Jesse Jackson has a suggestion:Follow

You're a transsexual lesbian black midget, aren't you?

Foul. If not for our PC policies on "fairness", there would be NO women in the Iraqi government. I'm not saying that it's right to keep them out just because they're women, but it's also not right to bring them in just because they're women. The same applies to the Fortune 500.

I'm not saying that it's right to keep them out just because they're women, but it's also not right to bring them in just because they're women. The same applies to the Fortune 500.

Ohhhh. Well that explains why there are *almost* a full dozen Fortune 500 companies run by women. Because there just aren't any qualified enough, clearly.

Except that those things are illegal. AA is not. See the difference?

The definition of "institutional racism" does not mean that it exists in the US. Just that there's a definition for it. You have to have "systematic policies" that have an affect of disadvantaging certain racial or ethnic groups. Not individuals doing racist stuff on their own.

Show me where the systematic policies are Nexa? You see employers choosing white employees over black a whole lot? Have you *ever* seen this in your lifetime? Rhetoric aside of course. It's talked about a hell of a lot more often then it actually happens. And when it does, it's always single individuals, not some sort of company policy.

Security and Law enforcement? There's more minority representation in those organizations today then those groups in the society as a whole? Odd that when we're at war, suddenly the fact that there's more Black kids in the military is highlighted, but that argument mysteriously vanishes when talking about an issue like this (unless you don't think that the military qualifies as "security"?).

Race based discrimination in housing? Again. Where are you seeing this happen? There's tons of discrimination based on economics and legal "status", but not on race. The problem here is that there are tons of people who'll point to broad statistic and try to claim a racial inequity where there really isn't one. Criminal backround can and is used when doing things like qualifying for a loan and being accepted by a landlord. Which means that since Blacks and Hispanics have higher rates of individuals with felony's on their records, this is going to skew the statistics for other things that depend on that. But you'd need to do a lot of digging to conclude that the entire legal system discriminates against minorities. Some will make that assertation, but they're relying pretty much purely on the fact that there's a difference in the end numbers, not in the factors that cause those numbers. Crime really *is* higher in minority neighborhoods. Not just rates of reporting. Actual crime. Cars get stolen more often. Your odd of being robbed or assaulted are higher. This has nothing to do with cops spending more time trying to arrest black and brown skinned folks. It has everything to do with a greater rate of criminal behavior to start with.

Of course, the Smash's of the world will then play the poverty card, asserting that the past discrimination's mean that minorities are more likely to be poor, meaning they live in more crime ridden neighborhoods, which causes a cascade of other statistics, resulting in all the inequities we see. Which is a potentially reasonable arguement, since there is a feedback relationship between poverty and crime. However, that does not say that it's based on race. Just that those groups with more represenation in the poorer neighborhoods will have a greater representation in all other negative statistics.


Which brings us to AA. Does AA actually address the problem? I don't think so. Because for all the time we've had AA programs, we haven't seen any statistical change to the rates at which minorities are still "poor". While this is my own speculative opinion, I believe that the problem is that people don't change their view of themselves unless they change themselves. Putting a penguin in a polar bear suit does not change who the penguin is. The change has to come from within. Instead of creating programs that lower standards for black and brown skinned folk, we should be encouraging them to succeed on their own merits instead. Because then they'll have the self-respect that an AA program can never give them.


Having different standards for different people based soley on the color of their skin can *never* end racism or discrimination based on race. It just can't. All it can do is increase the gulf between different groups. The gulf between the haves and have nots is becoming not nearly as much of a deal as the gulf between those recieving some form of government assistance and those who are not. Increasing those programs does not help the problem. It makes it worse.


I guess I just don't get it. We should focus on finding and eliminating instances of racial discrimination, not create more in order to try to balance out what's already there. That just seems ridiculous to me.

I guess I just don't get it.

Why bother to try and change when you get all these handouts by being an ignorant entitled white guy?

Hshshs.. Msn, I'm thr best. Did you see what I did there? I'm so great.

Hell, you don't even have to interview them. I don't remember where, but I recently read an article about a study done, where the exact same resume was sent to companies, with different names on it. One copy of the resume would have a Anglo sounding name, and the other an African-American sounding name. The vast majority of the time, only the resumes with "white" sounding names got called in for interviews. So if Robert and RaShawn turn in the same resume, it's highly likely that only Robert is gonna get an interview.

They've done the same thing in France, two identical CVs, one from "Pierre Dupont", one from "Khaled Al-Aktar", and 9/10 Pierre was called for an interview and Khaled wasn't. Funnily enough, they did the same testing in nightclubs, and the results were the same.

But I don't think it's really a problem of "racism" in teh old sense. Not many people in our societies still believe that whites are somehow inherently superior to blacks or arabs. Most people have come to understand that "race" doesn't even exist anymore. There is no such thing as a pure race, we've all got blood for lots of different races.

It's a problem of culture and prejudice. It's all over this thread, just look at Varus's posts saying that "black people" are different from "************* and that he doesn't have a problem with the former. Many people are not "racists" as such, but when they see a name such as "DeShawn", they won't want to take the risk he might be a ghetto kid with an attitude.

Prejudice is extremely hard to fight in societies. And unfortunately, all those stupid MTV videos with gangstas popping caps and dissin' hos, only serve to reinforce those prejudices.

And yet, this problem is one of social class, not "race". Those white kids that grew up in poor areas are just as "gangsta" as the blacks or hispanics. I think Papi Vega's post is quite indicative of this. But it's easier for lazy people to label this as a "race" issue, rather than a "class" one. It's also easier for the government.

One last exemple. In the UK, there is a problem with admissions to Universities like Oxford and Cambridge, in that most of the students come from Private Schools (which are called "Public Schools", don't ask). In order to re-address the balance, the government is imposing quotas, that 50% of all intake must come from State schools (the non-private ones). This is positive discrimination, but not so many people complain since it was not labelled with the explosive "race" tag. And yet, it addresses exactly the same issues as what has been mentionend in this thread. Adressing an inherent injustice by positivie discrimination.

The shift will have to be cultural and economic, not racial. Race doesn't mean anything anymore. When we had the riots in the suburbs in France, everyone talked about an "Islamic riot". When in fact, it was roughly 1/3 Arabs, 1/3 Black, and 1/3 whites that got arrested. These riots were purely "class riots".

The poor need help. Not the blacks.

I think Papi Vega's post is quite indicative of this. But it's easier for lazy people to label this as a "race" issue, rather than a "class" one. It's also easier for the government.

No. It's two separate issues. Poor people of all ethnicities are disenfranchised, and black people of all socio-economic statuses are disenfranchised. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Yes of course it is. It's all roses until someone gets sued and then the company throws an "individual" to the wolves in an attempt to prove that there is no unspoken "policy." My personal experiences are irrelevant here, seeing as I live in a state with a 98% white population. I would rather suggest you examine the multitude of available research...it's not an unexamined subject. I realize it's useless since you like to ignore research in favor of keeping your ignorant opinions, but anyway...



Just a few examples to highlight the issue:




See above.


Again, my own personal experiences aren't going to matter much, but PBS did a nice little, easy to read summary here:
http://www.pbs.org/race/006_WhereRaceLives/006_00-home.htm



Wait...what? Why are they more likely to be poor? Because of past discrimination? Ok. This results in the inequities we see? Ok. You lose me with "However, that does not say it's based on race. Just that those groups with more representation in the poorer neighborhoods (which you just conceded are there due to past discrimination) will have a greater representation in all other statistics".



And that's what your post essentially comes down to, your opinion, disregarding all prior research on the topic.



You're on crack, I don't know what to say to this. You could at least pose it as a question if you don't know rather than asserting it as fact.



Thanks for being the voice of the black man here. An actual report on the effects of affirmative action claims that while many of the gains are only moderate (but hey, that's something) and hard to disentangle from other equality programs in place, that:
Overall, the past three decades have witnessed huge growth in the black middle class, educational attainment, incomes of black married couples relative to white married couples, and suburbanization, along with a substantial decline in overall black poverty rates. These gains are attributable to a complex of causes: national economic growth, a decline in discriminatory attitudes and practices by whites, and programs -- including affirmative action -- targeted to African-Americans. While we can sometimes trace the quantitative impact of single causes within particular economic or educational organizations, it is far more difficult to ascertain the relative contribution of each factor to the aggregate gains of recent decades.



I can't tell you how much I despise the necessity of affirmative action, and I agree that we absolutely should be working as hard as possible to assure that there is no discrimination in any area of our lives, but until you can come up with an alternative to affirmative action that is more palatable, I see no real alternative. Just finding and prosecuting those people that are very obvious offenders simply isn't enough in a society where it's so difficult to prove what the determining factor was in denying a job or housing or college admission...when we can *see* that these things are being denied in a skewed way between whites and minorities when we look at statistics. Honestly now, what would you suggest as an alternative? I would *love* to see something else since I'm the most begrudging advocate of AA as you're likely to find.

There, was that gbajiesque enough for everyone?

Nexa

Wait...what? Why are they more likely to be poor?

Lazy and shiftless, obviously. Duh.

Fixed.

The gangsta culture is associated with urban blacks on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale. Latino Barrio culture is pretty much the Hispanicized version, but not identical. The cultural imagery, emphasis on family and tradition, etc are marked differences. It's a false comparison to equate the two, and quite an ignorant one to do so for purposes of justifying the use of a racial slur.

Like Smash and Nexa said, prejudice of minorities is inherent in the system, and it can be similar or differ depending on the culture. There is always the perception of what's called the 'other', someone inherently different. To some it's attractive, and to others, threatening. No matter what, preconcieved notions about their abilities, intelligence, reliability, etc. It may be as mild as thinking "I want a good investment firm, so I'll hire from Harvard" and your employees end up being mostly of one race. Then, when RaShaun walks in, a Harvard grad, you wonder if he was affirmative action and if he's up to the job. Is that racist? No, but it's a prejudice. It's when you set aside that resumé basing yourself on your initial assumption that you've crossed the line into racism. It happens everyday, most people aren't bothered by it, and that's when it becomes institutionalized.

I wasn't justifying anything.

And I agree with everything you say. Well, not all the time, but in this post anyway.

My point, somewhere in there, was just that I'm not sure "racism" in the sense that one race is inherently/genetically superior to another, is the appropriate word for the problems facing ethnic minorities.

But, as I said above, the situation is certainly slightly different in the US to what we have in Europe. I guess you have more "old-school" racists. Ours are mostly classists.

I completely agree though on the point about people being scared of difference, even when it's as superficial as skin pigmentation. And I pretty much agre with Samira/Nexa/Smash about AA.

As for the word *****, I don't know. I would never use it, but I'm not from the ghetto. I understand why some people "from the ghetto" use it (the "reclaiming" argument), and if they're happy with that, so am I.

And in a way, what they've done has worked. For a lot people today, "*****/er" does not have the slavery connotation or meaning it used to have, but just means "guy", whether black, white or hispanic.

So, all in all, it's not the worst aspect of the "gangsta culture".