The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

How else can one interpret ideas that would permanently lock in the racial underclasses?

This assumes that the status quo is actually a system deliberately designed to permanently lock in racial minorities into a position of underclass.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This assumes that the status quo is actually a system deliberately designed to permanently lock in racial minorities into a position of underclass.

One of the disconnects is that people involved in progressive politics often don't understand or accept market economics. Sometimes markets are competitive and sometimes they're not.

In a competitive market, discrimination has a cost. If you're a mortgage lender you want to lend to the person who will repay the loan with the largest possible amount of interest. Blackballing potential minority clients because you are racist will make you lose money.

It is the same in the employment world. If you hire based on capacity to do the job, discrimination by race or gender will cost you money. Allegations of discrimination imply that there's "money left on the table"; good candidates are left underemployed and paid below what would normally be their market rate. That is a business opportunity for a non-discriminatory employer. No government incentive needed. That is likely what helped African Americans so much in the vibrant 1940-1960 labour market of the United States.

Government incentives and regulation can often get in the way of this fairness through competition.

Not saying we always have perfectly competitive markets and I don't believe that is the case, but some markets are competitive and I believe competitive markets can be better for equality than bureaucrats or politicians picking and choosing who to help.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I guess not. And then people deny that allegations of racism are thrown around casually these days.

Or they just see through the game you’re trying to play and won’t take the bait.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

No reactions to the strong insinuation that lio45 is an advocate for white supremacy?

Let's not forget to consider who it's coming from. Anyone can say anything. I'm pretty sure you and I have been called racist by the likes of dleung plenty of times. No big deal. (It's 2020.)

It's like that time whatnext was called a "racist 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵" by misher. Everyone had a laugh and we moved on.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This assumes that the status quo is actually a system deliberately designed to permanently lock in racial minorities into a position of underclass.

To me, it's the other way around; kwoldtimer is the one who supports an incredibly anachronistic apartheid situation (the "status quo") that's been expressly designed to keep an ethnic minority officially different in status.

A true relic of the 19th century, that managed to travel through time straight to 2020, directly from back when people found official segregation on the basis of race/ancestry to be normal and reasonable. Unbelievably weird, when you pause and think about it.

[dreambrother808]

I've never met a white person who didn't have an opinion on racism. ... That doesn't make it informed. It's so complicated and nuanced and layered. ... So be willing to consider that maybe your opinions are not as informed as you think they are. ...

Most white people live segregated lives. Most of us don't really even know black people. Most of us go cradle to grave with few, if any, authentic, sustained cross-racial relationships and no real sense of loss about that. And yet, we have these opinions that we feel are equal to people who have, you know, studied and struggled and worked on these issues for decades. And so it's a little bit like saying, well, I've been to the Epcot Center, therefore I'm qualified to wade in on a debate with Neil deGrasse Tyson on whether Pluto is a planet.

https://www.wnpr.org/post/there-no-neutral-nice-white-people-can-still-be-complicit-racist-society

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is the same in the employment world. If you hire based on capacity to do the job, discrimination by race or gender will cost you money. Allegations of discrimination imply that there's "money left on the table"; good candidates are left underemployed and paid below what would normally be their market rate. That is a business opportunity for a non-discriminatory employer. No government incentive needed.

Yep, exactly.

Interestingly, this Vancouver Project for me has been an exercise in doing exactly this - for the first time, I needed a fair bit of unskilled labor, which in a big city in Canada means the workforce you're going to get will be super diverse. (Unlike what I'm used to, which is skilled trades; they tend to be more often "Old Stock Canadians" even nowadays, for generational reasons, being older on average.)

So... we ended up using a few temporary labor firms, and my own Craiglist ad, to which I had 300+ replies in a few days (I had to remove it, I was swamped) because it quickly appeared we were offering wages that were quite a bit higher than typical for here.

In the context of Covid-19, in March/April, it was totally an "employer's market". Everyone's begging for work - even at incredibly low wages (considering it's Vancouver - I mean WTF at those wages it would take you centuries to save to buy property; that's got to be the craziest ratio on the entire planet).

Out of maybe ~150 employees that went through our doors in total, we only need ~60, and eventually selected to keep the best ones. Since May we've had a "stable" workforce - and it turned out to be almost only South Asian and mostly very young.

There were two Québécois in the ~150, and in the end, neither was retained for the long(er) term. Can you imagine that I would prefer to give a job to a brown guy with a turban over giving that same one job (sorry, the number of jobs is limited - wish I could do more there) to a fellow Québécois?!?!? Yet, that's exactly what happened.

It's funny because an outside observer might suspect I have a very strong pro-India bias. (Not the case.)

In fact if I were South Asian myself I absolutely could not blame anyone for thinking I'm racist, just on the basis of who I ended up keeping.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

https://www.wnpr.org/post/there-no-neutral-nice-white-people-can-still-be-complicit-racist-society

An article promoting her book and her work as a diversity consultant. Here is a response, coming from a left perspective.

• Video Link

That is this work represents a confusion of policy and sin and this work comes about from corporations paying to prefer this confusion over the recognition of problems as a matter of policy.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This assumes that the status quo is actually a system deliberately designed to permanently lock in racial minorities into a position of underclass.

No, it doesn't.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

An article promoting her book and her work as a diversity consultant. Here is a response, coming from a left perspective.

• Video Link

That is this work represents a confusion of policy and sin and this work comes about from corporations paying to prefer this confusion over the recognition of problems as a matter of policy.

Cool.

And yet you’re not refuting what I actually posted.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Cool.

And yet you’re not refuting what I actually posted.

What did you post exactly? I read the article. It's a load of nonsense. More self-flagellation for the purpose of self-flagellation. The confusion of sin and policy.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

No, it doesn't.

Please elaborate.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by someone123

One of the disconnects is that people involved in progressive politics often don't understand or accept market economics. Sometimes markets are competitive and sometimes they're not.

In a competitive market, discrimination has a cost. If you're a mortgage lender you want to lend to the person who will repay the loan with the largest possible amount of interest. Blackballing potential minority clients because you are racist will make you lose money.

It is the same in the employment world. If you hire based on capacity to do the job, discrimination by race or gender will cost you money. Allegations of discrimination imply that there's "money left on the table"; good candidates are left underemployed and paid below what would normally be their market rate. That is a business opportunity for a non-discriminatory employer. No government incentive needed. That is likely what helped African Americans so much in the vibrant 1940-1960 labour market of the United States.

Government incentives and regulation can often get in the way of this fairness through competition.

Not saying we always have perfectly competitive markets and I don't believe that is the case, but some markets are competitive and I believe competitive markets can be better for equality than bureaucrats or politicians picking and choosing who to help.

You are making the argument that systemic racism is the job of the private sector, and not government, to solve. This may be closer to an actual solution than what most people have focused on so far.

[Architype]

Today's American headlines indicate that Trump is politicizing the racism issue so overtly now that the message is clearly "vote for me if you're racist", vote for them if you're not. Political issues generally have two polarized sides by definition. Basic issues like human decency are humanistic issues, the biggest mistake is to make such issues political.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Architype

You are making the argument that systemic racism is the job of the private sector, and not government, to solve. This may be closer to an actual solution than what most people have focused on so far.

It is no accident that "White Fragility" is the work of an HR apparatchik.

But privatizing systemic issues in such a way as to make them ones of personal conscience or etiquette is to place them right where the power structure wants them to be. It is a form of austerity.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by lio45

You'll be glad to learn I'm now officially an "Ally", I've recently donated stuff of nonzero value to the protesters occupying the park in my neighborhood, who were happy about it; does that redeem me or not yet...?

What park might this be? I haven't heard of any protesters occupying parks in Vancouver.

[urbandreamer]

I saw plenty of white fragility on display on Lake Joseph this past weekend; where were all the black people I wondered?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

To me, it's the other way around; kwoldtimer is the one who supports an incredibly anachronistic apartheid situation (the "status quo") that's been expressly designed to keep an ethnic minority officially different in status.

A true relic of the 19th century, that managed to travel through time straight to 2020, directly from back when people found official segregation on the basis of race/ancestry to be normal and reasonable. Unbelievably weird, when you pause and think about it.

I wasn't thinking about it in terms of that specific example, but yes this is a valid point.

[saffronleaf]

I'm all for removing whatever existing barriers are there that disadvantage someone on account of their race. I don't think these barriers are material in the Anglo-American context, but whatever is there should be remediated. If there is employment discrimination, there can be a wide range of policy interventions including agencies like the EEOC, laws against discrimination that are monitored and enforced by an agency, and technological fixes like anonymizing names during the hiring process.

But one major thing that people refuse to acknowledge is that different genetic and cultural population groups with, on average at an aggregate level, different histories, different cultures, different values, different interests, and different strengths and weaknesses will not end up being the same in terms of outcomes.

This applies even more strongly to within-race or within-population group dynamics. Equal opportunity never results in equal outcomes; some subgroups will continue to succeed while other subgroups continue to struggle.

I'd like to see a generous welfare system that takes care of those who will struggle but we should not assume that any difference in outcome, whether in-race/group or across, is due to prejudice.

The disproportionate absence of Asians in prisons in the US is not indicative of some Asian supremacy system.

The disproportionate absence of women in prisons in the US is not indicative of some matriarchal system.

The lack of men in grade school education is not indicative of some matriarchal system.

The disproportionate absence of the elderly in prisons is not indicative of systemic ageism.

Any time there is variance in outcome, you need to show your work that it's directly tied to something tangible rather than just raising some vague and abstract concept as an explanation in a sort of "God of the gaps" manner.

[saffronleaf]

I was speaking the other day with a Pakistani Canadian friend and he is woke left and believes in White supremacy and oppression.

I told him that I am sorry that he, as a Muslim, has been a victim of systemic racism or prejudice, and that I'm there for him and will listen & learn.

He immediately noted that no no, he's never faced anything material (other than maybe undue scrutiny by border agents at various countries on account of having a Pakistani passport and Muslim name), that he's not a victim, and that he's fighting for others who are oppressed.

There's this sense among liberals, even non-White ones, that they are the saviors and that there are a people who need saving. Many times, when the people who need saving are asked, they will note with almost a tinge of disgust that they are not helpless victims who need saving.

Of course, this is not universal, but it was a somewhat related anecdote I thought I'd share.