You do realize that them not hiring other races/ethnicity also applies to Black individuals, Hispanics, Muslims, non-east Asian peoples such as Indians, and so on, correct?
You're the one who chose to hyperfocus on white people. Do you think that there are no resumes from black or Indian engineers that they threw in the trash in favor of Taiwanese ones?
That would be true. This may be a Taiwanese company, but they are working under labor laws, agreements and such of this country which has institutionally baked in laws that are easily circumvented and have various baked-in loopholes who were written and made to service white individuals. There's a reason for that focus.
Of course there were...I wasn't denying that? That's why it's discrimination when it comes to white individuals and not racism.
While I generally agree, this has to be the one case where the law was purpose written with black individuals in mind. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was in no ways carefully crafted to give white workers an edge.
Also did you reply to the wrong person? I didn't mention anything about racism in my reply? I'm not arguing on that point. I'm also confused at what you're trying to say.
I'm not saying the Civil Rights Act is crafted to give whites an advantage. You're assuming I meant that specific institutional policy in reference to this. I was speaking more of a general, big picture. I could also be assuming wrongly on what you're assuming.
My specific train of thought from what I read that it was mostly white workers that were getting discriminated against in the workplace. I wanted to make the distinction that it isn't "racism" against white people. For other cases, yes, it is racism. I don't disagree. However, these capitalists are operating within the framework of a settler society. They're using law and court that was designed AND created for AND by white individuals historically to also inflict grievances on minorities or protect their place in society while justifying their exploitation. The people aggrieved are using the Civil Rights Act to defend themselves, actually. With the chunk of white workers that are aggrieved and the original comment; I thought they were saying it is racism to discriminate against white workers/individuals or implying it was racism to discriminate against the whole group in which I thought was mostly white workers. If I'm wrong on that, I apologize and I'll remove everything.
I also apologize for responding later, I was at work.
You do realize that them not hiring other races/ethnicity also applies to Black individuals, Hispanics, Muslims, non-east Asian peoples such as Indians, and so on, correct?
You're the one who chose to hyperfocus on white people. Do you think that there are no resumes from black or Indian engineers that they threw in the trash in favor of Taiwanese ones?
That would be true. This may be a Taiwanese company, but they are working under labor laws, agreements and such of this country which has institutionally baked in laws that are easily circumvented and have various baked-in loopholes who were written and made to service white individuals. There's a reason for that focus.
Of course there were...I wasn't denying that? That's why it's discrimination when it comes to white individuals and not racism.
While I generally agree, this has to be the one case where the law was purpose written with black individuals in mind. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was in no ways carefully crafted to give white workers an edge.
Also did you reply to the wrong person? I didn't mention anything about racism in my reply? I'm not arguing on that point. I'm also confused at what you're trying to say.
I'm not saying the Civil Rights Act is crafted to give whites an advantage. You're assuming I meant that specific institutional policy in reference to this. I was speaking more of a general, big picture. I could also be assuming wrongly on what you're assuming.
My specific train of thought from what I read that it was mostly white workers that were getting discriminated against in the workplace. I wanted to make the distinction that it isn't "racism" against white people. For other cases, yes, it is racism. I don't disagree. However, these capitalists are operating within the framework of a settler society. They're using law and court that was designed AND created for AND by white individuals historically to also inflict grievances on minorities or protect their place in society while justifying their exploitation. The people aggrieved are using the Civil Rights Act to defend themselves, actually. With the chunk of white workers that are aggrieved and the original comment; I thought they were saying it is racism to discriminate against white workers/individuals or implying it was racism to discriminate against the whole group in which I thought was mostly white workers. If I'm wrong on that, I apologize and I'll remove everything.
I also apologize for responding later, I was at work.