[gei]

What a bunch of crap. I'm a minority and never felt racism in any way shape or form in the workforce. In fact I'm making more money than most "non-minorities" my age that I know.

Work hard and you'll get what you deserve. Ignore stupid articles like this one. It's very easy to blame racism instead of yourself, and sadly that's why many people do it.

The vast majority of my friends are what people would call "visible minorities". And none of them have ever really experienced any serious racism worth mentioning. In fact many of them are doctors, lawyers, engineers, dentists, etc, etc (or rather, almost completed studies in those fields), and they always remark how few people of majority (read: "white people") are in their classes. A very very small percent vs the "minorities".

If anything I almost feel like white people are discriminated against these days. And like I said, I'm a supposed minority myself.

Quite simply, there are more immigrants around now then there were a generation ago, which is why many of the senior positions that only higher people with years of experience are filled with non-immigrants. As these immigrants get educated, as I mentioned above, we'll see the ratio of minorities in the higher-end work force balance out.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Tricky:

I think that's very well said. Such an effect is particularly promenient the higher up the hierachy as one goes, especially in certain careers.

AoD

 

[poppajojo]

Now before the counter argument gets too excited let me state that this disadvantage does not necessarily imply systemic racism. Although, if you have ever played hockey or golf or sat in meetings with middle-aged anglo-Canadian management you would be shocked at the level of overt racism. Now back to the frank discussion, underlying the statistics etc. is this false sense that people get and retain jobs because of their skills. Rubbish. People get jobs primarily through personal relationships and mutual understanding or connections they make weither it is informally or formally through an interview process. This means that management will automatically skew the results towards what they know or are comfortable with. People are sometimes hired because of their skills, and this works to the advantage of visible minorites but when you are hired for your skills you are not hired to succeed in a company you are hired to be used by it.

It is natural human behaviour to group individuals and extend them general traits because it is just too inefficient to take each person you are faced with and put in the effort to assess them as individuals. This behaviour is not limited to any culture or race, it is universal. But in these discussions it is never acknowledged that these generalizations can work to advantage as well as disadvantage. If for example your plumber is Russian and he does a good job and you see that there are many Russian plumbers, you will begin to generate a positive feedback generalization that works to the economic advantage of people of Russian ancestry. If you have problems with another group you will develop a negative feedback generalization that works to the disadvantage not only of the people you have a problem with but all people you group as such. If you are working with others you will automatically build relationships and cause positive feedback loops of mutual success with people you share the most in common with. So while you may share an office with a multi-cultural staff the real question is who is on your sports team and who do you have beers with after work? For many the answer may be colour or at least culturally blind but for much of the work force my guess is it is not.

These are valid points. Many visible minorities tend to stick within their own community, which could could make them worse off compared to assimilating with other communities that give them better chances for opportunity. Possibly a negative aspect of a cultural mosaic. The question is how much these cultural and relational unfamiliarities can affect decision making in hiring and promoting individuals.

 

[poppajojo]

Quite simply, there are more immigrants around now then there were a generation ago, which is why many of the senior positions that only higher people with years of experience are filled with non-immigrants. As these immigrants get educated, as I mentioned above, we'll see the ratio of minorities in the higher-end work force balance out.

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

I agree that in the future, the ratio will balance out, but not exactly because of your reasoning. Younger people tend to be more open to diversity and as older people who grew up with biases retire, it will be even better than it is now... not that it's so bad right now either.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

poppajoo:

Many visible minorities tend to stick within their own community, which could could make them worse off compared to assimilating with other communities that give them better chances for opportunity. Possibly a negative aspect of a cultural mosaic. The question is how much these cultural and relational unfamiliarities can affect decision making in hiring and promoting individuals.

But by saying that you posit it is the fault of the person who is of visible minority status, who because of their choice to stick within their community, has to pay the price of doing so in terms of access to jobs, promotion opportunities, etc. This makes me ask 1. why does/should one's association to a community matters, if it does not affect job performance and 2. what right does the individuals who practice the "gatekeeping" role to jobs and advancement opportunities have in rejecting or otherwise stonewall others who have the ability these positions require, on the unstated basis that because they wouldn't go out drinking after work or some other irrelevant issue that has absolutely no bearing on anything? This sort of unstated bias is the worst since it's at once systematic AND invisible.

AoD

 

[poppajojo]

poppajoo:

But by saying that you posit it is the fault of the person who is of visible minority status, who because of their choice to stick within their community, has to pay the price of doing so in terms of access to jobs, promotion opportunities, etc. This makes me ask 1. why does/should one's association to a community matters, if it does not affect job performance and 2. what right does the individuals who practice the "gatekeeping" role to jobs and advancement opportunities have in rejecting or otherwise stonewall others who have the ability these positions require.

AoD

Right, it's complicated. To answer question 1: I don't think it should. And 2: They don't have the right. But the harsh reality is that there's not much you can do to change the mindset of these types of people, their biases are probably firmly in place. Enforcement as we know is nearly impossible due to often the lack of concrete evidence, and the obscure nature of this type of discrimination.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

poppojojo:

But the harsh reality is that there's not much you can do to change the mindset of these types of people, their biases are probably firmly in place. Enforcement as we know is nearly impossible due to often the lack of concrete evidence, and the obscure nature of this type of discrimination.

Which is all the more reason to bring it to light IMO. We more or less all know that it exists, but we hate to acknowledge (much less denounce) that hiring by "connections" (and its' attendent cultural baggage) often translate into employments outcomes that are biased. There is really very little one can do if one keep on justifying this as the "Canadian" way of doing things.

AoD

 

[ganjavih]

What a bunch of crap. I'm a minority and never felt racism in any way shape or form in the workforce. In fact I'm making more money than most "non-minorities" my age that I know.

So what you're saying is that racism doesn't exist in Toronto. I see.

 

[theowne]

I'm sure racism doesn't exist for certain groups.

I think it's pretty obvious that a black person will be hit with far more racism in Canada then, say, a Japanese person will. Sad but true.

So I don't doubt gei's claim that he's never experienced racism, since he's probably one of the groups that doesn't experience much of it.

 

[theowne]

By the way, I think there's a tendency to associate racism with the white majority. No one pays attention to the fact that many immigrants tend to bring their own racist ideas with them. Racism isn't always white vs. everyone else.

As a "visible minority" myself, I have had maybe a few experiences of racism in my entire life in Toronto, and very few of those experiences involved the typical Nordic male who most people would associate with racism.

Something that immigrants tend to have more of is a sort of "casual racism" that they never really think about or consider.

 

[Malthus]

I think these discussions on race and poverty or race and employment miss the mark because there is never a real frank discussion on how people behave. I'm reading Malthus's arguments for instance and they are reasonable and all but they just don't gel with the facts I observe on the ground. Here is my opinion, the employment market is considerably skewed to the disadvantage and to a lesser extent advantage of visible minorities in many cases.

Now before the counter argument gets too excited let me state that this disadvantage does not necessarily imply systemic racism. Although, if you have ever played hockey or golf or sat in meetings with middle-aged anglo-Canadian management you would be shocked at the level of overt racism. Now back to the frank discussion, underlying the statistics etc. is this false sense that people get and retain jobs because of their skills. Rubbish. People get jobs primarily through personal relationships and mutual understanding or connections they make weither it is informally or formally through an interview process. This means that management will automatically skew the results towards what they know or are comfortable with. People are sometimes hired because of their skills, and this works to the advantage of visible minorites but when you are hired for your skills you are not hired to succeed in a company you are hired to be used by it.

It is natural human behaviour to group individuals and extend them general traits because it is just too inefficient to take each person you are faced with and put in the effort to assess them as individuals. This behaviour is not limited to any culture or race, it is universal. But in these discussions it is never acknowledged that these generalizations can work to advantage as well as disadvantage. If for example your plumber is Russian and he does a good job and you see that there are many Russian plumbers, you will begin to generate a positive feedback generalization that works to the economic advantage of people of Russian ancestry. If you have problems with another group you will develop a negative feedback generalization that works to the disadvantage not only of the people you have a problem with but all people you group as such. If you are working with others you will automatically build relationships and cause positive feedback loops of mutual success with people you share the most in common with. So while you may share an office with a multi-cultural staff the real question is who is on your sports team and who do you have beers with after work? For many the answer may be colour or at least culturally blind but for much of the work force my guess is it is not.

Whether these factors - one could loosely cal them "social cohesion" - work for the advantage or disadvantage of any particular group is of course a question of culture.

Some groups have more cohesion than others, and those often tend to do well - for example, Sikhs and Jews. They often had/have their *own* institutions, such as charities, and so can form their own "positive feedback loops".

Not sure why you claim your examples are contrary to my opinions - I see 'em as somewhat confirmatory. Whether you achieve success or not is at least partly a result of your ability to "network" within a culture, along with the other factors I've discussed. Of course, "networking" alone cannot explain the statistics - that women in visible minority groups tend to do better than men; unless one postulates that men are more reliant on networking.

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

 

[Admiral Beez]

By the way, I think there's a tendency to associate racism with the white majority. No one pays attention to the fact that many immigrants tend to bring their own racist ideas with them. Racism isn't always white vs. everyone else.

A big difference, IMO, is that in Toronto Caucasian folks, even Caucasian immigrants such as myself, do not self identify by their race, whereas folks of other races, even those born in Canada, self identify first by their racial background. I have a Sikh friend whose family has been in Canada for four generations who still self identifies as a Indo-Canadian. Black folks, IMO, in Toronto seem to self identify as Blacks, Chinese as Chinese, etc. Whereas POWP (Plain Old White People) in Toronto rarely consider themselves as being “white†or as being part of a “white groupâ€.

 

[poppajojo]

Some groups have more cohesion than others, and those often tend to do well - for example, Sikhs and Jews. They often had/have their *own* institutions, such as charities, and so can form their own "positive feedback loops".

Not sure why you claim your examples are contrary to my opinions - I see 'em as somewhat confirmatory. Whether you achieve success or not is at least partly a result of your ability to "network" within a culture, along with the other factors I've discussed. Of course, "networking" alone cannot explain the statistics - that women in visible minority groups tend to do better than men; unless one postulates that men are more reliant on networking.

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

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.

 

[poppajojo]

A big difference, IMO, is that in Toronto Caucasian folks, even Caucasian immigrants such as myself, do not self identify by their race, whereas folks of other races, even those born in Canada, self identify first by their racial background. I have a Sikh friend whose family has been in Canada for four generations who still self identifies as a Indo-Canadian. Black folks, IMO, in Toronto seem to self identify as Blacks, Chinese as Chinese, etc. Whereas POWP (Plain Old White People) in Toronto rarely consider themselves as being “white” or as being part of a “white group”.

Wouldn't that mean Chinese people would self-identify themselves as Asian? I don't agree with your point, there are many Caucasian people who have mixed roots, that don't identify themselves to one specific background. Or they've been in Canada for so many generations that they've forgotten or don't really associate themselves to their roots.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

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

They most certainly are to WASPs, along with Eyetalians, etc.