On 12/23/01 8:56 AM, "Olga Bourlin" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> It may in fact be Mike's opinion that he is being displaced by "Indian job
> shops." I'm not exactly sure what that is, and I am assuming he didn't mean
> "Indians" from a particular Indus Valley civilization, but our own native
> kind, yes?
Ummm... I think it was pretty obvious he was talking about people from
south central Asia.
> If Mike had said: "...while local employers prefer to outsource the sort of
> work I do to Jews ..." would that that have been racist? I think so. Of if
> he had said "...while local employers prefer to outsource the sort of work I
> do to blacks..." would that have been racist? I think so.
That's bullshit; you are really working hard to read into it. My last
company prefered to outsource the work I do to Canadians. Does that make me
or the company I worked for anti-Canadian? The way you construct it, using
the word "Jew" in ANY sentence is to be construed as racist. If it had been
a Russian job shop instead of an Indian one, would that have not been
racist? Since when did certain nationalities and ethnicities become
unutterable words to all "non-racist" folk?
If Mike is being displaced by outsourcing to Indian job shops (and it is
very plausible), then there is nothing in his saying so that can be
legitimately construed as racist. Or can a fact be racist?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:30 MDT