Gotcha. Also, I would argue that conservative elements of cultures tend to create a downward spiral of, uh, ghettoization and defacto segregation.
True.
The difference between someone showing up for money, and always just being there for money, and someone saying "Oh, this place has cool stuff as well as money, sweet!"
My girlfriend is the owner of one of the largest Salon/Spas in our city. I recently quit my 9-5 (which I hated anyway) to help her out with things. The past month that I've been working there I've noticed that at least 2 times a week I get a phone call from someone asking if we have "Black" hair stylists. Sometimes the person will use words like "Ethnic Hair" or even "African American hair" but mostly they just use the word Black.
So I have Trained professionals working there of all ethnicities, each are more than capable of working with any hair type, But yet I get customers who won't even come in unless I have a Black girl do their hair for them. As far as that goes, fine, you know what I don't even care.
Here is the predicament I'm in. One of the two black women I have working there moved out of state, and the other one recently told us that she may be moving to another salon... So knowing what I know, about "customer preferences" If I want their money I HAVE to hire another Black woman. By law I can't discriminate by the color of someones skin, but if I want to cater to that market, what choice do I have?
As a side note, I have one white girl who has been practicing "ethnic hair", and the one African American girl I have left who is refreshing her on some techniques, has all but told her it won't matter, because she is not Black...
(Being half white/ half Mexican, I can tell you that 75% of people who say "I'm not racist" are...)
Thaiboxer on
Playing WoW "only when you are bored" is like smoking "only when you are drinking".
The thing is, while on the phone I beat around the bush as much as I can, I'll say things like, "I have plenty of girls who are capable of doing a good job on ethnic/African American hair" or "I have a handful of girls who are great at giving a fade", both statements are true. But before the phone call is over I get the "Look I'm asking if you have any black girls that can cut my hair for me", the one I have is usually booked solid so when my answer is No, they say thank you and hang up.
It's fucking ridiculous...
Thaiboxer on
Playing WoW "only when you are bored" is like smoking "only when you are drinking".
Here is the predicament I'm in. One of the two black women I have working there moved out of state, and the other one recently told us that she may be moving to another salon... So knowing what I know, about "customer preferences" If I want their money I HAVE to hire another Black woman. By law I can't discriminate by the color of someones skin, but if I want to cater to that market, what choice do I have?
Well generally, you can higher based on sex, and I assume race, if it's actually relevant to the position. It's the reason hooters can hire big breasted females, prison can hire burly male guards, etc.
As a side note, I have one white girl who has been practicing "ethnic hair", and the one African American girl I have left who is refreshing her on some techniques, has all but told her it won't matter, because she is not Black...
Well, for your regular customers, it would probably help if they had a word of mouth, with maybe, "Hey, who do you think cuts my hair? I don't do it myself, you know."
But yeah, it's definitely a problem. I think the biggest problem isn't just that people just don't want to take a crap shoot when it comes to their hair. I know that I don't. Anyway, this is just one more area where the mythic ideal of color blindness is just never going to happen.
Off note: I remember a fark thread a few years back about a barber who had a sign saying "Whites only," in reference to the fact that he only knew how to cut the hair of white people. You had over a hundred people saying things like "All you overly PC liberals who are calling this guy a racist need to get over it already!", while conveniently ignoring that no one actually called him that (Not even in the article). I forget what it's called, but you know how some people are quick to defend themselves on something that no one actually accused them of? Yeah, it's that. I get the feeling that most of the complaints that people have over PC-ness is more imaginary than anything else.
My girlfriend is the owner of one of the largest Salon/Spas in our city. I recently quit my 9-5 (which I hated anyway) to help her out with things. The past month that I've been working there I've noticed that at least 2 times a week I get a phone call from someone asking if we have "Black" hair stylists. Sometimes the person will use words like "Ethnic Hair" or even "African American hair" but mostly they just use the word Black.
So I have Trained professionals working there of all ethnicities, each are more than capable of working with any hair type, But yet I get customers who won't even come in unless I have a Black girl do their hair for them. As far as that goes, fine, you know what I don't even care.
Here is the predicament I'm in. One of the two black women I have working there moved out of state, and the other one recently told us that she may be moving to another salon... So knowing what I know, about "customer preferences" If I want their money I HAVE to hire another Black woman. By law I can't discriminate by the color of someones skin, but if I want to cater to that market, what choice do I have?
As a side note, I have one white girl who has been practicing "ethnic hair", and the one African American girl I have left who is refreshing her on some techniques, has all but told her it won't matter, because she is not Black...
(Being half white/ half Mexican, I can tell you that 75% of people who say "I'm not racist" are...)
Dude. Dude. That's not a race thing. Most African-Americans have hair that grows fundamentally differently from... shit, just about everyone else's. 'Normal' styles and cuts just plain don't work on them, so they need someone trained to handle it and a salon that carries the products they need. On top of that, there's a lot of cultural weirdness surrounding ethnically black hair in the US - witness the kerfuffle when Cynthia McKinnon went to a more natural style instead of beating her hair into submission, or the Don Imus 'nappy-headed' slur. Many black people still believe that they need to treat their hair very harshly in order to avoid standing out from the white norm any more than they already do, and they're not entirely unjustified in this belief. Dreads and 'fro's are not regarded as professional in many fields, despite those styles being the easiest and least painful to wear. Look, you really need to read this, at least:
Unless I'm way misreading how you've presented your callers, they're asking if you have people on staff with the skills to handle their hair, not necessarily a black person to do the work. So you've got trained people, say yes. Another possibility is that they're assuming that someone who's been dealing with the same hair every time they get up in the morning will be better at styling it, or at least more sympathetic. Not entirely logical, but not a terrible assumption to make. Lastly, and a problem mentioned in the above link, some people try to charge more for dealing with that kind of hair, or are snobby pains about having to. I'm not surprised your potential customers are testing the water. If they really are just being insular... well, who wants their money, but its not like there aren't reasons for how they're acting.
If you move to an area because of the culture, you are less likely to try to ghettoize yourself in pockets of your own culture.
If you move to an area because of the money, you are less likely to give a flying fuck about the actual culture around you, and instead will tend to try to pretend you are in your homeland, only with money.
I don't know, that seems to go against example of most of the more established minority people I've met - most of them are well integrated, at least in public (maybe they are still very ______ at home where blank is the race).
Thaiboxer: Are you certain they aren't making sure the salon's stylists have experience with black hair? It's different to work with.
Thaiboxer: Are you certain they aren't making sure the salon's stylists have experience with black hair? It's different to work with.
I got the distinct impression from his posts that at least a large portion of the callers are specifically trying to determine if there's an actual black stylist available...under the assumption, I'd guess, that a black stylist will do a better job with black hair.
mcdermott on
0
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
edited May 2007
man I took those tests and I noticed a few things: They are pretty 'hard' to do just on a dexterity level. I made some 'honest' mistakes on them. Also, there didn't seem to be a results option for "you actually have no bias at all"
I'm pretty sure if you applied that sort of test with neutral symbols, you'd see people had a preference for 'triangles' or something.
man I took those tests and I noticed a few things: They are pretty 'hard' to do just on a dexterity level. I made some 'honest' mistakes on them. Also, there didn't seem to be a results option for "you actually have no bias at all"
I'm pretty sure if you applied that sort of test with neutral symbols, you'd see people had a preference for 'triangles' or something.
You're supposed to make several passes, and the honest mistakes balance out over time. I've taken unconscious bias tests 3 times, I think, and gotten pretty much identical results.
sanstodo on
0
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
edited May 2007
yeah, but all of my errors were putting people in the columns they were in before (ie see the picture, hit left real fast because that's what you did during the initial 'normalizing' paths) rather then the columns they needed to be in. It was a response to rehearsal in an attempt to obey the test's emphasis and quick answers.
man I took those tests and I noticed a few things: They are pretty 'hard' to do just on a dexterity level. I made some 'honest' mistakes on them. Also, there didn't seem to be a results option for "you actually have no bias at all"
Yeah there's an outcome that assesses equal association. I don't know what the tolerance is on it.
And you know if the test does have some validity it's not something I'd really hold against someone - we don't really get a lot of say in our unconscious biases or tendencies. It's probably helpful to be personally aware of them though.
Irond Will on
0
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
edited May 2007
See, I don't think there's really any "unconscious" bias. There's bias you don't talk about, maybe even bias you've never confronted as bias, but I don't think it's really unconscious. I can comfortably say "I am not a racist" and "i don't have any unconscious bias" because I've spent a LOT of time around people of diverse races and cultures and I'm well, well past the point of thinking "Oh my what baggy pants...the better to store his gun."
I think I unlearned that sort of thinking well before it could have set in.
On hair; I've waited in a salon for 45 minutes before, and then asked for a low fade and thin point sideburns only be told that they can't do that and I'd rather check than wait for an hour to get a crappy haircut. But I go to a pretty good guy right now, and I doubt I'd need to look for a new one anytime soon.
See, I don't think there's really any "unconscious" bias. There's bias you don't talk about, maybe even bias you've never confronted as bias, but I don't think it's really unconscious. I can comfortably say "I am not a racist" and "i don't have any unconscious bias" because I've spent a LOT of time around people of diverse races and cultures and I'm well, well past the point of thinking "Oh my what baggy pants...the better to store his gun."
I think I unlearned that sort of thinking well before it could have set in.
Well, see... that would be concious racism. Unconcious racism, I presume, is more the sort that arises when a perfectly nice person is raised without meeting a single other person that is not his/her race. If you live in an entirely white neighborhood, there's going to be some unconcious "that person is different" going on when you see anyone who is not white. It's not so much unconciously holding racist beliefs as it is the unconcious reaction that occurs when someone is outside of your everyday experience. For instance, I do not think "baggy pants= gun hiding", but unlike you I come from an incredibly white town, so I wouldn't be surprised if black people still register as "different=scary", while white people are "hometown=okay" in my unconcious.
I think it's less so now, because I'm in a very diverse area away from home, so it's no longer something my attention is drawn to. So you're right, your situation is probably the most efficient way to be non-racist. But unconcious bias or prejudice doesn't mean secretly being in the KKK, it means reacting differently, whether you notice it or not, to different races.
On hair: I have a white-boy non-jewish semi-fro. It's pretty much hair that makes stylists tell me they'll do it free if they can buzz it.
And yet, my sister got "beautiful and curly". Jerk.
Yeah the hair thing is a practicality and it works both ways. If the stylist has never done your kind of hair, they might do something really weird.
lol fade
Last time I got my hair cut (before I started shaving it) I had a black barber. The dude was fucking meticulous with edging my hair in a way that I'd imagine few white guys have ever personally experienced. He spent like half an hour with clippers making sure that the hairline on my temples was razor fucking sharp.
It was pretty impressive. I guess I'm just kind of used to some old italian doofus with a pair of scissors who asks you how you want it and then cuts it the same way he cuts everyone's hair.
Some people seem to equate racism with meanness. They think if someone isn't mean, they can't be a racist.
Well, I will share this little gem from the weekly company meeting at my workplace. A coworker was talking about how she took her sports-illiterate grandma to a basketball game. The old woman enjoyed it very much and halfway through she turned to my coworker with a smile and said, "Isn't it nice that they have something black people can be good at now?"
The old woman was not trying to insult anyone. She undoubtedly does not think of herself as racist or even dislike black people. She didn't call the players "the n word" or negro or darkie.
Is she racist? Hell yes! She thinks black people are inferior at everything except basketball.
You know, when that Michael Richards thing exploded, I called him a racist but my employer merely insisted that he was "just acting out in a hurtful manner to those who upset him" or something along those lines. I mean he shouted out N***** in the middle of a a crowded room, like what does it take to be a racist these days, marching around in a white hood and robe?
My stepfather is very racist, and it exists in this province to a fairly unreasonable extent because of the latent cowboy population (Alberta here). The main targets are Natives, but my stepfather basically has it in for anyone at all who is different in race or if they stand out in any way.
See, I don't think there's really any "unconscious" bias. There's bias you don't talk about, maybe even bias you've never confronted as bias, but I don't think it's really unconscious. I can comfortably say "I am not a racist" and "i don't have any unconscious bias" because I've spent a LOT of time around people of diverse races and cultures and I'm well, well past the point of thinking "Oh my what baggy pants...the better to store his gun."
I think I unlearned that sort of thinking well before it could have set in.
Well, see... that would be concious racism. Unconcious racism, I presume, is more the sort that arises when a perfectly nice person is raised without meeting a single other person that is not his/her race. If you live in an entirely white neighborhood, there's going to be some unconcious "that person is different" going on when you see anyone who is not white. It's not so much unconciously holding racist beliefs as it is the unconcious reaction that occurs when someone is outside of your everyday experience. For instance, I do not think "baggy pants= gun hiding", but unlike you I come from an incredibly white town, so I wouldn't be surprised if black people still register as "different=scary", while white people are "hometown=okay" in my unconcious.
I think it's less so now, because I'm in a very diverse area away from home, so it's no longer something my attention is drawn to. So you're right, your situation is probably the most efficient way to be non-racist. But unconcious bias or prejudice doesn't mean secretly being in the KKK, it means reacting differently, whether you notice it or not, to different races.
The problem though is that that test seems like a really really poor way of doing it. I get what they're trying to do, but the fact is my fuck ups were either because I don't know the difference between "other" and "arab muslim" names (as it was when I did it) or because they were flipping the sides of the screen around. Of course in my case I was going slower as well because it was becoming apparent the dexterity thing was going to be an issue.
And in the end what does it tell me? "You seem to have a slight bias against Arab Muslims" which it only said because after thinking about it I decided the Muslim part of that was going to make me somewhat biased against them consciously anyway. So ladeeda for retarded studies.
Yeah the hair thing is a practicality and it works both ways. If the stylist has never done your kind of hair, they might do something really weird.
lol fade
Last time I got my hair cut (before I started shaving it) I had a black barber. The dude was fucking meticulous with edging my hair in a way that I'd imagine few white guys have ever personally experienced. He spent like half an hour with clippers making sure that the hairline on my temples was razor fucking sharp.
It was pretty impressive. I guess I'm just kind of used to some old italian doofus with a pair of scissors who asks you how you want it and then cuts it the same way he cuts everyone's hair.
Mine is the same; every time he cuts my hair I feel that I owe him $50, and then feel guilty about how little I've paid.
You know, when that Michael Richards thing exploded, I called him a racist but my employer merely insisted that he was "just acting out in a hurtful manner to those who upset him" or something along those lines. I mean he shouted out N***** in the middle of a a crowded room, like what does it take to be a racist these days, marching around in a white hood and robe?
I'm not defending him, but using a certain word, even calling someone that word, doesn't make you a racist.
if you said it because you hate him for being black, then you are a racist. the intent behind the word is what really matters.
that being said, I actually do think Richards is a racist... I'm talking generally not about him specifically.
Oh, and here's a challenge for all the critics of hate crimes legislation - please create an argument against such legislation that doesn't invalidate one of the core components of American jurisprudence.
You know, when that Michael Richards thing exploded, I called him a racist but my employer merely insisted that he was "just acting out in a hurtful manner to those who upset him" or something along those lines. I mean he shouted out N***** in the middle of a a crowded room, like what does it take to be a racist these days, marching around in a white hood and robe?
I'm not defending him, but using a certain word, even calling someone that word, doesn't make you a racist.
if you said it because you hate him for being black, then you are a racist. the intent behind the word is what really matters.
that being said, I actually do think Richards is a racist... I'm talking generally not about him specifically.
I don't know about that-- "n*****" is such a socially powerful and explosive word that I don't think the user's intent can overrule the predictable effect on others that the word will have. That is, that word has for so long been such an obvious tool of racism that you'd have to have an extremely narrow set of circumstances in a particular situation for its use to not be racist.
It's not like the rest of Richards' standup act was directly talking about and subverting racism***, after all.
(***Or was it? I didn't see his show so I'm assuming this. Possibly the only "out" I can see for him is if his entire comedy act prior to this was dedicated to subverting words and actions commonly associated with racism.)
The real problem is here is that innocent white folks are sometimes the victims of retributive racism
That may well be a problem, but I don't know if there's much ground to call it the real problem.
No, that fraction of a fraction of mystatement, entirely out of context, is NOTthe real problem I was speaking of.
The problem that I was speaking of is that racism perpetuates itself when the victim becomes the victimizer. Innocent white kids are treated unfairly by black people who have been discriminated against by OTHER white folks in the past (though not in any serious way, because the perpetrators lack the power to throw them in jail, or anything) and those once innocent kids become racist themselves, thinking that if black folks are going to treat them poorly, then they'll treat black folks poorly too.
THAT is the real problem that I was speaking of. Your parents raising you to be racist, while a very real issue in our society, can't hold up forever if you constantly encounter minorities whose very existance disproves your parent's teachings (hard-working mexicans, charitable Jews, inclusive asians, educated black people, etc.) but people who have had actual negative experiences with minority members in the way I'm talking about, feel like they are justified firsthand to discriminate.
I'm not pointing fingers here; it's all cyclical anyway. And I am in NO way sayingthat white people have it worse than ANYONE. What I am saying is that in order to stop (and by stop, I mean cut down on, because it's impossible to get rid of entirely) racism, we need to stop ALL racism, not just racism against a particular race.
I think the counterargument is that those whites who are mad about perceived racism against them by other races are just not properly educated about the advantages they already enjoy by being white, and the complementary disadvantages the other races suffer, and therefore are failing to perceive that the net of racism is still in their favor and retributive racism against the other race is still the wrong response.
Oh, I think that proper education is the KEY to solving/cutting down on ALL MANNER of racism.
But I think education of "how good you have it" isn't what does it alone. An innocent white guys who knows how good he has it, and then is a "victim"of retributive racism might decide that black people "deserve"not to have whathe has, because look how they act.
That's what bothers me the most about the whole cyclical nature of racism in respect to retributive racism. It creates a sort of a false positive piece of data that can actually be used to "justify" racism, which differs from taught racism in that taught racism often grows out of ignorance, and doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Using "my own" people as an example, if you were raised being told that Jews had horns, and worshipped the devil, you might believe it growing up, but once you went out in to the world, and interacted with Jews directly, and saw thatthey didn't have horns, and saw no signs of them being devil worshippers, you'd begin to question those teachings, and if you are a rational thinker, you would ultimately decide them to be wrong.
If you had ZERO preconcieved notions about Jews, though, and went out in to the world only to find Jews to be cold and exclusive in regards to non-Jews, including yourself, you might decide, based on this observation, that Jews think they are better than everyone else. If you witnessed and/or experienced this behavior multiple times, you might even become entirely convinced of it.
The truth is that many groups of Jews ARE weary of gentiles, but the reason is not that Jews think they're better, but rather, it's retributive discrimination. In the past gentiles have kept the Jews seperate, and even attacked them, so some Jews want nothing to do with gentiles.
I am not, of course, justifying retributive racism in the least, just pointing out that you can't say "first we get white people to stop discriminating against black people, and THEN we'll worry about the black people who discriminate against white people." You have to deal with it all at once, or else it all starts over again.
Justbecause white men have had it better than everybody else for so long doesn't mean it's okay to lift everyone else up, and make it only slightly worse for white men. EVERYONE deserve equality, and the way to do that is to lift everyone up together.
The problem that I was speaking of is that racism perpetuates itself when the victim becomes the victimizer. Innocent white kids are treated unfairly by black people who have been discriminated against by OTHER white folks in the past (though not in any serious way, because the perpetrators lack the power to throw them in jail, or anything) and those once innocent kids become racist themselves, thinking that if black folks are going to treat them poorly, then they'll treat black folks poorly too.
Several flaws in this:
1) You haven't explained how innocent white kids are being treated unfairly. To say that you will no longer have the white priveledge that you once enjoyed is not the same as treated unfairly.
2) Despite the fact that you are so certain that white people are treated unfairly, you dismiss and belittle the fact that black people have been treated unfairly, because "perpetrators lack the power to throw them in jail." So if that's the standard, then when have black people throw white people in jail? Moreover, are you counting the role of racial profiling against black people? For instance, from the Drug Policy Alliance, "Blacks constitute 13 percent of all drug users, but 35 percent of those arrested for drug possession, 55 percent of persons convicted, and 74 percent of people sent to prison" and "Nonetheless, in 1994, 90 percent of persons convicted of federal crack cocaine offenses were black, six percent Latino, and less than four percent white. Federal powder cocaine offenders were 30 percent black, 43 percent Latino, and 26 percent white."
3) You make the remark of how black people "have been discriminated against by OTHER white folks in the past," conveniently ignoring the amount of discrimination that occurs regarding black people right now.
4) You claim that the white kids are "innocent" because they are not the same white people currently discriminating against black people, while ignoring the fact that those white kids will benefit from discrimination. If you accept a present that I know to be stolen, then can you really be considered "innocent," even though you personally didn't steal it yourself?
5) You're assuming that black people standing up for themselves is the cause of racism against them, as though racism agaisnt them is only some sort of recent thing.
THAT is the real problem that I was speaking of. Your parents raising you to be racist, while a very real issue in our society, can't hold up forever if you constantly encounter minorities whose very existance disproves your parent's teachings (hard-working mexicans, charitable Jews, inclusive asians, educated black people, etc.) but people who have had actual negative experiences with minority members in the way I'm talking about, feel like they are justified firsthand to discriminate.
And even if we accepted your premise, how do you expect these encounters to occur if minorities get shut out of the workforce?
Moreover, people who feel that minorities are less deserving to begin with aren't going to be impressed with financial succes. "Them Jews control all the money and power and are responsible for all the wars!" "The Asian guys are all math geeks who are always looking for ways to short change us!" "That black guy is getting way too uppity!" "That Mexican is taking our jobs!" etc.
I'm not pointing fingers here; it's all cyclical anyway. And I am in NO way sayingthat white people have it worse than ANYONE. What I am saying is that in order to stop (and by stop, I mean cut down on, because it's impossible to get rid of entirely) racism, we need to stop ALL racism, not just racism against a particular race.
rac·ism [rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
Please state where other races practice the idea of superiority and right to rule.
Oh, I think that proper education is the KEY to solving/cutting down on ALL MANNER of racism.
"In the Boston and Chicago experiment, researchers tweaked some resumes to make them more appealing to employers. They added a year of work experience, some military experience, fewer periods for which no job was listed, computer skills and the like. This paid off for whites: Those with better resumes were called back for interviews 30% more than other whites. It didn't pay off for blacks: Precisely the same changes yielded only a 9% increase in callbacks."
Using "my own" people as an example, if you were raised being told that Jews had horns, and worshipped the devil, you might believe it growing up, but once you went out in to the world, and interacted with Jews directly, and saw thatthey didn't have horns, and saw no signs of them being devil worshippers, you'd begin to question those teachings, and if you are a rational thinker, you would ultimately decide them to be wrong.
And what if you grew up being taught to believe in egalitarian values, and to believe that you weren't racist because you were wise enough to overcome the traps of stereotyping, only for the data to show otherwise?
"Aversive racism is one subtle form of bias that is characteristic of many White Americans who possess strong egalitarian values and who believe that they are not prejudiced. But many also possess negative feelings and beliefs that they are unaware of, or that they try to dissociate from their images of themselves as non-prejudiced. These negative feelings may be rooted in common cognitive, motivational and sociocultural forces that can affect most White Americans. These convictions of fairness, justice and equality, along with the most unavoidable development of racial biases, form the basis of the ambivalence that aversive racists experience."
3) You make the remark of how black people "have been discriminated against by OTHER white folks in the past," conveniently ignoring the amount of discrimination that occurs regarding black people right now.
4) You claim that the white kids are "innocent" because they are not the same white people currently discriminating against black people, while ignoring the fact that those white kids will benefit from discrimination. If you accept a present that I know to be stolen, then can you really be considered "innocent," even though you personally didn't steal it yourself?
Not that I disagree with pretty much anything else you said, but these two points are exactly what I believe he was talking about. To the first, I don't even think it was a long term past event he was talking about. Rather, he was saying just because the first white person you saw today treated you like shit doesn't mean you should automatically hold it against the next one you see. This goes for anything, if the first women/man/white/black/whatever you saw today tried to lie and cheat you, you shouldn't hold it against the next one you encounter.
As for the other thing, it is a touch different. Some white person in the past getting a job that a black person was better suited for should have no bearing on a current job opening. One way or the other. Simply put, the better qualified should get the job. (You did a good (by me) job of showing how that is not the case, so please don't take this as an attack on that.)
I'm not pointing fingers here; it's all cyclical anyway. And I am in NO way sayingthat white people have it worse than ANYONE. What I am saying is that in order to stop (and by stop, I mean cut down on, because it's impossible to get rid of entirely) racism, we need to stop ALL racism, not just racism against a particular race.
rac·ism [rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
Please state where other races practice the idea of superiority and right to rule.
Is this limited to America? Because.... I am pretty sure white people don't have a monopoly on global racism. I could be wrong.
A sort of tangent question regarding racism. Is the answer to believe that all races are equal? For some reason I just find that backwards. It seems that there are definitely advantages afforded different races. I don't know them all, and I do not feel that any one race is a "super" race, but it just seems somewhat natural that some races are actually better at certain things than others. Is this just a belief that is cultured by "balanced" video games? Anyone know of data/studies that speaks to this?
Taeric, I think that a lot of that '[x] race is better at [y] than [z] race' is related much more to general socioeconomic conditions that races tend to share. I heard a theory on these boards (I think earlier in this thread) that the reason most pro basketball players are black is because a higher percentage of urban poor are black, and basketball is cheap and easy to play in the inner city. I don't have a source, but I'd imagine that a lot of seemingly inherent racial skills come from coincidences like that.
Taeric, I think that a lot of that '[x] race is better at [y] than [z] race' is related much more to general socioeconomic conditions that races tend to share. I heard a theory on these boards (I think earlier in this thread) that the reason most pro basketball players are black is because a higher percentage of urban poor are black, and basketball is cheap and easy to play in the inner city. I don't have a source, but I'd imagine that a lot of seemingly inherent racial skills come from coincidences like that.
Right, which is basically what I was asking. Though, to be more clear, even if certain races do have advantages over another, I would not expect it to be a sport (which entails a whole class of physical traits, typically). Rather, I would have expected to find that certain races tend to be more flexible, have more lung capacity, denser bones, etc. I guess I'm just curious that since I do not doubt evolution, is it that far off to believe that different humans would have evolved differently? Especially ones that lived in wildly different regions? (An example I know of right off is that the ability to drink milk is a luxury that is not shared by all cultures. You can also get a pretty good idea of whether or not you will become lactose intolerant by knowing your ancestry. While this does come from a coincidence in what the families did over the years (rely on milk) it led to a physical difference between people.)
I should also be quick to point out that when it comes to most jobs, I don't see how any of these traits could come up. And I'm not exactly looking forward to the day when traits such as aggression/heart attack/etc tendency is part of your medical record. I need only watch Gataca again to appreciate my hope in individual achievement. (Though, ironically, that movie has a good example of what I'm talking about with that piano player.)
Posts
True.
The difference between someone showing up for money, and always just being there for money, and someone saying "Oh, this place has cool stuff as well as money, sweet!"
My girlfriend is the owner of one of the largest Salon/Spas in our city. I recently quit my 9-5 (which I hated anyway) to help her out with things. The past month that I've been working there I've noticed that at least 2 times a week I get a phone call from someone asking if we have "Black" hair stylists. Sometimes the person will use words like "Ethnic Hair" or even "African American hair" but mostly they just use the word Black.
So I have Trained professionals working there of all ethnicities, each are more than capable of working with any hair type, But yet I get customers who won't even come in unless I have a Black girl do their hair for them. As far as that goes, fine, you know what I don't even care.
Here is the predicament I'm in. One of the two black women I have working there moved out of state, and the other one recently told us that she may be moving to another salon... So knowing what I know, about "customer preferences" If I want their money I HAVE to hire another Black woman. By law I can't discriminate by the color of someones skin, but if I want to cater to that market, what choice do I have?
As a side note, I have one white girl who has been practicing "ethnic hair", and the one African American girl I have left who is refreshing her on some techniques, has all but told her it won't matter, because she is not Black...
(Being half white/ half Mexican, I can tell you that 75% of people who say "I'm not racist" are...)
EDIT: Which would actually be appropriate since it is a genetic heritage that African American's have a different hair type type to Anglo-Saxons.
It's fucking ridiculous...
Well generally, you can higher based on sex, and I assume race, if it's actually relevant to the position. It's the reason hooters can hire big breasted females, prison can hire burly male guards, etc.
Well, for your regular customers, it would probably help if they had a word of mouth, with maybe, "Hey, who do you think cuts my hair? I don't do it myself, you know."
But yeah, it's definitely a problem. I think the biggest problem isn't just that people just don't want to take a crap shoot when it comes to their hair. I know that I don't. Anyway, this is just one more area where the mythic ideal of color blindness is just never going to happen.
Off note: I remember a fark thread a few years back about a barber who had a sign saying "Whites only," in reference to the fact that he only knew how to cut the hair of white people. You had over a hundred people saying things like "All you overly PC liberals who are calling this guy a racist need to get over it already!", while conveniently ignoring that no one actually called him that (Not even in the article). I forget what it's called, but you know how some people are quick to defend themselves on something that no one actually accused them of? Yeah, it's that. I get the feeling that most of the complaints that people have over PC-ness is more imaginary than anything else.
Dude. Dude. That's not a race thing. Most African-Americans have hair that grows fundamentally differently from... shit, just about everyone else's. 'Normal' styles and cuts just plain don't work on them, so they need someone trained to handle it and a salon that carries the products they need. On top of that, there's a lot of cultural weirdness surrounding ethnically black hair in the US - witness the kerfuffle when Cynthia McKinnon went to a more natural style instead of beating her hair into submission, or the Don Imus 'nappy-headed' slur. Many black people still believe that they need to treat their hair very harshly in order to avoid standing out from the white norm any more than they already do, and they're not entirely unjustified in this belief. Dreads and 'fro's are not regarded as professional in many fields, despite those styles being the easiest and least painful to wear. Look, you really need to read this, at least:
Unless I'm way misreading how you've presented your callers, they're asking if you have people on staff with the skills to handle their hair, not necessarily a black person to do the work. So you've got trained people, say yes. Another possibility is that they're assuming that someone who's been dealing with the same hair every time they get up in the morning will be better at styling it, or at least more sympathetic. Not entirely logical, but not a terrible assumption to make. Lastly, and a problem mentioned in the above link, some people try to charge more for dealing with that kind of hair, or are snobby pains about having to. I'm not surprised your potential customers are testing the water. If they really are just being insular... well, who wants their money, but its not like there aren't reasons for how they're acting.
I don't know, that seems to go against example of most of the more established minority people I've met - most of them are well integrated, at least in public (maybe they are still very ______ at home where blank is the race).
Thaiboxer: Are you certain they aren't making sure the salon's stylists have experience with black hair? It's different to work with.
I host a podcast about movies.
I got the distinct impression from his posts that at least a large portion of the callers are specifically trying to determine if there's an actual black stylist available...under the assumption, I'd guess, that a black stylist will do a better job with black hair.
I'm pretty sure if you applied that sort of test with neutral symbols, you'd see people had a preference for 'triangles' or something.
I host a podcast about movies.
You're supposed to make several passes, and the honest mistakes balance out over time. I've taken unconscious bias tests 3 times, I think, and gotten pretty much identical results.
I host a podcast about movies.
And you know if the test does have some validity it's not something I'd really hold against someone - we don't really get a lot of say in our unconscious biases or tendencies. It's probably helpful to be personally aware of them though.
I think I unlearned that sort of thinking well before it could have set in.
I host a podcast about movies.
lol fade
I think it's less so now, because I'm in a very diverse area away from home, so it's no longer something my attention is drawn to. So you're right, your situation is probably the most efficient way to be non-racist. But unconcious bias or prejudice doesn't mean secretly being in the KKK, it means reacting differently, whether you notice it or not, to different races.
On hair: I have a white-boy non-jewish semi-fro. It's pretty much hair that makes stylists tell me they'll do it free if they can buzz it.
And yet, my sister got "beautiful and curly". Jerk.
It was pretty impressive. I guess I'm just kind of used to some old italian doofus with a pair of scissors who asks you how you want it and then cuts it the same way he cuts everyone's hair.
Steam: pazython
Well, I will share this little gem from the weekly company meeting at my workplace. A coworker was talking about how she took her sports-illiterate grandma to a basketball game. The old woman enjoyed it very much and halfway through she turned to my coworker with a smile and said, "Isn't it nice that they have something black people can be good at now?"
The old woman was not trying to insult anyone. She undoubtedly does not think of herself as racist or even dislike black people. She didn't call the players "the n word" or negro or darkie.
Is she racist? Hell yes! She thinks black people are inferior at everything except basketball.
The problem though is that that test seems like a really really poor way of doing it. I get what they're trying to do, but the fact is my fuck ups were either because I don't know the difference between "other" and "arab muslim" names (as it was when I did it) or because they were flipping the sides of the screen around. Of course in my case I was going slower as well because it was becoming apparent the dexterity thing was going to be an issue.
And in the end what does it tell me? "You seem to have a slight bias against Arab Muslims" which it only said because after thinking about it I decided the Muslim part of that was going to make me somewhat biased against them consciously anyway. So ladeeda for retarded studies.
Mine is the same; every time he cuts my hair I feel that I owe him $50, and then feel guilty about how little I've paid.
I'm not defending him, but using a certain word, even calling someone that word, doesn't make you a racist.
if you said it because you hate him for being black, then you are a racist. the intent behind the word is what really matters.
that being said, I actually do think Richards is a racist... I'm talking generally not about him specifically.
I don't know about that-- "n*****" is such a socially powerful and explosive word that I don't think the user's intent can overrule the predictable effect on others that the word will have. That is, that word has for so long been such an obvious tool of racism that you'd have to have an extremely narrow set of circumstances in a particular situation for its use to not be racist.
It's not like the rest of Richards' standup act was directly talking about and subverting racism***, after all.
(***Or was it? I didn't see his show so I'm assuming this. Possibly the only "out" I can see for him is if his entire comedy act prior to this was dedicated to subverting words and actions commonly associated with racism.)
No, that fraction of a fraction of mystatement, entirely out of context, is NOTthe real problem I was speaking of.
The problem that I was speaking of is that racism perpetuates itself when the victim becomes the victimizer. Innocent white kids are treated unfairly by black people who have been discriminated against by OTHER white folks in the past (though not in any serious way, because the perpetrators lack the power to throw them in jail, or anything) and those once innocent kids become racist themselves, thinking that if black folks are going to treat them poorly, then they'll treat black folks poorly too.
THAT is the real problem that I was speaking of. Your parents raising you to be racist, while a very real issue in our society, can't hold up forever if you constantly encounter minorities whose very existance disproves your parent's teachings (hard-working mexicans, charitable Jews, inclusive asians, educated black people, etc.) but people who have had actual negative experiences with minority members in the way I'm talking about, feel like they are justified firsthand to discriminate.
I'm not pointing fingers here; it's all cyclical anyway. And I am in NO way sayingthat white people have it worse than ANYONE. What I am saying is that in order to stop (and by stop, I mean cut down on, because it's impossible to get rid of entirely) racism, we need to stop ALL racism, not just racism against a particular race.
I think the counterargument is that those whites who are mad about perceived racism against them by other races are just not properly educated about the advantages they already enjoy by being white, and the complementary disadvantages the other races suffer, and therefore are failing to perceive that the net of racism is still in their favor and retributive racism against the other race is still the wrong response.
But I think education of "how good you have it" isn't what does it alone. An innocent white guys who knows how good he has it, and then is a "victim"of retributive racism might decide that black people "deserve"not to have whathe has, because look how they act.
That's what bothers me the most about the whole cyclical nature of racism in respect to retributive racism. It creates a sort of a false positive piece of data that can actually be used to "justify" racism, which differs from taught racism in that taught racism often grows out of ignorance, and doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Using "my own" people as an example, if you were raised being told that Jews had horns, and worshipped the devil, you might believe it growing up, but once you went out in to the world, and interacted with Jews directly, and saw thatthey didn't have horns, and saw no signs of them being devil worshippers, you'd begin to question those teachings, and if you are a rational thinker, you would ultimately decide them to be wrong.
If you had ZERO preconcieved notions about Jews, though, and went out in to the world only to find Jews to be cold and exclusive in regards to non-Jews, including yourself, you might decide, based on this observation, that Jews think they are better than everyone else. If you witnessed and/or experienced this behavior multiple times, you might even become entirely convinced of it.
The truth is that many groups of Jews ARE weary of gentiles, but the reason is not that Jews think they're better, but rather, it's retributive discrimination. In the past gentiles have kept the Jews seperate, and even attacked them, so some Jews want nothing to do with gentiles.
I am not, of course, justifying retributive racism in the least, just pointing out that you can't say "first we get white people to stop discriminating against black people, and THEN we'll worry about the black people who discriminate against white people." You have to deal with it all at once, or else it all starts over again.
Justbecause white men have had it better than everybody else for so long doesn't mean it's okay to lift everyone else up, and make it only slightly worse for white men. EVERYONE deserve equality, and the way to do that is to lift everyone up together.
Several flaws in this:
1) You haven't explained how innocent white kids are being treated unfairly. To say that you will no longer have the white priveledge that you once enjoyed is not the same as treated unfairly.
2) Despite the fact that you are so certain that white people are treated unfairly, you dismiss and belittle the fact that black people have been treated unfairly, because "perpetrators lack the power to throw them in jail." So if that's the standard, then when have black people throw white people in jail? Moreover, are you counting the role of racial profiling against black people? For instance, from the Drug Policy Alliance, "Blacks constitute 13 percent of all drug users, but 35 percent of those arrested for drug possession, 55 percent of persons convicted, and 74 percent of people sent to prison" and "Nonetheless, in 1994, 90 percent of persons convicted of federal crack cocaine offenses were black, six percent Latino, and less than four percent white. Federal powder cocaine offenders were 30 percent black, 43 percent Latino, and 26 percent white."
3) You make the remark of how black people "have been discriminated against by OTHER white folks in the past," conveniently ignoring the amount of discrimination that occurs regarding black people right now.
4) You claim that the white kids are "innocent" because they are not the same white people currently discriminating against black people, while ignoring the fact that those white kids will benefit from discrimination. If you accept a present that I know to be stolen, then can you really be considered "innocent," even though you personally didn't steal it yourself?
5) You're assuming that black people standing up for themselves is the cause of racism against them, as though racism agaisnt them is only some sort of recent thing.
And even if we accepted your premise, how do you expect these encounters to occur if minorities get shut out of the workforce?
Moreover, people who feel that minorities are less deserving to begin with aren't going to be impressed with financial succes. "Them Jews control all the money and power and are responsible for all the wars!" "The Asian guys are all math geeks who are always looking for ways to short change us!" "That black guy is getting way too uppity!" "That Mexican is taking our jobs!" etc.
rac·ism [rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
Please state where other races practice the idea of superiority and right to rule.
The data disagrees.
http://www.college.wsj.com/successwork/workplacediversity/20030910-wessel.html
"In the Boston and Chicago experiment, researchers tweaked some resumes to make them more appealing to employers. They added a year of work experience, some military experience, fewer periods for which no job was listed, computer skills and the like. This paid off for whites: Those with better resumes were called back for interviews 30% more than other whites. It didn't pay off for blacks: Precisely the same changes yielded only a 9% increase in callbacks."
And what if you grew up being taught to believe in egalitarian values, and to believe that you weren't racist because you were wise enough to overcome the traps of stereotyping, only for the data to show otherwise?
http://www4.colgate.edu/scene/july1997/affirmative.html
"Aversive racism is one subtle form of bias that is characteristic of many White Americans who possess strong egalitarian values and who believe that they are not prejudiced. But many also possess negative feelings and beliefs that they are unaware of, or that they try to dissociate from their images of themselves as non-prejudiced. These negative feelings may be rooted in common cognitive, motivational and sociocultural forces that can affect most White Americans. These convictions of fairness, justice and equality, along with the most unavoidable development of racial biases, form the basis of the ambivalence that aversive racists experience."
|
|
Post is made of win.
Not that I disagree with pretty much anything else you said, but these two points are exactly what I believe he was talking about. To the first, I don't even think it was a long term past event he was talking about. Rather, he was saying just because the first white person you saw today treated you like shit doesn't mean you should automatically hold it against the next one you see. This goes for anything, if the first women/man/white/black/whatever you saw today tried to lie and cheat you, you shouldn't hold it against the next one you encounter.
As for the other thing, it is a touch different. Some white person in the past getting a job that a black person was better suited for should have no bearing on a current job opening. One way or the other. Simply put, the better qualified should get the job. (You did a good (by me) job of showing how that is not the case, so please don't take this as an attack on that.)
A sort of tangent question regarding racism. Is the answer to believe that all races are equal? For some reason I just find that backwards. It seems that there are definitely advantages afforded different races. I don't know them all, and I do not feel that any one race is a "super" race, but it just seems somewhat natural that some races are actually better at certain things than others. Is this just a belief that is cultured by "balanced" video games? Anyone know of data/studies that speaks to this?
Right, which is basically what I was asking. Though, to be more clear, even if certain races do have advantages over another, I would not expect it to be a sport (which entails a whole class of physical traits, typically). Rather, I would have expected to find that certain races tend to be more flexible, have more lung capacity, denser bones, etc. I guess I'm just curious that since I do not doubt evolution, is it that far off to believe that different humans would have evolved differently? Especially ones that lived in wildly different regions? (An example I know of right off is that the ability to drink milk is a luxury that is not shared by all cultures. You can also get a pretty good idea of whether or not you will become lactose intolerant by knowing your ancestry. While this does come from a coincidence in what the families did over the years (rely on milk) it led to a physical difference between people.)
I should also be quick to point out that when it comes to most jobs, I don't see how any of these traits could come up. And I'm not exactly looking forward to the day when traits such as aggression/heart attack/etc tendency is part of your medical record. I need only watch Gataca again to appreciate my hope in individual achievement. (Though, ironically, that movie has a good example of what I'm talking about with that piano player.)