WARNING: COARSE LANGUAGE.
I don’t consider myself a white person. In fact, I consider my skin color a physical attribute much like my height, my gender and my hair and eye color. It doesn’t define me as a person.
This mindset of mine drives both sides of the great ideological rift batshit crazy.
To the extreme right, I’m told I’m a fool for believing there is one race — the human race — or refusing to acknowledge some cultures are more prone to commit crime (I don’t care what some FBI report says). I’ve been called an enabler for saying unemployment is not a crime and that the more vulnerable members of society are not at fault for being poor or homeless. The extreme right also deride me for saying housing is a human right and UBI is needed.
To the extreme left, I’m ether a sexist, a misogynist or a racist for believing in meritocracy. I don’t believe in white privilege. I don’t believe in systemic racism, instead believing individuals can hold racist viewpoints. I believe police brutality is caused by a breakdown of accountability in the chain of command, cronyism and union meddling. I feel most men do not suffer from toxic masculinity and are in fact pretty swell dudes that do the right thing.
I don’t fit into a socio-political mold. I’m a sovereign individual who believes in personal responsibility for my own actions and no one else’s. I live by a code of governing oneself accordingly.
Still, if you must have a chart showing where I stand on the political grid, here you go:
This comes from the fact I was born in the Sixties and thus am a child of the Seventies. I was raised by my parents and taught at school not to treat others differently for being different. In other words, look beyond that and seek commonality and eventual unity.
This is why I I’m opposed to discrimination based on race, gender, sexual preference, or faith when it comes to employment.
There should also be no discrimination when applying for a bank loan, a suite in an apartment building, use of a gymnasium or golf course, or accessing a social service.
In other words, a bank cannot deny you a loan if you are black. A landlord cannot deny you application to an apartment if you are a member of the LGBT+ community. A golf course cannot deny you access if you are a woman.
It’s even more important that there are zero barriers to getting assistance to improve one’s quality of living through gainful employment and affordable housing. Homelessness and poverty do not pick and choose based on skin color, age, or gender after all. As a believer of an inclusive and diverse society where everyone belongs and no-one is left behind, it irks me somewhat when individuals will offer conditional assistance based on an unjust or prejudicial selection (or omission) of people through physical characteristics.
Such as the one below:
Before I continue, I want to stress I’m not against the idea of offering employment assistance to the groups she mentioned. What I am against is that she is only doing this FOR the groups she mentioned.
Naturally, I question her on this, in my usual non-confrontational and logical manner:
And it’s a fact. I was at the House of Friendship in Kitchener for three months (as well as other shelters in Toronto). During my stay at the HoF, I’ve seen men of all color (including Caucasians) and of all ages and faiths.
Homelessness, as well as chronic unemployment and poverty, are symptoms of a problematic wealth distribution system. It’s not a product of so-called systemic racism.
Her response to my comment was both surprising and disturbing:
“We’re not in this together”.
“This specific project is geared toward them.”
Why would I find such lines disturbing?
Consider the following re-write of Ms. Zubi’s OP using a different context.
Today I’m launching K-W Get On Board, a free nonprofit board and high-level volunteer matching service for White Christian Men (WCM) in Waterloo Region. #kwawesome
How would you feel if you saw a Tweet like this on Twitter? How would you respond? If you were anything like me, you would respond in the manner that I did.
In my hypothetical example, I may have the legal authority to discriminately pick and choose, as Ms. Zubi does in her project, but what about the moral and ethical right of way?
Do individuals have said moral and ethical authority to pick and choose those desperately needing social assistance solely on a physical trait? It doesn’t sit well with me because it’s not inclusive. Cherry-picking does not foster a sense of belonging: it could also breed resentment and further prejudices the aforementioned extreme right and left can exploit.
We do not need atomization of our society into a form of balkanization based on identity politics. To tackle whole-society issues — poverty, homelessness, crime, chronic unemployment and so forth — we need to do this as one united front.
We have no chance at succeeding in that goal if we are too busy fighting amongst ourselves as factions.
Thanks for reading!