White Privilege

[cobert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG9h-0UO_Nc

Very interesting, watch all 8 videos. I had always known a bit about white privilege but I had never heard somebody explain it so well and get into such detail. I might get this book.

Your thoughts?

[Against Miik!]

Yep its a good book and you should also read Faces At The Bottom of the Well by Derrick Bell. Derrick Bell is black so you know its kinda of like the tails side of the same coin I guess, and it's also more anecdotal than academic.

I'll watch the youtube thing later but if you want to just bring up any specific things he talks about then that would be cool too so that I don't have to listen to it.

[cobert]

Some of the topics covered in the video:

The language of privilege: Terms like minority are patronizing and underprivileged is in the passive voice and puts the blame on nobody, making it a problem for those who fall victim to it rather than everybody's.

The paranoia that comes with privilege: He brings up numerous studies where whites overestimate the number of colored people in the United States, surveys where black people claim that they like how being black because of (insert positive thing here) while white people like being white because they never (insert thing that happens to colored people here), and discusses the confusion among whites after September 11th and general lack of understanding that whites have of colored peoples.

The history of racism: He discusses how the idea of 'white people' was created to unify all whites against blacks to keep slavery intact and to justify slavery, and how race has continuously been used to tear the lower class apart - blaming other races for problems instead of the social elite and dominant classes.

Shorter video related specifically to the history angle: http://wimp.com/bigideas/



These are just a few things he talks about in the video but they really stood out for me.

Really though this thread is just to talk about white privilege, and how we should fix it (unless you doubt its existence or think we shouldn't fix it, then of course you should argue the other point).

[Iskandar]

I don't think I have to watch a video to know white people are privileged. Though I might watch it anyway since you took the trouble to post it.

[cobert]

It's one of eight parts, I would suggest just watching some other videos with Tim Wise to get his ideas.

Of course whites are privileged. We weren't victims to brutal colonization, slavery, and segregation for hundreds of years, we were its perpetrators.

[DJ Karl Marx]

i'm pretty privileged being white, but i'm also marginalized for other reasons

[Iskandar]

Of course whites are privileged. We weren't victims to brutal colonization, slavery, and segregation for hundreds of years, we were its perpetrators.That goes without saying.

[Det_Nosnip]

Some of the topics covered in the video:

The language of privilege: Terms like minority are patronizing and underprivileged is in the passive voice and puts the blame on nobody, making it a problem for those who fall victim to it rather than everybody's.

Semantic bullshit. How is "minority" patronizing? It's sometimes inaccurate (e.g.: the 60-70% "minority" population of San Antonio), but it is simply an indication of % of the total population.


The paranoia that comes with privilege: He brings up numerous studies where whites overestimate the number of colored people in the United States, surveys where black people claim that they like how being black because of (insert positive thing here) while white people like being white because they never (insert thing that happens to colored people here),
That's a point? :confused:

and discusses the confusion among whites after September 11th and general lack of understanding that whites have of colored peoples.


The history of racism: He discusses how the idea of 'white people' was created to unify all whites against blacks to keep slavery intact and to justify slavery, and how race has continuously been used to tear the lower class apart - blaming other races for problems instead of the social elite and dominant classes.
That's actually true. The ironic thing is that many people of European descent are closer genetic matches to certain "colored" ethnicities than they are to other "white" ethnicities.

There is, in reality, no unified "white race" or "white culture."


Really though this thread is just to talk about white privilege, and how we should fix it (unless you doubt its existence or think we shouldn't fix it, then of course you should argue the other point).

The only thing that can justifiably done is to provide equality of opportunity. It's not like we can go up to the suburbs and kick them out of their homes and put black people in them...

[Iskandar]

You don't support affirmative action or something like that? That surprises me tbh.

Equality of opportunity is meaningless if it doesn't lead to equality of outcome.

[Against Miik!]

Equality of opportunity is meaningless if it doesn't lead to equality of outcome.

Hmmm see now I'm not so sure about that one.

Right now, in the US, I don't think we have this equality of outcome. But that is also because we don't have as much equality of opportunity as we would like to think. Sure a black man just became president, but he barely won against a borderline insane, possibly retarded cancer patient. That isn't saying much.

You can't tell me, that regardless of race, if we as a country do everything in our power to give everybody an equal opportunity, and they still don't perform, that we have failed? I'm not saying we should necessarily leave people high and dry if they fail due to circumstances out of their control, but you can only take that so far.

[cobert]

Semantic bullpoop. How is "minority" patronizing? It's sometimes inaccurate (e.g.: the 60-70% "minority" population of San Antonio), but it is simply an indication of % of the total population.

His argument, not mine. Minority is an inaccurate term because its opposite is 'dominant', not 'majority'.

That's a point?

He was really just talking about the paranoia that develops from privilege. He talks about all functions of privilege, not just the 'positive' ones.


The only thing that can justifiably done is to provide equality of opportunity. It's not like we can go up to the suburbs and kick them out of their homes and put black people in them...

Nobody is advocating throwing whitey out of their comfy middle class homes.

Equality of opportunity is meaningless if it doesn't lead to equality of outcome.

I disagree, but I think what you're saying is just an oversimplified version of something I would agree with. The opportunity in question means different groups of people have the same means to attaining what they want, so it makes no sense that having equal opportunity should lead to equal outcome - that is defined my motivation and natural ability. However, this assumes everyone starts with equal footing, which they clearly don't.

I think you're saying the fact blacks now have equal opportunity doesn't mean anything if that opportunity is far more difficult to reach because of a different starting position than whites or if that opportunity yields different results than the same course of action by whites, and I agree with that.

[siva_chair]

Equality of opportunity is meaningless if it doesn't lead to equality of outcome.

What?

That seriously sounds like some "No Child Left Behind" bs to me.

Egalitarianism makes me so sick.

[griftadan]

i really don't like some of the things he assumes about white peoples mentality and views

[cobert]

i really don't like some of the things he assumes about white peoples mentality and views

Elaborate.

[PerpetualBurn]

Judging from the first two parts, he obscures language for the sake of his own rhetoric. He makes a huge deal out of the term "overprivileged" and claims that the concept of underprivileged requires that some people be overpriviliged. This is simply fallacious. It ignores the idea that there is an acceptable, ideal level of privilege.

This isn't to completely deny his point, but to imply that the entirety of the white population is "overprivileged" simply due to a recognition of an underprivileged class is ridiculous.

Edit: Furthermore, I find it interesting to speak of the dangers of terms like "underclass" or "underprivileged" or "minority" and the implications there of, but then to continue to use the terms "white folk" and "white America" under the idea that these are more academic terms and that they don't carry negative implications, and that they don't imply something about all white citizens.

Another Edit: I do actually appreciate the arguments he expresses and think he has several very valid arguments. I just think there is a lot of hypocrisy in his approach to rhetoric and the language he uses.

[DBoons Ghost]

I must live in a vacuum or maybe I live in denial. I dunno.

I am more or less white and life was a constant struggle due to class . How come no one blames race (or more properly, ethnicity) on my issues?

I recall when Rocco Mediate was playing Tiger Woods and the announcers said "Rocco sounds like a guy who should be cleaning your pool" but if you say "Tiger looks like the guy who should be cleaning your pool" there would be hell to pay. I guess that's ok.

**** your double standards. This guy's life would be over if it's realized that racism is no longer the issue it was. He profits and makes a living perpetuating this nonsense. I am not interesting in debunking his arguments but at the same time I must be biased because I live in a breathing melting pot every day and it's not ethnicity that keeps us apart but class and only class. Maybe that changes the farther into the middle of America you go, and I am grateful I don't live there.

[Mr. Ron]

It's one of eight parts, I would suggest just watching some other videos with Tim Wise to get his ideas.

Of course whites are privileged. We weren't victims to brutal colonization, slavery, and segregation for hundreds of years, we were its perpetrators.


White slavery was more extensive and older than african slavery. Plus Arabs and African tribes enslaved each other all the time.

[Der Übermensch]

Equality of opportunity is meaningless if it doesn't lead to equality of outcome.

I have to run to class so I can't say much on it, but that statement disturbs me.

[cobert]

Edit: Furthermore, I find it interesting to speak of the dangers of terms like "underclass" or "underprivileged" or "minority" and the implications there of, but then to continue to use the terms "white folk" and "white America" under the idea that these are more academic terms and that they don't carry negative implications, and that they don't imply something about all white citizens.

Yeah, he criticizes the language we use but there really isn't much of a solution to it. Really, the language discussion is a minor part of the videos.

I must live in a vacuum or maybe I live in denial. I dunno.

I am more or less white and life was a constant struggle due to class . How come no one blames race (or more properly, ethnicity) on my issues?

He discusses how white privilege has worked against poor whites - "Join team whitey now and we'll let you oppose blacks with us (just forget about the fact that you are still subordinate to us in every way possible and we are basically exploiting you)." I'm not saying that is necessarily what has happened with past generations in your family, but it definitely happened to a lot of others. The end of the videos hit me pretty hard, when he talks about answers to the question "what do you like about being white?" that basically said what people liked about being not-black, while the question "what do you like about being black?" was answered in the same way an immigrant would have answered if asked "what do you like about being Italian?". It just says something strong about the concept of 'whiteness' as it exists in America and what that entails.


**** your double standards. This guy's life would be over if it's realized that racism is no longer the issue it was. He profits and makes a living perpetuating this nonsense. I am not interesting in debunking his arguments but at the same time I must be biased because I live in a breathing melting pot every day and it's not ethnicity that keeps us apart but class and only class. Maybe that changes the farther into the middle of America you go, and I am grateful I don't live there.

This almost proves some of his points. People of color tend to vote and think in their class interest, and white people usually join them unless some silly politician comes along and starts pointing fingers at blacks/latinos/asians/otherracehere.

He also talks about a poll asking "Is racism a significant problem in America?" (something along those lines) and 90-some percent said 'no', which is the same exact result of the same poll taken in 1962. It's not like everyone was a racist, it shows how people were blind to racism and how they still can be. It's obviously gotten better in the last 50 years, but it's now just there in a far more subtle way.

[Angmar]

White slavery was more extensive and older than African slavery. Plus Arabs and African tribes enslaved each other all the time.

That's irrelevant to American slavery history and culture though.

[Iskandar]

White slavery was more extensive and older than african slavery. Plus Arabs and African tribes enslaved each other all the time.Which white slavery do you mean?

[siva_chair]

White on white slavery was pretty common in the feudal era.

[Iskandar]

Yeah I know but this is the first time I've heard it was worse than the slavery of blacks by whites.

Though if you look at peasants as slaves, which they pretty much were, quite possibly.

[Angmar]

Well all I know about white slavery in the US is the practice of indentured servitude, which was a lot different than African slavery.

[Mr. Ron]

Yeah I know but this is the first time I've heard it was worse than the slavery of blacks by whites.

Though if you look at peasants as slaves, which they pretty much were, quite possibly.
well when you have thousands of years of tribes seizing thousands of people through raids (at one go), wars and other forms of human trade, compared to only a few hundred years....Just think of the Roman Empire alone and how many Europeans they enslaved.

[mph4ever]

bit of an american centric topic so i'll keep it short

class is what causes privilege to exist. you are either in the club or you are not, don't matter what colour you are as long as you have the spondoolicks

irish people were called the blacks of europe. where is their privilege derived from?

[Mr. Ron]

That's irrelevant to American slavery history and culture though.
Well its relevant to what he said.


We weren't victims to brutal colonization
When he says "we" he means European whites. There has been pretty brutal occupations, land seizures and what not against other whites.

slavery, and segregation for hundreds of years, we were its perpetrators.

This statement is false. "WE" meaning Europeans, have had all of that done to us but for a longer period of time amongst ourselves.

[Angmar]

I think the point is though how much more recent it is in our American history and how it revolved around the enslavement of one race of people taken from another country. African slavery in the US is much more apparent to our culture than the thousand year old Roman Empire slavery. You can't really compare the two when speaking on a subject concerning black people in modern society.

I see what you mean on his post, but my point still stands.

[Mr. Ron]

I'm not talking about American history though, I was responding to what he said, its purely a tangent.

[Angmar]

Yeah I got that, I just didn't feel like deleting my post after writing it all. :p

[mph4ever]

russians are probably privileged when it comes to other people in the former soviet union.

[Iskandar]

They definitely are. Russia is a very racist place.

That's besides the influence Russia still has over its former satellites. It is the only regional power, really.

[mph4ever]

They definitely are. Russia is a very racist place.

That's besides the influence Russia still has over its former satellites. It is the only regional power, really.

and protestants were much more privileged than catholics when the irish were considered to be the blacks of europe

[cobert]

bit of an american centric topic so i'll keep it short

class is what causes privilege to exist. you are either in the club or you are not, don't matter what colour you are as long as you have the spondoolicks

irish people were called the blacks of europe. where is their privilege derived from?

Blacks were excluded from 'the club' for a long, long time in America; their class was bound by race.

I know nothing about privilege in Europe, I am speaking of America. The last sentence is irrelevant to the discussion. Irish-Americans have privilege in America because they were allowed to join 'the club' over here and their privilege is derived from their skin color.

[freedom police got me]

russians are probably privileged when it comes to other people in the former soviet union.
Really, it's their country so they should be priveleged.


Are blacks so under-priveleged in America with a black president?

[Iskandar]

Nobody should be privileged because of their ethnicity. Or religion or anything else like that.

[DBoons Ghost]

Really, it's their country so they should be priveleged.


Are blacks so under-priveleged in America with a black president?

No. The ones who are that under privileged need a valid scapegoat though. Mentally for them the insecurity and paranoia associated with all their failures might be racism or it might not, but to them there's nothing but. It's nothing they can control either. Many of my black friends have agreed that there is a high level of personal insecurity that comes out as "loud" to us, but to them it's a defense mechanism that just goes off because they feel they are so used to it that it's common place. The loud talking attention whoring manner of "yeah try to tell me to be quiet" is almost daring you to get into with them and before you even speak they have you nailed down as a racist.

See, for me and all I've learned, black people have a right to be insecure and paranoid about themselves but to be able to blame everything on racism and the talk of whitey bein' the man and keepin the common folk down applies across the board and is more an issue of class. They listen to their big mammas stories about how it was and the media never lets racism die so now you have it where we have it. However, most if not all black parents today do nothing to reinforce positivity into their kids without vilifying white people because most black parents are young and single and have no other means to blame anyone. So they blame society and to them, white people are society.

If black folks need to vilify white people to better themselves, or use white America as the fuel that lights their fire, have we made any progress? Would that be progress?

[cobert]

Really, it's their country so they should be priveleged.


Are blacks so under-priveleged in America with a black president?

Nobody deserves privilege because of where they were born.

Having a black president doesn't change the fact that white privilege exists. Actually, the fact that it took us this many to get a black person in office says something about the nations history.

[mph4ever]

Blacks were excluded from 'the club' for a long, long time in America; their class was bound by race.

poor whites were and still are excluded from "the club".

I know nothing about privilege in Europe, I am speaking of America. The last sentence is irrelevant to the discussion. Irish-Americans have privilege in America because they were allowed to join 'the club' over here and their privilege is derived from their skin color.

do you think that the irish-americans are racist since they benefit from and support the privileged?

[DBoons Ghost]

Having a black president doesn't change the fact that white privilege exists. Actually, the fact that it took us this many to get a black person in office says something about the nations history.

Black person in office is a lie. You're killing it now. We've had black politicians for decades. Mayors, governors.. etc..

It shouldn't be about his ethnic background. It's more about qualifications. My entire family, while mostly liberal democrats, are still very unhappy a black man is running the country before an Italian American. However, it's not about who's turn it is. That's racist as well isn't it? About time? About time they had a qualified candidate is all. Most black politicians have disgraced themselves and their own along the way, but you won't bring that up will you. You'll say it was racism caused Marion Barry to smoke crack? He got re-elected anyways!

Black people are 12% of the population. It's getting out of hand how some will bend and scrape like some personal guilt trip that makes us all suffer.

I want some valid stats about that. Black folks are 12% of the population right? So what's that worth? Should we compare them to every other ethnic group in the country for median income and percentage of unemployed and compare colors and backgrounds so we can really get to the bottom of it?

[freedom police got me]

Nobody deserves privilege because of where they were born. In Europe they do since it is their native land.

Having a black president doesn't change the fact that white privilege exists. Actually, the fact that it took us this many to get a black person in office says something about the nations history.Yes, it says that progressively people are ignoring racial differences that existed before.

[Iskandar]

In Europe they do since it is their native land.Immigrants have the same rights natives do.
Yes, it says that progressively people are ignoring racial differences that existed before.About time.

[cobert]

In Europe they do since it is their native land.

This still doesn't justify oppression or privilege. Everyone should at least be given an equal opportunity.

Yes, it says that progressively people are ignoring racial difference that existed before.

It shows cracks forming in white privilege and concepts of race, it doesn't mean white privilege has ended.

[DBoons Ghost]

You guys are killing me.

[mph4ever]

Really, it's their country so they should be priveleged.


did you even read what i said? country has nothing to do with it. privilege is bestowed upon those in the club


Are blacks so under-priveleged in America with a black president?


the poor are under privileged. it don't matter if you are black, brown, white or yellow. if you are poor you are out

[Iskandar]

I am? I don't think I've said anything objectionable.

[cobert]

poor whites were and still are excluded from "the club".

True, but they've had a relative one-up on blacks for a long time. All poor people are excluded, that's one of the reasons why they are poor.


do you think that the irish-americans are racist since they benefit from and support the privileged?

Not at all. If somebody unknowingly supports privilege then I can't blame them for anything. All whites benefit from the privilege, and unless they can change the world around them to end it (which they should) or they somehow change the color of their skin (which is unreasonable), they will continue to benefit from it and I can't blame them for being born that way.

[griftadan]

Elaborate.

i really don't think i would ever give a second thought if someone piloting my plain was black and i honestly couldn't think of much that i liked about being white when prompted, it's ok i guess

[cobert]

Black person in office is a lie. You're killing it now. We've had black politicians for decades. Mayors, governors.. etc..

I was referring specifically to president. Blacks aren't as likely to get government offices as whites because their lack of qualification, which stems from uneven footing at the start because of the color of their skin.

It shouldn't be about his ethnic background.

Yes.

It's more about qualifications. My entire family, while mostly liberal democrats, are still very unhappy a black man is running the country before an Italian American. However, it's not about who's turn it is. That's racist as well isn't it? About time? About time they had a qualified candidate is all.

Exactly.

Most black politicians have disgraced themselves and their own along the way, but you won't bring that up will you. You'll say it was racism caused Marion Barry to smoke crack? He got re-elected anyways!

No, actually, I would say Marion Barry was foolish to smoke crack and he probably shouldn't have been reelected.

Black people are 12% of the population. It's getting out of hand how some will bend and scrape like some personal guilt trip that makes us all suffer.

I want some valid stats about that. Black folks are 12% of the population right? So what's that worth? Should we compare them to every other ethnic group in the country for median income and percentage of unemployed and compare colors and backgrounds so we can really get to the bottom of it?

I don't get what you're saying, you kind of started to rant.

[cobert]

i really don't think i would ever give a second thought if someone piloting my plain was black and i honestly couldn't think of much that i liked about being white when prompted, it's ok i guess

He didn't say the black pilot thing applied to all white people, he said he thought it was scary that he lives to fight against racism yet he still had a mildly racist thought when seeing that and that it can happen to anyone, but it's important we don't follow through with that thinking and we catch it before it gets out of hand.

[DBoons Ghost]

I know it looked ranty but I'm at work and I had to run off. I didn't want to leave the post so I just finished quick and hit the button.

No worries.

[mph4ever]

True, but they've had a relative one-up on blacks for a long time. All poor people are excluded, that's one of the reasons why they are poor.

yes. to the privileged it doesn't make any difference if they are looking down on a poor black person or a poor white person. if anything i would say they find the white trash to be more distasteful than the black ones. just an opinion though

Not at all. If somebody unknowingly supports privilege then I can't blame them for anything. All whites benefit from the privilege, and unless they can change the world around them to end it (which they should) or they somehow change the color of their skin (which is unreasonable), they will continue to benefit from it and I can't blame them for being born that way.
i can see your point. it would be nice to see more of a realisation that this was the case. they were privileged and that is why some 10s of millions of people of irish connection have done so well. they didn't have to fight the prejudices suffered by the africans. there is little recognition of this either. they benefitted from racial prejudice, albeit not their own

to the point about obama
i do not see obama changing much when it comes to societies shortcomings because there is little he will be allowed to do to bring equality and remove privilege. that is more up to the ambition of each individual than it is to one mans position of power. he may prepare some foundations but others will have to be strong and willing to take up the cause, long after hes out of office

[cobert]

See, for me and all I've learned, black people have a right to be insecure and paranoid about themselves but to be able to blame everything on racism and the talk of whitey bein' the man and keepin the common folk down applies across the board and is more an issue of class. They listen to their big mammas stories about how it was and the media never lets racism die so now you have it where we have it. However, most if not all black parents today do nothing to reinforce positivity into their kids without vilifying white people because most black parents are young and single and have no other means to blame anyone. So they blame society and to them, white people are society.

Of course it's an issue of class, and many of the 'man is keeping me down' beliefs do stretch across to poor whites. We should help out the poor of all races. This doesn't change the fact that privilege exists based on skin color. I'm sure some of those blacks are simply looking for a scapegoat, just as whites have done in the past with blacks. I'm not saying blacks can't be lazy or unmotivated or racist, It's just that when you paint broad brushstrokes and say things like 'most if not all black parents today do nothing to reinforce positivity into their kids' I have to turn on the red light and argue the point that the historical conditions in which blacks have come to this country are wildly different than those of immigrants in the 20th century.

If black folks need to vilify white people to better themselves, or use white America as the fuel that lights their fire, have we made any progress? Would that be progress?

No, it wouldn't and they shouldn't have to use it to 'light their fire'. Racism is a white problem too.

[cobert]

yes. to the privileged it doesn't make any difference if they are looking down on a poor black person or a poor white person. if anything i would say they find the white trash to be more distasteful than the black ones. just an opinion though

That's arguable, there are probably more misconceptions about poor blacks than whites, but poor people as a whole have a ton of negative views applied to them so they are in the same boat.

i can see your point. it would be nice to see more of a realisation that this was the case. they were privileged and that is why some 10s of millions of people of irish connection have done so well. they didn't have to fight the prejudices suffered by the africans. there is little recognition of this either. they benefitted from racial prejudice, albeit not their own

It's not as if different European ethnics didn't have they're own battles to fight, they of course had the class battle but also the ethnic battle, it just wasn't institutionalized in the form of segregation. Again, the lower classes were all kind of in the same boat back then.

[DBoons Ghost]

Of course it's an issue of class, and many of the 'man is keeping me down' beliefs do stretch across to poor whites. We should help out the poor of all races. This doesn't change the fact that privilege exists based on skin color. I'm sure some of those blacks are simply looking for a scapegoat, just as whites have done in the past with blacks. I'm not saying blacks can't be lazy or unmotivated or racist, It's just that when you paint broad brushstrokes and say things like 'most if not all black parents today do nothing to reinforce positivity into their kids' I have to turn on the red light and argue the point that the historical conditions in which blacks have come to this country are wildly different than those of immigrants in the 20th century.

History? What? How long you gonna drag that along? This is the year 2009. History is there for us all to remind us of all kinds of things.

When will you let it go? Are you feeling guilty for something your ancestors did? I know we all didn't come here in chains, but what does it matter now?

What do you expect anyone to do to make up for slavery? Why would you bring it up in a discussion we're having about ethnicity today in 2009? I said what I said about black parents because I attended PTA meetings with my wife when my daughter was a student at PS 121 in the Bronx. Black folks speak their minds. Maybe you should talk to more of them. Most of them can't be bothered to talk about slavery. None of them are nearly that righteous anymore because what can be done?

How long must the Germans suffer for the holocaust? Forever? That happened in the 1940s. Sure jews are easily offended and Israel is causing turmoil in the world. All for them. Black people got stolen off their land and dragged away in chains. Some were stolen, some were sold off by their own people. How long must whoever used slaves suffer for it? Are slave owners not all dead?

Can anyone track slave owners ancestors' down and hold them accountable?

What does slavery have to do with what occurs now in 2009?

[cobert]

I know it looked ranty but I'm at work and I had to run off. I didn't want to leave the post so I just finished quick and hit the button.

No worries.

It happens, I'm kind of rushing out responses too because I have more important things I should be doing.

[Dave de Sylvia]

The guy raises some valid and interesting points, but he sorts of dives off the deep end around video #5. I am not a fan of one size fits all arguments, and his argument is so rigid and inflexible that he winds up making some pretty ridiculous points to maintain its internal coherency.

[cobert]

History? What? How long you gonna drag that along? This is the year 2009. History is there for us all to remind us of all kinds of things.

History also helps us udnerstand how we got to where we are.

When will you let it go? Are you feeling guilty for something your ancestors did? I know we all didn't come here in chains, but what does it matter now?

My ancestors came over in the 20's.

Maybe you should talk to more of them.


This sounded mighty condescending and dismissive.


How long must the Germans suffer for the holocaust? Forever? That happened in the 1940s. Sure jews are easily offended and Israel is causing turmoil in the world. All for them. Black people got stolen off their land and dragged away in chains. Some were stolen, some were sold off by their own people. How long must whoever used slaves suffer for it? Are slave owners not all dead?

Affirmative Action and minority scholarships and having some more competition in the workplace will hardly make white people 'suffer'. Slave owners are all dead, but the effects of their actions still makes a pretty big impact today.

Germany isn't 'suffering' from the holocaust - they get a bad rap for it, but ultimately Hitler's third reich and modern Germany don't share social qualities, and to my understanding Jews aren't 'underprivileged' over there and it's an entirely different scenario.

What does slavery have to do with what occurs now in 2009?

Again, slavery and segregation help explain the disproportionate number of poor blacks. I'm not saying we should track down slave owners ancestors and personally make them pay, that's absurd, but that we as a society should recognize the effects of slavery, recognize they still exist, and work to change those effects so slavery can be another line in a history book (which it unfortunately is already treated as).

[DBoons Ghost]

History also helps us udnerstand how we got to where we are. Which is important, but it changes nothing about where we are now. We cannot go back and change history.


My ancestors came over in the 20's.
As did mine. With nothing. No money, nothing. The Irish who owned NYC at the time put them through hell. My family dealt with their own share (and we still do) but while it wasn't on the scope of public segregation or history of slavery and forced ignorance, it was still there and I'm sure it means just as much to everyone who deals with racism, and that's left out constantly. I could blame the Moors for enslaving Sicily (where my people are from) but who would do that? They soiled our gene pool for good with rape. I wasn't alive so I don't care. Should I?


This sounded mighty condescending and dismissive.

It was. Dismissive no. Condescending yes. You're a little out of touch because you're basing this all on media speculation and public opinion without doing the proper research. It's insulting to black people that you think you need to do this. They don't need a white hero looking out for their "best interests" nor do they want one. If you spoke to more black folks you'd know this.


Affirmative Action and minority scholarships and having some more competition in the workplace will hardly make white people 'suffer'. Slave owners are all dead, but the effects of their actions still makes a pretty big impact today.

Affirmative action is insulting to anyone knee deep in the class wars we all fight every day. It made it impossible for me to even try to go to college because it was only poor blacks they gave handouts too, not poor people overall. The workplace is where racism lives and breaths but I've experienced racism because of affirmative action. Black workers know the rules too, and they know they are less likely to be laid off regardless of performance because of affirmative action, but I assume you know little about this or don't care. You don't care do you? Whenever I have had to layoff people I am not allowed to choose black workers even though they are almost always the worst workers. Why is that? Is their work ethic faltered because of their history? Or is it them using it as a scapegoat? I dunno. You seem to know so maybe you can tell me.

Again, slavery and segregation help explain the disproportionate number of poor blacks. I'm not saying we should track down slave owners ancestors and personally make them pay, that's absurd, but that we as a society should recognize the effects of slavery, recognize they still exist, and work to change those effects so slavery can be another line in a history book (which it unfortunately is already treated as).

I am confused about this. I'm not trying to say that slavery wasn't an abomination and segregation wasn't disgusting and embarrassing for all Americans who lived during those times, but you cannot explain the problems in the black community away with that. You try to talk to a black man about that and tell him this word for word and I guarantee you he'd beat your cracka *** silly.

Then you go on to say that reparations are a bad idea as you realize how absurd it would be to hold us all accountable for what atrocities were committed hundreds of years ago, yet you are unhappy slavery is left to history books. Can you help me understand that? What should be done?

[Give me Beer]

I'd just like to but in for a moment to say that you have a point on one hand DBoon, but on the other you're slightly too dismissive of the effects of historical processes. I'm biased of course, being as I am, a history student, but historical factors do matter, in more than one way, that doesn't mean you can use them as a 'justification', but more as a comprehension tool. On a different tangent than this thread for example, I do think that the British Imperial economical policies of the 19th century have in a profound way impacted the way the world works now and you can't understand the world, much less effect any change in the way it works without being aware of it.

Ironically, this of course isn't the case and that's why we're repeating some of the same mistakes right now. Free trade discourse being a glaring example. If you look at the history of the British 'free trade policies' and trace parellells with today, it's almost hilarious if it weren't so sad.

Sorry for going off topic there by the way.

[freedom police got me]

This still doesn't justify oppression or privilege. Everyone should at least be given an equal opportunity.
In Russia they can do what they want. It is the foreigners' obligation to abide to rules as guests. Russians founded Russia therefore an imigrant from Uganda isn't going to get royal service and Russians will naturally be favored.


It shows cracks forming in white privilege and concepts of race, What concepts of race? A country with a white majority elected a black man, that should tell you something about America's concepts of race.


it doesn't mean white privilege has ended.
It certainly doesn't mean minorities have no priviledges as well. Affirmative action for one applies. Racial double standards exist as well. Are these priveleges secretly hidden or do all whites just know this? Is there a white history month?

[Sk0rpi0n]

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I think there are a couple valid points to be made about past posts.

If black folks need to vilify white people to better themselves, or use white America as the fuel that lights their fire, have we made any progress? Would that be progress?

Whites did it to blacks and quantified, qualified and excused it as economic progress.

White slavery was more extensive and older than african slavery. Plus Arabs and African tribes enslaved each other all the time.

American slavery is largely considered different from traditional slavery though for 3 main reasons:

1) American slavery was not based on conquering people in armed conflict like traditional slavery.
2) American slavery was used exclusively for economic gain.
3) American slavery was based on enslaving only non-whites (blacks and attempts to enslave natives).

I think their were a couple minor differences as well, but I forget what they are.

[freedom police got me]

1) Africans enslaved their own people and sold them to whites, so what difference does it make
2) Almost all slavery boils down to economic gain.
3) Non-American slavery most certainly was smothered with worse conditions.

I should also mention that Eurasian slavery did not privelege anyone for the future in the east.

[Sk0rpi0n]

Equality of opportunity is meaningless if it doesn't lead to equality of outcome.

Agreed. At least to the degree that there is some equality of outcome (which their clearly isn't).

My major gripe with the term "equality of opportunity" though is that it simply doesn't exist. Inheritance, race and history all give people advantages. If somebody comes from a rich, prestigious family that can buy there way into major educational institutions or get them employment based on familial connections, they clearly have an opportunity advantage. Being black means you are less likely to come from one of these families and far more likely to be convicted and serve jail time on a first offense.

That is the exact opposite of "equality of opportunity"; it is having the odds tilted far in favor of the privileged.

[Iskandar]

There were and still a number of different ethnic groups in Africa. Certain groups sold others to white people who kept them as slaves. I don't know if you're trying to claim Africans brought slavery upon themselves or that white people aren't guilty of it but I hope not.

[cobert]

It was. Dismissive no. Condescending yes. You're a little out of touch because you're basing this all on media speculation and public opinion without doing the proper research. It's insulting to black people that you think you need to do this. They don't need a white hero looking out for their "best interests" nor do they want one. If you spoke to more black folks you'd know this.


Nowhere did I say I would be their 'white hero' or that blacks don't know what 's in their best interest or that they simply cannot help themselves, I was suggesting we do things to correct the ills cause from segregation.

You don't know me. Don't assume I haven't 'spoken to enough black people'. Let's not get into a fight about which one of us white dudes has their finger on the pulse of black American though, that's childish.


Affirmative action is insulting to anyone knee deep in the class wars we all fight every day. It made it impossible for me to even try to go to college because it was only poor blacks they gave handouts too, not poor people overall. The workplace is where racism lives and breaths but I've experienced racism because of affirmative action. Black workers know the rules too, and they know they are less likely to be laid off regardless of performance because of affirmative action, but I assume you know little about this or don't care. You don't care do you? Whenever I have had to layoff people I am not allowed to choose black workers even though they are almost always the worst workers. Why is that? Is their work ethic faltered because of their history? Or is it them using it as a scapegoat? I dunno. You seem to know so maybe you can tell me.

I say all poor people should be given aid. And by Affirmative Action I don't necessarily mean acceptance quotas that need to be filled - that would just lead to situations where underqualified blacks get into college over qualified whites, or as you said, black workers who don't perform nearly as well as some whites couldn't be laid off. I would prefer a system where on entrance exams and standardized tests if a whites 90% is equivalent to a blacks 87% - a double standard that would give better opportunity and that wouldn't simply give benefit to those who aren't even close to deserving it. This doesn't solve the problem for poor whites, but they weren't victims of racist government institutions - classist ones, sure, but they still had a slight one-up on blacks.

I am confused about this. I'm not trying to say that slavery wasn't an abomination and segregation wasn't disgusting and embarrassing for all Americans who lived during those times, but you cannot explain the problems in the black community away with that. You try to talk to a black man about that and tell him this word for word and I guarantee you he'd beat your cracka *** silly.

I'm not claiming you are trivializing slavery or segregation in any way, I just think you are underestimating the significance it has on modern issues. You can't 'explain away' most problems with a single factor. Slavery and segregation are huge parts of disproportionate poverty in the black community, but there's more to it than that.

Then you go on to say that reparations are a bad idea as you realize how absurd it would be to hold us all accountable for what atrocities were committed hundreds of years ago, yet you are unhappy slavery is left to history books. Can you help me understand that? What should be done?

I said it would be silly to find relatives of former slave owners and hold them specifically accountable. This is a problem we all have to acknowledge and solve as a whole.

I'm biased of course, being as I am, a history student

As am I.

[Sk0rpi0n]

1) Africans enslaved their own people and sold them to whites, so what difference does it make

Did you read the post? The difference was that the people weren't conquered and captured in battle.

2) Almost all slavery boils down to economic gain.

No it doesn't. It was about reducing the size of your enemies army and using captured slaves as leverage, sources of intel and soldiers.

3) Non-American slavery most certainly was smothered with worse conditions.

Not so. One sides slaves were usually treated well so that the other sides would receive the same treatment. African's clearly weren't enslaving whites at the same rate or for the same reasons.

Perhaps you should do some more reading on slavery before commenting?

[freedom police got me]

Almost everyone including Jews was bound to slavery at one point in history yet it didn't de-privilege them of anything. Jews, the most persecuted people of all time, are quite successful today.

[Iskandar]

When were Jews slaves outside of ancient times? Assuming Exodus isn't just a myth.

[freedom police got me]

Did you read the post? The difference was that the people weren't conquered and captured in battle. What difference does it make if they are forced to do labor.



No it doesn't. It was about reducing the size of your enemies army and using captured slaves as leverage, sources of intel and soldiers.
And more soldiers brings you what? Extra lollipops or money?



Not so. One sides slaves were usually treated well so that the other sides would receive the same treatment. QUOTE] Can you give an example?

[QUOTE]African's clearly weren't enslaving whites at the same rate or for the same reasons.[/
Because they couldn't enslave whites for a magical and vague reason.

[Iscariot]

Assuming Exodus isn't just a myth.

:lol:

I would think that the very existence of Israel and the fact that it's their own documented record of the history of their people, poor translations aside, it would be acceptable by most to say that Exodus isn't a mythological tale of the elusive and magical Jew.

[cobert]

In Russia they can do what they want. It is the foreigners' obligation to abide to rules as guests. Russians founded Russia therefore an imigrant from Uganda isn't going to get royal service and Russians will naturally be favored.

This argument could get way sidetracked from the topic so I think I might avoid it. We would have to start getting into philosophy about borders and humanity and ethnicity.


What concepts of race? A country with a white majority elected a black man, that should tell you something about America's concepts of race.

Yes, it tells me that he was elected for his qualifications and the white majority saw through race.



It certainly doesn't mean minorities have no priviledges as well. Affirmative action for one applies. Racial double standards exist as well. Are these priveleges secretly hidden or do all whites just know this? Is there a white history month?

Slight double standards are justifiable. All racial privilege is hidden, and people of that race don't know about it either. There isn't a white history month, but there are individual weeks and months for different parts of Europe in different cities. We have a Black history month instead of denominations by African region because history isn't as well recorded in those areas and it's much harder to trace lineage to a region of Africa when your ancestors became free and adopted 'white' last names, so black history as a whole is celebrated.

[Sk0rpi0n]

What difference does it make if they are forced to do labor.

The difference was in how they were captured -- purely economic and racial means versus war. I won't repeat myself again.

Can you give an example?

Greeks and Romans. Romans and Turks. Romans and Egyptians.

[Sk0rpi0n]

:lol:

I would think that the very existence of Israel and the fact that it's their own d0cumented record of the history of their people, poor translations aside, it would be acceptable by most to say that Exodus isn't a mythological tale of the elusive and magical Jew.

The story of Exodus also has tails of the 7 plagues, Moses parting the sea and many other wholly irrational events. Not to mention that records and history are routinely fabricated with competing claims discarded or destroyed.

[Give me Beer]

Almost everyone including Jews was bound to slavery at one point in history yet it didn't de-privilege them of anything. Jews, the most persecuted people of all time, are quite successful today.

Roma.

As for Exodus, uhm, Aeneis & Vergilius spring to mind.

[cobert]

I've seen some explanations of the plagues and parting of the Red Sea that are a lot more believable and not nearly as grandiose as the bible puts them.

[freedom police got me]

This argument could get way sidetracked from the topic so I think I might avoid it. We would have to start getting into philosophy about borders and humanity and ethnicity.
It's quite simple to resolve actually like I just did.



Yes, it tells me that he was elected for his qualifications and the white majority saw through race.So now you can conclude something.




Slight double standards are justifiable. All racial privilege is hidden, and people of that race don't know about it either. There isn't a white history month, but there are individual weeks and months for different parts of Europe in different cities. We have a Black history month instead of denominations by African region because history isn't as well recorded in those areas and it's much harder to trace lineage to a region of Africa when your ancestors became free and adopted 'white' last names, so black history as a whole is celebrated.I don't see how they are justified if you say everyone deserves equal opportunity. What historical celebratatory days do whites have? Most of the inventions today are white creations.
When were Jews slaves outside of ancient times? Assuming Exodus isn't just a myth.

WW2 for one

[cobert]

It's quite simple to resolve actually like I just did.

I'm pretty sure you didn't.

So now you can conclude something.

Black president =/= white privilege doesn't exist, it just means we are now less biased of a society. Anybody could have told you that.


I don't see how they are justified if you say everyone deserves equal opportunity. What historical celebratatory days do whites have? Most of the inventions today are white creations.

Whites as a whole don't have a month/week/day, but go look up heritage weeks for different European ethnicities.


WW2 for one

And now they have Israel.

[P13]

:lol:

I would think that the very existence of Israel and the fact that it's their own d0cumented record of the history of their people, poor translations aside, it would be acceptable by most to say that Exodus isn't a mythological tale of the elusive and magical Jew.

Well still, most of the stuff in Exodus makes no sense (Rameses making Pyramids ???), but there must have been a man who was Moses or Moses was based on where would the Laws come from?

[Dave de Sylvia]

:lol:

I would think that the very existence of Israel and the fact that it's their own documented record of the history of their people, poor translations aside, it would be acceptable by most to say that Exodus isn't a mythological tale of the elusive and magical Jew.
That's not the way history works.

[freedom police got me]

I'm pretty sure you didn't. Actually, you didn't.



Black president =/= white privilege doesn't exist, it just means we are now less biased of a society. Anybody could have told you that.It doesn't mean minority privelege doesn't exist either, it's actually growing.




Whites as a whole don't have a month/week/day, but go look up heritage weeks for different European ethnicities.
I've never heard of them. Do they exist in America?



And now they have Israel.So slavery and persecution gave them the upperhand. You just foiled your theories.

[cobert]

It doesn't mean minority privelege doesn't exist either, it's actually growing.

Barack Obama wasn't elected because he was black.

I've never heard of them. Do they exist in America?

Yes.

So slavery and persecution gave them the upperhand. You just foiled your theories.

Slavery didn't 'give them the upperhand', it resulted in nothing good. Israel is an extreme reparation for that that I don't agree with. Additionally, their modern slavery didn't last hundreds of years.

[freedom police got me]

Barack Obama wasn't elected because he was black. Most blacks would have voted for him anyway regardless if he was qualified. Bias in america is going down and your white guilt isn't going to progress anything. omg slavery



Yes.If they exist how come I haven't heard of them yet know black history month since 1st grade


Slavery didn't 'give them the upperhand', it resulted in nothing good. Israel is an extreme reparation for that that I don't agree with.
The Jews were persecuted since dawn of history and yet they are successful today.

[cobert]

Most blacks would have voted for him anyway regardless if he was qualified. Bias in america is going down and your white guilt isn't going to progress anything. omg slavery

Good thing if every black in America voted for him he would still be 37% of the vote off from winning a majority. He wouldn't have gotten the Democratic nomination if whites didn't support him too.

If they exist how come I haven't heard of them yet know black history month since 1st grade

Because you were looking for some sort of overarching 'white' celebration that wasn't straight up racist.

[Iskandar]

:lol:

I would think that the very existence of Israel and the fact that it's their own d0cumented record of the history of their people, poor translations aside, it would be acceptable by most to say that Exodus isn't a mythological tale of the elusive and magical Jew.Huh? I never said Israel never existed. Exodus doesn't deal with that anyway, books like Judges do.

Exodus is about the captivity in Egypt, remember? I guess it's been a while since you read your Bible.

[ATC]

I don't see how they are justified if you say everyone deserves equal opportunity. What historical celebratatory days do whites have? Most of the inventions today are white creations.


There is no white history month because
1) The concept of "white" is recent. You'd find that there was systemic discrimination against the Irish, the Lithuanians etc etc.
2) History is written by the victors. History as we are taught is assumed to be white male history. Other groups are celebrated to add fullness, for one.
3) When people talk about Black History month, I presume they are referring to African-American which is far removed from African. Slavery is one of America's darkest chapters.

Most blacks would have voted for him anyway regardless if he was qualified. Bias in america is going down and your white guilt isn't going to progress anything. omg slavery

OMG Black hive mind. You forget that Michael Steele didn't win close to majority black support. Nor did a ton of black candidates. Or was Barack Obama somehow special in your theory? Sure, it's less biased but the election is not a sign that American society is free of racism. It's a great step in that direction and something to be rightly proud of.

The Jews were persecuted since dawn of history and yet they are successful today.

What does this have to do with anything?

[Iskandar]

Obama won because he wasn't a Republican, not because he was black. There is really no way the Democrats could have lost this one except if they nominated Mike Gravel or something.

[Det_Nosnip]

You don't support affirmative action or something like that? That surprises me tbh.

Equality of opportunity is meaningless if it doesn't lead to equality of outcome.

How did you draw that conclusion?

I believe that Affirmative Action should take socio-economic status into account more than race (e.g. is it really helping the problem to help upper-middle class black kids get into Harvard?). Most of the good arguements for Affirmative Action take the example of the African American kid growing up in a broken home in the ghetto, getting pregnant at 16, working full time, and somehow miraculously managing to get a 22 on the ACT while maintaining a B average. Now, obviously, if one compares that hypothetical student to a rich white kid growing up in an affluent suburban district receiving buttloads of tutoring and test-prep and getting an A average with a 28, it becomes clear that the first student worked harder and overcame more...but then there are also plenty of Caucasian students who fit example #1 and minority students who fit #2. Is it truly just to give preferential treatment SOLELY due to the color of a person's skin?

[Det_Nosnip]

His argument, not mine. Minority is an inaccurate term because its opposite is 'dominant', not 'majority'.
See that's completely false, though.

[Iskandar]

How did you draw that conclusion?I didn't know that statement would be quite so controversial!

All I meant is that is if equality of opportunity doesn't lead to the results desired, i.e. people succeeding according to their efforts, then another approach is needed.

About affirmative action, well, it's intended to level differences between races, but it doesn't take into account people of "successful" ethnicities who are poor, so I am open to an approach based entirely on socioeconomic class.

[cobert]

See that's completely false, though.

Women are the numerical majority in the United States, but by sociological standards they are the 'minority'.

About affirmative action, well, it's intended to level differences between races, but it doesn't take into account people of "successful" ethnicities who are poor, so I am open to an approach based entirely on socioeconomic class.

As am I, I was simply using this thread to argue points about white privilege's existence with affirmative action as a possible solution. The idea for me was to fix the disproportion of blacks in poverty, but helping out all poor people is something I can't disagree with either.

[mph4ever]

exodus never happened the way the israelites would have you believe. sure there were a few of them who may have escaped slave labour for the pharoah. they just joined up with other caananite settlers. israelites never wrote their own history until after they were the dominant force in the country and so we can only rely on their heavily and romantically embellished traditions. the fact that the pentateuch is dominated by their search for a homeland sort of sets the scene for the single most important goal in their ancient and modern history.

[hismajestythepope]

Me > ******s

/thread

[hismajestythepope]

exodus never happened the way the israelites would have you believe. sure there were a few of them who may have escaped slave labour for the pharoah. they just joined up with other caananite settlers. israelites never wrote their own history until after they were the dominant force in the country and so we can only rely on their heavily and romantically embellished traditions. the fact that the pentateuch is dominated by their search for a homeland sort of sets the scene for the single most important goal in their ancient and modern history.

yeah man its all the ****in zog

[mph4ever]

yeah man its all the ****in zog


thats not what it says and i would deny any suggestion of that. but myths have to be dispelled, right?

[DBoons Ghost]

This thread rubs me the wrong way. No fault to the thread starter of course.

The whole concept of white privilege escapes me. I sent these You Tube lectures around to other "white" friends who came up same as me and we are all lost to comprehend what it is to be privileged because of the color of our skin. No one cares about that when you pay with food stamps or your WIC card. You're all the same then.

I'm sure outside my little world in a place like Idaho maybe there are privileged whites. Privileged by the parents who work hard and take an active role in their child's life and are able to pay for that child's education.

I dunno. Maybe it's me.

[ATC]

This thread rubs me the wrong way. No fault to the thread starter of course.

The whole concept of white privilege escapes me. I sent these You Tube lectures around to other "white" friends who came up same as me and we are all lost to comprehend what it is to be privileged because of the color of our skin. No one cares about that when you pay with food stamps or your WIC card. You're all the same then.

I'm sure outside my little world in a place like Idaho maybe there are privileged whites. Privileged by the parents who work hard and take an active role in their child's life and are able to pay for that child's education.

I dunno. Maybe it's me.

This is how I see it. I haven't seen the videos the threadstarter quoted nor do I have any interest in the semantics of the word minority. All that's pedantic stuff.

As a "white person", you're the default, the model to which many things are catered. Good schools are in the whiter neighborhoods. Suburbia and so forth. Whiter neighborhoods usually have better facilities. There are more grocery stores. They're well funded. You're less likely to be seen as a threat while waiting for the bus. You're more likely to be presumed unemployed. A black doctor is sometimes seen as a black person first and a doctor second, that sort of thing. Now, none of this is necessarily racism. It's just people lobbying for their own neighborhoods and because of historical trends, they get what they want at a greater degree than poor/minority neighborhoods. Of course, when it comes down to it, class is a much more important factor but it's often race that greases the wheels of said machine.

In my fairly privileged existence, I can see this pretty clearly. I live in Newark now. I live right inside a community called the Ironbound. It's literally bound by iron (elevated railway tracks) on one side and the Passaic river on the other side. My side is safe, leafy, mostly affluent Hispanic/Portuguese/white/formerly Polish and German. I live on the street right beside it so I can see to the other side. The city has decided that area across can't be fixed as easily. All the money flows to this side. Tourist brochures advertise the Ironbound and really, it is quite a nice place. After all the stuff that went down on Springfield in the riots in 67, that side is still rebuilding. Investment's there but it's slow. Sharpe James ****ed it up good. It gets a bad rap. A black person from Newark is automatically stigmatized. No one can believe they run a successful business for one. People, on the other hand, look at me with pity when I tell them I live here. I'm not rich by any means. I teach at Rutgers. I'm getting my masters, full ride and so on. I'm not black. I get pity, not disdain. That's privilege.

[cobert]

This is how I see it. I haven't seen the videos the threadstarter quoted nor do I have any interest in the semantics of the word minority. All that's pedantic stuff.

That's a fairly minor point of the video, it's just something I never thought about that was interesting on first take.

As a "white person", you're the default, the model to which many things are catered. Good schools are in the whiter neighborhoods. Suburbia and so forth. Whiter neighborhoods usually have better facilities. There are more grocery stores. They're well funded. You're less likely to be seen as a threat while waiting for the bus. You're more likely to be presumed unemployed. A black doctor is sometimes seen as a black person first and a doctor second, that sort of thing. Now, none of this is necessarily racism. It's just people lobbying for their own neighborhoods and because of historical trends, they get what they want at a greater degree than poor/minority neighborhoods. Of course, when it comes down to it, class is a much more important factor but it's often race that greases the wheels of said machine.

Yes.

I get pity, not disdain. That's privilege.

Yes.

I don't see how you;re seeing it more DBoon's way. Class is definitely a more important factor than race, but a distinction is to be made between poor whites and poor blacks - the cause of disproportionate black poverty is because of racist institutions so it's societies responsibility to fix some of that. Poor blacks and poor whites definitely face many of the same problems though, there is no doubt about that.

[DBoons Ghost]

I don't see how you;re seeing it more DBoon's way. Class is definitely a more important factor than race, but a distinction is to be made between poor whites and poor blacks - the cause of disproportionate black poverty is because of racist institutions so it's societies responsibility to fix some of that. Poor blacks and poor whites definitely face many of the same problems though, there is no doubt about that.

Now you're just contradicting yourself. What would the distinction help prove? That everyone is a racist to each other and that's it?

Even if what you say is true, that society's racist institutions keep black people poor, or made them poor, can you prove this to not be true for other races? Why a Jones or Williams wouldn't hire a Fanucci or an O'Sullivan? Can you say for sure that the same wasps who you claim run "racist institutions" showed no desire hire a Leroy or Tyrone that they would a Giuseppe or Carlos? Has affirmative action assisted society in employing hard working "minorities" or is that just some myth? Are black people succeeding or are they failing and is it the "system" that is to blame?

Proof. Provide some. Society is not at fault, it's the small collection of racist institutions. Do your best. Go picket and protest those institutions you claim to be racist. If you would like to discuss politics and how black folks were kept out, I can name a dozen or more ethnic backgrounds kept out of politics and who never complained or felt it was racism that kept them out.

[cobert]

Now you're just contradicting yourself. What would the distinction help prove? That everyone is a racist to each other and that's it?

It doesn't 'prove' anything, it's just a different case and I feel like should be handled slightly differently.

Even if what you say is true, that society's racist institutions keep black people poor, or made them poor, can you prove this to not be true for other races?

You mean for white ethnics? The overtly racist policies of the past against blacks led to the disproportionate poverty of today. Immigrants in the early part of the 20th century also faced straight-up prejudice, but within one or two generations they homogenized and 'Carlo Fanucci' probably became 'James Fanucci', and he was just another white guy with a vowel at the end of his name that meant nothing special to employers.

Has affirmative action assisted society in employing hard working "minorities" or is that just some myth?

Reports by the Department of Labor say that at least 5 million minorities have moved up in the workforce because of affirmative action and has also helped 6 million white women. It helps a lot of minorities get into colleges they otherwise wouldn't have had an opportunity to go to. Minority admission rates in Michigan fell from 76% to 33% when they were forced to stop affirmative action.

http://www.michigandaily.com/content/minority-admissions-plummet



Are black people succeeding or are they failing and is it the "system" that is to blame?

They're doing far better now as a whole than ever. Affirmative action is probably the best corrective measure to ensure fairness in college admissions. The argument can go back and forth about race-based quotas in hiring though, it's simply unfair to have to lay off a productive white to make sure the number of blacks in the workplace meets the standard.

[DBoons Ghost]

It doesn't 'prove' anything, it's just a different case and I feel like should be handled slightly differently.

Ok? :confused:



You mean for white ethnics? The overtly racist policies of the past against blacks led to the disproportionate poverty of today. Immigrants in the early part of the 20th century also faced straight-up prejudice, but within one or two generations they homogenized and 'Carlo Fanucci' probably became 'James Fanucci', and he was just another white guy with a vowel at the end of his name that meant nothing special to employers.

Ya think? Holy Christ are you lost. Just another guy with a vowel eh? This totally proves how biased and wrong you are. So we as Italians had to change our names to fit in (even though that is not the case) but hear complaints when Shaniqua Jones doesn't get a job because of her name? Hear whining when Jamaquia Willians can't get her resume in the door? Is that how it works? Double standards much? No one homogenized. We tried to fit in and retain our culture but we had to change in order to get jobs and we had no choice but to assimilate. No complaints. No protests. No fits of rage. No affirmative action. I know we weren't enslaved and segregated though, so I guess we'll take what scraps we can. Here's to hoping in the future we can get made slaves and hosed down and then maybe we can get a free ride too.


Reports by the Department of Labor say that at least 5 million minorities have moved up in the workforce because of affirmative action and has also helped 6 million white women. It helps a lot of minorities get into colleges they otherwise wouldn't have had an opportunity to go to. Minority admission rates in Michigan fell from 76% to 33% when they were forced to stop affirmative action.

What about Irish-Americans? Any stats for them? How about Italian-Americans? Nothing eh? Oh well. It's that privilege you keep talking about I guess. I must have missed the memo. My little brother is the first of 3 generations of my family to graduate college but he couldn't get any help so we all paid for it. I worked 3 jobs at the time and he worked 2 in addition to going to school. Gotta love that privilege! :p

They're doing far better now as a whole than ever. Affirmative action is probably the best corrective measure to ensure fairness in college admissions. The argument can go back and forth about race-based quotas in hiring though, it's simply unfair to have to lay off a productive white to make sure the number of blacks in the workplace meets the standard.

I'm glad for them. I'm so glad they're doing better now. It's nice that an honest hard working high graded white male worker between 25 and 50 is more likely to get laid off than a black woman 25 to 50, or a black man 25 to 50, followed by a white woman 25 to 50. That is the order that if all else fails, you lay people off to as the white male who is ever so privileged is least likely to sue, because of that privilege! But a black man or woman in that target demographic will almost always sue (almost always) because that is quick easy money that they worked so hard for. White women almost never sue when laid off, but they are privileged to right?

It's not you. I know you're not the guy who wrote these lectures and if I seem bitter, maybe because I am. Given the percentage of black people in this country, it's them who are privileged when we're all in the same class.

I hope you didn't take any of this discussion personally.

[cobert]

Ya think? Holy Christ are you lost. Just another guy with a vowel eh? This totally proves how biased and wrong you are. So we as Italians had to change our names to fit in (even though that is not the case) but hear complaints when Shaniqua Jones doesn't get a job because of her name? Hear whining when Jamaquia Willians can't get her resume in the door? Is that how it works? Double standards much? No one homogenized. We tried to fit in and retain our culture but we had to change in order to get jobs and we had no choice but to assimilate. No complaints. No protests. No fits of rage. No affirmative action. I know we weren't enslaved and segregated though, so I guess we'll take what scraps we can. Here's to hoping in the future we can get made slaves and hosed down and then maybe we can get a free ride too.

I understand Italians had no choice but to assimilate. Everyone in a minority group (which Italians, like all immigrants, were once part of) has to assimilate or at least partially assimilate into the dominant group (Wasps) if they want to move ahead. The difference is that they voluntarily came to this country with hopes of making it better, they weren't brought here against their will, and they should have been well aware of sacrifice to get ahead. Being named Carlo Fannuci now is a lot different than it woiuld have been at the turn of the century. Now, you are a lot more likely to be judged by skin color instead of by last name.

The last sentence is ridiculous.

What about Irish-Americans? Any stats for them? How about Italian-Americans? Nothing eh? Oh well. It's that privilege you keep talking about I guess. I must have missed the memo. My little brother is the first of 3 generations of my family to graduate college but he couldn't get any help so we all paid for it. I worked 3 jobs at the time and he worked 2 in addition to going to school. Gotta love that privilege! :p

Like I said, white privilege doesn't pervade all aspects of society. In fact, the lecturer provides examples where it has harmed whites (particularly those in the middle class that think skin color could be more important than economic standing).

Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans don't have government mandated affirmative action, so no, of course there aren't any statistics on them. Since the first generation of immigrants though, after the thick Italian accent leaves the family and they assimilate into the larger 'White America', it doesn't matter what their last name or ethnic heritage is because they had simply become 'white', which blacks will never be a part of.


I'm glad for them. I'm so glad they're doing better now. It's nice that an honest hard working high graded white male worker between 25 and 50 is more likely to get laid off than a black woman 25 to 50, or a black man 25 to 50, followed by a white woman 25 to 50. That is the order that if all else fails, you lay people off to as the white male who is ever so privileged is least likely to sue, because of that privilege! But a black man or woman in that target demographic will almost always sue (almost always) because that is quick easy money that they worked so hard for. White women almost never sue when laid off, but they are privileged to right?

Again, it's white privilege working against whites. I'll be completely honest and say that blacks have the ability to unjustly play the race card sometimes, and this is a prime example. This isn't to say that any time a black sues that it is unjust, or even that most examples are unjust, simply that the ability exists. Job layoffs shouldn't be affected by race - if a black person uses affirmative action to get a job, they shouldn't rely on it to bail them out if they suck at it.

Given the percentage of black people in this country, it's them who are privileged when we're all in the same class.

A poor white person with a white ethnic name (John Arbuckle, for instance) is more likely to get a call back on a job application than a poor black person with a stereotypical black name (like Jamal Jackson). Affirmative action doesn't make blacks privileged, it makes them equal and gives them a fighting chance to actually prove themselves where they otherwise wouldn't because of their name.

I hope you didn't take any of this discussion personally.

Of course not, but thank you for reiterating that none of it should be.

[Iscariot]

If white privilege existed, I wouldn't live in the ghetto.

[Iskandar]

That doesn't make sense. It's supposed to be a generalization, not a rule.

Though I guess that says something about the applicability of generalizing people.

[DBoons Ghost]

I understand Italians had no choice but to assimilate. Everyone in a minority group (which Italians, like all immigrants, were once part of) has to assimilate or at least partially assimilate into the dominant group (Wasps) if they want to move ahead. The difference is that they voluntarily came to this country with hopes of making it better, they weren't brought here against their will, and they should have been well aware of sacrifice to get ahead. Being named Carlo Fannuci now is a lot different than it woiuld have been at the turn of the century. Now, you are a lot more likely to be judged by skin color instead of by last name.

The last sentence is ridiculous.

Fair points. However, African immigrants never seem to suffer that scrutiny. They never have trouble finding jobs when they are skilled tradesmen. Is it the American black or black people in general? The last sentance was over the top but it was merely to prove a point that people like me and such who had nothing to do with slavery, segregation, or any of the the civil rights movements that occured in this country who suffer the same kind of racism in the present day that black people seem to complain about and there is nothing for us. If you think I am making more of it I cannot argue that. But I can and have participated in angry conversations about "white America" and it's not me defending white people, but rather joining in. I have been racially profiled, overlooked for jobs, called names etc.. If no one will acknowledge it because we weren't hosed down for using a restroom what do you suggest we do? For most people in the present day, there is no excuse. None of them were slaves. None of them were hosed down in the streets. None of them were unlawfully jailed and beaten. In the present day. Which is where we live. Not in the past.


Like I said, white privilege doesn't pervade all aspects of society. In fact, the lecturer provides examples where it has harmed whites (particularly those in the middle class that think skin color could be more important than economic standing).

Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans don't have government mandated affirmative action, so no, of course there aren't any statistics on them. Since the first generation of immigrants though, after the thick Italian accent leaves the family and they assimilate into the larger 'White America', it doesn't matter what their last name or ethnic heritage is because they had simply become 'white', which blacks will never be a part of.

I disagree with this entirely. You're wrong to me, but I cannot prove it and that's what is hard. I wish I had data to prove you wrong simply for the sake of getting you to see that more then wanting to prove you wrong, but they only seem to gather data on black people. I do not consider myself white at all by the way. I have never claimed I was white. Nor when people ask do I tell them "I'm white". I am not typically caucasion white and I never will be. My skin tone is olive and I will never be fully white. I married an Irish-German broad though so maybe my kids will have it different. She's half Italian at least.


Again, it's white privilege working against whites. I'll be completely honest and say that blacks have the ability to unjustly play the race card sometimes, and this is a prime example. This isn't to say that any time a black sues that it is unjust, or even that most examples are unjust, simply that the ability exists. Job layoffs shouldn't be affected by race - if a black person uses affirmative action to get a job, they shouldn't rely on it to bail them out if they suck at it.

We both agree on this at least. I can't argue the fact that black people have a right to sue when they are discriminated against in the workplace but the problem is the honest cases where this happens are grossly overshadowed by the BS cases that are fabricated out of thin air. I've testified in at least 4 depositions in which black workers I have worked with (or for) have tried to sue using their race as the issue when it was not the case. Even going so far as making false accusations about the N word around the office. Unfortunatly when it's your word against theirs and the press is involved who do you think wins there?



A poor white person with a white ethnic name (John Arbuckle, for instance) is more likely to get a call back on a job application than a poor black person with a stereotypical black name (like Jamal Jackson). Affirmative action doesn't make blacks privileged, it makes them equal and gives them a fighting chance to actually prove themselves where they otherwise wouldn't because of their name.

What about African names? I've worked with a LOT of Africans as they seem to work in technology often. I've hired a couple of guys with names I still cannot pronounce. Is there any issue for them? Or does the "data" only cover the Jamals and Shaniquas. By the way Jamal is my buddy's name and I worked with and for him at one of the most prestigious swiss banks in Wall Street. He and I have very in depth conversations about this kind of stuff all the time and I think his opinions would surprise you.

All the while know that I grew up in and live and work in NYC for most of my life. I think it's obvious things are different here then they would be in a small town in Ohio or Michigan where black folks aren't as common as they are here in NY.

[cobert]

Fair points. However, African immigrants never seem to suffer that scrutiny. They never have trouble finding jobs when they are skilled tradesmen. Is it the American black or black people in general?

American blacks. There have been studies done (I'll look them up later today) that show blacks who are the children of immigrants from as recent as the 70's have been a lot better off than those who have been in this country for some time. They are still undoubtedly judged in passing because of their skin color, but they typically started off in the middle class and their parents probably had connections back in their home country if they had enough money to move to America.

The last sentance was over the top but it was merely to prove a point that people like me and such who had nothing to do with slavery, segregation, or any of the the civil rights movements that occured in this country who suffer the same kind of racism in the present day that black people seem to complain about and there is nothing for us. If you think I am making more of it I cannot argue that. But I can and have participated in angry conversations about "white America" and it's not me defending white people, but rather joining in. I have been racially profiled, overlooked for jobs, called names etc.. If no one will acknowledge it because we weren't hosed down for using a restroom what do you suggest we do? For most people in the present day, there is no excuse. None of them were slaves. None of them were hosed down in the streets. None of them were unlawfully jailed and beaten. In the present day. Which is where we live. Not in the past.

I understand the point you are making, I just feel like putting it that way was a bit much.

Bias exists in all forms against all sorts of people, but it's just more prevalent against African Americans than it is against, say, Italian Americans. I don't doubt for a minute that some spatula won't give a person a job because their last name sounds Irish, I do doubt that the number of spatulas doing this against them is even close to the number doing it to blacks.

I disagree with this entirely. You're wrong to me, but I cannot prove it and that's what is hard. I wish I had data to prove you wrong simply for the sake of getting you to see that more then wanting to prove you wrong, but they only seem to gather data on black people. I do not consider myself white at all by the way. I have never claimed I was white. Nor when people ask do I tell them "I'm white". I am not typically caucasion white and I never will be. My skin tone is olive and I will never be fully white. I married an Irish-German broad though so maybe my kids will have it different. She's half Italian at least.

Fair enough. Again, I'm not claiming discrimination can't affect different groups of whites, I'm just arguing that it hasn't been institutionalized and that it's not as widespread as it is against blacks.

What about African names? I've worked with a LOT of Africans as they seem to work in technology often. I've hired a couple of guys with names I still cannot pronounce. Is there any issue for them? Or does the "data" only cover the Jamals and Shaniquas.

I'm curious of this myself. Having a last name like 'Ikedichi' carries a different weight than someone with a 'black-sounding' first name and an American last name like Jones. I feel like the American last name would be more likely to be discriminated against than the African last name, only because the conceptions of lower class blacks are more negative than conceptions about modern immigrants.

All the while know that I grew up in and live and work in NYC for most of my life. I think it's obvious things are different here then they would be in a small town in Ohio or Michigan where black folks aren't as common as they are here in NY.

I'm sure location plays a big part in all of this. Still, my high school was almost half black and I thought that being around blacks so often might make overt racism disappear, but it simply didn't, and I can't explain that with any statistics.


If white privilege existed, I wouldn't live in the ghetto.

You may be marginalized in some ways (that you are in a lower economic class), but that doesn't change the fact you are elevated above similarly positioned people of color.

[DBoons Ghost]

This was a great discussion. I don't have anything more to add but thanks for engaging.

[Iscariot]

Huh? I never said Israel never existed. Exodus doesn't deal with that anyway, books like Judges do.

Exodus is about the captivity in Egypt, remember? I guess it's been a while since you read your Bible.

Exodus is about the journey from Egypt to Israel and the conflict with the Canaanites.

[mph4ever]

Exodus is about the journey from Egypt to Israel and the conflict with the Canaanites.

whos journey?

[DBoons Ghost]

whos journey?

Moses and his people, the jews.

[Iscariot]

whos journey?

The Israelites.

[Mr. Ron]

There were no jewish slaves in Egypt building the pyramids though :/

[Iskandar]

Exodus is about the journey from Egypt to Israel and the conflict with the Canaanites.Yes, and it contains the story of the captivity in Egypt, wanderings in the desert and the settlement of the land of Israel. Obviously this has resonated strongly with diaspora Jews throughout their history whether they were in Babylon or medieval Europe. The story's nationalist themes were a strong influence on the Zionist movement.

[mph4ever]

canaan was already settled at this stage by the caananites

Moses and his people, the jews.

The Israelites.

can you narrow it down to a tribe or are you talking about all the people stuck in the desert for 40 years

[DBoons Ghost]

The people stuck in the desert. God told Moses to make sure the Israelites appeared to be wandering aimlessly if memory serves. I don't recall the whole thing though I should because they beat me with window poles so I would remember.

[Iscariot]

There were no jewish slaves in Egypt building the pyramids though :/

That's one theory that I've heard. It's not accepted as a fact, however.

The people stuck in the desert. God told Moses to make sure the Israelites appeared to be wandering aimlessly if memory serves. I don't recall the whole thing though I should because they beat me with window poles so I would remember.

Well he didn't tell Moses to make them wander aimlessly at first. Originally after they left Egypt they were to journey to the promised land of Israel without hesitation, but along the way when Moses received God's commandments he returned to camp to find everyone worshiping a false idol and he smashed the stone tablets in a fit of anger. To punish the Israelites and Moses for this insurrection, God crafted new tablets and ordered Moses and the Israelites to wander the desert until everyone of the older generation had died because they had become unfit to enter the promised land. As Moses's punishment for smashing the first tablets, he was allowed to journey as far as the border into Israel and no further.

[mph4ever]

the prelude to the wandering jew i suppose

[Iskandar]

Exactly. The whole exodus-and-return-to-the-Promised-Land deal derives from that story.

[Mr. Ron]

no the pyramids were built by Egyptian workers. Entire villages were constructed near the work site. They weren't slaves either. You can look it up. There's no evidence whatsoever that there were jewish slaves in Egypt at that time.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/pyramids/pyramids.html

http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/07/who-built-the-pyramids.html

[cobert]

This was a great discussion. I don't have anything more to add but thanks for engaging.

A+ would engage again.

[Iskandar]

During Egypt's Old Kingdom (time line), the pharaohs established a stable central government in the fertile Nile Valley.Egyptians Were Statist Never Forget.

[ATC]

Ya think? Holy Christ are you lost. Just another guy with a vowel eh? This totally proves how biased and wrong you are. So we as Italians had to change our names to fit in (even though that is not the case) but hear complaints when Shaniqua Jones doesn't get a job because of her name? Hear whining when Jamaquia Willians can't get her resume in the door? Is that how it works? Double standards much? No one homogenized. We tried to fit in and retain our culture but we had to change in order to get jobs and we had no choice but to assimilate. No complaints. No protests. No fits of rage. No affirmative action. I know we weren't enslaved and segregated though, so I guess we'll take what scraps we can. Here's to hoping in the future we can get made slaves and hosed down and then maybe we can get a free ride too.

I understand the sentiment but that last bit is insulting.
Names should not matter at all. It isn't fair what happened historically to any of those ethnic groups but to draw equivalences is counterproductive. When you say white privilege, you mean majority privilege. Italians and Lithuanians etc weren't part of the majority then. White did not include them. The institutions that evolved to support the system then excluded those groups. They got shittier schools and lived in shitty neighborhoods in shitty jobs. Unfortunately in the modern day, some minorities still deal with those problems. It doesn't matter what the Italians had to or didn't have to do. Italians weren't formally referred to as 3/5 a human being either but that's not the point. To say black folks get a free ride off affirmative action is making the fundamental error that 1) the white person is, given the same educational opportunities, more qualified than a black/minority person. This specter of black people taking jobs they're not qualified for isn't as big a problem as the internet messageboards make it out to be, at least not statistically. I understand the resentment and it's an easy scapegoat but chances are if you got passed over for something, you simply weren't good enough. Diversity hiring practices have more than just equality in mind. It's also competitiveness. So, is welfare the right system? Arguable. The cure's much more comprehensive but that's all the political will we have right now and it's better than nothing and it's not restricted to minorities. To say that is the case is misleading.


What about Irish-Americans? Any stats for them? How about Italian-Americans? Nothing eh? Oh well. It's that privilege you keep talking about I guess. I must have missed the memo. My little brother is the first of 3 generations of my family to graduate college but he couldn't get any help so we all paid for it. I worked 3 jobs at the time and he worked 2 in addition to going to school. Gotta love that privilege! :p

Now, they are privileged. Then, no. They weren't considered white then. Strikebreakers and such. By white, the implication has more to do with power dynamics than the color of your skin itself. Your little brother was not disadvantaged by being white even if he was not advantaged. Arguably, he would be disadvantaged being black. It's great he made it past that and that he had such a good support network.


I'm glad for them. I'm so glad they're doing better now. It's nice that an honest hard working high graded white male worker between 25 and 50 is more likely to get laid off than a black woman 25 to 50, or a black man 25 to 50, followed by a white woman 25 to 50. That is the order that if all else fails, you lay people off to as the white male who is ever so privileged is least likely to sue, because of that privilege! But a black man or woman in that target demographic will almost always sue (almost always) because that is quick easy money that they worked so hard for. White women almost never sue when laid off, but they are privileged to right?

This is misleading and false. Yes, legalities come into play but HR departments typically don't do more than token service to this specter you're bringing up. And I'm not sure I like the implication of only the white male worker being honest and hard working and more deserving of his job. That's the labor equivalent of the immigration hysteria they taking jobs from us and we cant complain cos we're the majority omg!


It's not you. I know you're not the guy who wrote these lectures and if I seem bitter, maybe because I am. Given the percentage of black people in this country, it's them who are privileged when we're all in the same class.

I hope you didn't take any of this discussion personally.

Within the same economic grouping, the privilege thing becomes less pronounced for sure. But to say definitively that black people are more privileged because of affirmative action is to claim the free rider problem is more prevalent among black folk across the board. You forget that a poor white person is likelier to be hired than a poor white person in an environment that has no culture of diversity. And that all environments aren't equal when it comes to a culture of diversity/aren't in the same place in their quotas.

Nope, nothing personal.

[DBoons Ghost]

This is misleading and false. Yes, legalities come into play but HR departments typically don't do more than token service to this specter you're bringing up. And I'm not sure I like the implication of only the white male worker being honest and hard working and more deserving of his job. That's the labor equivalent of the immigration hysteria they taking jobs from us and we cant complain cos we're the majority omg!.

What is your experience to say it's misleading and false? I've been a hiring manager at most if not all the major firms I have worked at over the years. Fortune 500 companies all and that is the policy. Until you have sat in a room with an HR rep, a list of names and corrosponding performance grades from the last 4 reviews, please don't tell me I am misleading anyone or falsifying information.

Out of curiousity, do you have similar experience? Why are you so quick to say it's misleading and false? I made no such implication either, regarding the white male worker because in my experience nothing could be further from the truth. There is no ethnic template for who is the honest and harder worker.

[ATC]

What is your experience to say it's misleading and false? I've been a hiring manager at most if not all the major firms I have worked at over the years. Fortune 500 companies all and that is the policy. Until you have sat in a room with an HR rep, a list of names and corrosponding performance grades from the last 4 reviews, please don't tell me I am misleading anyone or falsifying information.

Out of curiousity, do you have similar experience? Why are you so quick to say it's misleading and false? I made no such implication either, regarding the white male worker because in my experience nothing could be further from the truth. There is no ethnic template for who is the honest and harder worker.

Not to take away from your experience, what I mean is the minority is always less qualified than a white person argument is false. Also, diversity hiring practices don't usually mean hiring at the expense of qualified people, or they aren't supposed to. I'm sure sometimes that isn't the case but still. This was sort of the subtext of what you were saying, in my view. I apologize if I got you wrong.

I haven't been on hiring committees, no. My closest experience is working under people that did at newspapers, which I'm sure isn't exactly translatable. If you made no such implication, I apologize. I just don't like the trope of unqualified Mexican man's taking over a job that should have gone to the qualified white man!! stuff that people often mistake diversity hiring for. Currently, I work for Rutgers, which as you might know, is pretty big on diversity hires. Flaws, yes, but it accurately represents the community it serves.

[DBoons Ghost]

Not to take away from your experience, what I mean is the minority is always less qualified than a white person argument is false. Also, diversity hiring practices don't usually mean hiring at the expense of qualified people, or they aren't supposed to. I'm sure sometimes that isn't the case but still. This was sort of the subtext of what you were saying, in my view. I apologize if I got you wrong.

No need for apologies man we're just conversing. I never said that any minority is less qualified or more qualified. I reread my post to make sure that I didn't even allude to anything like that but if I did somehow imply that I favored a certain worker over another, that is not the case. To be honest, there have been (2) times when HR asked us to favor a certain type over another for the sake of diversity but it's rare. Even then we ignore that and hire the guy who's right for the job. However, when I say "favor a certain type" that doesn't mean hire the black guy. Asians, Indians, Latinos.. all ethnic groups who would be considered "minority" only to the majority as it stands.

I haven't been on hiring committees, no. My closest experience is working under people that did at newspapers, which I'm sure isn't exactly translatable. If you made no such implication, I apologize. I just don't like the trope of unqualified Mexican man's taking over a job that should have gone to the qualified white man!! stuff that people often mistake diversity hiring for. Currently, I work for Rutgers, which as you might know, is pretty big on diversity hires. Flaws, yes, but it accurately represents the community it serves.

I've never sat on hiring committees either. I've run many a team who needed staff and we go out and set up 20 candidates for interviews over a 2 week period and interview every candidate and hire the most qualified person. When we boil it down to 2 to 5, we get HR in the room and go over the specifics. That is when the conversation can sometimes move to "are we diverse enough".

Adversely, when a company downsizes, reallocates funds, blah blah.. when they decide who to lay off, that's when things get interesting.

See, a manager of a team targetted for "downsizing" sometimes if they're lucky, has a say on who gets laid off. Sometimes if you're a good manager and know your people you can give a name right away. When you can't, or when the name you picked is in the wrong demographic, it gets difficult. THe wrong demographic is any of the ones I listed in that order. You should never fire a black woman between the ages of 25 and 40 unless there is documented complaints, signed performance reviews indicating poor performance or anything that so you can sit in court and prove that this was a warrented firing. If you don't the likelyhood of them suing is very high. Most HR companies keep a percentage based score of that. It sounds cruel, but affirmative action brings the good with the bad. Litigation is at an all time high in this area and it brings the madness with every case. Bad press, long costly trials and all liberal judges and juries happy to award the sad black worker who was discriminated against plenty of money for her troubles. Most of the time they settle, and that never saves a company money.

Though, for every case that goes the above route, there are legitimate cases of discrimination. I have witnessed one. I did the right thing and stood up for that person. It went poorly either way because this young man couldn't keep his dick in his pants. I was unaware of this and looked liked a fool in the end but what can you do.

I work in financial IT and over the course of my 15 year career I've seen it all. I've had staff of 30 and staff of 0. I've worked for mostly British and European firms though, since the American firms are mostly sweatshops that play too many posturing games for my tastes.

Either way, I hope that clears up any confusion. Yes, I have my opinions and they are strong opinions, but there are facts that run affirmative actions that in practice cannot be denied.

[ATC]

I've never sat on hiring committees either. I've run many a team who needed staff and we go out and set up 20 candidates for interviews over a 2 week period and interview every candidate and hire the most qualified person. When we boil it down to 2 to 5, we get HR in the room and go over the specifics. That is when the conversation can sometimes move to "are we diverse enough".

Adversely, when a company downsizes, reallocates funds, blah blah.. when they decide who to lay off, that's when things get interesting.

See, a manager of a team targetted for "downsizing" sometimes if they're lucky, has a say on who gets laid off. Sometimes if you're a good manager and know your people you can give a name right away. When you can't, or when the name you picked is in the wrong demographic, it gets difficult. THe wrong demographic is any of the ones I listed in that order. You should never fire a black woman between the ages of 25 and 40 unless there is d0cumented complaints, signed performance reviews indicating poor performance or anything that so you can sit in court and prove that this was a warrented firing. If you don't the likelyhood of them suing is very high. Most HR companies keep a percentage based score of that. It sounds cruel, but affirmative action brings the good with the bad. Litigation is at an all time high in this area and it brings the madness with every case. Bad press, long costly trials and all liberal judges and juries happy to award the sad black worker who was discriminated against plenty of money for her troubles. Most of the time they settle, and that never saves a company money.

Though, for every case that goes the above route, there are legitimate cases of discrimination. I have witnessed one. I did the right thing and stood up for that person. It went poorly either way because this young man couldn't keep his dick in his pants. I was unaware of this and looked liked a fool in the end but what can you do.

I work in financial IT and over the course of my 15 year career I've seen it all. I've had staff of 30 and staff of 0. I've worked for mostly British and European firms though, since the American firms are mostly sweatshops that play too many posturing games for my tastes.

Either way, I hope that clears up any confusion. Yes, I have my opinions and they are strong opinions, but there are facts that run affirmative actions that in practice cannot be denied.

That was fascinating. Thank you.
Agreed. I wasn't disagreeing with the premise of what you were saying for the most part. I can't deny any of what you pointed out. It rings true to me. My view is that we need it for another generation and then no longer. It's the "ohnoes the unqualified minorities are taking over our jobs we deserve them!!" shtick that I bristle against. To me, that's a defensive posture that devalues both the minority and the person.

[DBoons Ghost]

I despise that shtick too. I have learned especially in NYC as you are probably aware, all types of workers want those jobs but employers know they can employ illegal (or legal sometimes) immigrants for half the price so they can increase their profits, which is selfish and greedy and is truly why the system is broken. Ignorance is what causes people to blame the immigrants when it's really the employer at fault.

That really breaks the system. It ruins census data, it undermines the immigrant worker's right to earn a fair and decent wage, and it's so illegal by labor law standards it's ridiculous. In a place like NYC, where corruption runs rampant, it's cheaper to pay off the INS to turn and look elsewhere then it is to hire legal workers on a fair and legal wage.