Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Whites Need Not Apply
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HeffersonDavidos" data-source="post: 74316432" data-attributes="member: 422592"><p>You are correct on numerous points. I think many people know about that privilege</p><p>it has to be denied to keep running a certain narrative. It may be naivete or cynical</p><p>denialism.</p><p></p><p>Naive folk may not be aware of of the subtleties with which some institutions work.</p><p>Thus as aware folk probably know, in the landmark Griggs vs Duke case, the company</p><p>quickly implemented "new" requirements after the Brown court case, demanding a high</p><p>school diploma for jobs that never before required them. On the face of it this was</p><p>a neutral, non-racial "skill upgrade" requirement. But the effective results was to lock</p><p>black workers out of higher level slots, since before the court decision all blacks</p><p>workers had to work in the low level "Labor" Dept, and were ineligible for promotion.</p><p>White employees in the higher level jobs were grandfathered in under the "new"</p><p>policy so did not have to go back to school to get a diploma. But blacks looking</p><p>to move up under the new "neutral" policy did. It was a neat way of freezing out</p><p>or slowing down the blacks from promotions to the higher slots.</p><p></p><p>Also to move up, the old-line black employees, who had been confined to the</p><p>"Laborer" dept, had to give up their seniority in that dept and start at the bottom</p><p>in the newly reorganized "higher level" department, another neat way to freeze</p><p>down the negroes.</p><p></p><p>Some labor unions ran/run variants of the same game for decades. Example- To get</p><p>a union card you have to have a union member nominate you. This seems fair on the</p><p>surface except if you are black you likely would not get that "fraternal" nomination.</p><p>Or the rule may be- to get a job ticket, it goes by seniority. Well since the union</p><p>did not let blacks in until after 1964, it would mean there would be very few</p><p>blacks with the seniority getting the job ticket. Or where there were specially</p><p>organized segregated black unions, the blacks would have to give up their</p><p>seniority from the old segregated union to move into the newly "integrated" union.</p><p>Since many veteran workers would balk at giving up years of seniority, fewer</p><p>blacks apply. So effectively a "blackout." Union leaders would sadly shake their heads and</p><p>say sincerely that there were no willing or "qualified" blacks. These games happened all</p><p>the time on the railroads and in construction unions.</p><p></p><p>And best of all, these shenanigans could all be done under a rubric of neutral,</p><p>institutional color-blindness. Sweet!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HeffersonDavidos, post: 74316432, member: 422592"] 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! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Whites Need Not Apply
Top
Bottom