Whites Need Not Apply

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
As for what my mother did teach me, she raised me as a Christian. Therefore, I learned that one principle of fairness and justice was "an eye for an eye". What that means is that when one person does a wrong then the authorities can enforce retribution by inflicting on that person what they inflicted upon someone else. More literally, if one man takes another man's eye out, then the victim has the right to take the eye from the assailant as justice, and authority will enforce that.
Your momma umm… I meant mother may have taught you well as a Christian, but you obviously weren’t listening. Grab one of your Bibles and look up Matthew 5:38, and you will see when Jesus spoke of “an eye for an eye” he wasn’t speaking of it as the right thing to do, he was giving that as an example of what NOT to do. If you look at the next verses (39-44) he speaks of turning the other cheek, blessing those who curse you, and if he takes your coat, give him your cloak also as things you should do.

I’m an atheist, and even I know that!

Thanks for your anecdote, but unfortunately for you anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps you have something that backs up your anecdote? That's something I'll take more seriously.

As for me being wrong, you're wrong. I'm correct. Here's a report from the Brookings Institute that backs up what I'm saying:
Black and Hispanic underrepresentation in tech: It’s time to change the equation
I said nothing about the tech field; I spoke of blacks and browns at the professional level, and I said nothing about even representation; I only said they exist. Try responding to what I said rather than making stuff up.

So you think that neither you nor I have any privileges over each other in life?
I don't know your experiences, and you don't know mine; so there is no way either of us can answer that question. However; I believe black, white, short, tall, male, female, gay, straight, etc. there will always be times when what makes you unique will be a disadvantage, and there will be times when it is an advantage for you. My problem is with those who claim their group is the only group that is okay to discriminate against, and the other groups have all the advantages.

Come to my office in midtown Manhattan and I can easily show you.
Why don’t you come down Rosecrans ave in Compton California and see just how far your “white privilege” will get cha there! They’ll do a Reginald Denny on ya. Yeah I may get harassed by the police when I go there, but at least I’ll live! Can’t say the same for you.

I would laugh so hard at white people who try to tell me what you proposed! I wouldn't have any problem with that! LOL
Unfortunately; I’m sure you would.

I never said that whites are the only racists, so I don't know where you get that idea from.
If you recognize whites experience racism, why did you say in your last reply; that would you laugh so hard at a white person who told you of his experiences?

I never said that white people have all the privileges. That's what I meant when I said you don't understand the difference between "privilege" and "privileges". White people have an overall privilege in life. I don't get treated the same (negative) way as my black and hispanic friends when I go through life dealing with different stores, eateries, cops, etc. I've seen it, and my friends have told me about it, and those same friends and I have seen it and talked about it together on many occasions that we've gone out and it's happened.

So you believe that you get treated exactly as any white person in general society? That's great if you do get treated the same; but do you really believe that? You believe that you and I can spend a day in liberal New York City and everywhere we go we'll be treated the same way by everyone? LOL, wow.
You live on the East Coast, I live on the West Coast. I can’t speak of your experiences only mine. If I go to an economically oppressed, high crime, violent neighborhood, I am subject to harassment by the cops (more often than not; black cops), followed in the stores, and all the stuff people complain about. When I go to a middle income low crime, safe neighborhoods, I am treated the same as anybody else. This tells me it is more of an economical issue not a racial one.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Institutional racism is a term for how racism is endemic to all our institutions. In the case of my example with my company, my company is NOT the institution in that example which is being racist. In that example, the institutions would more the be academic institutions and professional organizations that are somehow promoting technology as a field to non-blacks and non-hispanics in a manner that is way out of proportion with their percentage of general society.
Okay; If you are given free reign to remove all officers within that institution (in this case the academic institutions and professional organizations that promote the technology) and replace them with a new group of people, hand chosen by you; would said racism and sexism remain?
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Poppycock. <aside: I am so glad that word was created>

Institutional racism is not defined as you suggest. Institutional racism is when the institution provides opportunity for human beings to exercise their racism in the administration of the institution.
I disagree. If the institution has a policy in place forbidding racism,(like civil rights act of 1964) a racist would have to go outside the institution's policy in order to apply his racial biases. That is an example of personal racism within the institution, not institutional racism.
 
Upvote 0

zephcom

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2017
2,396
1,650
76
Pacific Northwest
✟87,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
I disagree. If the institution has a policy in place forbidding racism,(like civil rights act of 1964) a racist would have to go outside the institution's policy in order to apply his racial biases. That is an example of personal racism within the institution, not institutional racism.

I have long admired the power of that little tiny word "if". It allows people the freedom to imagine all sorts of things that simply aren't true.

Having a 'policy' means absolutely nothing if that 'policy' is not enforced. The establishment of 'policies' in America is very often just a bunch of words the leadership hides behind while real life exists.

In America, we all know that racism is wrong. So we have a 'policy' which says that while we ignore all the evidence which says institutions, both public and private, allow racism to run rampant. When the institution does not enforce its policies on racism, the institution is practicing institutional racism.
 
Upvote 0

HeffersonDavidos

Active Member
Sep 21, 2019
31
11
Peoria
✟16,548.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Whites need not apply: Campus sci-tech symposium to only feature scholars of color | The College Fix

An upcoming science and technology symposium slated to take place at Williams College promises a unique feature: it will showcase “new” voices in the field, and those voices will only come from scholars of color.

The
call for papers specifies that means either “African Americans, Alaska Natives, Arab Americans, Asian Americans, Latinx, Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders.”

Part of the application process asked applicants to write a couple sentences proving themselves as a member of a “historically underrepresented group.” Yet the application also provides an equal employment opportunity statement that people from all backgrounds are welcome.


Somehow, I can't imagine the college having a symposium that requires the applicants be white. I can just hear the protesting.

Sounds like typical liberal campus PC. They cannot prevent whites from participating however as their EEO statement affirms. I challenged they would have to backtrack. I don't endorse how they have it set up, but the forum doesn't seem much different for other interest group forums, like symposiums on "Women in Technology" or "Women in Silicon Valley" to boost interest in tech fields, where they invite female speakers. Very few people object to this, maybe because its white women mostly benefiting in those cases.

Some of these forums are legit opportunity and informational exercises, in that females or minorities, not having hooks into traditional "old boy networks" do not know where a lot of "word of mouth" job opening are, or opportunities for fellowships or scholarships, effectively locking out women. Indeed, as is well known 80% of job openings are NOT advertised- its "word of mouth" which is too bad if you are a minority or woman in certain fields- for you never "get the word." But its a typical clumsy PC thing the college is doing.
 
Upvote 0

HeffersonDavidos

Active Member
Sep 21, 2019
31
11
Peoria
✟16,548.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Members of underrepresented minorities often find themselves isolated in professional settings: they may be the only African American, or Latinx, or Pacific Islander, etc., in their classroom or department, and that can lead to a feeling of wondering if you belong in this field, if maybe you should just give up and go somewhere else where you belong better. A conference like this gives these minority scholars a place where, just for a couple of days, they're seeing lots of faces that look like theirs, an encouraging reassurance that, yes, they belong in this field.

There are plenty of conferences dominated by white people. Let our ethnic-minority colleagues have a day once in a while where they get to be in charge.

I don't agree with the last part of your phrasing that "ethnic-minority colleagues have a day once in a while where they get to be in charge." Sounds a bit patronizing. They don't need a day to be in charge per se - they need good information, and some recognition in the field. These types of forums are run for females all the time.

However I agree with you and others that there is a legit place for information and encouragement of legit interest groups locked out of many fields historically. Just having a forum for example where you can find out about job openings or scholarships can be valuable, for many of these things are not advertised at all but are "word of mouth." If you are not in certain favored networks, you never get the word.
 
Upvote 0

HeffersonDavidos

Active Member
Sep 21, 2019
31
11
Peoria
✟16,548.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
My point 1.It did not end with legislation. 2.Morality cannot be legislated for it is a heart issue.3.Today we see people who would return to the practices of separate but equal ( which was truly separate but unequal). And I agree with you that judging people based on their race is morally wrong. Yet, things like this symposium ,imho, is an effort to level the playing field.

You are indeed correct. It is a bit naive or maybe cynical to say that the Civil Rights Act legislation "fixed" the problems of racism and discrimination. It didn't. The legislation was just the opening shot in decades long struggle or court cases, political action and administrative arm-twisting to make the legislation effective. For example the federal government had to threaten to withhold funds to southern hospitals that would not treat black people adequately, opening up health care access that saved hundreds of black lives. And it took a Republican, Richard Nixon to strong-arm white unions into hiring or giving access to qualified blacks outside the most menial jobs on federally funded projects. Tired of their continual obstructionism, Nixon's Secretary of Labor George Schulz put the hammer down and simply ordered the white unions to hire a percentage of qualified blacks on jobs receiving federal funds. This was hardly a perfect solution but after years of polite appeals that met with sandbagging and stonewalling, it was a blunt solution that worked.

Many other examples can be given. As late as 1987 for example federal courts had to order the Alabama State Police to finally hire some of the qualified black candidates that had languished for years, rejected and frozen out while the "good old boy" network hired lesser qualified whites. The above examples involve public spending and it is ironic that black taxpayers were paying for hospitals, police, schools, public works etc etc- paying for places that would not even hire them, or treat them equally.

It took until 1988 for enforcement provisions to the Open Housing Act of 1968 to be finally given some teeth. Even today some 20,000 housing biased complaints are filed annually with HUD and the EEOC has a 50,000 case- 2-year backlog, with most of those complaints being based on race. WOmen faced some of the same obstacles. They had to take AT&T to court for example to finally get the corporate giant to hire women in higher slots. The link below shows some examples of EEOC cases in the real world, but this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Significant EEOC Race/Color Cases

You also say: "Today we see people who would return to the practices of separate but equal."
This is not far-fetched. Well known conservative pundit Dinesh D'souza for example calls for a roll back of key parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As late as 1999 conservative leader WIlliam Buckley wanted to get rid of the legislation, and libertarian favorites like CHarles Murray likewise would roll back key provisions. But even aside from these well known names, the sentiment is often voiced today, particularly in certain online venues, and as EEOC and court cases show, similar notions are being put into practice in the real world..

As for the symposium, I do not endorse it, for they framed it in typical clumsy PC fashion, and they could have added a line welcoming white or any participants who have done clear work on technology issues related to race, recruitment, STEM teaching in inner city schools etc and such. But such symposiums like "Women in Tech" where they invite female speakers are done all time and nobody bats an eye. The whole thing smacks of a "tempest in a teapot" generated by the usual network of self-referencing propaganda websites. Anyhow, exactly who will show up for such an obscure symposium for an obscure private college remains to be seen.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I have long admired the power of that little tiny word "if". It allows people the freedom to imagine all sorts of things that simply aren't true.

Having a 'policy' means absolutely nothing if that 'policy' is not enforced. The establishment of 'policies' in America is very often just a bunch of words the leadership hides behind while real life exists.

In America, we all know that racism is wrong. So we have a 'policy' which says that while we ignore all the evidence which says institutions, both public and private, allow racism to run rampant. When the institution does not enforce its policies on racism, the institution is practicing institutional racism.
I disagree! If the institution has a policy in place forbidding racism, but the people within the institution ignore, or refuse to enforce those policies, it isn't the institution that is racist, it is the people within the institution who are. That would be like calling a law racist because the racist law enforcement go outside the law and illegally enact racist policies.
 
Upvote 0

zephcom

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2017
2,396
1,650
76
Pacific Northwest
✟87,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
I disagree! If the institution has a policy in place forbidding racism, but the people within the institution ignore, or refuse to enforce those policies, it isn't the institution that is racist, it is the people within the institution who are. That would be like calling a law racist because the racist law enforcement go outside the law and illegally enact racist policies.

It is the responsibility of the institution to ensure its policies are followed. If the institution has a policy forbidding racism and the institution allows racism to exist, then the 'policy' is a fraud and the institution is racist.

I'm sorry you don't agree, but it is the institution who hires the employees and fires them if they don't follow the policies. By not replacing employees who don't follow racial policy, the institution is behaving in a racist manner.

It is the failure of institutions both public and private to enforce anti-racism policies which allows the racists of the nation to practice their racial biases. That they don't enforce those policies speaks directly to charge of institutional racism.

The primary power of racism lies in the ability of individual racists to use the influence of the institution they work for to maximize the impact of their individual racism. For instance, a judge who is personally racist can greatly magnify his/her racism if the court system allows the judge to practice racism in bail and sentencing.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It is the responsibility of the institution to ensure its policies are followed. If the institution has a policy forbidding racism and the institution allows racism to exist, then the 'policy' is a fraud and the institution is racist.

It is the people who run the institution who are supposed to enforce the laws of the institution. If federal law requires all companies to have laws against racism on their books, but the people running the institution refuse to enforce those laws, you can’t blame the system/rules in place, it is the people who are the racist; not the system/rules.

I'm sorry you don't agree, but it is the institution who hires the employees and fires them if they don't follow the policies. By not replacing employees who don't follow racial policy, the institution is behaving in a racist manner.
It is the people who run the institution who hire and fire.

It is the failure of institutions both public and private to enforce anti-racism policies which allows the racists of the nation to practice their racial biases. That they don't enforce those policies speaks directly to charge of institutional racism.
Sometimes people can inject their biases in a way that it is completely undetectable or noticeable, because justice is usually subjective.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HeffersonDavidos

Active Member
Sep 21, 2019
31
11
Peoria
✟16,548.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
It is the people who run the institution who are supposed to enforce the laws of the institution. If federal law requires all companies to have laws against racism on their books, but the people running the institution refuse to enforce those laws, you can’t blame the system/rules in place, it is the people who are the racist; not the system/rules.


It is the people who run the institution who hire and fire.


Sometimes people can inject their biases in a way that it is completely undetectable or noticeable, because justice is usually subjective.

You and Zephcom can probably split the difference based on the situation.
If as you say, the institution has clear policies against racism but individuals
violate them, then it could be said at some level that it is the people at fault
and not the institution. Thus at various times, various individuals have been
fired for violating their company equal opportunity policies, like the "helpful"
personnel manager that makes sure black resumes "disappear."

But then there is the flip side. People in an institution can use racist practices
to a vast extent, over a period of time, effectively making the institution a
racist one, since ultimately it is people who run institutions. Thus the mission
statements of many southern courts said wonderful things about "justice," but
few black people would get justice when they showed up. The racism of the controllers
was so identified with the institution, that effectively, there is little difference.
It was not a case of a few bad apples, but a systematic way of operating for
decades.
 
Upvote 0

ArmenianJohn

Politically Liberal Christian Fundamentalist
Jan 30, 2013
8,962
5,550
New Jersey (NYC Metro)
✟205,242.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Your momma umm… I meant mother may have taught you well as a Christian, but you obviously weren’t listening. Grab one of your Bibles and look up Matthew 5:38, and you will see when Jesus spoke of “an eye for an eye” he wasn’t speaking of it as the right thing to do, he was giving that as an example of what NOT to do. If you look at the next verses (39-44) he speaks of turning the other cheek, blessing those who curse you, and if he takes your coat, give him your cloak also as things you should do.

I’m an atheist, and even I know that!
It's probably because you're an atheist that you don't understand the Bible. Jesus taught mercy and Grace but Jesus also honored His Justice. He said that he came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. Grace is the completion of Justice. At the same time, He makes it clear that God metes out His justice via earthly governmental authority in Romans 13. So, no, Jesus did not contradict nor deny "an eye for an eye"; rather, He taught more upon it. His teaching of Grace wouldn't work if there was no foundation of Justice, i.e. "an eye for an eye'. That's the point of that passage.

It's fine if you choose not to believe in Christianity, but if you're going to argue about it at least understand it correctly first.

I said nothing about the tech field; I spoke of blacks and browns at the professional level, and I said nothing about even representation; I only said they exist. Try responding to what I said rather than making stuff up.
Right, you tried to pivot away from my example by making it not about the tech field. No matter... Your response doesn't hold water. The fact that there are places where blacks and browns exist at the professional level doesn't negate the fact that overwhelmingly they are underrepresented in entire fields, most of which are the premium jobs and opportunities.

I don't know your experiences, and you don't know mine; so there is no way either of us can answer that question. However; I believe black, white, short, tall, male, female, gay, straight, etc. there will always be times when what makes you unique will be a disadvantage, and there will be times when it is an advantage for you. My problem is with those who claim their group is the only group that is okay to discriminate against, and the other groups have all the advantages.
What you say has a lot of truth to it, but again it doesn't negate the fact that our society has built-in prejudices which adversely affect certain demographic groups overwhelmingly unfairly. As for "who claim their group is the only group that is okay to discriminate against" - are you upset that your group isn't being discriminated against? Do you want all groups to be discriminated against based on their respective demographics? Why do you want so much discrimination? It sounds like you're upset that your group has too many advantages and privileges and want white people to have as many or more.

Why don’t you come down Rosecrans ave in Compton California and see just how far your “white privilege” will get cha there! They’ll do a Reginald Denny on ya. Yeah I may get harassed by the police when I go there, but at least I’ll live! Can’t say the same for you.
I've been there. Funny you mention Compton of all places. First time I had to go to work in Cerritos I left LAX in my rental car and drove right through Compton, unwittingly. LAPD saw me and gave me a little escort. I didn't think they were, but as I was getting to the on-ramp for the freeway, they pulled up alongside of me and were staring at me so when I looked over at them they said "You have a good day sir, stay safe!" I thought they were getting ready to pull me over but no, they were escorting me till I could get onto the freeway.

What happens when you go to Compton? LAPD escorts you through? Where do you get preferential treatment from LAPD?

Unfortunately; I’m sure you would.
Fortunately, I would and I DO! lol

If you recognize whites experience racism, why did you say in your last reply; that would you laugh so hard at a white person who told you of his experiences?
Because the very low level of racism that whites experience is nothing, that's why. It's always some blowhard whiny dummy that is outraged over everything that fits the description of "white person experiencing racism". Yeah, I have no problem mocking those types right to their face. "Wahhh, the most discriminated against people are white middle-aged christians, wah!!!!" Come on - WEAK. The stupid things they whine about are just so easily mocked.

You live on the East Coast, I live on the West Coast. I can’t speak of your experiences only mine. If I go to an economically oppressed, high crime, violent neighborhood, I am subject to harassment by the cops (more often than not; black cops), followed in the stores, and all the stuff people complain about. When I go to a middle income low crime, safe neighborhoods, I am treated the same as anybody else. This tells me it is more of an economical issue not a racial one.
I lived 2 years in L.A. In case you're unaware there's a huge Armenian community in that city. Doesn't matter, things are the same there and in the NYC metro and just about anywhere else.

When I go to an economially oppressed, high crime, violent neighborhood which is mostly non-white, police go out of their way to help me and lookout for me. That's "white privilege" - just one example. When I go anywhere in midtown Manhattan, where I work, I get "sir" and all sorts of politeness and special attention that my black and hispanic co-workers don't. When we go out to lunch, all dressed similarly and obviously co-workers, when the bill comes, they give it to me because they think I'm the boss (and I'm not). They talk to me, they ask me the questions. You don't know about white privilege because you're not white and you don't receive it.

If you want to believe white privilege doesn't exist and that you and other blacks have the same exact opportunities then fine, go ahead and believe it. But if you're going to try to convince me of that you need to back it up with more than your anecdotes.
 
Upvote 0

ArmenianJohn

Politically Liberal Christian Fundamentalist
Jan 30, 2013
8,962
5,550
New Jersey (NYC Metro)
✟205,242.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Okay; If you are given free reign to remove all officers within that institution (in this case the academic institutions and professional organizations that promote the technology) and replace them with a new group of people, hand chosen by you; would said racism and sexism remain?
Probably, hopefully lessened, maybe worse. It's not a matter of replacing people so much as replacing processes and policies.

Here is white privilege, revealed.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

HeffersonDavidos

Active Member
Sep 21, 2019
31
11
Peoria
✟16,548.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The primary power of racism lies in the ability of individual racists to use the influence of the institution they work for to maximize the impact of their individual racism. For instance, a judge who is personally racist can greatly magnify his/her racism if the court system allows the judge to practice racism in bail and sentencing.

Yes, though Ken-122 has a valid point, that at times, it is people inside institutions that
may be racist and not the institution per se. A number of cases show individual
employees violating their institution's stated policy, and they got disciplined.
 
Upvote 0

HeffersonDavidos

Active Member
Sep 21, 2019
31
11
Peoria
✟16,548.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
It's probably because you're an atheist that you don't understand the Bible. Jesus taught mercy and Grace but Jesus also honored His Justice. He said that he came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. Grace is the completion of Justice. At the same time, He makes it clear that God metes out His justice via earthly governmental authority in Romans 13. So, no, Jesus did not contradict nor deny "an eye for an eye"; rather, He taught more upon it. His teaching of Grace wouldn't work if there was no foundation of Justice, i.e. "an eye for an eye'. That's the point of that passage.

It's fine if you choose not to believe in Christianity, but if you're going to argue about it at least understand it correctly first.


Right, you tried to pivot away from my example by making it not about the tech field. No matter... Your response doesn't hold water. The fact that there are places where blacks and browns exist at the professional level doesn't negate the fact that overwhelmingly they are underrepresented in entire fields, most of which are the premium jobs and opportunities.


What you say has a lot of truth to it, but again it doesn't negate the fact that our society has built-in prejudices which adversely affect certain demographic groups overwhelmingly unfairly. As for "who claim their group is the only group that is okay to discriminate against" - are you upset that your group isn't being discriminated against? Do you want all groups to be discriminated against based on their respective demographics? Why do you want so much discrimination? It sounds like you're upset that your group has too many advantages and privileges and want white people to have as many or more.


I've been there. Funny you mention Compton of all places. First time I had to go to work in Cerritos I left LAX in my rental car and drove right through Compton, unwittingly. LAPD saw me and gave me a little escort. I didn't think they were, but as I was getting to the on-ramp for the freeway, they pulled up alongside of me and were staring at me so when I looked over at them they said "You have a good day sir, stay safe!" I thought they were getting ready to pull me over but no, they were escorting me till I could get onto the freeway.

What happens when you go to Compton? LAPD escorts you through? Where do you get preferential treatment from LAPD?


Fortunately, I would and I DO! lol


Because the very low level of racism that whites experience is nothing, that's why. It's always some blowhard whiny dummy that is outraged over everything that fits the description of "white person experiencing racism". Yeah, I have no problem mocking those types right to their face. "Wahhh, the most discriminated against people are white middle-aged christians, wah!!!!" Come on - WEAK. The stupid things they whine about are just so easily mocked.


I lived 2 years in L.A. In case you're unaware there's a huge Armenian community in that city. Doesn't matter, things are the same there and in the NYC metro and just about anywhere else.

When I go to an economially oppressed, high crime, violent neighborhood which is mostly non-white, police go out of their way to help me and lookout for me. That's "white privilege" - just one example. When I go anywhere in midtown Manhattan, where I work, I get "sir" and all sorts of politeness and special attention that my black and hispanic co-workers don't. When we go out to lunch, all dressed similarly and obviously co-workers, when the bill comes, they give it to me because they think I'm the boss (and I'm not). They talk to me, they ask me the questions. You don't know about white privilege because you're not white and you don't receive it.

If you want to believe white privilege doesn't exist and that you and other blacks have the same exact opportunities then fine, go ahead and believe it. But if you're going to try to convince me of that you need to back it up with more than your anecdotes.

You are correct on numerous points. I think many people know about that privilege
it has to be denied to keep running a certain narrative. It may be naivete or cynical
denialism.

Naive folk may not be aware of of the subtleties with which some institutions work.
Thus as aware folk probably know, in the landmark Griggs vs Duke case, the company
quickly implemented "new" requirements after the Brown court case, demanding a high
school diploma for jobs that never before required them. On the face of it this was
a neutral, non-racial "skill upgrade" requirement. But the effective results was to lock
black workers out of higher level slots, since before the court decision all blacks
workers had to work in the low level "Labor" Dept, and were ineligible for promotion.
White employees in the higher level jobs were grandfathered in under the "new"
policy so did not have to go back to school to get a diploma. But blacks looking
to move up under the new "neutral" policy did. It was a neat way of freezing out
or slowing down the blacks from promotions to the higher slots.

Also to move up, the old-line black employees, who had been confined to the
"Laborer" dept, had to give up their seniority in that dept and start at the bottom
in the newly reorganized "higher level" department, another neat way to freeze
down the negroes.

Some labor unions ran/run variants of the same game for decades. Example- To get
a union card you have to have a union member nominate you. This seems fair on the
surface except if you are black you likely would not get that "fraternal" nomination.
Or the rule may be- to get a job ticket, it goes by seniority. Well since the union
did not let blacks in until after 1964, it would mean there would be very few
blacks with the seniority getting the job ticket. Or where there were specially
organized segregated black unions, the blacks would have to give up their
seniority from the old segregated union to move into the newly "integrated" union.
Since many veteran workers would balk at giving up years of seniority, fewer
blacks apply. So effectively a "blackout." Union leaders would sadly shake their heads and
say sincerely that there were no willing or "qualified" blacks. These games happened all
the time on the railroads and in construction unions.

And best of all, these shenanigans could all be done under a rubric of neutral,
institutional color-blindness. Sweet!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArmenianJohn
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

zephcom

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2017
2,396
1,650
76
Pacific Northwest
✟87,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
It is the people who run the institution who are supposed to enforce the laws of the institution. If federal law requires all companies to have laws against racism on their books, but the people running the institution refuse to enforce those laws, you can’t blame the system/rules in place, it is the people who are the racist; not the system/rules.


It is the people who run the institution who hire and fire.


Sometimes people can inject their biases in a way that it is completely undetectable or noticeable, because justice is usually subjective.
If your point is that 'institutions' can't be 'racist' because only humans make decisions, then we come back to the fact that humans created the institutions. If the humans created them in a manner which allows other humans to express their racism over and over and over again, then the institutions themselves ARE racists because racists created them.

-My- point is that in America both public and private institutions have largely been created to allow racism to exist. An institution can be created and operated in a manner which resists racism if Americans want them to be made that way.

While I will readily admit that the actual racism is done by humans within the institutions, the functioning of the institutions allows them to act in a racist manner while representing the institution. Given the fact that the operation of the institution allows racism, it is absolutely proper to say that institutional racism exists.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I thought race was a social construct and the US census calls Latino (not calling it Latinx) and Arabs white.

The meaning of "social construct" is that people act like it is real and important.

For an example, fiat currency is a social construct.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
But then there is the flip side. People in an institution can use racist practices
to a vast extent, over a period of time, effectively making the institution a
racist one, since ultimately it is people who run institutions.
The end results may be the same as if the institution were racist, but if the institution are just a set of laws and policies, and racist people break those laws and policies in order to enact their biases, how can you call the laws and policies racist? Seems to me, if the institution were actually racist, nobody would have to break it's laws and policies in order to behave in a racist manner.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I have long admired the power of that little tiny word "if". It allows people the freedom to imagine all sorts of things that simply aren't true.

Having a 'policy' means absolutely nothing if that 'policy' is not enforced.

How do you think a policy against racial discrimination can be "enforced"?
 
Upvote 0