Finance Capitalism = Racism?

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

Of course I don’t think that merit is the SOLE factor, I never said that. However, businesses that consistently fail to recruit the most productive and innovative employees do not succeed in the long term. The sort of insidious racist conspiracy that X and others are trying to make us believe in here is entirely contrary to the exact things that make a business succeed and grow.[/quote]

Logic fail. What makes you think a business can’t act in a way that has large specific racial effects and still hire competent employees?

The level some of you seem to be thinking is pretty limited. It is like someone has to be burning crosses in front of the building for you to understand how business actions on a grand scale can be socially racist.

Don’t worry, the ethnic hair care products will always take up one lonely aisle in the back of the store…not the front.

This discussion is boring and basic as all hell. LOL at all businesses only hiring who is most qualified for the job with no weight given to ethnicity, cultural background or anything else that can form a negative stereotype.

All I am saying is that I don’t think corporations are responsible for the continued racism in America. I think it comes from stereotypes learned at home.

I wouldn’t come on here and intentionally distort her words or ideas. I’m not that ignorant.

[quote]redleg32002000 wrote:
All I am saying is that I don’t think corporations are responsible for the continued racism in America. I think it comes from stereotypes learned at home.

I wouldn’t come on here and intentionally distort her words or ideas. I’m not that ignorant. [/quote]

Professor X should think of changing his name b/c he certainly does not make professor-like arguments. You are on the right track. Your professor has a clear left-wing radical agenda and Professor X has been brainwashed through his life experiences and is unable to think critically about this scenario. There are tons of Professors in our Univ’s around the country with an agenda to tear down Capitalism and make it the scapegoat for all of our troubles. Meanwhile Capitalism has been distorted and misrepresented for the past 100 years and I do not see socialism working in Europe so their answers do not make sense.

Simply put, Businesses - entities other than humans CANNOT make decisions to be racist because they lack minds to make that decision. Minds allow a person to make a conscious decision and business entities do not have minds. In order to make a case that Businesses or Capitalism is the cause you actually need to point out people behind the business or free-market economy that are racist. Generalized terms like that do not work.

I am sure this post will get slammed by a bunch of people who will have no argument but begin by name calling due to their lack of an argument as they always try to attack character rather than argue the facts. However, I don’t give a shit…I have worked in Corp America for years and have plenty of life experiences in and out a classroom so I am not just talking out of my ass like so many others like to do and pretend they understand what they are talking about when they really have no clue.

[quote]redleg32002000 wrote:
All I am saying is that I don’t think corporations are responsible for the continued racism in America. I think it comes from stereotypes learned at home.

I wouldn’t come on here and intentionally distort her words or ideas. I’m not that ignorant. [/quote]

You are conflating intent with outcome. Corporations do not need to intentionally continue racism for them to continue it through their usual labor practices. That is what institutional racism is about - when one race (or gender) has an unfair advantage and that advantage is perpetuated by the system.

To put very simply - a greater percentage of white kid have had access to good education than minorities, more go to and graduate college, more are hired as the ‘most productive’ by firms. Their kids gain access to better schools, etc. whereas those without access to good education not only miss out on those opportunities but it also limits the opportunities of their offspring. This is not necessarily a race thing but in the US context there is a much greater percentage of minorities living poverty than whites so it has a strong racial dimension - engendered and ingrained in society by racist policies in the past.

[quote]MUCRaider wrote:

Simply put, Businesses - entities other than humans CANNOT make decisions to be racist because they lack minds to make that decision. Minds allow a person to make a conscious decision and business entities do not have minds. In order to make a case that Businesses or Capitalism is the cause you actually need to point out people behind the business or free-market economy that are racist. Generalized terms like that do not work.
[/quote]

You seem a tad slow on this…even though it has been explained several times. A business does not need to make directly or openly racist decisions for business practices to have a racial or racist effect overall over an expanded period of time. This was even explained to you by using tv commercials in the 80’s as an example…but apparently this wasn’t clear enough. Tv Networks didn’t have to be openly or directly RACIST for their practices regarding what they thought would sell to the general public to have an overall “racist” effect.

I am not blaming capitalism for CAUSING racism in this country and I seriously doubt this is the argument of his teacher either. It doesn’t matter who CAUSED it. It can still PERPETUATE it.

But let me guess…you think this is impossible or has not happened.

I’m out. You guys let me know when the smart debate starts because it definitely isn’t here.

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

You’re acting like stereotypes don’t exist for any particular reason.
[/quote]

It doesn’t matter why they exist. I am a young black male with above average skills and intellect. I do not fit any stereotype that I am aware of as far as how I act or think. Therefore, if someone is basing hiring and business practices on stereotypes, even if it is done in a benign fashion, the overall effect can have very racial consequences. That is what institutionalized racism is…for the billionth time.[/quote]

No, it does matter very much, and that is my point. Stereotypes are the manifestation of social norms. Stereotypes are not some made up bullshit that just appears in a culture one day. You’re trying to imply that Indians are commonly hired for IT jobs BECAUSE of the stereotype and that is entirely ignorant of how business and hiring works. People are hired based on their merits and the stereotype you are referencing exists because of the migration of thousands of IT jobs to India, mainly due to the lower cost of operating there. In the time since, IT has become a major source of income in India and the rate at which IT professionals there are paid has risen along with the concentration on developing IT and engineering professionals in the Indian education system. No one is hiring Indian kids with “oh well gee, he’s Indian, I bet he’s good at IT” in mind, they’re hiring them because that specific individual has some equity to add to the organization. Hiring practices aren’t based on stereotypes, they’re based on establishing competitive advantage. Once again, you show your total ignorance of how business really works.

Inner city black kids aren’t listening to rap music and wearing baggy clothes because the stereotype says thats what they do and white suburban teenagers aren’t wearing Polo and stealing $20 bills out of their grandma’s purses so they can score some weed or some blow because thats what the stereotype says. Stereotypes are based in reality, not the other way around. You are trying to argue that reality exists because of stereotypes, which is probably the most asinine thing you have said in this thread, so far.

You keep scratching at this idea of institutionalized racism, but the more you post, the more it becomes evident that you’re just trying to find a way to say that SOMETHING is racist because you say it is.[/quote]

If you think people are hired based solely on merit than you are terribly naive.

Your understanding of stereotypes is equally naive.[/quote]

Of course I don’t think that merit is the SOLE factor, I never said that. However, businesses that consistently fail to recruit the most productive and innovative employees do not succeed in the long term. The sort of insidious racist conspiracy that X and others are trying to make us believe in here is entirely contrary to the exact things that make a business succeed and grow.

Would you mind explaining to me how my understanding of stereotypes is naive? Are you trying to assert that they are not based upon real social norms? Do you think, as X apparently does, that stereotypes make the reality rather than the reality making the stereotype?[/quote]

Stereotypes are based more on perception than reality, and in that way, can create realities of their own. If you want to take this back to the ancient Greeks, and here we should because some of their ethnic (though some would say racial) stereotypes where formed that continue to today. They explained the difference in ‘races’ (where we should really say cultures) were based on whatever combination of the four humors those people contained. There point in this exercise was to prove why the Greek were the best people/culture on Earth and justified any misdeeds they may commit on others. (A similar argument could be made by white Christians who used church leaders to proclaim Africans as less than humans to propagate slavery without all those moral issues.) So stereotypes are about justifying ones own groups superiority by degrading others through their differences.

Stereotypes are about power and perception. They are not recreated everyday (though any ahistorical argument would seem to think they are) and are the product of struggles for power in a culture. A simple example: if culture states that group E is lazier than group M, then group M will probably get more jobs. This stereotype was also probably started by group M to get those jobs by demonstrating their supposed superiority.

People are taught stereotypes (look at all the conversations about acting black, white, masculine, feminine, etc.). These lessons structure personalities, what they are taught to consider appropriate and amoral. In the case of gender, it can even change how the brain is structured. I think I have talked about this before so I will give just a short explanation here. Basically, the idea that boys are more independent and girls more verbal and interactive as babies is crap. Its that adults perceive this because it is the prevailing stereotype in US culture (there was an interesting infant cross-dressing study if you want more details). Because of the way American children are treated by adults as infants - which skills they emphasize and behaviors they allow - actually changes the structure of the brain. The difference between male and female infants’ brains is tiny compared to the difference found in adult brains. All the while promoting these stereotypes in US culture.

Another example. tell a kid based on ethnicity and/or geography they will not do well in school and send them to a bad school - more than likely they will not do well in school. (There are always exceptions). If most of the bad schools are in poorer areas with large populations of minorities and few job opportunities to use an education…

I can continue if you need.

To address a couple of points you made above. The schools in India are extremely selective and only the top students (I believe close to 1 %) get a college education, usually in high demand fields such as IT or medicine.

Also, using the behavior of kids if appropriate if you are willing to argue that the kids are taught how to behave by culture around them, the same culture that is responsible (in my argument above) for promoting existing stereotypes to maintain particular power structures. Consider this, why is it ‘normal’ for college students to party and get trashed? If you look around this board you will read many promoting this stereotype as normal (and in a way explaining their own behavior while avoiding moral ambiguities). Others who do not imbibe may get chastised for being different. There are many such examples on this board.

Ever ask yourself, why is that stereotype normal? Why are those involved acting that way? Why is it perpetuated? Who gains by it? Like why are the images of the rappers in rap music, predominately black males being presented as dangerous, unlawful and sexually dominant, being sold to their main customer base, teenage middle class white boys, in the same manner as was used to justify bondage and abuse of black male slaves in the US?

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]MUCRaider wrote:

Simply put, Businesses - entities other than humans CANNOT make decisions to be racist because they lack minds to make that decision. Minds allow a person to make a conscious decision and business entities do not have minds. In order to make a case that Businesses or Capitalism is the cause you actually need to point out people behind the business or free-market economy that are racist. Generalized terms like that do not work.
[/quote]

You seem a tad slow on this…even though it has been explained several times. A business does not need to make directly or openly racist decisions for business practices to have a racial or racist effect overall over an expanded period of time. This was even explained to you by using tv commercials in the 80’s as an example…but apparently this wasn’t clear enough. Tv Networks didn’t have to be openly or directly RACIST for their practices regarding what they thought would sell to the general public to have an overall “racist” effect.

I am not blaming capitalism for CAUSING racism in this country and I seriously doubt this is the argument of his teacher either. It doesn’t matter who CAUSED it. It can still PERPETUATE it.

But let me guess…you think this is impossible or has not happened.

I’m out. You guys let me know when the smart debate starts because it definitely isn’t here.[/quote]

I certainly never said anything like that is impossible but I can tell you that the solution to racism is not easy and is not to get rid of or tear down the Free-Market system we call Capitalism. Stop putting words in others mouths to make your argument sound better. Since you are “out” then maybe the smart debate will finally start and if you stay “out” it will continue. People like you who believe everything is about race are the problem. Businesses are about profit. Whatever makes a profit within the confines of the law is what is pursued (not talking about Enron here). Your TV commercial example is anecdotal. And so what if businesses were trying to appeal to different races and cultures…if that is what sold products and services and made them profits? Thats what marketing is about…targeting different demographics and segments of society and going after them to sell stuff. You still don’t grasp the concept of how economics looks at events and that an argument this teacher is making which originally stated: “Capitalism is to blame for the continuing racism in this country.” IS A CLEAR BIASED AGENDA! You cannot blame something on an idea or entity that cannot act without the thought process of a real person behind it using their mind to make a decision to be racist much less tell me you have some superior insight and understanding of what the teacher’s thought process is because it makes your argument sound more legitimate. You could maybe think and have more of an argument if you were to observe and say that the CEO of Walmart is racist because he preys on taking advantage of a certain demographic and hires only whites (not saying this is true) but that is not the fault of business or a type of an economic system like Capitalism. It is the fault of someone in a position of power who has a hidden agenda to be racist. I am NOT saying that Walmart is racist - I just picked them as an example. The Professor needs to go back to class.

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]redleg32002000 wrote:

Thanks for all the input…

Just got out of class (yes it’s an elective) with her.

She just keeps saying that because the goal of capitalism is to make money, then the workforce will only hire those people who will make them the most money, which means they will tend to stray away from minorities. So unless this mindset changes, this form of racism will continue.

I just think that people have to be prejudice in the first place to think that minorities will not be as profitable as non-minorities. I think racism starts from the bottom (home) and works its way up. It seems to me that she thinks it starts from, or at least is made mainstream from corporations seeking to make $$. [/quote]

And one counterexample would be all the Indian and Asian IT engineers that we’ve been hiring since the dotcom boom in the 1990’s. I’ve work in the field since 1999 and the minorities with the talent are hired over white people with less talent. Why? Because it’s more profitable to have someone that knows what the fuck they’re doing designing and maintaining their IT and communications infrastructure.

That’s just one hole in here theory that I have 1st hand experience with. I’m sure there are many more.
[/quote]

It isn’t a hole in her theory at all because it is now an accepted stereotype that Indians/Asians are “good” at IT engineering fields. That same stereotype can keep other races and other minorities out of the same jobs.[/quote]

You’re acting like stereotypes don’t exist for any particular reason. Did you ever stop to think that MAYBE Indians are stereotyped as being “good” at IT jobs is because there is a HUGE amount of that industry outsourced to India because of their willingness to provide the same level of proficiency as American IT professionals for a much lower price?

Do you honestly think IBM, HP, Oracle, etc, etc decided they needed some IT support capability and the thought process was “well, let’s hire some Indians, I heard they’re supposed to be good at IT.” This shows a pretty hearty ignorance for how things actually work in the business world, but I suppose that you would know more about that than me since you’re a doctor and all.

This solidifies a point I made earlier, some of you are seeing racism everywhere because you want everything to be ABOUT race rather than race being a component of a bigger picture, whether or not racism is actually involved.
[/quote]
I think you’re begging the question…

As a performance specialist in IT, I’ve actually heard hiring managers say “she must be good, she’s Indian”… She ended up being, uh, negatively, productive…

The price difference is the killer, and the distorted labor market with the indentured servitude created by the HB-1 status… Some “free market” when the labor can’t take another position without the permission of the company they intend to leave. Also that US candidates have capital requirements to get their degree, usually in loan form… While other countries have different cost of attending college.

Racism in labor market. Labor history, they sent agents to eastern Europe to recruit immigrants with false tails of riches… Minorities were used to break strikes… Henry Ford hired blacks with the stated goal of lowering wages. Same things happen today. Not so long ago there was talk of introducing females into traditionally male fields with the express purpose of lowering wages… Not defending initial condition, just stating documented facts.

Poverty and racial patterns:
Family capital and conditions has a lot to do with the opportunities and eventual “achievement”. We all flatter our selves with the myth of self made… But success like the Professor, in spite of his start, (If I remember his posts correctly). Are profoundly rare. Bill gates is held up, well. At the make or break moment the capitulation of the license for DOS to IBM. The IBM CEO told the man responsible for the negotiations “Why are you giving Mary’s boy such a hard time”… Gates had serious connections, his dad a federal judge, his mom ran the Red Cross (at the time a social position)… Even my success, I can see how being taught how to work with my hands, having access to transport allowed me to leverage that into a professional career. I would have starved in college if I hadn’t been taught how to fix things…

Gotta remember that the systematic active impairment of minority families building family capital is not all that long ago. Maybe a generation if that in places, takes many generations to build up the family and social capital we take for granted. Heck, “the farm system” was still in effect during my lifetime.

[quote]Null wrote:
Racism in labor market. Labor history, they sent agents to eastern Europe to recruit immigrants with false tails of riches… Minorities were used to break strikes… Henry Ford hired blacks with the stated goal of lowering wages. Same things happen today. Not so long ago there was talk of introducing females into traditionally male fields with the express purpose of lowering wages… Not defending initial condition, just stating documented facts.

[/quote]

How is breaking strikes and seeking labor at lower wages ‘racism?’ If they’re willing to bring on other ‘races,’ they’d be just as willing to use a majority population if enough are willing to accept the terms. It’s much like the principle behind hiring undocumented illegals today. If you have a group willing to work at a lower rate for the same job, they’re going to displace the traditional labor force.

What’s interesting about all of this is that actual racial supremacists would call such examples (including the op’s scenario) of ‘racism,’ race-traitorism. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

And let’s face it, the whole idea is built upon a stereotype of white males (here) as critters that must watched be with care, because they can’t shake the original sin of their fore-fathers. Fine. But, it sort of justifies stereotyping in it’s own way.

The real question is: who is racist here? Given the amount of racist people out here there must be a regular poster who is racist. Or maybe weighlifting can cure racism

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Null wrote:
Racism in labor market. Labor history, they sent agents to eastern Europe to recruit immigrants with false tails of riches… Minorities were used to break strikes… Henry Ford hired blacks with the stated goal of lowering wages. Same things happen today. Not so long ago there was talk of introducing females into traditionally male fields with the express purpose of lowering wages… Not defending initial condition, just stating documented facts.

[/quote]

How is breaking strikes and seeking labor at lower wages ‘racism?’ If they’re willing to bring on other ‘races,’ they’d be just as willing to use a majority population if enough are willing to accept the terms. It’s much like the principle behind hiring undocumented illegals today. If you have a group willing to work at a lower rate for the same job, they’re going to displace the traditional labor force.

What’s interesting about all of this is that actual racial supremacists would call such examples (including the op’s scenario) of ‘racism,’ race-traitorism. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

And let’s face it, the whole idea is built upon a stereotype of white males (here) as critters that must watched be with care, because they can’t shake the original sin of their fore-fathers. Fine. But, it sort of justifies stereotyping in it’s own way.

[/quote]

By this logic, using blacks to pick cotton was simply an economic move that had absolutely no racist underpinnings. I mean, the slave owners weren’t racist themselves. They were simply taking advantage of their specific time period and labor market…therefore, racism does not exist and never did unless you can prove every single person during those years was a racist…right? I mean, that is the same logic you are using, correct?

You asked:

Gee, that act itself isn’t…but if you decide to look closer at the fact that Ford died before 1947 meaning the socioeconomic client blatantly held onto racist tactics openly against blacks during that time period allowing cheap labor because blacks still had not gained the status of being a full human being by Civil Rights…then the outcome is the perpetuation of a blatantly racist agenda in society even if Ford himself didn’t call himself a “racist”.

Remember, he lived during the same time period where blacks were considered less than in the US military. This was the time of the Tuskegee Airmen and all of the obstacles they overcame just to show the world they were as good and better than many degrading them.

You see, that is what systemic or “institutionalized racism” is…for the BILLIONTH time.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Null wrote:
Racism in labor market. Labor history, they sent agents to eastern Europe to recruit immigrants with false tails of riches… Minorities were used to break strikes… Henry Ford hired blacks with the stated goal of lowering wages. Same things happen today. Not so long ago there was talk of introducing females into traditionally male fields with the express purpose of lowering wages… Not defending initial condition, just stating documented facts.

[/quote]

How is breaking strikes and seeking labor at lower wages ‘racism?’ If they’re willing to bring on other ‘races,’ they’d be just as willing to use a majority population if enough are willing to accept the terms. It’s much like the principle behind hiring undocumented illegals today. If you have a group willing to work at a lower rate for the same job, they’re going to displace the traditional labor force.

What’s interesting about all of this is that actual racial supremacists would call such examples (including the op’s scenario) of ‘racism,’ race-traitorism. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

And let’s face it, the whole idea is built upon a stereotype of white males (here) as critters that must watched be with care, because they can’t shake the original sin of their fore-fathers. Fine. But, it sort of justifies stereotyping in it’s own way.

[/quote]

By this logic, using blacks to pick cotton was simply an economic move that had absolutely no racist underpinnings. I mean, the slave owners weren’t racist themselves. They were simply taking advantage of their specific time period and labor market…therefore, racism does not exist and never did unless you can prove every single person during those years was a racist…right? I mean, that is the same logic you are using, correct?

You asked:

[quote]How is breaking strikes and seeking labor at lower wages ‘racism?’[/quote].

Gee, that act itself isn’t…but if you decide to look closer at the fact that Ford died before 1947 meaning the socioeconomic client blatantly held onto racist tactics openly against blacks during that time period allowing cheap labor because blacks still had not gained the status of being a full human being by Civil Rights…then the outcome is the perpetuation of a blatantly racist agenda in society even if Ford himself didn’t call himself a “racist”.

Remember, he lived during the same time period where blacks were considered less than in the US military. This was the time of the Tuskegee Airmen and all of the obstacles they overcame just to show the world they were as good and better than many degrading them.

You see, that is what systemic or “institutionalized racism” is…for the BILLIONTH time.[/quote]

No, Prof X you are getting it twisted again. Using blacks to pick cotton was because it was the most widely accpeted and cheapest form of manual labor â?? looking at it from an ecnomic standpoint. Now if it was cheaper and more effective to use a machine to pick cotton do you think they would? Doesnâ??t mean racists would stop being racist and doesnâ??t mean that Capitalism causes racism as the original question was asked. You are taking too broad of a leap with your arguments. I am sure many of the slave owners were racist and I am sure that was a social problem at the time. I never said racism does not exist. It does exist and it probably always will. I donâ??t condone it or approve of it and donâ??t quite understand it because I think people that are racist become prejedice to everyone that is not â??like themâ?? and it becomes more than just color but character and background and it permeates all that they are which infects their way of thinking.

I would like to understand what race is? Where is the cohesive constant factor? Is it skin color? (Black or White) Is it nationality? (Irish or Italian) Is it religion? (Muslim, Islamics) Is it what continent you live on? (Asian â?? I guess Russians would be Asian then but they arenâ??t considered thatâ?¦) Or is it whatever special group you can slot yourself into which benefits you? Race is a very broad term that people throw around to divide a mass of people. This is what our politicians are experts at and it works because ignorant people do not understand the game they play. They make you pick sides and tell you that they are the answer to the problem when the problem is this constant game of what special interest group is going to be treated better than the others. It gives the power to the cancer in Washington â?? R or D doesnâ??t matter they are all evil and power hungry. But the problem is it takes the power out of the hands of the people and that is the sad part.

And to your point on blacks only being 2/3 of a manâ?¦this should have been rectified after the Civil War, I agree. However, most people do not understand why slaves or blacks were considered 2/3 man â?? And you clearly do not as it seems you hold animosity toward it. When our founders were debating how our government would be structured some of them understood it was vital to count slaves as 2/3 man in order to have any chance to abolish slavery in the United States so they were able to strategically adopt this practice. If slaves were counted as full men the number of Southern representatives in Congress would have overwhelmingly outnumbered the Northern representatives and advocates of abolitionism would have never prevailed after the Union prevailed in the Civil war which made slavery illegal throughout the United States with the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

[quote]Null wrote:

I think you’re begging the question…

As a performance specialist in IT, I’ve actually heard hiring managers say “she must be good, she’s Indian”… She ended up being, uh, negatively, productive…

The price difference is the killer, and the distorted labor market with the indentured servitude created by the HB-1 status… Some “free market” when the labor can’t take another position without the permission of the company they intend to leave. Also that US candidates have capital requirements to get their degree, usually in loan form… While other countries have different cost of attending college.

Racism in labor market. Labor history, they sent agents to eastern Europe to recruit immigrants with false tails of riches… Minorities were used to break strikes… Henry Ford hired blacks with the stated goal of lowering wages. Same things happen today. Not so long ago there was talk of introducing females into traditionally male fields with the express purpose of lowering wages… Not defending initial condition, just stating documented facts.

Poverty and racial patterns:
Family capital and conditions has a lot to do with the opportunities and eventual “achievement”. We all flatter our selves with the myth of self made… But success like the Professor, in spite of his start, (If I remember his posts correctly). Are profoundly rare. Bill gates is held up, well. At the make or break moment the capitulation of the license for DOS to IBM. The IBM CEO told the man responsible for the negotiations “Why are you giving Mary’s boy such a hard time”… Gates had serious connections, his dad a federal judge, his mom ran the Red Cross (at the time a social position)… Even my success, I can see how being taught how to work with my hands, having access to transport allowed me to leverage that into a professional career. I would have starved in college if I hadn’t been taught how to fix things…

Gotta remember that the systematic active impairment of minority families building family capital is not all that long ago. Maybe a generation if that in places, takes many generations to build up the family and social capital we take for granted. Heck, “the farm system” was still in effect during my lifetime.
[/quote]

I’m done arguing the Indians in IT strawman, but it is likely that the hiring manager who hired an unproductive employee on the basis of her race has either gotten better at his job (which is hiring productive employees) or doesn’t work there any more.

Labor and labor history:
Those groups were used for those purposes because they were willing to work for less or willing to work independently of unionization. However, bringing them into the labor force is decidedly not racist, as it provided positive effect for the minority groups being hired in and a negative effect for the white males whose wages were lowered by the introduction of new competition into the labor market.

Family capital:
I don’t buy your argument, from my own family history, it is entirely possible for a family to rise from abject poverty to the middle class within 2 generations. My grandfather grew up during the depression era, received fruit as birthday and Christmas gifts, and didn’t own a pair of shoes for the first 10 years of his life. My father was a rebellious teenager and got himself into a good amount of trouble before the age of 25. At 28, he financed his education entirely through debt and lived on just dollars a week while in college. Today we are financially secure and my brother and I were able to attend the college of our choice and live a comfortable lifestyle while in school. I don’t take family and social capital for granted, because my family had neither 50 years ago and seems to be doing just fine.

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

Stereotypes are based more on perception than reality, and in that way, can create realities of their own. If you want to take this back to the ancient Greeks, and here we should because some of their ethnic (though some would say racial) stereotypes where formed that continue to today. They explained the difference in ‘races’ (where we should really say cultures) were based on whatever combination of the four humors those people contained. There point in this exercise was to prove why the Greek were the best people/culture on Earth and justified any misdeeds they may commit on others. (A similar argument could be made by white Christians who used church leaders to proclaim Africans as less than humans to propagate slavery without all those moral issues.) So stereotypes are about justifying ones own groups superiority by degrading others through their differences.

Stereotypes are about power and perception. They are not recreated everyday (though any ahistorical argument would seem to think they are) and are the product of struggles for power in a culture. A simple example: if culture states that group E is lazier than group M, then group M will probably get more jobs. This stereotype was also probably started by group M to get those jobs by demonstrating their supposed superiority.

People are taught stereotypes (look at all the conversations about acting black, white, masculine, feminine, etc.). These lessons structure personalities, what they are taught to consider appropriate and amoral. In the case of gender, it can even change how the brain is structured. I think I have talked about this before so I will give just a short explanation here. Basically, the idea that boys are more independent and girls more verbal and interactive as babies is crap. Its that adults perceive this because it is the prevailing stereotype in US culture (there was an interesting infant cross-dressing study if you want more details). Because of the way American children are treated by adults as infants - which skills they emphasize and behaviors they allow - actually changes the structure of the brain. The difference between male and female infants’ brains is tiny compared to the difference found in adult brains. All the while promoting these stereotypes in US culture.

Another example. tell a kid based on ethnicity and/or geography they will not do well in school and send them to a bad school - more than likely they will not do well in school. (There are always exceptions). If most of the bad schools are in poorer areas with large populations of minorities and few job opportunities to use an education…

I can continue if you need.

To address a couple of points you made above. The schools in India are extremely selective and only the top students (I believe close to 1 %) get a college education, usually in high demand fields such as IT or medicine.

Also, using the behavior of kids if appropriate if you are willing to argue that the kids are taught how to behave by culture around them, the same culture that is responsible (in my argument above) for promoting existing stereotypes to maintain particular power structures. Consider this, why is it ‘normal’ for college students to party and get trashed? If you look around this board you will read many promoting this stereotype as normal (and in a way explaining their own behavior while avoiding moral ambiguities). Others who do not imbibe may get chastised for being different. There are many such examples on this board.

Ever ask yourself, why is that stereotype normal? Why are those involved acting that way? Why is it perpetuated? Who gains by it? Like why are the images of the rappers in rap music, predominately black males being presented as dangerous, unlawful and sexually dominant, being sold to their main customer base, teenage middle class white boys, in the same manner as was used to justify bondage and abuse of black male slaves in the US?[/quote]

Perception (on a cultural level) does not exist in the absence of reality. You have yet to explain to me how the stereotype that Indians are good at IT formed in the absence of the reality that there were many Indians working in that field. You conveniently neglect that the size of India’s population means that even very low rates of acceptance into those programs can easily eclipse the entirety of American demand for outsourced IT professionals.

As for your nature vs. nurture strawman, there is heavily conflicting research wrt males vs. females and I’m not going to waste my time chasing windmills for you…

Your statement regarding “bad schools” supports what I said earlier in this thread. What X is claiming as racism is far more related to the discrepancies in education between high and low income areas. You again support my arguments with your college kids example, as I stated specifically that previous economic standing is a far better predictor of future economic standing than racial classification.

You seem to be asking me questions that you yourself are unwilling to answer in support of your own arguments. Stereotypes are based on norms, norms rarely exist without the existence of a cultural average. You want to believe that stereotypes exist because some malevolent force is creating them to do harm to whatever group of people we are talking about and that the stereotype begets the average rather than the average begetting the stereotype.

Rap music is popular amongst white youths largely because of the presentation of the performers as dangerous, aggressive, and sexually dominant. These are attributes that appeal to young men, especially those whose rebellious youthful tendencies are being stifled by the social norms that are applied to their demographic (which are themselves based largely in the protestant ethics of their heritage).

[quote]Professor X wrote:
By this logic, using blacks to pick cotton was simply an economic move that had absolutely no racist underpinnings. I mean, the slave owners weren’t racist themselves. They were simply taking advantage of their specific time period and labor market…therefore, racism does not exist and never did unless you can prove every single person during those years was a racist…right? I mean, that is the same logic you are using, correct?

You asked:

[quote]How is breaking strikes and seeking labor at lower wages ‘racism?’[/quote].

Gee, that act itself isn’t…but if you decide to look closer at the fact that Ford died before 1947 meaning the socioeconomic client blatantly held onto racist tactics openly against blacks during that time period allowing cheap labor because blacks still had not gained the status of being a full human being by Civil Rights…then the outcome is the perpetuation of a blatantly racist agenda in society even if Ford himself didn’t call himself a “racist”.

Remember, he lived during the same time period where blacks were considered less than in the US military. This was the time of the Tuskegee Airmen and all of the obstacles they overcame just to show the world they were as good and better than many degrading them.

You see, that is what systemic or “institutionalized racism” is…for the BILLIONTH time.[/quote]

Jesus Christ, can you make ONE post without setting up a strawman?

If you think racism was the primary motivator behind slavery, you’re ignorant of the roughly 8,000 years of recorded human history that preceded that era. Profit was the motive for slavery, racism developed as a means by which to eliminate the cognitive dissonance associated with stripping others of their human rights. You conveniently ignore the fact that europeans had been enslaving other europeans (and still were to an extent at the time of colonial slavery) for hundreds of years. What do you think was going on in Europe from the time of the Roman empire up until the Enlightenment and Age of Revolution? Here’s a clue, since you obviously don’t have one: white europeans enslaving white europeans and propagating the same sort of negative perceptions about them as were later applied to black slaves in the Americas. Members of the peasant class in europe were considered to be of lesser intelligence and capability. Sound familiar?

For the billionth time, you are trying to take EVERYTHING that you don’t like and label it as racism. I’m sure those skinny kids at the gym who wouldn’t get off of your bench machine a few months back that pissed you off so badly that you had to make a thread to whine about it were being racist too, huh?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Logic fail. What makes you think a business can’t act in a way that has large specific racial effects and still hire competent employees?

The level some of you seem to be thinking is pretty limited. It is like someone has to be burning crosses in front of the building for you to understand how business actions on a grand scale can be socially racist.

Don’t worry, the ethnic hair care products will always take up one lonely aisle in the back of the store…not the front.

This discussion is boring and basic as all hell. LOL at all businesses only hiring who is most qualified for the job with no weight given to ethnicity, cultural background or anything else that can form a negative stereotype.[/quote]

You’re accusing me of faulty logic when you can’t even correctly define racism? No one has to be burning crosses, but there does have to be intent to discriminate based on race in order for your claims of racism to have any merit.

Speaking of logic fails, what makes you think that a business can be so coordinated between all of it’s various departments and managers as to create and sustain an institutional policy of racial discrimination while still hiring enough minorities to avoid legal action and keeping the whole thing a big secret? This is you trying to paint anything you don’t like as racist. I bet you think the fact that grocery stores have less shelf space devoted towards black hair care products than to white hair care products is founded in racism rather than markets, huh?

You never answered my question, how much experience do you have in the corporate world?

How many people arguing here understand that capitalism is a way of organizing society to produce in a particular economic way? The fact most do not work at home, and that very few could produce anything (look at the rise of the service sector) is because of capitalism as an organizing force in society. It is not just hiring practices but the we even go to work rather than working at home.

MUCRider - the plantation system was the first example of the industrial manufacturing process that ushered in capitalism and there was no “accident” about the exportation of millions of Africans to (re)populate the Americas to provide forced labor that the local (having either died out in massive numbers or fled the lands conquered by Europeans) no longer provided.

I think time and familiarity are the only real solutions to racism. Every culture has its own positive and negative stereotypes. People are always going to stereotype, because the human brain is constantly working to chunk information and create patterns that make it easy to remember things, even if it creates those patterns out of insufficient or erroneous information. I think the concept of institutionalized racism has a very real evolutionary precedent. It makes sense to me since, as recently as 600 years ago, most of the world still existed in a very feudal system where people who didn’t look/talk/act/etc. would be very likely to try to take my land/enslave me/kill me/etc. I think there is still a lot of that tribal nature of people to tend to favor those who are “like us.”

I have been involved in USA Volleyball Junior Olympic programs for a while (first as a player, now as a coach), and I always get to see this tribal effect in action and never cease to be amused. USA Volleyball hosts tryouts several times a year at various sites for its youth High Performance program, to help locate and funnel the best players into USAV camps, Junior National teams, etc. Kids from all over the surrounding area come to these events to be evaluated, try out for teams, or just get the chance to play with and against the best. I am always amused at what I see when they pair up for partner warm-up stuff. I would estimate that 80% of the kids select partners who are “like them.” White kids pair with other white kids; black kids pair with other black kids; heavyset kids often pair up together, etc. However, the interesting thing is that, the kids who are already in the USAV High Performance “pipeline” (either by having been selected to a team/camp before, because they play on one of the top travel club teams, etc.) seem to have a different motivation: they just pick the best player they can get to be their partner. This is (to my amateur evolutionary biologist perspective) because they associate themselves less as “black person,” or “white person,” and more as “good volleyball player,” and as such, that becomes their new criteria to search out somebody “like them.”

So I think that, the natural “tribal” tendency to favor those like us, gets sifted as more information is acquired and life experience is gained, to tend toward the natural selfish inclination to favor those who can help us the most.

Racism will never be totally eliminated, because as old stereotypes are washed away, new ones are created. But, I think that, as individuals, we can learn to be more open-minded and often find that will benefit us more in the long run anyway.

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
How many people arguing here understand that capitalism is a way of organizing society to produce in a particular economic way? The fact most do not work at home, and that very few could produce anything (look at the rise of the service sector) is because of capitalism as an organizing force in society. It is not just hiring practices but the we even go to work rather than working at home.

MUCRider - the plantation system was the first example of the industrial manufacturing process that ushered in capitalism and there was no “accident” about the exportation of millions of Africans to (re)populate the Americas to provide forced labor that the local (having either died out in massive numbers or fled the lands conquered by Europeans) no longer provided.[/quote]

Hey - I wasnt the one that made the original statement about the plantation system. I was just addressing the “straw man” that someone else has setup in another post. I think you are correct. Your 1st paragraph is well said. I do not think people do understand that Capitalism is a way for society to be organized. I think most people just repeat what they hear that sounds good and think they understand. Right now Capitalism is being bastardized by many as a problem and that is where I think much of the misunderstanding stems from.

How many people contributing to this thread actually work in an executive position within a corporation?

[quote]MUCRaider wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
How many people arguing here understand that capitalism is a way of organizing society to produce in a particular economic way? The fact most do not work at home, and that very few could produce anything (look at the rise of the service sector) is because of capitalism as an organizing force in society. It is not just hiring practices but the we even go to work rather than working at home.

MUCRider - the plantation system was the first example of the industrial manufacturing process that ushered in capitalism and there was no “accident” about the exportation of millions of Africans to (re)populate the Americas to provide forced labor that the local (having either died out in massive numbers or fled the lands conquered by Europeans) no longer provided.[/quote]

Hey - I wasnt the one that made the original statement about the plantation system. I was just addressing the “straw man” that someone else has setup in another post. I think you are correct. Your 1st paragraph is well said. I do not think people do understand that Capitalism is a way for society to be organized. I think most people just repeat what they hear that sounds good and think they understand. Right now Capitalism is being bastardized by many as a problem and that is where I think much of the misunderstanding stems from. [/quote]

I actually missed the earlier mention of the plantation system. Thank you for clarifying. My point was that capitalism developed in the US from the plantation system (both as a form of organizing labor and the North’s rise in textiles based on slavery in the South) putting racial labor policies at the foundation of capitalism in general and the US in particular.