White Power

[Larkinn]

huh.

So a black guy name John would get a call back but a white guy named Ayisha probably wouldn't.

I see what you are saying now but I have to wonder what is going on here. For instance, would Billy Bob get a call back? Could it be more of a cultural stereotype than actual racism?

How is not calling back people wil black names not racist? What culture are they stereotyping by not calling back Ayisha? Its not just the assumption that John is white and Ayisha is black, its ALSO the fact that coupled with that assumption is that they didn't call back the one they perceived to be black as much as they called back the one they perceived to be white.

 

[Ravi]

How is not calling back people wil black names not racist? What culture are they stereotyping by not calling back Ayisha? Its not just the assumption that John is white and Ayisha is black, its ALSO the fact that coupled with that assumption is that they didn't call back the one they perceived to be black as much as they called back the one they perceived to be white.

I'm not saying it isn't racist, I'm just wondering if there is another factor at work here. Some names conjure up gangsters or dumb rednecks...so I don't know if it is an image thing or not. For instance, I'd call back a guy named Jesse before I called back a guy named Ayisha, all other things being equal, depending on the job. Or the other way around, also depending on the job.

Ditto with Billy Bob and William.

 

[Larkinn]

I'm not saying it isn't racist, I'm just wondering if there is another factor at work here. Some names conjure up gangsters or dumb rednecks...so I don't know if it is an image thing or not. For instance, I'd call back a guy named Jesse before I called back a guy named Ayisha, all other things being equal, depending on the job. Or the other way around, also depending on the job.

Ditto with Billy Bob and William.

And thats racism (or bigotry when it comes to Billy Bob). Ideas like that make it MUCH harder for blacks to get jobs. The name is Aiysha, that means that individuals parents were probably black and so is she. Thats not gangster at all. That people think it is, is a reflection of the racism that is inherent in society that people think doesn't exist because its not government sanctioned.

 

[Yurt]

There is a curious irony here that exists only in your racist mind, asshole. When a group tries to raise itself up, given centuries of discrimination and prejudice, that is somehow wrong. Would you please crawl back in your hole.

"The historical roots of liberation theology are to be found in the prophetic tradition of evangelists and missionaries from the earliest colonial days in Latin America -- churchmen who questioned the type of presence adopted by the church and the way indigenous peoples, blacks, mestizos, and the poor rural and urban masses were treated."

http://www.landreform.org/boff2.htm

piss off moron. who the hell are you to tell me i can't post here? you own this board? you said the church was not founded on black power, i showed you it was. it is you who has a problem with facts...

and prove i am racist, show one post...you can't back up your claims midcan because they are simply lies

 

[Shogun]

Try reading the thread before jumping in. I provided a link previously.

While your evidence cites a difference in names I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that the barest statistic difference is wholly on the shoulders of unconscious racism. Does that study assume that a difference is based purely on racism while ignoring relevant variables like the racial makeup of the test subjects (employers), popularity of such AMERICAN names (believe it or not, I know a black guy named john) versus non-traditional AMERICAN names, and a double blind test to clarify intentional racism outside of merely choosing familiar, instead of unfamiliar, names?


I wonder what a study might say about the difference between those with neck tattoos and those without neck tattoos in the professional world. While a tatted individual may have abilities on par with those without what professional environment can you think of that avoids the business suit standard? I would wonder if your evidence is as sound as you think it is given that gold teeth, face piercings, and mohawks probably get less call backs too. All discriminating variables in direct conflict with traditional AMERICAN (not merely white) business.


there is a difference range from 1.96% to 3.79%. and -2.70 (a GAIN for ethnic sounding names over traditional names) to 6.28%. Are these statistic differences really as indicative of racism without comparing them to a similar set of numbers taken from a period of ACTUAL racial disparity? Are they truly significant enough to suggest RACISM?

 

[Larkinn]

While your evidence cites a difference in names I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that the barest statistic difference is wholly on the shoulders of unconscious racism. Does that study assume that a difference is based purely on racism while ignoring relevant variables like the racial makeup of the test subjects (employers), popularity of such AMERICAN names (believe it or not, I know a black guy named john) versus non-traditional AMERICAN names, and a double blind test to clarify intentional racism outside of merely choosing familiar, instead of unfamiliar, names?

The racial makeup of the employers is irrelevant. Popularity of American names is irrelevant. And the study doesn't claim its intentional racism, nor did I. Whether its conscious or subconscious, the racism exists and does effect people. I don't think it being subconscious somehow ameliorates the damage, in some ways it makes it worse by being harder to combat. Then people claim there isn't any racism in this country, while blacks have a hard time finding decent jobs through no fault of their own.

I wonder what a study might say about the difference between those with neck tattoos and those without neck tattoos in the professional world. While a tatted individual may have abilities on par with those without what professional environment can you think of that avoids the business suit standard? I would wonder if your evidence is as sound as you think it is given that gold teeth, face piercings, and mohawks probably get less call backs too. All discriminating variables in direct conflict with traditional AMERICAN (not merely white) business.

traditional American business IS white business. And yes, they discriminate on a whole host of things including race. Whats your point?

 

[Ravi]

And thats racism (or bigotry when it comes to Billy Bob). Ideas like that make it MUCH harder for blacks to get jobs. The name is Aiysha, that means that individuals parents were probably black and so is she. Thats not gangster at all. That people think it is, is a reflection of the racism that is inherent in society that people think doesn't exist because its not government sanctioned.

So even if I think that the names Jesse and Aiysha (I was thinking it was a guy's name, btw) are both black names, if I only call back Jesse I'm being racist?

 

[Anguille]

So even if I think that the names Jesse and Aiysha (I was thinking it was a guy's name, btw) are both black names, if I only call back Jesse I'm being racist?

Suppose it was a guy named Sue?

nevermind me. just being goofy.

 

[Shogun]

The racial makeup of the employers is irrelevant. Popularity of American names is irrelevant. And the study doesn't claim its intentional racism, nor did I. Whether its conscious or subconscious, the racism exists and does effect people. I don't think it being subconscious somehow ameliorates the damage, in some ways it makes it worse by being harder to combat. Then people claim there isn't any racism in this country, while blacks have a hard time finding decent jobs through no fault of their own.



traditional American business IS white business. And yes, they discriminate on a whole host of things including race. Whats your point?

No, the racial makeup of employers is NOT irrelevant unless you want to ignore the variable of BLACKS being racist against untraditional BLACK names. But the study DOES charge RACISM, overt or not, and I said UNCONCIOUS racism anyway. Again, you SAY it's racism but you, nor your study, don't really prove that is the case without diving deeper than seeing a difference and assuming the motivation of employers REGARDLESS of their race as well as considering that John really is a traditional AMERICAN name for blacks and whites.

While I would never claim that there is NO racism in this country it sure as hell isn't what it was in the archie bunker 80s. And no, in 2007 Traditional American Business is not merely WHITE without relying on generalizations and ignoring, again, the racial component of the test subjects. By ignoring that TRADITIONAL AMERICAN NAMES will have benefit over NON TRADITIONAL NAMES, despite race, you get to assume more than is really indicated.

A white dude named Inknuttttt'judom Smith probably won't be as quick to get a clal back as Edward Smith. But, when in doubt blame whitey.

 

[Larkinn]

So even if I think that the names Jesse and Aiysha (I was thinking it was a guy's name, btw) are both black names, if I only call back Jesse I'm being racist?

No. Difference between stereotyping based on race and on culture.

 

[Ravi]

No. Difference between stereotyping based on race and on culture.

Okay, but that was my point. How do you know that people don't get called back because of a cultural stereotype based on what the name conjurers up in one's mind?

 

[Larkinn]

No, the racial makeup of employers is NOT irrelevant unless you want to ignore the variable of BLACKS being racist against untraditional BLACK names.

If that variable exists, that would mean the discrepancy against blacks, by whites, is even worse than the study indicates. The study accurately portrays that black names get less callbacks than white names. It doesn't need to delve into the specifics to make that claim.

But the study DOES charge RACISM, overt or not, and I said UNCONCIOUS racism anyway. Again, you SAY it's racism but you, nor your study, don't really prove that is the case without diving deeper than seeing a difference and assuming the motivation of employers REGARDLESS of their race as well as considering that John really is a traditional AMERICAN name for blacks and whites.

Whats the difference between the names, if not a link to a race? You say its not racism? Provide reasonable alternative explanations then.

While I would never claim that there is NO racism in this country it sure as hell isn't what it was in the archie bunker 80s.

No its not. That doesn't mean that these things aren't still problems or that "black power" groups have no reason for existing.

And no, in 2007 Traditional American Business is not merely WHITE without relying on generalizations and ignoring, again, the racial component of the test subjects.

Traditional is. Purely American business is not, since more and more blacks are getting into business.

By ignoring that TRADITIONAL AMERICAN NAMES will have benefit over NON TRADITIONAL NAMES, despite race, you get to assume more than is really indicated.

And why do those names have a benefit? Psst...because of racism.

A white dude named Inknuttttt'judom Smith probably won't be as quick to get a clal back as Edward Smith. But, when in doubt blame whitey.

Maybe, maybe not. And who is "blaming whitey"? Nobody has talked about the race of those discriminating except you.

 

[Anguille]

Okay, but that was my point. How do you know that people don't get called back because of a cultural stereotype based on what the name conjurers up in one's mind?

Or even a personal stereotype. Suppose your ex boyfriend's name was Jesse.

I, for instance, have rarely gotten along with people named Brian.

 

[Larkinn]

Okay, but that was my point. How do you know that people don't get called back because of a cultural stereotype based on what the name conjurers up in one's mind?

And what cultural stereotypes would those be?

 

[Anguille]

And what cultural stereotypes would those be?

Jesse suggests to me someone whose native language is English
Aisha suggests to me someone whose native language is Somali.

 

[Ravi]

And what cultural stereotypes would those be?

I thought I explained that already. If someone named 50 Cent or Billy Bob applied for a job both names would conjure up either a rapper or a redneck, even if the people in question were neither of those things. The names Jesse and Steven would conjure up moderate personalities. Depending on the job, what the names conjure up could affect who gets the call back.

 

[Shogun]

If that variable exists, that would mean the discrepancy against blacks, by whites, is even worse than the study indicates. The study accurately portrays that black names get less callbacks than white names. It doesn't need to delve into the specifics to make that claim.


Yet you totally ignore the possiblity of BLACKS discriminating AGAINST BLACK sounding names. Are we free to ASSUME that whites are the default HR guy or Business owner? Accurately? hardly. It conveys that NON TRADITIONAL names get less call backs than TRADITIONAL AMERICAN names but I dont see a convincing racial argument.

I wonder what name gets more call backs in Germany: Franz or Ching.



Whats the difference between the names, if not a link to a race? You say its not racism? Provide reasonable alternative explanations then.


Um, Traditional AMERICAN names versus names that are NOT traditionally AMERICAN? How many Jamal's were relevant during the first 200 years of our culture? How many Johns? Without clarifying the race of the TEST SUBJECTS to find out if black owners call back differently than WHITE owners you are forced to assume that it is RACE, instead of the business culture status quo, that results in these rather meager differences. And, I say meager because you can't compare them to any other time frame in order to get a little perspective on a mere 1-6 point difference.




No its not. That doesn't mean that these things aren't still problems or that "black power" groups have no reason for existing.

Oh hey, I agree. I have no problem with blacks supporting their own... as long as you can stomach whites doing the same. However, in business, these kinds of studies support errant affirmative action policies, which is fine for a business to choose for itself instead of applied by government, that are just as racist in effect as the problem they are trying to solve.


Traditional is. Purely American business is not, since more and more blacks are getting into business.


Indeed, which is why I point out the significance of comparing this data set with periods of ACTUAL overt discrimination in order to compare where we are at rather than assume racism when other factors seem to be at play.


And why do those names have a benefit? Psst...because of racism.

I don't believe that the name JOHN is inherently white. Not to mention, how do you know a white guy won't be named Andre? Hell, my middle name is LEROY. You tell me what image that puts into your mind and I'll tell you if I should be offended either way.



Maybe, maybe not. And who is "blaming whitey"? Nobody has talked about the race of those discriminating except you.



uh, the whole premise of your claim regarding RACISM hinges on ONE ethnic group DISCRIMINATING against another, yes? Have you been assuming that John is a hindu name or something?

 

[Larkinn]

I thought I explained that already. If someone named 50 Cent or Billy Bob applied for a job both names would conjure up either a rapper or a redneck, even if the people in question were neither of those things. The names Jesse and Steven would conjure up moderate personalities. Depending on the job, what the names conjure up could affect who gets the call back.

50 Cent or Billy Bob is a straight culture connection. Ayisha/John is a straight race connection.

 

[Shogun]

50 Cent or Billy Bob is a straight culture connection. Ayisha/John is a straight race connection.

how so? Are there no blacks named John? No whites named Andre? How does this study indicate a clear racial motivation without clarifying the race of the test subjects?

 

[Larkinn]

Yet you totally ignore the possiblity of BLACKS discriminating AGAINST BLACK sounding names.

I haven't ignord the possibility, I've stated its irrelevant.

Are we free to ASSUME that whites are the default HR guy or Business owner? Accurately? hardly. It conveys that NON TRADITIONAL names get less call backs than TRADITIONAL AMERICAN names but I dont see a convincing racial argument.

When whites have the "traditional" names, and blacks have the non-traditional names, you better believe there is a convincing racial argument.

By the way, this is purely anecdotal, but my name isn't traditional in the least and I've never had a problem getting jobs. But it still sounds white.

I wonder what name gets more call backs in Germany: Franz or Ching.

Wow, you mean other countries are racist as well? Your point?

Um, Traditional AMERICAN names versus names that are NOT traditionally AMERICAN?

Your just stating racism in a different form.

How many Jamal's were relevant during the first 200 years of our culture? How many Johns?

Sorry, the Jamals were busy being slaves.

Without clarifying the race of the TEST SUBJECTS to find out if black owners call back differently than WHITE owners you are forced to assume that it is RACE, instead of the business culture status quo, that results in these rather meager differences.

Black owners discriminating wouldn't change anything except make it clear that the white owners are discriminating at even a HIGHER rate than shown by the stats.

And, I say meager because you can't compare them to any other time frame in order to get a little perspective on a mere 1-6 point difference.

3% v. 10% callbacks isn't a meager difference. Its the difference between having to apply 10 times and having to apply 33 times. Ever applied for a real job Shogun? Its a pain in the ass.

Oh hey, I agree. I have no problem with blacks supporting their own... as long as you can stomach whites doing the same.

Are whites institutionally discriminated against? Once they are, then you can have white power groups.

I don't believe that the name JOHN is inherently white. Not to mention, how do you know a white guy won't be named Andre? Hell, my middle name is LEROY. You tell me what image that puts into your mind and I'll tell you if I should be offended either way.

John isn't inherently white. But ayisha is inherently black. They pick the ambigious names over the black names. Thats called racism.

uh, the whole premise of your claim regarding RACISM hinges on ONE ethnic group DISCRIMINATING against another, yes? Have you been assuming that John is a hindu name or something?

Not quite. I have no idea the race of the business owners. Could be white, asian, black, hispanic, whatever. Regardless, it seems that the aggregate is discriminating against blacks.