Discriminations

As for any experimental approach, we have to define the problem we want to consider: discrimination, which can roughly be defined as a practical difference where there should not be. For instance, the color of the eyes does not appear to be a source of discrimination here, whereas color of skin is.

The first approach is qualitative: what can be an appropriate parameter for describing the issue. The method is simple: testing. Indeed, it has been shown that, all other parameter being as similar as possible, then parameters such as the origin that a name denotes, or type of skin can lead to discriminations.

Second qualitative approach: is the information about ethnic origin relevant to help fixing the issue ? On this point, two contradictory type of examples can be given. For instance, if we apply a positive discrimination, such as more credits in university, then, all other parameters equal, this may just inverse the issue: after some times the discrimination is just the converse, leading to the same frustration, but inversed.

On the contrary, if we discard information about ethnic origins, then we just cannot analyze the issue. For instance, if the population in a school is composed of more people that do not speak the official language at home, it is good to know it such that we can allocate more teachig ressources there.

Hence the need to do a quantitative approach: under which conditions can a positive consequence be expect ? Another remark is that the parameters appropriate for describing the issue can not be classified into universal categories. Each issue has its own.

So, even though ethnic origins, color of skin, or other parameters appear to be obvious parameters for describing discriminations, they do not form a consistent set of universal parameters. This is exactly the same for the notion of "race". For instance, for analyzing skin cancers, the color of skin can be a relevant parameter, for which the "black" group could be define. However, when dealing with native language at school, there cannot be a single groupe including both african-americans and africans.

That’s precisely where the limit of the ethnic analysis lies: although apparently obvious, the various groups that one may think about for describing various discriminatory situations are not consistent. That is why the above form, which institutionalizes, and propagates inappropriate distinctions is so bad.

Racial classifications in the spanish colonies

This also explains the connections with racism and lack of education or knowledge. Indeed, when one gets to know various people of what he believed was a consistent group, for which he had wrong conceptions, he most likely will discover that inside what he used to think as a whole, distinctions arise..

As a conclusion, an example, from M. Sarkozy. Our president, at least two times [1], mentioned Condoleezza Rice as an example of an important politician which recently became American. As you can see, to him there is a single group, probably qualified by the darkness of the skin or the denotation of the name, which qualifies as "being immigrants", if not worse. No need to qualify such a belief...

In case you still have a doubt about my last example, here is what he said when giving the Legion of Honor to a native American, Charles Shay [2] [3]:

Je suis un immigré tout comme vous, et moi aussi je suis chef.

which translates to:

I am an immigrant like you, and me too I am an chef.

I can’t write how this turns me mad... Ok, he still has the choice between being incompetent or... [4]