|
Post by Fingerplucked on Nov 16, 2012 12:29:23 GMT -5
One more time, for the record... when an individual makes negative assumptions about another individual based on their race and some survey, that's racism in my book. Mine too. Although that might be because we read on Kindles.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Nov 16, 2012 12:48:02 GMT -5
Just one of those niggles: "Hispanic" is about as useful a label for a bunch of people as "white" or "black," since all it indicates is that one's cultural/ethnic/national-background group spoke (or still speaks) Spanish. Or, if one is really sloppy and ignorant, Portuguese. As different as USians, Canadians, Brits, Aussies, and Kiwis are, it's nothing compared to the range of cultural and ethnic differences among Spanish speakers. For an easy starting point, note the voting differences between Cuban and other "Hispanic" groups in Florida.
We need more precise language to talk about the way we use group labels to characterize each other--starting with understanding the map and the territory or the label and the object on which it is pasted.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 16, 2012 13:05:23 GMT -5
Just one of those niggles: "Hispanic" is about as useful a label for a bunch of people as "white" or "black," since all it indicates is that one's cultural/ethnic/national-background group spoke (or still speaks) Spanish. Hispanics, as a race (which they are not -- discussion for another day)
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 16, 2012 13:07:06 GMT -5
One more time, for the record... when an individual makes negative assumptions about another individual based on their race and some survey, that's racism in my book. Mine too. Although that might be because we read on Kindles. Well, it certainly goes a long way toward explaining Republican's "racist" problem. If all that's required to make me a racist is to guess that the random black person is probably a Democrat, then the bar is so low, I don't know how to not trip over it.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Nov 16, 2012 13:46:58 GMT -5
Mine too. Although that might be because we read on Kindles. Well, it certainly goes a long way toward explaining Republican's "racist" problem. If all that's required to make me a racist is to guess that the random black person is probably a Democrat, then the bar is so low, I don't know how to not trip over it. I'm really more interested in the last question I asked you. If this was the first time you took a swipe at me and then ignored me when I asked you what it was about, I'd just forget about it. But you've been doing this for a while. Months, I think. It's starting to feel very personal. As far as your post here . . . . Why would you assume a black person is a Democrat? Betting odds? Statistically speaking, that wouldn't be a bad bet. You'd be right most of the time. You'd also piss off blacks with the assumption, even when you're right. But more times than not, you'd be correct in your assumption, since Republicans have been so good at excluding blacks.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 16, 2012 13:50:32 GMT -5
since Republicans have been so good at excluding blacks. That's 160 degrees backwards. There is nothing whatsoever exclusionary to blacks in Republican policies. It's the opposite. The Republicans simply don't make blacks an exceptional case -- as the don't make Asians, Hispanics, or any other racial group. That's not excluding. It's blacks that have decided against Republicans. Not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 16, 2012 13:54:03 GMT -5
You'd be right most of the time. You'd also piss off blacks with the assumption, even when you're right. Why? Why would it piss them off if I assumed they voted Democratic? Are you saying they don't understand math and statistics? If you mean it would piss off the few who do not vote Democratic? It probably does. It probably pisses them off that the Democratic Party looks at them as a needy block of can't-achievers. That's the few who resent the racial politics of the Democratic Party. Not the Republican Party.
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Nov 16, 2012 13:55:02 GMT -5
Oh, for God's sake... it has nothing to do with whether "black" or "Hispanic" is a race in technical terms. It has to do with people imposing prejudicial views on another person or group of persons based on their skin color and ethnic background. It has to do with stereotyping individuals by making suppositions as to what they think because of how they look. It's exactly how prejudice and divisiveness among the peoples of this planet are fed. AND WHEN YOU DECIDE SOMEONE IS LESS THAN YOU BASED ON THEIR SKIN TONE AND FEATURES, IT'S RACISM!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 16, 2012 13:56:15 GMT -5
The judgement of a person's political affiliation is not a judgement of superiority or inferiority.
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Nov 16, 2012 14:09:00 GMT -5
The judgement of a person's political affiliation is not a judgement of superiority or inferiority. No, but in this context, the refusal to do business with a person based on a supposition of their affiliation because of their "race" is.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Nov 16, 2012 14:16:03 GMT -5
Lonnie, one of the problems with overuse of "racism" is that it is actually a subset of the larger category "bigotry," not all varieties of which are rooted in skin color. One of my grandfathers was an enthusiastic anti-Catholic. Didn't matter whether the Catholic in question was a mick or a spick or a dago, whoever they were, he was agin 'em. (Of course, he probably had issues with dark-skinned folk as well, but I lack evidence of that. He was a nasty piece of work in general.)
Contemporary America has all kinds of hostilities and resentments and suspicious of the Other, most of which trace back to easy-to-spot Otherness as signalled by skin tone or other physiognomic traits. But beneath those lurk more complex (often mixed) feelings about more complex kinds of Otherness. It's not just an exercise in academic fussiness to pick these things apart, if only so that one's scorn can be heaped on the proper heads in the appropriate amounts.
BTW, the first segment of last night's Daily Show seems to me to apply to much of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 16, 2012 14:20:13 GMT -5
Yep. And regarding this: Yes. We can grasp this. I'm with you. But I also have to agree that the GOP has a race problem. The party is not racist. Most of the people in the party are not racist, but they have the problem nonetheless, mostly, I think, because their radical fringe, which is way too high profile and not nearly fringe enough for most people, skirt on the edges (and sometimes cross the line) of racism a lot, and the mainstream high-profile Republicans let them get away with it. If the leadership of the GOP would denounce the nuts, and drive them to a third party where they belong, it would solve the problem. And it may very well have changed this last election. But you just can't let Rush, Beck, Robertson, Coulter, etc. appear to speak for you without getting the stink of them all over you. And when, out of fear of political repercussions, you have a field of presidential hopefuls just a slight notch less nutty than Rush, Beck, Robertson, etc, it doen't really matter if you understand that in the end you'll nominate the moderate. You've got the stink all over you. Republican = racist is grossly unfair. But Republicans are not innocent in the creation of that perception. Tim Just like Democratic's patriotism problem. Not based in reality, but crafted by the opposition and a handy way to avoid discussing things rationally. I'm trying to be rational, honest. Do Democrats have a patriotism problem? I didn't know. Is it because lots of prominent Democrats in the media, and even a few in Congress, have said lots of outrageous, inflamatory, anti-American things and the overwhelming majority of mainstream Democratic politicians have failed to say they were wrong? If so, yes, it's the same thing. Tim
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Nov 16, 2012 14:20:55 GMT -5
You'd be right most of the time. You'd also piss off blacks with the assumption, even when you're right. Why? Why would it piss them off if I assumed they voted Democratic? Are you saying they don't understand math and statistics? Maybe for the same reason that somebody assuming that because you're a conservative that means you're a Republican which means you're a racist? Do they understand math and statistics? I don't know. I'm still trying to figure out the guy who thinks that because somebody else said something, it means that I said it and that I was "the only one in the room," but no, he doesn't mean me, he means the other guy who wasn't in the room, but don't worry, he's not blaming me, but then yes he is and he's sick of my bullshit and driving Jeff and all the other Jeffs away.
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Nov 16, 2012 14:32:48 GMT -5
Russell, I understand that completely. I am speaking about this incident and the racial element, and the subtle ways racism is sustained.
White couple won't do business with Democrats... walk into the artist's lair. Artist is a person of color... assumption is made that artist is Democrat because of color, couple leaves. Had they asked him who he votes for, it would be a whole different story.
Artist goes home with $1,800 (I think that was the original figure... whatever) less than he would have made. Had the artist been white, would the couple have asked his political affiliation before writing the check? Probably not, but there is no way of knowing.
When a person's skin color is the only determining factor in who that person is, and someone acts on that, then it is bigotry based on race, regardless of any other factors.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Nov 16, 2012 14:52:24 GMT -5
While the Republicans see the Democratic party as the party of racism as they treat the minorities as not good enough to get by with out help. So letting your partisanship show. Nobody gets by without help, Doug. Nobody. That's one thing that Republicans haven't been able to grasp so far. As a generalization, Republicans are prejudiced against minorities. Also as a generalization, Democrats are prejudiced in favor of minorities. The two will argue endlessly about who is right and who is or isn't prejudiced. Minorities, meanwhile, are still disadvantaged. Until minorities have just as much a chance at success as the majority, the debate will continue. As a generalization Democrats are prejudiced against minorities. Supporting affirmative action is saying minorities are inferior. While Democrats perception is that Republicans are prejudiced is like the perception that Democrats are soft on crime or defense. While some Republicans are personally prejudiced the Democrats are using the law to enforce their prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Nov 16, 2012 14:55:06 GMT -5
When it's done by law it's still bigotry. Affirmative action.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2012 15:53:05 GMT -5
About affirmative action. "How can a company be an affirmative action and equal opportunity employer? Affirmation action happens before equal opportunity. These companies are required to take intentional steps to bring members of historically under-represented groups into the workforce. These steps are the “affirmative actions” that make sure protected groups – women, minorities, veterans, and individuals with disabilities – are in the competition for a job. Once the competition begins, people must be hired based on job-related factors. For example: To develop a diverse pool of candidates for an engineering position, a manufacturer offers scholarships to minorities attending RIT, advertises the job with the local chapter of the Society of Women Engineers, and reaches out to a vocational specialist at the Veterans Outreach Center. That is the affirmative action part. Job seekers apply. The company reviews résumés, conducts phone screens, interviews candidates, and ultimately makes an offer. The decisions about who to phone screen, interview or hire are based on factors like education and prior work experience. Protected characteristics, like race, are not considered. This is equal opportunity." www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20121028/OPINION02/310280018?nclick_check=1
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 16, 2012 16:03:07 GMT -5
Having been a hiring manager for a large corporation I can assure you that that's not how it's done. You get to hire the best qualified applicant from the group you're short in. There was always an affirmative action component to hiring as well as firing. A disabled black female veteran with a BS would come before a white guy with a PhD every time. She'd be worth 4 points.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 17, 2012 18:27:38 GMT -5
Having been a hiring manager for a large corporation I can assure you that that's not how it's done. You get to hire the best qualified applicant from the group you're short in. There was always an affirmative action component to hiring as well as firing. A disabled black female veteran with a BS would come before a white guy with a PhD every time. She'd be worth 4 points. I don't know who you've worked for but I've been a hiring manager at a few large corporations and this is not my experience. Tim
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 17, 2012 20:17:45 GMT -5
Having been a hiring manager for a large corporation I can assure you that that's not how it's done. You get to hire the best qualified applicant from the group you're short in. There was always an affirmative action component to hiring as well as firing. A disabled black female veteran with a BS would come before a white guy with a PhD every time. She'd be worth 4 points. I don't know who you've worked for but I've been a hiring manager at a few large corporations and this is not my experience. Tim I had a lot of help getting as jaded as I am. I don't think I ever said it was fun working where I worked. It just paid well.
|
|