Discrimination -- the reality

[Swammerdami]

If that is the case - the "they" refers to the Europeans, then TomC's post is off point because he promoting that blacks were the slavers while evading the question of who was buying the slaves.

Obviously the earliest customers for Africans selling Africans as slaves were ... Africans.

 

[laughing dog]

If that is the case - the "they" refers to the Europeans, then TomC's post is off point because he promoting that blacks were the slavers while evading the question of who was buying the slaves.

Obviously the earliest customers for Africans selling Africans as slaves were ... Africans.

Slavery and the slave trade started long ago. From what I can tell, the earliest signs of slavery occurred in what is now the Iran/Iraq region of the world somewhere between 20,000 to 5,000 BC. That is not Africa which, I believe, contradicts TomC's point about who started slave trading.

 

[Metaphor]

And note that for young, childless, degreed women we've reached that point--they're outearning their male counterparts even without controlling for profession.

So 60 years, they are kind of caught up... as long as they are childless. *balloons*

In other words, it's an effect of having children, not an effect of being a woman.

So this effect ruins the career prospects of men who have children too, does it?

The career prospects of women who have children are not 'ruined'.

However, men who have children do not take as much time out of the workforce as women who have children. So the comparison is apples to oranges.

Your response ignores the social context of the decisions on why men take less time out of the workforce than women in order to care for children. So the comparison is still apples to apples.

It was bilby who ignored context. Women who have children take an earned income hit compared to men who have children, that is undeniable. I offered the reason why (female parents take more time off work than male parents). Toni offered some reasons why female parents take more time off, reasons which I did not dispute or deny.

 

[Bomb#20]

And the very same white males that whinge about this discrimination are usually happy to deny that blacks themselves continue to suffer from many other forms of discrimination.
...
Whingeing against affirmative action is popular but misplaced IMO. Present company excepted of course, but I'll guess that many of the whingers are themselves racist.

If a non-white person whinged about discrimination against his ethnicity, would you insinuate that his motivation for whinging about it was hostility toward white people?

 

[Bomb#20]

As a white man who has always benefited from the advantages the system has afforded me, the idea of "reverse discrimination" has always seemed more than a little specious. To claim it's suddenly unfair to consider race as a factor in hiring, even more so.

Have you ever actually heard anyone claim it's suddenly unfair to consider race as a factor in hiring?

 

[Bomb#20]

Suppose someone stole your car and gave it to a friend, then died. Would you accept the argument that you should not be allowed to seek the return of or compensation for the car? Since the original thief is now dead, the person who they gave it to is now the fair and legal owner of the stolen car?

In this analogy of yours, what's the car and who's the person the thief gave it to?

 

[Bomb#20]

I am asking you about what you believe about institutional discrimination against white people in America.

There is no evidence of institutional discrimination against white people in America.

That's ridiculous.
Affirmative Action has been a big thing for over 50 years.

... even if what is on the table is outreach and empowerment of under-privileged groups rather than direct discrimination against those who are in power, I do not agree with that sentiment as you should well realize by my postings in this thread alone.

Why do you describe those forms of affirmative action that are not outreach and empowerment of under-privileged groups, but are direct discrimination against white people, as "direct discrimination against those who are in power"? Do you have any evidence that when an unemployed person applies for a job or a high-school student who applies for a slot in a college's freshman class, if he or she is white then that means he or she is in power?

 

[Politesse]

I am asking you about what you believe about institutional discrimination against white people in America.

There is no evidence of institutional discrimination against white people in America.

That's ridiculous.
Affirmative Action has been a big thing for over 50 years.

... even if what is on the table is outreach and empowerment of under-privileged groups rather than direct discrimination against those who are in power, I do not agree with that sentiment as you should well realize by my postings in this thread alone.

Why do you describe those forms of affirmative action that are not outreach and empowerment of under-privileged groups, but are direct discrimination against white people, as "direct discrimination against those who are in power"? Do you have any evidence that when an unemployed person applies for a job or a high-school student who applies for a slot in a college's freshman class, if he or she is white then that means he or she is in power?

Your post sets up a dichotomy in which either a white person is "in power" in critical economic situations, or they are victims of "direct discrimination". There is no such dichotomy, because people are not, in the first place, owed special privileges just because they identify as white.

Now, if you are asking whether a person is more or less likely to get a job, get a good job requiring a degree or get accepted to a school if they are perceived as White as opposed to Black, the data on that point are more than clear.

 

[Swammerdami]

And the very same white males that whinge about this discrimination are usually happy to deny that blacks themselves continue to suffer from many other forms of discrimination.
...
Whingeing against affirmative action is popular but misplaced IMO. Present company excepted of course, but I'll guess that many of the whingers are themselves racist.

If a non-white person whinged about discrimination against his ethnicity, would you insinuate that his motivation for whinging about it was hostility toward white people?

Too hypothetical. And how come the whites and non-whites get to whinge, but I only get to insinuate?

 

[Bronzeage]

As a white man who has always benefited from the advantages the system has afforded me, the idea of "reverse discrimination" has always seemed more than a little specious. To claim it's suddenly unfair to consider race as a factor in hiring, even more so.

Have you ever actually heard anyone claim it's suddenly unfair to consider race as a factor in hiring?

Only when they think it applies to themselves.

 

[Bronzeage]

One of the lessons that was pounded into us at Emperor Training School was, "never give an order you do not expect to be obeyed." That goes along with another lesson, "Don't prescribe a cure worse than the disease."

The reason we are discussing this is because racism is now seen as a societal evil and thus unacceptable. In the colored only water fountain days, it was considered a rational way of thinking. It was supported by science and the law. That kind of thing has lost the support of science and law, but if reason could solve society's problems, life would have reached perfection a long time ago.

Which is exactly what I see the current situation as--the "cure" is not only worse than the current disease, but actually causes the disease.

Telling a white man who only hires other white men, that he has to look closer at applicants of other races and he is expected to find a few suitable non white non male employees is not a disease. It's actually an accommodation for an employee with an obvious impairment.

It would be simpler for everyone to fire the guy and replace him with someone better equipped for the job.

 

[TomC]

Ordinary reading of your post suggests that "they" (in red) to whom you refer are black African (in red as well). If I misinterpreted your post, I do apologize.

Sorry I was unclear.
Both uses of "they" referred to "European culture", people as a group. They didn't invent slavery or slave markets. Those far predate the European technology advances that enabled a global slave trade. Technology that enabled lots of other human horrors as well.

The development of navigation equipment, reliably ocean crossing ships, and firearms made it possible for Europeans do things on a gigantic scale. Conquest, genocide, and slavery were extremely common and had been forever. They just took it to a new level. Europeans weren't notably more primitive(ethically) or brutal, but they were much better at ordinary human behavior. Which resulted in brutal colonial conquest, the Genocide of the Americas, and the African Diaspora.
My real point was that Africans as a whole weren't innocent victims. Of course, a profitable market for human merchandise encouraged a supply. Some individuals and tribes discovered that they could do very well for themselves by raiding their neighbors and selling them. But the bottom line is that there's plenty of blame to spread around.

If you're into blaming.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

And note that for young, childless, degreed women we've reached that point--they're outearning their male counterparts even without controlling for profession.

So 60 years, they are kind of caught up... as long as they are childless. *balloons*

In other words, it's an effect of having children, not an effect of being a woman.

So this effect ruins the career prospects of men who have children too, does it?

The career prospects of women who have children are not 'ruined'.

However, men who have children do not take as much time out of the workforce as women who have children. So the comparison is apples to oranges.

Your response ignores the social context of the decisions on why men take less time out of the workforce than women in order to care for children. So the comparison is still apples to apples.

It was bilby who ignored context. Women who have children take an earned income hit compared to men who have children, that is undeniable. I offered the reason why (female parents take more time off work than male parents). Toni offered some reasons why female parents take more time off, reasons which I did not dispute or deny.

My point that it is an apples to apples comparison stands.

 

[laughing dog]

Ordinary reading of your post suggests that "they" (in red) to whom you refer are black African (in red as well). If I misinterpreted your post, I do apologize.

Sorry I was unclear.
Both uses of "they" referred to "European culture", people as a group. They didn't invent slavery or slave markets. Those far predate the European technology advances that enabled a global slave trade. Technology that enabled lots of other human horrors as well.

The development of navigation equipment, reliably ocean crossing ships, and firearms made it possible for Europeans do things on a gigantic scale. Conquest, genocide, and slavery were extremely common and had been forever. They just took it to a new level. Europeans weren't notably more primitive(ethically) or brutal, but they were much better at ordinary human behavior. Which resulted in brutal colonial conquest, the Genocide of the Americas, and the African Diaspora.
My real point was that Africans as a whole weren't innocent victims. Of course, a profitable market for human merchandise encouraged a supply. Some individuals and tribes discovered that they could do very well for themselves by raiding their neighbors and selling them. But the bottom line is that there's plenty of blame to spread around.

If you're into blaming.
Tom

Bringing up the notion that Africans as a whole were not innocent victims of slavery is not relevant when one is discussing about the effects of slavery on the slaves and their descendants.

 

[TomC]

Bringing up the notion that Africans as a whole were not innocent victims of slavery is not relevant when one is discussing about the effects of slavery on the slaves and their descendants.

I don't remember the whole long and winding road that got us here, not do I care enough to research the thread.

My recollection is that another member asked for a dumbed down explanation for how being enslaved changed genetics. I tried to point out that it's not about genetics, it's the selection process.

Who bought the slaves Africans were selling was a shift in the goal post.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

I am asking you about what you believe about institutional discrimination against white people in America.

There is no evidence of institutional discrimination against white people in America.

That's ridiculous.
Affirmative Action has been a big thing for over 50 years.

... even if what is on the table is outreach and empowerment of under-privileged groups rather than direct discrimination against those who are in power, I do not agree with that sentiment as you should well realize by my postings in this thread alone.

Why do you describe those forms of affirmative action that are not outreach and empowerment of under-privileged groups, but are direct discrimination against white people, as "direct discrimination against those who are in power"? Do you have any evidence that when an unemployed person applies for a job or a high-school student who applies for a slot in a college's freshman class, if he or she is white then that means he or she is in power?

Your post sets up a dichotomy in which either a white person is "in power" in critical economic situations, or they are victims of "direct discrimination". There is no such dichotomy, because people are not, in the first place, owed special privileges just because they identify as white.

Now, if you are asking whether a person is more or less likely to get a job, get a good job requiring a degree or get accepted to a school if they are perceived as White as opposed to Black, the data on that point are more than clear.

I am fascinated by your language here.

...people are not, in the first place, owed special privileges just because they identify as white.

And later:

if they are perceived as White as opposed to Black,

What does it mean to 'identify' as white? Is it necessary to 'identify' as white to be white? Is it necessary to 'identify' as white to be 'perceived' as white? Can I meaningfully opt out of being white, or being perceived as white, or 'identifying' as white?

I am also curious about the capital letter change, from 'white' to 'White'. I do not know if it is related.

 

[TomC]

Can I meaningfully opt out of being white, or being perceived as white, or 'identifying' as white?

It's not easy but it's not impossible. Google Rachel Dolezal. Just don't get caught identifying as your politically correct betters.

Much easier for a very light skinned black to "pass" as white. It just doesn't much happen anymore. There's not much motivation.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Bringing up the notion that Africans as a whole were not innocent victims of slavery is not relevant when one is discussing about the effects of slavery on the slaves and their descendants.

I don't remember the whole long and winding road that got us here, not do I care enough to research the thread.

My recollection is that another member asked for a dumbed down explanation for how being enslaved changed genetics. I tried to point out that it's not about genetics, it's the selection process.

Who bought the slaves Africans were selling was a shift in the goal post.
Tom

Yeah, that was me. Not to be a snot about it but the ‘selection’ you are attempting to use to explain your views IS genetics.

 

[TomC]

Yeah, that was me. Not to be a snot about it but the ‘selection’ you are attempting to use to explain your views IS genetics.

Not to be a snot about, but how is that about genetics? I don't think it is. Dumb it down for me.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Yeah, that was me. Not to be a snot about it but the ‘selection’ you are attempting to use to explain your views IS genetics.

Not to be a snot about, but how is that about genetics? I don't think it is. Dumb it down for me.
Tom

Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations. Wikipedia

The means by which traits are transmitted from one generation to the next is thriugh genetics.