racism vs. sexism

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I am interested in the point of view of black women (and men) who are members of any society where both their race and sex are discriminated against.

My question involves any reasons you guys would have for identifying more with racism than sexism.

A further question for med2006

Aside from the appalling lack of inclusion of black women by existing feminist groups, do you think there are reasons to talk about and deal with sexism within the african-american culture?

[muguly]

As a black man, I experience a bit of both everyday. When I was younger I didn't pay attention to the apparent racism that was around everyday. Now I'm 25 and everyday it seem like I experience some form of racism or sexism. I try to tell myself I was being too sensitive, but some things are so flagrant, they can't be ignored. Examples: PLENTY of times I have been passed over for a job by a minority woman. Why? Because she fulfilled two requirements instead of my one. Another? Every week I am followed by the police. Why? I own my car, I don't speed, and most of the time I get followed it's in rush hour traffic when I'm going 40 mph. And yet the greatest example happened just two weeks ago: I was at Ikea when I locked my keys in my work truck. There are no company logos on it so it looks like a normal pickup. As I'm trying to get the door open with a piece of wire, an elderly couple pulls up. They get out and the husband says to me "you shouldn't do that". I respond "do what"? "Break into that car" he says. I tell him it's my truck. He says ok, but I'm going to call the police on you. Ok, awesome. So, here I am, at Ikea, trying to get into my truck when three....three police cars pull up. They ask for I.D. I tell them it's in the truck. So, I show them the keys, still in the ignition, and they try to get the door open. By then I had already called a towing company. The police do their job by asking for my name and DOB and I consent. After about 10 minutes the towing guy comes, while the other officers wait, and opens my door. I the go to the officers to ask if they wanted to see my ID now. They said no and pulled off. Now, by no means was I upset at the police then, they were just doing their jobs. However, that, and other incidents similar, that show me their is still alot of racism.

[ssfanatic]

Muguly, man im really sorry. Elderly people can be a real pain in the ass. They think,just bec of age, they always know whats best and whats going on. But whatever, sorry.

I dont like racism, its a form of ignorance basically. But i do have to admit that when people dont pronounce their words correctly it really gets under my skin. Often ill say things that are really not racist at all, like when you are standing in a group talking to black people and you use the word "yall". Im not saying "yall" as in black people, im just saying the people who are not me in this group.
Another thing that bothers me is groups like the NAACP, if we made a NAAWP then we would be beset by all the hate mail you could ever think of. Its just a fact.

Basically, i will treat you fairly if you treat me fairly, and please dont be so defensive. I cant name a person in my family who was a slave owner, and the likely hood of a black person naming a slave in their family is slim. I have plenty of black friends, and we all get along very well, but there are those few people that i cant be around bec they take everything i say and try to make it into a racist statement.

[med2006]

I dont like racism, its a form of ignorance basically. But i do have to admit that when people dont pronounce their words correctly it really gets under my skin.

I actually think that lack of ability to prononce words correctly is more a matter of access to education. So it is more of a class issue than a race issue. Then again, there are also regional accents that influence how people pronounce certain words. And I am not referring to the tomato versus tomahto thing I am referring to the "shrimp" versus "skrimps" thing (one of my pet peeves). However, I have heard southern whites say skrimps as well so it cannot be racial in my opinion it is regional.


Another thing that bothers me is groups like the NAACP, if we made a NAAWP then we would be beset by all the hate mail you could ever think of. Its just a fact.

Also, you may want to look into the history of the NAACP. It might shed light into the reason why the organization exists. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There actually is an NAAWP. According to both the Southern Poverty Law Center To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and Wikipedia To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. People
it is classified as a hate group. FYI: Generally, speaking anyone that suggests the need for an organization to look out for the rights of White people will be looked upon as a potential racist. I am not suggesting you are I am just stating that based on my research into hate groups in the U.S. this is a fact.


I cant name a person in my family who was a slave owner, and the likely hood of a black person naming a slave in their family is slim. I have plenty of black friends, and we all get along very well, but there are those few people that i cant be around bec they take everything i say and try to make it into a racist statement.

I am going to preface this reply by saying perhaps you are not racist but your comments make it appear to me that you either lack knowledge of or sensitivity to the history of African Americans. This lack of knowledge perhaps is what is causing your comments to be perceived as racist by the people you cannot be around because they construe everything you say and make it into a racist comment.

Perhaps you should analyze and research why so few African-Americans can name an ancestor that was a slave. According to my research into conducting genealogical research for African Americans it all starts with oral history. Sadly, this information is frequently based on half truths that may have resulted from the shame that slave women experienced as the result of being raped by slave owners or overseers and told their children that their father was Native American. Additionally, the stories have been passed down through so many generations that many of the facts have been twisted or lost entirely.

According to Tony Burroughs’s book BLACK ROOTS: A BEGINNER’S GUIDE TO TRACING THE AFRICAN AMERICAN FAMILY TREE © 2001 (page 30). My comments are in [brackets]:

“In order to research during the slavery period, the name of the former slave owners must be positively identified to determine what they did with their property [the slaves]. Enslaved African Americans were generally not associated with last names [a major piece of information needed in order to effectively conduct and genealogical research I might add] to perpetuate the myth that they were subhuman and therefore didn’t need surnames [although many did adopt the name of the slave owner or chose a surname after slavery ended]. Records of births and deaths were shoddy at best, and nonexistent in many cases. Letters, diaries, and other first person recording of slaves are almost nonexistent. [Because we were not allowed to learn to read or write and it was illegal for a White person to teach us how]. Except in rare instances, slaves were prohibited from owning property. Thus, wills and land deeds, which are traditional sources for genealogy are unavailable for tracing enslaved Africans.”

Compound this by the fact that if we can get a hold of a name of a slave ancestor from a living relative the only official records that may exist are slave registries that may or may not have the names and in some cases the spellings of the names that were used in the past are not the same contemporary spellings. So the statement you made regarding our lack of knowledge about our ancestry is yet another case of blaming the victim.

.

[ssfanatic]

I actually think that lack of ability to prononce words correctly is more a matter of access to education. So it is more of a class issue than a race issue. Then again, there are also regional accents that influence how people pronounce certain words. And I am not referring to the tomato versus tomahto thing I am referring to the "shrimp" versus "skrimps" thing (one of my pet peeves). However, I have heard southern whites say skrimps as well so it cannot be racial in my opinion it is regional.



Also, you may want to look into the history of the NAACP. It might shed light into the reason why the organization exists. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There actually is an NAAWP. According to both the Southern Poverty Law Center To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and Wikipedia To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. People
it is classified as a hate group. FYI: Generally, speaking anyone that suggests the need for an organization to look out for the rights of White people will be looked upon as a potential racist. I am not suggesting you are I am just stating that based on my research into hate groups in the U.S. this is a fact.



I am going to preface this reply by saying perhaps you are not racist but your comments make it appear to me that you either lack knowledge of or sensitivity to the history of African Americans. This lack of knowledge perhaps is what is causing your comments to be perceived as racist by the people you cannot be around because they construe everything you say and make it into a racist comment.

Perhaps you should analyze and research why so few African-Americans can name an ancestor that was a slave. According to my research into conducting genealogical research for African Americans it all starts with oral history. Sadly, this information is frequently based on half truths that may have resulted from the shame that slave women experienced as the result of being raped by slave owners or overseers and told their children that their father was Native American. Additionally, the stories have been passed down through so many generations that many of the facts have been twisted or lost entirely.

According to Tony Burroughs’s book BLACK ROOTS: A BEGINNER’S GUIDE TO TRACING THE AFRICAN AMERICAN FAMILY TREE © 2001 (page 30). My comments are in [brackets]:

“In order to research during the slavery period, the name of the former slave owners must be positively identified to determine what they did with their property [the slaves]. Enslaved African Americans were generally not associated with last names [a major piece of information needed in order to effectively conduct and genealogical research I might add] to perpetuate the myth that they were subhuman and therefore didn’t need surnames [although many did adopt the name of the slave owner or chose a surname after slavery ended]. Records of births and deaths were shoddy at best, and nonexistent in many cases. Letters, diaries, and other first person recording of slaves are almost nonexistent. [Because we were not allowed to learn to read or write and it was illegal for a White person to teach us how]. Except in rare instances, slaves were prohibited from owning property. Thus, wills and land deeds, which are traditional sources for genealogy are unavailable for tracing enslaved Africans.”

Compound this by the fact that if we can get a hold of a name of a slave ancestor from a living relative the only official records that may exist are slave registries that may or may not have the names and in some cases the spellings of the names that were used in the past are not the same contemporary spellings. So the statement you made regarding our lack of knowledge about our ancestry is yet another case of blaming the victim.

.
1. Yes and southern colloquial bothers me also. Unfortunately i live in the south :)
2.Thats great that is what they were founded for, but im saying that they stand behind things such as... To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Replace all the words "black" with "white". Racist? But i guess the NAACP receives just as much hate mail as the NAAWP, so thats not a good comparison.
3.Maybe its the insensitive you are looking at. I mean seriously, im an INTJ, what do you expect? Sympathy? And my comments dont pertain to the history of African Americans, they are just sentences with the word "y'all" in them.

Basically, i know you are probably going to blow up on me for this but its just natural, im just saying that the whole slavery ordeal is in the past and should not be forgotten but should be focused on less. So yes, i have a lack of sensitivity and i see no fault in my perception. I dont hate black people, i just wish that every time this topic comes up i wouldnt end up on my heels defending evertyhing i say.

[med2006]

As a black man, I experience a bit of both everyday. When I was younger I didn't pay attention to the apparent racism that was around everyday. Now I'm 25 and everyday it seem like I experience some form of racism or sexism. I try to tell myself I was being too sensitive, but some things are so flagrant, they can't be ignored. Examples: PLENTY of times I have been passed over for a job by a minority woman. Why? Because she fulfilled two requirements instead of my one.

Without more details, I can see several possibilities for this.

1. The first is that perhaps as many other INTJs have experienced (based on posts to other threads) there was something about you that came across in the interviews that made the interviewers think that you (as an INTJ not a Black man) would not fit in well with the culture of the company or the department you would have been working in.

2. Conversely, perhaps the fact that you are a Black male in some cases was the problem because some less informed/evolved people (of all colors yes Black people discriminate against other Black people) believe the stereotypes about Black men. Such as all Black men are lazy, dangerous, ignorant troglodytes. By dangerous I mean, possess poor anger management skills or are gun toting oversexed thug or any combination of the aforementioned stereotypes.

3. Finally, unfortunately, at times when members of oppressed minority groups get to a position of power they exercise that power over members of the group that oppressed them. Again without more details, perhaps there were women (members of an oppressed minority group) in decision making positions who saw you simply as a male (a member of the oppressor group rather than the color of your skin). All I can say about this is that when I get into a “position of power” I will do my best to build a diverse team of qualified people of various races/ethnicities who will bring multiple perspectives to the table so that everyone’s interests will be served by the work we perform. I design educational and training materials so multiple perspectives are not only valued but considered necessary in my field.

As I see it, the only scenario that you can do anything about is the first one. Perhaps, you could seek the assistance of a career counselor who is familiar with MBTI to assist you in identifying any disagreeable INTJ traits that come across in an interview or work situations and make suggestions regarding how to correct them so as not to alienate anyone.


Another? Every week I am followed by the police. Why? I own my car, I don't speed, and most of the time I get followed it's in rush hour traffic when I'm going 40 mph.

I dated a Haitian-American guy who worked as an accountant at a big firm on Wall Street. We took turns visiting each other. Invariably, while driving north in I-95 on his way home from visiting me in DC he would get stopped by the Law enforcement officers. By invariable, I mean 9 times out of 10! Sadly, when he came to DC alone he wasn’t even driving a high end car such as a BMW or Mercedes although a friend of his that would come down with when he (his friend) who also lived in NYC and dated a girl who also lived in DC.

I looked into this and discovered that this was the usual practice of the Law enforcement officers because drug runners often transported cocaine up the East Coast from Miami. They would be told to be on the lookout for Black men driving expensive cars driving north on I-95. Apparently, this type of profiling resulted in numerous arrests. But I imagine that this only put a small dent in the distribution of drugs as evidenced by the crack epidemic of the late 1980s and early 1990s. But I suppose that this was reason enough for Law enforcement to continued the practice. I have to wonder how many actual drug dealers were relieved to see that the police were already occupied as they drove by the “scene” as my friend was being detained. I actually looked in to transferring to a university in NY so that he would not have to deal with the profiling and I wouldn’t have to worry that some rogue officer would shoot or club him for no reason. This was before cell phones so I usually didn’t sleep until he called me to let me know that he made it home safely.


"Break into that car" he says. I tell him it's my truck. He says ok, but I'm going to call the police on you. Ok, awesome. So, here I am, at Ikea, trying to get into my truck when three....three police cars pull up. They ask for I.D. I tell them it's in the truck. So, I show them the keys, still in the ignition, and they try to get the door open. By then I had already called a towing company. The police do their job by asking for my name and DOB and I consent. After about 10 minutes the towing guy comes, while the other officers wait, and opens my door. I the go to the officers to ask if they wanted to see my ID now. They said no and pulled off. Now, by no means was I upset at the police then, they were just doing their jobs. However, that, and other incidents similar, that show me their is still alot of racism.


The practice of sending multiple units to respond to a situation where violence is not involved seems like a waste of resources and man hours to me. I understand that they probably assumed that you could have been carrying a gun, particularly if you live in an area with a high rate of violent crime. But in this case (since you were not belligerent to the elderly couple) it seems to me that one car with two officers or two units in order to allow one officer to approach you and one to call for back-up if necessary would suffice. I have designed training for law enforcement agencies before and am somewhat familiar with officer safety procedures.

Oh yeah, I'm putting on the big sister cap now...next time (hopefully you won’t have to deal with another situation like this in the future) be careful about physically approaching an officer that is responding to a call that involves you or making any statement that could be construed as insubordinate or sarcastic. Some officers have been known to feel threatened and respond violently in these cases. I know of too many young Black men (since I grew up in post-riot Washington, DC) who have had their skulls cracked open for making comments that they (the Black men) felt were necessary simply to prove a point or “save face” or "got too close" for the officer's comfort. Even a comment as simple as “thank you officers” can come off wrong...and people wonder why we are so “sensitive” about race!

By the way, did all three units remain “on the scene” until the tow truck driver opened the door to your truck?

[muguly]

By the way, did all three units remain “on the scene” until the tow truck driver opened the door to your truck?

Yup.I knew that there was going to be too many officers dispatched to the call. It's just one of the things I've become accustom to dealing with:too much attention at the wrong time. The fear of black men is only an American thing. I have met people from all over and no one else fears us. The ironic thing is that many people in America want to be African American. Think about it: people get tans, breast implants, lip injections, butt implants, etc. all to achieve a beauty that comes naturally to A.A. people.It's a completely hypocritical society. If it wasn't for us, there would be no them. I don't want anything but people to let me be. Respect me and I might return the favor, if they deserve it.(exception:my beautiful A.A. women, much respect.)





muguly added to this post, 7 minutes and 21 seconds later...

history of African Americans, they are just sentences with the word "y'all" in them.

"Ya'll" is an abbreviated version of "you all". It's a contraction perfectly acceptable in the english language. How about all the words the "others" use that originate in the A.A community? The most recent one, bling. Oh yes, bling is now in the dictionary. I'm sure you've said it a few time and felt no remorse. So, "ya'll"? Learn to let it not bother you, all things considering.

[med2006]

The ironic thing is that many people in America want to be African American. Think about it: people get tans, breast implants, lip injections, butt implants, etc. all to achieve a beauty that comes naturally to A.A. people.It's a completely hypocritical society. If it wasn't for us, there would be no them. I don't want anything but people to let me be. Respect me and I might return the favor, if they deserve it.(exception:my beautiful A.A. women, much respect.)


I cannot say that I agree with your comments on this issue. Anymore than I agree with the comments that I have read comments posted by White men on an interracial dating forum I read periodically that have suggested that the only attractive African-American or Black women are those of us that have White features. People like Halle Berry, Alicia Keys, Thandie Newton come to mind (all children of interracial couples by the way).

Of course our individual standards of beauty are subjective and often the result of social conditioning and the prevailing standards of beauty of the societies in which we live. I happen to find any number of men from various ethnicities equally physically appealing. Listed in no particular order ar some actors I think are attractive: Djimon Hounsou (West African), Idris Elba (West African raised in Britain - love the accent), Marc Anthony (Latino-Puerto Rican), Bruce Lee (Chinese - I admire his vision and contributions to Martial Arts), Russell Wong (Chinese and Caucasian), Matthew McConaughey, Edward Norton (Caucasian also attracted to/admire his brilliance as an actor), Don Cheadle (African-American also attracted to his brilliance as an actor), Robert DeNiro (Italian-American also attracted to his brilliance as an actor), Sean Connery (Scottish – love the accent and voice) and Sendhil Ramamurthy - Suresh from the TV show “Heroes” (also love the accent).

As far as non AA people trying to look more ethnic I don’t necessarily think that they are trying to look Black. I think it is simply the case of people wanting physical attributes that they don’t have. For example, people with curly hair wish they had straight hair and vice versa.
The tanning thing may be more of a case of people not wanting to look anemic. There are some Caucasians with olive complexions after all.

The rear end enlargement is probably a result of the entertainment media making such a fuss over J.Lo’s posterior. Sure she is Puerto Rican and may have some African Ancestry but when asked, she self identifies as “Latina,” “Boriqua,” “Nuyorican” or “Puerto Rican” and not Afro-Caribbean.

Actually having an ample bosom is more often associated with women of Scandinavian ancestry (buxom blondes) more so than with women of African ancestry. As a matter of fact in Brazil ample hips, small breasts, with a thin waist is considered the most attractive body type for the female form. Because Brazil that has the largest concentration of people of African ancestry outside of the continent of Africa and many of the cultural traditions that Afro-Brazilians practice to this day remain largely unchanged since they came to this hemisphere suggests to me that their standards of beauty may remain somewhat intact. Now I do realize that many North West African women may have larger breasts. However, those from Central and Southern West Africa (i.e. Angola a Portuguese colony) may have had smaller breasts which might explain why Afro-Brazilian men prefer the body type I describe previously. Of course this is assuming that my hypothesis that Afro-Brazilian men’s standards of beauty have been shaped more by Central/Southern West African standards of beauty and less by Portuguese standards.

I point these things out merely to suggest that we do some actual research before we start making assumptions about whether or not people of other races envy the physical attributes of Africans and people of African Ancestry.

[ssfanatic]

"Ya'll" is an abbreviated version of "you all". It's a contraction perfectly acceptable in the english language. How about all the words the "others" use that originate in the A.A community? The most recent one, bling. Oh yes, bling is now in the dictionary. I'm sure you've said it a few time and felt no remorse. So, "ya'll"? Learn to let it not bother you, all things considering.

I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that every time i say "you all" in a group with my black friends they take offense.

And this really has nothing to do with anything but do you say "you all" or "ya'll".
I say ya'll but when i type it, it just looks funny, so i backspace and type you all :p

[vaguely dissatisfied]

As a black man, I experience a bit of both everyday. When I was younger I didn't pay attention to the apparent racism that was around everyday. Now I'm 25 and everyday it seem like I experience some form of racism or sexism. I try to tell myself I was being too sensitive, but some things are so flagrant, they can't be ignored. Examples: PLENTY of times I have been passed over for a job by a minority woman. Why? Because she fulfilled two requirements instead of my one. Another? Every week I am followed by the police. Why? I own my car, I don't speed, and most of the time I get followed it's in rush hour traffic when I'm going 40 mph. And yet the greatest example happened just two weeks ago: I was at Ikea when I locked my keys in my work truck. There are no company logos on it so it looks like a normal pickup. As I'm trying to get the door open with a piece of wire, an elderly couple pulls up. They get out and the husband says to me "you shouldn't do that". I respond "do what"? "Break into that car" he says. I tell him it's my truck. He says ok, but I'm going to call the police on you. Ok, awesome. So, here I am, at Ikea, trying to get into my truck when three....three police cars pull up. They ask for I.D. I tell them it's in the truck. So, I show them the keys, still in the ignition, and they try to get the door open. By then I had already called a towing company. The police do their job by asking for my name and DOB and I consent. After about 10 minutes the towing guy comes, while the other officers wait, and opens my door. I the go to the officers to ask if they wanted to see my ID now. They said no and pulled off. Now, by no means was I upset at the police then, they were just doing their jobs. However, that, and other incidents similar, that show me their is still alot of racism.
With regards to your first point..........do you feel that affirmative action should be abolished? So that would mean that there are no quotas to fill within the workplace environment and people are free to hire based on their own chosen criteria.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 3 minutes and 40 seconds later...

Muguly, man im really sorry. Elderly people can be a real pain in the ass. They think,just bec of age, they always know whats best and whats going on. But whatever, sorry.

I dont like racism, its a form of ignorance basically. But i do have to admit that when people dont pronounce their words correctly it really gets under my skin. Often ill say things that are really not racist at all, like when you are standing in a group talking to black people and you use the word "yall". Im not saying "yall" as in black people, im just saying the people who are not me in this group.
Another thing that bothers me is groups like the NAACP, if we made a NAAWP then we would be beset by all the hate mail you could ever think of. Its just a fact.

Basically, i will treat you fairly if you treat me fairly, and please dont be so defensive. I cant name a person in my family who was a slave owner, and the likely hood of a black person naming a slave in their family is slim. I have plenty of black friends, and we all get along very well, but there are those few people that i cant be around bec they take everything i say and try to make it into a racist statement.
Racism is the theory that human abilities are determined by race.

Do you think that a group of people who are in position of authority and privilege within a society requires the same sort of support and protection as a group that is regularly discriminated against?

[thod]

With regards to your first point..........do you feel that affirmative action should be abolished? So that would mean that there are no quotas to fill within the workplace environment and people are free to hire based on their own chosen criteria.


Seems reasonable. If I hire to plumber to fix a leaking pipe I couldnt care less who shows up to do the job. I dont expect to hire a white male plumber, then a black female plumber, then a mutant ninja turtle pulumber with one leg. I want to job done and couldnt care less who does it.

Get rid of the social engineering. For an employee I am going to hire whoever makes me the most money. Thats the whole point of having an employee.

Racism is the theory that human abilities are determined by race.

Race is a function of genetics, species is a function of gentetics. Lizards are not humans and have different abilities. Its likely that race does imply different abilities. This is dependent on how long the isolation between the races has been and interbreeding.

Strangly enough black skin does do better in sunlight, most heavyweight champions are black guys. Exactly which skills are effected and to what degree is the question. Its about genes not color. Some genes will make you better at things than others, thats the whole point of genetic variation and fitness for environment.


This is the INTJ forum though. Its a property of INTJ's to never accept they are inferior at anything. Thus if they ever fail at anything it is due to discriminatation, not the fact they are slow and stupid, because no INTJ would ever be able accept that model of themselves.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Seems reasonable. If I hire to plumber to fix a leaking pipe I couldnt care less who shows up to do the job. I dont expect to hire a white male plumber, then a black female plumber, then a mutant ninja turtle pulumber with one leg. I want to job done and couldnt care less who does it.

Get rid of the social engineering. For an employee I am going to hire whoever makes me the most money. Thats the whole point of having an employee.



Race is a function of genetics, species is a function of gentetics. Lizards are not humans and have different abilities. Its likely that race does imply different abilities. This is dependent on how long the isolation between the races has been and interbreeding.

Strangly enough black skin does do better in sunlight, most heavyweight champions are black guys. Exactly which skills are effected and to what degree is the question. Its about genes not color. Some genes will make you better at things than others, thats the whole point of genetic variation and fitness for environment.


This is the INTJ forum though. Its a property of INTJ's to never accept they are inferior at anything. Thus if they ever fail at anything it is due to discriminatation, not the fact they are slow and stupid, because no INTJ would ever be able accept that model of themselves.
Do you know why affirmative action was started?

Race is not a function of genetics. Species is a function of genetics. Sex is a function of genetics. Race is socially constructed.

Genetics dictate phenotype like yellow, red, brown, and black hair. If there were no such thing as hair dye..........you and I could decide to form four races based on hair color.

[muguly]

I cannot say that I agree with your comments on this issue. Anymore than I agree with the comments that I have read comments posted by White men on an interracial dating forum I read periodically that have suggested that the only attractive African-American or Black women are those of us that have White features. People like Halle Berry, Alicia Keys, Thandie Newton come to mind (all children of interracial couples by the way).

Of course our individual standards of beauty are subjective and often the result of social conditioning and the prevailing standards of beauty of the societies in which we live. I happen to find any number of men from various ethnicities equally physically appealing. Listed in no particular order ar some actors I think are attractive: Djimon Hounsou (West African), Idris Elba (West African raised in Britain - love the accent), Marc Anthony (Latino-Puerto Rican), Bruce Lee (Chinese - I admire his vision and contributions to Martial Arts), Russell Wong (Chinese and Caucasian), Matthew McConaughey, Edward Norton (Caucasian also attracted to/admire his brilliance as an actor), Don Cheadle (African-American also attracted to his brilliance as an actor), Robert DeNiro (Italian-American also attracted to his brilliance as an actor), Sean Connery (Scottish – love the accent and voice) and Sendhil Ramamurthy - Suresh from the TV show “Heroes” (also love the accent).

As far as non AA people trying to look more ethnic I don’t necessarily think that they are trying to look Black. I think it is simply the case of people wanting physical attributes that they don’t have. For example, people with curly hair wish they had straight hair and vice versa.
The tanning thing may be more of a case of people not wanting to look anemic. There are some Caucasians with olive complexions after all.

The rear end enlargement is probably a result of the entertainment media making such a fuss over J.Lo’s posterior. Sure she is Puerto Rican and may have some African Ancestry but when asked, she self identifies as “Latina,” “Boriqua,” “Nuyorican” or “Puerto Rican” and not Afro-Caribbean.

Actually having an ample bosom is more often associated with women of Scandinavian ancestry (buxom blondes) more so than with women of African ancestry. As a matter of fact in Brazil ample hips, small breasts, with a thin waist is considered the most attractive body type for the female form. Because Brazil that has the largest concentration of people of African ancestry outside of the continent of Africa and many of the cultural traditions that Afro-Brazilians practice to this day remain largely unchanged since they came to this hemisphere suggests to me that their standards of beauty may remain somewhat intact. Now I do realize that many North West African women may have larger breasts. However, those from Central and Southern West Africa (i.e. Angola a Portuguese colony) may have had smaller breasts which might explain why Afro-Brazilian men prefer the body type I describe previously. Of course this is assuming that my hypothesis that Afro-Brazilian men’s standards of beauty have been shaped more by Central/Southern West African standards of beauty and less by Portuguese standards.

I point these things out merely to suggest that we do some actual research before we start making assumptions about whether or not people of other races envy the physical attributes of Africans and people of African Ancestry.

I agree with you. This is the one time my feelings kinda outweigh my logic. But, I do agree.





muguly added to this post, 10 minutes and 10 seconds later...

Do you think that a group of people who are in position of authority and privilege within a society requires the same sort of support and protection as a group that is regularly discriminated against?

Affirmative Action is an interesting topic: on one hand, you have some companies that want to diversify and hire the best man for the job. On the other, you have companies that hire people like themselves. I believe in affirmative action for everybody. For instance: if I were to apply to a predominately (insert race) college, then I should be able to benefit from affirmative action. As long as you are a minority, whether you be black, white, purple, orange, affirmative action will be on your side. I think when most people think of affirmative action they automatically think of everyone brown when they should think of everyone. It's a stigma that gives affirmative action a bad name, even though it has bitten me in the butt a few times. I believe without it, the poverty level would drastically increase, then people would be complaining about the public assistance program. For what it's worth, everybody wants to earn a living. Affirmative action makes it easier for some to get their foot in the door of a company they desire.

[thod]

Affirmative action makes it easier for some to get their foot in the door of a company they desire.

Fortunately it only happens in America. They tried it for a short while here under the name of "positive discrimination" it died out fast under the hail of protest when less able candidates were accepted over more able. I am amazed that the US courts haven't outlawed it. If I failed to get a place in college over someone with much lower grades due to race I would sue straight away for racial discrimination. Maybe its bacause we dont have the race issues that are present in the US. Everyone seems to integrate much better.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

I agree with you. This is the one time my feelings kinda outweigh my logic. But, I do agree.





muguly added to this post, 10 minutes and 10 seconds later...



Affirmative Action is an interesting topic: on one hand, you have some companies that want to diversify and hire the best man for the job. On the other, you have companies that hire people like themselves. I believe in affirmative action for everybody. For instance: if I were to apply to a predominately (insert race) college, then I should be able to benefit from affirmative action. As long as you are a minority, whether you be black, white, purple, orange, affirmative action will be on your side. I think when most people think of affirmative action they automatically think of everyone brown when they should think of everyone. It's a stigma that gives affirmative action a bad name, even though it has bitten me in the butt a few times. I believe without it, the poverty level would drastically increase, then people would be complaining about the public assistance program. For what it's worth, everybody wants to earn a living. Affirmative action makes it easier for some to get their foot in the door of a company they desire.
But if you are pro affirmative action, then your comment............

"Now I'm 25 and everyday it seem like I experience some form of racism or sexism. I try to tell myself I was being too sensitive, but some things are so flagrant, they can't be ignored. Examples: PLENTY of times I have been passed over for a job by a minority woman. Why? Because she fulfilled two requirements instead of my one."

.....sounds like you feel you are being discriminated against because the woman got the job......because she's a woman. Whereas, if you had gotten the job because you're black that would be O.K.?





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 1 minutes and 8 seconds later...

Fortunately it only happens in America. They tried it for a short while here under the name of "positive discrimination" it died out fast under the hail of protest when less able candidates were accepted over more able. I am amazed that the US courts haven't outlawed it. If I failed to get a place in college over someone with much lower grades due to race I would sue straight away for racial discrimination. Maybe its bacause we dont have the race issues that are present in the US. Everyone seems to integrate much better.
You must be living somewhere very ideal indeed.

[rwyatt365]

Racism is not an American abstraction, it's just that we have made such a big deal about being so "free and egalitarian" and then don’t back it up in action. Many societies discriminate against minority populations based on physical variations (not to mention religious, nationalistic, or economic differences). But a lot of those patterns of discrimination have been around for a long time and aren't thought of in the same manner as American racism is.

Racism is a human condition, it's just another way for the mind to compartmentalize one's relationship with another person that is different. "You are [fill in the difference], therefore you are [fill in the prejudice]". If the difference is not skin color, then it will be hair color, or length or nose, or some other convenient "indicator". Skin color and other physical features are easy because they are readily discernible.

To the OP;
Should sexism be addressed within A-A culture? Yes, but is that the priority? If you're cold, hungry and without water should you address being cold? Yes, but if you don't drink soon, you will be dead regardless of being warm – cold is not necessarily the first priority. That's a simply analogy (and one that could easily be shot through with holes), but it illustrates my point, sexism is not necessarily the primary issue. So, should we not focus on some resolution to racism in America, and then address sexism. Please don’t chastise me for thinking that Black women are not important, as that is not the case. But the more that Black Americans fracture and divide our focus, the easier it will be to divert and minimize the efforts.

To muguly;
For a Black person, the ugly head of racial prejudice raises its head virtually every day. I've been held at gunpoint several times by (well-intentioned) police for DWB (Driving While Black) – and it's not because I was driving a pimped-out ride, bumpin' the jams, or violating the law. I just happened to "look like someone". I'm 5'5" and for years weighed all of 125lbs, clearly not an imposing figure, and I have always dressed conservatively and nowhere near the latest style – but even I notice women clutching their purses a little tighter and men crossing the street as I approached. It often borders on the absurd!

To med2006;
Thank you for your erudite and thoughtful answers. Racism does indeed exist (in America), but everything that happens is not necessarily racism.

[quentin]

To put it as simply as possibly:

Differences between races are neglible.

Differences between the sexes are real.

I can see how in the future, race shall not matter at all - does skin color really matter? No. But men and women shall always be different and not equal. There is a clear biological difference between the two sexes. The differences between the races are superficial at best.

[muguly]

But if you are pro affirmative action, then your comment.................sounds like you feel you are being discriminated against because the woman got the job......because she's a woman. Whereas, if you had gotten the job because you're black that would be O.K.?.

I think you misunderstand my position: I am in favor of affirmative action. But, it must be equal across the board. White people who attend HBCU's are the minority, therefore should be intittled to affirmatice action placement if they choose to do so. The only thing I've attained from being "black" is a life time of proving people wrong. Affirmative Action helps those who would be discriminated against in any other circumstance.

[quentin]

The problem with affirmative action is that it leaves poor white people out in the cold.

Minorities have affirmative action.

Middle class and rich white people have their own version of affirmative action - legacies (for universities) and the good old boy network.

Working class white people get totally fucked over. Is it any wonder we're so angry? Being born white has given me no advantage whatsoever when you're born into a trailer park in Arkansas. The vast majority of the poor people in America are poor whites. Poor white people outnumber poor blacks and Hispanics, in sheer population. But being born poor and white doesn't get you any scholarships or preferential hiring practices.

[muguly]

The problem with affirmative action is that it leaves poor white people out in the cold.

Minorities have affirmative action.

Middle class and rich white people have their own version of affirmative action - legacies (for universities) and the good old boy network.

Working class white people get totally fucked over. Is it any wonder we're so angry? Being born white has given me no advantage whatsoever when you're born into a trailer park in Arkansas. The vast majority of the poor people in America are poor whites. Poor white people outnumber poor blacks and Hispanics, in sheer population. But being born poor and white doesn't get you any scholarships or preferential hiring practices.

True, true indeed. I have always seen that problem within that particular demographic.There is no real way to beat that but to exceed above everyone else to be the best. But it does suck.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Racism is not an American abstraction, it's just that we have made such a big deal about being so "free and egalitarian" and then don’t back it up in action. Many societies discriminate against minority populations based on physical variations (not to mention religious, nationalistic, or economic differences). But a lot of those patterns of discrimination have been around for a long time and aren't thought of in the same manner as American racism is.

Racism is a human condition, it's just another way for the mind to compartmentalize one's relationship with another person that is different. "You are [fill in the difference], therefore you are [fill in the prejudice]". If the difference is not skin color, then it will be hair color, or length or nose, or some other convenient "indicator". Skin color and other physical features are easy because they are readily discernible.

To the OP;
Should sexism be addressed within A-A culture? Yes, but is that the priority? If you're cold, hungry and without water should you address being cold? Yes, but if you don't drink soon, you will be dead regardless of being warm – cold is not necessarily the first priority. That's a simply analogy (and one that could easily be shot through with holes), but it illustrates my point, sexism is not necessarily the primary issue. So, should we not focus on some resolution to racism in America, and then address sexism. Please don’t chastise me for thinking that Black women are not important, as that is not the case. But the more that Black Americans fracture and divide our focus, the easier it will be to divert and minimize the efforts.

To muguly;
For a Black person, the ugly head of racial prejudice raises its head virtually every day. I've been held at gunpoint several times by (well-intentioned) police for DWB (Driving While Black) – and it's not because I was driving a pimped-out ride, bumpin' the jams, or violating the law. I just happened to "look like someone". I'm 5'5" and for years weighed all of 125lbs, clearly not an imposing figure, and I have always dressed conservatively and nowhere near the latest style – but even I notice women clutching their purses a little tighter and men crossing the street as I approached. It often borders on the absurd!

To med2006;
Thank you for your erudite and thoughtful answers. Racism does indeed exist (in America), but everything that happens is not necessarily racism.
I will not fault you at all. But something doesn't have to be as important as another to be important in it's own right and, therefore, addressed. If you are trying to survive, then you may well have to fix one thing before another. I don't think that is the case with racism and sexism.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 1 minutes and 55 seconds later...

To put it as simply as possibly:

Differences between races are neglible.

Differences between the sexes are real.

I can see how in the future, race shall not matter at all - does skin color really matter? No. But men and women shall always be different and not equal. There is a clear biological difference between the two sexes. The differences between the races are superficial at best.
Women and men are equal..........just not the same.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 0 minutes and 47 seconds later...

I think you misunderstand my position: I am in favor of affirmative action. But, it must be equal across the board. White people who attend HBCU's are the minority, therefore should be intittled to affirmatice action placement if they choose to do so. The only thing I've attained from being "black" is a life time of proving people wrong. Affirmative Action helps those who would be discriminated against in any other circumstance.
Does that include women?





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 1 minutes and 14 seconds later...

The problem with affirmative action is that it leaves poor white people out in the cold.

Minorities have affirmative action.

Middle class and rich white people have their own version of affirmative action - legacies (for universities) and the good old boy network.

Working class white people get totally fucked over. Is it any wonder we're so angry? Being born white has given me no advantage whatsoever when you're born into a trailer park in Arkansas. The vast majority of the poor people in America are poor whites. Poor white people outnumber poor blacks and Hispanics, in sheer population. But being born poor and white doesn't get you any scholarships or preferential hiring practices.
What's the answer then? Do we get rid of affirmative action and go back to letting people discriminate as they please during the hiring process?

[quentin]

Base it on class instead of race.

It's that simple.

I never felt poor as a child, because as a poor white kid I was still better off than poor black kids that I knew in the south. And when I mean poor, I am talking about literally poor - as in living in in wooden shacks and barely even having shoes to fit their feet poor. I grew up in the segregrated south and those were the poor black kids that I saw living across the creek on the other side of the trailer park. So I felt very privileged to have running water and enough food to eat and a warm roof over my head in the winter. I grew up very angry at social injustice, in that way. I learned at a very early age that life wasn't fair.

So I have 0% sympathy for middle-class black people who whine about how tough they've had it in their lives and why they need affirmative action. People who grew up in better circumstances and houses than anybody I knew, and still complaining. I understand that everybody has their own particular struggle, but....at some point you have to step back and realize that your life is better off than 95% of humanity.

[muguly]

Does that include women?

It definitely does. Affirmative Action policies do not specify a race or gender so why should anyone else?

[quentin]

My point is that in America we privilege sex and race at the expense of the unspoken unfairness in life - class. This is very different from the European attitude where social class is acknowledged as a reality. In America we're all Horatio Algers - all equally born. According the American mythology. Which is mythology - don't forget that salient point.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Base it on class instead of race.

It's that simple.

I never felt poor as a child, because as a poor white kid I was still better off than poor black kids that I knew in the south. And when I mean poor, I am talking about literally poor - as in living in in wooden shacks and barely even having shoes to fit their feet poor. I grew up in the segregrated south and those were the poor black kids that I saw living across the creek on the other side of the trailer park. So I felt very privileged to have running water and enough food to eat and a warm roof over my head in the winter. I grew up very angry at social injustice, in that way. I learned at a very early age that life wasn't fair.

So I have 0% sympathy for middle-class black people who whine about how tough they've had it in their lives and why they need affirmative action. People who grew up in better circumstances and houses than anybody I knew, and still complaining. I understand that everybody has their own particular struggle, but....at some point you have to step back and realize that your life is better off than 95% of humanity.
So if not affirmative action to deal with discrimination.........than what? Or should we allow discrimination in the hiring process?





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 4 minutes and 2 seconds later...

It definitely does. Affirmative Action policies do not specify a race or gender so why should anyone else?
Well then back to my original question. When you gave this example of prejudism in your life ...."Examples: PLENTY of times I have been passed over for a job by a minority woman. Why? Because she fulfilled two requirements instead of my one." It sounds like you are saying that the woman should not have been chosen because it was showing prejudiced to hire her instead of you based on the fact that she was a woman.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 1 minutes and 7 seconds later...

My point is that in America we privilege sex and race at the expense of the unspoken unfairness in life - class. This is very different from the European attitude where social class is acknowledged as a reality. In America we're all Horatio Algers - all equally born. According the American mythology. Which is mythology - don't forget that salient point.
Class is definately something to be addressed.........perhape you should start a thread????

[Lights]

A few interesting facts about racism that I learned when I took Social Diversity.

1. The idea of race began with Christopher Columbus. Before that, groups like the Ethiopians were considered by Europe to be saviors for standing up against infidels. Basically a new system had to be created to justify the slaughtering of indigenous people. By saying that differences such as skin color made people less human, it became easier to get around the conflict of Christian values.

2. Colonialism, the forceful occupation or exploitation of another's land, became the creed of Europe. By the nineteenth century, 2/3 of the world was colonized by European nations. However, you need people to labor in order to extract resources from the land, so the slave trade was born. The slave trade pushed the idea of race. Enslaving a group of people is easier if you can think of aspects of how they are different than you.

3. The rise in the idea of white supremacy actually began with the Declaration of Independence.

4. Frederick L. Hoffman, a president of the American Statistics Association, did a statistical study of "negros" back in 1896. He came to the conclusion that blacks were inherently inferior to whites because they had high mortality rates and seemed prone to disease. He concluded it would be a waste of money to educate and provide housing for these people because they would inevitably go extinct. However, what Hoffman overlooked was the vast majority of the blacks he studied were living in poverty, and the divisions of health were clearly related to socioeconomic status and not skin color. Sadly, his studies were taken seriously and it lead to the formation of America's segregation policies. Many states passed laws forbidding interracial marriages as it was seen as poisoning the bloodline. Even worse, the concepts of race inferiority and the seemingly indisputable evidence provided by Hoffman, was later adopted by Germany and was used as justification in their genocidal pursuits up through World War 2.

5. People attempted to establish many biological ideas to race that just didn't exist. Skin color alone proved ineffective as people could be directly related to somebody of a different skin color and appear white. So next, the idea of blood groups was concocted. In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, Homer Plessy argued that he should be allowed to ride in the bus seats reserved for whites because he was only 1/8th black. However, it was American policy to consider anyone with a drop of black blood to be considered black. Even natives living on reservations who were one quarter or more Indian were designated as black if they had even less than one sixteenth black blood. Many established scientific institutions even supported the idea that blacks and other races were descendants of different species.

6. The American Federal Government, even today, does much to benefit whites over other minorities. The construction of highways and sewage facilities for suburbs, real estate redlining, and subsidization of urban renewal plans are but a few examples. In addition to that, whites get to enjoy the privilege of setting the norm, defining other groups, and not having to be defined by their racial status. Even today, America works hard to maintain distinct racial categories. Being a minority means that individuals have double concious, a term which means, they have to see themselves, even objectify themselves through the eyes of the dominant culture. This was very evident in the case of Brown v. Education, where young black children picked a white doll as superior to a black one. There is strong evidence that this is continuing even today.

7. The people who have profited most from Affirmative Action, are white women.

[muguly]

Well then back to my original question. When you gave this example of prejudism in your life ...."Examples: PLENTY of times I have been passed over for a job by a minority woman. Why? Because she fulfilled two requirements instead of my one." It sounds like you are saying that the woman should not have been chosen because it was showing prejudiced to hire her instead of you based on the fact that she was a woman

From what I could tell, I was more qualified for the position that she was. The reason I know this is because we worked for the same company and were applying for a promotion. Oh yes, A.A. is a double edged sword that cuts both ways, but I still endorse it. Not just for me, but for anyone who needs it. It is a poor hiring practice to hire someone less qualified, that's bad business. But, if that's how the company wants to spend their money, oh well.

[thod]

1. The idea of race began with Christopher Columbus. Before that, groups like the Ethiopians were considered by Europe to be saviors for standing up against infidels. Basically a new system had to be created to justify the slaughtering of indigenous people. By saying that differences such as skin color made people less human, it became easier to get around the conflict of Christian values

Well there were words like blackamoor. The moors (morocco) being the most southern people encountered who would sometime have someone ever blacker with them. But there was no racism as such. The measure of a man was in his religion. There was christendom and heathens, jews were semi ok since Jesus was a jew. The nubians from ethiopia were of course know in theory. Yet very few people at the time traveled and would have never seen other races.


2. Colonialism, the forceful occupation or exploitation of another's land, became the creed of Europe. By the nineteenth century, 2/3 of the world was colonized by European nations. However, you need people to labor in order to extract resources from the land, so the slave trade was born. The slave trade pushed the idea of race. Enslaving a group of people is easier if you can think of aspects of how they are different than you.


The slave trade had been going on forever. Romans had them, they were the spoils of war. There were north african slave traders that would go snatch a whole village from ireland to sell. So race didnt matter. The europeans colonised because they could, because there was nothing to stop them. They regarded all resources they found as a means to get rich. The whole history of colonialism is capitalism. Africa had lots of people that nobody objected to slaving. They were not going to take them from india with the added distances. You need cargos for both all legs of the trip. So slaves taken over, cotton brought back etc. Africa was ideal.

3. The rise in the idea of white supremacy actually began with the Declaration of Independence.


Not realy. The early debate was if the black man had a soul. If so he was human if not an animal. The pastors had to decide this since there is little point in trying to save the soul of an animal. If they are human then crimes against them will be punished in the next life.

.
.
.

Too many points cant be assed to answer all.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

From what I could tell, I was more qualified for the position that she was. The reason I know this is because we worked for the same company and were applying for a promotion. Oh yes, A.A. is a double edged sword that cuts both ways, but I still endorse it. Not just for me, but for anyone who needs it. It is a poor hiring practice to hire someone less qualified, that's bad business. But, if that's how the company wants to spend their money, oh well.
So if some white man had applied for that job and had been more qualified than you should they get the job? And who gets to decide if they are more qualified?





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 1 minutes and 59 seconds later...

A few interesting facts about racism that I learned when I took Social Diversity.
Thanks for this........it is both informative and eye-opening.

[Lights]

Not realy. The early debate was if the black man had a soul. If so he was human if not an animal. The pastors had to decide this since there is little point in trying to save the soul of an animal. If they are human then crimes against them will be punished in the next life.

Let me look reconfirm on this fact. I am quite certain this is true, but I need to reiterate why the Declaration of Independence brought about white supremacy.

Edit: Okay, upon looking it up, the concept that "all men are created equal" was understood to refer to only those who could own property. Obviously, slaves couldn't own property, nor could the natives on the land. So they weren't equal. It's rather clever. First define those who own land as the only people who have value. Then just take away the capacity for other people to own property and you can't be cited for stripping them of their land or rights.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Let me look reconfirm on this fact. I am quite certain this is true, but I need to reiterate why the Declaration of Independence brought about white supremacy.
You are a trooper.

[Lights]

You are a trooper.

Thank you. :thumbsup:

[muguly]

So if some white man had applied for that job and had been more qualified than you should they get the job? And who gets to decide if they are more qualified?

Yes. If their credentials surpass mine, they obviously would be better for the job.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Yes. If their credentials surpass mine, they obviously would be better for the job.
Then how does affirmative action work if every white male that comes through the door has better credentials than every black person or white female? I mean, affirmative action dictates that there must be a quota filled for minority groups (including women who are not really a minority, but are discriminated against). This means that in the above scenario there will be a certain number of people who will be accepted whose credentials are not amoung the best, but are well within acceptable.

[muguly]

Then how does affirmative action work if every white male that comes through the door has better credentials than every black person or white female? I mean, affirmative action dictates that there must be a quota filled for minority groups (including women who are not really a minority, but are discriminated against). This means that in the above scenario there will be a certain number of people who will be accepted whose credentials are not amoung the best, but are well within acceptable.

That also means a majority with less credentials will not get a job over a minority simply because he's the majority. Let's be honest: a majority would never have a problem getting a position because someone, some where higher up is helping him/her every step of the way. Doors that are closed to just about everybody are open to a majority member.All affirmative action does in level the playing field......slightly.We all are familiar with the good ol' boy system, that's what spawned the need for affirmative action. The bottom line, either you like it or you don't. If anyone is afraid that affirmative action will take something from them, work harder. Be better qualified then everyone else, then there should be no worries about it.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

That also means a majority with less credentials will not get a job over a minority simply because he's the majority. Let's be honest: a majority would never have a problem getting a position because someone, some where higher up is helping him/her every step of the way. Doors that are closed to just about everybody are open to a majority member.All affirmative action does in level the playing field......slightly.We all are familiar with the good ol' boy system, that's what spawned the need for affirmative action. The bottom line, either you like it or you don't. If anyone is afraid that affirmative action will take something from them, work harder. Be better qualified then everyone else, then there should be no worries about it.
I'm in complete agreement with all of your statements. However, I don't know if I'm missing something, but I don't think you addressed the question.

Do you believe that anyone with better credentials than you should get the job you are seeking and, if so, would this apply even if the minimum quota for minority placement is not met?

[thod]

Then how does affirmative action work if every white male that comes through the door has better credentials than every black person or white female? I mean, affirmative action dictates that there must be a quota filled for minority groups

Then every job goes to the white male. Racism is still racism when its in your favor. The courts need to declare affirmative action an illegal law since it runs afoul of existing racism laws. Its hard to understand why they are not doing so. Some guy complains that means he wont get the job, then tough, work to be as good as the other guy.

That also means a majority with less credentials will not get a job over a minority simply because he's the majority. Let's be honest: a majority would never have a problem getting a position because someone, some where higher up is helping him/her every step of the way. Doors that are closed to just about everybody are open to a majority member.All affirmative action does in level the playing field......slightly.We all are familiar with the good ol' boy system, that's what spawned the need for affirmative action. The bottom line, either you like it or you don't. If anyone is afraid that affirmative action will take something from them, work harder. Be better qualified then everyone else, then there should be no worries about it

Most people are not part of some old boys club from ivy league education. Those guys are unaffected anyhow. They will hire a minority janitor but never give a place on the main board.

The highest earning group here in the UK is not whites. Its Asians, those of Indian descent are the highest of all.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Then every job goes to the white male. Racism is still racism when its in your favor. The courts need to declare affirmative action an illegal law since it runs afoul of existing racism laws. Its hard to understand why they are not doing so. Some guy complains that means he wont get the job, then tough, work to be as good as the other guy.
O.K. so if we get rid of affirmative action then how do we prevent discrimination? By this I mean, how do we prevent an employer from hiring only white men regardless of their credentials? Or should we ignore this practice?

[muguly]

I'm in complete agreement with all of your statements. However, I don't know if I'm missing something, but I don't think you addressed the question.

Do you believe that anyone with better credentials than you should get the job you are seeking and, if so, would this apply even if the minimum quota for minority placement is not met?

Yes, of course if there was someone more qualified to do the job I would expect him/her to get it. But, that depends on the company's hiring practices.

[thod]

O.K. so if we get rid of affirmative action then how do we prevent discrimination? By this I mean, how do we prevent an employer from hiring only white men regardless of their credentials? Or should we ignore this practice?

Ignore it thats his choice. If they are crap then his company will fall to the competition that is more able. The idea is to make money from employees. You hire a dummy its your problem.

What is to stop the black woman only hiring black women? answer nothing. Or are we now saying that there is something about black women that stops them starting a business?

What makes you think they will hire people they don't want to? They will hire them as cleaners and gardeners. When it comes to the board every position is fought over. The people go up the ladder, achieving, backstabbing and ass licking. The most capable ones at that get the job. You cant just promote some fool because of a physical attribute. Being just good enough is not enough for a director. Anyone can sit in and make bad decisions. You have to prove you make good decisions to get the job. When it comes to share dealing on wall street nobody gives a damn if you purple ears and a green nose. The only thing that matters is making the money.

[muguly]

Most people are not part of some old boys club from ivy league education. Those guys are unaffected anyhow. They will hire a minority janitor but never give a place on the main board.

Maybe you, my friend, should take a trip over seas and come visit. No one said anything about an ivy league. It's the system of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" that I refer to. I have no problem losing to someone better that I. I do, however, have a problem when the CEO of a company hires his friends son simply because of their relationship. Affirmative action makes sure that even if that happens, employers still have to adhere to a diverse atmosphere in the work place. Even if you don't like it, it just make good business sense: with diversity you get different sides of every situation and can make more informed decisions for the better of the company.Affirmative action illegal? Only to those who see it as a threat to their well being. But as you stated "Some guy complains that means he wont get the job, then tough, work to be as good as the other guy".

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Yes, of course if there was someone more qualified to do the job I would expect him/her to get it. But, that depends on the company's hiring practices.
Affirmative action was developed to stop companies from discriminating in their hiring practices. These companies claimed that they were only hiring those with the best credentials. It was discovered that many were not choosing based on credentials alone, but also on race and sex (white race and male sex). There seemed to be no other way to ensure fair treatment for all but to impose a minority quota on companies.

What I'm asking is this.......is there another way to avoid this sort of problem?





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 6 minutes and 26 seconds later...

Ignore it thats his choice. If they are crap then his company will fall to the competition that is more able. The idea is to make money from employees. You hire a dummy its your problem.

What is to stop the black woman only hiring black women? answer nothing. Or are we now saying that there is something about black women that stops them starting a business?

What makes you think they will hire people they don't want to? They will hire them as cleaners and gardeners. When it comes to the board every position is fought over. The people go up the ladder, achieving, backstabbing and ass licking. The most capable ones at that get the job. You cant just promote some fool because of a physical attribute. Being just good enough is not enough for a director. Anyone can sit in and make bad decisions. You have to prove you make good decisions to get the job. When it comes to share dealing on wall street nobody gives a damn if you purple ears and a green nose. The only thing that matters is making the money.
Affirmative action requires all companies to diversify. This works against the regular discriminatory practices of many companies, thereby, allowing more equal treatment of all individuals in the hiring practices of these companies. The process was required only because of the appallingly common practice of hiring white men only in a vast majority of companies......regardless of credentials.

[muguly]

What I'm asking is this.......is there another way to avoid this sort of problem?

Only when we become blind to the differences that make us unique can that happen. If the hiring process was strictly based what was on paper and there were no face to face interviews before the person was hired, then it probably would be equal. So, to answer you question, no. My suggestion, move to the U.K.: the land of milk and bad teeth;D

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Only when we become blind to the differences that make us unique can that happen. If the hiring process was strictly based what was on paper and there were no face to face interviews before the person was hired, then it probably would be equal. So, to answer you question, no. My suggestion, move to the U.K.: the land of milk and bad teeth;D
O.K. so if we must keep affirmative action in order to avoid the 'old' prejudices, then the 'new' prejudices that are created because of this (like the one where you get passed over for promotion by a woman who is less qualified) must be tolerated.

Bad teeth.............that's funny.

[muguly]

O.K. so if we must keep affirmative action in order to avoid the 'old' prejudices, then the 'new' prejudices that are created because of this (like the one where you get passed over for promotion by a woman who is less qualified) must be tolerated.

Bad teeth.............that's funny.

That or everybody quits their jobs and we become amish. Either way would be fine....I like burlap undies:freak:

[pavman]

I actually think that lack of ability to prononce words correctly is more a matter of access to education. ...And I am not referring to the tomato versus tomahto thing I am referring to the "shrimp" versus "skrimps" thing (one of my pet peeves).

Hmm, not sure about that. I've noticed something with Polish people (perhaps its environmental, ie something they pick up from their parents, grandparents, etc)... some have problems with the difference between teach and learn as well as borrow and lent.

I tell ya... whenever someone wants me to borrow them a book, I almost always think they're too ignorant to understand it.

Disclaimer: I don't believe all Polish people speak like this in English (and these are 2nd+ generation Polish Americans). I am, likewise, not Polish. And lastly, umm... well.. its just an observation I've made, and it always throws me a curve ball when I hear it.

As for your incident at IKEA...well... sucks. You have my sympathies. Many times I've done similar things...locked keys in car, tried to help others get keys out of car, etc...but usually out in front of my apartment. My neighbors sort of know me, so they wouldn't be prone to call the police. Next time, try calling the police first to see if they have a lock service (a lot of police forces dropped it for liability reasons, but some still do it, surprisingly). This way, when they say they don't have a locksmith and someone else calls the police on you, you've already called them ;D

pavman added to this post, 37 minutes and 24 seconds later...

Ignore it thats his choice. If they are crap then his company will fall to the competition that is more able. The idea is to make money from employees. You hire a dummy its your problem.

Well, true, but the reality is you don't always want to hire the *best* person for the job. Sometimes you want to hire the guy who'll put up with BS because he can't get anything better...and then screw him out of raises every year. He still smiles and lives with it.

This is typical INTJ bull. There must always be an external reason for failure since all INTJs think they are special. No INTJ is prepared to accept that he didn't get the job because he lacks the qualities, because the interviewer though he was weird etc.

Thod... I loves you man. You are so .... retarded. Look, no INTJ thinks they're special. They think they can accomplish something and they're qualified. I guarantee you that your statement is furthest from an INTJs mind when attempting to get a job. Its kind of a window into your own thinking about INTJs though. That's your mis-understanding our arrogance for our confidence. We're not really that full of ourselves inside, we just appear to be :D

I'm starting to wonder who I like better Thod or Lights... Thod has better points, and seems to be more well-suited for discussion... but Lights brings out all of these off-the-wall "facts" that are so cleverly skewed... you both are a lot of fun to play with.

As for slavery, it kind of started in the antiquities when the first city-state/empire/city/nation/whatever decided it needed more food and land and conquered the closest city-state/empire/city/nation/whatever near it. If you look to history, Egyptians had slaves (gee ... that whole Moses-Pharoah let my people go stuff was true, eh?). And, even if some might disagree, I think this is one of the big problems with our modern society. We no longer have conquering or the rights of the conquering to do with what they will to the conquered. We've all become spoiled, rotten teenagers bickering over who gets the last piece of cheesecake.

More importantly, the world has matured past the violent, bloody past that it had into a future where slavery is being re-defined....the new slavery is one of debt and income. You make enough, or inherited enough, or won enough, and you are no longer a slave to the new slave system. The irony is that the Lords and the medieval system were a bit fairer... you work for so many years (7 if I recall correctly), and the land becomes yours. They didn't have slavery then, they had serfdom. Now we trade our liberty and freedom for ties that bind in the form of property tax, services we don't really need to live, sales taxes, obnoxiously ludicrous profit margins, and all the wonderfulness of modern convenience.

Even Rome had a better system for military folks... you work 25 years as a Roman soldier, you get land and citizenship...well eventually, I don't think the land thing was there until later in the Republic, when they were more desperate for folks.

Laslty, as for the idea of white supremacy with regard to the Declaration of Independence... umm... d00d, can I smoke some of your crack? The reality is that yes, white property owners were the only ones allowed to vote. And this makes sense...if you own property, you're intelligent enough to make prudent decisions.

The racial piece of this was really a hold-over from previous times when Dutch, among other, slave-traders would take these guys from Africa and drop them off in the Caribbean, West Indies, and Louisiana. This was just the culture of the time of the Declaration of Independence (actually, the Declaration doesn't actually address this... tis the Constitution that mentioned it...and might I point out, once again...the Constitution was Madison's and the Bill of Rights wasn't even included until the Anti-Federalists pushed for it.... yeah yeah, I'm a broken record!).

And lastly... there were a number of folks who were working against slavery but you can't change society's views over-night, and it was, apparently, very lucrative. Somewhere between the Renaissance and the modern era, racism became a key. Why I do not know. I think its a tragedy that this happened, but it is part of history now. Of course, now there's another new tragedy that is just as bad, or, as some view it, worse than the slave-trade. Its abortion. The rights that were truly protected are no longer, the voices are silent, and its an "industry" that probably dwarfs the slave-trade in profitability. But that's a whole other thread.

Why racism still exists boggles my mind. Perhaps going back to the IQ discussion might shed some light on this... I do think a lot of people live in fear of things, and this may play a factor in this type of thinking. I mean, if you grew up without being around multiple cultures, and this was re-enforced with the idea that one specific type of people were more prone to certain social characteristics than others, then I could see how one could easily make an entire assumption about a particular subset of individuals within society.

Thanks for reading! I know I can get longwinded...have a cookie! :cool:

[muguly]

CNN is in on it

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[rwyatt365]

OK, ok – I have an affirmative action solution that is neither biased, nor prejudicial.

Wait for it…wait…

Let’s eliminate all hiring managers and HR departments (aside from the ones that complete forms and process claims), and introduce “Random Hiring”. Here’s how it works; the entire workforce will be fed into a national database that is regionalized. When an employer has a new position, the database will spit out the name of the worker based solely on their proximity to the position (say, 50 miles, or more – to increase the “randomness” of the population base). Qualifications are irrelevant. Race, education, ethnicity are all irrelevant. The only thing that matter is that you are reasonably close to the job – the rest is up to the RNG in the database that makes the selections.

Want to become a filmmaker in Hollywood? Move to LA and take your chances. Want to become the CEO of a multi-national? Change your address to NYC and see what happens. No more messy interviews. No more falsified resumes. No more being ashamed that your mother named you LaQueshia, or Abdul, or Felicity. The computer doesn’t give a damn! In this system “being in the right place at the right time” takes on a whole new level of significance!!

[hidden]

I also don't like racism. As a black woman I individually try not to put my energy into it, becuause it is so negative and I can spend my time and energy doing other things. And to be honest, I'm sick of it. Anyone that displays racism towards any group or anyone (in my book) I automatically view them as ignorant and personally make every effort to have as little to do with them as much as possible. I do understand that I will not be able to avoid everyone in every situation. Just because someone else chooses to display racism, doesn't mean that I have to react towards it (or even let them know that it affects me in such a negative way as to make them think that they have power over me or even are above me). It does sound arrogant but I don't mean for it to come across that way. I just find it to be this pointless battle in which I want little to nothing to do with.

[muguly]

Wait for it…wait…

Let’s eliminate all hiring managers and HR departments (aside from the ones that complete forms and process claims), and introduce “Random Hiring”. Here’s how it works; the entire workforce will be fed into a national database that is regionalized. When an employer has a new position, the database will spit out the name of the worker based solely on their proximity to the position (say, 50 miles, or more – to increase the “randomness” of the population base). Qualifications are irrelevant. Race, education, ethnicity are all irrelevant. The only thing that matter is that you are reasonably close to the job – the rest is up to the RNG in the database that makes the selections.

Almost perfect, but dude, atleast let qualifications matter....PLEASE. I don't want a pizza guy as my lawyer.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

OK, ok – I have an affirmative action solution that is neither biased, nor prejudicial.

Wait for it…wait…

Let’s eliminate all hiring managers and HR departments (aside from the ones that complete forms and process claims), and introduce “Random Hiring”. Here’s how it works; the entire workforce will be fed into a national database that is regionalized. When an employer has a new position, the database will spit out the name of the worker based solely on their proximity to the position (say, 50 miles, or more – to increase the “randomness” of the population base). Qualifications are irrelevant. Race, education, ethnicity are all irrelevant. The only thing that matter is that you are reasonably close to the job – the rest is up to the RNG in the database that makes the selections.

Want to become a filmmaker in Hollywood? Move to LA and take your chances. Want to become the CEO of a multi-national? Change your address to NYC and see what happens. No more messy interviews. No more falsified resumes. No more being ashamed that your mother named you LaQueshia, or Abdul, or Felicity. The computer doesn’t give a damn! In this system “being in the right place at the right time” takes on a whole new level of significance!!
So then we'd complain about geographic prejudism. I can't afford to move.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 2 minutes and 20 seconds later...

I also don't like racism. As a black woman I individually try not to put my energy into it, becuause it is so negative and I can spend my time and energy doing other things. And to be honest, I'm sick of it. Anyone that displays racism towards any group or anyone (in my book) I automatically view them as ignorant and personally make every effort to have as little to do with them as much as possible. I do understand that I will not be able to avoid everyone in every situation. Just because someone else chooses to display racism, doesn't mean that I have to react towards it (or even let them know that it affects me in such a negative way as to make them think that they have power over me or even are above me). It does sound arrogant but I don't mean for it to come across that way. I just find it to be this pointless battle in which I want little to nothing to do with.
It doesn't sound the least bit arrogant. You have every right to deal with the ridiculousness of racism as you see fit.

[yondyr]

I would like to see a distinction between public and private companies in the previous equal rights/affirmative action discussion.
In addition I would suggest most policing is done on a statistical liklihood basis.