ADN

There hasnt been a good topic to discuss in here recently and I have always wanted other views on this topic so here it goes.

Ok so most of you know that I hail from the beautiful but pollitically unstable country of Fiji. This is a country where the natives( ie Fijians) actually get so much more from the government than the others. In terms of scholarships , grants etc. And this is mainly because they are the natives. This is not different for countries like the US, Australia, New Zealand etc where there is a certain race that does get more in terms of help then the rest of the population. For example in New Zealand - the seabed and forshore act where it allows the natives (Ie moari's) a huge control over the nations seabed and shorelines. In many universities there are certain scholarships and if I wanted to I could apply for a pacific islander scholarship but i wont and I dont think its a good idea to say that you cant apply for a scholarship because you dont come from a certain part of the world. I also know that the socioeconomic challenges that some parts of the world face but does that really excuse the fact that it is discriminatory against others?

So what my argument is that given that they are the natives and have lived in the country for a fair bit more time, what right does it give them to have more help than what we would as non natives. If its discrimination not to help them against them and isnt it discrimation against us when they get more help given that we might be in the exact same situation as they are.

Please share your views and give reasons why you believe what you believe

Good Topic!

Here in the US we, in some cases, have the opposite situation. Immigrants have a whole group of government grants (grants don't need to be paid back, i.e. free money, i.e. my tax dollars) to allow them to start businesses and get education. These are programs that are NOT available to US citizens. There are also programs for "minorities." In the past people complained, screamed, and protested against discrimination, and rightfully so. Now, however, the government has done a 180 and discriminates against the "majority."

There is no such thing as a completely indiscriminate government program. Discrimination is required to choose who gets help and who doesn't. I feel that setting selection criteria for income, citizenship, test scores, age, and geographic location are fine. What I don't agree with are selection criteria based on race, religion, or gender. It is wrong that a girl should get something instead of a boy because she is a girl. The same goes for a Hispanic over an Asian or a Jew over a Christian.

As I said, discrimination is required, but it is the criteria used that makes it right or wrong.

Just my opinion. H65

Well Deep, as both a minority and a southerner, I hope my opinions aren't too bias...Here's what I think its about, though in other parts of the country, let alone the world, this may be a different story...

Here in the south, we have something which is known to us as the 'Good Ole Boy' system...As you know, most of the southern states were slave states...The state in which I live, Mississippi, probably has the first or second worst cases of racial hatred you can have...Now what happens with natives and non natives isn't so much racism as it is a natural prejudice...You're just going to be partial to what makes you comfortable...Older white guys, racist or not, tend to like and feel comfortable with older white guys...Middle aged black guys tend to hang with other middle aged black guys, etc...So, the good ole boy system stems from this...And I can't hate, I mean, it sucks but it makes sense to me...People have things, and want to keep them...And often times, you can find answers by simply putting yourself in the other guys shoes...

It's not really discrimination if you think about it...Each instance is different, but what would you do if you discovered a fertile, beautiful piece of land and was able to claim it as your own...And say you started to share this land with others, everything is great...! But say you left your lands, and found several of your people living in poverty...They're your family...They are your friends...They are the people you grew up with, who grew up like you, and know what it means to be the kind of person you are...They share your beliefs, ideals, goals...They know your history, because it is their history...Wouldn't you think to invite them to your lands..? To make them comfortable, and encourage them to stay, and have a sense of pride about where they're from..?

Of course that's a long shot, but I'm sure the point isn't lost...If I died tomorrow, and you guys elected to keep on with the site, can you imagine a point in time where you'd let someone run this site who didn't know me in the slightest...? Never talked to me..? Or, would you guys elect to keep as many core AF'ers as possible in the Moderator and Cafe positions..? Not trying to put myself on a pedestal mind you, just saying...Like H65 says, discrimination is required, but sometimes the criteria sucks...And in your position Deep, I can see why keeping natives happy is important...And most of the time, this is done so those that apply for those scholarships can perpetuate the things they know and do good things...Someone who knows AF and what its about would be better suited to be the janitor than someone who is good with working with forums and such in general...

Are there many ethnic minorities ie non-natives in Fiji? I am guessing not.
In which case, that is the kind of discrimination that I cant stand! Where people want to keep their 'own kind' in places of power & influence through education, employment, housing etc. (I dont know specifically about Fiji, there might be economic reasons why they need to do this)
I completely understand that people like to be around their own kind of colour or race- its only natural. however, it's wrong (in my opinion) to deny opportunity (jobs, promotion, grants, school etc) based upon race.
the problem is when you try to compensate the once wronged minority by practicing discrimination in the opposite direction. such is the case with 'affirmative action' in the US & South Africa. it's ridiculously difficult for a white person to get a job in Cape Town these days! I disagree with this kind of policy & think that we should try to establish a more just society over time rather than applying a quick fix by imposing quotas on government agencies & employers.
a similar but slightly different contentious issue is giving benefits to immigrants. this is such a thorny issue that I think there are very few answers. in principal, I think all disadvantaged are should get help, even if it is from my tax dollars, that is the basis of the welfare state. the problem is with those who take advantage of the system.
enough ranting now!

I am a federal conservative.

I think that tax funded programs against (or for) discrimination are as bad for the soul of the nation as the practice of discrimination is for the minds and hearts of its citizenry.

If laws are made to regulate the prejudices of people, obsolete opinions and biases will never die off. That means humanity never *really* evolves. It just fakes it.

screw faking it!

I agree with HL65 that there is discrimination but the criteria sucks. But what im trying to get here is when do we stop letting history cripple us an individual where our recognition is based on the color of our skin or what our forefathers went through. Not disagreeing that slavery and stuff was bad and did set back some of the races.

Im an indian and my forefathers were also slaves brought over from india to fiji when the british were ruling over india. So technically my forefathers went through similar things as to what the african americans would have gone through.

When is it that we stop living in the past and look towards the future and provide everyone with equal opportunities regardless of where they come from and what their forefathers have been through so that the world is a much better place? I mean isnt it important and neccessary for the world to be one and for it to be one we may want to remove the discrimination factor?

Does it make sense?