Quote:
Originally Posted by flylock shox
Well, a clear resurrection of segregation obviously, and widespread moral outrage. Instances of "reverse-racism" such as this are tolerated because they're seen as preserving or enhancing a minority which is under some form of threat from the majority, and therefore needs special attention simply in order to maintain the status quo. The converse is not tolerated as it's seen as preserving or enhancing a majority which is not under any real threat, and is likely only to have the effect of excluding minorities from the established power structure.
As earlier posters have said, this is a terrible idea. I think it's distinguishable from religious schools, because religion is itself a form of content, whereas skin colour is not (unless these schools propose to teach children how to be black - lots of essays on Black Like Me I imagine for the white kids in the remedial class). Every explanation I've heard from those trying to justify it has come across as non-sensical, hypocritical, or simply failing to recognize the potential negative effects of such a move to the same extent as the potential positives. Is there really a need for this?
Really?
Like, Really?
|
But what if it was an Danish school, or Italian school... focused on educating Canadian children of specific European descent where they came from in great detail and teaching their language and tradition along side our own? Why would that be wrong, and yet a "black" school (which is in itself, racist, since it implies all Caribbean Blacks and African blacks are the same) would be fair? Those ethnic groups are not the majority, and surely, they wouldn't come out and say all whiteys are the same?
(this rhetorical question isn't directed at you exclusively of course)