[Dave]

Why did the "rightist" change their dialog to differentiate Marxists/Communists from Liberals? They are not even doing it properly.

Kurt is a secret liberal, that's all

Why don't you show us what percentage of the top 1% of the U.S. is Black and Female.

You are being ridiculous.

Why don't you show us the bottom 1%? Very unfair that not enough white males take up our fair share on the bottom!

[Zyx]

Kurt is a secret liberal, that's all

Nonsense.

Why don't you show us the bottom 1%? Very unfair that not enough white males take up our fair share on the bottom!

So why are you whining over this (unreal) "legal discrimination?"

You don't have a case, Dave.

[Dave]

Nonsense.

Of course he is. Why else would he take himself so seriously?

So why are you whining over this (unreal) "legal discrimination?"

You don't have a case, Dave.

Ever heard of disparate impact?

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Any Communist knows that breaking down the racial boundaries would be of the utmost importance for tackling the class issue.

Breaking down racial boundaries... by being racist?!

[Zyx]

Ever heard of disparate impact?

No, I looked at the Wikipedia article but realized it was written by a dunce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

For example, if XYZ Company hired 50 percent of the men applying for work in a predominantly male occupation while hiring only 20 percent of the female applicants, one could look at the ratio of those two hiring rates to judge whether there might be a discrimination problem. The ratio of 20:50 means that the rate of hiring for female applicants is only 40 percent of the rate of hiring for male applicants. That is, 20 divided by 50 equals 0.40, which is equivalent to 40 percent.

"Clearly 20:50 is 0.40 and 0.40 is equivalent to 40 percent. This article was written by an idiot for idiots. No reason to go into so much detail on the simplest level of math" was what I thought as I stopped reading there.

What's your point Dave?

Further, why bring up the bottom 1%. Are they in anyway related to the top 1%? Moreover, why would Whites be underrepresented in the bottom 1% (to the degree that they are overrepresented in the top 1% [no correlation.]) You seriously simplify the world if you believe there is any correlation between the bottom 1% and the top 1% of the U.S. The assumption would be that the representation follows linear patterns with one slope represented as either negative, the other positive. Much too simplistic for reality. It's not even clear whether Whites are as 'underrepresented' in the bottom 1% as they are overrepresented in the top 1%. The bottom 1%, for the most part, is in debt and unemployed. The bottom 20% would be better to analyze--they too are likely in debt.

Breaking down racial boundaries... by being racist?!

Please explain how KurtFF8 is racist. I'd like to laugh today.

[Dave]

[1]That's not evidence of discrimination
[2]In a free society people have the right to discriminate

[Zyx]

Here, mate, I searched in Google "sociology Black name job" and found this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=7Q93YGc6kngC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=sociology+Black+name+job&source=bl&ots=yVrQbw_AYC&sig=Czy_xv8Le4ya1BFh0WrOgmLZPmU&hl=en&ei=CC5JSuafAYuftgeF57WtBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

I wanted to find the article on how Black names rejected people because I felt that I already had that conversation with you, or someone similar, on POFO.

I don't know if I ever cited anything.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/29/national/main575685.shtml

The University of Chicago's Marianne Bertrand and MIT's Sendhil Mullainathan, however, appeared to find that a black-sounding name can be an impediment, in another recent NBER paper entitled "Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal?"

The authors took the content of 500 real resumes off online job boards and then evaluated them, as objectively as possible, for quality, using such factors as education and experience. Then they replaced the names with made-up names picked to "sound white" or "sound black" and responded to 1,300 job ads in The Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune last year.

Previous studies have examined how employers responded to similarly qualified applicants they meet in person, but this experiment attempted to isolate the response to the name itself.

White names got about one callback per 10 resumes; black names got one per 15. Carries and Kristens had call-back rates of more than 13 percent, but Aisha, Keisha and Tamika got 2.2 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively. And having a higher quality resume, featuring more skills and experience, made a white-sounding name 30 percent more likely to elicit a callback, but only 9 percent more likely for black-sounding names.

Even employers who specified "equal opportunity employer" showed bias, leading Mullainathan to suggest companies serious about diversity must take steps to confront even unconscious biases - for instance, by not looking at names when first evaluating a resume.

Do you want to say that there is no discrimination?

--

[2]In a free society people have the right to discriminate

Whatever happened to disparate impact? Dave, I don't get you.

[Dave]

Why would you hire someone with a black name in the first place? When I was looking for lawyers last year the first thing I was discard everyone who was obviously black or Hispanic. It was like playing Russian roulette only every sixth chamber was filled with a MEXICAN LAWYER. Fortunately I got a nice Jewish attorney.

Solution for these black job applicants: change your name to something normal instead of something that sounds like a cat vomiting.

[KurtFF8]

You know, Kurt, being a white male is not synonymous with being in the upper class, so I don't know why you hate them so much. As a communist, you should only be concerned with class conflict, not petty race conflict. If you support things like Affirmative action, you are obfuscating from the class conflict.

Unless of course you're just a liberal, in which case it makes perfect sense.

When did I claim that being a while male is synonymous with being upper class? There's a difference between class and race of course. Class is indeed the "driving force" of history, but that doesn't mean that race and social hierarchies don't exist.

This can be seen in different employment/income/poverty rates amongst races and genders for example, and black workers tend to be in a worse position socially than white workers for example. That doesn't mean that they aren't both part of the working class and need to over come their differences and unite (as they have done throughout history to fight things like racism and engage in class conflict, there are quite a few examples of this throughout history in the US).

And I'm no liberal. Some users on PoFo seem to think that if you discuss race or gender that you've become a liberal. This is absurd and quite non-historical, especially in a place like the United States.

Kurt is a secret liberal, that's all

Again, dealing with the issue of race or gender doesn't automatically make one a liberal. Dealing with it in a way that people like Democrats do, however does.

I have a radically different outlook on it than Liberals in the US though.

Communists do care about race and they do not ignore it. Ignoring 'race' was what early labor movements did. These early labor movements segregated by race, as we all know. And their successes were limited because the proletarian were divided. Any Communist knows that breaking down the racial boundaries would be of the utmost importance for tackling the class issue.

Exactly, and some of the earliest anti-racist/anti-segregation activism in the US south in the early 20th century was headed by Communists. As a matter of fact, leftist organizations were the first to really try to push against racism in the US and were constantly at the forefront of such movements.

It was indeed when unions engaged in racial discrimination that they began to be easily divided and become less powerful.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Riddle me this, then: why do you support pitting two races from the same class against each other? You're obviously not accomplishing anything by establishing quotas for races except cause anger on the side of whites. And if you only believe in quotas for political or middle to upper management positions, things where blacks are generally considered "underrepresented", you're moving workers from the "proletariat" and into the "bourgeoisie".

So either you don't have a problem with the capitalist system, or you think racial conflict is more important than class conflict. Either way, you are a liberal!

[Zyx]

Your name argument is ridiculous, Dave. However, answer to the site I posted.

http://books.google.com/books?id=7Q93YGc6kngC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=sociology+Black+name+job&source=bl&ots=yVrQbw_AYC&sig=Czy_xv8Le4ya1BFh0WrOgmLZPmU&hl=en&ei=CC5JSuafAYuftgeF57WtBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

Audit studies" of some specific settings suggest discrimination is even worse than people of color realize. Blacks face discrimination in 20% of their job interviews. Employers are 16% more likely to offer jobs to whites than blacks even when the black applicant applied first and offered stronger qualifications. Employers are four times more likely to ask black applicants about job absenteeism and two times more likely to ask them why they left a previous job than they are to ask white applicants those questions (Schaefer 2006.)

. . .

In the same vein, housing audit studies repeatedly demonstrate that African-Americans seeking to rent or buy homes are discriminated against during all stages of that process. In these audit studies, white and black testers with equal qualifications for homeownership are sent into situations where they express interest in obtaining a housing loan, viewing a home, or seeking the help of a realtor. The audit studies show disturbing results. In a 1991 audit study in which 3,800 audits were conducted in 25 areas, renters faced discrimination half the time and homeseekers faced discrimination 59% of the time (Feagin 2000: 155). In 20% of these audit studies, when testers were shown homes, racial steering took place; in other words, African American testers were only shown homes in predominantly African American neighborhoods (Feagin and Sikes 1994: 228).

Do you honestly think there is no discrimination?

Further, name discrimination? Are you honestly defending "'ethnic' name discrimination?"

--

Give it a rest, Cheesecake_Marmalade, you are simply repeating my analysis of Affirmative Action and misapplying it.

Besides, Marx himself would disagree with you with the phrase ingliz often repeats to me for lesser things:

Right is actualised as written and enforceable law, but has its origins in the social relations of production, and right exists even where it has not yet attained legal form. Furthermore, right is never an altogether settled question, but is contested and in change.

[Dave]

I'm not even sure what your point is. All of this is evidence of private discrimination, which should be completely tolerated in any society which wishes to call itself free. There's also significant evidence of black-owned businesses discriminating in hiring practices in favor of other blacks--good for them I say. Now, I realize you are a social constructivist and opposed to freedom as most people conceive of it, which is fine for you. I have never maintained that private discrimination does not exist or that it should not exist, only (in this instance) that there is legal discrimination against white males.

[KurtFF8]

I don't see how the ability to discriminate should be a pillar of freedom. It certainly shows a significant contradiction within your own ideology as discrimination leads to significantly less "freedom" when implemented (even in the liberal sense)

[Zyx]

The 'legal discrimination' is weak, plus its only to counteract private discrimination.

Whites are in a privileged position in our society; naturally, the privilege is being opposed as, for the purposes of society, it is undue.

In the absence of discrimination, Blacks would be equally represented in everything that they applied for. "Legal discrimination" theoretically counteracts, what you call, 'private discrimination.' Meanwhile, in practice, "Legal discrimination," is ineffective and only partially counteracts 'private.'

The point is that you recognize that Blacks are discriminated against and moreso than Whites. White "legal" discrimination (if it really exists) doesn't mean anything if one analyzes the net effect of all discrimination going on, for any study would determine that Whites are not discriminated against save on papers in filing cabinets in abandoned buildings off of U.S. soil.

[Dave]

I don't see how the ability to discriminate should be a pillar of freedom. It certainly shows a significant contradiction within your own ideology as discrimination leads to significantly less "freedom" when implemented (even in the liberal sense)

I really doubt that you even understand my ideology, Kurt. But as a reactionary, I think that individuals and corporate entities (by which I do not mean necessarily corporations, but municipalities, communities, etc.) should be able to choose whom they wish to associate and those they wish to ostracize.

The 'legal discrimination' is weak, plus its only to counteract private discrimination.

Legal discrimination is not necessarily weak (though it often is), and I have no interest in counteracting private discrimination at all.

Whites are in a privileged position in our society, naturally, the privilege is being opposed as, for the purposes of society, it is undue.

Even if we take your claims of privilege as true, this society was built by whites and I have no objection to the inherited customs being biased in favor of whites.

The point is that you recognize that Blacks are discriminated against and moreso than Whites. White "legal" discrimination (if it really exists) doesn't mean anything if one analyzes the net effect of all discrimination going on, for any study would determine that Whites are not discriminated against save on papers in filing cabinets in abandoned buildings off of U.S. soil.

I largely think blacks are to blame for the discrimination they suffer from and deserve it, although this certainly unfairly impacts black individuals. As I am not a Rawlsian I am however not necessarily concerned with fairness.

[Zyx]

Legal discrimination is not necessarily weak (though it often is), and I have no interest in counteracting private discrimination at all.

I distinguished theory and practice. You may not have an interest in counteracting private discrimination, but you had earlier asserted that there was no private discrimination when you denied that the top 1% being ~95% White Male (yes, it's some huge number like that) had anything to do with private discrimination.

Even if we take your claims of privilege as true, this society was built by whites and I have no objection to the inherited customs being biased in favor of whites.

You misunderstand history. Whites did not build this society, they were just the ruling class who killed the original inhabitants. The 'ruling class' doesn't build societies, and, especially in capitalism, society just grows as some try to get rich. "Whiteness" is arbitrarily privileged here as many "Whites" came after the Native American massacre and most of those during the massacre weren't really useful in society's growth.

It's pretty complicated, but I think you are simplifying history more than I am in trying to give you a simple account.

I largely think blacks are to blame for the discrimination they suffer from and deserve it, although this certainly unfairly impacts black individuals.

The reason for today's discrimination is the same as yesterday--exploitation. Blacks are more easily exploited if . . .. To say that Blacks are to blame for today's discrimination is to say that they were also to blame for slavery. That's not even remotely clearheaded.

Dave, I'm beginning to understand you more and I am not impressed. Not only are you wrong in your more advanced theories, but you are wrong on the basics, too.

[Dave]

I distinguished theory and practice. You may not have an interest in counteracting private discrimination, but you had earlier asserted that there was no private discrimination when you denied that the top 1% being ~95% White Male (yes, it's some huge number like that) had anything to do with private discrimination.

I did not deny private discrimination, although even in the absence of private discrimination one would expect the top 1% to be overwhelmingly white and male. If anything the surprise is the relative under-representation of Asians at the top.

You misunderstand history. Whites did not build this society, they were just the ruling class who killed the original inhabitants. The 'ruling class' doesn't build societies, and, especially in capitalism, society just grows as some try to get rich. "Whiteness" is arbitrarily privileged here as many "Whites" came after the Native American massacre and most of those during the massacre weren't really useful in society's growth.

It's pretty complicated, but I think you are simplifying history more than I am in trying to give you a simple account.

American Indians certainly contributed nothing to the building of this great nation and were simply in the way. Discounting the important function of the ruling class (ie instituting structures, rules, laws, etc.) the workers who built the nation were predominantly white. Not that that matters, as it would make little difference if a white ruling class had chosen to entirely utilized slave labor to their benefit. A slave after all does not own his own labor so the fruits of said labor should accrue to the owners in question.

The reason for today's discrimination is the same as yesterday--exploitation. Blacks are more easily exploited if . . .. To say that Blacks are to blame for today's discrimination is to say that they were also to blame for slavery. That's not even remotely clearheaded.

Blacks were to blame for slavery due to their being sufficiently weak to be enslaved. Weakness breeds contempt. Had blacks been strong they would not have been enslaved, and had they been stronger than whites they would've enslaved Europeans (and Arabs) instead of the other way around. Blacks are to blame for discrimination today by virtue of high rates of crime, unemployment, illegitimacy, and general social dysfunction.

Dave, I'm beginning to understand you more and I am not impressed. Not only are you wrong in your more advanced theories, but you are wrong on the basics, too.

Considering the source, I would consider that praise. Your need to belittle me every time our paths cross is certainly not flattering to you.

[Zyx]

If anything the surprise is the relative under-representation of Asians at the top.

Don't be unscientific. Clearly there is discrimination.

If your theories can not fit the evidence then your theories are wrong, Dave.

That's the rule of science.

If you are surprised then you are wrong.

I am not surprised that Asians are under-represented. I do not mean to say that I have to be right--but that my theories support the evidence.

Discounting the important function of the ruling class (ie instituting structures, rules, laws, etc.) the workers who built the nation were predominantly white. Not that that matters, as it would make little difference if a white ruling class had chosen to entirely utilized slave labor to their benefit. A slave after all does not own his own labor so the fruits of said labor should accrue to the owners in question.

Dave, you are hard to understand. Whites were the ruling class, but the White ruling class was separate from the White labor class. Moreover, Whiteness had nothing to do with 'society.' If one were to reward people for their early participation in society's rise, Whites could not arguably be the exclusive recipients. Your theory, again, doesn't support the evidence. Why are Blacks discriminated against?

Blacks were to blame for slavery due to their being sufficiently weak to be enslaved.

This simply isn't true. Whites bought slaves from strong African kingdoms. Now it is questionable why Africans would sell Africans, but for one thing, one should realize that there wasn't racism without the Western tradition and for another, these African kingdoms were likely not aware of the torture that this slavery involved: African slaves in Africa were hardly oppressed, in the Americas, their average lifespan was in the twenties! (The Europeans were much more inhumane than even you, Dave.)

Considering the source, I would consider that praise. Your need to belittle me every time our paths cross is certainly not flattering to you.

Can you blame me, though? You're making things up.

--

Edit: Actually, and interestingly, IIRC, there is "privilege" among Christian denominations that can probably better explain 'racial differences' and 'ruling class privileges.' That is to say, there is a religious denomination that, likely, neither of us belong to, that receives benefits to enter the highest echelons of society. Still, given the lack of understanding among the masses who privately discriminate, "Whiteness" is arbitrarily rewarded, however, like I explain, you can not justify "Whiteness" being rewarded.

[Dave]

Don't be unscientific. Clearly there is discrimination.

If your theories can not fit the evidence then your theories are wrong, Dave.

That's the rule of science.

If you are surprised then you are wrong.

I am not surprised that Asians are under-represented. I do not mean to say that I have to be right--but that my theories support the evidence.

Except I haven't denied that there is discrimination at all. I merely noted that even in the absence of discrimination (if such a thing were possible), one would expect the top strata of society to be overwhelmingly white and male. The best non-discrimination explanation for the relative lack of Asians at the top is meekness.

Dave, you are hard to understand. Whites were the ruling class, but the White ruling class was separate from the White labor class.

Really how separate was John Winthrop from his colony? By virtue of it being the New World it took some time for a new ruling class to emerge. The fluid entry of ethnic minorities and more recent immigrant groups into the top echelon of society (e.g. BARACK OBAMA) also shows that the ruling class isn't closed.

Moreover, Whiteness had nothing to do with 'society.' If one were to reward people for their early participation in society's rise, Whites could not arguably be the exclusive recipients. Your theory, again, doesn't support the evidence.

White society...whiteness...duh

Why are Blacks discriminated against?

As noted previously, because they deserve it.

This simply isn't true. Whites bought slaves from strong African kingdoms.

These kingdoms were pathetically weak compared to European powers, which is why they raided each other for slaves instead of exploring and conquering the world as Europe did. Back when Europeans were much weaker they actually raided each other for slaves to sell to the Islamic Caliphate.

Now it is questionable why Africans would sell Africans, but for one thing, one should realize that there wasn't racism without the Western tradition and for another, these African kingdoms were likely not aware of the torture that this slavery involved: African slaves in Africa were hardly oppressed, in the Americas, their average lifespan was in the twenties! (The Europeans were much more inhumane than even you, Dave.)

Oh, I'm sure they really cared about the cruelty inflicted on the people they waged war to capture and sell to foreigners.

[Zyx]

I edited my former post--to inject more goodness into the discussion. Would you know what denomination I am referring?

These kingdoms were pathetically weak compared to European powers, which is why they raided each other for slaves instead of exploring and conquering the world as Europe did.

You are conflating time periods (I almost did, too--slavery and imperialism were two different epochs, though). Africa and Europe were comparable at the time of slavery. Only when Europeans invented the Maxim Gun, and learned of vaccines, did they eventually gain the strength to conquer Africa.

Oh, I'm sure they really cared about the cruelty inflicted on the people they waged war to capture and sell to foreigners.

I have no idea--still, it's worth noting that they weren't as cruel to their captured: until later in the slave era.

You seem to be repeating nonsense theory.