CDZ What is White Privilege?

[Asclepias]

Does White privilege include
not having to bleach your skin to look White
if your skin is already light enough?

Because not just Black but also Asian and Latino cultures
have traditionally associated lighter skin with
the upper class and darker skin with the working class,
then do I still have some degree of
White privilege by having lighter skin as an Asian.

Is it skin color association?
is it White class privilege?
or is it White as in caucasian/European and race?

P.S. anyone who says all races are the same
should check with the bone marrow statistics on matching
donors by race, and the registration outreach that
specifically targets the following as separate genetic pools
as necessary to match types and save lives:
Asian and Pacific Islander
African
Latino
Native American

These 4 groups have only 1 in 10 chances of finding a bone marrow
match by HLA. They are harder to match, and biracial are almost impossible.

In contrast the Caucasians have 9 in 10 chances
because they are more easily compatible with other
Caucasians and not as difficult to find a match.

There are 10 different factors that have to match
and transplant operations are only done if 8 of those 10 match.

For Whites/Caucasians, these factors are easier to match
with 9 out of 10 chance of finding a donor.

for the other minority groups, only 1 out of 10 chances.
It is completely random. You can have as many people sign up,
and the numbers don't increase the probability because it is so small.
You just have to get lucky and find one.
So the drives to get minorities to register as donors
aren't about improving the odds, but just finding the needle
in the haystack that matches someone on the list.

So you can call that White privilege
that you have 9 out of 10 chances
of saving your life if you need a bone marrow donor
vs. 1 out of 10 if you are Asian, African, Latino or Native American.

Sample reference source:
Marrow Matches for Minorities Are Harder to Find - Bone Marrow Transplants

Traditionally Blacks, East Indian etc did not traditionally prefer lighter skin. Africans and Indians prayed to Black gods. The preference for lighter skin has only come into vogue with the advent of white imperialism. People always want to look like the group that is in charge. Life is easier and they are taught to hate their skin color if it does not reflect the dominant culture.

Caucasians have a smaller gene pool than other races. Thats why they have an increased chance at matching.

Whites Genetically Weaker Than Blacks Study Finds Fox News

"Europeans went through a second "population bottleneck," probably about 30,000 years ago, when the ancestral population was again reduced to relatively few in number."

Dear Asclepias I really like your explanation of where this preference came from.

One friend said the class division came from when people who gathered and stored MEAT
were valued greater than the field workers who gathered Plants Grains and Vegetables.

So he used this to explain the historic dominance of the management/owner class
that has technology for storing, transporting and mass marketing the more VALUABLE products
vs. the workers who don't have those resources and their jobs are to work the fields,
they are more plentiful and so they are valued less in the chain from bottom to top.

Then he used this to explain how MEN were valued as the hunters and meat gatherers
so their roles were valued greater in society over the women and field hands who stayed at home
and managed the crops and fruit/vegetable picking. (another theory says because of this role in picking fruits
and vegetables when ripe, more women kept and developed the ability to discern colors especially red/green
for survival, while men don't need this trait so color blindness runs in men)

I think this explanation takes the pressure off just blaming whites or blacks, men or women,
and shows that it is development of society in classes that causes this separation and dominance of one over others.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing more of the cultural history behind this so people can see the common patterns.

The more we see we are affected in common, we realize it is an issue of human development that involves all of us.

Your friend may have a good point. However that would only relate to class based discrimination. The problem is primarily racial with class being a second variable. Just saw this article where Black males with AA degrees have the same chance of getting a job as whites with just HS diploma.

A Black Male With A Degree And A White High School Grad Have The Same Chances Of Getting A Job

"Several studies have pointed out the evident racial achievement gap but recent research has revealed a sad truth -- an African-American male with an associate degree has the same chances of getting a job as a white male with a high school diploma."

This is still a class issue first baby
Because guess which class does the hiring.

The white class. You cant hire if you dont have a foot hold into the industry or own the companies that do the hiring. Its been a racial issue every since they decided Black people were 3/5ths of humans and then only so people that wanted to keep them enslaved could vote against the best interests of the enslaved. If the south was not trying to use Blacks for votes Blacks would have been considered non-human. Thats a race issue all day long and twice on Sundays.

 

[emilynghiem]

Does White privilege include
not having to bleach your skin to look White
if your skin is already light enough?

Because not just Black but also Asian and Latino cultures
have traditionally associated lighter skin with
the upper class and darker skin with the working class,
then do I still have some degree of
White privilege by having lighter skin as an Asian.

Is it skin color association?
is it White class privilege?
or is it White as in caucasian/European and race?

P.S. anyone who says all races are the same
should check with the bone marrow statistics on matching
donors by race, and the registration outreach that
specifically targets the following as separate genetic pools
as necessary to match types and save lives:
Asian and Pacific Islander
African
Latino
Native American

These 4 groups have only 1 in 10 chances of finding a bone marrow
match by HLA. They are harder to match, and biracial are almost impossible.

In contrast the Caucasians have 9 in 10 chances
because they are more easily compatible with other
Caucasians and not as difficult to find a match.

There are 10 different factors that have to match
and transplant operations are only done if 8 of those 10 match.

For Whites/Caucasians, these factors are easier to match
with 9 out of 10 chance of finding a donor.

for the other minority groups, only 1 out of 10 chances.
It is completely random. You can have as many people sign up,
and the numbers don't increase the probability because it is so small.
You just have to get lucky and find one.
So the drives to get minorities to register as donors
aren't about improving the odds, but just finding the needle
in the haystack that matches someone on the list.

So you can call that White privilege
that you have 9 out of 10 chances
of saving your life if you need a bone marrow donor
vs. 1 out of 10 if you are Asian, African, Latino or Native American.

Sample reference source:
Marrow Matches for Minorities Are Harder to Find - Bone Marrow Transplants

Traditionally Blacks, East Indian etc did not traditionally prefer lighter skin. Africans and Indians prayed to Black gods. The preference for lighter skin has only come into vogue with the advent of white imperialism. People always want to look like the group that is in charge. Life is easier and they are taught to hate their skin color if it does not reflect the dominant culture.

Caucasians have a smaller gene pool than other races. Thats why they have an increased chance at matching.

Whites Genetically Weaker Than Blacks Study Finds Fox News

"Europeans went through a second "population bottleneck," probably about 30,000 years ago, when the ancestral population was again reduced to relatively few in number."

Dear Asclepias I really like your explanation of where this preference came from.

One friend said the class division came from when people who gathered and stored MEAT
were valued greater than the field workers who gathered Plants Grains and Vegetables.

So he used this to explain the historic dominance of the management/owner class
that has technology for storing, transporting and mass marketing the more VALUABLE products
vs. the workers who don't have those resources and their jobs are to work the fields,
they are more plentiful and so they are valued less in the chain from bottom to top.

Then he used this to explain how MEN were valued as the hunters and meat gatherers
so their roles were valued greater in society over the women and field hands who stayed at home
and managed the crops and fruit/vegetable picking. (another theory says because of this role in picking fruits
and vegetables when ripe, more women kept and developed the ability to discern colors especially red/green
for survival, while men don't need this trait so color blindness runs in men)

I think this explanation takes the pressure off just blaming whites or blacks, men or women,
and shows that it is development of society in classes that causes this separation and dominance of one over others.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing more of the cultural history behind this so people can see the common patterns.

The more we see we are affected in common, we realize it is an issue of human development that involves all of us.

Your friend may have a good point. However that would only relate to class based discrimination. The problem is primarily racial with class being a second variable. Just saw this article where Black males with AA degrees have the same chance of getting a job as whites with just HS diploma.

A Black Male With A Degree And A White High School Grad Have The Same Chances Of Getting A Job

"Several studies have pointed out the evident racial achievement gap but recent research has revealed a sad truth -- an African-American male with an associate degree has the same chances of getting a job as a white male with a high school diploma."

This is still a class issue first baby
Because guess which class does the hiring.

The white class. You cant hire if you dont have a foot hold into the industry or own the companies that do the hiring. Its been a racial issue every since they decided Black people were 3/5ths of humans and then only so people that wanted to keep them enslaved could vote against the best interests of the enslaved. If the south was not trying to use Blacks for votes Blacks would have been considered non-human. Thats a race issue all day long and twice on Sundays.

OK so we agree that it IS a class issue,
and then at the same time it is White because the Whites DOMINATE this CLASS.

So again the issue is back to how do we set up a track
of education training empowerment work and service experience
so more Black citizens COLLECTIVELY as a group
achieve highest standing possible at this class level.

So it is still an issue of class, and race is a factor
on addressing and resolving the standing in class.
That can be corrected.

Question for you Asclepias
What about this phenomenon that in groups,
people tend to defer to the MALES in the group,
and then the WHITE MALES in the group.

How do you address that?

Either socially or spiritually, people are shown to be
conditioned to view males as leaders, and then
on top of that will defer more to the WHITE male.

Boys tend to dominate in the classroom,
where they are allowed to speak out of turn
while girls are expected to raise their hands to ask
and wait to be called upon.

Do you think that is purely CULTURAL or is it spiritual
or psychological? Nature or Nurture?

Why are White Males treated as the default,
and everyone else defers or responds to that.

[it is interesting that my feminist friends will say the GENDER
conditions come first, before race or class. I think the
gender issues matter internally and personally,
and for collective issues people identify by race and class.
You are saying race comes before class.
But doesn't that mean you would align with Ben Carson
and Allen West, putting your race first before the
cultural issues of class that divide you? This appears
to be class first before race, where race isn't enough to
overcome the political class issues that is stronger.]

 

[Asclepias]

Traditionally Blacks, East Indian etc did not traditionally prefer lighter skin. Africans and Indians prayed to Black gods. The preference for lighter skin has only come into vogue with the advent of white imperialism. People always want to look like the group that is in charge. Life is easier and they are taught to hate their skin color if it does not reflect the dominant culture.

Caucasians have a smaller gene pool than other races. Thats why they have an increased chance at matching.

Whites Genetically Weaker Than Blacks Study Finds Fox News

"Europeans went through a second "population bottleneck," probably about 30,000 years ago, when the ancestral population was again reduced to relatively few in number."

Dear Asclepias I really like your explanation of where this preference came from.

One friend said the class division came from when people who gathered and stored MEAT
were valued greater than the field workers who gathered Plants Grains and Vegetables.

So he used this to explain the historic dominance of the management/owner class
that has technology for storing, transporting and mass marketing the more VALUABLE products
vs. the workers who don't have those resources and their jobs are to work the fields,
they are more plentiful and so they are valued less in the chain from bottom to top.

Then he used this to explain how MEN were valued as the hunters and meat gatherers
so their roles were valued greater in society over the women and field hands who stayed at home
and managed the crops and fruit/vegetable picking. (another theory says because of this role in picking fruits
and vegetables when ripe, more women kept and developed the ability to discern colors especially red/green
for survival, while men don't need this trait so color blindness runs in men)

I think this explanation takes the pressure off just blaming whites or blacks, men or women,
and shows that it is development of society in classes that causes this separation and dominance of one over others.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing more of the cultural history behind this so people can see the common patterns.

The more we see we are affected in common, we realize it is an issue of human development that involves all of us.

Your friend may have a good point. However that would only relate to class based discrimination. The problem is primarily racial with class being a second variable. Just saw this article where Black males with AA degrees have the same chance of getting a job as whites with just HS diploma.

A Black Male With A Degree And A White High School Grad Have The Same Chances Of Getting A Job

"Several studies have pointed out the evident racial achievement gap but recent research has revealed a sad truth -- an African-American male with an associate degree has the same chances of getting a job as a white male with a high school diploma."

This is still a class issue first baby
Because guess which class does the hiring.

The white class. You cant hire if you dont have a foot hold into the industry or own the companies that do the hiring. Its been a racial issue every since they decided Black people were 3/5ths of humans and then only so people that wanted to keep them enslaved could vote against the best interests of the enslaved. If the south was not trying to use Blacks for votes Blacks would have been considered non-human. Thats a race issue all day long and twice on Sundays.

OK so we agree that it IS a class issue,
and then at the same time it is White because the Whites DOMINATE this CLASS.

So again the issue is back to how do we set up a track
of education training empowerment work and service experience
so more Black citizens COLLECTIVELY as a group
achieve highest standing possible at this class level.

So it is still an issue of class, and race is a factor
on addressing and resolving the standing in class.
That can be corrected.

Question for you Asclepias
What about this phenomenon that in groups,
people tend to defer to the MALES in the group,
and then the WHITE MALES in the group.

How do you address that?

Either socially or spiritually, people are shown to be
conditioned to view males as leaders, and then
on top of that will defer more to the WHITE male.

Boys tend to dominate in the classroom,
where they are allowed to speak out of turn
while girls are expected to raise their hands to ask
and wait to be called upon.

Do you think that is purely CULTURAL or is it spiritual
or psychological? Nature or Nurture?

Why are White Males treated as the default,
and everyone else defers or responds to that.

[it is interesting that my feminist friends will say the GENDER
conditions come first, before race or class. I think the
gender issues matter internally and personally,
and for collective issues people identify by race and class.
You are saying race comes before class.
But doesn't that mean you would align with Ben Carson
and Allen West, putting your race first before the
cultural issues of class that divide you? This appears
to be class first before race, where race isn't enough to
overcome the political class issues that is stronger.]

I dont agree its a class issue. I think its a racial issue. I dont know of anytime in history where Black people regulated whites to a status of non humans. If it was simply a class issue then whites would not have destroyed prosperous Black communities out of jealousy. Blacks would not have to endure cops pulling them over for driving nice vehicles.

There are already organizations doing what you are looking for. Those organizations are not highlighted because the narrative of Black dysfunction is preferable as a public perception.

Without a specific case I cant really answer that question. I would assume people defer to males because the perception of the skill or knowledge level of men suit the process the group must undergo to achieve the goal of the group. The same with a situation where they would defer to a Black male, Black woman, white woman or specifically a white male.

I dont align with Carson as it seems he believes race is not an issue. To me its definitely a race issue, then a class issue, and lastly a gender issue.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Asclepias I really like your explanation of where this preference came from.

One friend said the class division came from when people who gathered and stored MEAT
were valued greater than the field workers who gathered Plants Grains and Vegetables.

So he used this to explain the historic dominance of the management/owner class
that has technology for storing, transporting and mass marketing the more VALUABLE products
vs. the workers who don't have those resources and their jobs are to work the fields,
they are more plentiful and so they are valued less in the chain from bottom to top.

Then he used this to explain how MEN were valued as the hunters and meat gatherers
so their roles were valued greater in society over the women and field hands who stayed at home
and managed the crops and fruit/vegetable picking. (another theory says because of this role in picking fruits
and vegetables when ripe, more women kept and developed the ability to discern colors especially red/green
for survival, while men don't need this trait so color blindness runs in men)

I think this explanation takes the pressure off just blaming whites or blacks, men or women,
and shows that it is development of society in classes that causes this separation and dominance of one over others.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing more of the cultural history behind this so people can see the common patterns.

The more we see we are affected in common, we realize it is an issue of human development that involves all of us.

Your friend may have a good point. However that would only relate to class based discrimination. The problem is primarily racial with class being a second variable. Just saw this article where Black males with AA degrees have the same chance of getting a job as whites with just HS diploma.

A Black Male With A Degree And A White High School Grad Have The Same Chances Of Getting A Job

"Several studies have pointed out the evident racial achievement gap but recent research has revealed a sad truth -- an African-American male with an associate degree has the same chances of getting a job as a white male with a high school diploma."

This is still a class issue first baby
Because guess which class does the hiring.

The white class. You cant hire if you dont have a foot hold into the industry or own the companies that do the hiring. Its been a racial issue every since they decided Black people were 3/5ths of humans and then only so people that wanted to keep them enslaved could vote against the best interests of the enslaved. If the south was not trying to use Blacks for votes Blacks would have been considered non-human. Thats a race issue all day long and twice on Sundays.

OK so we agree that it IS a class issue,
and then at the same time it is White because the Whites DOMINATE this CLASS.

So again the issue is back to how do we set up a track
of education training empowerment work and service experience
so more Black citizens COLLECTIVELY as a group
achieve highest standing possible at this class level.

So it is still an issue of class, and race is a factor
on addressing and resolving the standing in class.
That can be corrected.

Question for you Asclepias
What about this phenomenon that in groups,
people tend to defer to the MALES in the group,
and then the WHITE MALES in the group.

How do you address that?

Either socially or spiritually, people are shown to be
conditioned to view males as leaders, and then
on top of that will defer more to the WHITE male.

Boys tend to dominate in the classroom,
where they are allowed to speak out of turn
while girls are expected to raise their hands to ask
and wait to be called upon.

Do you think that is purely CULTURAL or is it spiritual
or psychological? Nature or Nurture?

Why are White Males treated as the default,
and everyone else defers or responds to that.

[it is interesting that my feminist friends will say the GENDER
conditions come first, before race or class. I think the
gender issues matter internally and personally,
and for collective issues people identify by race and class.
You are saying race comes before class.
But doesn't that mean you would align with Ben Carson
and Allen West, putting your race first before the
cultural issues of class that divide you? This appears
to be class first before race, where race isn't enough to
overcome the political class issues that is stronger.]

I dont agree its a class issue. I think its a racial issue. I dont know of anytime in history where Black people regulated whites to a status of non humans. If it was simply a class issue then whites would not have destroyed prosperous Black communities out of jealousy. Blacks would not have to endure cops pulling them over for driving nice vehicles.

There are already organizations doing what you are looking for. Those organizations are not highlighted because the narrative of Black dysfunction is preferable as a public perception.

Without a specific case I cant really answer that question. I would assume people defer to males because the perception of the skill or knowledge level of men suit the process the group must undergo to achieve the goal of the group. The same with a situation where they would defer to a Black male, Black woman, white woman or specifically a white male.

I dont align with Carson as it seems he believes race is not an issue. To me its definitely a race issue, then a class issue, and lastly a gender issue.

That's still class that is causing it.
One group "regulating" another is caused by class.

Look at the Blacks in the US who WERE owners of Black Slaves,
because these Blacks were free, bought land mortgaged by banks with Black slaves to work the land. That is the CLASS of persons enslaving the working class.
These Blacks had KNOWLEDGE of the business so they could be part of THAT CLASS.

Anyone can fill that CLASS if you have the right knowledge and build experience:
William Ellison - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org <-- you might
like this reference better, to MULATTO's trying to maintain their "class status" by
using their mixed heritage/color as identity. You may argue that race is looked
at first, and class based on that; I would see this as class defined first and
race used to bolster that. So this is a pretty good middle ground for what
we are BOTH trying to say, right here. And this is why Freedmen's Town
got destroyed, because of people making it a black/white issue and not equality of classes.

The CHINESE ruling CLASS
oppresses the Chinese working CLASS.
How is THAT caused by race and not CLASS?

The Chinese and Japanese in power have been attacking
and oppressing lesser classes long before in history, and without any help from WHITES.

I can understand why feminists say this is MALE and GENDER
before I can understand why you say it is White/Black race issues.

At least the Asian genocides match the male patriarchal theories and patterns.
I don't see how White/Black racism applies as much as Class (and Gender as feminists may add).

 

[Asclepias]

Your friend may have a good point. However that would only relate to class based discrimination. The problem is primarily racial with class being a second variable. Just saw this article where Black males with AA degrees have the same chance of getting a job as whites with just HS diploma.

A Black Male With A Degree And A White High School Grad Have The Same Chances Of Getting A Job

"Several studies have pointed out the evident racial achievement gap but recent research has revealed a sad truth -- an African-American male with an associate degree has the same chances of getting a job as a white male with a high school diploma."

This is still a class issue first baby
Because guess which class does the hiring.

The white class. You cant hire if you dont have a foot hold into the industry or own the companies that do the hiring. Its been a racial issue every since they decided Black people were 3/5ths of humans and then only so people that wanted to keep them enslaved could vote against the best interests of the enslaved. If the south was not trying to use Blacks for votes Blacks would have been considered non-human. Thats a race issue all day long and twice on Sundays.

OK so we agree that it IS a class issue,
and then at the same time it is White because the Whites DOMINATE this CLASS.

So again the issue is back to how do we set up a track
of education training empowerment work and service experience
so more Black citizens COLLECTIVELY as a group
achieve highest standing possible at this class level.

So it is still an issue of class, and race is a factor
on addressing and resolving the standing in class.
That can be corrected.

Question for you Asclepias
What about this phenomenon that in groups,
people tend to defer to the MALES in the group,
and then the WHITE MALES in the group.

How do you address that?

Either socially or spiritually, people are shown to be
conditioned to view males as leaders, and then
on top of that will defer more to the WHITE male.

Boys tend to dominate in the classroom,
where they are allowed to speak out of turn
while girls are expected to raise their hands to ask
and wait to be called upon.

Do you think that is purely CULTURAL or is it spiritual
or psychological? Nature or Nurture?

Why are White Males treated as the default,
and everyone else defers or responds to that.

[it is interesting that my feminist friends will say the GENDER
conditions come first, before race or class. I think the
gender issues matter internally and personally,
and for collective issues people identify by race and class.
You are saying race comes before class.
But doesn't that mean you would align with Ben Carson
and Allen West, putting your race first before the
cultural issues of class that divide you? This appears
to be class first before race, where race isn't enough to
overcome the political class issues that is stronger.]

I dont agree its a class issue. I think its a racial issue. I dont know of anytime in history where Black people regulated whites to a status of non humans. If it was simply a class issue then whites would not have destroyed prosperous Black communities out of jealousy. Blacks would not have to endure cops pulling them over for driving nice vehicles.

There are already organizations doing what you are looking for. Those organizations are not highlighted because the narrative of Black dysfunction is preferable as a public perception.

Without a specific case I cant really answer that question. I would assume people defer to males because the perception of the skill or knowledge level of men suit the process the group must undergo to achieve the goal of the group. The same with a situation where they would defer to a Black male, Black woman, white woman or specifically a white male.

I dont align with Carson as it seems he believes race is not an issue. To me its definitely a race issue, then a class issue, and lastly a gender issue.

That's still class that is causing it.
One group "regulating" another is caused by class.

Look at the Blacks in the US who WERE owners of Black Slaves,
because these Blacks were free, bought land mortgaged by banks with Black slaves to work the land. That is the CLASS of persons enslaving the working class.
These Blacks had KNOWLEDGE of the business so they could be part of THAT CLASS.

Anyone can fill that CLASS if you have the right knowledge and build experience:
William Ellison - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org <-- you might
like this reference better, to MULATTO's trying to maintain their "class status" by
using their mixed heritage/color as identity. You may argue that race is looked
at first, and class based on that; I would see this as class defined first and
race used to bolster that. So this is a pretty good middle ground for what
we are BOTH trying to say, right here. And this is why Freedmen's Town
got destroyed, because of people making it a black/white issue and not equality of classes.

The CHINESE ruling CLASS
oppresses the Chinese working CLASS.
How is THAT caused by race and not CLASS?

The Chinese and Japanese in power have been attacking
and oppressing lesser classes long before in history, and without any help from WHITES.

I can understand why feminists say this is MALE and GENDER
before I can understand why you say it is White/Black race issues.

At least the Asian genocides match the male patriarchal theories and patterns.
I don't see how White/Black racism applies as much as Class (and Gender as feminists may add).

I disagree. Its race. No matter what class those Blacks that owned slaves were in they were always in danger of being abducted and enslaved themselves. Check out the book "12 Years a Slave". A free black man captured and sold into slavery. If it wwere strictly a class issue a wealthy free Black would have been regarded the same as a wealthy free white.They werent. Every white person was held in higher regard than a Black person. Among the racial groups classes may develop but those develop within the confines of and because of the type of slavery we had here in the states.

The Chinese did not rule anyone here in the states and neither did the Japanese.

 

[emilynghiem]

This is still a class issue first baby
Because guess which class does the hiring.

The white class. You cant hire if you dont have a foot hold into the industry or own the companies that do the hiring. Its been a racial issue every since they decided Black people were 3/5ths of humans and then only so people that wanted to keep them enslaved could vote against the best interests of the enslaved. If the south was not trying to use Blacks for votes Blacks would have been considered non-human. Thats a race issue all day long and twice on Sundays.

OK so we agree that it IS a class issue,
and then at the same time it is White because the Whites DOMINATE this CLASS.

So again the issue is back to how do we set up a track
of education training empowerment work and service experience
so more Black citizens COLLECTIVELY as a group
achieve highest standing possible at this class level.

So it is still an issue of class, and race is a factor
on addressing and resolving the standing in class.
That can be corrected.

Question for you Asclepias
What about this phenomenon that in groups,
people tend to defer to the MALES in the group,
and then the WHITE MALES in the group.

How do you address that?

Either socially or spiritually, people are shown to be
conditioned to view males as leaders, and then
on top of that will defer more to the WHITE male.

Boys tend to dominate in the classroom,
where they are allowed to speak out of turn
while girls are expected to raise their hands to ask
and wait to be called upon.

Do you think that is purely CULTURAL or is it spiritual
or psychological? Nature or Nurture?

Why are White Males treated as the default,
and everyone else defers or responds to that.

[it is interesting that my feminist friends will say the GENDER
conditions come first, before race or class. I think the
gender issues matter internally and personally,
and for collective issues people identify by race and class.
You are saying race comes before class.
But doesn't that mean you would align with Ben Carson
and Allen West, putting your race first before the
cultural issues of class that divide you? This appears
to be class first before race, where race isn't enough to
overcome the political class issues that is stronger.]

I dont agree its a class issue. I think its a racial issue. I dont know of anytime in history where Black people regulated whites to a status of non humans. If it was simply a class issue then whites would not have destroyed prosperous Black communities out of jealousy. Blacks would not have to endure cops pulling them over for driving nice vehicles.

There are already organizations doing what you are looking for. Those organizations are not highlighted because the narrative of Black dysfunction is preferable as a public perception.

Without a specific case I cant really answer that question. I would assume people defer to males because the perception of the skill or knowledge level of men suit the process the group must undergo to achieve the goal of the group. The same with a situation where they would defer to a Black male, Black woman, white woman or specifically a white male.

I dont align with Carson as it seems he believes race is not an issue. To me its definitely a race issue, then a class issue, and lastly a gender issue.

That's still class that is causing it.
One group "regulating" another is caused by class.

Look at the Blacks in the US who WERE owners of Black Slaves,
because these Blacks were free, bought land mortgaged by banks with Black slaves to work the land. That is the CLASS of persons enslaving the working class.
These Blacks had KNOWLEDGE of the business so they could be part of THAT CLASS.

Anyone can fill that CLASS if you have the right knowledge and build experience:
William Ellison - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org <-- you might
like this reference better, to MULATTO's trying to maintain their "class status" by
using their mixed heritage/color as identity. You may argue that race is looked
at first, and class based on that; I would see this as class defined first and
race used to bolster that. So this is a pretty good middle ground for what
we are BOTH trying to say, right here. And this is why Freedmen's Town
got destroyed, because of people making it a black/white issue and not equality of classes.

The CHINESE ruling CLASS
oppresses the Chinese working CLASS.
How is THAT caused by race and not CLASS?

The Chinese and Japanese in power have been attacking
and oppressing lesser classes long before in history, and without any help from WHITES.

I can understand why feminists say this is MALE and GENDER
before I can understand why you say it is White/Black race issues.

At least the Asian genocides match the male patriarchal theories and patterns.
I don't see how White/Black racism applies as much as Class (and Gender as feminists may add).

I disagree. Its race. No matter what class those Blacks that owned slaves were in they were always in danger of being abducted and enslaved themselves. Check out the book "12 Years a Slave". A free black man captured and sold into slavery. If it wwere strictly a class issue a wealthy free Black would have been regarded the same as a wealthy free white.They werent. Every white person was held in higher regard than a Black person. Among the racial groups classes may develop but those develop within the confines of and because of the type of slavery we had here in the states.

The Chinese did not rule anyone here in the states and neither did the Japanese.

Are you talking about US Slavery only?
I agree that the DYNAMICS inherently intrinsically and inseparably
involve RACE specifically BLACK WHITE. I am not EXCLUDING race from the equation
but saying that it is class first and then race (even the African Blacks who sold the slaves
to the Whites were of a higher class over the slaves in order to make such exchanges of other people).

My explanation using class doesn't EXCLUDE your example, but your excludes mine and other examples.

Isn't it clear that because that is not universal to ALL forms of slavery and oppression
worldwide, that is a SPECIFIC cultural example that DID mix in Black/White
(BEYOND being able to remove race from the equation even though it is an expression of class oppression).

This is like a special "subset" case WITHIN the larger set
of ALL cases of slavery and oppression.

WITHIN just the case you pick out, Race is inseparable from it, yes.
(Just like in China the forced abortions is GENDER focused and inseparable.)

The difference between your approach and mine:
1. When I start with the LARGER set and INCLUDE American White/Black slavery
within it, I can still explain how race and class both factor in.
2. When you start with only the focus on American Slavery as race based,
you have to DISREGARD and NOT INCLUDE the other examples that don't fit that model.

So my explanation covers BOTH examples, and yours leaves the others out
that don't fit your model.

And the feminists might say they are more right than both of us
because they can explain BROADER cases of relationship abuse
even if race and class are not the cause, but male-female issues of control in a partnership as the root.

So the feminists might explain ALL these cases of
* forced abortions in China
* White/Black slavery in US
* abuses found among people even of the SAME class and SAME race

And blame it all on "patriarchal politics" set up and enforced by MEN.

maybe the reason you and I can't agree is because they are right,
these conflicts are a male-female battle for power first INTERNALLY, then expressed EXTERNALLY second
using race, class, religion, politics, however you want to organize in groups to battle it out.

I would say the Feminists are closer to the Universal explanation since they can explain more cases than you can.
And I would say the Spiritualists who see the conflict on a spiritual level first,
BEFORE it manifests as gender, race, class, religion, or political group
can explain more cases using their model, and then show how all these other explanations are SUBSETS.

 

[ChrisL]

The white class. You cant hire if you dont have a foot hold into the industry or own the companies that do the hiring. Its been a racial issue every since they decided Black people were 3/5ths of humans and then only so people that wanted to keep them enslaved could vote against the best interests of the enslaved. If the south was not trying to use Blacks for votes Blacks would have been considered non-human. Thats a race issue all day long and twice on Sundays.

OK so we agree that it IS a class issue,
and then at the same time it is White because the Whites DOMINATE this CLASS.

So again the issue is back to how do we set up a track
of education training empowerment work and service experience
so more Black citizens COLLECTIVELY as a group
achieve highest standing possible at this class level.

So it is still an issue of class, and race is a factor
on addressing and resolving the standing in class.
That can be corrected.

Question for you Asclepias
What about this phenomenon that in groups,
people tend to defer to the MALES in the group,
and then the WHITE MALES in the group.

How do you address that?

Either socially or spiritually, people are shown to be
conditioned to view males as leaders, and then
on top of that will defer more to the WHITE male.

Boys tend to dominate in the classroom,
where they are allowed to speak out of turn
while girls are expected to raise their hands to ask
and wait to be called upon.

Do you think that is purely CULTURAL or is it spiritual
or psychological? Nature or Nurture?

Why are White Males treated as the default,
and everyone else defers or responds to that.

[it is interesting that my feminist friends will say the GENDER
conditions come first, before race or class. I think the
gender issues matter internally and personally,
and for collective issues people identify by race and class.
You are saying race comes before class.
But doesn't that mean you would align with Ben Carson
and Allen West, putting your race first before the
cultural issues of class that divide you? This appears
to be class first before race, where race isn't enough to
overcome the political class issues that is stronger.]

I dont agree its a class issue. I think its a racial issue. I dont know of anytime in history where Black people regulated whites to a status of non humans. If it was simply a class issue then whites would not have destroyed prosperous Black communities out of jealousy. Blacks would not have to endure cops pulling them over for driving nice vehicles.

There are already organizations doing what you are looking for. Those organizations are not highlighted because the narrative of Black dysfunction is preferable as a public perception.

Without a specific case I cant really answer that question. I would assume people defer to males because the perception of the skill or knowledge level of men suit the process the group must undergo to achieve the goal of the group. The same with a situation where they would defer to a Black male, Black woman, white woman or specifically a white male.

I dont align with Carson as it seems he believes race is not an issue. To me its definitely a race issue, then a class issue, and lastly a gender issue.

That's still class that is causing it.
One group "regulating" another is caused by class.

Look at the Blacks in the US who WERE owners of Black Slaves,
because these Blacks were free, bought land mortgaged by banks with Black slaves to work the land. That is the CLASS of persons enslaving the working class.
These Blacks had KNOWLEDGE of the business so they could be part of THAT CLASS.

Anyone can fill that CLASS if you have the right knowledge and build experience:
William Ellison - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org <-- you might
like this reference better, to MULATTO's trying to maintain their "class status" by
using their mixed heritage/color as identity. You may argue that race is looked
at first, and class based on that; I would see this as class defined first and
race used to bolster that. So this is a pretty good middle ground for what
we are BOTH trying to say, right here. And this is why Freedmen's Town
got destroyed, because of people making it a black/white issue and not equality of classes.

The CHINESE ruling CLASS
oppresses the Chinese working CLASS.
How is THAT caused by race and not CLASS?

The Chinese and Japanese in power have been attacking
and oppressing lesser classes long before in history, and without any help from WHITES.

I can understand why feminists say this is MALE and GENDER
before I can understand why you say it is White/Black race issues.

At least the Asian genocides match the male patriarchal theories and patterns.
I don't see how White/Black racism applies as much as Class (and Gender as feminists may add).

I disagree. Its race. No matter what class those Blacks that owned slaves were in they were always in danger of being abducted and enslaved themselves. Check out the book "12 Years a Slave". A free black man captured and sold into slavery. If it wwere strictly a class issue a wealthy free Black would have been regarded the same as a wealthy free white.They werent. Every white person was held in higher regard than a Black person. Among the racial groups classes may develop but those develop within the confines of and because of the type of slavery we had here in the states.

The Chinese did not rule anyone here in the states and neither did the Japanese.

Are you talking about US Slavery only?
I agree that the DYNAMICS inherently intrinsically and inseparably
involve RACE specifically BLACK WHITE. I am not EXCLUDING race from the equation
but saying that it is class first and then race (even the African Blacks who sold the slaves
to the Whites were of a higher class over the slaves in order to make such exchanges of other people).

My explanation using class doesn't EXCLUDE your example, but your excludes mine and other examples.

Isn't it clear that because that is not universal to ALL forms of slavery and oppression
worldwide, that is a SPECIFIC cultural example that DID mix in Black/White
(BEYOND being able to remove race from the equation even though it is an expression of class oppression).

This is like a special "subset" case WITHIN the larger set
of ALL cases of slavery and oppression.

WITHIN just the case you pick out, Race is inseparable from it, yes.
(Just like in China the forced abortions is GENDER focused and inseparable.)

The difference between your approach and mine:
1. When I start with the LARGER set and INCLUDE American White/Black slavery
within it, I can still explain how race and class both factor in.
2. When you start with only the focus on American Slavery as race based,
you have to DISREGARD and NOT INCLUDE the other examples that don't fit that model.

So my explanation covers BOTH examples, and yours leaves the others out
that don't fit your model.

And the feminists might say they are more right than both of us
because they can explain BROADER cases of relationship abuse
even if race and class are not the cause, but male-female issues of control in a partnership as the root.

So the feminists might explain ALL these cases of
* forced abortions in China
* White/Black slavery in US
* abuses found among people even of the SAME class and SAME race

And blame it all on "patriarchal politics" set up and enforced by MEN.

maybe the reason you and I can't agree is because they are right,
these conflicts are a male-female battle for power first INTERNALLY, then expressed EXTERNALLY second
using race, class, religion, politics, however you want to organize in groups to battle it out.

I would say the Feminists are closer to the Universal explanation since they can explain more cases than you can.
And I would say the Spiritualists who see the conflict on a spiritual level first,
BEFORE it manifests as gender, race, class, religion, or political group
can explain more cases using their model, and then show how all these other explanations are SUBSETS.

Emily, I agree that the examples of black slave owners makes your case about it being a class issue first. Excellent posts and really great points.

 

[Asclepias]

The white class. You cant hire if you dont have a foot hold into the industry or own the companies that do the hiring. Its been a racial issue every since they decided Black people were 3/5ths of humans and then only so people that wanted to keep them enslaved could vote against the best interests of the enslaved. If the south was not trying to use Blacks for votes Blacks would have been considered non-human. Thats a race issue all day long and twice on Sundays.

OK so we agree that it IS a class issue,
and then at the same time it is White because the Whites DOMINATE this CLASS.

So again the issue is back to how do we set up a track
of education training empowerment work and service experience
so more Black citizens COLLECTIVELY as a group
achieve highest standing possible at this class level.

So it is still an issue of class, and race is a factor
on addressing and resolving the standing in class.
That can be corrected.

Question for you Asclepias
What about this phenomenon that in groups,
people tend to defer to the MALES in the group,
and then the WHITE MALES in the group.

How do you address that?

Either socially or spiritually, people are shown to be
conditioned to view males as leaders, and then
on top of that will defer more to the WHITE male.

Boys tend to dominate in the classroom,
where they are allowed to speak out of turn
while girls are expected to raise their hands to ask
and wait to be called upon.

Do you think that is purely CULTURAL or is it spiritual
or psychological? Nature or Nurture?

Why are White Males treated as the default,
and everyone else defers or responds to that.

[it is interesting that my feminist friends will say the GENDER
conditions come first, before race or class. I think the
gender issues matter internally and personally,
and for collective issues people identify by race and class.
You are saying race comes before class.
But doesn't that mean you would align with Ben Carson
and Allen West, putting your race first before the
cultural issues of class that divide you? This appears
to be class first before race, where race isn't enough to
overcome the political class issues that is stronger.]

I dont agree its a class issue. I think its a racial issue. I dont know of anytime in history where Black people regulated whites to a status of non humans. If it was simply a class issue then whites would not have destroyed prosperous Black communities out of jealousy. Blacks would not have to endure cops pulling them over for driving nice vehicles.

There are already organizations doing what you are looking for. Those organizations are not highlighted because the narrative of Black dysfunction is preferable as a public perception.

Without a specific case I cant really answer that question. I would assume people defer to males because the perception of the skill or knowledge level of men suit the process the group must undergo to achieve the goal of the group. The same with a situation where they would defer to a Black male, Black woman, white woman or specifically a white male.

I dont align with Carson as it seems he believes race is not an issue. To me its definitely a race issue, then a class issue, and lastly a gender issue.

That's still class that is causing it.
One group "regulating" another is caused by class.

Look at the Blacks in the US who WERE owners of Black Slaves,
because these Blacks were free, bought land mortgaged by banks with Black slaves to work the land. That is the CLASS of persons enslaving the working class.
These Blacks had KNOWLEDGE of the business so they could be part of THAT CLASS.

Anyone can fill that CLASS if you have the right knowledge and build experience:
William Ellison - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The Black Slave Owners - SlaveRebellion.org <-- you might
like this reference better, to MULATTO's trying to maintain their "class status" by
using their mixed heritage/color as identity. You may argue that race is looked
at first, and class based on that; I would see this as class defined first and
race used to bolster that. So this is a pretty good middle ground for what
we are BOTH trying to say, right here. And this is why Freedmen's Town
got destroyed, because of people making it a black/white issue and not equality of classes.

The CHINESE ruling CLASS
oppresses the Chinese working CLASS.
How is THAT caused by race and not CLASS?

The Chinese and Japanese in power have been attacking
and oppressing lesser classes long before in history, and without any help from WHITES.

I can understand why feminists say this is MALE and GENDER
before I can understand why you say it is White/Black race issues.

At least the Asian genocides match the male patriarchal theories and patterns.
I don't see how White/Black racism applies as much as Class (and Gender as feminists may add).

I disagree. Its race. No matter what class those Blacks that owned slaves were in they were always in danger of being abducted and enslaved themselves. Check out the book "12 Years a Slave". A free black man captured and sold into slavery. If it wwere strictly a class issue a wealthy free Black would have been regarded the same as a wealthy free white.They werent. Every white person was held in higher regard than a Black person. Among the racial groups classes may develop but those develop within the confines of and because of the type of slavery we had here in the states.

The Chinese did not rule anyone here in the states and neither did the Japanese.

Are you talking about US Slavery only?
I agree that the DYNAMICS inherently intrinsically and inseparably
involve RACE specifically BLACK WHITE. I am not EXCLUDING race from the equation
but saying that it is class first and then race (even the African Blacks who sold the slaves
to the Whites were of a higher class over the slaves in order to make such exchanges of other people).

My explanation using class doesn't EXCLUDE your example, but your excludes mine and other examples.

Isn't it clear that because that is not universal to ALL forms of slavery and oppression
worldwide, that is a SPECIFIC cultural example that DID mix in Black/White
(BEYOND being able to remove race from the equation even though it is an expression of class oppression).

This is like a special "subset" case WITHIN the larger set
of ALL cases of slavery and oppression.

WITHIN just the case you pick out, Race is inseparable from it, yes.
(Just like in China the forced abortions is GENDER focused and inseparable.)

The difference between your approach and mine:
1. When I start with the LARGER set and INCLUDE American White/Black slavery
within it, I can still explain how race and class both factor in.
2. When you start with only the focus on American Slavery as race based,
you have to DISREGARD and NOT INCLUDE the other examples that don't fit that model.

So my explanation covers BOTH examples, and yours leaves the others out
that don't fit your model.

And the feminists might say they are more right than both of us
because they can explain BROADER cases of relationship abuse
even if race and class are not the cause, but male-female issues of control in a partnership as the root.

So the feminists might explain ALL these cases of
* forced abortions in China
* White/Black slavery in US
* abuses found among people even of the SAME class and SAME race

And blame it all on "patriarchal politics" set up and enforced by MEN.

maybe the reason you and I can't agree is because they are right,
these conflicts are a male-female battle for power first INTERNALLY, then expressed EXTERNALLY second
using race, class, religion, politics, however you want to organize in groups to battle it out.

I would say the Feminists are closer to the Universal explanation since they can explain more cases than you can.
And I would say the Spiritualists who see the conflict on a spiritual level first,
BEFORE it manifests as gender, race, class, religion, or political group
can explain more cases using their model, and then show how all these other explanations are SUBSETS.

Yes. I am only talking about white privilege/slavery here in the US. We cant include all forms of discrimination world wide as it is to broad a subject and it occurs for different reasons. I'm speaking about specifically the dynamics here in the US. I see why you think I am leaving out examples that dont fit my model. That's exactly what I am doing. Discrimination in say Nigeria is different than discrimination here in the US. Discrimination in India for example is a mix of color bias/religion resulting in caste systems. In the US its race based, then class/culturally based, and finally gender based.

I understand what you are saying regarding the gender battle occurring first. To me thats more of a "what if". However, I dont see that fitting into the context of white privilege/slavery. I get the feeling you think things would be different if women were seen as more dominant and we followed female tendencies on how people group themselves and discriminate. Since I am not a woman this may be a blind spot for me. I would like to think that it would be different but we have no model to look at that I am aware of.

I am also comfortable with your concept of spiritual conflict if by that you mean culture.. I can see that as a cause of racism/racial discrimination. Knowing the history of racial groups tends to support that theory and would be the only thing I can see that makes sense. Looking at the concept of private ownership of land as an example. NAs and Africans tend to have the concept that the land belongs to no one person. That is the polar opposite of what the white culture believes/believed in.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes. I am only talking about white privilege/slavery here in the US. We cant include all forms of discrimination world wide as it is to broad a subject and it occurs for different reasons. I'm speaking about specifically the dynamics here in the US. I see why you think I am leaving out examples that dont fit my model. That's exactly what I am doing. Discrimination in say Nigeria is different than discrimination here in the US. Discrimination in India for example is a mix of color bias/religion resulting in caste systems. In the US its race based, then class/culturally based, and finally gender based.

I understand what you are saying regarding the gender battle occurring first. To me thats more of a "what if". However, I dont see that fitting into the context of white privilege/slavery. I get the feeling you think things would be different if women were seen as more dominant and we followed female tendencies on how people group themselves and discriminate. Since I am not a woman this may be a blind spot for me. I would like to think that it would be different but we have no model to look at that I am aware of.

I am also comfortable with your concept of spiritual conflict if by that you mean culture.. I can see that as a cause of racism/racial discrimination. Knowing the history of racial groups tends to support that theory and would be the only thing I can see that makes sense. Looking at the concept of private ownership of land as an example. NAs and Africans tend to have the concept that the land belongs to no one person. That is the polar opposite of what the white culture believes/believed in.

YES I really like how you use cultural to tie in the spiritual but in tangible terms.
I agree with that. And this includes class and gender as part of the Culture! (and race perception as part of the culture)

Very good!

I do think Culture would cover gender, race, spiritual, class and more.
And it would include one person saying race first before class, or another saying it's class first and then race.
Super!

This also explains your views of Ben Carson and Allen West based on culture,
and why you and Carib had your differences in perception of culture and race.
(Again, regardless what "cultures" have done or not done to each other, conflicts escalate unless we agree to forgive each other's cultural differences and solve problems together RESPECTING each other's cultural viewpoints so people feel safe participating equally. If we keep rejecting and projecting judgment based on culture, we continue to clash. Culture covers all areas where this can happen, you are right, and yes we ALL have issues forgiving "cultures" that appear abusive to others.)

 

[squeeze berry]

Perfect example of surrender. No answer/response to the FACTS we all know.

You haven't posted facts. You've posted opinions unsupported by facts. Please, prove that whites face significantly more discrimination than blacks.

then you can prove that blacks are discriminated against at all?

no opinions please

 

[pillars]

1 in 10 still support discrimination against African-Americans on religious grounds MSNBC

http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl?md=read;id=1177
To test whether employers discriminate against black job applicants, Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago and Sendhil Mullainathan of M.I.T. conducted an unusual experiment. They selected 1,300 help-wanted ads from newspapers in Boston and Chicago and submitted multiple r�sum�s from phantom job seekers. The researchers randomly assigned the first names on the r�sum�s, choosing from one set that is particularly common among blacks and from another that is common among whites.

So Kristen and Tamika, and Brad and Tyrone, applied for jobs from the same pool of want ads and had equivalent r�sum�s. Nine names were selected to represent each category: black women, white women, black men and white men. Last names common to the racial group were also assigned. Four r�sum�s were typically submitted for each job opening, drawn from a reservoir of 160. Nearly 5,000 applications were submitted from mid-2001 to mid-2002. Professors Bertrand and Mullainathan kept track of which candidates were invited for job interviews.

No single employer was sent two identical r�sum�s, and the names on the r�sum�s were randomly assigned, so applicants with black- and white-sounding names applied for the same set of jobs with the same set of r�sum�s.

Apart from their names, applicants had the same experience, education and skills, so employers had no reason to distinguish among them.

The results are disturbing. Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be called for interviews than were those with black-sounding names. Interviews were requested for 10.1 percent of applicants with white-sounding names and only 6.7 percent of those with black-sounding names.

 

[pillars]

And, this thread: CDZ - Racism without racists US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[fmdog44]

What is White Privilege?

No snarky one liner comments. No adhominems. I want nothing other than an legit argument on this topic so I can understand the minds of those who subscribe to this idea. For those of you who don't know what an argument is, or is not, see below.

Am I missing something here ,a question based on a Monty Python skit??

 

[squeeze berry]

1 in 10 still support discrimination against African-Americans on religious grounds MSNBC

http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl?md=read;id=1177
To test whether employers discriminate against black job applicants, Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago and Sendhil Mullainathan of M.I.T. conducted an unusual experiment. They selected 1,300 help-wanted ads from newspapers in Boston and Chicago and submitted multiple r�sum�s from phantom job seekers. The researchers randomly assigned the first names on the r�sum�s, choosing from one set that is particularly common among blacks and from another that is common among whites.

So Kristen and Tamika, and Brad and Tyrone, applied for jobs from the same pool of want ads and had equivalent r�sum�s. Nine names were selected to represent each category: black women, white women, black men and white men. Last names common to the racial group were also assigned. Four r�sum�s were typically submitted for each job opening, drawn from a reservoir of 160. Nearly 5,000 applications were submitted from mid-2001 to mid-2002. Professors Bertrand and Mullainathan kept track of which candidates were invited for job interviews.

No single employer was sent two identical r�sum�s, and the names on the r�sum�s were randomly assigned, so applicants with black- and white-sounding names applied for the same set of jobs with the same set of r�sum�s.

Apart from their names, applicants had the same experience, education and skills, so employers had no reason to distinguish among them.

The results are disturbing. Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be called for interviews than were those with black-sounding names. Interviews were requested for 10.1 percent of applicants with white-sounding names and only 6.7 percent of those with black-sounding names.

no one was actually discriminated against

 

[ChrisL]

1 in 10 still support discrimination against African-Americans on religious grounds MSNBC

http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl?md=read;id=1177
To test whether employers discriminate against black job applicants, Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago and Sendhil Mullainathan of M.I.T. conducted an unusual experiment. They selected 1,300 help-wanted ads from newspapers in Boston and Chicago and submitted multiple r�sum�s from phantom job seekers. The researchers randomly assigned the first names on the r�sum�s, choosing from one set that is particularly common among blacks and from another that is common among whites.

So Kristen and Tamika, and Brad and Tyrone, applied for jobs from the same pool of want ads and had equivalent r�sum�s. Nine names were selected to represent each category: black women, white women, black men and white men. Last names common to the racial group were also assigned. Four r�sum�s were typically submitted for each job opening, drawn from a reservoir of 160. Nearly 5,000 applications were submitted from mid-2001 to mid-2002. Professors Bertrand and Mullainathan kept track of which candidates were invited for job interviews.

No single employer was sent two identical r�sum�s, and the names on the r�sum�s were randomly assigned, so applicants with black- and white-sounding names applied for the same set of jobs with the same set of r�sum�s.

Apart from their names, applicants had the same experience, education and skills, so employers had no reason to distinguish among them.

The results are disturbing. Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be called for interviews than were those with black-sounding names. Interviews were requested for 10.1 percent of applicants with white-sounding names and only 6.7 percent of those with black-sounding names.

Maybe they couldn't pronounce the names. Lol. What are "black" names anyways? I've met plenty of black people with run of the mill names too. Also, foreigners who aren't black can also have some pretty odd names. So? What does this mean? Probably not much. Some people are going to get a job and some will be passed over. That's life. I am white with a white name, and I've been passed over for jobs too.

 

[Publius1787]

1 in 10 still support discrimination against African-Americans on religious grounds MSNBC

http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl?md=read;id=1177
To test whether employers discriminate against black job applicants, Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago and Sendhil Mullainathan of M.I.T. conducted an unusual experiment. They selected 1,300 help-wanted ads from newspapers in Boston and Chicago and submitted multiple r�sum�s from phantom job seekers. The researchers randomly assigned the first names on the r�sum�s, choosing from one set that is particularly common among blacks and from another that is common among whites.

So Kristen and Tamika, and Brad and Tyrone, applied for jobs from the same pool of want ads and had equivalent r�sum�s. Nine names were selected to represent each category: black women, white women, black men and white men. Last names common to the racial group were also assigned. Four r�sum�s were typically submitted for each job opening, drawn from a reservoir of 160. Nearly 5,000 applications were submitted from mid-2001 to mid-2002. Professors Bertrand and Mullainathan kept track of which candidates were invited for job interviews.

No single employer was sent two identical r�sum�s, and the names on the r�sum�s were randomly assigned, so applicants with black- and white-sounding names applied for the same set of jobs with the same set of r�sum�s.

Apart from their names, applicants had the same experience, education and skills, so employers had no reason to distinguish among them.

The results are disturbing. Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be called for interviews than were those with black-sounding names. Interviews were requested for 10.1 percent of applicants with white-sounding names and only 6.7 percent of those with black-sounding names.

Maybe they couldn't pronounce the names. Lol. What are "black" names anyways? I've met plenty of black people with run of the mill names too. Also, foreigners who aren't black can also have some pretty odd names. So? What does this mean? Probably not much. Some people are going to get a job and some will be passed over. That's life. I am white with a white name, and I've been passed over for jobs too.

The Aricanization of names in the form of names that have never existed in their culture or ours stems from the countercultural black power movement. They protested white culture by getting rid of their "slave name" and refused to name their children any name that resembled "whiteness." Therefore, Africanized names are a means to resist/rebel against white culture. Thus, a child with an Africanized name is much more likely to have been taught that white people are evil and are much more likely to have been raised by parents who are just plain ignorant. So if Sally and Shaquanda have the same credentials you should choose Sally every time. Even is Shaquandas credentials are slightly better than Sallys, Sally is still the safe bet. Shaquanda is much more likely to identify with her race and assume all her ills are due to racism in the workplace. Furthermore, once you hire Shaquanda only to find out she has a poor work ethic, good luck trying to fire her. Remember, Africanized names are a form of protest. That's exactly what you will get when you hire Shaquanda.

 

[ChrisL]

1 in 10 still support discrimination against African-Americans on religious grounds MSNBC

http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl?md=read;id=1177
To test whether employers discriminate against black job applicants, Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago and Sendhil Mullainathan of M.I.T. conducted an unusual experiment. They selected 1,300 help-wanted ads from newspapers in Boston and Chicago and submitted multiple r�sum�s from phantom job seekers. The researchers randomly assigned the first names on the r�sum�s, choosing from one set that is particularly common among blacks and from another that is common among whites.

So Kristen and Tamika, and Brad and Tyrone, applied for jobs from the same pool of want ads and had equivalent r�sum�s. Nine names were selected to represent each category: black women, white women, black men and white men. Last names common to the racial group were also assigned. Four r�sum�s were typically submitted for each job opening, drawn from a reservoir of 160. Nearly 5,000 applications were submitted from mid-2001 to mid-2002. Professors Bertrand and Mullainathan kept track of which candidates were invited for job interviews.

No single employer was sent two identical r�sum�s, and the names on the r�sum�s were randomly assigned, so applicants with black- and white-sounding names applied for the same set of jobs with the same set of r�sum�s.

Apart from their names, applicants had the same experience, education and skills, so employers had no reason to distinguish among them.

The results are disturbing. Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be called for interviews than were those with black-sounding names. Interviews were requested for 10.1 percent of applicants with white-sounding names and only 6.7 percent of those with black-sounding names.

Maybe they couldn't pronounce the names. Lol. What are "black" names anyways? I've met plenty of black people with run of the mill names too. Also, foreigners who aren't black can also have some pretty odd names. So? What does this mean? Probably not much. Some people are going to get a job and some will be passed over. That's life. I am white with a white name, and I've been passed over for jobs too.

The Aricanization of names in the form of names that have never existed in their culture or ours stems from the countercultural black power movement. They protested white culture by getting rid of their "slave name" and refused to name their children any name that resembled "whiteness." Therefore, Africanized names are a means to resist/rebel against white culture. Thus, a child with an Africanized name is much more likely to have been taught that white people are evil and are much more likely to have been raised by parents who are just plain ignorant. So if Sally and Shaquanda have the same credentials you should choose Sally every time. Even is Shaquandas credentials are slightly better than Sallys, Sally is still the safe bet. Shaquanda is much more likely to identify with her race and assume all her ills are due to racism in the workplace. Furthermore, once you hire Shaquanda only to find out she has a poor work ethic, good luck trying to fire her.

Okay, I see what you're saying, but I wouldn't assume that about Shaquanda. She might be a great worker. Just because her parents decided to name her Shaquanda does not necessarily mean that. It could be that they just wanted to her to have a unique name. Plenty of white celebrities do this . . . Moon Zappa, amongst others. Lol.

 

[Publius1787]

1 in 10 still support discrimination against African-Americans on religious grounds MSNBC

http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl?md=read;id=1177
To test whether employers discriminate against black job applicants, Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago and Sendhil Mullainathan of M.I.T. conducted an unusual experiment. They selected 1,300 help-wanted ads from newspapers in Boston and Chicago and submitted multiple r�sum�s from phantom job seekers. The researchers randomly assigned the first names on the r�sum�s, choosing from one set that is particularly common among blacks and from another that is common among whites.

So Kristen and Tamika, and Brad and Tyrone, applied for jobs from the same pool of want ads and had equivalent r�sum�s. Nine names were selected to represent each category: black women, white women, black men and white men. Last names common to the racial group were also assigned. Four r�sum�s were typically submitted for each job opening, drawn from a reservoir of 160. Nearly 5,000 applications were submitted from mid-2001 to mid-2002. Professors Bertrand and Mullainathan kept track of which candidates were invited for job interviews.

No single employer was sent two identical r�sum�s, and the names on the r�sum�s were randomly assigned, so applicants with black- and white-sounding names applied for the same set of jobs with the same set of r�sum�s.

Apart from their names, applicants had the same experience, education and skills, so employers had no reason to distinguish among them.

The results are disturbing. Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be called for interviews than were those with black-sounding names. Interviews were requested for 10.1 percent of applicants with white-sounding names and only 6.7 percent of those with black-sounding names.

Maybe they couldn't pronounce the names. Lol. What are "black" names anyways? I've met plenty of black people with run of the mill names too. Also, foreigners who aren't black can also have some pretty odd names. So? What does this mean? Probably not much. Some people are going to get a job and some will be passed over. That's life. I am white with a white name, and I've been passed over for jobs too.

The Aricanization of names in the form of names that have never existed in their culture or ours stems from the countercultural black power movement. They protested white culture by getting rid of their "slave name" and refused to name their children any name that resembled "whiteness." Therefore, Africanized names are a means to resist/rebel against white culture. Thus, a child with an Africanized name is much more likely to have been taught that white people are evil and are much more likely to have been raised by parents who are just plain ignorant. So if Sally and Shaquanda have the same credentials you should choose Sally every time. Even is Shaquandas credentials are slightly better than Sallys, Sally is still the safe bet. Shaquanda is much more likely to identify with her race and assume all her ills are due to racism in the workplace. Furthermore, once you hire Shaquanda only to find out she has a poor work ethic, good luck trying to fire her.

Okay, I see what you're saying, but I wouldn't assume that about Shaquanda. She might be a great worker. Just because her parents decided to name her Shaquanda does not necessarily mean that. It could be that they just wanted to her to have a unique name. Plenty of white celebrities do this . . . Moon Zappa, amongst others. Lol.

White celebrities are not white middle class workers. And time = money. The entire hiring process comes at a net loss to a business. Thus, you first call in those whose resumes are imminently qualified for the job and you interview until the position is filled. If you're playing the odds you should call in Sally. Sally is almost guaranteed to speak proper English, conform to work rules, and not assume that her employer is a racist scum when things don't go the way she planned. If Sally doesn't work out it will be easy to fire her. It will be impossible to fire Shaquanda if your EO quota is not met or barely met. I've worked for a number of employers who couldn't fire a black worker because of his skin color. No matter how much money was lost, they kept him on for fear of a discrimination complaint.

 

[ChrisL]

1 in 10 still support discrimination against African-Americans on religious grounds MSNBC

http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl?md=read;id=1177
To test whether employers discriminate against black job applicants, Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago and Sendhil Mullainathan of M.I.T. conducted an unusual experiment. They selected 1,300 help-wanted ads from newspapers in Boston and Chicago and submitted multiple r�sum�s from phantom job seekers. The researchers randomly assigned the first names on the r�sum�s, choosing from one set that is particularly common among blacks and from another that is common among whites.

So Kristen and Tamika, and Brad and Tyrone, applied for jobs from the same pool of want ads and had equivalent r�sum�s. Nine names were selected to represent each category: black women, white women, black men and white men. Last names common to the racial group were also assigned. Four r�sum�s were typically submitted for each job opening, drawn from a reservoir of 160. Nearly 5,000 applications were submitted from mid-2001 to mid-2002. Professors Bertrand and Mullainathan kept track of which candidates were invited for job interviews.

No single employer was sent two identical r�sum�s, and the names on the r�sum�s were randomly assigned, so applicants with black- and white-sounding names applied for the same set of jobs with the same set of r�sum�s.

Apart from their names, applicants had the same experience, education and skills, so employers had no reason to distinguish among them.

The results are disturbing. Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be called for interviews than were those with black-sounding names. Interviews were requested for 10.1 percent of applicants with white-sounding names and only 6.7 percent of those with black-sounding names.

Maybe they couldn't pronounce the names. Lol. What are "black" names anyways? I've met plenty of black people with run of the mill names too. Also, foreigners who aren't black can also have some pretty odd names. So? What does this mean? Probably not much. Some people are going to get a job and some will be passed over. That's life. I am white with a white name, and I've been passed over for jobs too.

The Aricanization of names in the form of names that have never existed in their culture or ours stems from the countercultural black power movement. They protested white culture by getting rid of their "slave name" and refused to name their children any name that resembled "whiteness." Therefore, Africanized names are a means to resist/rebel against white culture. Thus, a child with an Africanized name is much more likely to have been taught that white people are evil and are much more likely to have been raised by parents who are just plain ignorant. So if Sally and Shaquanda have the same credentials you should choose Sally every time. Even is Shaquandas credentials are slightly better than Sallys, Sally is still the safe bet. Shaquanda is much more likely to identify with her race and assume all her ills are due to racism in the workplace. Furthermore, once you hire Shaquanda only to find out she has a poor work ethic, good luck trying to fire her.

Okay, I see what you're saying, but I wouldn't assume that about Shaquanda. She might be a great worker. Just because her parents decided to name her Shaquanda does not necessarily mean that. It could be that they just wanted to her to have a unique name. Plenty of white celebrities do this . . . Moon Zappa, amongst others. Lol.

White celebrities are not white middle class workers. And time = money. The entire hiring process comes at a net loss to a business. Thus, you first call in those whose resumes are imminently qualified for the job and you interview until the position is filled. If you're playing the odds you should call in Sally. Sally is almost guaranteed to speak proper English, conform to work rules, and not assume that her employer is a racist scum when things don't go the way she planned. If Sally doesn't work out it will be easy to fire her. It will be impossible to fire Shaquanda if your EO quota is not met or barely met. I've worked for a number of employers who couldn't fire a black worker because of his skin color. No matter how much money was lost, they kept him on for fear of a discrimination complaint.

Well, I agree that it should not be that way. However, I still wouldn't completely rule out the one with the more odd name. This is also where interviews come in handy. You call Sally and Shaquanda in for an interview. Then decide. Don't just write off Shaquanda because of her odd name though.

 

[Publius1787]

1 in 10 still support discrimination against African-Americans on religious grounds MSNBC

http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl?md=read;id=1177
To test whether employers discriminate against black job applicants, Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago and Sendhil Mullainathan of M.I.T. conducted an unusual experiment. They selected 1,300 help-wanted ads from newspapers in Boston and Chicago and submitted multiple r�sum�s from phantom job seekers. The researchers randomly assigned the first names on the r�sum�s, choosing from one set that is particularly common among blacks and from another that is common among whites.

So Kristen and Tamika, and Brad and Tyrone, applied for jobs from the same pool of want ads and had equivalent r�sum�s. Nine names were selected to represent each category: black women, white women, black men and white men. Last names common to the racial group were also assigned. Four r�sum�s were typically submitted for each job opening, drawn from a reservoir of 160. Nearly 5,000 applications were submitted from mid-2001 to mid-2002. Professors Bertrand and Mullainathan kept track of which candidates were invited for job interviews.

No single employer was sent two identical r�sum�s, and the names on the r�sum�s were randomly assigned, so applicants with black- and white-sounding names applied for the same set of jobs with the same set of r�sum�s.

Apart from their names, applicants had the same experience, education and skills, so employers had no reason to distinguish among them.

The results are disturbing. Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be called for interviews than were those with black-sounding names. Interviews were requested for 10.1 percent of applicants with white-sounding names and only 6.7 percent of those with black-sounding names.

Maybe they couldn't pronounce the names. Lol. What are "black" names anyways? I've met plenty of black people with run of the mill names too. Also, foreigners who aren't black can also have some pretty odd names. So? What does this mean? Probably not much. Some people are going to get a job and some will be passed over. That's life. I am white with a white name, and I've been passed over for jobs too.

The Aricanization of names in the form of names that have never existed in their culture or ours stems from the countercultural black power movement. They protested white culture by getting rid of their "slave name" and refused to name their children any name that resembled "whiteness." Therefore, Africanized names are a means to resist/rebel against white culture. Thus, a child with an Africanized name is much more likely to have been taught that white people are evil and are much more likely to have been raised by parents who are just plain ignorant. So if Sally and Shaquanda have the same credentials you should choose Sally every time. Even is Shaquandas credentials are slightly better than Sallys, Sally is still the safe bet. Shaquanda is much more likely to identify with her race and assume all her ills are due to racism in the workplace. Furthermore, once you hire Shaquanda only to find out she has a poor work ethic, good luck trying to fire her.

Okay, I see what you're saying, but I wouldn't assume that about Shaquanda. She might be a great worker. Just because her parents decided to name her Shaquanda does not necessarily mean that. It could be that they just wanted to her to have a unique name. Plenty of white celebrities do this . . . Moon Zappa, amongst others. Lol.

White celebrities are not white middle class workers. And time = money. The entire hiring process comes at a net loss to a business. Thus, you first call in those whose resumes are imminently qualified for the job and you interview until the position is filled. If you're playing the odds you should call in Sally. Sally is almost guaranteed to speak proper English, conform to work rules, and not assume that her employer is a racist scum when things don't go the way she planned. If Sally doesn't work out it will be easy to fire her. It will be impossible to fire Shaquanda if your EO quota is not met or barely met. I've worked for a number of employers who couldn't fire a black worker because of his skin color. No matter how much money was lost, they kept him on for fear of a discrimination complaint.

Well, I agree that it should not be that way. However, I still wouldn't completely rule out the one with the more odd name. This is also where interviews come in handy. You call Sally and Shaquanda in for an interview. Then decide. Don't just write off Shaquanda because of her odd name though.

Indeed it is wrong. But its playing the odds. And the odds are always in favor of Sally over Shaquanda.