Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
> On May 6, 9:50 pm, "Jenicek" <Jeni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> And I bet you will start shouting again, if the church start condemning
>> reverse race discrimination at present in full speed in SA!
>>
> I don't think that it is accurate to call Black Executive Enrichment
> and the Ethnic Cleansing of the Workplace 'reverse' race
> discrimination - they are direct racial discriminiation. Denying
> somebody a job that he is qualified for simply because of the colour
> of his skin is, and always has been, racial discrimination and it is
> wrong.
>
> I must say that I haven't noticed much from any leading god-botherers
> about this, but I have never really expected much from them. As
> Steve's article points out, the churches are primarily organisations
> that are keen to protect their existence, and genuine attacks on evil
> don't help much with that. The Roman Catholic Church feared that the
> Fascists would take the Vatican away from them, so that was enough to
> keep them quiet on the holocaust. I doubt you'd find churches taking
> many risks to protect people from racism at work. After all, they'd
> argue, white people can simply leave to get a good job elsewhere.
>
> They're right about white people leaving because of racism. I was sad
> to teach somebody the other day who had been deliberately passed over
> for promotion many times (but was expected to train his juniors to
> take over his job). He, and his family (his children are completing
> their degrees, ready to enter the workforce) are leaving, not because
> he can't take it, but because he doesn't want his children to suffer.
> He certainly had no desire to leave and, knowing him, it is clear that
> his loss is going to cost the country economically.
>
> It was also strange to meet coloured nurses in New Zealand, senior
> nurses, actually, who had also left because of racial discrimination.
> It isn't quite so easy for coloured people, since they are also
> 'previously disadvantaged' [as the phrase has it], but not
> sufficiently 'previously disadvantaged' to benefit from the racism.
>
>
'reverse' race discrimination..... does this mean, by implication, that
whites are racists and blacks are reverse racists? I thought a racist
was a racist, no matter the colour. It seems not.
|
