Do You Get Bullied?

[Triumph]

Skwish-E, that was one of the best posts I think I've read on here. Bravo!

[Harehunter]

Quote:

but that has nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with socioeconomic status.

Just as I stated repeatedly. We do not disagree on this point. And you are correct, not all poor communities are affected by this problem. This does not effect all groups, but there are some communities that are affected. And again you are right that it does not effect only one racial group, but affects people of all races. And most people in this class understand that they have a responsibility to take care of their children.

Quote:

"Uncle Tom" is not a current phrase and hasn't been for decades. I'd like to ask an important question. What is your source of information about black communities?

I hear the term used at least once a week, and this is not a TV sound bite. It is from a live talk radio program, from a person who calls in regularly. He personally admits to having had to do time. Does he represent the bulk of people from his racial group? Not even! But there are other people like him, at least there are in my area, who also call in with attitudes just like his. And this is not an edited sound bite I am hearing, but the live comments from the people who are the source of these comments. If it had only been edited sound bites, I would have not considered them worthy of mentioning.

Cited reference: Rev Jesse Lee Peterson:

Quanell X has actually called into the same radio show. It is his work to speak for the poor communities in the Houston area. I have listened to live interviews with him, the entire interview, where he confirms that the things I have said do exist. Some of these interviews can be found on youtube if you want to hear them for yourself. Again, these are his own words spoken live when I heard them. Not some edited sound bite.

I have stated multiple times, this is not about race but about a subculture that uses race as an excuse.

Yes, there are other groups of other races, who use race or ethnicity or religion, as a justification for committing atrocities against other people. These people, regardless of color are criminals, and should be dealt with accordingly.

I want to apologize to the entire SW community for having taken this thread down this path. I responded to a remark that I took to be racially prejudiced. This is not the correct forum for this type of emotionally charged discussion. I shall remain silent on this topic.

[Tyranicus]

Originally Posted By: Nikki.

Originally Posted By: Skwish-E

Sorry for the big rant, but this is one of the rare issues that I will actually get serious about. I am also involved with a couple of groups that are working to abolish slavery, human trafficking, and the sexual exploitation of minors. Yes, I put my money and time where my mouth is.

*Applauds*.

You've gone up ten-fold in my estimation, sir.

Seconded.

[Slawbug]

Okay, so your main source of information is a religious talk radio show that, based on listening to just the beginning, has a very clear political agenda, opposing certain black activists and supporting others. The web site makes it clear that there is a political agenda related to political parties, too. That beyond the clearly stated religious agenda. All of this makes it pretty suspect as a source of objective information.

 

As for Quanell X, Wikipedia says that your supposedly representative "black activist" was kicked out of the Nation of Islam for being too violent; that his former bodyguard has ties to the Taliban; and that earlier this year, he spoke out against an 11-year-old gang rape victim, saying that she "did not do enough to prevent herself from being gang raped."

 

I see that there is indeed a reason I hadn't heard his name before. It should be obvious from the description above that he isn't representative of anything. It's a good idea to check your sources rather than assuming they are presenting you with the unblemished truth.

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: Nikki.

The police were viewed as untrustworthy, though it went further than that: they were seen as an enemy. . . . Obviously this is mainly my own experiences, but if anybody wants to do a Wikipedia search for Nottingham, feel free. . . .

Well, with that sheriff you have, who can blame them?

[Karoka]

Originally Posted By: Tyranicus

Originally Posted By: Nikki.

Originally Posted By: Skwish-E

Sorry for the big rant, but this is one of the rare issues that I will actually get serious about. I am also involved with a couple of groups that are working to abolish slavery, human trafficking, and the sexual exploitation of minors. Yes, I put my money and time where my mouth is.

*Applauds*.

You've gone up ten-fold in my estimation, sir.

Seconded.

Thirded.

[Handyman]

Mr. House, you are absolutely right about my status, distance, and condescension--even my complicity. I apologize. Sadly, those who speak for victims tend to be the abusers.

 

As for more particular details:

 

When I say "the only valid response is immediate resistance," I was implying that if that response is unfeasible, then there is no response. If this does not seem obvious, I've said exactly as much previously. Similarly, I do not believe that the powerless (and those who care for them) deserve to be harmed--only that power is their only recourse. You are an ally to victims, and in that case, you simply are using your power to aid them. (Similarly, the ability for people to have places and jobs of any sort helping the downtrodden is because the allies of the downtrodden have fought for these things.)

 

As for the state: I suppose a better discussion might be what we call "the state," and what sorts of attributes we wish our community and environment to have. With such a weasel explanation, one might say that all I desire is reform of "the state"; but, that presumes that our ultimate idea of what "the state" should be would resemble "the state" in any meaningful or essential way. I doubt that, of course; but then, the (sole) usefulness of the word "anarchy" is similar to that of the word "atheism": Everything is of relative certainty and shaded with subtlety, but some things are relatively more certain than others, like the self-serving violence of hierarchy.

[Karoka]

Let's say someone bashes his way into your house in the middle of the night. When you awake, he points a gun to you and tells you to get something. Would it be smart to immediately resist that?!

[Handyman]

Surely not. I would have no real choice.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Originally Posted By: Handyman

Sadly, those who speak for victims tend to be the abusers.

Before Slarty (Mr. House, as you call him) gets a chance, I'd like to ask for some citations on this. I've been following this entire thread, and have been very interested in all points brought up, but this is one of them that I have trouble believing. Your claim is counter-intuitive and I cannot think of a single example. The abusers seem far more likely to either ignore or blame the victims or rationalize their actions.

[Handyman]

Haha. You, sir, are right. I suppose I should be more thoughtful before saying such things in the future.

 

EDIT: Oh, and I just remembered: Mr. House, are you seriously suggesting that the economic system is maintained by anything other than violence? Because if so, then I am no longer sure why I pay for things.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Karoka

Originally Posted By: Tyranicus

Originally Posted By: Nikki.

Sorry for the big rant, but this is one of the rare issues that I will actually get serious about. I am also involved with a couple of groups that are working to abolish slavery, human trafficking, and the sexual exploitation of minors. Yes, I put my money and time where my mouth is.

*Applauds*.

You've gone up ten-fold in my estimation, sir.

Seconded.

Thirded.

Fourthed for you, Skwish-E! You go Skwish-E!

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

On the other hand, in recent years crying out racial prejudice has used more frequently as an excuse for the person's failure due to his own bad decisions. When they experience difficulty getting a job, it is not because they made the decision to commit a crime and were sent to prison. It has to be because "Whitey is putting them down".

Criminality has nothing to do with it. Employers are more likely to hire a white man with a felony conviction than a black man with a clean record. If that's not systemic racism, then what is?

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Criminality has nothing to do with it. Employers are more likely to hire a white man with a felony conviction than a black man with a clean record. If that's not systemic racism, then what is?

Listening to interviews with employers on this topic, there does appear to be a racial bias on the surface, but the real problem here is cultural. Does the applicant appear cleanly attired or does he wear his trousers halfway down his rear? Does the applicant speak in what is considered "normal English" or does he speak in a dialect that makes understanding him difficult. More importantly, does he come in with an attitude of defiance, expecting to be discriminated against, or his he more humble (for lack of a better word).

The last item is the hardest to deal with. One problem employers have is to make sure the applicant will be able to work well with his other employees. If conflict does arise, it is a painful and expensive process to terminate the employment of a trouble maker. The applicant with a chip on his shoulder during the interview may indeed become the better employee should he be hired. Once employed he would drop that chip and become a valuable asset to the company. But the HR person doesn't get to see that in the five-ten minutes of the interview. Add to that the problem of rampant litigation. Lawsuits get filed for all too many frivolous reasons. OSHA rules are stringent. Random drug testing has become overly necessary, and too often the company does not have a drug rehab program in place for one reason or another, usually due the expense.
I work in an office and never have to go and operate heavy machinery etc, and I still get tested.

This goes back to the cultural problem. Too often children in poor neighborhoods grow up being taught that they cannot succeed for one reason or another. I applaud the teachers who work hard to dispel that myth, and turn a child away from a dead end path. But unfortunately they can do only so much. Not all children have the benefit of such teachers, and not all children respond to their teachings.

People like Quanell X have promoted that myth. Yes, he was a member of Nation of Islam, and yes he did have body guards who were associated with the Taliban. I did not hear he reason he left/was kicked of the Nation of Islam, but I did hear him say that once he learned of the association of his body guards he fired them. The reason I cited him earlier is that in recent interviews, his outlook has changed a bit more than slightly. Oh he still shoots his mouth off in some way like he used to, threatening to burn a city down if one more black man was shot by the police.

On the topic of the girl who was abused here, he did say that she essentially asked for it. But if you listen to the rest of the interview, he asks why did this girl post those pictures on facebook. Why did her parents not know this and correct the problem? Why did the community not respond to this? Then he placed the blame directly on those parents and the community for not do what was needed to prevent this from happening in the first place. He did not lay blame on people who would not have had any influence, and the only accusation against the police was that they had not done enough to arrest all the white people who had been involved.

And with regard to the relationship of poor communities and the police he has called out vociferously for a change in the anti-snitching attitude within those communities.

I believe from what he says that he looks at things more fairly than before. He still has a healthy distrust of police authority, but is no longer is paranoid about it and he has even developed a respect for certain police officers regardless of color but based solely on their character. This is the basis of MLK's Dream. If QX can begin to live that Dream, there is hope indeed for this country.

I just hope that someday we will have fewer Larrys, Dexters, and Jonathons to sour that Dream.

[Student of Trinity]

On the one hand, okay, I admit that for some jobs I'd be a bit reluctant to hire anybody who showed up for the interview with the hip-level waistband thing going on. It looks really awkward. If someone values attitude over effectiveness, I figure they can make such artistic statements on their own time. In most jobs, the employer is entitled to demand a different set of priorities while on the job. So maybe it's worth trying to control for variables like waistband height, as well as criminal record.

 

On the other hand, skin color is not the only basis on which discrimination is wrong. Just being different is not a reason to be denied a job, whether the difference is in skin color or hair style or whatever. If the difference isn't an objective impediment to doing the job in question, it should not be discriminated against. There are some jobs for which even a low waistband is just not an issue.

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Listening to interviews with employers on this topic, there does appear to be a racial bias on the surface, but the real problem here is cultural. Does the applicant appear cleanly attired or does he wear his trousers halfway down his rear? Does the applicant speak in what is considered "normal English" or does he speak in a dialect that makes understanding him difficult. More importantly, does he come in with an attitude of defiance, expecting to be discriminated against, or his he more humble (for lack of a better word).

So it's not that employers won't hire black people. It's that employers won't hire people who speak or dress like black people do, and it's just a coincidence that all those people happen to be black.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Listening to interviews with employers on this topic, there does appear to be a racial bias on the surface, but the real problem here is cultural. Does the applicant appear cleanly attired or does he wear his trousers halfway down his rear? Does the applicant speak in what is considered "normal English" or does he speak in a dialect that makes understanding him difficult. More importantly, does he come in with an attitude of defiance, expecting to be discriminated against, or his he more humble (for lack of a better word).

man you are just shifting goalposts like c-raaaaazy here. first the problem is that they're criminals, now the problem is that they're uppity?

[Nicothodes]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

More importantly, does he come in with an attitude of defiance, expecting to be discriminated against, or his he more humble (for lack of a better word).

The last item is the hardest to deal with. One problem employers have is to make sure the applicant will be able to work well with his other employees. If conflict does arise, it is a painful and expensive process to terminate the employment of a trouble maker. The applicant with a chip on his shoulder during the interview may indeed become the better employee should he be hired. Once employed he would drop that chip and become a valuable asset to the company.

One of the problems with this is that we perceive people's attitudes, intelligence, mental health, etc. differently based off of their race, sex, and class, among other things. I read an essay in one of my textbooks last semester about how employers tended to judge their employees' work ethics differently based off of race, and unfortunately I can't find the article online. There's also this one about how women, and minority women in particular, are the most likely to be diagnosed with mental disorders, but the same case studies labeled as belonging to men, and especially white men, would be perceived as being completely healthy by psychiatrists.

[Triumph]

Originally Posted By: Sarachim

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Listening to interviews with employers on this topic, there does appear to be a racial bias on the surface, but the real problem here is cultural. Does the applicant appear cleanly attired or does he wear his trousers halfway down his rear? Does the applicant speak in what is considered "normal English" or does he speak in a dialect that makes understanding him difficult. More importantly, does he come in with an attitude of defiance, expecting to be discriminated against, or his he more humble (for lack of a better word).

So it's not that employers won't hire black people. It's that employers won't hire people who speak or dress like black people do, and it's just a coincidence that all those people happen to be black.

Forgive me if I'm being naive, or totally misunderstanding something, but this bothers me in a couple ways. First, it looks to me like you're assuming any boss who doesn't want to see his employee's underwear is racist. Second, it looks to me like you applying "wear his trousers halfway down his rear" as...I don't know, a characteristic, a generalization, a stereotype,even, to black people. I've known plenty of black people who didn't dress that way. I've encountered non-black people who DID dress that way. Now, maybe I've been around the wrong black people or something, I don't know. But to automatically connect these things just doesn't sound fair to black people, to me. I hope that makes sense.

[Dantius]

If anything, I see more white people dressing that way than black people. I'm more inclined to chalk it up as a generational thing than a racial thing, but your perception may be different.

[Sudanna]

Mmmn, it's definitely generational, but I see mostly black people wearing that style. Maybe it's just cuz I live in a mostly black neighborhood. Obviously, people of all races do it, though.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Triumph

First, it looks to me like you're assuming any boss who doesn't want to see his employee's underwear is racist. Second, it looks to me like you applying "wear his trousers halfway down his rear" as...I don't know, a characteristic, a generalization, a stereotype,even, to black people. I've known plenty of black people who didn't dress that way. I've encountered non-black people who DID dress that way.

A lot of times, racism is institutionalized and it's not the individuals who matter but the demographics. Let's say I'm a business owner looking to hire some employees. I get an equal number of white and black applicants, and there are way more applicants than positions. To sort through all the applicants, I decide to look at their education levels. All other things being equal, people with more education are hired while those with less education are turned down. On the surface, that doesn't seem racist. But for a whole host of factors, the average education level among white people is significantly higher than the average education level among black people. Therefore, I end up hiring only a few black people (the ones with the highest education level) and turning down only a few white people (the ones with the lowest education level). That difference means my process for sorting through applicants was racist. To make matters worse, since one of the major factors contributing to education levels of the future generation is the income level of the current generation, most of the next generation of black people will be at a disadvantage when trying to get a job while most of the next generation of white people will have an advantage when trying to get a job. And so the cycle of racism continues even though at no point was anyone intending to be racist.

Dikiyoba.

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: Triumph

Originally Posted By: Sarachim

So it's not that employers won't hire black people. It's that employers won't hire people who speak or dress like black people do, and it's just a coincidence that all those people happen to be black.

Forgive me if I'm being naive, or totally misunderstanding something, but this bothers me in a couple ways. First, it looks to me like you're assuming any boss who doesn't want to see his employee's underwear is racist. Second, it looks to me like you applying "wear his trousers halfway down his rear" as...I don't know, a characteristic, a generalization, a stereotype,even, to black people. I've known plenty of black people who didn't dress that way. I've encountered non-black people who DID dress that way. Now, maybe I've been around the wrong black people or something, I don't know. But to automatically connect these things just doesn't sound fair to black people, to me. I hope that makes sense.

My apologies, Triumph. I think I sacrificed clarity for the sake of humor. I was describing Harehunter's position. His post is the one that made the assumption that most black people are either unable or unwilling to wear a belt properly, and that that (as opposed to institutional racism) is the best explanation for why they're more likely to be unemployed.

In reality, yeah, not hiring someone who comes into the interview with their ass hanging out is a reasonable decision, largely because most black people don't dress that way even in their spare time and I've yet to meet any who would go to work like that. If Harehunter were right about this being a staple of black fashion rather than an unfortunate youth fad, then yeah, I think it would be right to say that it's racist not to hire someone just because they dress that way.

[Triumph]

Edit: thanks for clarifying, Sarachim; I though it sounded odd.

 

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

A lot of times, racism is institutionalized and it's not the individuals who matter but the demographics. Let's say I'm a business owner looking to hire some employees. I get an equal number of white and black applicants, and there are way more applicants than positions. To sort through all the applicants, I decide to look at their education levels. All other things being equal, people with more education are hired while those with less education are turned down. On the surface, that doesn't seem racist. But for a whole host of factors, the average education level among white people is significantly higher than the average education level among black people. Therefore, I end up hiring only a few black people (the ones with the highest education level) and turning down only a few white people (the ones with the lowest education level). That difference means my process for sorting through applicants was racist. To make matters worse, since one of the major factors contributing to education levels of the future generation is the income level of the current generation, most of the next generation of black people will be at a disadvantage when trying to get a job while most of the next generation of white people will have an advantage when trying to get a job. And so the cycle of racism continues even though at no point was anyone intending to be racist.

 

Dikiyoba.

 

I understand the process you describe...I'm just wondering how it's valid to call it "racist." I've always understood racism to mean mistreating a person on the basis of their skin / other inherited physical features. Like, the Ku Klux Klan is racist. I'm not sure how a something can validly be called racism if race never enters the decision making process. Your example certainly leads one to ponder why blacks on average have notably poorer levels of education than other categories of people, but doesn't calling it "racism" obscure deeper problems? In your story, the unhired black person's problem is not that he is black but that his education level (or lack thereof) disqualified. Trying to change to the attitudes of the employer so he doesn't mistreat blacks wouldn't help...because he wasn't racist to begin with. Perhaps racism has more technical definitions with which I'm unfamiliar, but as I've heard understood the term, using here would actually muddle efforts to solve a real problem.

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: Triumph

I'm not sure how a something can validly be called racism if race never enters the decision making process. Your example certainly leads one to ponder why blacks on average have notably poorer levels of education than other categories of people, but doesn't calling it "racism" obscure deeper problems? In your story, the unhired black person's problem is not that he is black but that his education level (or lack thereof) disqualified. Trying to change to the attitudes of the employer so he doesn't mistreat blacks wouldn't help...because he wasn't racist to begin with. Perhaps racism has more technical definitions with which I'm unfamiliar, but as I've heard understood the term, using here would actually muddle efforts to solve a real problem.

When people say institutional racism, they usually mean something like the situation Diki described. The trouble is that some people assume, just because Klan membership is down, that racism is over and that blacks (or any other minority) now have equally good chances in life. In reality, institutional racism is no less unjust, and requires us to take action against it. I don't think calling the status quo racist obscures this problem, but rather calls attention to its seriousness.

Note that this is different from the problem some others have identified in the last few posts, which is that just because Klan membership is down, racism in the sense that you meant is not necessarily declining. Prejudice is far more common and more subtle than most of us would like to admit, and most people who judge others on the basis of race don't realize that they're doing so.

[Triumph]

But...how is it racism? Maybe I'm just being dense here and should have already gone to bed...I just don't get what sense the scenario Diki outlined involves racism. It points to flaws in the U.S. education system, certainly. The solution is not for the business to lower the education standards it ask of its employees, is it? I hope not. I don't see how racism can be imputed here. I get the idea of calling something racism, because racism is taken so seriously, as a way to call attention... But... Calling a serious problem by an inaccurate name doesn't help the serious problem. At least to me. It make me think someone is acting in prejudiced way to someone else. There are ways to deal with such things. But they won't help in this scenario because no one is doing that. It seems like putting the label "racism" on a scenario like this simultaneously distracts from real instances of racism (the real cases that can happen of one person treating another badly because some physical difference).

 

Edit: I don't know what this phenomenon should be called (someone smarter has probably already come up with another name), but whether the problem is businesses all having unnecessarily high educational requirements or the public education system botching its job vis a vis blacks, neither "racism" or the qualifier "institutional racism" really seems to cut to the heart of the problem.

[Lilith]

racism consists not only of individual acts but of systems of power and privilege that advantage people of some races and disadvantage others. this has been a standard meaning of the word for pretty much as long as the word has been around

[Alorael at Large]

It's not uncontentious to call this racism, and how this is regarded can be a marker of left- or right-leaning social sympathies.

 

The term is used because of the effects: if institutional imbalances aren't recognized and addressed, some races get a leg up on the others in a way that's very difficult to overcome. The effects of deliberate racism have become so set in the fabric of society that deliberate action is no longer required to maintain racial inequality.

 

—Alorael, who also prefers to reserve the term "racism" for something other than societal stratification. He does, however, think it's critical not to overlook the pernicious effects of unconscious racism. Knowing that blacks are more likely to be convicted criminals and more likely to have less educational attainment, on average, than whites is all well and good, but it does not actually tell you anything about the particular black individual applying for a job. Keeping demographics in mind while playing the odds in hiring decisions is racism.

[Triumph]

So in this scenario, what or where is the racist system that targets blacks?

 

Also, to implement such a system, surely there must be individual racist acts somewhere along the way? Acts which people chose to or not to commit?

 

I can conceive of a racist system that puts down people having a certain set of physical characteristics. I guess I'm just not persuaded such a system exists (as opposed to prejudiced individuals, whom I definitely know exist). Difference in outcomes for different groups of people don't necessarily imply some overarching system has been put in place to control those outcomes, it seems to me.

 

Thanks for humoring me in this discussion.

[Slawbug]

Best punctuationless Lilith post in a while.

 

The fact is that even if NOBODY was personally racist in the present time, consciously OR unconsciously -- this is obviously not true, but let's use it for the sake of argument -- the power structures that Sarachim and Lilith have referred to derive from actual, historical, widespread racism. Saying "I don't know you from Adam" is certainly better than "I'm gonna keep you down," but it doesn't erase the racist works that persist from previous generations.

[Alorael at Large]

It's not a system that was designed by the architects of racist policy. It's just the emergent properties of the society that has resulted from slavery, separate education, and yes, racism. Blacks have been poorer and less educated, and when you're behind it's very difficult to catch up.

 

—Alorael, who thinks it's worth looking at, say, schools. There are quite a few that are overwhelmingly black, overwhelmingly poor, and overwhelmingly likely to have students not graduate or graduate with such poor education that they are functionally illiterate and innumerate. All these things are socioeconomically linked, and they can be traced back to segregation in schools and housing, white flight, poverty, and so on all the way back to the initial problem of slavery.

[Dintiradan]

I agree with Triumph, in that most people wouldn't consider the job hiring example to be racism (rightly or wrongly). At any rate, the employer wouldn't be at fault if the decision was made solely by looking at credentials without having a chance for a face-to-face interview. Is it racism if a pre-interview process that drops candidates solely based on academic and work experience lowers the chances of minorities reaching the interview? I would say no.

 

The big question is whether or not it's the responsibility of small business owners to implement affirmative action.

[Slawbug]

I'm pretty sure that people have done studies where white employers who self-identify as treating different races equally, and who do not seem to be racist, are presented with applicants of different races but identical qualifications otherwise, and the white applicants are chosen slightly more often than the other applicants. So this isn't just an issue of structures, it's also an issue of unconscious, non-negatively-motivated racism.

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Mushroom Merlot and Lizard Steak

—Alorael, who also prefers to reserve the term "racism" for something other than societal stratification. He does, however, think it's critical not to overlook the pernicious effects of unconscious racism. Knowing that blacks are more likely to be convicted criminals and more likely to have less educational attainment, on average, than whites is all well and good, but it does not actually tell you anything about the particular black individual applying for a job. Keeping demographics in mind while playing the odds in hiring decisions is racism.

Again it seems that I have stirred up another hornets nest. However I see that many people can see many points I meant to bring out.

Firstly, I did not clearly state that the first two criterion of dress and speech were superficial and that by themselves could be interpreted as racial discrimination. Many of you pointed that out; good. But many of you seem to understand how these traits are often reflective of the third criterion, is the applicant likely to be a trouble maker. A person's attitude is reflected in his body language, his choice of attire, and they they speak - not so much what they say but how they say it. An employer must make a snap decision based on very little information, and let me tell you, that first impression is so important.

BTW, I have talked about the use of self-confidence with regard to dealing with a bully. The same principle applies to a job interview. If a black man goes into an interview with the expectation that he won't get the job because of his race, and he has an attitude on violent elimination of all institutions, these attitudes are perceivable from his body language. It is self defeating. On the other hand, if he goes in with self confidence in his qualifications, and speaks confidently and respectfully, no it won't guarantee him a job, but it will go a long way to make it more likely that he will get it. I sincerely mean no disrespect to any one on this forum and I apologize in advance should any be taken.
(((!!!Here comes another hornet blizzard!!!)))

Secondly, you all caught on the idea that demographics as to dress and use of street slang tend to cluster along racial lines. These demographics also parallel many other criterion, such as education and criminality. The combination of these demographics does lead to an unconscious racism. But how do we combat that? Education at all levels is the only method I can think of; from K-12 on up to EEOC training classes. The biggest problem with the EEOC classes is disseminating them to small business owners, who employ a large bulk of our work force, 2-10 employees at a time. How do we promote awareness without causing such regulation that will drive businesses to economic or regulatory failure, an outcome which does no one any good?

Thirdly, you noticed that the criterion of dress is not necessarily racial. Where I live in the suburbs it is uncommon, but when I do see it, it is more commonly apparent along racial lines. I know that it is more of a generational 'thing', but what message is that individual trying to convey? Societal frowning upon non-conformity has existed before history. It has been the cause of much persecution in history, and those who do not conform are often the targets of bullying, or other forms of prejudice. How we overcome this, I don't know.

And fourthly, Aloreal hits the nail on the head. Racism is all to often referenced in situations where the real cause is something different. And yes again, the demographics of poor education, criminaltiy, etc. do have a disproportionate bent along racial lines. But demographics are used all the time for many reasons. Life insurance premiums are higher for who smoke because demographics show they will more likely die before the term of the policy expires. Insurance companies also look at your credit score when determining your premium; why? Demographics. The list goes on. But using race as a determining factor is against the law (see my question below).

Societal Stratification is a good term to describe the phenomenon whereby there are proportionately more blacks in the under class than whites. Affirmative Action has gone a long way to change this dynamic, but apparently we still have a long way to go. But at what point do we say that we are exercising reverse discrimination.
Q: Is not the act of passing over one applicant in favor of one less qualified minority applicant racial discrimination?

Segregation is still exercised in many ways. We have a Policeman's Association to intercede for the ordinary cop with the Mayor and other governing bodies. Why do we have to have a Black Policeman's Association? Doesn't the Policeman's Association speak for all policemen, regardless of race? We have scholarships that only black people can qualify for. No cries of racism here, but let one try to set one up for poor white kids, and the ACLU is all over them like a dirty shirt. (Don't get me wrong, I see the value in scholarships for minority classes, and I personally don't disagree with them.) And why do we have a Black Caucus in Congress? Why not a Jewish Caucus, or an Irish-American Caucus, ...?? Just asking.
Q: Why do we have to have separate unions based upon skin color?
(((!!!My ears are already filled the horrendous buzzing!!!)))

And what is it with all the hyphenated Americans. When did being American stop being important, and segregating oneself into a hyphenated group replace it? America by its very inception promotes cultural and racial diversity. Almost every nation in the world is represented in our society and we are richer for it. People who come to this country to become citizens are proud to proclaim themselves as Americans. Not Chinese-American, or Bosnian-American; American! I personally know a family from Somolia who operate a family business. These are truly Americans of Afican origin, but they are not African-Americans, they are Americans. This is true of a Jordanian man I know. (BTW, if anyone in the Houston area needs tile work done, I know a excellent guy who just happens to have been born in Bosnia.)
Q: Why should we who were born in this country choose to segregate ourselves from it? Just asking.

This rant is not intended to cause insult to any one. I concur with many of the comments of my last rant, and I am pleased with how insightful they are. In this rant I pose some questions that many people have. They are controversial but they lie at the core of racial relations.

MLK had a Dream where all people would be judged not on the color of their skin but on the basis of their character. How do my Q:uestions relate to that Dream?

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

BTW, I have talked about the use of self-confidence with regard to dealing with a bully. The same principle applies to a job interview. If a black man goes into an interview with the expectation that he won't get the job because of his race, and he has an attitude on violent elimination of all institutions, these attitudes are perceivable from his body language. It is self defeating. On the other hand, if he goes in with self confidence in his qualifications, and speaks confidently and respectfully, no it won't guarantee him a job, but it will go a long way to make it more likely that he will get it.

so you say. we've provided empirical evidence for our claims: it's time for you to pony up with yours, if you have any

Quote:

Societal Stratification is a good term to describe the phenomenon whereby there are proportionately more blacks in the under class than whites. Affirmative Action has gone a long way to change this dynamic, but apparently we still have a long way to go. But at what point do we say that we are exercising reverse discrimination.

the very fact that people use the term "reverse discrimination" tells you that they think there's a default direction in which discrimination flows. think about it.

Quote:

Q: Why do we have to have separate unions based upon skin color?

because, when constituted in the right way, they work to reduce racial disparities in economic and political power. in fact, they're the only thing that's ever been shown to do so

Quote:

And what is it with all the hyphenated Americans. When did being American stop being important, and segregating oneself into a hyphenated group replace it? America by its very inception promotes cultural and racial diversity. Almost every nation in the world is represented in our society and we are richer for it. People who come to this country to become citizens are proud to proclaim themselves as Americans. Not Chinese-American, or Bosnian-American; American! I personally know a family from Somolia who operate a family business. These are truly Americans of Afican origin, but they are not African-Americans, they are Americans. This is true of a Jordanian man I know. (BTW, if anyone in the Houston area needs tile work done, I know a excellent guy who just happens to have been born in Bosnia.)
Q: Why should we who were born in this country choose to segregate ourselves from it? Just asking.

you contradict yourself. if america truly promotes cultural and racial diversity, what's wrong with being american and also something other than american? do you mean to suggest that, for example, people in America who believe in the Christian religion shouldn't be allowed to describe themselves as Christian Americans, that that aspect of their identity shouldn't be important enough to them that they feel the need to talk about it openly?

Quote:

MLK had a Dream where all people would be judged not on the color of their skin but on the basis of their character. How do my Q:uestions relate to that Dream?

question right back at you: do you really think Martin Luther King would have been able to achieve anything if it weren't for Malcolm X? white people were only willing to talk to MLK because somebody was there to show them what the alternative was

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

If a black man...

If the hiring decisions we are talking about do not constitute racism, then why are you talking about it specifically in terms of non-whites?

Do you have an answer to my argument that employers do, unconsciously, make hiring decisions based on race, even when factors like education level are equalized?

Quote:

The combination of these demographics does lead to an unconscious racism.

Wait -- you do have an answer to it! You agree that it happens. Okay, now we have all agreed that racism exists and it has a real impact on life-changing junctures like being able to find employment! Good, that's a much better place to start from for this discussion.

Quote:

But how do we combat that? Education at all levels is the only method I can think of...

Education is obviously a beginning. But as already pointed out, education tends to be more available (not just in terms of money and geography, but culture related to how much money you have) to people with more money. So education cannot solve the problem by itself.

One pretty obvious way to combat that is with affirmative action: if the problem is unconscious, i.e., non-controlled race-related adjustments, well, let's just make non-individually-controlled adjustments in the other direction.

Quote:

How do we promote awareness without causing such regulation that will drive businesses to economic or regulatory failure, an outcome which does no one any good?

Are you really suggesting that education is going to drive businesses to failure? Citation please!

Quote:

But demographics are used all the time for many reasons. Life insurance premiums are higher for who smoke because demographics show they will more likely die before the term of the policy expires. Insurance companies also look at your credit score when determining your premium; why? Demographics. The list goes on. But using race as a determining factor is against the law (see my question below).

This is a good question with a good answer: people have a fair amount of control over whether or not they smoke. People also have a fair amount of control of their credit score. We can talk about peer pressure, economic pressures, addictiveness, etc, but we can agree that people have at least SOME control over these things.

However, nobody controls what they are born as. THAT is one of the reasons why identity characteristics like race, gender, and sexual orientation are considered protected characteristics.

Quote:

Societal Stratification is a good term to describe the phenomenon whereby there are proportionately more blacks in the under class than whites. Affirmative Action has gone a long way to change this dynamic, but apparently we still have a long way to go. But at what point do we say that we are exercising reverse discrimination.

Uh... maybe when there are more whites in the "under class" than blacks?

I dunno, this seems like a pretty simple situation to me!

Quote:

Q: Is not the act of passing over one applicant in favor of one less qualified minority applicant racial discrimination?

It is discrimination in a different sense of the word: it is discrimination that is (1) mechanical and impersonal, and not subject to the whims of individual prejudice, conscious or unconscious; and (2) motivated by an ideal of equality. Attempting to lump this is with racist discrimination, which is motivated by the perception that people are not equal, is a semantic trick.

Quote:

Segregation is still exercised in many ways. We have a Policeman's Association to intercede for the ordinary cop with the Mayor and other governing bodies. Why do we have to have a Black Policeman's Association?

Again, see above. Separate entrances for different skin colors 50 years ago were motivated by the desire to keep people apart, and by the idea that people were not equal. The Black Policeman's Association exists in service of the idea of equality.

Quote:

We have scholarships that only black people can qualify for. No cries of racism here, but let one try to set one up for poor white kids, and the ACLU is all over them like a dirty shirt.

Citation please.

That said, this isn't an issue because scholarships that are not set aside for some minorities tend to be awarded overwhelmingly not to those minorities. This does not apply to poor white kids, who are in fact overwhelmingly the recipients of scholarships for poor kids in general. So there is clearly no need to create a scholarship class specifically for them, unless you are bent on making sure that poor kids of other races don't receive them. On the other hand, if you look at the numbers, there is a clear need to create scholarships for specific minorities if you want those minorities to receive many scholarships at all.

Quote:

And why do we have a Black Caucus in Congress? Why not a Jewish Caucus, or an Irish-American Caucus, ...?? Just asking.

The Black Caucus isn't actually part of the government, it's just something organized by black members of congress. I'm sure that Jewish congresspeople have something similar, though it may be less formal or less public.

Quote:

MLK had a Dream where all people would be judged not on the color of their skin but on the basis of their character. How do my Q:uestions relate to that Dream?

Let me answer that question with some quotations from King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail, which might as well be a response to your posts in this thread, rather than to the criticism of his fellow clergymen:

"You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative."

"Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals."

"Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society... when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait."

"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods..." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

"I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men... and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation."

[Skwish-E]

If I were interviewing 8 people for a job (something I actually do, by the way) and half were white and the other half were not. Let's say I could only fill four positions. three of the whites were well educated, but only one of the non-whites was. If I hire the 4 best educated people, is Dikiyoba saying I am racist in my policy, though not my intention?

 

I would say that if I hired one of the less educated non whites in preference to one of the better educated whites, then I would be using a racist hiring policy. What I would be saying is "Non-whites can't be expected to be held to the same standard as whites, they just aren't up to it. If this guy were white, I would not hire him. This guy 'deserves' the job because he is not white."

 

Now, I just used education as the sole criteria here. In reality, there are many more complex factors, including attitude, technical skill (assessed in my situation with an impartial test), communication skills, bearing and demeanor, and the ability to get along with the other teammates. I actually made offers to 4 people in that last 12 months. One was white, one Chinese, and two Indian. At no point was race a consideration, though at times I had to turn people down due to their legal work status as immigrants.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Skwish-E

I would say that if I hired one of the less educated non whites in preference to one of the better educated whites, then I would be using a racist hiring policy. What I would be saying is "Non-whites can't be expected to be held to the same standard as whites, they just aren't up to it. If this guy were white, I would not hire him. This guy 'deserves' the job because he is not white."

it's not about "not being up to it", it's about not having had the same opportunities. also, you have to take into account the fact that you probably have an unconscious bias against black people due to their presentation in media and culture, and so you'll unconsciously be looking for reasons to evaluate black applicants in a more negative light. as has been pointed out and linked to already, there's an enormous body of research showing that the exact same words and mannerisms tend to be interpreted more negatively coming from a black person than a white person -- if you really want to be fair then you have to consciously work to counteract that bias. if you believe that race isn't a consideration, then you're guaranteeing that it will be

[Skwish-E]

Notice I didn't say Black anywhere in my post.

[Lilith]

much as you might like to try to, you can't talk about race relations in america without talking about African-Americans, because they're in a unique historical position as far as their relationship to american culture goes

[Sudanna]

What would the solution be, then? To hire one of the less qualified non-whites? That doesn't seem to be a just course of action either, and it's what most people who rail against affirmative action think of when they hear it. It's not really fair for an employer to have different requirements for different races, even if the results would benefit equality in the long run and make up for inequalities in other areas of life.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Space Between

What would the solution be, then? To hire one of the less qualified non-whites? That doesn't seem to be a just course of action either, and it's what most people who rail against affirmative action think of when they hear it. It's not really fair for an employer to have different requirements for different races, even if the results would benefit equality in the long run.

the solution is to acknowledge that "less qualified" is inherently a subjective judgement call that nobody is truly in a position to fairly make, and so there's no injustice in tweaking hiring procedures to produce better social outcomes, because justice has never been a part of the hiring process in the first place

[Sudanna]

The lack of a reliable baseline for fair hiring practices doesn't mean that changes to them don't register on a scale of fairness at all.

[Dantius]

As a person who occasionally has input over who gets hired in my organization, I'd like to point out that it's ridiculous to posit statements like "All else being equal, would you hire the black/Chinese/Indian/Jew or the WASP?", because in my entire life I have never had two applicants that are somehow "equally" qualified. Everyone is simply so inherently different that it's stupid to try and say thing like "You hired the white guy over this equally qualified black guy" or vice versa, when they were two different people with totally different qualifications. I always just pick the most qualified person for the position, and since more often than not that position requires very specific prerequisites, there is always an exceptionally limited pool of applicants, and often one does tend to stand hear and shoulders above the rest, so it's not a difficult decision and there's rarely two applicants with similar qualifications in direct competition.

 

And before someone accuses me of discrimination in the rare instance of direct competition, the choice has never in my life come down to "black vs. white". It's almost always "not white vs. other not white"- with Chinese and Indian dominating. And in the circumstances where it actually is white v non white, I usually wind up picking the non white guy 70% of the time, because they're often more qualified for the position or a beter fit.

[Slawbug]

You're missing the point, Dantius. Obviously no two applicants will ever be that equal. That is an artificial situation, created so that all variables but one can be controlled for. It's called the scientific method, and I believe you have some respect for it. The fact that you will rarely if ever find a natural situation where only a single variable differs in no way discounts the impact of that variable.

[Alorael at Large]

If you were handed two identical resumés with different photos, one black and one white, and you were aware of subconscious biases, you might hire the black applicant. At the very least it should be 50/50.

 

In the real world, you get two different resumés, and you evaluate them. One has better educational credentials; the other has glowing references. One has many years of partially experience, and the other has fewer years more relevant experience. You have to weigh these things, and sooner or later subjectivity comes into it.

 

That's the point at which racism comes into play. Somewhere on the scale, your mind can throw in, "but that one is black, so..." and that's one applicant who's back to the resumé board.

 

—Alorael, who thinks Harehunter could do with a read through some of Nathan Glazer (and, for comparison, Samuel Huntington). It has been argued that the American melting pot has been given up. Now instead of assimilating into American culture, you get to bring your own culture to America and become hyphenated. Is that a bad thing? That's a huge sociological argument. It's worth noting, however, that multiculturalism eases the way for immigrants who really can't ever abandon the culture they were born into, tolerance of nonconformity has its advantages. (Gone too far, it's disunity, and that's also a disaster.)

[Skwish-E]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

... there's no injustice in tweaking hiring procedures to produce better social outcomes...

And yet it is a bad business practice. My company does not exist to bring social justice, but to bring profit, and the business owners would not want me to be using their investment in a manner that benefits society as a whole at the cost of their profit.

Say what you will about the capitalist system, the 1,600 employees of my company count on the company making money so that they can keep their jobs. (I say "my" company, though I am not an owner, just an employee.)

[Nicothodes]

Except that unemployment is one of the big factors in social stratification. There's less access to higher education(and quality education in youth) and opportunities for experience in general, which leads to being unable to get a job, leading to fewer opportunities and little to no money to spend on school, and so on. Yeah the education system needs a ton of work, but that alone isn't going to fix the problem. And yeah, companies can say "hey, not our problem," and not bother even setting changes in motion, but it still affects everyone in the company.

[Callie]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned drug policy, because in my opinion, that is the single biggest issue affecting income among blacks. (I'm not just talking about sentencing disparities, either)

[Slawbug]

Excalibur: I can imagine many different things you might mean by that comment. Care to elaborate?