Not all racial or gender divisions are obvious; exclusion or denial of privilege is harder to spot.
I have to pay $20,000 for my schooling. My first nations friends pay nothing, it's covered by tax payers. This includes numerous other benefits that I do not get. In Canada, unfortunately it can often seem like the minority have more privileges. That's not equality, to me.
This smacks of tremendous ignorance of the history of First Nations people and what white Canadians have done to them. It's possibly the most concrete demonstration of white privilege I've ever seen.
"Well gee, I'm just a simple guy, but I don't think trying to balance out the horrible things that people of my race did to people of another race well into the 1900s that irreversibly affected their communities ability to survive is all that fair if I don't get those things too!"
It's all well and good to want a level playing field, but when you've spend the last century digging everyone else into gigantic holes, it kind of rings a little hollow.
My grandparents were not even in this country at the time, it was not my ancestors nor me that hurt anyone. So I should have less because of what someone with the same skin colour as me did decades ago? Doesn't that seem a little, I don't know, discriminatory?
I don't know where you live but in Toronto with the exception of university tuition, all those things are provided for children that can't afford them regardless of their background. The concept of not letting a child go on a field trip or go hungry at lunch because they couldn't afford it is just insane to my ears.
> My grandparents were not even in this country at the time, it was not my ancestors nor me that hurt anyone.
Good thing this has little or nothing to do with punishing the descendants of those who may or may not have perpetrated injustice. It's about providing a leg-up to those that have been held down for decades. You had no such disadvantages so you don't receive the leg up.
> Doesn't that seem a little, I don't know, discriminatory?
Providing benefits to anyone while excluding anyone else is technically discrimination. That's doesn't make it bad. Not all things are equal. It's discrimination that students pay less than you to take the subway. Also discrimination, also not a bad thing.
As insane as it may sound for a Torontonian, I grew up in Scarborough where many people didn't go on field trips simply because of the cost. Some kids had small lunches. And I grew up in a time where, because of cut backs in education costs, students were required to pay a "course fee" of about $50 at the beginning of the term in high school to pay for additional learning supplies for classes. Which usually amounted to the fee required to print workbooks, provide extra writing materials, or even art supplies.
Except for that it's discrimination based on need and not race.
Everyone should have access to these things, that some first nations people got this while you didn't isn't a problem with first nations people, but society at large not caring for its members. Of course, it is important to remember that first nations people experience that lack of care in unique and often violent ways.
> My grandparents were not even in this country at the time, it was not my ancestors nor me that hurt anyone. So I should have less because of what someone with the same skin colour as me did decades ago? Doesn't that seem a little, I don't know, discriminatory?
You or your immediate ancestors didn't have to be there to benefit from that past and the situation it fosters today. You frame this as you being targeted to get less, which is really far from the truth about how first nations people live in Canada today. Finally, no you are not being discriminated against, you are benefiting directly and indirectly from past and current colonialist policies in Canada if you are white.
Just FYI, the last Canadian residential school closed in... drum roll... 1996. Sweet deal indeed.
But the reality is that to get to this point, many immigrant families and first nations families face enormous difficulty to meet their basic needs. To get to this country is one thing, to get here without anything is another. To have everything taken away and having to build it up without a strong support network is difficult. Equality isn't just about the money, it's about the community around you that helps create an environment that allows you to grow and succeed. By just pointing at the price tag, you're oversimplifying so many social factors and issues that play into how you get into university, get out, and start your career path in which, for families coming from difficult situations can simply be solved by some money.
Oh, and in case you were wondering, I am a visible minority myself. I didn't suffer and neither did my parents because the heavy burden was taken care-of by my great-grandparents and grandparents notwithstanding blatant racism by society and even government laws. I'm several generations removed from understanding the economic difficulties, but I'm still very much rooted in the cultural and social ones.
I completely agree with a support system for people who need it, but I do NOT think that system should be based on racial background.
The thing to understand about racism is that it's a societal thing, not an individual thing. Discrimination against an individual can be racist, but only if it contributes to the racism of a society. (I know, the academic usage of "racism" is unfortunately a little different than the colloquial usage)
In your individual case, you might not be as privileged as the students around you, but your race certainly is. I don't know much about Canada, but Native Americans have quantifiably rough lives. On average they make less, are more likely to become alcoholics, and are less likely to make it through college.
It's not about what your ancestors did. People bring that up a lot but you shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of people you never met just because you're related to them. In fact, you aren't held accountable. But you still have to deal with the society we live in as a result of the actions your ancestors took. That society is deeply inequal, and by providing things like scholarships we're accelerating progress in equality that traditionally takes decades to come about.
Socioeconomic status is the only real differentiator, and these factions only serve to divide the people whose interests are in reality, quite aligned. Unsurprisingly, this tends to greatly assist those at the top of the socioeconomic ladder in maintaining political deadlock on issues which greatly assist the majority at the expense of the tiny minority. Issues such as the social safety net, healthcare, education, infrastructure, and democratic process.
A cursory review of history shows that this is not a novel strategy.
That's a massive leap in logic. Society isn't a simple one in, one out metric.
As a result, it sounds like you're saying "screw you, I got mine". We can flip the question around: why does this majority deserve better opportunities? There aren't very good answers to that question.
The main thing I'd point out is that unlike your metaphor society is not a zero-sum game.
No, if you make things worse for 90% of the population, and make it better for 10% of the population, the total is worse and therefore the average (mean) is worse.
Edit: an example. Let's say the first 9 people rate society at 10 points, and the last one rates it a 4. Total 94, mean 9.4, median 10. Now change things around so everyone is equal and ranks things a 9. Total 90, mean 9.0, median 9. Even though the majority is almost as happy as before, and the minority is much happier, most measures come out worse.
We're assuming in this totally contrived example that points are a measure of total resources + opportunity in our closed system, since we're implying a redistribution of a fixed pool of resources^1.
So, the total in the "after" picture would still be 94 and thus the mean would remain at 9.4 and the median would be 9.4 - (and down from 10).
I'm not a fan of arguing from averages - realistically, the picture is more like 1 - 1000pts, 2 - 100pts, 3-50pts, 4-30pts, 5, 6-7 - 20pts, 8-10 10pts
~ 1270 total, avg 127, median 20.
But these are all contrived examples (in the above I'm more leaning on income distribution, which I've reproduced from memory and may be skewed). If we equalize the above, the median would go up.
The argument for redistribution can be made on an economic/statistical basis - but the argument for equality, I think, is ultimately moral. It's not about fairness per se, but about justice.
^1 Not quite my stance but for the sake of argument.
>In the argument from justice, you think it's a moral mandate to take money away from people because other people have less money?
Well, not because other people have less money.
My politics are roughly "people should do whatever they want, but they should have to pay the price of the externalities of their actions", sprinkled with "reducing overall human misery is virtuous".
More like, because in order for the massively wealthy to exist there's a strong argument that there has to be a massive underclass to go along with it. In this light, being rich creates the externality of forcing people to be poor, and as a result it's perfectly moral to redistribute some of that wealth.
Another argument goes, we have a more vibrant and stable society if we ensure that a) everyone is healthy and gets a good education and b) no one person or group in particular can amass so much power as to be capable of destabilizing society as a whole.
There are a few other argument, but at the time of writing I think those two are the strongest. We can talk about right wrongs from the historical record, we can talk about the duty to minimize misery, we can talk about private property is a state-regulated right and thus it's legitimate to argue over it, we can talk about theological underpinnings, etc etc.
You may disagree, of course.
Nobody is arguing to make things harder or worse for those with privilege. Generally people are asking for equal consideration and opportunity and a recognition of past and existing injustice.
If you’re a white person with wealth and children, choose to invest in and send your children to a local, public, neighborhood school or at least a private school with a strong commitment to diversity and inclusion rather than a lily-white private place with connections to the Ivy League.
http://everydayfeminism.com/2012/12/how-to-talk-to-someone-a...
One argument against this is based on the philosophical concept of a Veil of Ignorance[1]. We should create the rules of society as if we don't already know what our position in society will be. No one wants to live in a society where they could be randomly selected for organ harvesting, for example.
That is an argument no one is making. What are you talking about?
How do these make you feel?
Also how about someone went up to an old man and said, "You are an old man in your sixties, and I'm a college kid in my twenties. You will die much earlier than me. That's pretty much close to fact. Do you disagree?"
I understand there are bonus points for this in America. But it also means that rest of the article is very likely going to be a political rant