RESPONSE TO ABOVE ARTICLE:
‘CLAUDIA WEBBE says only affirmative action can break down the barriers to race equality in the workplace’. A deeply problematic statement.
First, there is no real need to break down race inequality in the workplace since Blacks can become self-employed and, thereby, avoid such race discrimination.
Second, only those engaging in the unequal behaviour can break it down; otherwise, Blacks will have to spend Their lives scrutinising every aspect of White Behaviour for signs of inequality. This will hardly leave Blacks with much time to get on with Their careers and actually be equal. Racism is a White Problem. Whites have to deal with it because only They can because it is within Themselves – forever out of reach of Blacks.
Third, affirmative action (a Black Euphemism for positive discrimination) means relying on White Racism for Black Success since, without White Racism, affirmative action can’t be successful – if legalised – or, even, necessary. For Blacks to come to rely on White Racism for Their success is a profound admission of failure; akin to Jews relying on Nazism for Their worldly success.
For affirmative action to work at all it must be seen as the necessary complement and corollary of the current unwritten affirmative action that Whites employ for the advancement of Themselves and Their Own. That is to say, the fact that Whites are more likely to recruit, retain and train those of Their Own Race – regardless of talent, skill or ability. Whites will never see things this way so will do Their level best to sabotage positive discrimination as being inherently racist; while implying it’s only OK for Whites to practise it – and to continue doing so.
The all-important thing to remember here is that anyone who criticises positive discrimination is – automatically – a racist.
Not only are Whites prone to being inequitable as racists, They even wish to practise Their racism more stridently than Blacks. In other words, Whites also don’t want the way They practise racism to be equal to the way Blacks practise it! The racial differential must always be maintained as far as Whites are concerned. This means that positive discrimination for Blacks will lead to Whites calling for more positive discrimination for Themselves.
The basic problem with affirmative action is that there is no way to objectively measure equality. This will therefore result in each racial group traducing the other for obtaining benefits and privileges they (allegedly) haven’t earned. This will produce the kind of workplace and cultural tension that will destroy any concept of equality. It will produce nothing more than an overt display of racial antagonism to replace the current, largely covert, race-war. If Blacks are tough enough to face these challenges, then so be it. If not, then affirmative action is not for Them.
Affirmative action is an excellent idea because it equalises (by counterpointing) Whites discriminating against Blacks with Blacks discriminating against Whites; creating a level playing field of racism. But Blacks need to face the practical difficulties of this that articles like this elide.
Blacks need to realise the positive discrimination doesn’t (& cannot) produce genuine equality between the races but a mere equalisation of the mutual discrimination. It couldn’t possibly produce any other effect. To think otherwise is misguided and a waste of energy squandered on something that will yield less return than Blacks would like to wishfully think.
Blacks are trying to see too much into positive discrimination as if it were a panacea for White Racism. It is, however, possible that if Whites are racially abused via positive discrimination, They will get to know what it’s like to experience such abuse and start to stop doing it Themselves - after coming-to-terms with Their own racism. But it’s more likely Whites will abreact via a backlash - as there has been in the United States. Especially in the implicit and oft-heard claim that any Black who does well for Himself has done so not by ability but by positive discrimination; because He is Black and for no other reason. Whites will never admit that many Whites undertake jobs simply because They are White and not because They are talented and skilled. This kind of criticism is inherently racist because it’s only reserved for non-Whites. (Only in a social-class context are Whites ever prepared to admit that positive discrimination operates in favour of the middle- at the expense of the lower-class) But then that’s the kind of denial that positive discrimination is partly designed to resolve.
The other problems with this article are the tendency to scapegoat White Racism for Black Failure. ‘Path West Midlands Ltd exists because of the significant gap and lack of institutions and bodies to address inequality in employment and barriers to employment as experienced by Black and minority ethnic communities in the West Midlands region’. But Blacks create these problems Themselves, primarily because Blacks are naive enough to think that Whites are going to welcome them as employees with open arms. Experience shows that this will never be the case. And because Blacks believe that the world owes Them a living and that thus They have no need of establishing Their own ‘institutions and bodies’ for the purposes of self-help. Such organisations would not be primarily focused on addressing inequality as an organisational goal, their very existence would do this.
Path West Midlands Ltd is really just a group whose primary focus is the exploitation of inferior Blacks via scapegoating Whites for that very self-induced inferiority. Such organisations exacerbate problems - they do not solve them. In this, they are very much like social welfare – ostensibly designed to help the poor but whose actual impact is to perpetuate poverty. This is because of the violation of a simple axiom: If you give a man money for doing nothing; don’t be surprised when he continues to do nothing. This becomes: If you tell a man he’s failure because of his skin colour, don’t be surprised that he never faces the fact that his failure might be because he’s not all that bright.
Proof of the parasitic nature of Path West Midlands Ltd follows. ‘Our twenty year old organisation exists precisely because Black and minority ethnic communities do not share equal rights with respect to employment and freedom from discrimination’. Everyone has equal rights in the UK, it’s just that many choose not to exercise those rights – and a right unexercised (like a vote not cast) is simply a waiving of one’s rights. That is the problem of the person concerned – not the culture being criticised.
Additionally, it should be said that nobody is free from discrimination and Blacks here are simply trying to place Themselves in a special category of “Most Discriminated in Show”. That is hardly equal.
More problematic statements. ‘We are regarded as a relatively successful black led voluntary organisation [By whom? In relation to which set of statistics?] that focuses on the barriers to career advancement and progression and barriers to professions where Black and minority ethnic communities are not so readily engaged and employed ie where there is under representation’. Is this under-representation the result of Whites not employing Blacks or the result of Blacks not wishing to pursue certain careers? Does it mean that Blacks must pursue certain careers to feel equal with Whites regardless of whether doing so satisfies Them as individuals? Does it mean becoming a barrister, for example, because Blacks need more Black Barristers or because a career in the law is attractive, in and of itself to any given Black? These issues are never addressed because the expression ‘under representation’ has no objective meaning.
The sad truth here is that because the author believes everyone is equal in the numerical sense, there should be a certain quota of Blacks performing certain jobs simply because that matches that proportion of Blacks in the population. This means that all UK companies must have at least 8% of their workforce Black regardless of intellect and education. That this makes no business sense (as well as being thoroughly immoral) eludes such fools. As does the fact that such things as culture and aptitude predispose people to some activities over others. Does this now mean that Whites, who are (by this measure) under-represented in athletics and popular music, should have affirmative action foisted upon Them in order to redress this alleged imbalance? If so, then we obviously need an expensive and pointless publicity campaign to encourage more whites to become boxers because all Frank TALKER ever sees is two black guys going at it in the ring – whites being definitely under-represented there!
The conflation here – as always with the unworldly proponents of positive discrimination – is between biological inequality and equal rights. Both are facts of life but the latter can never compensate for the former.
‘We take a dual approach to our work, which does not focus on “blaming the victim” [even though it’s often the victim’s fault?!], but instead seeks to work with the employer to open up technical, managerial and professional opportunities via positive action and we further work with these employers to examine their policies, practices, procedures and processes’. Although this is a good idea, where it will encounter problems is in the fact that this approach ultimately means psychoanalysing the employer – and no White ever wants to be told by a Black that he’s a racist. That leads to Whites thinking you’re an Uppity Negro.
‘We have an 80% success rate of individuals gaining... employment as a result of our intervention’. What does this really mean? Is the alleged problem of under-representation really being solved or are employers merely being emotionally blackmailed to hire unsuitable candidates simply because They’re Black? We are never told.
‘We find that an individual’s life events and life experiences are symptoms of racism [Whose? Black, White or both?], rather than a cause of any disadvantage’. This is garbage because it means that one’s experiences don’t influence one’s later experiences. That whatever happens to one occurs in a contextless vacuum of unconnected experiences. This is the same as Whites endlessly claiming, whenever one of the endless examples of Their racism rears it head, that it’s a one-off event - totally untypical. The fact that such events keep happening shows just how typical they really are. Such statements deny the agency of self-fulfilling prophecy in claiming that only White Racism is the problem, but never poor Black responses to it. And such a claim is just as racist.
‘We also find that the barriers to career progression for Black and minority ethnic communities and the under representation of Black and minority ethnic communities in key professions blocks an individual’s right to develop their full potential’. Problem is that an individual’s potential is based on overcoming barriers to developing it, not in having an alleged right to develop one’s full potential. If self-development were easy, then everyone would be well-developed. But the fact is that most people live fruitless, aimless and pointless lives not because they are disadvantaged but because they lack guts. A right to develop one’s full potential means that the gutless can achieve without effort; that is, pseudo-achieve.
Only a recognition of reality can form the basis for achievement – not an attempted tampering with reality that achieves no more than a superficial change; leaving the underlying reality intact.
‘We found that the more qualified Black and minority ethnic people are the more difficult it is for them to find a position commensurate with their qualification’. This is because Whites don’t believe Blacks are Their intellectual equals. Whites try to evade the existence of well-educated Blacks in order to continue believing this self-serving racist delusion on the basis that if intelligent Blacks CANNOT exist – because of Black Biological Inferiority – then They don’t ACTUALLY exist. And clever Blacks can be made invisible (sort of) simply by not hiring them.
The other issue here is that Whites want to make Blacks believe that going to university is a waste of time and money for Them since it gives Blacks “ideas above Their station” about intellectual equality with Whites. Whites hope this will discourage Blacks from going to university; freeing-up more places for traditionally and historically positively-discriminated against Whites.
‘Further, Black unemployment has remained at an unacceptable [by what objective standard?] level across the West Midlands for well over three decades and thus many face generational unemployment through no fault of their own’. It takes two to tango, I'm afraid. To claim that someone has an experience with which they don’t themselves collude is abject self-delusion.
‘Because of this the work that we do only begins to scratch the surface. [The reason for this is that the work that you do is, itself, superficial.] At the current rate of progress generational unemployment will remain for the next 90 years and we will not see any equitable balance in the workplace until at least 2080’.
‘After all the Northern Ireland Fair Employment Legislation, which is based on a form of Affirmative Action has made a difference to the employment of Catholics. Catholics are now more represented in managerial, professional and senior administrative posts’. This is a poor example of equality for two reasons. One, the Catholics you’re talking about are White, and Whites are far more likely to treat Their Own with respect than They are Blacks. Two, the bloodshed in northern Ireland made such equality legislation inevitable. In other words, it was necessary for thousands of people to be killed to achieve this. Is this author suggestion an all-out race-war with Armalites - lasting at least two generations – to convince Whites that Blacks mean business and are no longer willing to be fucked around anymore? Although such a war isn’t a bad idea, does this author fully understand that she’s implying this?
‘[A dearth of employable Blacks] threatens the future prosperity of not just Birmingham, but much of the West Midlands economy and thus the UK as a whole. The cost of this inequality to society is clear’. This statement is naive and proves the author’s complete lack of understanding of White Racism. Whites are perfectly prepared to ruin Their own economy rather than let Blacks take it over. That Black Migrants are needed to prop up both the UK & US economies (because Whites don’t reproduce fast enough & are not concerned with being well-educated), doesn’t stop Whites calling for racist immigration controls. No matter how self-contradictory such pseudo-logic clearly is. This author thinks racism logical! If it were, racists would smile a lot more than they do because they’d be a lot happier than they are.
The UK economy has been in terminal decline since the end of the British Empire precisely because of the failure of this Empire to sustain itself. Whites daren’t admit that this proves They’re not the superior race They think They are. And Whites would rather go to hell in a hand-basket than admit Blacks aren’t Their inferiors and can be just as involved in reviving the British economy as Whites. But this requires renouncing a racism that is the fundamental bedrock of British culture – as it was of an Empire Whites have yet to emotionally repudiate. This explains why the following statement is hopeless hogwash:
‘No progress can be achieved without the dismantling of the structures perpetuating the racism that blocks Black and minority ethnic communities from participating fully in the labour market’. Such dismantling would bring the entire edifice crashing down upon both itself and upon Blacks. This is a recipe for self-destruction unless you can convince Whites to replace Their racism with something more positive. Because the latter is impossible, it’s always been for the best that the races travel along separate paths and have as little to do with one another as possible.
The other problem with threatening Whites with the poorer performance of Their economy unless They repudiate racism, is that Whites think in concrete and not abstract terms. They think about Themselves, Their families and Their friends. They do not consider great abstract concepts like the Economy because They prefer to abdicate Their responsibilities here and leave such matters to politicians. Politicians They – as self-willed parasites – blame when the Economy inevitably goes wrong because of this refusal to deal, personally, with the great abstractions of life.
Whites don’t understand the Economy and don’t want to. Therefore, Whites don’t see a threat to Their economic well-being resulting from Their racism - no matter how much you think you can prove it with statistics. Again, Blacks here have no real understanding of how White Culture really operates – and don’t really want to because Blacks are frightened of that Culture.
The truly odd thing about Path West Midlands Ltd is that they work with organisations they label as racist – otherwise they wouldn’t need to be working with them since their would be little point in working with a pro-diversity organisation. And yet, given this, they somehow hope that these bad organisations aren’t going to be upset or offended by such a claim. In other words, Path West Midlands Ltd also falls into the same trap Blacks usually fall into of thinking that White Racism can be negotiated or appeased away through alleged appeals to reason. But this never works because as soon as you insult someone – no matter how valid your insult – this makes it rather less likely that they will co-operate with you – thus further entrenching the racism. In any case, racism isn’t logical, so racists will never listen to reason – if they do any such thing, then they’d hardly be racists in the first place, now, would they?
Whites should have no problem with the concept of affirmative action (ie, racism) since They’ve been practising it for centuries.
The fundamental reason Whites don't want positive discrimination; that is, the reason They want affirmative action to be Their exclusive racial preserve, is because if the positive discrimination franchise were extended to Blacks, Whites would then have to work harder for the well-paid jobs They believe should only be reserved for Them. Whites would then actually have to BE - rather than merely ACT - the superior people They claim to be. This would require that Whites completely re-appraise Their culture and then embrace pro-diversity. Clearly, Whites have no wish to do this since it requires actual hard work and effort as opposed to comparative ease of racial snobbery.
The economic disbenefits of racism are never quantified here. In any case, even if the White economy fails completely or isn’t a successful as it might be if it renounced racism, Whites will blame this failure on Blacks – never Themselves.
This author doesn't accept that positive discrimination is a form of racism so doesn't really present the case for affirmative action: She merely presents the case for evading the very reality of the political action she so poorly advocates.