Is it right to have race preferences in politics/policies

[misher]

I saw this article and I was wondering about it because its a tough question. I know we give preference to First Nations for hiring and schooling already. But is it right to prefer First Nations in homeless housing, aka Reverse Racism? http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-heather-street-modular-housing-approved-august-2018

I would understand if there was no government support (entirely run by the tribes) in this project, but there is. So now I have to ask, why are we allowing ethnic preference when we spend government funds? I know if we made homeless housing that gave white people preference there would be protests. Probably the same if it was Asian only. Do the white homeless people have less of a right/need to live in homeless housing? If not, does this mean they are less important?

Americans have the Fair Housing Act that "cannot delay or otherwise deny admission based on the race, color, ethnic origin, gender, religion, disability, or age of any member of an applicant family.”" https://www.theurbanist.org/2018/07/23/c...e-fight-against-displacement-in-seattle/

I myself believe the solution to racism is to stop caring what race anyone is (eracism). But now it seems like we are moving towards racial preferences/racial segregation on the opposite end of the spectrum where we give additional benefits above average to certain races instead of taking them away?

Should the government be allowed to give preference in its policies towards people of one color over another? Doesn't this violate Section 15 of the charter which guarantees racial equality?

1) Everyone has the right to equality before the law and to equal protection of the law without discrimination because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age or sex.

[s211]

Whoo boy. This thread won't last long.

I heard an advocate for "reverse racism" programs claim that it's not racism because it's righting a prior wrong.

All comes down to whether you think (or don't think) that two wrongs do (or don't) make a right.

[GeeCee]

I myself believe the solution to racism is to stop caring what race anyone is (eracism). But now it seems like we are moving towards racial preferences/racial segregation on the opposite end of the spectrum where we give additional benefits above average to certain races instead of taking them away?

The problem with this line of thought is that particular groups (such as first nations) have historically been discriminated against and remain disadvantaged as compared to the larger population as a whole through intergenerational (lack of) wealth and other compounding issues. You can't right a wrong by pretending that it never happened in the first place.

[misher]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

The problem with this line of thought is that particular groups (such as first nations) have historically been discriminated against and remain disadvantaged as compared to the larger population as a whole through intergenerational (lack of) wealth and other compounding issues. You can't right a wrong by pretending that it never happened in the first place.

The point of this thread was to question if we should be restricting homeless housing to a specific race. I’ve heard of women and children first but are we going to start prioritizing social services by ethnicity instead of need? Will we now have racial priority at hospitals? For organ transplants? For life?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by misher

The point of this thread was to question if we should be restricting homeless housing to a specific race. I’ve heard of women and children first but are we going to start prioritizing social services by ethnicity instead of need? Will we now have racial priority at hospitals? For organ transplants? For life?

Do you realize "we" don't own the land where this will be built?

This is not new or unique. Check out this link.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by s211

Whoo boy. This thread won't last long.

I heard an advocate for "reverse racism" programs claim that it's not racism because it's righting a prior wrong.

All comes down to whether you think (or don't think) that two wrongs do (or don't) make a right.

And yet inter-generational trauma is a thing.

The numbers for FN homelessness alone should indicate that supporting FN led initiatives to combat homelessness makes tonnes of sense.

Misher, what's up with all the inflammatory thread titles? You need some nuance to your writing.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

And yet inter-generational trauma is a thing.

The numbers for FN homelessness alone should indicate that supporting FN led initiatives to combat homelessness makes tonnes of sense.

Misher, what's up with all the inflammatory thread titles? You need some nuance to your writing.

Its not inflammatory, succinct maybe.

The answer is an obvious no.

For any reasons on this look at how policies along racial lines worked for Zimbabwe, and are currently working for South Africa.

Acknowledging previous wrongs has nothing to do with handicapping current generations based on nothing but skin colour.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by rofina

Its not inflammatory, succinct maybe.

The answer is an obvious no.

For any reasons on this look at how policies along racial lines worked for Zimbabwe, and are currently working for South Africa.

Acknowledging previous wrongs has nothing to do with handicapping current generations based on nothing but skin colour.

Succinct like last weeks lovely title, the "Solution to Homelessness Stinks of Corruption or Incompetence"?

For FN, is it a surprise that there is a level of additional care that needs to happen to mitigate past gov't screw ups? Canada essentially took FN peoples on as wards of the state and screwed them hard. You don't get back on an equal footing by just saying, oh look we're not screwing you any more.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Succinct like last weeks lovely title, the "Solution to Homelessness Stinks of Corruption or Incompetence"?

For FN, is it a surprise that there is a level of additional care that needs to happen to mitigate past gov't screw ups? Canada essentially took FN peoples on as wards of the state and screwed them hard. You don't get back on an equal footing by just saying, oh look we're not screwing you any more.

I do understand what you're saying.

Amends need to be made for past wrongs, I don't mean to questions that.

I'm just highly doubtful of all the social justice in the West lately, based on no qualifiers other than race.

I think this is setting Western nations on a terrifying path that's bound to be taken advantage of in the most devastating way by true racists.

It all sounds well intentioned now, it wont be when weaponized by racist fringe groups.

[misher]

Originally Posted by rofina

I do understand what you're saying.

Amends need to be made for past wrongs, I don't mean to questions that.

I'm just highly doubtful of all the social justice in the West lately, based on no qualifiers other than race.

I think this is setting Western nations on a terrifying path that's bound to be taken advantage of in the most devastating way by true racists.

It all sounds well intentioned now, it wont be when weaponized by racist fringe groups.

Germans, Chinese, Japanese, and other ethnic groups have been treated poorly in the past. However, no priority is given to them. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...logy-historical-discrimination-1.4630905

I agree with Rofina, we are setting dangerous precedents by saying someone of one race is more important because we did something bad to a portion of that race's ancestors. I feel like politicians are mobilizing pro-First Nation sentiment to gain popularity and votes from the First Nations community in return for increased social benefits.

Although Wiki isn't a bad source, I'm going to paste the below regarding South Africa. While South Africa is an extreme case and I'm not saying its comparable to here, it is an interesting read.

Racism against White communities
According to R.W. Johnson, although post-Apartheid South Africa initially strove to be a non-racial dispensation under President Nelson Mandela, subsequent presidents Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma both mobilised anti-white sentiment in order to maintain political power.[7] It has been claimed that racism against white people goes largely ignored in South Africa, and that political parties like the African National Congress (ANC) and the Economic Freedom Fighters foment discontent and racial animosity for political purposes.[8][9]

Democratic Alliance MP Gwen Ngwenya has accused South Africans of "hypocrisy and dishonesty of treating black South Africans as the victims", noting that racism aimed at white people elicits little reaction from the populace.[10] A comparative study by trade union Solidarity confirmed that South African media give more attention to white-on-black racism; it also found that the South African Human Rights Commission is much more likely to self-initiate investigations into white-on-black racism, and is more lenient in cases of black-on-white racism.[11]

Journalist Ed Herbst has claimed that public broadcaster SABC's coverage of racism is skewed so as to portray white South Africans, particularly Afrikaners, as racist oppressors, and black South Africans as their victims.[12] Farm invasions, torture, and murders, the victims of which are predominantly white, receive little attention or government response.[13]

Former Supreme Court Judge Rex van Schalkwyk has stated "Almost entirely ignored by the selective moralists are all the innumerable examples of black racialism, with whites as the targets. There has also been a selective process of law-enforcement by the various law-enforcement agencies...".[14]

The F.W. de Klerk Foundation in 2016 stated "black South Africans are far more violent and racist towards their white compatriots than vice versa" and appealed to the South African Human Rights Commission to intervene on the issue of racism and hate speech against white South Africans. Its complaint to the commission detailed "45 social media postings that incite extreme violence against white South Africans." The foundation also said "an analysis of Facebook and Twitter messages shows that by far the most virulent and dangerous racism – expressed in the most extreme and violent language – has come from disaffected black South Africans. The messages are replete with threats to kill all whites – including children; to rape white women or to expel all whites from South Africa."[15]

In 2017, certain ruling-party ANC government targeted white people with threats in official speeches.[16][17]

[scryer]

For the past two days since seeing this thread pop up I have been trying to find the popcorn emoji...

#triggered

[mcminsen]

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by misher

Germans, Chinese, Japanese, and other ethnic groups have been treated poorly in the past. However, no priority is given to them. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...logy-historical-discrimination-1.4630905

I agree with Rofina, we are setting dangerous precedents by saying someone of one race is more important because we did something bad to a portion of that race's ancestors. I feel like politicians are mobilizing pro-First Nation sentiment to gain popularity and votes from the First Nations community in return for increased social benefits.

Although Wiki isn't a bad source, I'm going to paste the below regarding South Africa. While South Africa is an extreme case and I'm not saying its comparable to here, it is an interesting read.

There's a big difference in whats feasible between when 96% of the population screws over 4% of the population and what is feasible when 10% of the population screws over 80%.

There's a difference between being treated poorly and having your culture wiped out as an organised process. Cool story though

[Changing City]

I completely agree with you.

The situation you quote in South Africa isn't in any way comparable to helping a native housing society build temporary housing to help solve homelessness that proportionately affects the native population far more than any other part of the overall population. It's a bit odd that you felt the need to quote 7 paragraphs of not comparable material.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I completely agree with you.

The situation you quote in South Africa isn't in any way comparable to helping a native housing society build temporary housing to help solve homelessness that proportionately affects the native population far more than any other part of the overall population. It's a bit odd that you felt the need to quote 7 paragraphs of not comparable material.

African Americans by far make up more homeless proportionally than any other part of the overall population. Will you support converting our modular housing to African American only?

The above may or may not be true but it is used as an example because let’s not kid ourselves were doing modular housing for First Nations because it is politically correct to support First Nations. Not because of any statistic that says they represent the biggest proportion by ethnicity of homeless.

I think packing a building full of one race screams of racism or racial preference. It is a reminder of the projects where America had “state sponsored segregation” https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831...ow-the-u-s-government-segregated-america

I think any social services should ignore race or color and focus on helping people with a priority on children and youth who are the most likely to turn things around with support. We’re all Canadians. That’s the country I want to live in. Not one where we help one race and ignore the others. Hell imagine if German homeless shelters gave priority to Jews while turning away others, it just sounds wrong.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by misher

African Americans by far make up more homeless proportionally than any other part of the overall population.

Really? I must have missed that. Is that in Vancouver, or the whole of BC (as the funding you're referencing is from BC Housing).

[misher]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Really? I must have missed that. Is that in Vancouver, or the whole of BC (as the funding you're referencing is from BC Housing).

Sorry I made that a little confusing. That statement was meant as an example, I have no idea if its true.

[Hmoob]

-

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by misher

Sorry I made that a little confusing. That statement was meant as an example, I have no idea if its true.

It isn't true. To use something as an example, it's generally a good idea to have something to point to that's actually true.

For example, from the article that you cited to start this whole thread: "The focus on supporting Indigenous residents in these buildings is in line with the need identified through Vancouver’s annual homeless count, which shows Indigenous people make up 40 per cent of Vancouver’s homeless population.”

And as an added element, as you ignored it earlier, note that this housing is being built on the Heather Street Lands, whose owners are Canada Lands Company, and the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations Partnership.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by misher

I would understand if there was no government support (entirely run by the tribes) in this project, but there is. So now I have to ask, why are we allowing ethnic preference when we spend government funds?

What is the extent of the government support? The article states that the city issued permits, but that's normal. Is public taxpayer money being invested in construction and operation? What is the investment by the First Nations?