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

Wouldn't that mean Chinese people would self-identify themselves as Asian?

Many of them do. But there is a large Chinese presence too so....

As for Admiral Beez's post.....I do not identify myself by my racial background first.....

I have, though, on occasion been labeled by others by my racial background first, in which case I can't really do anything about it...
 
I disagree, not visibly. There are some stereotypical physical traits applied to Jewish people, but I don't think there's enough substance to it to easily identify them, even to Italians or WASPs.
You have to remember that a lot of Jewish people are Italians and northern Europeans.
 
You also have to remember that we're talking about racism in the workforce...if you wanted to, you can identify Ms. Rosenberg as Jewish or Mr. Corleone as Italian without looking at them.
 
You also have to remember that we're talking about racism in the workforce...if you wanted to, you can identify Ms. Rosenberg as Jewish or Mr. Corleone as Italian without looking at them.

Jews are not a visible minority so it has no relevance.

The subject was visible minorities, but yeah you can identify peoples background by knowing their last name.
 
Jewish and Eyetalian people *are* visible minorities to some...they can be more of a visible minority than a Chinese guy living in Markham.
 
Malthus, my opinions aren't necessarily contrary to yours but you were stating:

"No-one denies racism exists, but I think its real importance as to who does well and who doesn't is far overstated."

Where as I was suggesting that in my opinion it is perhaps understated not overstated. "It" not necessarily meaning racism but the importance of selective culturally or ethnically influenced bias. Infact, society need not be racist in the negative sense at all to still create the outcome of racial segregation or bias. No negative decision making or intolerance need occur in peoples behaviour in order to create conditions of disadvantage for a group. It is sufficient to create positive advantage for people who are like yourself and even be tolerant of all peoples and yet still through your decision-making contribute to the marginalization of those people who are different. Is it wrong to selectively create positive advantage for people like yourself? That is a completely different question, but we all do it in some form ethnically, culturally, regionally or even genetically (such as your biological family). My main point is simply an opinion that these forms of bias have a profound influence on our behaviour and the shape of our society and that this extends into the work place and creates genuine disadvantage, unfairly or justifiably so, for visible minorities.
 
They most certainly are to WASPs, along with Eyetalians, etc.

I have never found other WASPs' awareness of my being Jewish to be especially heightened or lowered compared to similar awareness among persons hailing from other ethnic groups.

poppajojo said:
Sikh's do not tend to do better or comparable to families from traditional source countries, so what you are saying is false. Jews are not a visible minority so it has no relevance. Your arguments don't gel.

If your point here is that noone in the workforce (or at the job interview, or submitting an application, or in the next office over) can tell that Jews are, well, Jews, I can tell you that you are generally wrong.
 
I have never found other WASPs' awareness of my being Jewish to be especially heightened or lowered compared to similar awareness among persons hailing from other ethnic groups.

I clearly meant racist/prejudiced WASPs that care about such differences, not every single WASP. And I guarantee you they're out there, railing against all immigrants, anyone with any accent, anyone with an ethnic name, etc.
 
If your point here is that noone in the workforce (or at the job interview, or submitting an application, or in the next office over) can tell that Jews are, well, Jews, I can tell you that you are generally wrong.

No, the premise of Malthus' argument was that discrimination against visible minorities was far understated because Sikh's and Jews have overcome discriminations and have become more or comparably successful than those with parents from traditional source countries. I said these points were weak because Sikh's do not tend to do better or comparable to families from traditional source countries and Jews are not a visible minority so it has no relevance.
 
You think bigots, racists, etc., base their prejudices on statcan definitions? *That's* idiotic.

Where did I say anything like that? You need to work on your reading comprehension. You're saying that Italians and Jewish people are visible minorities, but they are clearly not, yet you still insist. You can't seem to differentiate between a visible and non visible minority. You can't apply your own meaning to words, it's silly.
 
Where did I say anything like that? You need to work on your reading comprehension. You're saying that Italians and Jewish people are visible minorities, but they are clearly not, yet you still insist. You can't seem to differentiate between a visible and non visible minority. You can't apply your own meaning to words, it's silly.

Reading comprehension? The article doesn't even mention visible minorities! The article does talk about racialized groups and recent immigrants, which includes many Jews. The article talks about racism in the workforce, and you're highly ignorant of reality if you think 'white' people don't discriminate against sub-groups within the white community just because Statcan says they shouldn't.
 

Back
Top