It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What can we do to address race-relations and solve racism?

page: 68
2
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
I still maintain it's about governing one's own behavior and calling it out when you see it.


Oh, I do that! I am proud to say that I have even been asked if I have black relatives because of my personal view and outspoken manner on racism.
And I usually haven't heard anything racist from them again.

But I was talking more in the wider arena. I feel I'm doing all I can in my personal circle (although I'm open to suggestion). But besides voting, what can I do to have an impact on institutional racism?



Now, on the issue of institutionalized racism, I think we need to be clear about what that really is.


Here's something to read and discuss:



ERASE Racism

Frequently, definitions stress that once racism takes hold and is embedded within institutions it does not require "intent." Rather, institutional racism can be perpetuated by seemingly benign policies, practices, behaviors, traditions, structures, etc., which is why it usually goes unchallenged.
...
Racism = racial prejudice plus institutional and systemic power to dominate, exclude, discriminate against or abuse targeted groups of people based on a designation of race.
...
Institutional racism is a term that describes the way government and other public and private institutions systematically afford White people an array of social, political and economic advantages, simply because they are White, while marginalizing and putting at a disadvantage African Americans and many other people of color.
...
Even without conscious, personal racial animosity, these institutional structures, policies, and practices generate and maintain racial discrimination, segregation, and inequalities of opportunity that keep African Americans and other people of color apart from the mainstream of American economic and political life.


So, according to this article, institutional racism doesn't necessarily require intent. And I think that's at lease partially where the problem is. If people aren't even aware that these things are happening, and don't have the intent to support racism, where do we go?

I worked most of my career at GTE, Seimens and Intel. There were so many people of color at ALL of these places, including black Americans, I honestly couldn't believe institutional racism was in practice there. And this was years ago.

I'd like to see some numbers that indicate the pervasiveness of institutional racism. I think this issue may be so slippery that I'm not sure we can get hold of it. Because there are no laws or policies that support racism.

I'm not in the work force anymore. If I were I think I'd make friends with people in the human resources department and see if I could get some questions answered about unwritten policy and so on... But I was a lowly nobody in the companies I worked for. There's not much I can see that I could do about it.

Pretty powerless here.




posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Institutional rascism does exist, without any doubt whatsoever. That much I agree on. But to say its only practised against people of color is wrong. Let me give you an example: For just over 15 years, actually closer to 16, but who's counting; I worked in the fishing industry...all facets of it...from hauling the nets to warehousing it...packaging it...even to a certain extent selling the bloody stuff. When I finally had had enough of the industry...it truley is a young persons game, unless you are in management; I had travelled from lowly to upper midmanagement; and I can safely say there was indeed an institutional racism practised, but it wasn't against just people of color; it was against blacks and, odd as it may seem to some here, whites...the bias was this. Filipinos and Mexicans are the only ones who can make it through to the end of the season...whites and blacks are either too lazy, or too something, there was always an excuse. I knew the industry inside and out, and my company wasn't the only one to practise it. On vacation time, I had the dubious pleasure of being required by my bosses to help conduct interviews of perspective employees. In order of preference, never voiced, but certainly implied were: Mexicans, Filipino, Polyneisian, then Blacks, and lastly Whites...trust me when I say this was never written, or even verbal policy, but boy was it pushed from above. Not the only reason I quit, but one of them.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Well, loam, I guess it didn't impress upon you about the patronizing remarks. Really, I think you should stop with the finger-wagging business. When I say I am offended, I am. And I was very offended by your remarks.

I don't need to be told something to the equivalent of, "Bad dog. Bad, bad, dog."

That's exactly how your admonitions sound to me. It is as if you are treating me like a pet who has misbehaved.

Something's got to give. And yes, there are still a lot of things I am sick of, but for the sake of politness I won't mention.


But to be honest, yes, there is a sense of "ownership" that is still going on. And unfortunately, it is something that continues to happen even when some people tend to think that their replies are "honest".

I don't need you to tell me how I should act. Yet you do it again and again. When will you ever learn to cease and desist your condescending remarks and just focus on the topic?

All I have to say is if you continue to talk to me like a bad dog, then you deserve my rudeness. I don't need you or anyone else to constantly talk to me about my behavior if I was your subordinate.

If you respect my comments and refrain from the patronizing of my remarks, then you will be treated with the utmost kindness.

It is what anyone would expect. And if you don't, then you get what you deserve.



[edit on 6-10-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by loam
I still maintain it's about governing one's own behavior and calling it out when you see it.


Oh, I do that! I am proud to say that I have even been asked if I have black relatives because of my personal view and outspoken manner on racism.
And I usually haven't heard anything racist from them again.


Like I said, in my experience, even subtle forms of disapproval seem to work.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But I was talking more in the wider arena. I feel I'm doing all I can in my personal circle (although I'm open to suggestion). But besides voting, what can I do to have an impact on institutional racism?


How does anyone have any impact on any political question?

There is obviously no magic bullet here.

I think like all other issues, it is a problem tackled in slices.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, according to this article, institutional racism doesn't necessarily require intent. And I think that's at lease partially where the problem is. If people aren't even aware that these things are happening, and don't have the intent to support racism, where do we go?


The problem I have with such a definition is that it is conclusory with regard to the cause. It's proximity to the definition of prejudice clouds other reasons for disparate impact.

I think the weakness of this definition becomes more apparent when you discuss actual examples of "institutional" racism.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But I was a lowly nobody in the companies I worked for.


I have sat at the top of most I have worked for. Despite the protestations I expect to receive to the contrary, "merit" rarely was trumped by other less appropriate considerations.

That is not to say I don't believe there are plenty of examples that contradict my experience, but were I have seen such examples, they were ALWAYS the direct result of a decision maker's prejudice-- hence my skepticism regarding the proposed definition of institutional racism.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Well, thank you for focusing on the topic. It is the first post in a long time you have not focused on my behavior. Now, I will read the comments of others and not say any more.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Now that I've thought about it, there are no written policies, procedures and rules in place in institutions that oppress a certain race. That's illegal and would not be tolerated. However, there are people in powerful positions practicing personal racism or racial prejudice.

Isn't that really what institutional racism really is??

People in powerful positions practicing personal racial prejudice? Because if they weren't prejudiced, they'd be hiring the most qualified person for the job, regardless of his race. Is there an assumption that when John Whiteboy gets promoted, he's taken into the back office of the Big Boss and *nudge-nudge - wink-wink* told not to hire black people? NO! That's ridiculous and could get a corporation in real trouble. John Whiteboy gets his promotion and then doesn't hire a black man for the job because either A. The black applicant truly wasn't the best man for the job OR B. He's practicing personal racial prejudice.

So, the problem as I see it is still personal racism, but by a person in a position of power.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Secondly, I'd like to know how widespread this issue is. Are there any scholarly articles out there that prove that people of color who have equal qualifications are not getting hired for the jobs? See, I'm thinking this 'fallout' of black men in the workplace may start way before the interview. More like in grade school.

Are there any scholarly articles that show that black men, graduating from college with high scores are being turned away from the work force in greater numbers than their white counterparts?

Because it's just my suspicion that at least one of the reasons there are so few black men in these corporations charged with institutional racism might be because there are so few black men available for the job.

If that's the case, we need to turn our attention from the corporations and look at the home life and environment of the black children who never make it out of high school, let alone college.

See what I mean?

EDITED TO CORRECT NUMBERS

Population by Race

13% of the population of the US is black.
80% of the population of the US is white.
15% of blacks graduate from college while 30% of whites do.

So if we take 100 people, 13 of them are going to be black, 80 of them white.
15% of the 13 blacks graduate from college. (2 black graduates)
30% of the 80 whites graduate from college. (24 white graduates)

The ratio of white college graduates to black college graduates is 12:1. (There are 12 times more white college graduates in the US)

Source

College Graduates in the US Workforce by Race:


Race/ethnicity (Numbers are in Thousands of people)

Black, non-Hispanic only - 2,446
White, non-Hispanic only - 32,670 (this is actually misprinted in the article as 3,267, but if you add male and female, you can see the misprint is off by a factor of 10. Someone forget a zero. -BH)


Source (PDF)

So... the ratio of white college graduates to black college graduates in the workforce in the US is 13.3:1 (There are 13.3 times more white college graduates in the workplace in the US.)

So, it would appear that institutional racism is much lower in fact in the US workforce as regards college graduate level jobs than I thought! The ratio of white to black graduates (12) is very close to the same as the ratio of white to blacks in the workforce (13.3).

This indicates that the problem is in the education of the black person - as twice as many whites (30%) graduate college as do blacks (15%). So, what's stopping black people from graduating college? Are they going and dropping out? Are they graduating high school? Are they going into college at all? If not, why not? That seems to be where our focus should be.

EDITED TO CORRECT NUMBERS

[edit on 6-10-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Well, loam, I guess it didn't impress upon you about the patronizing remarks. Really, I think you should stop with the finger-wagging business. When I say I am offended, I am. And I was very offended by your remarks.

I don't need to be told something to the equivalent of, "Bad dog. Bad, bad, dog."

That's exactly how your admonitions sound to me. It is as if you are treating me like a pet who has misbehaved.


Your remarks define the essence of paranoia. Tough, get over it. You're just going to have to deal with your delusional interpretations concerning my posts.


Originally posted by ceci2006
...politness...


Your posts demonstrate you have no understanding of the term.



Originally posted by ceci2006
All I have to say is if you continue to talk to me like a bad dog, then you deserve my rudeness. I don't need you or anyone else to constantly talk to me about my behavior if I was your subordinate.


See, here is the material difference between our world views. I HAVE NO SUBORDINATES or SUPERIORS when it comes to how I treat others.

The standards I apply to myself, I attempt to apply to everyone.


Originally posted by ceci2006
If you respect my comments and refrain from the patronizing of my remarks, then you will be treated with the utmost kindness.

It is what anyone would expect. And if you don't, then you get what you deserve.



If you follow or violate your own proclamations, you can expect the same.



[edit on 6-10-2006 by loam]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Now that I've thought about it, there are no written policies, procedures and rules in place in institutions that oppress a certain race. That's illegal and would not be tolerated. However, there are people in powerful positions practicing personal racism or racial prejudice.

Isn't that really what institutional racism really is??


I agree. That is why I do not like the definition you cited above.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
People in powerful positions practicing personal racial prejudice? Because if they weren't prejudiced, they'd be hiring the most qualified person for the job, regardless of his race. Is there an assumption that when John Whiteboy gets promoted, he's taken into the back office of the Big Boss and *nudge-nudge - wink-wink* told not to hire black people? NO! That's ridiculous and could get a corporation in real trouble. John Whiteboy gets his promotion and then doesn't hire a black man for the job because either A. The black applicant truly wasn't the best man for the job OR B. He's practicing personal racial prejudice.

So, the problem as I see it is still personal racism, but by a person in a position of power.


I would completely agree with this.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Secondly, I'd like to know how widespread this issue is. Are there any scholarly articles out there that prove that people of color who have equal qualifications are not getting hired for the jobs? See, I'm thinking this 'fallout' of black men in the workplace may start way before the interview. More like in grade school.

Are there any scholarly articles that show that black men, graduating from college with high scores are being turned away from the work force in greater numbers than their white counterparts?

Because it's just my suspicion that at least one of the reasons there are so few black men in these corporations charged with institutional racism might be because there are so few black men available for the job.

If that's the case, we need to turn our attention from the corporations and look at the home life and environment of the black children who never make it out of high school, let alone college.

See what I mean?


Yes I do.

In fact, I think educational policies ARE the place we should look.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
13% of the population of the US is black.
15% of those graduate from college while 30% of whites do.

So if we take 100 people, 13 of them are going to be black, 87 of them white.
15% of the 13 blacks graduate from college. (2 black graduates)
30% of the 87 whites graduate from college. (26 white graduates)

The ratio of white college graduates to black college graduates is 13:1. (There are 13 times more white college graduates in the US)

Source

Black College Graduates in the US Workforce:


Race/ethnicity (Numbers are in Thousands of people)

Black, non-Hispanic only - 2,446
White, non-Hispanic only - 32,670 (this is actually misprinted in the article as 3,267, but if you add male and female, you can see the misprint is off by a factor of 10. Someone forget a zero. -BH)


Source (PDF)

So... the ratio of white college graduates to black college graduates in the workforce in the US is 13.3:1 (There are 13.3 times more white college graduates in the workplace in the US.)

So, it would appear that institutional racism does not in fact exist in the US workforce as regards college graduate level jobs! The ratio of white to black graduates (13) is almost exactly the same as the ratio of white to blacks in the workforce (13.3).

This indicates that the problem is in the education of the black person - as twice as many whites (30%) graduate college as do blacks (15%). So, what's stopping black people from graduating college? Are they going and dropping out? Are they graduating high school? Are they going into college at all? If not, why not? That seems to be where our focus should be.


I need more time to think about this, but I find your numbers (if accurate) persuasive.

EDIT: But I'd also be interested in earnings numbers for the two groups.


[edit on 6-10-2006 by loam]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Now, I will read the comments of others and not say any more.


Ditto.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
...Filipinos and Mexicans are the only ones who can make it through to the end of the season...whites and blacks are either too lazy, or too something, there was always an excuse. I knew the industry inside and out, and my company wasn't the only one to practise it. On vacation time, I had the dubious pleasure of being required by my bosses to help conduct interviews of perspective employees. In order of preference, never voiced, but certainly implied were: Mexicans, Filipino, Polyneisian, then Blacks, and lastly Whites...trust me when I say this was never written, or even verbal policy, but boy was it pushed from above. Not the only reason I quit, but one of them.


What a fascinating perspective.

Thanks for sharing that!



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
BH. Institutional Bias might be a better term, though racism does occur. It all comes back to stereotypes...Mexicans are hard workers...Filipinos are hard workers...Whites/Blacks are lazy and won't last...etc... In my case, the refrain was constant, particularly in the 90's when the Hispanic and Filipino wave of processors in plants began. As more and more of the white and black workers were either fired or left for whatever reasons the attitude of get good workers regardless of where they come from...began to change to a less than savory mix of lets get workers from whereever. Not much of a change in wording, but boy the effects were profound...whites began to be, instead of college kids looking for a little adventure, or black college kids looking for a little adventure, they became gang members, or street trash, alcholics or drugusers, or all four at the same time...which only reinforced the developing bias. Those of us who had been in the industry for years prior were largely immune to the bias, so long as we stayed within whatever company we started with.

People I know who are still in the industry, good freinds most of them; say its just as bad now, if not worse; than it was in '99 when I finally got fed up with the politics.

I'll freely admit that my experiances in the industry have colored my views...I have little or next to no tolerance, for bias as regards to color. Been there, and the view succeth big time.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   
This sort of bias is NEVER writtten down. EVER. It would be far too easy for someone like myself, on the inside, but not an insider, to jam up the works. Imagine something like that hitting the Seattle Times, never one of the industry's bigger fans. The ****storm would be incredible
.

As I said, it's almost never even verbalized, except in nasty asides, such as the one I quoted to you, BH, in my U2U. For the rest of you..."What you think your a white man? No...here we work." Not the same quote as I gave BH, but close.

No, a corporation the size of the one I worked for would never, ever, have that as written policy, or verbal...but the implied bias is there.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
If you take a look at the chart, you'll see that white women even earn more than black men. BTW, these stats should also make it extremely obvious why blacks always lag behind whites financially- it's set up that way!


Sure, this chart says something, but I'm not sure it says what you mean it to say.

This is an overall wage gap chart, but it doesn't take into account that only 1/2 the percentage of black people (15%) are graduating from college as compared to white people (30%). So, we're comparing the wage of the black McDonald's worker to the white lawyer, not the black lawyer to the white lawyer or the black engineer to the white engineer. I'm sure if there is a gap at that level, it's much smaller.

In fact, in entry level engineering positions with companies like Intel, all the positions pay the same. It's not until years later, when one shows initiative, intelligence, a "go getter" attitude and other characteristics they're looking for (to advance the company) that a person's wage begin to tell the story of real performance. You have to over-perform to step ahead of the pack. And by that time, they don't care what color you are. If you're making the company look good, they Lurve you!


I'm interested to see more about the wage gap with real comparisons.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
...other characteristics they're looking for...


In the management world, the number one lethal weapon presented by anyone seeking to advance is the demonstration of sound judgment in furtherance of the company's earnings, or in protection of them.

seagull's experience is an interesting one. Clearly the hiring decisions he describes are being made on the basis of race. But it's more than that too. It's an example of an industry that has shorthanded it's hiring process to maximize its ability to acquire what it perceives are the most productive resources.

I suspect that if there were better predictive tools measuring (at the hiring stage) the productivity of candidates for these positions, you'd see the racial make-up of the labor force of that industry substantially change.



[edit on 6-10-2006 by loam]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Loam. You've hit on it exactly... The people are replaceable...who cares if they are competant people with experiance...we can hire someone off the street to do the job...

"There's more where they came from...". It's not always a racial bias, either...the bias is a gender one as well. For example...Benevolent Heretic and Ceci have both proven themselves to be very intelligent and very capable...given their abilities to track down information for us to read...I would imagine this would translate very nicely to warehousing paperwork, inventory control, etc... Well, the gender bias was alive and well, I would never have, and never was, allowed to have a woman on my crews...packaging and quality control only, or slimeline for the newbies. It drove me crazy...smart women stuck in a job that a chimp could do... Another reason I quit.

[edit on 6-10-2006 by seagull]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Not to move the discussion into women and the fishing industry, but here is a fascinating review of the topic:

PSYCHOSOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WORKFORCE AT SEA

Perhaps the Norwegian model should be studied more closely.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Yes, we have moved abit far out to sea, haven't we?
. Sorry, couldn't resist. That was an interesting article, I'll read it a bit more thouroughly later, or rather tommorrow morning, because it is time for this night owl to go to sleep. I get the impression though, that it will support my statements...



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So if we take 100 people, 13 of them are going to be black, 87 of them white.
15% of the 13 blacks graduate from college. (2 black graduates)
30% of the 87 whites graduate from college. (26 white graduates)

The ratio of white college graduates to black college graduates is 13:1. (There are 13 times more white college graduates in the US)

Source


The above number is wrong. I will edit with update...

Previous post updated. The number works out to be 12:1 white/black college graduates. And 13.3:1 whites/blacks in college graduate positions in the US workforce. Which, with the data we have available, could be within the margin of error. So it doesn't really change the outcome.

[edit on 6-10-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
Mexicans are hard workers...Filipinos are hard workers...Whites/Blacks are lazy and won't last...etc...


Actually, that exists in the electronics engineering world as well. Asian and East Indian people are smart and dedicated. They will work overtime and never complain. White and black people have demanding families who are more important to them than their job.

Just a couple more stereotypes to throw out there.


Interesting stuff.


[edit on 6-10-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
BH can you find earnings examples?

(I'll look myself later when I have more time.)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join