News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.3K     0 

poppajojo

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
170
Reaction score
0
Reality we prefer to ignore?

Why we must talk about race when we talk about poverty
Statistics show that economic hardship disproportionately affects racial minorities
June 10, 2008
Avvy Go

This week, the provincial cabinet committee on poverty reduction is hosting the first of two invitation-only meetings scheduled for Toronto. Given the limited scope of the consultation process, the responsibility thus falls upon the community groups and individuals who are participating in these meetings to make sure that certain critical – though unpopular – questions will be addressed.

Ask any member of a racialized community who lives in poverty why they are poor and they will likely begin with the problems they have accessing good jobs or getting a promotion because of their race. They will talk about the invisible glass ceiling that seems to preserve the highest paid jobs for whites only.

If they are immigrants, they will be describing the lack of recognition for their internationally obtained degrees and experience, which leaves them little choice but to work in low-wage, dead-end jobs. They will also describe the discrimination they face in accessing health care and the unfair treatment of the justice system.

But more important, they are worried for their children, who are being suspended and expelled from school in large numbers, and are at risk of dropping out altogether. They fear that the sacrifices they have made as parents are not enough to guarantee their children a better life than they have had.

Sadly, the statistics bear out their concerns. In the Toronto area, racialized group members are two to three times as likely to live in poverty as non-racialized groups. In Toronto, racialized families make up almost 60 per cent of poor families. Between 1981 and 2000, when the poverty rate dropped by 28 per cent for non-racialized group members, it jumped by 361 per cent for members of racialized communities.

For members of racialized communities, racial identity is key to their experience of disparity. However, the issue of race and how it intersects with poverty seems to be absent from the directions given by the cabinet committee for the consultations. Framed as "focusing on children first," the committee's questions may not be conducive to inviting input on how to address the issues of social exclusion.

Yet politicians are not the only ones who have problems talking about race and poverty. With few exceptions, mainstream economists and anti-poverty activists have yet to fully embrace a race-conscious analysis of poverty and the appropriate policy responses. Mainstream policy discourse on poverty and economic policies are often described as race-neutral with little acknowledgement of the differential impact of poverty on diverse populations, despite the unequivocal evidence that poverty is not colour-blind.

The most recent release of Canadian income data by Statistics Canada is an example. The StatsCan report shows that between 1980 and 2005, recent immigrants lost ground relative to their Canadian-born counterparts. The employment income of immigrant men dropped from 85 cents for each dollar received by Canadian-born men in 1980 to 63 cents in 2005 and the corresponding numbers for recent immigrant women were 85 cents and 56 cents, respectively.

Recent immigrant men holding a degree earned only 48 cents to the dollar relative to their Canadian-born counterparts while the earning gap for non-university educated immigrants was 61 cents to every dollar earned by their Canadian-born equivalents. The more educated a newcomer is, the greater is his or her gap in income.

While the loss of well-paid manufacturing jobs in unionized workplaces, and the overall decline in our economic performance contributed to this disturbing phenomenon, the earnings disparities between recent immigrants and Canadian-born workers increased not only during the two previous decades, but also between 2000 and 2005 when the economy was doing much better.

Missing in the mainstream narrative is the observation that most newcomers today are from racialized communities – in contrast to 25 years ago – and that they are struggling economically despite their educational advantage over other Canadians.

Absent also is the fact that the newcomer experience is shockingly similar to that of members of racialized communities who are Canadian-born. Racialized newcomers are not the only ones who are losing ground. So are the second-generation, Canadian-born members of racialized groups, despite having higher levels of education than their cohort.

In other words, it is not that immigrants need more time to settle and catch up, it is about racialized communities lagging behind as a group – whether or not they are immigrants. Class distinction in Canada is becoming ever more a racial divide.

Those who deny poverty is racialized are not necessarily being nefarious. Like most Canadians, they have bought into our stated multicultural ideal of an equal society where everyone, regardless of race, enjoys equal rights and opportunities. It is an ideal we all share.

But beyond the lip service that is often paid, we as a society have not done nearly enough to address the structural and systemic racism that exists and its harmful consequences. Our collective denial is the biggest stumbling block to achieving racial equality.

Admitting that poverty in Canada is racialized is not an easy step to take, but a necessary one if we want to develop an effective anti-poverty strategy that addresses the root causes of poverty.

What we need urgently is a comprehensive poverty reduction plan that integrates a broad range of universal initiatives, accompanied by specific targeted measures to remedy the different underlying sources of vulnerability that expose racialized – and other disadvantaged – communities to poverty disproportionately.
 
For the record, anyone with red-ish colour hair in Toronto is in the severe minority. Those with dark hair and skin are the MAJORITY.
 
I-Z1

I have just take the opportunity to review your postings on the forum thus far, and have noticed a rather illustrious history of antagonism. Just keep in mind that if you find it too difficult not to troll, we can correct that situation rather easily without your approval.

AoD
 
No, I'm actually curious. It seems to me the author is wanting to explore why visible minorities, despite a higher level of education, are experiencing higher levels of poverty. There must be specific factors that are contributing to this problem, and these require specific solutions.
 
The article isn't very informative as to cause and effect.

Certainly, highly educated recent immigrants are likely to fare worse than their locally-born counterparts, as their work experience and degrees are less relevant and accepted - but, while that practice is arguably an unfair barrier, that has nothing to do with "race" per se. Throughout the article, "race" is often conflated with 'immigrant", though admittedly the author also states that children of "racialized" (I assume "member of a visible minority" is meant here) immigrants also fare worse.

Discrimination (presumably by the non-"racialized" majority) as a cause is asserted, but only as an assertion.

I'm quite willing to believe that staistics demonstrate that "racialized" persons fare worse and drop out more - but is this really because the non-"racialized" population discriminates against them? Seems to me that the article asserts that it is, without providing any proof for it short of third-hand anecdote ("Ask any member of a racialized community who lives in poverty why they are poor ..."). What would you expect them to say? 'Well, actually, I'm poor because I'm not much of a worker ...'.

I find this part particularly disingenuous:

"Those who deny poverty is racialized are not necessarily being nefarious. Like most Canadians, they have bought into our stated multicultural ideal of an equal society where everyone, regardless of race, enjoys equal rights and opportunities. It is an ideal we all share.

But beyond the lip service that is often paid, we as a society have not done nearly enough to address the structural and systemic racism that exists and its harmful consequences. Our collective denial is the biggest stumbling block to achieving racial equality." [Emphasis added]

I read that as 'if you disagree with me, you are not necessarily a racist yourself ... you may just be deluded by admirable ideology'. Not a convincing tactic, methinks. Better to provide some proof of one's assertions, than to question the motives of those who do not instantly believe them without proof.

To my mind, the habit of blaming others for one's own lack of success is a more instructive explaination than "systemic racism". as proof, I'd point to the fact that discriminated-against minorities have often done well in the past in Toronto despite overt discrimination - consider the fate of Jews, who were hardly welcomed with open arms.

Sikhs have also done well, allegedly because they face discrimination as visible minorities, which apparently inspires many to attain high levels of education and professional attainment.

See: ceris.metropolis.net/Virtual Library/WKPP List/WKPP2007/CWP53.pdf

Bhachu (1985a) observed that Sikh families have become highly competitively motivated to succeed, because social mobility and status have become linked to educational achievement. While there is a high importance placed on educational achievement, Gobin (1999) has argued that Punjabi parents stress the importance of not becoming too Westernized. Moreover, Dhruvarajan (2003) has described the pressures that many Indo-Canadian youth may face, as their parents have immigrated to Canada in a search for better economic conditions. Furthermore, there is a strong belief that in order to protect children from discrimination, they have to be well educated and attain good professions (Dhruvarajan 2003). Dhruvarajan, moreover, has argued that many youth continue to face discrimination and racism hroughout their schooling until they are able to find a comfortable space for themselves within a peer group (Dhruvarajan 2003, 16).

Although Sikh youth cannot disguise their race, class, and ethnicity, Hall (1995) has noted that academic success is being used as a way of balancing out their feelings of inferiority, because high academic success and achievement have become linked to social capital and social mobility.

The issue it seems to me is not so simple as 'minorities do badly, drop out of school, the majority culture is at fault'. What is really at work is a more complex interaction between the culture of any particular minority group and the setting in which it finds itself. A simple-minded focus on "blame and compensate" is simply wrong - because it will not work.
 
Malthus how do you explain Canadian born visible minorities not getting the same opportunities as their counterparts, despite having a better education. I can't think of any other cause, but discrimination... and if this is true it certainly applies even more so to immigrants.

You seem to be arguing that racial discrimination is not common among our workforce, which sounds ridiculous to me.
 
Malthus how do you explain Canadian born visible minorities not getting the same opportunities as their counterparts, despite having a better education. I can't think of any other cause, but discrimination... and if this is true it certainly applies even more so to immigrants.

How do we know this is true? I'd say I actually lean slightly towards hiring visible minorities when I have the opportunity (dont accuse me of reverse discrimination please). There was a recent study that Canada tends to inflate the expectations of immigrants who often find their credentials aren't accepted here. While anecdotal, a case was presented of an immigrant senior-level civil engineer who couldn't find employment in Canada. In fact his experience had been supervising laboures who were digging ditches. I am not attempting to be funny. This man was misled, but so too are Canadians when they are constantly told that huge numbers of qualified highly educated immigrants are not finding work. I'd think that anyone here checking into a hospital would want certainty that their healthcare proffessional had been trained on up-to-date equipment and procedures etc.

The article said that English proficiency is key, immigrants need to be able to communicate their expertise - otherwise the education is useless. Australia has had large success integrating newcomers by insisting on that.
 
Malthus how do you explain Canadian born visible minorities not getting the same opportunities as their counterparts, despite having a better education. I can't think of any other cause, but discrimination... and if this is true it certainly applies even more so to immigrants.

You seem to be arguing that racial discrimination is not common among our workforce, which sounds ridiculous to me.

Well, first we'd have to know if it is true of not.

The article has two things to say about education and "racialized" minorities:

#1: That "racialized" youth are at risk of not obtaining education at all:

If they are immigrants, they will be describing the lack of recognition for their internationally obtained degrees and experience, which leaves them little choice but to work in low-wage, dead-end jobs. They will also describe the discrimination they face in accessing health care and the unfair treatment of the justice system.

But more important, they are worried for their children, who are being suspended and expelled from school in large numbers, and are at risk of dropping out altogether. They fear that the sacrifices they have made as parents are not enough to guarantee their children a better life than they have had.

#2: That "racialized" youth are "losing ground", in spite of having better education that their cohorts:

Racialized newcomers are not the only ones who are losing ground. So are the second-generation, Canadian-born members of racialized groups, despite having higher levels of education than their cohort.
[emphasis added]

How, may I ask, are these things measured? From the article we know that the first is a mere third person anecdote; the second is simply asserted. Are there any studies that show that a visible minority who has a doctorate and is born in Toronto does worse in terms of job-obtaining than a White person with a B.A., also born here?

Anecdotally, I do not believe that this is true.

The article contains one legitimate beef - that immigrants find that their credentials are often worthless - but this, it may be pointed out again, has nothing whatever to do with "race".

I am not arguing that there is no such thing as racism in Toronto - there are bigots all over the planet and Toronto I am sure has its share. What I am arguing is that the case for bigotry being an explaination for poverty is poor, and is certainly not made in that article.

In fact, I'll go further and state that not in every case does bigotry in fact preclude educational and financial success. Anti-Jewish bigotry was far more open and even official in Toronto in the first half of the 20th century, and this did not stop Jews from achieving success. Moreover, if bigotry against visible minorities = poverty for those minorities, one would expect the Sikhs, who are *extremely* visible (many are dark-skinned and the men wear turbans!) to be mired in direst poverty; yet that is not the case.
 
How do we know this is true?

Here, does this change your opinions?
Among young men born in Canada to two immigrant parents, visible minorities fare markedly worse-everything else being equal, their annual earnings are significantly lower than those of young men with native-born parents. Second-generation men who are not visible minorities, on the other hand, are no different from those with native-born parents—in fact, some evidence suggests that the hourly earnings of those with one immigrant parent might be higher. These results are consistent with census findings on an older population (aged 25 to 37), which showed that second-generation men whose parents came from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, or Central and South America, and most of whom are visible minorities, had equal or greater levels of education but lower earnings than those with parents from traditional source countries in North America, and Northern and Western Europe
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/75-001-XIE/2007110/articles/10372-en.htm#Beck

I'd say I actually lean slightly towards hiring visible minorities when I have the opportunity (dont accuse me of reverse discrimination please).

Congrats to you, but I'm sure you understand for every one person that might slightly lean towards hiring visible minorities, there are many more people at the other end of the spectrum. Also it kind of sounds like you're making an initial statement (especially with the sarcastic don't accuse me of reverse discrimination please) of being a promoter of immigrants, to justify your bashing.

Look at this study of cases at Health Canada. http://economics.ca/cgi/jab?journal=cpp&view=v28n3/CPPv28n3p373.pdf

If this is happening in an public-service organization formally committed to equal opportunity, can't you imagine it being worse in other places?

While anecdotal, a case was presented of an immigrant senior-level civil engineer who couldn't find employment in Canada. In fact his experience had been supervising laboures who were digging ditches. I am not attempting to be funny. This man was misled, but so too are Canadians when they are constantly told that huge numbers of qualified highly educated immigrants are not finding work. I'd think that anyone here checking into a hospital would want certainty that their healthcare proffessional had been trained on up-to-date equipment and procedures etc.

The article said that English proficiency is key, immigrants need to be able to communicate their expertise - otherwise the education is useless. Australia has had large success integrating newcomers by insisting on that.

I think you're not giving many immigrants their due credit. Yes there are some that fall under what you described, but there are many that don't. Often the educational institutions these immigrants graduated from are just as strong or even better than the ones we have here. I disagree with your inclination to believe that discrimination is not much more common than we are led to believe. It's something that is often very difficult to find concrete evidence on and can be easily hidden. Have you seen those government sponsored ads on television? If it's not a common problem why are we playing them 24/7?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=168_1209683052
 
Well, first we'd have to know if it is true of not.

The article has two things to say about education and "racialized" minorities:

#1: That "racialized" youth are at risk of not obtaining education at all:

#2: That "racialized" youth are "losing ground", in spite of having better education that their cohorts:

[emphasis added]

How, may I ask, are these things measured? From the article we know that the first is a mere third person anecdote; the second is simply asserted. Are there any studies that show that a visible minority who has a doctorate and is born in Toronto does worse in terms of job-obtaining than a White person with a B.A., also born here?

Anecdotally, I do not believe that this is true.

The article contains one legitimate beef - that immigrants find that their credentials are often worthless - but this, it may be pointed out again, has nothing whatever to do with "race".

Look at my previous post, there are different studies on this kind of stuff... it is measurable.

I am not arguing that there is no such thing as racism in Toronto - there are bigots all over the planet and Toronto I am sure has its share. What I am arguing is that the case for bigotry being an explaination for poverty is poor, and is certainly not made in that article.

In fact, I'll go further and state that not in every case does bigotry in fact preclude educational and financial success. Anti-Jewish bigotry was far more open and even official in Toronto in the first half of the 20th century, and this did not stop Jews from achieving success. Moreover, if bigotry against visible minorities = poverty for those minorities, one would expect the Sikhs, who are *extremely* visible (many are dark-skinned and the men wear turbans!) to be mired in direst poverty; yet that is not the case.

No, no I agree with you on these points. Yes, one can overcome these obstacles and succeed, I don't think the writer denies that. I think the writer is saying that these problems can often make things more difficult, create unfair impediments to the goal of being out of poverty and beyond.
 

Back
Top