[quote]redsol1 wrote:
Either I’m an Idiot because i’m not articulating my position correctly, or I’m an Idiot because my position isn’t correct. Either way, i’m starting to feal like an Idiot.
Like I said, I’d like to reconsider my position on our African Buisnessman.
La’
Redsol1[/quote]
I don`t think so. If he hired a black African but not a black American obviously race is not his problem?
[quote]orion wrote:
redsol1 wrote:
Either I’m an Idiot because i’m not articulating my position correctly, or I’m an Idiot because my position isn’t correct. Either way, i’m starting to feal like an Idiot.
Like I said, I’d like to reconsider my position on our African Buisnessman.
La’
Redsol1
I don`t think so. If he hired a black African but not a black American obviously race is not his problem?[/quote]
If the issue was simply that one was “American” without the color restriction that would mean race is not his problem. I love how hard you all try to leave that part out. The man isn’t against Americans or whites who grew up in the same conditions as many black Americans. Just the black guys. If race was a non-issue, that would not be the case.
This is getting old.
It has long been known in the black community that many Africans consider us less than them because our genes have been “diluted” from years of slavery and being Americanized. His opinion is not news. The fact that many of you claim he isn’t being racist is. Many Africans see black Americans as a seperate RACE from them. This is not applied to all Africans, however.
Only here does skin color alone get blanketed over entire populations of people when there are middle easterners who could pass for “black” in this country.
Chris Rock is a funny dude, and he’s spot on with his observations.
[quote]boomerlu wrote:
For some reason I feel like this would be more of a problem with lower level jobs.
It just doesn’t seem like this kind of thing would happen with higher level jobs where ability/degrees from prestigious universities would be valued.
I see the “I’ll discriminate against American Blacks” type of deal happening mostly with jobs that accept people with minimal experience/resume.
Granted, there was that study that used “black names” and “white name” which is actually quite disturbing, but still…
Can you really see any law firm for example rejecting a guy who’s got a degree from e.g. Yale Law school just because he’s black?
That seems completely stupid nowadays.[/quote]
Well heres my expierence.
I have a dual degree, engineering/finance froma fairly prestigous NE university. I get recruited by a design firm in VA. The recruiter loved me and set up a phone interview w/ the manager id be working for. We talked on the phone for almost an hour and 15 min. He basically offered me the job. i had to go down and they would show me the operation, meet the co workers. and recieve a formal offer. 1 week later i take a train ride to va, go in fill out the paperwork and get ushered to the office. When i get there the secretary was like" YOU have an appointment?" “yes , i talked w/ bill on the phone” 2 minutes later bill comes out and the first words out of his mouth were “I didnt know you were black”
Needless to say they found “another qualified canidate”.
You see today they dont say “we dont hire blacks” They say “it wasnt a good fit, or he wasnt what we were looking for, or it wasnt right for the team”
At most companies here in philly, you’ll see blacks in lower level jobs, but in middle and upper mgmt, few if any.
In many places youll find managers w/o degrees managing black folk w/ degrees.
Racisim??? maybe but if it kept you from a higher paying job, and all of the things that would go with that how would you think?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
If the issue was simply that one was “American” without the color restriction that would mean race is not his problem. I love how hard you all try to leave that part out. The man isn’t against Americans or whites who grew up in the same conditions as many black Americans. Just the black guys.[/quote]
That’s not true, he clearly defined blacks and hispanics.
Unless it is only the case because of Chris Rock/TheSicilian. TheSicilian’s Ghanese friend could’ve easily gone on to explain his disdain for white trash as well. He could even be a ‘Dirty Harry’ type racist, but that’s not relevant to the Chris Rock clip.
Not to those of us who don’t experience it.
It is to some of us.
Are you saying that black Americans aren’t a separate race than black Africans? So the Ghanese man is discriminating against someone of his own race, just from another country?
I don’t quite get the relevance of ‘black middle easterners’ just as many of them fit the ‘white’ description, but ‘white’ gets blanketed equally as much here. There is no ‘white’ race.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Are you saying that black Americans aren’t a separate race than black Africans? So the Ghanese man is discriminating against someone of his own race, just from another country?[/quote]
Are you saying Black Americans ARE a seperate race from Black Africans?
[quote]
I don’t quite get the relevance of ‘black middle easterners’ just as many of them fit the ‘white’ description, but ‘white’ gets blanketed equally as much here. There is no ‘white’ race.[/quote]
Just as there is no “black race” yet in America, jobs are in the balance based on perception of race with it all coming down to simple skin color the majority of the time. Therefore, regardless of what anyone personally considers “race”, in America, perception seems to rule all. There are people in my extended family who could ‘pass’ for white. Therefore, if someone is racist towards “blacks”, they would not receive the brunt end of it. Considering the majority vs the minority, clearly the issue isn’t just what scientificallly is or isn’t.
Also, as far as this:
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Professor X wrote:
His opinion is not news.
It is to some of us.[/quote]
Then perhaps you should type less and listen more.
[quote]PGA200X wrote:
Ha ha, brilliant!
The thing that bugs me is when a conflict erupts between two different ethnic groups albeit major or minor and the authority in question is white (i.e. school teacher, police officer, etc) and the person in question is black, media jumps on this and turns it into a racist conflict (Sharpton, J. Jackson etc) rather than A conflict (despite the evidence against him or in fact not even revealed totally for fear of no media story). But when the roles are reversed and the authority in is black and the person in question is white, there is less of a media focus. I find that a lot of disruptive students in school are wise to this and begin to play “victim” to race whenever confronted for bad behavior and the teacher is left powerless for fear of losing his job.
Unfortunately this is an issue that will never be resolved. Be it skin color, place of birth, or some other irrelevant attribute, people (read: all people) will always harbor some form of racism, bigotry, xenophobia, whatever.
The level of racism (etc) may not reach the height of Hitler or fascism reach the height of Bin Laden, but it will be there, and hopefully it can be suppressed by other more powerful virtues.
I would call the guy racist (among other things) but I also feel sorry for him.
I would put him on par with man who hires American blacks because they are American blacks and can’t make it own there own merits. Both can be seen as racist. It places one type of individual’s worth (or perceived worth) below another based on skin color: even if it is only one factor, it’s still a determining factor.
[quote]boomerlu wrote:
Granted, there was that study that used “black names” and “white name” which is actually quite disturbing, but still…[/quote]
I think I actually read an analysis of that study that seemed to suggest the “black name vs white name” was more a case of corellation vs. causation.
I think the book “Blink” by Malcolm Gladwell talked about this and concluded that black people born in upper-class families who had “black” names were as likely to suceed (educationally, economically) as ones with “white” names.
Now I guess whether that conclusion is right or not is up for debate.
It really truly is a sad thing that racism exists in this country. Obviously being a white male I don’t really experience this all too much, but sometimes when I hang out with a different crowd then I’m used to (my normal “crowd” is pretty mixed ethnically and religiously) I see it and it annoys me.
I mean shit, we can all make jokes about other people in the name of having a good time, but when people legitimately hate other groups of people for no reason… I almost feel sorry for them because they’re still living with an outdated, ignorant mindset.
Just a few quick observations:
When Black Americans refer to the ‘black community’ as acting or moving in a particular way, does that run afoul of the ‘racist’ test?
If someone chooses not to hire someone because of the skin color in order to fulfill an Affirmative Action mandate, is it racist or not?
If pickup ball is being played at the local gym, and someone doesn’t get chosen by a team of blacks to play because he is white (under the usual assumptions), is the white person entitled to brand the blacks as ‘racists’?
These aren’t loaded - I am genuinely curious as to what people think.
These questions may never be resolved, but I think they are important, given the context of the comments here.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Just a few quick observations:
I’ll answer this one for you and leave the others to someone else. For one, I recognize that I have to make my own way in life. However, I also realize, from past experiences, that making my way can be hindered by people in more powerful positions based on their assumption of me based on race. Thus the drive to be one of those in a powerful position.
Because of that, and based on my personal values as far as community service, I see what others like me will be up against.
In other words, if there were no racism against me or people who are similar to me based on skin color alone, there would be no need to focus on us all as a group when it comes to FIGHTING IT.
I am a little surprised that needed an explanation.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
redsol1 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
None of what was written had anything to do with attire. If that was the issue, skin color wouldn’t even be mentioned. It has everything to do with racism if you stop hiring blacks born in America because of “collective actions” (like you wrote). You can play hop-scotch around it for days and it won’t change what was wriotten earlier. I am very interested now in what your definition of “racism” is because it doesn’t seem to coincide with Webster’s.
My definition of racism: Hating or discriminating against someone based on their country of origin or color of their skin.
So, this is different from our discriminating African how?
The origional statement was that the buisness man filtered (Or descriminated) based on the ACTIONS (perceived or real) of a group of people. The common denominator of this group of people was there race, race was not the deciding criteria of the filter. I never said that the buisness mans decisions were right, i said that they weren’t racism.
Bullshit. No man could possibly know my actions based on my skin color or the place of my birth. That means his attempt to weed out any American blacks is nothing but a term we use by the sobriquet “racism”.
Now, given your statement “It has everything to do with racism if you stop hiring blacks born in America because of “collective actions” (like you wrote).”, I believe I need to reconsider my origional ideas on this topic. I still hold the belief that because a black (Or hispanic, asian, white) person is discriminated against does not automatical mean it’s racism.
If they are being discriminated against BECAUSE they are a certain color born in a certain area, it is very much RACISM. I am wondering what education you received personally that is allowing you to gloss right over glowing radiant racism as if it isn’t there. I find this truly amazing that you can be blind to blatant displays of it. What a surprise, I must add, as I never would have expected such ridiculous perception existed in this country
[/sarcasm][/quote]
Reading Comprehension ftw. He used a definition including country of origin. This case would be more like discriminative nationalism.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Just a few quick observations:
I’ll answer this one for you and leave the others to someone else. For one, I recognize that I have to make my own way in life. However, I also realize, from past experiences, that making my way can be hindered by people in more powerful positions based on their assumption of me based on race. Thus the drive to be one of those in a powerful position.
Because of that, and based on my personal values as far as community service, I see what others like me will be up against.
In other words, if there were no racism against me or people who are similar to me based on skin color alone, there would be no need to focus on us all as a group when it comes to FIGHTING IT.
I am a little surprised that needed an explanation.[/quote]
Interesting thoughts, but it didn’t answer the question.
When a black person refers to the ‘black community’ doing something, under your definition of ‘racist’ - is it ‘racist’?
Seems like it would be.
[quote]Leafblighter wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Leafblighter wrote:
I think Redsol’s point is this:
The man is willing to hire black people, just not “americanized” black people (whatever that means). Therefore his position is not racist even though he is discriminating. Since it is more of a cultural bias than a color one, the term ethnocentric would probably be more applicable than racist.
If it was a cultural bias, he wouldn’t be hiring AMERICANS. What is with people trying to downplay racism?
“Oh, I just don’t like ‘those’ black people…but the ones from Beverly Hills are OK…and so is everyone else on the planet…just not ‘those’ black people”
If the color is part of the bias, it is a racial issue. You can smack it up, flip it and rub it down any which way you choose but it won’t change what it is.
Maybe if we spice it up with other pretty adjectives we can pretend that it isn’t racist anymore.
Because you can dislike a subpopulation without disliking the main population as a whole. If I dislike an Arkansas hoosier who carries a shotgun wrapped in a confederate flag and screws his sister, that doesn’t make me racist against white people because I hate the subgroup of white people labeled ‘white trash.’
Likewise, this businessman (who is probably black as well considering he is an immigrant from Ghana, a West African country that is 98.5% black) can like one group of black people more than another group of black people without it having anything to do with them being black.
Sounds to me like he just has an issue with people abandoning their heritage.
[/quote]
Holy crap! You just insulted me and my family in almost every sentence you wrote! I am from Arkansas, but i don’t know wtf a hoosier is. I drive around with my shotgun in my truck (no flag) and I do nail my sister on occasion. My wige comes from white trash and my mother is from Ghana. I don’t recall ever being so “roundly” offended in my life. Kudos to you!
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Just a few quick observations:
I’ll answer this one for you and leave the others to someone else. For one, I recognize that I have to make my own way in life. However, I also realize, from past experiences, that making my way can be hindered by people in more powerful positions based on their assumption of me based on race. Thus the drive to be one of those in a powerful position.
Because of that, and based on my personal values as far as community service, I see what others like me will be up against.
In other words, if there were no racism against me or people who are similar to me based on skin color alone, there would be no need to focus on us all as a group when it comes to FIGHTING IT.
I am a little surprised that needed an explanation.
Interesting thoughts, but it didn’t answer the question.
When a black person refers to the ‘black community’ doing something, under your definition of ‘racist’ - is it ‘racist’?
Seems like it would be.[/quote]
Then yes. To fight racism as a group, it would fall under a ‘racist action’ much like the Civil rights movement. To relate that to empowered discrimination is a leap I truly hope you aren’t trying to make.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Leafblighter wrote:
I think Redsol’s point is this:
The man is willing to hire black people, just not “americanized” black people (whatever that means). Therefore his position is not racist even though he is discriminating. Since it is more of a cultural bias than a color one, the term ethnocentric would probably be more applicable than racist.
If it was a cultural bias, he wouldn’t be hiring AMERICANS. What is with people trying to downplay racism?
“Oh, I just don’t like ‘those’ black people…but the ones from Beverly Hills are OK…and so is everyone else on the planet…just not ‘those’ black people”
If the color is part of the bias, it is a racial issue. You can smack it up, flip it and rub it down any which way you choose but it won’t change what it is.
Maybe if we spice it up with other pretty adjectives we can pretend that it isn’t racist anymore. [/quote]
What the hell is your point?! Okay, we’ll call it racism, now can we spend a few minutes on the original point of the post.
“I’ve come for an argument.”
“No you haven’t”
“It’s merely contradiction”
It’s like a fucking Monty Python sketch with you.
RACISM - Common sense dictates its wrong. Not everyone has commone sense. Turn the fucking page.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Are you saying that black Americans aren’t a separate race than black Africans? So the Ghanese man is discriminating against someone of his own race, just from another country?
Are you saying Black Americans ARE a seperate race from Black Africans?[/quote]
I don’t know one way or the other, I asked a question and listened for the answer and didn’t get one (yet).
Really? The primary factor in someone’s employment the majority of the time is their skin color? That’s pretty insulting to a lot of people for a lot of reasons.
When it comes to jobs, that’s always the case even when the candidates are all ‘of the same race’.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Really? The primary factor in someone’s employment the majority of the time is their skin color? That’s pretty insulting to a lot of people for a lot of reasons.[/quote]
Where did I write either “primary factor” or “majority of the time”?