Wednesday, 29 March 2006

Race for opportunity


'The next milestone in the battle to combat race discrimination will be public bodies putting equality at the heart of service contracts...
'Employment minister Margaret Hodge said that Labour's goal of full employment, 80% of working-age people with jobs, could only be achieved if racial inequality was addressed'.

However, since ethnic minorities only represent eight per cent of the total UK population, racism does not need to be addressed to achieve an 80% employment rate! This is simple maths, after all. The issue would only be a problem if ethnic minorities represented more than 20% of the population which is unlikely anytime soon because Whites have immigration controls for Blacks entering the country. This means that White Racists have no incentive to tackle Their own racism.

Perhaps full employment should be redefined as 92%. That would then perhaps make Whites think twice about being racist since, like most UK government targets, the inability to deal effectively with work racism in such circumstances would then become more obvious. This would lead Blacks to the more effective solutions White Racists dread: Revolving around not curing racism but revealing it, so that Blacks can then reasonably claim that They wish to have as little to do with Whites as possible.

This would also have the salutary effect of forcing realists to face the fact that racism is such an Inbred White Problem that it cannot be solved by mere government fiat.

‘She [Employment minister Margaret Hodge] promised that several government departments would ensure that £300m worth of contracts demanded that successful companiesput (Sic) race equality in the workplace high on the agenda’. How this would tackle race discrimination at work is never explained. It’s like saying that because we’re aware of a problem - because we’ve spent the past 50 years banging-on about it – that somehow that awareness, itself, will make a difference. Plenty of issues are placed high on a meeting agenda merely to be forgotten once the meeting is over, after all. Simple experience tells you this, does it not?

'Our ability to use public procurement to influence public attitudes is an important lever’. The arrogance of (White) governments shocks even Frank TALKER. How governments influence public attitudes is never explained, except in the self-evident cases where personal and/or public safety is at stake – such as suggesting people wear car seatbelts. Albeit that this only ever worked when it became compulsory to wear such belts. But where is the public (ie, White) safety in changing White Attitudes to Blacks when it’s those selfsame Whites who believe Blacks are a threat to Whites? And who, therefore, believe that public safety is best served by discriminating against Blacks, not by ceasing to do so? The reality is that public safety is focussed more on the terrorist threat Blacks are said to represent and, therefore, in keeping as many out of the country as possible. And in keeping as many who already reside here in fear of stepping-out-of-line by, for example, expressing the merest hint of approval for such threatening (to Whites, anyway) activities as justified terrorism.
Post a Comment

About Us:

My photo

Frank TALKER - Truth-Teller