"Zvaka****a" <lalapansi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:g06bc8$1enb$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
***You are right. Racism knows no color boundaries.
|
