With lots of shame, I should say that I do not contain much of discriminated experience living abroad. In North America the protocol of anti-discrimination was obvious and well educated to people (well, now in Trump rally it does not seem that way though), so for me it wasn’t easy to get discriminated. Once I thought maybe that discrimination comes from the lack of language, evidencing that if one doesn’t speak english well s/he gets treated as child or uneducated person (but surely, there is more than just a language cause). Yes, as an oriental maybe I had a better-off than a darker-skinned person, like I never got detained to get in any restaurant, bar or club. I never had a problem with police.
In Latin America in general (I’ve lived in Mexico, Panama and Chile as a registered aline. I’ve stayed quite a time in Colombia, Peru and Brazil) I haven’t experienced discrimination since I do speak fluent spanish and know many cultural things about this region. Living in Buenos Aires, Argentina, as a registered aline, I got pissed off once from a discrimination experience: It was a club called Under Club in Palermo, and I was detained at the entrance while all of my other friends got in freely: all of my friends were european and I was the only oriental in group, and I wasn’t told any reason of me getting detained at the entrane, so I realised the reason can be racism, since I had money to pay for the entrance, I was well dressed, and I wasn’t wasted enough to show my kindness of letting my friends enter before me. I phoned my friends that already went inside but I couldn’t hear them well due to heavy music they were playing. I went back home alone walking, and got messages later at 4 in the dawn from my friends asking where I am. By the time I was already sleeping in my cozy bed.
Discrimination is not a delightful experience, I thought, until I heard of the term ‘positive discrimination’. Many people of today’s era declare that they want to be recognized as homosexual, disabled, or as victims of any cause, by the State. The social movements of acquiring their basic rights are on the surface, and the positive discrimination is expected as they become a registered (and probably favored) minority. Better chance with getting in a job or getting in a universtiy is a beginner. Why would anyone deny this? If the State guarantees systematically, why not backfire to the people who have discriminated others?
I still am not sure whether the positive discrimination is positive. I appreciate its compensatory aspect, but I surely believe there are many limitations as well. Once it became a hot potato in Brazil, when a darker-skinned guy had admission to University of São Paulo when his own twin brother who was lighter-skinned got his admission denied. Or, giving opportunity to an immigrant family turns out that his parents actually possessed a great fortune. Well I know, we cannot reverse the protection for minority based on some exceptions. Surely the majority of the minority has suffered constant discrimination from daily interaction, and it is only fair when they get compensation from all these micro- and macro-aggressions.
Should I take advantage of the positive discrimination then? I am a definite minority in this Latin world, as I started to experience some sorts of discrimination as I mentioned of the Under Club case that happened not long ago. So my question goes: Do I want to be a registered minority? Do I want to get benefits declaring myself a minority? All the answers of these questions have a basic premise: I have my right somehow and I just need to exercise it declaring myself. But what about those who are struggling to have the right to have right? Those who need the right of protest before the state to have a basic education and health care, por example. Such a quantity of homeless children and family living on the street of ruthless Buenos Aires demonstrates that discrimination is discrimination. The product of discrimination pushes away people to the street where their conditions cannot be repaired anymore.
Well, maybe still the positive discrimination is something positive, for that no world without any sort of discrimination is possible. So while discriminated one can take a better-off, individually it should be positive. Well then mentioning collectivism, the discriminated ones should consider those who are still in discrimination: which is a double responsability-charger for them, rather it should be responsability of those who discriminate and have discriminated the others. Then it is only negative for those who have participated in discrimination for that now they need to deal with exclusion for equal opportunity that is given to the discriminated, ain’t it right?