Rick Reilly Gets One Right

[Bluto]

"Easy to argue" only if you use illogical race-based criteria. You are using the very race identity considerations ("the percentages don't line up, so it must be racism; bean-counting, race-based quotas in the cabinet, etc., prove equality") you claim to deplore. So much for a colorblind, merit-based society.[/QUOTE]

That's my point. If you believe we live in such a society you are quite naive. I didn't say anything about quotas, I was simply making the point that the power structure in this country has been and continues to be dominated by white guys, mostly rich white guys. That bein the case it must be something systemic that allows this condition to persist. Anyhow, class issues are a whole nother ball of wax.

 

[Bluto]

Bluto, I don't know if anyone really understands what you're saying. I've tried reading your last couple posts multiple times now and I don't really understand what you're getting at so you might want to rephrase.

To your point about "If you look at the demographic data of the President's cabinet, Congress, the Supreme Court, most state legislatures and or governorships and who controls the major corporations and finacial institutions as opposed to who is poor, who goes to prison and who gets the death penalty in this country it would be easy to argue that it still does and racism has become built in to our society and institutionalized." ... if you actually believe that the United States is still run by white supremacists and has institutionalized racism I don't know what to say.

President = multi-racial, part African American
Supreme Court = 1 African American justice (11%), 2 Latino/Hispanic (22%)... that's very in line or exceeds national demographics (13% and 17% respectively).
I don't have time to look up all congressman, governors, etc. so if you have that data I'd love to see it... but simply put, there are a LOT of factors that play into the demographics of certain jobs besides someone's race. That should be obvious to anyone.

You misunderstood. I'm not saying its a bunch of Klansmen running the show, however if you look at the demographics of those in positions of power it is a bunch of white dudes. Rich white dudes for that matter.

Here's an article on the house of reps.

Diversity in the 113th Congress Looks Pathetic When You Plot It On a Map - Sara Johnson - The Atlantic Cities

 

[Bluto]

Here's the demographics of sitting governors. Vast majority are white.

Political Party and the Demographics of America’s Governors | The Politikal Blog

 

[Bluto]

State legislatures. Again overwhelmingly white.

The Atlas Project » Minority Representation Rates in State Legislatures Still Lagging

 

[Bluto]

Fortune 500? White guys.

http://theabd.org/Missing_Pieces_Women_and_Minorities_on_Fortune_500_Boards.pdf

 

[Bluto]

So there it is. White guys still run the show. I see Hispanics moving these trends due simply to sheer numbers but given the defunding of public education and civil service jobs (2 traditional key entry ways into the middle class) I doubt they will gain parity with Caucasians any time soon.

 

[Bluto]

Higher education faculty, mostly white people.

http://www.upenn.edu/provost/images/uploads/Gender.Racial_.Bias_.pdf

 

[Bluto]

Racial bias in hiring? Appears so.

Chicago GSB | Capital Ideas

 

[Buster Bluth]

You're posting an article from ten years ago, just so you know.

 

[PLACforever]

Team Names That Offend Me:
Vikings: I'm of Norse decent and portraying my ancestors as vicious barbarians is wrong
Giants: I'm 6'5" and it's really hard to buy clothes sometimes.
Fighting Irish: how about Peaceful, sitting in the library reading Irish?
Dolphins: one splashed me at SeaWorld last weekend.
Jaguars: my Mom used to drive one and ran over my foot once.
Panthers: basically a jaguar.
76ers, Patriots, Yankees, Nationals: I'll be offended for the torries in the group.
Royals: did we fight the Revolutionary War for nothing!?!
Chargers: I shocked myself the other day.
Lightning: my flight home last night was delayed 45 minutes due to this.
Raiders, Bucs, Pirates: May as well be called terrorists
Dodgers:what are they dodging, the draft? Commies!
Trojans: promotes pre-marital sex.
Angels, Saints: religious overtones have no place in sports
Padres: Spanish religions overtones have no place in sports.
Once, while on a camping trip to the ROCKIES, a GRIZZLY destroyed my camp and I got bit by a DIAMOND BACK.
Red Sox....I'm a Yankee fan.

 

[palinurus]

Sorry, Bluto, you are completely unconvincing.

Your "measurement" of whether the US is "racist" or not is whether "white guys" or "non-white" guys are running things in a proportion equal to their percentage of the population. That calculus uses the exact racial considerations that form the basis of the racist thinking you claim to deplore. By your logic, the only way to be non-"racist" would be to have "correct" percentages by race; that requires selection by consideration of race. That's racist.

Second, your idea is based on the odious idea that there are "black" ideas and "white" ideas and "Hispanic" ideas; you want the representation to be proportionate, because, presumably it will give "equal representation" to "black ideas" and "white ideas" and "Hispanic ideas" in the public/corporate sphere. This, of course, is silly, and also racist. The Aryan Brotherhood thinks the same thing.

You are wrong by your own terms.

 

[IrishLax]

You misunderstood. I'm not saying its a bunch of Klansmen running the show, however if you look at the demographics of those in positions of power it is a bunch of white dudes. Rich white dudes for that matter.

Here's an article on the house of reps.

Diversity in the 113th Congress Looks Pathetic When You Plot It On a Map - Sara Johnson - The Atlantic Cities

Afro 42/439 = 10% rep vs. 13% pop
Latino 35/439 = 8% rep vs. 16% pop
Native American 2/439 = .5% rep vs. 1% pop
Asian 11/439 = 3% rep vs. 6% pop

So all minorities except African Americans are underrepresented by a 2:1 margin. Interesting. African Americans are almost 1:1 represented... I wonder if this has to do with districting? Some urban districts being made almost entirely African American so one of their own is elected?

 

[IrishLax]

Racial bias in hiring? Appears so.

Chicago GSB | Capital Ideas

Higher education faculty, mostly white people.

http://www.upenn.edu/provost/images/uploads/Gender.Racial_.Bias_.pdf

So there it is. White guys still run the show. I see Hispanics moving these trends due simply to sheer numbers but given the defunding of public education and civil service jobs (2 traditional key entry ways into the middle class) I doubt they will gain parity with Caucasians any time soon.

Here's the demographics of sitting governors. Vast majority are white.

Political Party and the Demographics of America’s Governors | The Politikal Blog

State legislatures. Again overwhelmingly white.

The Atlas Project » Minority Representation Rates in State Legislatures Still Lagging

To preface all of this let me say that I'm ulti-racial... white on my mom's side, Argentinian on my Dad's... and I've always identified with Latino groups growing whether in school or registration or whatever.

For racial bias in hiring... I mean, I'm sorry but I do not blame people for discriminating based on what someone is named. I blame the parents for giving the child a name that puts them at a disadvantage and the person for not changing it. It's no different for discriminating against someone for wearing a flip flops to an interview, having piercings, or a myriad of other superficial factors. If someone was named "Buttface" by their parents and didn't change it I'm sure they'd find getting callbacks difficult too. One of the funniest anecdotes I've heard is one of my mother's friends who was a black lawyer named something really WASPy sounding like Clarence Wentworth or whatever... when he was interviewing for jobs, he said people were always SHOCKED to see he was black but the firm that hired him said something to the effect of "we almost didn't call you in because the last thing I wanted was another pretentious old-money WASP running around this place..." and was really happy to add some diversity. So there is a lot to a name, appearance, and other superficial factors that is never going to change. Why do you think entertainers - white, black, Latino, etc. - so often have to go to stage names to sell? For every industry hiring practices will always revolve around playing the game of whatever industry you're trying to break into... that will never, ever change. And I don't even really think it's a problem or worth discussing.

As far as state legislatures and governors go... the governor data is compelling. The state legislature data is not. Louisiana they cite as an example has 30% black voters and 20% rep... California 25% Hispanic/Latino voters and 19% rep... neither of those numbers are so far off that it is, in and of itself, cause for alarm. For Hispanics/Latinos, the overall chart shows a meager 0-5% difference of pop-to-rep for most states, with some states being +0-5%. For African Americans, nine states were in the PLUS 0-5% territory... and 41 out of 50 states fell in the -5% to +5% range. Just does not seem like a big deal at all.

 

[palinurus]

With all respect, I disagree with the premise of proportionate representation.

Our goal should be equal opportunity, not equal results. If people are free, they will, hopefully, receive what they work for and deserve.

Equal or proportionate representation is based on racial criteria -- not ideas, not merit, not persuasion, not talent. It's a recipe for mediocity. In fact, the goal of proportionate representation according to race is the exact opposite of the colorblind society that is supposed to be our goal; it's illogical and perpetuates racial division.

I have voted for people who are white, black, Arab and Jew, and both men and women. I don't care about skin color or gender. I care about ideas and principles. This sort of bean counting is revolting and ideological nonsense.

And, sorry, a "white supremacist power structure" makes me think of guys in white hoods; it's not a legitimate, intelligent phrase, and it's an inflammatory, reckless phrase seemingly borrowed from Howard Zinn on a heroin bender, which is where I got onboard in this thread.

 

[Kanye West]

I'll say this if there is an offensive name in sports it is the Redskins. Should they change it, that's up to the Native Americans. But otherwise keep it, I hate the term but I'm also not the one that this name is supposed to offend.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

I'll say this if there is an offensive name in sports it is the Redskins. Should they change it, that's up to the Native Americans. But otherwise keep it, I hate the term but I'm also not the one that this name is supposed to offend.

This is how I feel.

 

[illmatic630]

sarcasm right?

To preface all of this let me say that I'm ulti-racial... white on my mom's side, Argentinian on my Dad's... and I've always identified with Latino groups growing whether in school or registration or whatever.

For racial bias in hiring... I mean, I'm sorry but I do not blame people for discriminating based on what someone is named. I blame the parents for giving the child a name that puts them at a disadvantage and the person for not changing it. It's no different for discriminating against someone for wearing a flip flops to an interview, having piercings, or a myriad of other superficial factors. If someone was named "Buttface" by their parents and didn't change it I'm sure they'd find getting callbacks difficult too. One of the funniest anecdotes I've heard is one of my mother's friends who was a black lawyer named something really WASPy sounding like Clarence Wentworth or whatever... when he was interviewing for jobs, he said people were always SHOCKED to see he was black but the firm that hired him said something to the effect of "we almost didn't call you in because the last thing I wanted was another pretentious old-money WASP running around this place..." and was really happy to add some diversity. So there is a lot to a name, appearance, and other superficial factors that is never going to change. Why do you think entertainers - white, black, Latino, etc. - so often have to go to stage names to sell? For every industry hiring practices will always revolve around playing the game of whatever industry you're trying to break into... that will never, ever change. And I don't even really think it's a problem or worth discussing.

As far as state legislatures and governors go... the governor data is compelling. The state legislature data is not. Louisiana they cite as an example has 30% black voters and 20% rep... California 25% Hispanic/Latino voters and 19% rep... neither of those numbers are so far off that it is, in and of itself, cause for alarm. For Hispanics/Latinos, the overall chart shows a meager 0-5% difference of pop-to-rep for most states, with some states being +0-5%. For African Americans, nine states were in the PLUS 0-5% territory... and 41 out of 50 states fell in the -5% to +5% range. Just does not seem like a big deal at all.

 

[Bluto]

To preface all of this let me say that I'm ulti-racial... white on my mom's side, Argentinian on my Dad's... and I've always identified with Latino groups growing whether in school or registration or whatever.

For racial bias in hiring... I mean, I'm sorry but I do not blame people for discriminating based on what someone is named. I blame the parents for giving the child a name that puts them at a disadvantage and the person for not changing it. It's no different for discriminating against someone for wearing a flip flops to an interview, having piercings, or a myriad of other superficial factors. If someone was named "Buttface" by their parents and didn't change it I'm sure they'd find getting callbacks difficult too. One of the funniest anecdotes I've heard is one of my mother's friends who was a black lawyer named something really WASPy sounding like Clarence Wentworth or whatever... when he was interviewing for jobs, he said people were always SHOCKED to see he was black but the firm that hired him said something to the effect of "we almost didn't call you in because the last thing I wanted was another pretentious old-money WASP running around this place..." and was really happy to add some diversity. So there is a lot to a name, appearance, and other superficial factors that is never going to change. Why do you think entertainers - white, black, Latino, etc. - so often have to go to stage names to sell? For every industry hiring practices will always revolve around playing the game of whatever industry you're trying to break into... that will never, ever change. And I don't even really think it's a problem or worth discussing.

As far as state legislatures and governors go... the governor data is compelling. The state legislature data is not. Louisiana they cite as an example has 30% black voters and 20% rep... California 25% Hispanic/Latino voters and 19% rep... neither of those numbers are so far off that it is, in and of itself, cause for alarm. For Hispanics/Latinos, the overall chart shows a meager 0-5% difference of pop-to-rep for most states, with some states being +0-5%. For African Americans, nine states were in the PLUS 0-5% territory... and 41 out of 50 states fell in the -5% to +5% range. Just does not seem like a big deal at all.

California is closer to 45% Hispanic. Maybe their data is wrong. Look, I'm not arguing for equal representation racially. Simply making the point that whites run the show. Now, with that fact in place you have two racial minorities (african americams and native amerincans) with staggeringly high levels of poverty, incarceration and comparatively shockingly low levels of educationaland professional attainment. This is something that has persisted for decades which would seem to indicate that it is systemic. Who is determining and setting the policies that drive this system? It seems to me that it is whites. Specifically white males. If whites are implementing policies and ideas (political, economic and cultural) that consistently result in high levels of poverty, incarceration and low level educational attainment of these minorities how would you define that? Anyhow, the counter arguements to this seem to read like SEC fans who claim that any athlete can get a "world class education" in a system that clearly is not designed to allow for that outcome on a consistent basis. Finally to close the circle, whites run the show. They've dicked native Americans over for a long time, completely destroyed, dismantled and in some cases exterminated Native American culture and traditions that dated back hundreds and possibly thousands of years. That's the context for this stupid name. Why not be the bigger person and say "Redskins" was stupid to begin with and ditch it?

 

[Bluto]

Afro 42/439 = 10% rep vs. 13% pop
Latino 35/439 = 8% rep vs. 16% pop
Native American 2/439 = .5% rep vs. 1% pop
Asian 11/439 = 3% rep vs. 6% pop

So all minorities except African Americans are underrepresented by a 2:1 margin. Interesting. African Americans are almost 1:1 represented... I wonder if this has to do with districting? Some urban districts being made almost entirely African American so one of their own is elected?

I'm pretty sure districting is one of the only reasons Texas is inthe GOP's pocket.

 

[IrishLax]

sarcasm right?

Not in the slightest. If I'm hiring someone for customer service and of two equal candidates one is named something stupid like Danger or Ace and the other equally qualified candidate is named Joe I'm going to hire Joe 10 out of 10 times.

Why do you think people change names for show business? Or representatives in India for customer service? There's a lot to a name. It's a personal choice and professionally you have to deal with the consequences. There's nothing wrong with it... just like there is nothing wrong with a Mohawk, piercings, tats, etc... but be prepared to accept the consequences of what you call yourself.

 

[IrishLax]

California is closer to 45% Hispanic.

Not in the info you linked. I pulled my numbers straight from that.

 

[Bluto]

Not in the slightest. If I'm hiring someone for customer service and of two equal candidates one is named something stupid like Danger or Ace and the other equally qualified candidate is named Joe I'm going to hire Joe 10 out of 10 times.

Why do you think people change names for show business? Or representatives in India for customer service? There's a lot to a name. It's a personal choice and professionally you have to deal with the consequences. There's nothing wrong with it... just like there is nothing wrong with a Mohawk, piercings, tats, etc... but be prepared to accept the consequences of what you call yourself.

So like accept that being born black or gay is gonna put you behind the eight ball in some cases? Comparing an ethnic name to "danger or ace" is kind of ridiculous and is a perfect example of white privilege.

 

[IrishLax]

California is closer to 45% Hispanic. Maybe their data is wrong. Look, I'm not arguing for equal representation racially. Simply making the point that whites run the show. Now, with that fact in place you have two racial minorities (african americams and native amerincans) with staggeringly high levels of poverty, incarceration and comparatively shockingly low levels of educationaland professional attainment. This is something that has persisted for decades which would seem to indicate that it is systemic. Who is determining and setting the policies that drive this system? It seems to me that it is whites. Specifically white males. If whites are implementing policies and ideas (political, economic and cultural) that consistently result in high levels of poverty, incarceration and low level educational attainment of these minorities how would you define that? Anyhow, the counter arguements to this seem to read like SEC fans who claim that any athlete can get a "world class education" in a system that clearly is not desinged to allow for that outcome on a consistent basis.

I'd really love to hear the specific policies that the "white man" has in place to hold down minorities. Outside of the war on drugs, I really can't think of any. The reasons for an achievement/education gap are far more implicit than I believe you're representing. For example, a lot of first generation Mexican, Latin, and South American 1st generation immigrants I work with who don't speak English are just happy to have a job... whereas most spoiled suburban white males would scoff at any kind of manual labor position for a career path. You can come up with similar anecdotes for for basically every minority. But you'd be hard pressed to show how an individual with aptitude who works hard can't get a fair shake in the system these days... they just may have to overcome more because of the situation they were born into than someone who was given a head start.

Finally to close the circle, whites run the show. They've dicked native Americans over for a long time, completely destroyed, dismantled and in some cases exterminated Native American culture and traditions that dated back hundreds and possibly thousands of years. That's the context for this stupid name. Why not be the bigger person and say "Redskins" was a stupid to begin with and ditch it?

That's kind of missing the whole point of the article. This quote sums it up:

"It's a name that honors the people," says Kingston English teacher Brett Hayes, who is Choctaw. "The word 'Oklahoma' itself is Choctaw for 'red people.' The students here don't want it changed. To them, it seems like it's just people who have no connection with the Native American culture, people out there trying to draw attention to themselves.
"My kids are really afraid we're going to lose the Redskin name. They say to me, 'They're not going to take it from us, are they, Dad?'"

 

[Bluto]

You're posting an article from ten years ago, just so you know.

Yep, all kinds of relevant research is way older than that.

 

[IrishLax]

So like accept that being born black or gay is gonna put you behind the eight ball in some cases? Comparing an ethnic name to "danger or ace" is kind of ridiculous and is a perfect example of white privilege.

No, it isn't. Being named "Ace" or "Ransom" (I know two people actually named that) could just as easily be termed "white culture"... the people I know named stuff like that are all from redneck white america where that kind of thing is common. Claiming that's different than the urban legend of someone being named Lemonjello or the myriad of other "urban" or "ethnic" names is racist.

That's not the same AT ALL about someone being born black or gay. You can choose what you call yourself. You can't choose your skin color or sexual orientation. People throughout history have changed their name for professional reasons... whether a conqueror to integrate better with an indigenous culture or an Italian pop star whose last name wouldn't sell or someone working customer service with a hard to pronounce or unfortunate name... it's all the same thing. To argue against this basic principle of human existence is silly.

 

[NDWorld247]

No, it isn't. Being named "Ace" or "Ransom" (I know two people actually named that) could just as easily be termed "white culture"....

I knew someone named Ace once. He stole $300 from me. His race is not important, just wanted to share. Carry on.

 

[Bluto]

I'd really love to hear the specific policies that the "white man" has in place to hold down minorities. Outside of the war on drugs, I really can't think of any. The reasons for an achievement/education gap are far more implicit than I believe you're representing. For example, a lot of first generation Mexican, Latin, and South American 1st generation immigrants I work with who don't speak English are just happy to have a job... whereas most spoiled suburban white males would scoff at any kind of manual labor position for a career path. You can come up with similar anecdotes for for basically every minority. But you'd be hard pressed to show how an individual with aptitude who works hard can't get a fair shake in the system these days... they just may have to overcome more because of the situation they were born into than someone who was given a head start.



That's kind of missing the whole point of the article. This quote sums it up:

How do you measure any set of policies? Outcomes. If the sum total of our policies as a society are high levels of poverty, incarceration and comparitavely **** poor educational and economic attainment for easily identified ethnic groups then what would you call that? One definition would be institutionalized discrimination based on race.

 

[Bluto]

No, it isn't. Being named "Ace" or "Ransom" (I know two people actually named that) could just as easily be termed "white culture"... the people I know named stuff like that are all from redneck white america where that kind of thing is common. Claiming that's different than the urban legend of someone being named Lemonjello or the myriad of other "urban" or "ethnic" names is racist.

That's not the same AT ALL about someone being born black or gay. You can choose what you call yourself. You can't choose your skin color or sexual orientation. People throughout history have changed their name for professional reasons... whether a conqueror to integrate better with an indigenous culture or an Italian pop star whose last name wouldn't sell or someone working customer service with a hard to pronounce or unfortunate name... it's all the same thing. To argue against this basic principle of human existence is silly.

So Steve and Joe are indigenous names? This a just smacks of lazyness and privilege. Is it to much to ask to not have white people call jalapeños "jollypeenos"?

 

[IrishLax]

How do you measure any set of policies? Outcomes. If the sum total of our policies as a society are high levels of poverty, incarceration and comparitavely **** poor educational and economic attainment for easily identified ethnic groups then what would you call that? One definition would be institutionalized discrimination based on race.

That's ridiculous. That flies in the face of every basic scientific and statistical principle out there. Simply put, correlation does not equal causation.

 

[Bluto]

No, it isn't. Being named "Ace" or "Ransom" (I know two people actually named that) could just as easily be termed "white culture"... the people I know named stuff like that are all from redneck white america where that kind of thing is common. Claiming that's different than the urban legend of someone being named Lemonjello or the myriad of other "urban" or "ethnic" names is racist.

That's not the same AT ALL about someone being born black or gay. You can choose what you call yourself. You can't choose your skin color or sexual orientation. People throughout history have changed their name for professional reasons... whether a conqueror to integrate better with an indigenous culture or an Italian pop star whose last name wouldn't sell or someone working customer service with a hard to pronounce or unfortunate name... it's all the same thing. To argue against this basic principle of human existence is silly.

So people of ethnic backgrounds who name their children traditional names are on the same level as ignorant rednecks? Great.