Thanks for your post
@Chuk_Chuk - I think I can respond to your post as a whole by reiterating that our collective response to this topic as a whole requires a flexibility with outcome, or else we would start seeing 'disadvantages' everywhere, all of which would need to be eliminated because 'disadvantages are always bad'.
Why do you use class and skin colour interchangeably?
Your question suggests you may have interpreted that differently than intended. Please exchange 'class' with 'category'.
If you believe that this is a benefit; by the nature of its selection criteria, the consequence is that it puts other races at a disadvantage.
Your logic could be twisted to justfy bad things.
There are many horrific acts one could justify because the "intent" was charitable.
I have acknowledged that there is discrimination and I don't disagree that there is a like for like disadvantage upon on category of persons. But, really, it is wholly and actually incidental and, again, I'm not jumping to saying that the scope and extent of the disadvantage (in all means) is inherently awful, because it's not. This is exactly what I was getting at where I was saying I think subjects like this require flexibility - I'm particularly drawn to your comment that my logic could be twisted to justify bad things. Yes, it could. But I think a flexible approach is better than a consistent approach than unfairly demonises charitable acts.
Yes there probably are many horrific acts that one could argue to be charitable... although their argument would undoubtedly be pretty crap
If a person chooses to hire Jewish people to be their accountants because Jewish people are "good with money" would you deem it racist? It is not a malicious statement/attack.
This is a completely different scenario and, as I suggested, it all has to be considered separately in its very specific context.
Yes there are times when discrimination based on race can be justified. But it depends on the topic on hand and should be discussed when such topic is raised. Had this been 40-50 years ago, then such a scholarship would be justified because there were actual race issues (not the fake ones people like to make up), that would have hindered black people.
I think we are ultimately in the same realms of agreement; if you are of the view that it could in
some circumstances be justified (40 - 50 years ago in your view, as you say) then it's a case of weighing up the nuances and finding your lines. That's what I was getting at, even if you have a different take on it than I do. It's not just a case that "discrimination is always bad".
Thinking about it further, even if the scholarship wasn't intended to counter some sort of disadvantage (and it say, say, Bill's Scholarship for Boys Only Because Boys Are The Bestest) then I just don't think I could ever be that bothered or offended by it. But there is always a line: if there was a mandatory imposed system where the government paid for boys fees, but girls have to pay themselves (always) I would then say: "hey, that's unfair".
