Majority of White Americans Say They Believe Whites Face Discrimination

[Landon Caeli]

Them rural folk sure are a bunch of dumb hillbilly hicks. But I ain't discriminaten'.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Amirite, amirite..?

 

[Aldebaran]

Them rural folk sure are a bunch of dumb hillbilly hicks. But I ain't discriminaten'.

No. You're just stating an opinion.

 

[Aldebaran]

You're right, you're not. That was an attempt at humor to show how ridiculous your position is. What you're doing is far more insidious. You're trying to ignore the ~150 years of discrimination since the civil war and pretend that one guy getting one job somehow invalidates the negative outcomes experienced by the millions of people impacted by that discrimination.

Look, if a guy thinks he was discriminated against in getting a job, then let him prove it. But how do you expect someone to use what happened to people 150 years in the past as a way of saying, "I should get this job instead of that white guy"?

 

[Barney]

The Left is dishonest and racist.

Racial discrimination is when you choose one person over other because of skin color of that one person vs. the skin color of the other person. The Left re-defines discrimination as when you hire someone white, without regard to race, if white people are already well represented in the company.

By their reasoning, if a college that is mostly white admits a white student with a 1400 SAT score over a black student with a 900 SAT score, that college racially discriminates against blacks. And, when asked about the 900 SAT score, they'll say the test is racist and doesn't reflect academic ability (and, when the student goes on to do bad in math, it's because the school is racist and math itself is racist, even if the math professor is black).

Blacks will always believe they're discriminated against when they're taught that their performance isn't relevant to their success. And, whites will always be really discriminated against until we start teaching everyone, including blacks, that performance is relevant.

 

[SummerMadness]

I find it interesting that despite the numerous statistical studies that show race is the driving factor, the numerous surveys and reports from Department of Justice and multiple news reports that corroborate these findings, people are still claiming there is no racial discrimination against African Americans. But I understand the main reason is these people refuse to read, even when given the source of information, even when it's highlighted and/or annotated, they still wish to ignore it because it messes with their worldview. I think this makes some sense, if they accept that there is racial bias, then that means their view that racial discrimination is imagined has to change. So rather than acknowledge a study that shows how name can affect employment, how people with the same creditworthiness receive different financial options, or even how race can affect your standard of healthcare, they simply retreat and ignore these stories/studies/reports because the truth is too devastating.

 

[SummerMadness]

The Left is dishonest and racist.

Ah, the old, identifying racism makes you racist.

One of the funny things when it comes to racism is people claiming how much they disapprove of current day civil rights work because "racism does not exist now," but they acknowledge the racism of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago. They always talk about how things were bad before, but they're not an issue now. That attitude hasn't changed; if we've learned anything, you probably shouldn't listen to the unaffected group telling you stop protesting racial discrimination.



There is never a shortage of people claiming racism does not exist, or think that because the current climate is better than it was previously, no one should strive to create a more equitable society. But much as the John Birch Society relied on racist attitudes citing natural disparities, we now see those same racist arguments wrapped in the term "culture" because this somehow changes the expression of that bigotry.

 

[keith99]

The trouble is that if you want to say that someone has experienced "centuries of discrimination" through his ancestors, there are people who have experienced far worse than what American blacks did. Arguably the native peoples of America. Certainly the Armenians under the Turks. Or if we want to go way, way, back the Helots suffered under the Spartans about as bad as any people ever has.

And that's just racial discrimination. If we throw religious persecution into our discussion as well, I'd be surprised if there isn't anyone who, through their ancestors, hasn't experienced centuries of discrimination. And the horrors of many of these persecutions are difficult to imagine, indeed I'd probably be banned for violation of the vulgarity rule if I just described a handful of the worst examples of tortures placed on faithful Catholics alone.

Let's not forget the horrors inflicted by faithful Catholics. My favorite is burning men alive for the horrible crime of translating Scripture into teh vulgar tongue!

 

[iluvatar5150]

Look, if a guy thinks he was discriminated against in getting a job, then let him prove it.

For one thing, proving discrimination on any criteria (e.g. age, race, gender, etc) is extraordinarily difficult unless it's explicit. Most times, it won't be.

But beyond that, discrimination that happened in the past can work to put the current applicant at a disadvantage even if he's not personally being discriminated against.

But how do you expect someone to use what happened to people 150 years in the past as a way of saying, "I should get this job instead of that white guy"?

Let's straighten out something, "150 years in the past" is not the same as "the last 150 years". Do you understand the difference? I suspect you do, and yet, every time you try to describe the way things have worked, your choice of words suggests that the discrimination ended a long time ago.

These discriminatory acts did not end "150 years in the past". That 150 years is the time since slavery - loads and loads of discrimination has happened since then.

If your question is in regards to affirmative action, then the answer is that, even aside from whatever biases that individual may be subject to today, his standing in the labor market is reduced due to the disadvantages brought upon him by the discrimination levied against his ancestors. If his parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents were all denied access to good education, denied access to good jobs, denied access to legal justice, denied access to homeownership, and denied access to other avenues for building wealth, then he is going to poorer, less educated, and less well-adjusted for it. We give a boost today to counteract the downward forces we applied yesterday.

 

[keith99]

For one thing, proving discrimination on any criteria (e.g. age, race, gender, etc) is extraordinarily difficult unless it's explicit. Most times, it won't be.

But beyond that, discrimination that happened in the past can work to put the current applicant at a disadvantage even if he's not personally being discriminated against.



Let's straighten out something, "150 years in the past" is not the same as "the last 150 years". Do you understand the difference? I suspect you do, and yet, every time you try to describe the way things have worked, your choice of words suggests that the discrimination ended a long time ago.

These discriminatory acts did not end "150 years in the past". That 150 years is the time since slavery - loads and loads of discrimination has happened since then.

If your question is in regards to affirmative action, then the answer is that, even aside from whatever biases that individual may be subject to today, his standing in the labor market is reduced due to the disadvantages brought upon him by the discrimination levied against his ancestors. If his parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents were all denied access to good education, denied access to good jobs, denied access to legal justice, denied access to homeownership, and denied access to other avenues for building wealth, then he is going to poorer, less educated, and less well-adjusted for it. We give a boost today to counteract the downward forces we applied yesterday.

So why give an advantage to the child of a rock star or NFL player who is black and not to some hillbilly who is white? Instead doesn't it make more sense to compensate for disadvantages someone has because their parents were poor to all the children of poor parents?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Let's not forget the horrors inflicted by faithful Catholics. My favorite is burning men alive for the horrible crime of translating Scripture into teh vulgar tongue!

Get real keith. The point is that its a widespread human behavior. Blame evolution. Blame Darwin. Its a trait.

 

[Landon Caeli]

No. You're just stating an opinion.

More like I was having a mockery session. Know-what-a-mean..?

 

[Tallguy88]

If it were a meritocracy, African Americans and Hispanics would also do better. The thing is, it's never been a meritocracy and that has hurt everyone who is not part of the privileged majority group.

I'm pretty sure having a name like "Moonbeam" would be a job turn-off, too. So kids of white hippies got it rough too. Blame the parents.

 

[Aldebaran]

For one thing, proving discrimination on any criteria (e.g. age, race, gender, etc) is extraordinarily difficult unless it's explicit. Most times, it won't be.

If it's so extraordinarily difficult to prove, then it must not be all that egregious.

But beyond that, discrimination that happened in the past can work to put the current applicant at a disadvantage even if he's not personally being discriminated against.

Yet you're about to tell me that we're not really talking about the past, as you make your next statement.....

Let's straighten out something, "150 years in the past" is not the same as "the last 150 years". Do you understand the difference? I suspect you do, and yet, every time you try to describe the way things have worked, your choice of words suggests that the discrimination ended a long time ago.

These discriminatory acts did not end "150 years in the past". That 150 years is the time since slavery - loads and loads of discrimination has happened since then.

But the only discrimination that happens now pales in comparison to the past. In the past, black people (at least some of them, not all), were slaves, couldn't get jobs, couldn't live in certain areas. Now, they have jobs that go all the way to the most powerful office in the country (the presidency itself--twice). They are not slaves, but often make money that ranges into the top 1% everyone apparently thinks is so terrible. Yet the cries of "discrimination" are louder today than ever!

If your question is in regards to affirmative action, then the answer is that, even aside from whatever biases that individual may be subject to today, his standing in the labor market is reduced due to the disadvantages brought upon him by the discrimination levied against his ancestors. If his parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents were all denied access to good education, denied access to good jobs, denied access to legal justice, denied access to homeownership, and denied access to other avenues for building wealth, then he is going to poorer, less educated, and less well-adjusted for it. We give a boost today to counteract the downward forces we applied yesterday.

So we are in fact talking about 150 years in the past.
Yet so many black people have reached levels of success and income and fame that their ancestors could have only dreamed about, and almost always without affirmative action. Try explaining that. Either that, or try to tell me how it's not condescending to tell black people today that they need extra help from white people to move them ahead of the line in order to succeed because we believe we can't ask as much from them as we ask of anyone else.

 

[Aldebaran]

More like I was having a mockery session. Know-what-a-mean..?

Yep! I do.

 

[SummerMadness]

I'm pretty sure having a name like "Moonbeam" would be a job turn-off, too. So kids of white hippies got it rough too. Blame the parents.

Bad comparison. Moonbeam is not a common name, period. The names on the list here are common names, so the fact that an Imani or Malik has a harder time obtaining employment than a Holly or Jacob is not comparable to the parents that choose uncommon names for their kids. The point is these are common names, thus you can't argue they are the same as the kid named Pilot Inspektor.

 

[Tallguy88]

Bad comparison. Moonbeam is not a common name, period. The names on the list here are common names, so the fact that an Imani or Malik has a harder time obtaining employment than a Holly or Jacob is not comparable to the parents that choose uncommon names for their kids. The point is these are common names, thus you can't argue they are the same as the kid named Pilot Inspektor.

Why don't people just give their kids normal names?

 

[Audacious]

Why don't people just give their kids normal names?

The names on the list SummerMadness linked are normal names. The fact that a white person named Tyrone Jackson will get fewer callbacks on job searches than a black person named Adam Smith is systemic racism, because the reason they don't get called back as much is because people think they're black.

 

[Aldebaran]

Why don't people just give their kids normal names?

Would you believe that there's a black lady who works as a reporter for a TV station named Tajma Hall? Black, has an unusual name, and yet not discriminated against since she has the job. Of course, now someone is gonna say, "Just because she has a job doesn't mean she NEVER gets discrimination!"

 

[Audacious]

Would you believe that there's a black lady who works as a reporter for a TV station named Tajma Hall? Black, has an unusual name, and yet not discriminated against since she has the job. Of course, now someone is gonna say, "Just because she has a job doesn't mean she NEVER gets discrimination!"

It's almost amazing how you came up with your own (correct) rebuttal.