The BBC again: ‘No whites need apply’

suicide_circus

So it's not about race, it's about class

sydthebeat

biko wrote: »

It's frightening that the national broadcaster of the UK wants to actively discriminate against the majority of the population that is forced to fund it.

Yeah, so much discrimination that they are holding 80% of their jobs for whites....

km991148

suicide_circus wrote: »

Who actually sits down and reads a single newspaper these days honest to god.

I don't know, but why are you throwing that out there.
It's simple. If you actively read the daily mail, you can't then claim to be an advocate against racism in any form. The DM thrives on division. This doesn't mean you need to run out and buy a copy ffs

kildare lad

Would black people not be over represented in the media already in Britain . They make up just 3.3 percent of the population in England but if you turned on the telly or listened to all the racism/discrimination debate recently you'd think that number was far higher .

suicide_circus

sydthebeat wrote: »

Yeah, so much discrimination that they are holding 80% of their jobs for whites....

Can you show me where to BBC are "holding" 80% of their jobs for whites?

Dyr

fvp4 wrote: »

The Irish are being discriminated here by the BBC. No Irish, no Poles, no Welsh.

In theory they aren't, Irish is a minority ethnicity under UK equality legislation, which is what these wheezes usually fly under. In practice, I doubt Paleface Paddy will get a look in

km991148

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why do you think the DM represent the British elites? About .15% of the British population were slave holders, A small as a percentages that is, their descendants would be about 100,000 people today. Clearly, most politicians, left and right, most journalists, left and right, and most TV producers etc.

Let’s get rid of them

Who do you think runs the Daily Mail? Who do you think profit from them causing division by setting content policy that pushes gov agenda. Thus article is brilliant it's a two for one... Push the anti BBC angle on behalf of the gov AND keep the proles divided.

And people keep buying into.. honestly It beggars belief how easily normally intelligent people get sucked into this nonsense.

dubrov

dubrov wrote: »

Wealthier upbringing -> Better Opportunities and Education -> Better candidate for the job -> Gets job -> Wealthier upbringing for kids.
Then rinse repeat.

Without positive discrimination, I don't see how you can break the cycle to make a fairer society long term

A few studies (in the US) have found that when "affirmative action" was banned in certain universities, social mobility in those institutions increased. Mostly driven, I believe, by low-income Asian kids who excelled in academic testing for admissions and so on.

So it doesn't seem that "positive discrimination" does anything to remedy the effect of the nepotistic tendencies of our elites. Au contraire.

yascaoimhin

suicide_circus wrote: »

I think i've said this before but what the hey...

When i watched Lethal Weapon as a kid, it honesly didnt occur to me that Mel Gibson was white and Danny Glover was black. I experienced their characters as Mel Gibson being the crazy suicidal one and Danny Glover the jaded "too old for this sh1t" one. Race played no part it in it whatsoever, they were partners. If that movie were made today, race would probably be the central theme and that's sad. We're going backwards here.

So when you were a child you didn't consider the concept of racism nor the implications of institutional racism in America. That's hardly surprising. But the idea that racism didn't exist at that time in the US, especially in Los Angeles is deeply naive.

The film was written, directed and produced by white men. Why would they seek to write a story that touched on the racism Danny Glover's character may have experienced a black man in the LAPD? Let's not forget that the LA Riots of 1992 began after a jury acquitted four officers of the Los Angeles Police Department charged with using excessive force in the arrest and beating of Rodney King.

Just because the White people making the film didn't mention race or race-related issues and so you as a literal child didn't pick on them does not mean that those concepts and issues not exist.

The idea that the concepts and issues of race and the implications of being a colour other than white are now being discussed in some media is not the regression you think it is.

Telling people of colour that "up until now we haven't discussed race in media, but let's just forget about it because it seems regressive" is cowardly.

If Lethal Weapon was made today it probably would mention the racism a black man in the US is subjected to on a daily basis, because that is an accurate reflection of reality. Glossing over the realities of life in the making of media in order to present a certain narrative is akin to a fantasy where you are asking an audience to suspend their disbelief.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

It's simple. If you actively read the daily mail, you can't then claim to be an advocate against racism in any form.

Simplistic, reductionist, anti-intellectual, incurious tripe.

biko

sydthebeat wrote: »

Yeah, so much discrimination that they are holding 80% of their jobs for whites....

Are they? So if some jobs are available only whites can apply? That seems unlikely.

TomTomTim

Deleted User wrote: »

A few studies (in the US) have found that when "affirmative action" was banned in certain universities, social mobility in those institutions increased. Mostly driven, I believe, by low-income Asian kids who excelled in academic testing for admissions and so on.

So it doesn't seem that "positive discrimination" does anything to remedy the effect of the nepotistic tendencies of our elites. Au contraire.

When it comes to education, in America at least, many schools and colleges are lowering their standards to appease this kind of sentiment, which has the effect of everyone learning at a lower standard. It doesn't fix anything, and simply results in everyone getting a worse education.

yascaoimhin

yascaoimhin wrote: »

If Lethal Weapon was made today it probably would mention the racism a black man in the US is subjected to on a daily basis, because that is an accurate reflection of reality. Glossing over the realities of life in the making of media in order to present a certain narrative is akin to a fantasy where you are asking an audience to suspend their disbelief.

The recent Channel 5 production didn't seem to focus much on the trials that Anne Boleyn faced as a black woman in 16th century England.

km991148

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Simplistic, reductionist, anti-intellectual, incurious tripe.

Simplistic, reductionist, anti-intellectual, incurious tripe.



Or is that the new masthead slogan for the Mail?

Cordell

dubrov wrote: »

Wealthier upbringing -> Better Opportunities and Education -> Better candidate for the job -> Gets job -> Wealthier upbringing for kids.
Then rinse repeat.

Without positive discrimination, I don't see how you can break the cycle to make a fairer society long term

Let's bring it on everywhere then. Hire doctors and engineers at the nuclear stations based on their heritage, let's see how fast we can destroy ourselves.

suicide_circus

yascaoimhin wrote: »

.

If Lethal Weapon was made today it probably would mention the racism a black man in the US is subjected to on a daily basis, because that is an accurate reflection of reality. Glossing over the realities of life in the making of media in order to present a certain narrative is akin to a fantasy where you are asking an audience to suspend their disbelief.

You do know not every production involving a black person needs to reference racism, right? Youre proving my point nicely. You reduce Danny Glover to a type, as a means to an end.

km991148

Trans And Proud wrote: »

Great to see. Well done to the BBC for being more inclusive to POC.

In fairness it's the BBC, ITV, Sky and the Daily Mail themselves.

dubrov

dubrov wrote: »

Wealthier upbringing -> Better Opportunities and Education -> Better candidate for the job -> Gets job -> Wealthier upbringing for kids.
Then rinse repeat.

Without positive discrimination, I don't see how you can break the cycle to make a fairer society long term

yeh? Why not do that on a class basis then? I guarantee the 50% women working for the BBC will not be from the pit end of Glasgow.

White isn't a synonym for wealth. In fact many of the poorest regions of Britain are white.

If you wanted to discriminate there, then ban Eton, or OXBridge graduates for a generation or two and work to make those institutions more open to all classes.

The UK's had 9 out of 10 of the poorest regions of the EU, most seem majority white to me. It also has strong regional differences, probably greater than racial differences and definitely greater than the gender gap.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/the-uk-has-9-out-of-the-10-poorest-regions-in-northern-europe-90702/

Cordell

Why not do that on a class basis then?

Well, of course, why not.
It may have been tried in the past and always failed, but sure this time it's gonna be different.

titan18

grassylawn wrote: »

I think it's reasonable to want the demographics of people on the TV to reflect the demographics of people in society.

There are very few black characters in kids books that aren't about social justice. I think that's sad. Why wouldn't you want to get books with kids that look like your kid without getting into race politics? My kid gets to imagine himself as all sorts of characters. (Then again he imagines himself as the black kid in A Snowy Day so it's probably another couple of years before they notice things like colour.)

Actually I think it's reasonable to want jobs in culture and society in generally to reflect the demographics of the population they serve. I'm not viewing it in terms of positive discrimination but rather as just having an effective cultural mirror, if that makes sense. It's not the same as something like computer programming, where the only factor is how well you can do the job.

About 8% of the UK are non white so you're actually over representing with the 20% here.

yascaoimhin

suicide_circus wrote: »

You do know not every production involving a black person needs to reference racism, right? You're proving my point nicely. You reduce Danny Glover to a type, as a means to an end.

No, but as I said, and you ignored, acting like racism and experiences of racism didn't exist because you were a child watching a film made by white men is naive.

I don't reduce Danny Glover to anything. He's not a means to an end. But the psyche of media creation has changed and people are more conscious that a black police office working the LAPD in the late 80s and early 90s would undoubtedly think something about the racism in the force he works for. He's a human being with complex emotions. It's is not reductive to say that he would have thoughts on it. You acting like he wouldn't because he just want to have fun with his pal Mel Gibson, is more reductive.

If you don't want to consume media that touches on topics that relate to peoples lived reality, stick to fantasy.

Strumms

85603 wrote: »

cherrypicked occupation must meet cherrypicked ratio.

or ... boooo?


doesnt apply to all occupations of course.
you wouldnt find this applied to heart surgeons or high court judges.

because society would laugh you out the door.

BBC is a state employer, if you are applying for a job as a heart surgeon... the state could by the logic being applied at the bbc ..hire the fifth most appropriate candidate... ruling out 1-4 because of ethnicity reasons... this planet is so fûcked up now...

suicide_circus

yascaoimhin wrote: »

No, but as I said, and you ignored, acting like racism and experiences of racism didn't exist because you were a child watching a film made by white men is naive.

I don't reduce Danny Glover to anything. He's not a means to an end. But the psyche of media creation has changed and people are more conscious that a black police office working the LAPD in the late 80s and early 90s would undoubtedly think something about the racism in the force he works for. He's a human being with complex emotions. It's is not reductive to say that he would have thoughts on it. You acting like he wouldn't because he just want to have fun with his pal Mel Gibson, is more reductive.

If you don't want to consume media that touches on topics that relate to peoples lived reality, stick to fantasy.

You really dont get it

sydthebeat

biko wrote: »

Are they? So if some jobs are available only whites can apply? That seems unlikely.

If they are making a target of have 20% of their staff non white....

Who exactly do you think fill the other 80%

dubrov

Deleted User wrote:

A few studies (in the US) have found that when "affirmative action" was banned in certain universities, social mobility in those institutions increased. Mostly driven, I believe, by low-income Asian kids who excelled in academic testing for admissions and so on.

Any links?

I can believe social mobility increased for Asian kids but it wouldn't make sense across the board

suicide_circus

sydthebeat wrote: »

If they are making a target of have 20% of their staff non white....

Who exactly do you think fill the other 80%

Lol yeah funny way of looking at it. I suppose they mean a minimum of 20% non white, not maximum. Either way it would leave whites way under represented.

Strumms

How long before our sports teams, will fall victim to the same shîthousery...

Selection of our soccer team for the Europeans in ‘16 only had two players of African ancestral backgrounds....

Should 5 or 6 more players have been dropped in favor of others, who, may not have been of the same ability but chosen based on the color of their skin ?

sydthebeat

suicide_circus wrote: »

Lol yeah funny way of looking at it. I suppose they mean a minimum of 20% non white, not maximum. Either way it would leave whites way under represented.

80% >>>>>>>>>> 20%

Simple maths.

The whole reason to do this is to more closely represent their society, so no, 20% non white does not "leave whites way under represented"

Strumms

Employment should not be about representation...

It should be however about hiring the best, most talented people l

dubrov

Strumms wrote:

Employment should not be about representation...

Strumms wrote:

It should be however about hiring the best, most talented people l

It's about balancing company efficiency with social equity.

If it was all about efficient companies, you can forget about employee rights in general