"Race discrimination legislation is fundamentally flawed because, although balanced on paper, it is visibly unbalanced in practice.

Eh

What do *you* mean by balanced on paper are we suddenlt talking about double entry book-keeping? How do can you *visibly* detect that its unbalanced in practice?

What are you on about?



"Race discrimination legislation is fundamentally flawed because, although balanced on paper, it is visibly unbalanced in practice. The quota system and the state-sanctioned racism that is "Positive Action" is an admission that laws have been unsuccessful in guiding race relations and now people must be bludgeoned into fitting a statistical model.

No they are arent. One is about removing personal prejudice from the labour market on the demand side of the market ie. employers.

Positive action is the action of employers who for different reasons want their staff make-up to closer reflect the social make-up of their immidiate communities. Notice that the job advert was placed in Nottingham.

A city with amongst other problems the situation that black witnesses to crimes even black *victims* of crime are reluctant to talk to the police. They arent hearing about the racism in the police force from me. Judging by the piles of Sun newspapaers in the newsagents and the tiny pile of Guardians in the newsagents I notoced when Ive been visitng Nottingham the people in the areas I stay arent all lefty pinkos like me. So how do the black people there get the idea that the police are somehow racist and not really their friends?

Maybe its to do with the act that the police officers in Nottingham *amongst other things* are overwhleming white men (way beyond what the demographic would suggest). Maybe if this changed other thngs might start to improve.




"Quota systems place the emphasis on skin colour over ability"

They do? How do you know this? If you dont tell me anything else tell me this one thing. Please.



The truth is, British society has been incredibly benevolent and inclusive towards BMEs.

I can think of worse societies to live in than the one I do, but violence, verbal abuse by adults at children, ostracisation, graffitti and unfair dismissal are all examples Ive seen fro the perspective of my own family where white people in my family see little or none of it and the black memebers of my family see an awful lot more. So as far as "incredibly" goes Id like to see you prove that your use of this word fits.



"The people who cry foul and play the race card are the social inadequates and delinquents that exist in every ethnic grouping who will grasp at any fig leaf that excuses their own shortcomings.

True thee are people who will do this. Does it make it true for every instance where this happens i think not and if you can prove it Id like to see you do so.




"Far easier to claim to be a victim than to accept personal responsibility. You yourself admitted as much when you placed the justification on becoming a criminal upon people treating you like "scum".

In you mind yes but that isnt what i said you have a poor understanding of what I meant. Let me try to help you understand.

*I* addmitted to what I had done. Someone later asked why I thought Id done it. Amongst OTHER reasons i have said that as people already *to my face* had told me I was scum or other variants of the term I decided I had nothing to lose by doing things that would mean I deserved that name.



"It is interesting to note that it is the Public Sector that most ruthlessly pursues quotas - the sector that has no quality threshold to meet and no pressure to perform efficiently.

Where do you live SWL? Obviously not in the country that has introduced a league table for just about everything done or thought of being done by anyone who holds a hammer, mop, pen or stethoscope in the public services. Get a grip.


"Indeed, the most inefficient,

Not like the privately owned train companies who are a of efficiency Efficiently pocketing huge subsidies while providing a poor service.

"incompetent"

Network rail

"and least cost-effective sector"

BNFL



"with the lowest staff morale"

prove it.



and highest incidence of industrial action

One sector its true but with many different departments dealing with many differetn unions to deal with. The public sector compares fairly well with British Airways if you take it chunk by chunk.


"is the one that purports to be the flagbearer of equal opportunities.

Once again trying to blame other problems on race issues and failing miserably.


"Only one public sector employer in the top 20 despite the public sector providing up to 50% of jobs in some areas.

In some areas with very low employment like Scotland, Northern Ireland and the North East. With by the nature of the work they do providing jobs few others will take on, refuse collection, dealing with drunks on a Saturday night in casualty. Yeah, people who do those jobs aregoing to be giving really hig marks on their job satisfaction questionnaires.



"No figures are supplied for race but, given that only one of the top twenty has a published ethnic quota target, the other 19 presumably hire on the "best person for the job" mentality.

Back to the deceitful argument hat anyone who even takes any regard of race is not bothered about the qualities of employees. When will you stop telling this outright unfounded lie like some brain addled propoganda peddler for the BNP.


one love

You're a big one for demanding answers from others without bothering to do the same yourself. Rev Nick asked you a question, or is that beneath your ego to answer? I also asked you a question way back in Post 7 which you haven't troubled yourself with.

Put bluntly, specifying a skin colour for a job is racism. All the mealy-mouthed justifications are just excuses for racism. If it's wrong to say 'No Blacks', it's wrong to say 'No Whites'.

<>

That really does sum it up, doesn't it? I was raised to respect everyone, reguardless of shape, size or colour. And judge them purely on their own actions or words. It's worked pretty well for me for quite a number of years.

Well lets look at *context* shall we? Something that seems to get conveniently ignored by some people to promote their simple minded arguments.

I don't know blicky's opinion. But he made the point that it is an area of a certain ethnic population percentage, and the police force make-up in no way reflects this And as any half wit kbows, this can create tensions, especially given the contextual history of police treatment of ethnic minorites in the past. Because of the nature of police work they are particularly dependant on the co-operation of the local community to do their job properly. Probaly more than any other profession, except maybe teaching.

Even given the historical context of power relations between whites and blacks, I would think it perfectly acceptable that a police force composed principally of blacks since time immemprial, in an area with a large white population, who felt suspicious and unco-operative with the police, leading to high community tensions, and a lack of efficient policing being possible, would attempt to address this for a *short* period of time by only employing whites. Providing of course, ;like this advert does, it complied with thee law of the land, ie the Race Relations Act.

Such an act though, sadly, on the surface seems a very inflammatory thing to do, simply because of the history, of appalling treatment of black people around the world, by whites, for hundreds of years, eg slavery in the Americas, Aboriginals in Australia, Apartheid in South Africa.

<>

Oh yeah if anyone here can name me a scenario, where this iwould be done, in the terms I've suggested, I'd be intrigued to think about it. Can't think of one off-hand.

Simpost

Do you consider *context* a dirty word then?

Come on SWL, put your thinking cap on, I'm sure you can come up with something.

Context? Gies a break, that's just moral relativism.

Basically you're saying it's ok to be racist in certain circumstances.

Boswolox.


Racism is *always* wrong, *never* justifiable.