|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 30, 2023 11:28:14 GMT
From the main facts and figures on the Gov.UK website there could be a number of reasons for them. For example: 16-24yr olds of all ethnicities had the lowest unemployment rate. They could have poor English. There could be cultural reasons due to their ethnic background. They could be unemployed on paper and work cash in hand. They may not be interested in working. They may have family commitments. They may prefer being on benefits. They may lead a life of crime and prefer to earn their keep this way. There could a number of reasons, and included possibly discrimination. Yes you could reach for other explanations but when one combines the ONS data with the CV study in which none of the factors you have listed are applicable, suggests to me that the most obvious explanation is the correct one. I only had time to browse the UK gov. one. The one based on objective stats. I also said this includes discrimination which the CV study possibly indicates, but those numbers are only a fraction of the government numbers. So, for me, it isn't the only reason ethnicities have slightly higher unemployment rates. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 30, 2023 11:28:39 GMT
And the majority in the UK is white, meaning referring to it as white privilege is accurate in a UK context. Arguing about semantics seems to be missing the point for me. I wouldn't call changing a racist undertone as something to being semantic. That's the point for me. Telling white people they are privileged isn't going to induce a cohesive society. And that's what you're all about with social injustice. Especially when there are many impoverished white people in Britain. I do agree that the phrasing is somewhat clumsy. However, the concept of white privilege and the fact that many white people suffering hardship are not mutually exclusive. To use an analogy, let's say for the sake of argument I owned a company employing hundreds but I had an unofficial whites only policy for board membership. There could well be white employees in the company who are poorly payed and have poor working conditions. There may be one or two non-white people in the company who have better pay and conditions than a lot of white employees. But that wouldn't change the fact that board membership was a privilege exclusively reserved for white people. White privilege in other words. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 30, 2023 11:37:53 GMT
I wouldn't call changing a racist undertone as something to being semantic. That's the point for me. Telling white people they are privileged isn't going to induce a cohesive society. And that's what you're all about with social injustice. Especially when there are many impoverished white people in Britain. I do agree that the phrasing is somewhat clumsy. However, the concept of white privilege and the fact that many white people suffering hardship are not mutually exclusive. To use an analogy, let's say for the sake of argument I owned a company employing hundreds but I had an unofficial whites only policy for board membership. There could well be white employees in the company who are poorly payed and have poor working conditions. There may be one or two non-white people in the company who have better pay and conditions than a lot of white employees. But that wouldn't change the fact that board membership was a privilege exclusively reserved for white people. White privilege in other words. I wouldn't say the phrasing is clumsy, I would say it is phrased on purpose this way. Telling white people who suffer hardship that they gain from this theory of 'white privilege' isn't going to entice them to another person's cause. That won't bring about social harmony and that is what social justice is partly about. In fact, it will more likely have the opposite effect. Perhaps your board members feel like this guy: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/29/bbc-nihal-arthanayake-struggles-too-many-white-colleagues/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhrPerhaps, like Arthanayake they want to keep the people who look like them around them, as these are the people they feel most comfortable to be around. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 30, 2023 11:42:21 GMT
I do agree that the phrasing is somewhat clumsy. However, the concept of white privilege and the fact that many white people suffering hardship are not mutually exclusive. To use an analogy, let's say for the sake of argument I owned a company employing hundreds but I had an unofficial whites only policy for board membership. There could well be white employees in the company who are poorly payed and have poor working conditions. There may be one or two non-white people in the company who have better pay and conditions than a lot of white employees. But that wouldn't change the fact that board membership was a privilege exclusively reserved for white people. White privilege in other words. I wouldn't say the phrasing is clumsy, I would say it is phrased on purpose this way. Telling white people who suffer hardship that they gain from this theory of 'white privilege' isn't going to entice them to another person's cause. That won't bring about social harmony and that is what social justice is partly about. In fact, it will more likely have the opposite effect. Perhaps your board members feel like this guy: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/29/bbc-nihal-arthanayake-struggles-too-many-white-colleagues/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhrPerhaps, like Arthanayake they want to keep the people who look like them around them, as these are the people they feel most comfortable to be around. Like I said, the concept of white privilege and the hardship suffered by many white people are not mutually exclusive. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 30, 2023 11:47:36 GMT
So, to encapsulate it properly, it is 'majority privilege'. I would agree with that. And the majority in the UK is white, meaning referring to it as white privilege is accurate in a UK context. Arguing about semantics seems to be missing the point for me. You are talking about 'majority privilege'. Nothing to do specifically with white people |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 30, 2023 11:47:37 GMT
I wouldn't say the phrasing is clumsy, I would say it is phrased on purpose this way. Telling white people who suffer hardship that they gain from this theory of 'white privilege' isn't going to entice them to another person's cause. That won't bring about social harmony and that is what social justice is partly about. In fact, it will more likely have the opposite effect. Perhaps your board members feel like this guy: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/29/bbc-nihal-arthanayake-struggles-too-many-white-colleagues/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhrPerhaps, like Arthanayake they want to keep the people who look like them around them, as these are the people they feel most comfortable to be around. Like I said, the concept of white privilege and the hardship suffered by many white people are not mutually exclusive. Like I said I don't believe the phrasing is clumsy. Like I also insinuated, if an ethnic minority is entitled to not feel comfortable around "too many white" faces, white people are entitled to feel comfortable around people who look like them. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 30, 2023 11:52:51 GMT
Like I said, the concept of white privilege and the hardship suffered by many white people are not mutually exclusive. Like I said I don't believe the phrasing is clumsy. Like I also insinuated, if an ethnic minority is entitled to not feel comfortable around "too many white" faces, white people are entitled to feel comfortable around people who look like them. "Like I said I don't believe the phrasing is clumsy." Agree to disagree then. "if an ethnic minority is entitled to not feel comfortable around "too many white" faces, white people are entitled to feel comfortable around people who look like them." You're entitled to feel however you like, it's people's actions that matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 30, 2023 11:53:47 GMT
Re the 'CV Study':
"The only thing that they changed was the applicant's name, which they based on their ethnic background.
While 24% of white British applicants received a call back from UK employers, only 15% of ethnic minority applicants did."
How do they know that applicants with 'white British' names were white?
How about someone called 'Trevor Macdonald' or 'Diane Abbott'? In the white British CV pile. or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 30, 2023 11:55:15 GMT
Like I said I don't believe the phrasing is clumsy. Like I also insinuated, if an ethnic minority is entitled to not feel comfortable around "too many white" faces, white people are entitled to feel comfortable around people who look like them. "Like I said I don't believe the phrasing is clumsy." Agree to disagree then. "if an ethnic minority is entitled to not feel comfortable around "too many white" faces, white people are entitled to feel comfortable around people who look like them." You're entitled to feel however you like, it's people's actions that matter. So your board members are fine then being white. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 30, 2023 11:56:59 GMT
"Like I said I don't believe the phrasing is clumsy." Agree to disagree then. "if an ethnic minority is entitled to not feel comfortable around "too many white" faces, white people are entitled to feel comfortable around people who look like them." You're entitled to feel however you like, it's people's actions that matter. So your board members are fine then being white. No because like I said it's actions that count and implementing a whites only boardroom policy would be illegal and unfairly impact people's career prospects. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 30, 2023 11:58:18 GMT
HH and others of that ilk would likely have conniptions if they lived in a number of European countries, German-speaking ones in particular, where it is customary to attach a photo to your CV when applying for a job.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 30, 2023 11:58:57 GMT
I'm sure our old Dad who left school at 14 and became a pony driver down the pit would have found the concept of 'white' privilege completely baffling. White privilege was rampant in those days - I think the guy on the left might have had some..  |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 30, 2023 12:01:35 GMT
BBC Radio 5 Live presenter Nihal Arthanayake has said an overwhelmingly “white” working environment is affecting his mental health. The presenter told a journalism diversity conference on Wednesday: “It’s really affecting me that I walk in and all I see is white people.” Sounds like this guy is in the wrong country - perhaps he should move for his mental health.. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 30, 2023 12:02:36 GMT
So your board members are fine then being white. No because like I said it's actions that count and implementing a whites only boardroom policy would be illegal and unfairly impact people's career prospects. So, in effect every boardroom must have a person of colour in it to satisfy your position. Irrespective of 'feelings' which are trumped by your need for 'actions'. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 30, 2023 12:10:37 GMT
I'm sure our old Dad who left school at 14 and became a pony driver down the pit would have found the concept of 'white' privilege completely baffling. White privilege was rampant in those days - I think the guy on the left might have had some.. When my niece was bullied and racially abused at school for being asian and was in tears saying she wanted to have white skin like everyone else when she was just 5 years old, her parents had to explain racism to her. My mum never had to have this conversation with me, we had the privilege of avoiding that because we are white. My niece's innocence was lost at 5 years of age and she will be aware of her ethnicity for the rest of her life in a way I never have been because I'm white, just like her parents and grandparents are. Their family will have to wait another generation at least to have what I've always had in that respect. The fact that my childhood was marred by the hardship and indignity of poverty doesn't mean I haven't been afforded certain privileges denied to others because of my ethnicity. I appreciate it's an uncomfortable concept, it's precisely because of my difficult childhood I once reacted emotionally and denied the existence of white privilege when it was first put to me, but an uncomfortable truth is still truth. |
|
