Finance Capitalism = Racism?

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Saying “majorities” are blind to racism and them not believing it’s prevalent (when it is) isn’t different. Also I used most and many interchangeably and I think you are really arguing over semantics.
[/quote]

It is different. By saying “majorities” are blind to racism means that they fail to recognize racism when it happens. Them not believing it’s prevalent means that they think it is not widespread enough to think it’s an issue. These are 2 different things.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

That aside, perhaps its just a cultural difference between Canada and the US. Most whites I’ve talked to would tell you racism isn’t much of an issue here, while most minorities will have the opposite opinion.
[/quote]

There is a huge cultural difference. Canada’s farming economy wasn’t built on the backs of slavery. Canada didn’t have a civil war over slavery. As a matter of fact, our slaves fled to Canada for safety. So yes, I agree there is a significant difference between our countries when it comes to racial tensions.

For sam seed

[quote]sardines12 wrote:
For sam seed

OK. I read and didn’t agree with it.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]NvrTooLate wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]NvrTooLate wrote:
I’ve been in the corporate world now for over 10 years and I’m sorry but I don’t see any racism what so ever.

[/quote]

Are you a minority?[/quote]

Do I need to be?[/quote]

Gee, to notice whether there is racism against minorities that in today’s society is much more covert than people wearing KKK shirts to work? Yeah, probably.

It must be so covert that they’re having the secret meetings without me. I need to review my current “white guy” status.

If you’re saying that we do it on a subconscious level then that’s an argument we should save for another day. I can’t believe I’m spending so much of my free time on this.

The statement that there is no racism in the corporate world based on the perception of a nonminority is simply illogical…unless you truly believe there is no racism in which case you may just be insane minority or not.
[/quote]

Kind Professor, obviously I’m sure there are pockets of racism in the corporate world. I feel strongly that they’re not as wide spread and institutionalized as one may think. In my small sliver of the business world I do notice one color being prevalent over all others…GREEN! If a black female has a stronger sales record than a white male, guess who gets the bonuses the leads and eventually the promotion? No really, take a wild f’ing guess.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]NvrTooLate wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]NvrTooLate wrote:
I’ve been in the corporate world now for over 10 years and I’m sorry but I don’t see any racism what so ever.

[/quote]

Are you a minority?[/quote]

Do I need to be?[/quote]

Gee, to notice whether there is racism against minorities that in today’s society is much more covert than people wearing KKK shirts to work? Yeah, probably.

The statement that there is no racism in the corporate world based on the perception of a nonminority is simply illogical…unless you truly believe there is no racism in which case you may just be insane minority or not.
[/quote]

Most “majorities” are pretty blind to racism. His viewpoint is pretty common. [/quote]

Really Raj? Because I’m white I walk around with my head up my ass all day? I see racism once in a “blue moon” against all ethnicities whether they be white, black, hispanic…

The difference is I don’t rock back and forth in the corner in the fetal position while crying about it.

[quote]sardines12 wrote:
For sam seed

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]kman3b18 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Why would it not be present?

Social networking is not just on facebook. It starts early. Neighborhood or private schools, then college fraternities, then corporate America.

I worked at a mid sized corporation where if you didn’t graduate from Penn State, you were not going anywhere in that company. The entire board and all of the engineers were from PSU.

If companies can be that finicky about diplomas, how do you think they are going to feel about someone from outside of their race?
[/quote]

It’s not just PSU. I have seen the same behavior with Texas A&M grads…and while you can talk all you want about how racist someone has to be growing up, I do believe that school is still only about 3-4% black.

Institutionalized racism does not mean everyone belongs to the KKK.

Also, Eli is right, you would have to be really slow in the head to think that this woman simply arrived at a conclusion with absolutely no basis in fact OR that arguing with the woman as if she is stupid will do anything but make your time harder in that class.

Also, remember on X-Files how the woman playing Scully was getting paid much less than Moulder on the set? Didn’t they both pretty much have equal billing on that show?
[/quote]

Data can be used to misrepresent just about anything, and the feminazis in the country have you thinking exactly what they want with their propaganda.

Just take a look at some of the real facts, where…

  1. Women are not generally in the workforce as long as men, due to several different circumstances, leading to an experience gap, and thus a pay gap.
  2. If there is a glass ceiling, then there must be a glass floor. Feminists want us to believe that there is some huge conspiracy that leads to very few women in high power corporate positions, but there really isn’t. Women just want to be able to hold these types of positions without having the burden of working in other male dominated fields that require high amounts of risk on the job. Seems like quite the double standard.
  3. In the recent economy, the male unemployment rate is greater than the female unemployment by an unprecendented gap.
  4. The majority of social security taxes are paid by men but are disproportionately collected by women, due to their average lifespan in the US being greater by 7 years.

OP, your teacher is a crazy feminist and I would disregard much of the crap that will come out of her mouth, but keep your own mouth shut so that you get your grade.[/quote]

Uh, right…because I am the epitome of a blind follower. The last link I posted showed the gap for specific careers. I also mentioned a very popular tv show with a male/female lead…that I guess you explain away due to Scully not being an actress long enough?

Look, I know there are people with agendas and female domination of the workforce is something I speak on regularly. Hell, I just made a related point in that Combat movie thread…so to whom are you preaching?[/quote]
X,
There are probably better examples than that case. Gillian Anderson was not the star of the show, despite equal billing. If you need proof, look at the careers of the two leads now. Duchovny still has a show, while Anderson is barely recognized on the street anymore. Duchovny was trying to get out of the X-files for a while and the show ultimately ended when the producers let him go.

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]Mascherano wrote:

[quote]OBoile wrote:

While I don’t doubt that racism exists in education, the example you give appears to be discrimination against poor people, not against non-whites. As JoeGood says, that is “classism” not “racism”.
[/quote]

Again, I don’t disagree with this - but in my view, and in terms of “institutionalized racism”, classism is inherently racist since people of color already start off in a disadvantaged position when compared to their peers.
[/quote]
Except that there are plenty of wealthy black people and plenty of poor white people. Labeling classism as racism ignores these groups and therefore is not accurate.[/quote]

It may not be perfectly accurate, but to deny that “classism” can have generationally RACIST effects is just naive. It may have been “classism” when a company first starts its hiring practices, but 20 years later when this is done across many corporations, it will no doubt effect blacks and hispanics on a much larger scale, therefore making is a racial issue as well.

You are using semantics to ignore the overall effects on a grand scale.

White poor people existing does not erase the larger racial effect when looking at THOUSANDS of people.[/quote]

What? Arguing semantics? Is that what you say when you know you’re wrong about something but refuse to admit it?

You are calling what is actually an inherent bias founded in economic stratification RACISM, which is, by the very definition of RACISM, incorrect. Racism is SOCIAL stratification.

From Merriam-Webster’s:
Racism:
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2: racial prejudice or discrimination

Just because the stratification falls along racial lines AT TIMES does not racism make. Racism explicity requires a prejudice based primarily on race. Correlation =/= Causality. Race and class are CORRELATED but certainly not CAUSAL. You want a CAUSAL relationship? Being poor in the present tends to cause being poor in the future.

You are trying to do your usual tapdance around the facts by dismissing what is really relevant evidence that is entirely contradictory to your claims. Appalachia and even much of the rural Southeast demonstrate fairly well that the issues in education and resources are due to inherent CLASSISM. Underperforming schools are underfunded because of a low local tax base, not because any minority is in attendance. This is discrimination based on INCOME, not race. If it were racist (by the DEFINITION of racism, those damned semantics!), then whites in low income areas would somehow be exempt from the ill effects of coming up in a poor area with dysfunctional schools. As proven by Appalachia, parts of the rural Southeast, and destitute areas of the midwest, this is hardly the case, therefor, RACISM is not the culprit.

This bullshit you are spouting off is the typical “blame everyone because we’re black” rhetoric that shuysters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have used to dupe a generation of potentially gifted and talented young Americans into thinking that it’s not their fault because THE SYSTEM is out to get them and that they DESERVE special consideration because of things that never happened to them personally.[/quote]

That was a thoughtful answer Stronghold, and if we are going by the strict definitions of race and class, then I’ll concede that you make a valid point. And i do agree re: your argument on appalachia, which i too cited.

Class stratification, as you state, does indeed intersect with race altho it is not dependent on race. But what you fail to mention is the fact that stratification is a measure of socioeconomic status which is a combination of several factors that include income, education and occupation, as well as the income, education and occupation of a person’s parents.

Now, if you hold that all people of color were and are given the same opportunities to achieve these factors (income, education and occupation) as whites, keeping in mind that blacks only JUST were given the right to vote (civic participation being one of the means to persuade policy reform in the US), then you could say that class and race are indeed mutually exclusive. But it is my belief that based on the historical plight of black people in the US, people of color were not given these same opportunities, and as such, are at a disadvantage and that due to this fact, class is inherently racist.

Is it semantics? Kind of. A Marxist approach would state that the only driving force for social change is based on economics, so class is simply that, an indicator for ones economic position. And even still, as I quoted, Marx stated that popular ideology is based on the views of those individuals who have the means to purport their ideology, which in all cases in the US were white people. However, a Weberian view would assert that ideas, or ideology/culture, is the driving force for social change, such that those racist views (or Protestant ethics more specifically) have permeated all facets of social life, including the division of labor and economics more generally.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that stating that class and race are completely separate based on their definition is a very ahistorical view, and you’d be hard-pressed to make any claims based on definition alone.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]redleg32002000 wrote:

To me though, it seems like the guys in the corporations have to be racist in the first place for this theory to work. Someone has to come from some racist background or upbringing to bring racist practices into the workplace.

Basically I’m saying that the corporations don’t keep racism persisting in this country, it’s the old school prejudices that come from people wanting to build themselves up by putting others down.

Just looking for thoughts.
[/quote]

Yes, powerful consituents of the corporation have to be racist for the corporation as whole to have detrimental effects on a particular race.

Im picturing the boardroom of a hypothetical corporation and Im thinking some assortment of ethnicities but majority white, middle class educated.

Now Im a white middle class liberal but Im racist as the day is long. When I pass a black guy on the street at night I get more nervous than when I pass a white guy. I cant help it, I try and fight it but its there.

If i was making hiring decisions that kind of thought could subconsciously affect my decisions and behavior in ways that Im not even conscious of.

So not hateful KKK upbringings, but merely middle class largely segregated white upbringings makes for some fucked up dynamics in society.[/quote]

Do you have another example of your racist behavior, because that’s hardly racist. And, Middle Class folks aren’t sitting in boardrooms they’re in the field or accountants not the board.[/quote]

You’re being obtuse. What boardroom are you talking about? There are thousands of midsize companies with middle class citizens on their BOD. If we’re talking Fortune 500 companies, well then, yeah, the board is full of upper class citizens.[/quote]

Make 90k+ and you’re considered “upper class” [/quote]

Says who? I’ve never seen that cutoff and I strongly disagree with it. Try supporting a family of 4 on 90k/year. Sure, you may always have food on the table but the luxuries I associate with upper class simply won’t be there.
[/quote]

Obama. I think the idea of classes are ridiculous, because everyone tries to make up their definition.

What do you consider middle class though, the IRS considers the 90k mark for a person (not a household) as that person being upper class.

[quote]
I suppose this could all break down into semantics of what we both consider upper or middle class. I haven’t given too much thought to the subject, so suffice to say that I think the $90k/year cutoff you proposed is quite low.[/quote]

I didn’t propose it, Obama and his IRS did. I don’t believe in classes.

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Make 90k+ and you’re considered “upper class” which all these classes make no sense to me, because there is someone that is making $89,999.99 and well they are just upper-middle class. I’m sure even mid-sized corporations have people in the “upper-class” in their boardrooms, I know the few mid-sized companies I worked with had “upper-class” people in their boardrooms.

No, I am not talking about the Fortune 500.[/quote]

$90,000 is not “upper class” in NJ. Not even close. And that’s one of the reason I hate policies (such as the new home owners rebate) that focus on a set income level for the entire country. Regardless of cost of living in that area. It’s retarded.[/quote]

Talk to Obama not me, I already stated on this site that upper-class and middle-class is ridiculous, I pointed this out with the 89,999.99 thing.

[quote]sandos wrote:

[quote]redleg32002000 wrote:
She also posted a bogus stat stating blatantly that “women make 70% of men’s wages.”

[/quote]

I just heard yesterday on the radio that it’s up to 83% now.[/quote]

I heard it yesterday that wimmenz should be quiet and make sammiches.

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]kman3b18 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Why would it not be present?

Social networking is not just on facebook. It starts early. Neighborhood or private schools, then college fraternities, then corporate America.

I worked at a mid sized corporation where if you didn’t graduate from Penn State, you were not going anywhere in that company. The entire board and all of the engineers were from PSU.

If companies can be that finicky about diplomas, how do you think they are going to feel about someone from outside of their race?
[/quote]

It’s not just PSU. I have seen the same behavior with Texas A&M grads…and while you can talk all you want about how racist someone has to be growing up, I do believe that school is still only about 3-4% black.

Institutionalized racism does not mean everyone belongs to the KKK.

Also, Eli is right, you would have to be really slow in the head to think that this woman simply arrived at a conclusion with absolutely no basis in fact OR that arguing with the woman as if she is stupid will do anything but make your time harder in that class.

Also, remember on X-Files how the woman playing Scully was getting paid much less than Moulder on the set? Didn’t they both pretty much have equal billing on that show?
[/quote]

Data can be used to misrepresent just about anything, and the feminazis in the country have you thinking exactly what they want with their propaganda.

Just take a look at some of the real facts, where…

  1. Women are not generally in the workforce as long as men, due to several different circumstances, leading to an experience gap, and thus a pay gap.
  2. If there is a glass ceiling, then there must be a glass floor. Feminists want us to believe that there is some huge conspiracy that leads to very few women in high power corporate positions, but there really isn’t. Women just want to be able to hold these types of positions without having the burden of working in other male dominated fields that require high amounts of risk on the job. Seems like quite the double standard.
  3. In the recent economy, the male unemployment rate is greater than the female unemployment by an unprecendented gap.
  4. The vast majority of social security taxes are paid by men but are collected by women, due to their average lifespan in the US being greater by 7 years.

OP, your teacher is a crazy feminist and I would disregard much of the crap that will come out of her mouth, but keep your own mouth shut so that you get your grade.[/quote]

Good post. Most people who comment on the salary gap between men and women have an agenda. So they hear salary gap, that’s all they want to hear and move on from their studies. Studies that have gone deeper have found that the gap between men and women is mainly due to child bearing, and that women who have not had kids, who have worked in the same industries as men and have the same experience, actually get paid slightly more than men.

There are far too many variables to conclude that the gap between the salaries of men and women are due to gender.
[/quote]
I am generally wary of the salary gap statistics for some of the same reasons mentioned above. However, a study looking a starting and salary increase of men and women in the past 10 years (trends within job type, not across the board), there is still a significant discrepancy in starting pay and rate of pay increase.[/quote]

You know what there is a a discrepancy in, work results between men and women.

At the OP: How can it be racist if the goal is to keep EVERYONE’S wage down? I’m confused.

Capitalism certainly doesn’t help to eliminate racisim though. Nor any other descrimination. The goal is to get the most for the least, and the rules of supply and demand are always in effect. If black people (or whoever) miss out on even 5% of jobs in a field because of racism, the other 95% are still likely to feel the effect simply because the “eqaual opportunity employers” can pay them less as the result of their having less options.

That said, I don’t know that racism is as widespread a problem as it’s made out to be sometimes. When I go to the city I see just as many black men in suits as white men, my kids go to school with black kids, etc… Certainly old white money is the result of racism, but it’s not as if you could take 30% of those old white men, give them a rockin tan, and see any kind of benefit for the average black man in 2010.

I have a couple questions though:

  1. Do any of you feel that internal racism plays a part in any of this? (i.e. if a black kid grows up hearing that he’ll have less opportunitys, and be paid less, etc… is there any point where he’ll start to just write himself off / sell himself short? How often will that happen, and what is the effect long term) How much of an effect would that have on the situation?

  2. Whatever the problem is, what is the solution?

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
At the OP: How can it be racist if the goal is to keep EVERYONE’S wage down? I’m confused.

[/quote]

This is the problem with given scenario. The evidence for ‘racism’ ends up being the offering of an equal wage…

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

  1. Do any of you feel that internal racism plays a part in any of this? (i.e. if a black kid grows up hearing that he’ll have less opportunitys, and be paid less, etc… is there any point where he’ll start to just write himself off / sell himself short? How often will that happen, and what is the effect long term) How much of an effect would that have on the situation?
    [/quote]

[quote]Mascherano wrote:
in all of history.
[/quote]

In all of history? Cereal? Might want to rephrase.

I’m allergic to dumb shit, and this thread is full of it.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mascherano wrote:
in all of history.
[/quote]

In all of history? Cereal? Might want to rephrase.[/quote]

Lol! nit-picker!

[quote]Mascherano wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]Mascherano wrote:

[quote]OBoile wrote:

While I don’t doubt that racism exists in education, the example you give appears to be discrimination against poor people, not against non-whites. As JoeGood says, that is “classism” not “racism”.
[/quote]

Again, I don’t disagree with this - but in my view, and in terms of “institutionalized racism”, classism is inherently racist since people of color already start off in a disadvantaged position when compared to their peers.
[/quote]
Except that there are plenty of wealthy black people and plenty of poor white people. Labeling classism as racism ignores these groups and therefore is not accurate.[/quote]

It may not be perfectly accurate, but to deny that “classism” can have generationally RACIST effects is just naive. It may have been “classism” when a company first starts its hiring practices, but 20 years later when this is done across many corporations, it will no doubt effect blacks and hispanics on a much larger scale, therefore making is a racial issue as well.

You are using semantics to ignore the overall effects on a grand scale.

White poor people existing does not erase the larger racial effect when looking at THOUSANDS of people.[/quote]

What? Arguing semantics? Is that what you say when you know you’re wrong about something but refuse to admit it?

You are calling what is actually an inherent bias founded in economic stratification RACISM, which is, by the very definition of RACISM, incorrect. Racism is SOCIAL stratification.

From Merriam-Webster’s:
Racism:
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2: racial prejudice or discrimination

Just because the stratification falls along racial lines AT TIMES does not racism make. Racism explicity requires a prejudice based primarily on race. Correlation =/= Causality. Race and class are CORRELATED but certainly not CAUSAL. You want a CAUSAL relationship? Being poor in the present tends to cause being poor in the future.

You are trying to do your usual tapdance around the facts by dismissing what is really relevant evidence that is entirely contradictory to your claims. Appalachia and even much of the rural Southeast demonstrate fairly well that the issues in education and resources are due to inherent CLASSISM. Underperforming schools are underfunded because of a low local tax base, not because any minority is in attendance. This is discrimination based on INCOME, not race. If it were racist (by the DEFINITION of racism, those damned semantics!), then whites in low income areas would somehow be exempt from the ill effects of coming up in a poor area with dysfunctional schools. As proven by Appalachia, parts of the rural Southeast, and destitute areas of the midwest, this is hardly the case, therefor, RACISM is not the culprit.

This bullshit you are spouting off is the typical “blame everyone because we’re black” rhetoric that shuysters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have used to dupe a generation of potentially gifted and talented young Americans into thinking that it’s not their fault because THE SYSTEM is out to get them and that they DESERVE special consideration because of things that never happened to them personally.[/quote]

That was a thoughtful answer Stronghold, and if we are going by the strict definitions of race and class, then I’ll concede that you make a valid point. And i do agree re: your argument on appalachia, which i too cited.

Class stratification, as you state, does indeed intersect with race altho it is not dependent on race. But what you fail to mention is the fact that stratification is a measure of socioeconomic status which is a combination of several factors that include income, education and occupation, as well as the income, education and occupation of a person’s parents.

Now, if you hold that all people of color were and are given the same opportunities to achieve these factors (income, education and occupation) as whites, keeping in mind that blacks only JUST were given the right to vote (civic participation being one of the means to persuade policy reform in the US), then you could say that class and race are indeed mutually exclusive. But it is my belief that based on the historical plight of black people in the US, people of color were not given these same opportunities, and as such, are at a disadvantage and that due to this fact, class is inherently racist.

Is it semantics? Kind of. A Marxist approach would state that the only driving force for social change is based on economics, so class is simply that, an indicator for ones economic position. And even still, as I quoted, Marx stated that popular ideology is based on the views of those individuals who have the means to purport their ideology, which in all cases in the US were white people. However, a Weberian view would assert that ideas, or ideology/culture, is the driving force for social change, such that those racist views (or Protestant ethics more specifically) have permeated all facets of social life, including the division of labor and economics more generally.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that stating that class and race are completely separate based on their definition is a very ahistorical view, and you’d be hard-pressed to make any claims based on definition alone.

[/quote]

Class, being defined as economic standing and entirely dynamic on a large scale within generations, has nothing to do with race when you boil it down to CAUSALITY, which is required if we are going to pursue the accusations of racism presented by X, et al.

Racism requires discrimination on the basis of race, but by the myopic definition that X, et al. are trying to argue for, motive is of no consideration, as ANY action that does not serve the best interest of a minority must be racist.

Certainly in a historical context, tying economic standing and race together is obviously necessary, but attempting to compare the outlook for young minorities today to what their grandparents and great grandparents went through during Jim Crow, segregation, etc. would be a vast disservice to those who suffered through the true racism of the past. Being that nearly 3 generations have passed since the enfranchisement of minorities in the US and the continued establishment of affirmative action programs in education and the work place, I would argue that the stratification you see in income, education, and occupation is largely the result of economic stratification, especially with regard to the education system, rather than overt racial prejudice. The implementation of affirmative action over the past 45 years further excellerates the speed at which individuals and families may remove themselves from poverty. The fact that, in many cases, more opportunity is provided to poor minorities than to poor whites lends credence to the possibility that the achievement gap is not a product of racial discrimination, past or present, but rather the product of socially and economically underachieving norms created and propagated by black popular culture itself. To ignore the hardships and racist realities of the era before universal suffrage would be ahistorical, but to also ignore the tremendous efforts that have been made in the name of accommodation since the mid 1960’s as well as the lagging levels of achievement by minorities in spite of those efforts would also be ahistorical.

RE: Differences in education
Our schools are largely dependent on the strength of the local tax base, so poor areas tend to have poorly funded and underfunctioning schools. It is my belief that we may be moving towards a more centralized funding model for our education system (this is something that is currently being discussed in SC at the moment, BTW) that would eliminate much of the variability in the ability of schools to effectively prepare students.

A few personal anecdotes, I live in one of the fastest growing and per capita wealthiest middle-class communities in the nation. The next county over, however, has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation…so dismal in fact that President Obama actually mentioned it fairly regularly during his campaign speeches in 2008. My high school has similar dropout rates for students of both races and the % of graduates that go on to higher education is comparable between races. The next county over, however, has one of the highest dropout rates in the state and on a statistical basis, the white students are just as likely to drop out as the black students. These are lines drawn on the basis of economic stratification, not racial discrimination.

I haven’t read GAL in 3 or 4 months. I come back, and get to read the same damn thread that I swear was started in February… and last August… and October 2007. The funny thing is that I’m pretty sure it’s been the same people making the same points each time.

Can we skip to the point where we argue that since rappers use the N-word, I should be able to as well? Especially since I totally have black friends and stuff.