If all racism was as easy to spot and denounce as white extremism is, the task of the anti-racist would be simple. People feel that if a racist attack has not occurred, or the word “nigger” has not been uttered, an action can’t be racist.
If a black person hasn’t been abused or spat at in the street, it’s not racist. But racism thrives in places where those in charge do not align themselves with white extremist politics. The problem must run deeper.
Positive discrimination initiatives are often vehemently opposed. Whenever I am invited to speak in panel discussions about race and representation, issues of meritocracy and quotas tend to be high on the audiences’ agenda.
The main questions asked are: do quotas mean that women and people of colour are receiving special treatment denied to others, and shouldn’t we just judge candidates on merit alone? The prevailing view is that majority-white leaders in any industry have got there through sheer hard work alone.
At the core of such opposition is the belief that positive discrimination just isn’t fair – that whiteness isn’t, in and of itself, a leg-up in the world. But, if it isn’t, how do you explain the glut of middle-aged white men clogging the upper echelons of most professions?
Opposing positive discrimination based on the fear of not getting the right people for the right jobs inadvertently reveals what you think talent looks like, the kind of person you think it resides within. If the current system worked correctly and hiring practices were genuinely successful, our workplaces would appear very different from how they do now.
There was once a time when even I thought that efforts to increase black representation were suspicious. I didn’t understand why there was a need for them. I could never understand why, when I was growing up, my mum told me to work twice as hard as my white counterparts. As far as I was concerned, we were all the same.
At the time, internship schemes looking for black and minority ethnic participants seemed unfair to me, but once I got through the door, I realised why they were necessary: any black people I saw were far more likely to be doing the catering or cleaning than setting the news agenda.
The reality is that, in material terms, we are nowhere near equal. This state of play is violently unjust. The difference that people of colour are all vaguely aware of from childhood is not benign. It is fraught with racism, racist stereotyping and, for women, racialised misogyny.
It is nigh-on impossible for children of colour to educate ourselves out of racist stereotyping, though if we accumulate enough individual wealth, we can pretend that we are no longer affected by it.
We must see who benefits from their race, who is affected by negative stereotyping of theirs, and on whom power and privilege is bestowed – not just because of their race, but also their class and gender. Seeing race is essential to changing the system.
每當我被邀請在有關種族和代表性的小組討論中發言時，精英和配額問題往往在觀眾的議程中佔據重要位置。 提出的主要問題是：配額是否意味著女性和有色人種正在接受不同於其他人的特殊待遇？我們不是應該僅憑功績來判斷候選人嗎？
在他們的普遍觀點中，任何行業裡多數作為領導者的白人都是源於他們純粹的努力而實現的。
「看見種族」對於改變系統來說，至關重要。
看到這篇文章之後覺得，該怎麼說呢，蠻感慨的。
作者身為一個有色人種的後代，如何從「想與白人談論種族歧視」逐漸演變成「我為什麼不再與白人談論種族歧視」的心路歷程令人心疼又生氣。
我自己受到最直接的種族歧視也不過就是走在阿姆斯特丹的街頭時，被一群白人路過碎嘴了一句Chinese
當時年紀小只覺得「阿不然勒？」
後來回想起來就覺得真想扭斷對方的脖子。
這當然不是說就要不思上進，或是擺爛。
而是，我們會的東西已經比別人多了，不要看不起自己，那些嫌棄你有口音的人搞不好這輩子除了他的母語之外，甚至沒有想過要去學另一種語言。
http://www.instituteforwomensurfers.org/wp-content/u...
自己人最會欺負自己人呵呵呵
後來推斷出的結果是："因為我們知道旅人只是過客，
但移民既然都決定住下來，有些人就會離所當然地覺得他應該積極努力融入我們的文化。"
我覺得有這種可能，不過學習的快慢或者語言能力的高低還是不該拿來當作歧視的理由
如果真的是這樣真的太難過了
但後來的台灣人怎麼看待外國人，我們都心裡有數