Affirmative action means exactly what I described. And that is why it is a mistake and also bound to fail.
Look around you. I prefer for every individuel to be treated equally and on the basis of his/her merits, not on the basis of which race, ethnic group, gender, ... he/she belongs to.
So do we, and if it was the case, then the discussion on affirmative action would be purely academic.
Of course the whole concept of "affirmative action" is racist, you only have too look at crap like the "intervention" and that should be plainly obvious. Modern Aboriginal policies are just more colonial paternalism, no different to Aboriginal missions and other atrocious policies.
Affirmative action is the opposite of treating each individual according to his/her own merits, instead treating him/her on the basis of race, ethnicity, etc.
Would you like to see groups of people have equality of outcomes? I think many would like for everyone to be treated equally, but you are talking about groups of people who were not treated equally for centuries and now all of a sudden while they've got their asses hanging out the back of their pants and generations behind in terms of equality of outcomes you want them to be treated equally without any assistance to advance their cause. Honestly this sounds strange! People understand, but those that don't have underlying issues as has already been suggested. Aboriginal soldiers were sent back to their missions and reserves after war, while we were given a couple acres and continued freedom. Common, this is a silly argument!
I agree, and would not be necessary if people were treated equally according to his/her merits instead of being discriminated against because of race, gender, ethnicity etc. Pity it's not a perfect world.
Notice how you prefer to talk in terms of "groups of people" rather than about individuals? - - - Updated - - - So because some people discriminate the state should institutionalize another form of discrimination? Do you realize how crazy that sounds?
One is positive action the other is negative. - - - Updated - - - Well they were obviously discriminated against in the first place as a collective group not because of their individuality!
And you want to perpetuate that by continuing with another form of discrimination based on belonging to a particular ethnic group.
Please, you think that NOT being treated like the rest of Australia, is beneficial for Aboriginals? Australian's, apart from Aboriginals, are some of the richest and most privileged people on the planet. But no, Aboriginals are different, so they need their own housing schemes, their own healthcare schemes, their own welfare schemes, etc, etc. There's a reason that rural Aboriginal communities are lawless slums, and rural white communities are not. Our own little Apartheid, how lovely. But that's okay, because we give some white middle class Aboriginals jobs and scholarships.
A group is two or more individuals ... sheesh do we need to explain EVERYTHING to you? Maybe we do .. Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. Not giving them something due to .... is unjust. Giving them something due to ... is not unjust. Before you go off half cocked, it is not unjust against those not having .... because the are not prejudiced against to begin with ... therefore ... you are incorrect.
Oh really? And who decides? Sure as hell isn't you. Damned easy to say it's a "positive" action. Damned easy to say NOT intervening is a "negative" action. But great, let's just implement the policy, do the damage, and then decide later if it was positive or negative.
no, read carefully NO, but sometimes it is necessary, not because I, TV or even they want it, but because if it isn't done, then neither is justice
I don't think it is discriminating against another group, it is creating opportunities for a disadvantaged group. They weren't given somebody else's job on a platter, they were created for a 2 fold reason. To help address issues from within services from a culturally sensitive manner and help break the cycle of poverty and everything that comes with it that puts stress on government funding.
It's not "not intervening" that is negative, but that which affirmative action is addressing that is negative. like ... not giving someone a job based purely on their race, sex, age, ethnicity etc is negative. Having sex, age or ethnicity designated positions is not negative. Not giving someone a job due to sex, age or ethnicity is prejudiced, ... negative. Giving them a job in a designated position is not negative. Sheesh, I feel like a primary school teacher
You think giving a few Aboriginals some benefits is "justice"? No. Most likely there will never be any justice, just like most of the rest of human history.
Indeed, as I said, you want particular groups of people to be treated on the basis of their race, gender, etc. and not on their individual merits. That's called racial discrimination.
Not giving someone a job based purely on their race is ILLEGAL, it's not even remotely the same thing as creating jobs that are only available to a certain race. You might feel like a school teacher, but you sound like a child.
