On May 7, 7:44=A0am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2008 21:51:40 -0700 (PDT), "Peter H.M. Brooks"
>
> <Peter.H.M.Bro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >On May 6, 9:50=A0pm, "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.
>
> You need to get your terms straight. It's Black Elite Enrichment.
>
The recent Vodacom deal seems to be enriching Black Executives, so I
think that is part of it. You're right, though, it is not the poor it
is aimed at, whether it is executives or the 'elite'. Is it, though,
really aimed at a genuine 'Elite' - isn't a group of rich but
underserving people an oligarchy, not an elite? An elite is a good
thing, remember, something to admire and to aspire to.
>
> >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.
>
> The advantage of using weasel words like "previously disadvantaged" is
tha=
t
> they can be used to cover the presently advantaged and make them sound
har=
d
> done by, while ignoring the plight of the currently disadvantaged, black
a=
nd
> white.
>
Well quite - though I don't think many white people who were actually
disadvantaged by Apartheid are considered members of the club.
|
