3devious
Android Expert
Fo' sho'.
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Racism...
- Thread starter TheBeardedMann
- Start date
- Status
Fo' sho'.
You deserve a fair response. Shoot straight with me and I can respect that. But I will need to return to this in a couple of days because I have had a horrible toothache since last Friday. Got into my dentist's office today and found out I need a root canal on Wednesday. I need to be on antibiotics for a couple of days for infection in the tooth's root. Right now I am doped up on painkillers and I need to be able to think unencumbered by opiates, and I hate the fuzzy brain feeling they give me
Very rare that you and I agree on anything, but I absolutely have to here. In that movie with Jim Carrey where Morgan Freeman played the character of God (can't think of the title now), that seemed like the most logical casting choice I had seen in a long time. Freeman played a great part with some depth even though the movie was a comedy, he gave it his patented "aw, shucks" complete effort that he can do while making acting look effortless. That is no small feat, I would wager. And Morgan Freeman has that voice of gravitas. He injects trust when he speaks. If there were a god, I could see a guy like Freeman pulling that gig.
ddoolin
Member
Maybe if you believe that any hostility at all is something to be guilty of, but I disagree; I don't share the same 'turn the other cheek' mentality as you might (although that is a perfectly admiral attitude to take)
If a guy attacks me with a knife, unprovoked, I'll be hostile toward him; I don't believe that makes me as bad as him.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
Well there are always grey areas... as in matters of personal defense and survival, and protecting things you love inlcuding but not limited to property and people.
I was just saying hating someone due to their beleifs, whether moral, or immoral, racism, bigotry, or anything of that sort, does make you the same, as your also discriminating against another group or belief, be it racism, or biggotry. Which is what we are all guilty of, unless your a monk or something.. lol.
I still think that there's a significant difference between discriminating without any real reason based on prejudice; and discriminating against prejudice.
hakr100
Android Expert
Indeed there is. If I come across suppliers whose words or actions indicate they discriminate on the basis of race/gender/religion, I simply don't do business with them, and I don't personally associate with such people. Some years ago, I was buying printing services on behalf of a client. Turned out the printer was an out-and-out racist but had managed to keep that from the client. When I discovered the truth, I told the client and the printing contract was not renewed after 10 years of renewals. Cost the printer several hundred thousand dollars in gross income.
Good for you.
I was once put in the position as a manager, having employed a new member of staff, of being instructed by the company's Chairman, to fire him. I asked why (fearing I knew the answer I about to hear) and had my fears confirmed, it was because he was a black African. I protested, but said if that what I was being instructed to do I would.
I wrote a letter to the employee advising him he was being fired, and why; I also included a letter for him to take to the employment tribunal with a full explanation of the circumstances surrounding his dismissal.
However, and I'm not sure if this was the best outcome for with regard to justice for the Chairman, but before delivering the letter and the dismissal another board member heard what had transpired and told me to take no action, but to record the event in a memo to them. I'm happy to say this board member, and others were as furious with the Chairman as I, and took action at a board level.
The employee remained with the company, and proved to be a huge success and asset; vindicating my employment of him, and when he left this was something that was publicly, and sincerely, recognised by the Chairman.
LiamSHepard
Member
Part of "Equal Opportunity" (the reason race questions are asked) is that businesses are required (not that they do) to employ a certain percentage of people from different ethnicities.
As I see it, there are two camps regarding racism. The "Entitled" camp who want to keep it alive until they receive "reparations."
The second camp are the ones described in this thread. I dub them the "It happened it sucked it's been about 200 years can we get on with life" camp.
As I see it, there are two camps regarding racism. The "Entitled" camp who want to keep it alive until they receive "reparations."
The second camp are the ones described in this thread. I dub them the "It happened it sucked it's been about 200 years can we get on with life" camp.
I'm very glad that there is no such compulsion in the markets I've worked in. The idea that people should be employed for any reason other than merit is abominable to me.
I had a similar discussion with a 'feminist' at work shortly after the recent UK election, when the cabinet had fewer females in it than previously, and this girl took offense and claimed the government was sexist.
When I pointed out that if you have 100posts, and 100female and 100male candidates you choose the best 100candidates from the pool, not the best 50female and best 50male; she just couldn't accept this
ballisticn8
Android Expert
I'm very glad that there is no such compulsion in the markets I've worked in. The idea that people should be employed for any reason other than merit is abominable to me.
I had a similar discussion with a 'feminist' at work shortly after the recent UK election, when the cabinet had fewer females in it than previously, and this girl took offense and claimed the government was sexist.
When I pointed out that if you have 100posts, and 100female and 100male candidates you choose the best 100candidates from the pool, not the best 50female and best 50male; she just couldn't accept this
you shouldve just advised her that she shouldnt be paying attn to politics and that she shoudlve been in the kitchen making you a sandwich...
just kidding people, sheesh, figured i'd inject some humor randomly into threads, if people smile they'll remember that its the internet and despite what some people think its really not that serious.
The irony is that those lol-cats just make me so angry... not inherently, but they remind me of one of the few people that I'll actually claim to hate.
LiamSHepard
Member
I'm very glad that there is no such compulsion in the markets I've worked in. The idea that people should be employed for any reason other than merit is abominable to me.
I had a similar discussion with a 'feminist' at work shortly after the recent UK election, when the cabinet had fewer females in it than previously, and this girl took offense and claimed the government was sexist.
When I pointed out that if you have 100posts, and 100female and 100male candidates you choose the best 100candidates from the pool, not the best 50female and best 50male; she just couldn't accept this
Personally I think all interviews should either be done by third party companies and the results sent to the employers. Or all interviews are done via essay.
Being a white person, I can only truly put my perspective. I have seen this law do good things and bad things. Mainly I have seen more qualified white people get passed over for positions or promotions as a result.
Though that sucks, in some areas of the U.S. the coin flips far to the other side and qualified minorities get passed over.
I do believe it definitely needs to be revised. Removed? No.
As an employer I'd disagree, the interview has to be face-to-face for some roles, to allow a chance to gauge rapport.
LiamSHepard
Member
Now that's not a bad idea, some formal report of the interview that's made available to the candidate. Obviously this would still be open to abuse by bad employers; how do you prove it's an honest account? It's unlikely that an employer is going to put in writing that they discounted an application based on race/sex/orientation/religion etc.
But it could be made a requirement by law of employers, and be made available to Social Security departments when long-term unemployed are claiming benefits; if your interview reports show you turning up late/drunk/not putting in the effort to gain employment, you don't deserve welfare benefits etc. It would also help with career coaching etc.
Maybe once the norm it could prove a useful resource for all.
I don't think the race issue will ever go away completely. It is deeply ingrained in some peoples way of thinking and then that way of thinking is passed down from generation to generation. As a Black man I truly believe its impossible for another race to fully understand how Black people feel about it. Its very easy to say, it was 200 years ago get over it, but the fact is racist things happen everyday which make it hard for some Black people to get over it. A Black person can walk through Howard Beach in NY right now and be called a nigg*r so you can't say "it was 200 years ago." There are a lot of times reading various forums and a Black person pulls the race card and i think "Get over it, this has nothing to do with race." But at the same time a part of me understands because I don't know exactly what that person has experienced to make them feel the way they do.
I think for us to truly move past racism is to not pass our way of thinking on to our kids. Kids are not born with racist thoughts. Of course they see a difference in color and may be curious about it, but they don't feel that one race is superior to another until someone teaches them that.
I think for us to truly move past racism is to not pass our way of thinking on to our kids. Kids are not born with racist thoughts. Of course they see a difference in color and may be curious about it, but they don't feel that one race is superior to another until someone teaches them that.
LiamSHepard
Member
There is always a way around any "law." This would only catch the less intelligent employers. Which I believe would match the number of less intelligent employees.
As far as extending it into Social Security? Employers would pass this extra cost onto consumers, the government would raise taxes. We would be getting charged at both ends.
For welfare benefits, I think a simple, inexpensive urinalysis test performed on a scheduled basis at the welfare office would generally be sufficient.
I believe unemployment benefits vary state to state in the U.S. and are not part of "welfare." This cost is absorbed by employers when they fire or lay a person off. In my state unemployment lasts six months, then you are out of luck. I think the "Welfare" you mean consists of WIC (Women, Infants, and Children), food stamp programs, and Medicaid. "WIC"(stupid acronyms) is only good until a child is about 3.
Food stamps are based on your income being 150% of the national average of what is considered poverty level or less. Medicaid only applies in special circumstances. Ex. pregnant without insurance. Medicaid is also based off of your gross annual income. Which though I know sometimes it is abused, the income levels are pretty stringent.
3devious
Android Expert
Unemployment is your money, not the employer's! You pay into it as much as they do. They certainly act like it is theirs which is why in some cases they will fight tooth and nail to keep you from collecting, but I say forget them.
(At every job I have had since college except for this one architecture firm, I've stayed atleast 4 years and have only had to take one month off over the course of 13 years on disability. I've never been laid off or fired despite my best efforts so I figure they've really gotten over on not having to pay me unemployment.)
(At every job I have had since college except for this one architecture firm, I've stayed atleast 4 years and have only had to take one month off over the course of 13 years on disability. I've never been laid off or fired despite my best efforts so I figure they've really gotten over on not having to pay me unemployment.)
3devious
Android Expert
In my case I often wonder if I have the opportunities that were opened to me because I am classified as black but look white. I'll never know because no one really has the guts to tell me.
If I were to give Obama an assignment, I would ask him to adjust all forms that ask for your race. I am sick of:
__ White
__ Black
__ Asian (non-Pacific Islander)
__ Asian (Pacific Islander)
__ Non-white Hispanic
__ Native American
__ Other
I'm sorry, but that is just offensive. There are a hell of a lot of folks from India with obvious mongoloid traits in their features (a good chunk of the world's population, I would venture.) That is a damn large group to be classified as "Other."
I propose the following:
__ White
__ Black
__ Asian
__ Indian (or mongoloid, whatever describes those genes without pissing everyone off.)
__ Something that describes the genes of the folks originating in the Tigris/Euphrates area
__ Halfbreed
__ Heinz 57
__ None of your damned business
You can come up with whatever way you want to phrase the mixed races that will soothe your sensibilities, but that's what you need if for some reason it is necessary to catalog someone's race.
While you may feel that my request is a task unbecoming of the leader of the free world, I disagree. If we're going to make signficant steps to be less hateful on the bases of race/ethnicity, why not talk about the distinctions amongst us by the clinical definitions? Categories on a form that describe your genetic makeup say very little about the person those genes are made of, there is really nothing to be gained by attaching ethnicity to it.
A friend of mine comes lives in Quebec. He talks about himself as a frenchman. He describes himself as french and talks about the rest of us in America and his fellow canadians as English. When he mentioned this in one of our talks, I told him that I just don't understand what that means. To me, it is like saying that you have brown eyes. He felt that it somehow differentiated his people from the rest of Canada. I told him "you guys are just a bunch of white people to me" and "I basically just think of all of you as canadians." The later part of that was met with "grrrr." I know that both sides want to keep their language, but I really don't see a diference between them at all but it's a really big thing to him.
I still don't really get it. He's also upset by his kid being sent to another school outside of his community (crazy custody dispute and all.) The reason he's mad is that the school is in a region with lots and lots of immigrants (legal ones because Canada will deport your ass without a thought.) He's still bothered by it. I don't really know why. He knows english and they learn it in school anyway. Do French Canadians perform some sort of religious ritual that is really important or something? Other than a preferred language, what is lacking? I just don't get it.
If I were to give Obama an assignment, I would ask him to adjust all forms that ask for your race. I am sick of:
__ White
__ Black
__ Asian (non-Pacific Islander)
__ Asian (Pacific Islander)
__ Non-white Hispanic
__ Native American
__ Other
I'm sorry, but that is just offensive. There are a hell of a lot of folks from India with obvious mongoloid traits in their features (a good chunk of the world's population, I would venture.) That is a damn large group to be classified as "Other."
I propose the following:
__ White
__ Black
__ Asian
__ Indian (or mongoloid, whatever describes those genes without pissing everyone off.)
__ Something that describes the genes of the folks originating in the Tigris/Euphrates area
__ Halfbreed
__ Heinz 57
__ None of your damned business
You can come up with whatever way you want to phrase the mixed races that will soothe your sensibilities, but that's what you need if for some reason it is necessary to catalog someone's race.
While you may feel that my request is a task unbecoming of the leader of the free world, I disagree. If we're going to make signficant steps to be less hateful on the bases of race/ethnicity, why not talk about the distinctions amongst us by the clinical definitions? Categories on a form that describe your genetic makeup say very little about the person those genes are made of, there is really nothing to be gained by attaching ethnicity to it.
A friend of mine comes lives in Quebec. He talks about himself as a frenchman. He describes himself as french and talks about the rest of us in America and his fellow canadians as English. When he mentioned this in one of our talks, I told him that I just don't understand what that means. To me, it is like saying that you have brown eyes. He felt that it somehow differentiated his people from the rest of Canada. I told him "you guys are just a bunch of white people to me" and "I basically just think of all of you as canadians." The later part of that was met with "grrrr." I know that both sides want to keep their language, but I really don't see a diference between them at all but it's a really big thing to him.
I still don't really get it. He's also upset by his kid being sent to another school outside of his community (crazy custody dispute and all.) The reason he's mad is that the school is in a region with lots and lots of immigrants (legal ones because Canada will deport your ass without a thought.) He's still bothered by it. I don't really know why. He knows english and they learn it in school anyway. Do French Canadians perform some sort of religious ritual that is really important or something? Other than a preferred language, what is lacking? I just don't get it.
LiamSHepard
Member
In my experience people in Quebec are very sensitive to the fact they are from Quebec. They are too good to be Canadian but they are not in France so the French wont have them. Thus a large chip seems to have formed on the shoulder's of the people from there I have spoken with.
To hypothesize, I think it comes down to cultural identity. This in turn translates into forms of racism as a lot of people seem intent on either being part of "the best" or "most powerful" if they have low self confidence or just think they are better than other people that are different. Part's of this are turning into a more complex issues so I'll keep this reply brief.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
And the fact is, in today's day and age, the WHITE male is the one that's most discriminated upon, in America.
And people ARE born with racist thoughts, unfortunately. It's in our nature to fear what is different from us... we are taught to look the other way, and taught acceptance. And parental influence towards racism, makes it 1000% worse.
And the only way this is going to go away, is better education. That's it. And we need to clean up the streets. Growing up in Chicago, seeing some of my generation makes me revolt in disgust. The fact that people can be so stupid, primal, and petty over little and big things alike, is just shameful. The fact we let kids skip school, is just plain stupid. Sure there are laws against it, but is it actively enforced? No. Instead, police would rather focus on harrassing people trying to be productive with speeding tickets/parking tickets because like water, they know it's the path of least resistance.
Crude
Android Expert
I think it's important to point out that some times racism isn't racism at all. I have lived in 3 different countries and can speak 2 languages because of that. I HATE it when people living in America cannot speak English, those people piss me off. It makes me even more mad when they come here and try to bring their culture and make a microcosm of their origin. Act like the Romans or get out. To those who come here, make an effort, act like Americans AND contribute to the diverseness that is Americas...welcome, have a beer.
- Status