Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,118
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nb; all pronouns fine
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
We all know, or I hope we all know, that race is a folk categorization, not a biological reality. However, most people will get thrown into a racial category based on whatever features the people in their community consider definitive to a given racial category. This is what sociologists call apparent race, and it is what is most significant when it comes to things like job interviews. That said, many people take a more nuanced view with respect to their own racial identity, especially if they have family or cultural connections to more than one community. This won't help with a job interview, but may well be very important to them personally. Your apparent race would be very difficult to opt out of, but it doesn't have to mean you personally identify as "a white person" in all contexts. Many people do not feel comfortable with the racial labels assigned to them by others, for any number of reasons.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.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?... 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.That's ridiculous.There is no evidence of institutional discrimination against white people in America.I am asking you about what you believe about institutional discrimination against white people in America.
Affirmative Action has been a big thing for over 50 years.
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.
None of these concepts are well-defined, nor ever could be, as they are based on an ever changing sea of cultural and social assumptions with not much of an anchor in the world of the objective.
As for capital letters, they should probably always be used in a discussion of sociology, if nothing else to distinguish between white the color, and White the social categorization. But I am lazy and don't always do so consistently.