Discrimination -- the reality

[laughing dog]

I didn't say that you did.

It's right there in your post.
Tom

No it is not. I never said anything about anyone be inherently anything.

Still waiting why you think you know more about the slave trade than Toni. You've made two responses dodging that question with straw men accusations.

 

[Politesse]

So, am I correct in thinking 'racial (self) identity' is meaningless in terms of the 'job interview' situation, and that any discrimination by race operates off 'apparent race'?

How much importance and respect do you attach to somebody's racial (self) identity? Do you hesitate to call people whose apparent race is white, 'white'?

I generally do avoid categorizing other people by race if at all possible. But what has that got to do with the thread?

It surely has everything to do with it?! Especially since, as I pointed out, you spoke about self-identity and then perceived identity in the same post.

But you have not really answered my question, so I will ask again in a different way. If I checked my race as 'black' on a form, does that make me black?

Nothing can "make you Black".

I'm confused. There are people who are black, correct? Is being black an uncaused quality? Or do you mean nothing can make me (Metaphor) black? If so, it appears to me you believe race is not a self-identity and cannot be changed. Is that correct?

Your situation would no doubt become complicated if you reached the stage of a personal interview and your interviewer had a conflicting perception of your race. But that doesn't necessarily make them "right" to pigeonhole you, if you are asking for my personal opinion on such things.

I'm even more confused by this response than I could have anticipated. Are you saying it is not "right" to perceive somebody's race as different to their self-perception of it?

I would try to answer your questions, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry.

 

[TomC]

No it is not. I never said anything about anyone be inherently anything.

Here's a quote:

No, but your "analysis" about why the average black american less able than immigrants is so bigoted that it does make one wonder.

I never said any such thing. If you want to talk to me go ahead.
If you want to make up stuff, attribute it to me, then talk about that instead, you go ahead. But it's not the same thing at all. You aren't talking to me, you're talking to a figment of your imagination.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

...
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,

My post did not set up any such dichotomy. That is a figment of your imagination. Obviously some white people are both "in power" and discriminated against, obviously some are neither "in power" nor discriminated against, and obviously you will be unable to exhibit a logical derivation to the contrary from my post.

Your post set up an entirely different dichotomy between (1) Affirmative Action programs that are outreach and empowerment of under-privileged groups, and (2) Affirmative Action programs that are direct discrimination against those who are in power. In my first question I asked you why you set up that dichotomy. In my second question I asked you if you have any evidence to offer in defense of your dichotomy -- any evidence that the people discriminated against by the non-type-1 AA programs in fact really are in power. It appears on its face to be a patently false dichotomy -- plenty of Affirmative Action programs directly discriminate against people who are not in power.

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

You are insinuating that I implied white people are owed special privileges and am in need of a lecture that they are not. I implied nothing of the sort, and was not in need of such a lecture. You did not have a reason to think I did, or was. For you to have taken such a sneering swipe at me without cause appears on its face to have been malicious. But I will keep Hanlon's Razor in mind.

Now, if you are asking whether a person is more or less likely to <ludicrous hypothesis snipped>

I asked you two questions. They were in plain* English. They were both questions about you. You elected not to answer them. Instead you replied with a misrepresentation of my post, a nasty insinuation about my personal character, and a proposal that I meant to ask a question about somebody other than you. But that doesn't make my questions about you go away. Feel free to answer them now.

(* Sorry, I see there was a typo in my second question. That should have been:

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 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?
)

(** All this discussion leaves aside the subset of AA programs that are direct discrimination against Asians, since you and the other quoted posters appeared to already be leaving Asians aside.)

 

[Bomb#20]

There are indigenous peoples and immigrant peoples. Here in the Americas, we're nearly all immigrants.

In the U.S. only 14% of us are immigrants; in Canada it's 23%. Latin America's numbers are lower.

If by "immigrants" you mean "immigrants or descendants of immigrants", it isn't "nearly all" -- it's all of us.

 

[TomC]

There are indigenous peoples and immigrant peoples. Here in the Americas, we're nearly all immigrants.

In the U.S. only 14% of us are immigrants; in Canada it's 23%. Latin America's numbers are lower.

If by "immigrants" you mean "immigrants or descendants of immigrants", it isn't "nearly all" -- it's all of us.

I suppose, when it comes down to brass tacks, everyone who isn't a central African is an immigrant.

Let me be more precise, since sometimes that matters on IIDB. By "immigrants" in that post I was referring to Americans whose ancestors crossed an ocean within recorded history and stayed.

Sorry to be such a mess.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

I suppose, when it comes down to brass tacks, everyone who isn't a central African is an immigrant.

When it comes down to brass tacks, nobody who didn't immigrate is an immigrant. Everybody born here, the descendant of 12,000 BC Beringians and the "anchor baby" of two 2022 illegal aliens alike, is exactly as native an American as every other. "Immigrant" is not a property one can ascertain by examining a person's parents.

 

[TomC]

When it comes down to brass tacks, nobody who didn't immigrate is an immigrant.

Sorry, once again I was insufficiently precise.

Anyone who isn't a current central African resident, descended from peoples who have lived there since the dawn of man, is an immigrant.

Everybody who doesn't live in central Africa either immigrated or is the descendants of people who did. From Japanese people to Patagonian people to Scandinavian people, everyone but central Africans are immigrants.

Sorry to be such a mess.
Tom

 

[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?

Only when they think it applies to themselves.

Can you quote anyone in particular claiming that, or does the "they" refer to fictional characters in your internal dialogue with your mental caricature of people you disapprove of?

You made an extraordinary claim. I'd ask you for your extraordinary evidence, but, actually, even a smidgen of ordinary evidence would be fine.

 

[Bomb#20]

When it comes down to brass tacks, nobody who didn't immigrate is an immigrant.

Sorry, once again I was insufficiently precise.

Anyone who isn't a current central African resident, descended from peoples who have lived there since the dawn of man, is an immigrant.

Everybody who doesn't live in central Africa either immigrated or is the descendants of people who did. From Japanese people to Patagonian people to Scandinavian people, everyone but central Africans are immigrants.

Sorry to be such a mess.
Tom

Sorry to be such a pedant, but "either immigrated or is the descendants of people who did" is not what the word "immigrant" means. It means "one that immigrates" (Merriam-Webster). Nobody who didn't immigrate is an immigrant, regardless of whom he's a descendant of. This pedantic point is pertinent to the topic of the thread -- a great deal of the misleading rhetoric about racial discrimination policies was derived by fudging the distinction between what's a characteristic of an individual and what's a characteristic ascribed wholesale to a group of people the individual is lumped in with. There isn't an inch of difference between saying people that were born in west Africa are immigrants because other people of their ethnicity immigrated to there from central Africa, and saying high-school students that some AA policy discriminates against are in power because other people of their ethnicity are in power.

 

[Toni]

I can only form opinions based on what you write.

Similarly,
I can only from opinions on things you post.

You asked how slavery changed genetics. Remember that?

I'm pretty sure you know enough about genetics to know that you were just being insulting. But you don't seem to know much about history either. You seem to think that European people invented slavery, and Africans were too stupid to understand that selling people to people across the ocean was horrible for the human merchandise.
Tom

I asked how slavery changed genetics in response to posts that implied that a) intelligence is genetically determined and b) that people from African nations who were kidnapped and sold into slavery were not as high a quality of person as those who voluntarily immigrated. I wondered why the posters thought that to be the case? Did enslaving people alter their genetics?

I’m very well aware that slavery has existed for most of human history, throughout the world. Which would be obvious if you read my actual posts rather than tried to score points about things you really do not seem to understand.

You seem to have ignored where I pointed out that you have it backwards--it's the immigrants whose genetics differ.

That is exactly what I was trying to get at: How are are those genetics different and from whom? And why are they different? And how do you know?

 

[Toni]

Or cultural... which makes one ponder why alcoholism became "a thing" for the Indigenous in the United States... when it wasn't as much an issue before the assimilation.

Actually, I think this is genetics.

In the old world alcohol was available year-round, this provided more opportunity for people to take themselves out of the gene pool. The new world didn't have this and thus there was less evolutionary pressure against alcoholism. It's the same thing as how diseases devastated the new world--the same thing must have happened in the old world but so long ago we aren't aware of it.

This is extremely ill-thought out and not born out by actual data/facts.

Problems with substance abuse are partially determined by genetics but also even more so by circumstances/stresses/poverty/lack of social and emotional supports. Such as are found in pockets of impoverished populations—on reservations, for example.

I think that no one disputes that Asian immigrants have faced some very ugly racism in the US. However, they were allowed to maintain their cultural heritage: family structure, language, religion, history, etc. I’m not suggesting that there were not terrible injustices—but generally speaking, there was no effort to exterminate the Chinese or Japanese immigrants. More recent groups from Asia have faced varying degrees of discrimination, depending on the circumstances.

In the US, the worst discrimination has been against Indians and African Americans descended from enslaved peoples.

You say the data doesn't support it but you provide no evidence of this.

I'm not saying circumstances don't matter, they certainly do. I'm saying that both factors are at work.

This is extremely ill-thought out and not born out by actual data/facts.

Or cultural... which makes one ponder why alcoholism became "a thing" for the Indigenous in the United States... when it wasn't as much an issue before the assimilation.

Actually, I think this is genetics.

In the old world alcohol was available year-round, this provided more opportunity for people to take themselves out of the gene pool. The new world didn't have this and thus there was less evolutionary pressure against alcoholism. It's the same thing as how diseases devastated the new world--the same thing must have happened in the old world but so long ago we aren't aware of it.

Or cultural... which makes one ponder why alcoholism became "a thing" for the Indigenous in the United States... when it wasn't as much an issue before the assimilation.

Actually, I think this is genetics.

In the old world alcohol was available year-round, this provided more opportunity for people to take themselves out of the gene pool. The new world didn't have this and thus there was less evolutionary pressure against alcoholism. It's the same thing as how diseases devastated the new world--the same thing must have happened in the old world but so long ago we aren't aware of it.

This is extremely ill-thought out and not born out by actual data/facts.

Problems with substance abuse are partially determined by genetics but also even more so by circumstances/stresses/poverty/lack of social and emotional supports. Such as are found in pockets of impoverished populations—on reservations, for example.

I think that no one disputes that Asian immigrants have faced some very ugly racism in the US. However, they were allowed to maintain their cultural heritage: family structure, language, religion, history, etc. I’m not suggesting that there were not terrible injustices—but generally speaking, there was no effort to exterminate the Chinese or Japanese immigrants. More recent groups from Asia have faced varying degrees of discrimination, depending on the circumstances.

In the US, the worst discrimination has been against Indians and African Americans descended from enslaved peoples.

You say the data doesn't support it but you provide no evidence of this.

I'm not saying circumstances don't matter, they certainly do. I'm saying that both factors are at work.

You say the data doesn't support it but you provide no evidence of this.

I'm not saying circumstances don't matter, they certainly do. I'm saying that both factors are at work.

You are making an assertion about alcohol tolerance by race/geography with no data or reference to back it up. Please support your assertion with links to data, studies, articles, something.

 

[Politesse]

...
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,

My post did not set up any such dichotomy. That is a figment of your imagination. Obviously some white people are both "in power" and discriminated against, obviously some are neither "in power" nor discriminated against, and obviously you will be unable to exhibit a logical derivation to the contrary from my post.

Your post set up an entirely different dichotomy between (1) Affirmative Action programs that are outreach and empowerment of under-privileged groups, and (2) Affirmative Action programs that are direct discrimination against those who are in power. In my first question I asked you why you set up that dichotomy. In my second question I asked you if you have any evidence to offer in defense of your dichotomy -- any evidence that the people discriminated against by the non-type-1 AA programs in fact really are in power. It appears on its face to be a patently false dichotomy -- plenty of Affirmative Action programs directly discriminate against people who are not in power.

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

You are insinuating that I implied white people are owed special privileges and am in need of a lecture that they are not. I implied nothing of the sort, and was not in need of such a lecture. You did not have a reason to think I did, or was. For you to have taken such a sneering swipe at me without cause appears on its face to have been malicious. But I will keep Hanlon's Razor in mind.

Now, if you are asking whether a person is more or less likely to <ludicrous hypothesis snipped>

I asked you two questions. They were in plain* English. They were both questions about you. You elected not to answer them. Instead you replied with a misrepresentation of my post, a nasty insinuation about my personal character, and a proposal that I meant to ask a question about somebody other than you. But that doesn't make my questions about you go away. Feel free to answer them now.

(* Sorry, I see there was a typo in my second question. That should have been:

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 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?
)

(** All this discussion leaves aside the subset of AA programs that are direct discrimination against Asians, since you and the other quoted posters appeared to already be leaving Asians aside.)

I don't understand how your "personal character" or my personal opinion have any bearing on the discussion at hand, in any case.

 

[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?

Too hypothetical.

No worries. Gospel wrote some posts upthread complaining about discrimination against black people. Would you insinuate that his motivation for complaining about it is hostility toward white people?

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

The heck are you on about? As you say, the whites and non-whites both get to whinge, and you're white or non-white, so of course you get to whinge. But people of all skin tones get to insinuate as well as whinge, and since you insinuated racism on the part of white whingers, I asked about insinuating. If you go beyond insinuating and produce evidence that some particular whinger is himself racist, that would be a good time for you to whinge about it.

 

[Bomb#20]

I asked you two questions. ... They were both questions about you. You elected not to answer them. Instead you replied with a misrepresentation of my post, a nasty insinuation about my personal character...

I don't understand how your "personal character" or my personal opinion have any bearing on the discussion at hand, in any case.

My personal character has no bearing on the discussion so when you impugned it you were off-topic as well as wrong. As for your personal opinion, you've been expressing your personal opinion about the thread topic, so analysis of the reasons you've offered for your opinion is on-topic. In particular, you made two arguments that appear to be derived from prejudicial stereotypes about white people.

 

[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?

Every piece of your implicit syllogism is based on presumption, not fact or evidence.

Too hypothetical.

See above.

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

The heck are you on about?

What happened to your sense of humor?

 

[laughing dog]

No it is not. I never said anything about anyone be inherently anything.

Here's a quote:

No, but your "analysis" about why the average black american less able than immigrants is so bigoted that it does make one wonder.

There is nothing in there about "inherent". Nothing.

I never said any such thing. If you want to talk to me go ahead.
If you want to make up stuff, attribute it to me, then talk about that instead, you go ahead. But it's not the same thing at all. You aren't talking to me, you're talking to a figment of your imagination.
Tom

The record is clear. You jumped into to defend/clarify LP's claim which is a based on genetics. I get it - you misinterpreted his claim. Your misinterpretation is pretty confused (as you admit in a post with "a mess"). While you did not intend to base your claim on genetics, it was reasonable to link to the original claim of LP's. I apologize for assuming your defense of LP's claim was made in the context of its meaning.

 

[Bomb#20]

Every piece of your implicit syllogism is based on presumption, not fact or evidence.

If so, then the sensible course is to collect some facts and evidence. That's what I tried to do...

Too hypothetical.

See above.

... but you snipped out that part of my post. So reveal a fact.

Gospel wrote some posts upthread complaining about discrimination against black people. Would you insinuate that his motivation for complaining about it is hostility toward white people?

What happened to your sense of humor?

It's the late Roman Empire. Society has been safe for atheists for ages. But now that's all disintegrating under the rising tide of an aggressive new religion. Sorry if I don't find the coming Christian theocracy funny.

 

[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.

Can you quote anyone in particular claiming that, or does the "they" refer to fictional characters in your internal dialogue with your mental caricature of people you disapprove of?

You made an extraordinary claim. I'd ask you for your extraordinary evidence, but, actually, even a smidgen of ordinary evidence would be fine.

There's nothing extraordinary about it, and you declaring it to be, does not make it so. If my saying I have heard it many times in conversations with people, is not enough for you, I doubt a link to someone on the internet will convince you.

 

[Bronzeage]

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.

I see this sort of simplistic analysis a bigger problem in 21st century USA than institutional racism.

You've completely ignored any possible explanation for racially disparate results other than white racism. There are other explanations. Explanations that are well supported by more sophisticated statistics and statistical analysis. From the staff of the local BurgerDoodle to the staff of a sophisticated engineering company in South Carolina, there are probably dramatically different reasons for the racial makeup of the employees.

Pretending that every employment situation is the same, and therefore racial disparities are evidence of a racially biased management team is ridiculous.
It's wrong and counterproductive and results in a worse world for all of us.
Tom

I apologize for all my short comings. No one said every employment situation is the same, but I speak from the experience of a man who has worked in the southern United States from the age of 15, until the present time. The drama of different reasons not withstanding, maybe things are different in South Carolina and they have special engineering needs which would require a less racially diverse workforce than a hamburger stand.