Why is the story about our new leader about his skin colour?

[JamesWales]

We aren't saying it. Jim Bob just wants to believe that or spin it in a way that causes division. The only people causing that division are the ones who constantly tell us that it doesn't matter. Well, it does matter, for obvious reasons that don't need explaining if someone possesses half a brain cell. Things like this make Jimo and the rest of them angry, but they present themselves as being non-plussed by a black man doing something that not many Black people achieve or get the opportunity to achieve in this country. Their blase attitude to it (And everyone else should feel the same) attitude is a smpke screen for their own prejudices, it's a cover up, it's insulting, it's another attempt by White people to take control of other cultures or how people feel and completely dismissive of everything that has gone on before. Basically, it's right wing bullshit.

Talk about not getting it.

Of course few people get to achieve that position! It's head of the frigging country! No one gets to that position easily. But it is who got the position thats important.

And as if to prove how divisive people like you can be, there you go making a series of negative stereotypes about people based on race. Your position seriously needs challenging more as you won't take us to a good place, your position is taking us back decades in race relations, retreating people into tribes instead of one society which we should aim for

[jon1959]

There is a we, a collective social we, and in recent years there has been a push for people to define themselves by their race or skin colour, attributes they dont control and don't matter.

Seems you are one of those people. I suspect it wont end well.

The story is we have a new leader in Wales. Not his skin colour. That's part of his story of course it is, but its not THE story, yet sadly to many people it is.

Talk about not getting it.

Of course few people get to achieve that position! It's head of the frigging country! No one gets to that position easily. But it is who got the position thats important.

And as if to prove how divisive people like you can be, there you go making a series of negative stereotypes about people based on race. Your position seriously needs challenging more as you won't take us to a good place, your position is taking us back decades in race relations, retreating people into tribes instead of one society which we should aim for

If anyone 'doesn't get it', or doesn't want to get it, it is you James. You will be bleating 'white lives matter' next!

If racism didn't exist there may be more value to your comments - but racism does still exist in our society. The 'negative stereotypes' are out there causing damage. When it comes to health outcomes, employment and earnings, treatment by the criminal justice system, direct prejudice and exposure to abuse and attack, racism is still alive and kicking in the UK. It is not the same as one two or three generations ago but it is still there.

While ever that is the case the achievements of people from communities without structural privilege need to be celebrated (however flawed they are as individuals) - to break the glass ceiling and stereotypes and to inspire the next generation. It isn't enough. Margaret Thatcher didn't transform the prospects of women (in some ways she made it worse), Rishi Sunak hasn't swept away racism in society (in some ways for some communities he is making it worse) but the symbolism of their roles and status makes us all think a little differently about the world. They help bring about a new normal.

[Tuerto]

Talk about not getting it.

Of course few people get to achieve that position! It's head of the frigging country! No one gets to that position easily. But it is who got the position thats important.

And as if to prove how divisive people like you can be, there you go making a series of negative stereotypes about people based on race. Your position seriously needs challenging more as you won't take us to a good place, your position is taking us back decades in race relations, retreating people into tribes instead of one society which we should aim for

Talk about ignoring everything that has gone on before. Where's your starting point Jim? You do know why things like black people getting into positions of power are talked about, Don't you? You do know why Governments, local authorities etc have had to or been forced to implement policies like positive discrimination etc, which probably pisses you off, but probably pisses of people of colour, women, Disabled people even more so. Because they've probably never wanted 'Special Treatment ' they just wanted a level playing field to start, with, fairness Jim. That wasn't and still isn't the case in our society, so it is important to recognise groups of people who have had to work much harder to achieve certain things in life.

And another thing, can't you see that the attitude by some people who shout loudest about recognising people of colour achieving in places where they historically haven't is another way of taking control of things, it's a more subtle kind of racism dressed up passively.

[lardy]

Talk about ignoring everything that has gone on before. Where's your starting point Jim? You do know why things like black people getting into positions of power are talked about, Don't you? You do know why Governments, local authorities etc have had to or been forced to implement policies like positive discrimination etc, which probably pisses you off, but probably pisses of people of colour, women, Disabled people even more so. Because they've probably never wanted 'Special Treatment ' they just wanted a level playing field to start, with, fairness Jim. That wasn't and still isn't the case in our society, so it is important to recognise groups of people who have had to work much harder to achieve certain things in life.

And another thing, can't you see that the attitude by some people who shout loudest about recognising people of colour achieving in places where they historically haven't is another way of taking control of things, it's a more subtle kind of racism dressed up passively.

Good post.

With positive discrimination, I often see the argument 'it should be the best person for the job'. But who is the best person for the job? How can your average recruitment person tell? The interview and selection process is good at finding suitable people, but identifying the best is beyond the ability of most of us, as we can't see into the future. So if you have 4 people who probably all can do the job just as well as each other, then the panel will have to find some other way of selecting between them, and on a sub-conscious level humans are drawn towards people similar to themselves.

So a panel of white people may be drawn towards the white candidate, just as a panel of Chinese or Indian people may be towards the Chinese or Indian candidate. No one is being racist, we're wired that way.

In 10 years, that candidate may be on the panel, and it all continues. Positive discrimination tries to break that cycle, and like everything else, it's not perfect every time.

[Tuerto]

Good post.

With positive discrimination, I often see the argument 'it should be the best person for the job'. But who is the best person for the job? How can your average recruitment person tell? The interview and selection process is good at finding suitable people, but identifying the best is beyond the ability of most of us, as we can't see into the future. So if you have 4 people who probably all can do the job just as well as each other, then the panel will have to find some other way of selecting between them, and on a sub-conscious level humans are drawn towards people similar to themselves.

So a panel of white people may be drawn towards the white candidate, just as a panel of Chinese or Indian people may be towards the Chinese or Indian candidate. No one is being racist, we're wired that way.

In 10 years, that candidate may be on the panel, and it all continues. Positive discrimination tries to break that cycle, and like everything else, it's not perfect every time.

Agreed, and PD is a reaction too nepotism, favouritism, racism, Sexism etc. It's not really ideal, But for the reasons mentioned it's had to have been implemented.

[the other bob wilson]

Good post.

With positive discrimination, I often see the argument 'it should be the best person for the job'. But who is the best person for the job? How can your average recruitment person tell? The interview and selection process is good at finding suitable people, but identifying the best is beyond the ability of most of us, as we can't see into the future. So if you have 4 people who probably all can do the job just as well as each other, then the panel will have to find some other way of selecting between them, and on a sub-conscious level humans are drawn towards people similar to themselves.

So a panel of white people may be drawn towards the white candidate, just as a panel of Chinese or Indian people may be towards the Chinese or Indian candidate. No one is being racist, we're wired that way.

In 10 years, that candidate may be on the panel, and it all continues. Positive discrimination tries to break that cycle, and like everything else, it's not perfect every time.

Positive discrimination for gammons I say!

[the other bob wilson]

Talk about not getting it.

Of course few people get to achieve that position! It's head of the frigging country! No one gets to that position easily. But it is who got the position thats important.

And as if to prove how divisive people like you can be, there you go making a series of negative stereotypes about people based on race. Your position seriously needs challenging more as you won't take us to a good place, your position is taking us back decades in race relations, retreating people into tribes instead of one society which we should aim for

Interesting the way you’re in the habit of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being “divisive” - I was surprised to see you using the word to describe me last week and thought it was an odd word to use. I disagree with you on an awful lot of things politically, but that doesn’t automatically make me divisive - there are quite a few words that spring to my mind to describe you when you’re disagreeing with me, but divisive is not one of them, your use of it comes over as a tad egotistical.