Racism on display at University of Virginia

[Ken-1122]

Or, a more plain way of putting it.
If Group A has 10 people: 2 lawyers, 2 doctors, 2 accountants, 2 computer programmers, and 2 maids
If Group B has 10 people: 0 lawyers, 1 doctor, 1 accountant, 1 computer programmer, and 7 maids

It's disingenuous to say "See there's equality of opportunity, because the 7 maids from Group B made the same as the 2 maids from Group A"

You seem to be suggesting Doctors and Lawyers have more opportunity than maids. Yeah they may have the opportunity to make more money, but money does not define opportunity so it all depends on how opportunity is defined which could vary from person to person. That’s why when people speak of equal opportunity, they usually mean equal opportunity under the law.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's a bit of a word game or "selective statistics"

Saying "a black woman who came from a 50k household does just as a well as a white woman who came from a 50k household" ignores the fact that fewer black women come from >=50k households than white women.

Oh ok...

All this time I thought your concern was that "being black" was causing this imaginary discrimination against them that was impeding their success.

Apparently what you're hoping for is some kind of communist utopia where everyone makes the same money.

You realize that no economist or sociologist ever said that you should expect a barber to make the same amount as a dr, right? Nor should you magically expect the same percentage of barbers or doctors in each racial group. Honestly, I don't think I've seen 1 Asian barber in my life....seen about a dozen Asian doctors though lol.

People have freedom of choice....so unless you're planning to take over and install some authoritarian regime and don't know what to tell you. You should never expect everyone's choices to just magically go they way you want them to. Ever.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Or, a more plain way of putting it.
If Group A has 10 people: 2 lawyers, 2 doctors, 2 accountants, 2 computer programmers, and 2 maids
If Group B has 10 people: 0 lawyers, 1 doctor, 1 accountant, 1 computer programmer, and 7 maids

It's disingenuous to say "See there's equality of opportunity, because the 7 maids from Group B made the same as the 2 maids from Group A"

What are you going to do? Force people to choose the career opportunities that you think they should pursue?

Excuse me sir, I know you're a mechanic but here's a law degree....we need more lawyers.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What are you going to do? Force people to choose the career opportunities that you think they should pursue?

Excuse me sir, I know you're a mechanic but here's a law degree....we need more lawyers.

I'm not looking to force anyone to do anything...however, to think that it's just random coincidence that "Group A, that's been disproportionately put in a pattern of generational poverty is just so happening to choose more low skill, low paying jobs while Group B is picking higher paid work" is quite suspect.

Limited family net worth, and limited educational opportunities can explain why things are working out the way they are.

Even if a kid's passion is learning medicine, if they're born into a below-performing inner city school system, and their parents don't have as much money to help with college, their ability to pursue that dream is going to be vastly more limited than a kid coming from a six-figure household, regardless of how strong their passion is.

Maybe I'm wrong, I don't think to many kids grow up saying "I really want to be a stock clerk at Target when I'm 35".


When you have generational-pattern wealth disparity (which like I said before, is closing in and getting closer to even...which is at good thing), and we have a society that dictates
A) you need college to pursue a meaningful field
and
B) it'd be socialism to provide no-cost education to kids who want to go


...which then relegates kids to the choice of "If I want to go to college, I can either join the military and risk getting shot to get part of it paid for, or take on $80k worth of debt by the time I'm 19", you can expect these outcomes to happen.

There's a reason why, when you look at the OECD data I provided earlier, the United States takes 5 generations for impoverished families to reach median income levels while in the nordic countries, it's 2-3. There's something to be said for a society that dictates "any kid should be able to pursue the academic endeavors of their choosing regardless of how much money their parents have".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You seem to be suggesting Doctors and Lawyers have more opportunity than maids. Yeah they may have the opportunity to make more money, but money does not define opportunity so it all depends on how opportunity is defined which could vary from person to person. That’s why when people speak of equal opportunity, they usually mean equal opportunity under the law.

Actually, what I'm suggesting is, that kids born into families that have more money, have more opportunity to pursue the vocation and academic endeavors of their choosing vs. kids who aren't so lucky.

Money does define opportunity for the next generation...which is why we see the economic mobility trends that we see in our country (where over 80% of people end up in the same economic situation as their parents).

If you have a net worth of $0-20k, and I have a net worth of $700k, statistically speaking, my kids are going to end up with a better career and income than yours in 8/10 cases.

Obviously that means that 2/10 are able to overcome that and make up for lost ground...which is why after a certain number of generations, previously oppressed groups do catch up to the median. However, there are policies and actions that can be taken to speed up that process to help facilitate the end goal of all kids being able to pursue their career of choice based on their merit as opposed to how much money their parents have.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Oh ok...

All this time I thought your concern was that "being black" was causing this imaginary discrimination against them that was impeding their success.

Apparently what you're hoping for is some kind of communist utopia where everyone makes the same money.

You realize that no economist or sociologist ever said that you should expect a barber to make the same amount as a dr, right?

I think you may be misreading my posts here if your takeaway is that I'm suggesting that a barber should make the same as a doctor.

What I'm saying is that if we wish to have a society where every kid truly has an equal opportunity to pursue their passion to be a doctor, that should be dictated by their effort and commitment, and not what their parents' bank account looks like.

The answer is simple, making public funds available so that any kid can go to college regardless of their parents' economic status. It's the reason why it only takes 2 generations to reach the median income in Finland for impoverished groups, and takes over twice as long here.

Of course, that gets labelled as "socialism" when it's suggested.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Actually, what I'm suggesting is, that kids born into families that have more money, have more opportunity to pursue the vocation and academic endeavors of their choosing vs. kids who aren't so lucky.

Sure...that's because of money though...not racism. Jay-Z and Beyonce's kid will have vastly more opportunities than I did...because of money.

Money does define opportunity for the next generation...which is why we see the economic mobility trends that we see in our country (where over 80% of people end up in the same economic situation as their parents).

Ok.

If you have a net worth of $0-20k, and I have a net worth of $700k, statistically speaking, my kids are going to end up with a better career and income than yours in 8/10 cases.

Ok.

Obviously that means that 2/10 are able to overcome that and make up for lost ground...which is why after a certain number of generations, previously oppressed groups do catch up to the median. However, there are policies and actions that can be taken to speed up that process to help facilitate the end goal of all kids being able to pursue their career of choice based on their merit as opposed to how much money their parents have.

If this is about poverty....why aren't we concerned about poor white families? There's far more of them than any other group.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think you may be misreading my posts here if your takeaway is that I'm suggesting that a barber should make the same as a doctor.

Oh good.

What I'm saying is that if we wish to have a society where every kid truly has an equal opportunity to pursue their passion to be a doctor, that should be dictated by their effort and commitment, and not what their parents' bank account looks like.

How do you know that isn't the case already? How are you going to measure "effort and commitment"?

The answer is simple, making public funds available so that any kid can go to college regardless of their parents' economic status. It's the reason why it only takes 2 generations to reach the median income in Finland for impoverished groups, and takes over twice as long here.

Of course, that gets labelled as "socialism" when it's suggested.

It is socialism lol. If effort and commitment are what we intend to reward, then handing out my money to everyone asking seems like a mistake.

I paid for school by working the entire time and getting loans. It took 10 years to pay them off. I don't see why anyone else can't do this.

 

[Ken-1122]

Actually, what I'm suggesting is, that kids born into families that have more money, have more opportunity to pursue the vocation and academic endeavors of their choosing vs. kids who aren't so lucky.

Money does define opportunity for the next generation...which is why we see the economic mobility trends that we see in our country (where over 80% of people end up in the same economic situation as their parents).

If you have a net worth of $0-20k, and I have a net worth of $700k, statistically speaking, my kids are going to end up with a better career and income than yours in 8/10 cases.

Obviously that means that 2/10 are able to overcome that and make up for lost ground...which is why after a certain number of generations, previously oppressed groups do catch up to the median. However, there are policies and actions that can be taken to speed up that process to help facilitate the end goal of all kids being able to pursue their career of choice based on their merit as opposed to how much money their parents have.

I do agree the financial situation of the parents has a lot to do with the ability of the children to succeed, but I also believe culture has even more to do with it than finances. As I mentioned before, how I’ve seen many upper middle class kids trying to emulate the gangsta lifestyle because the cute girls prefer thugs over nerds, but the Nigerian immigrant will come to this country with a culture of learning and hard work, ignoring the “hip-hop lifestyle, and will succeed at the level of Asians.
When you have a culture that treats speaking proper english, excelling in school, and acting/dressing in a professional manner as "acting white", that is a cultural problem that will keep them down. Even 5 generations later; as long as that culture is still in place, they will remain at a disadvantage and the all the government policies and actions in the world won’t change it, that is something the individual has to change.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not looking to force anyone to do anything...however, to think that it's just random coincidence that "Group A, that's been disproportionately put in a pattern of generational poverty is just so happening to choose more low skill, low paying jobs while Group B is picking higher paid work" is quite suspect.

Why? You don't see cultural influences in career paths?

I've known a lot of Chinese, Indian, and other asians claim that their parents pushed them hard to become doctors. That would certainly explain their disproportionate representation in that particular field.

I think perhaps you might need to consider concepts you didn't want to consider before. That's really the only way to answer the data.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Why? You don't see cultural influences in career paths?

I've known a lot of Chinese, Indian, and other asians claim that their parents pushed them hard to become doctors. That would certainly explain their disproportionate representation in that particular field.

I think perhaps you might need to consider concepts you didn't want to consider before. That's really the only way to answer the data.

Cultural influences are certainly a factor...but so are cultural stereotypes with regards to hiring practices.

Not all stereotypes are negative-leaning. For instances "Asians are disproportionately smart", "Indians are good with computers", etc...

Even though those particular stereotypes may lead to hiring benefits, they're stereotypes none the less.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

How do you know that isn't the case already? How are you going to measure "effort and commitment"?

...because college is extremely expensive, and also the gateway to higher earning jobs.

As it currently stands, a poor kid who tries really hard and excels in academics still has a lesser chance of making something of themselves than a rich kid who exerts a mediocre effort.

It is socialism lol. If effort and commitment are what we intend to reward, then handing out my money to everyone asking seems like a mistake.

Treating post secondary education as a "public service" is no more socialist than how we fund our police & fire departments, libraries, military, etc...

The US isn't a "purely capitalist" country...much like any first world country.

If you have to call the fire department to your house because a structure in your backyard caught fire, you don't get a bill in the mail for $15k. There are dozens of examples of services that government provides that are funded by the collective.

I would say that there are tangible benefits to the concept that every person should be able to pursue the level of education in which facilitates them being able to acquire meaningful employment.

Now, if you want to have the conversation of "in a perfect world, many of the jobs that 'require' college, shouldn't actually require college as on-the-job training would be sufficient", then I'd likely agree with you. I don't think a basic accounting job or a job as business analyst requires 4-6 years of post-secondary education in order to perform the task successfully. However, until we're at a place, like Switzerland, where they've realized that vocational training and 2-year programs are adequate for 90% of jobs out there, parental income levels will continue to play a factor in the economic status of subsequent generations.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I do agree the financial situation of the parents has a lot to do with the ability of the children to succeed, but I also believe culture has even more to do with it than finances. As I mentioned before, how I’ve seen many upper middle class kids trying to emulate the gangsta lifestyle because the cute girls prefer thugs over nerds, but the Nigerian immigrant will come to this country with a culture of learning and hard work, ignoring the “hip-hop lifestyle, and will succeed at the level of Asians.
When you have a culture that treats speaking proper english, excelling in school, and acting/dressing in a professional manner as "acting white", that is a cultural problem that will keep them down. Even 5 generations later; as long as that culture is still in place, they will remain at a disadvantage and the all the government policies and actions in the world won’t change it, that is something the individual has to change.

It's not just a "one or the other" scenario...of course culture will play a role to some degree.

However, I'm skeptical of the idea that the "black people accuse each other of acting white if they try to better themselves" is accounting for the majority of the issues.

I still think public perception is playing a huge role.


For instance, you mentioned "dressing in a professional manner". Why is it that a manner of dress that's common among white people considered "professional" while a manner of dress that's popular among the black community considered "gangsta"?

Is there some tangible or logical reason why dressing like this:

...somehow exudes an aura of "professionalism" and "upstanding citizen", than dressing like this?

...it seems like it could be a scenario where it's no so much that "young black men are looked down upon because of the way they dress", and more a case of "a certain manner of dress is stigmatized because that's what young black men happen to like to wear".

From what I can tell, it's just superficial clothing preference. No different than the difference between how, for example, Irish and Jewish people dress differently. It wearing plaid and a kilt any more or less professional that wearing a black suit and yarmulke?

 

[Ana the Ist]

...because college is extremely expensive, and also the gateway to higher earning jobs.

As it currently stands, a poor kid who tries really hard and excels in academics still has a lesser chance of making something of themselves than a rich kid who exerts a mediocre effort.

That has nothing to do with your statements about commitment and effort.

Treating post secondary education as a "public service" is no more socialist than how we fund our police & fire departments, libraries, military, etc...

Police aren't really socialist. Fire departments arguably are.

As for college, I'm not convinced funding some kid's desire to study forensic psychology or art history has any benefits for me.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Cultural influences are certainly a factor...but so are cultural stereotypes with regards to hiring practices.

Ok.

Not all stereotypes are negative-leaning. For instances "Asians are disproportionately smart", "Indians are good with computers", etc...

Ok.

Even though those particular stereotypes may lead to hiring benefits, they're stereotypes none the less.

Your point? I don't see any way to change "cultural stereotypes" without changing culture.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's not just a "one or the other" scenario...of course culture will play a role to some degree.

However, I'm skeptical of the idea that the "black people accuse each other of acting white if they try to better themselves" is accounting for the majority of the issues.

I still think public perception is playing a huge role.


For instance, you mentioned "dressing in a professional manner". Why is it that a manner of dress that's common among white people considered "professional" while a manner of dress that's popular among the black community considered "gangsta"?

Is there some tangible or logical reason why dressing like this:

...somehow exudes an aura of "professionalism" and "upstanding citizen", than dressing like this?

...it seems like it could be a scenario where it's no so much that "young black men are looked down upon because of the way they dress", and more a case of "a certain manner of dress is stigmatized because that's what young black men happen to like to wear".

From what I can tell, it's just superficial clothing preference. No different than the difference between how, for example, Irish and Jewish people dress differently. It wearing plaid and a kilt any more or less professional that wearing a black suit and yarmulke?

Why do black men dress that way? We go back far enough...they wore the same thing white men did.

 

[Ken-1122]

It's not just a "one or the other" scenario...of course culture will play a role to some degree.

However, I'm skeptical of the idea that the "black people accuse each other of acting white if they try to better themselves" is accounting for the majority of the issues.

Not all black people, not even most black people; but in some cases it does happen.

Acting White

No, ‘Acting White’ Has Not Been Debunked


I have discussed with a number of black people who have experienced this problem.
Remember the show “blackish”? About an upper middle-class black family; blackish (apparently they aren't quite black) If there were a show about an upper middle-class white family, do you think they would call it “whiteish”? I don’t think so.
I remember dating a girl from South Africa and she complained how she was constantly criticized by American black girls who would often mistake her native accent as trying to talk white.

I I still think public perception is playing a huge role.

For instance, you mentioned "dressing in a professional manner". Why is it that a manner of dress that's common among white people considered "professional" while a manner of dress that's popular among the black community considered "gangsta"?

Is there some tangible or logical reason why dressing like this:

...somehow exudes an aura of "professionalism" and "upstanding citizen", than dressing like this?

Nobodys got they draws showin; nobodys got they pants down to their knees.... but both sets of young men are dressed casual; not professional.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Why do black men dress that way? We go back far enough...they wore the same thing white men did.

View attachment 272947

That's one particular example...

However, there was also a time where this:

Was viewed as "thuggish"...

The US has a history of viewing anyone who "doesn't conform to the way conservative white people think other people should dress" as "dressing like a thug".

Blacks and Hispanics have both had to deal with that over time.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Nobodys got they draws showin; nobodys got they pants down to their knees....

Nobody in these pics do either...

Yet, both were labelled as "thugs" at various points in time.

In the US, styles that have been embraced by demographic groups (that hardcore conservative people have wanted to look down upon no matter what) have been labelled as "thuggish".

Like or or not, there's a substantial portion of the older white conservative base that has the mindset of "the ones who act, talk, and dress like us....are the 'good ones'"

All cultures have have fads that many consider "silly/stupid"...heck, look at the number of white guys who got frosted tips as a result of how boy bands dressed...yet, it only seems to be the ones that can be directly linked to particular demographic groups that get labelled as "thuggish".

I'd say that these guys look just as ridiculous

as these guys...

...yet, only one got the label of being "thugs"

 

[Ironhold]

I'd say that these guys look just as ridiculous

as these guys...

...yet, only one got the label of being "thugs"

The first group's manufactured image presented them as clean-cut neighborhood kids, while the second group's manufactured image presented them as delinquents.

That's the difference.

Swap it around and you'd probably have had far different responses.