Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe recent media obsession with identity, centered on presidential candidates who represent constituent groups other than white men, has created a public conversation about race and gender. The hope for those of us working in the justice sector is that the conversation pushes past the humdrum of the oppression olympics, but most of the talk to date has gone wasted on a battle of who has it worst--black men or white women. The loss is that at a time when concern and interest by voters is focused on issues of race and gender and we have a key opportunity to push the conversation in new directions, we are stuck with the terms set in stone in the post-Civil Rights language of oppositional identities.
Sentiments expressed in Maureen Dowd's misfire of a column the other day about "shoulder-pad" feminists supporting HIllary Clinton's nomination, is a perfect example of this obsession gone bad. We have come to expect the worst from Dowd, but assuming that racism and misogyny are in the past is a new low.
With Obama saying the hour is upon us to elect a black man and Hillary saying the hour is upon us to elect a woman, the Democratic primary has become the ultimate nightmare of liberal identity politics. All the victimizations go tripping over each other and colliding, a competition of historical guilts.People will have to choose which of America's sins are greater, and which stain should be removed first. Is misogyny worse than racism, or is racism worse than misogyny?
As it turns out, making history is actually a way of being imprisoned by history. It's all about the past. What will be expunged more quickly? America's racial past or America's sexist past?
I'm not sure what Dowd means in calling the situation "the ultimate nightmare of liberal identity politics," but I don't think it's her frustration with a lack of intersectional analysis or the ways that women of color have been rendered invisible in the national dialogue of race and gender. Dowd's attempt at a post-racist, post-feminist consciousness is so clearly distorted by her hate for feminists and for women ( something very much in style right now) that it is no wonder that she is completely comfortable calling women that support Clinton un-fun, old, unattractive in her feeble attempts to coin a new pop-demographic category -- "shoulder pad feminists."
Some women in their 30s, 40s and early-50s who favor Barack Obama have a phrase to describe what they don't like about Hillary Clinton: Shoulder-pad feminism.They feel that women have moved past that men-are-pigs, woe-is-me, sisters-must-stick-together, pantsuits-are-powerful era that Hillary's campaign has lately revived with a vengeance....
As a woman I know put it: "Hillary doesn't make it look like fun to be a woman. And her 'I-have-been-victimized' campaign is depressing."
What is depressing is when women espouse anti-feminist, anti-woman tendencies and confirm the sexism at the root of people's fear in the potential for a woman to become president. There is nothing post-feminist about that, that is old-fashioned sexism. And of course, Obama totally makes it look fun to be a black dude, which is why he has garnered so much support. Right, of course, that must be it.
Ironic that the same voices that demand we end the battle of identity politics are the ones that are most reliant on it. So while Dowd is worried about which candidate looks like they are having "fun" those of us that are dealing with the issues in personal and practical ways have a different perspective. Both race and gender matter in this election not because Clinton is a woman and Obama is black, but because racism and sexism still exist and have profound impacts on policy. So while some continue the battle of who had it worst and who deserves the seat first, those of us working at the grassroots are very aware of the actual lives of people that are suffering from housing foreclosures, expansion in prisons, lack of access to health care, poor education and no jobs. For us, it is a matter of who will actually make decisions that most support our communities.
It is a key time to talk about race and gender in ways that matter. The mainstream media suggests we see the issues as just black and white, male and female, but we need a thorough recognition of the ways that all of our identities interact and the different places that puts us in the political spectrum. It's wishful thinking to hope a Clinton or Obama victory will somehow "erase the blemish" of sexism and racism and the people most directly hurt by racism and sexism are fully aware of this.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
"Both race and gender matter in this election not because Clinton is a woman and Obama is black, but because racism and sexism still exist and have profound impacts on policy." I have been waiting in vain for months to hear this from any news source. You constantly hear that racism and sexism are "past sins" even though they are alive and well here in the States.
Posted by thesaltflats at 03/07/2008 @ 12:01pm
"ware of the actual lives of people that are suffering from housing foreclosures, expansion in prisons, lack of access to health care, poor education and no jobs. For us, it is a matter of who will actually make decisions that most support our communities." ::: THIS is the important part- which candidate can better help the people. I don't care if they are black, white, muslim, christian, athiest,jewish, amish, woman, man, transgender, homosexual, bisexual- whatever!!!! If you have progressive ideals and a plan to change America (and you're not a prototype of Bush), you've got my vote.
Posted by jro555 at 03/07/2008 @ 12:07pm
Nobody talks about the Hispanic, the female and the invisible. I can't wait to see how those Cuban women are going to vote in the Florida re-do.
Posted by nursevic at 03/07/2008 @ 12:15pm
SAMHITA: Ironic that the same voices that demand we end the battle of identity politics are the ones that are most reliant on it.
I take this statement as a subtle admission of your own reliance on it....which is at least honest.
As I read you, I can't help to reflect on your love for Hip-Hop....which like it or not, has been stereotyped as anti-Feminists.
IMO, America & the world, will never be free of sexism & racism....they will evolve, as they have on a massive scale, into less overt less UNfair....but will never go away....simply because, that's what diversity and human nature are.....social grouping and similar likes among similar groups. Stop denying that we are human and recognize differences!
In the end, sexism and racism is far less insidious than just the non-biological differences based on EDUCATION!
Posted by Happy at 03/07/2008 @ 12:24pm
Ms Mukhopadhyay, I think your attack is partially off-track.
It isn't just "the Media" trying to make the Dem primaries about gender and race. Maria Pappas of the NY NOW chapter did as well.
And we've had our share of pro-Hillary bloggers who claim that criticism of Hillary is "sexist".
Posted by Mask at 03/07/2008 @ 12:33pm
Of course,the female includes a male named Bill meaning that no independent woman is running for POTUS.It's the Clintons who are running.
Posted by i'm nobody at 03/07/2008 @ 12:39pm
is because writers at The Nation want to drive political policy toward greater collectivism and throwing around charges of racism and sexism are ways of getting what you want whether there is any substance to the charges or not
while you're talking about "evidence," mary, perhaps you could provide some for the above claim? i agree with your points about this particular article, but this specific writer is not a member of the The Nation's staff. she is basically a temporary intern, who probably has yet to finish undergraduate studies. by the time she gets to grad school, she'll find out that racism and sexism have indeed vanished......
Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2008 @ 12:56pm
I'm just saying the institutional structures that supported racism and sexism are gone
and where is the evidence of this? again, though i happen to agree with you, you cannot criticize the author of this article for not providing any evidence when you (yourself) have provided none for your opposing claim.
Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2008 @ 1:26pm
What was Maureen Dowd thinking calling older feminists who support Hillary "shoulder-pad feminists"?
They're not shoulder pad feminists. They're jock-strap feminists.
Posted by KSP556 at 03/07/2008 @ 1:37pm
I'm just saying the institutional structures that supported racism and sexism are gone.Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/07/2008 @ 1:12pm
Well, hot damn! We have reached the promised land. Let me go tell everybody. There will be dancing in the streets tonight!
Posted by k330k at 03/07/2008 @ 1:41pm
she is basically a temporary intern, who probably has yet to finish undergraduate studies. by the time she gets to grad school, she'll find out that racism and sexism have indeed vanished......
Posted by DARLADOON 03/07/2008 @ 12:56pm
Sadly, according to her bio at Feministing, she already has her Bachelors degree in Sociology and Women's Studies from SUNY-Albany. And then my favorite part...
a Masters in Women's Studies from San Francisco State (or would have it if she finished her thesis which is focused on blogging and social networking technology and activism).
IOW, SHE DOESN'T HAVE A MASTER'S!!! Can you believe that? Well...I can, but how silly is that? Trying to take credit for something that she has no right taking credit for. If she was a chef on the food channel, she would have gotten canned long ago.
Posted by usc1 at 03/07/2008 @ 2:02pm
I see lots of claims of racism and sexism; I don't see any evidence of it.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/07/2008 @ 12:15pm
wear a turban for a few days....
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/07/2008 @ 2:11pm
I see lots of claims of racism and sexism; I don't see any evidence of it.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/07/2008 @ 12:15pm
wear a turban for a few days....
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/07/2008 @ 2:12pm
Posted by USC1 03/07/2008 @ 2:02pm
USC, if she's ADMITTING she doesn't have her Master's yet....how is she "taking credit" for having one?!?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 03/07/2008 @ 2:13pm
That doesn't mean that there aren't individuals who are racist or sexist. I'm just saying the institutional structures that supported racism and sexism are gone.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/07/2008 @ 1:12pm
but aren't the non-sexist/racist institutional structures often operated by individuals who are racist/sexist?
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/07/2008 @ 2:18pm
IOW, SHE DOESN'T HAVE A MASTER'S!!! Can you believe that? Well...I can, but how silly is that? Trying to take credit for something that she has no right taking credit for. If she was a chef on the food channel, she would have gotten canned long ago.
Posted by USC1 03/07/2008 @ 2:02pm
what this all about?
bad day?
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/07/2008 @ 2:22pm
in america and western europe, racism and sexism definitely exist, but only on the theoretical level. it's only a theoretical problem. governmens and institutions, and the people who fill them, have largely and effectively weeded out the serious hazards. the last great leap needed is for transsexuals and transgendered peoples to obtain full protections under the law.
everyone else should (theoretically) have what they need to survive, and perhaps excel, in life. and i must adamantly stress "theoretically". now, if something isn't working for women or blacks, then the problem lies in the individuals, and not the State. corporations, all manner of which, have no financial interest in showing intolerance to minorities.
Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2008 @ 2:49pm
darla, i think it is very uncharacteristic of you to attack someone this way for no reason. should you really question her education level when you obviously could not even click on her bio info? she's not an intern. she's a guest blogger.
do you not see your agreement with darin as a red flag? if there is no more racism in this country, how do you explain the huge sentencing differences for black and white in our criminal justice system?
Posted by loveloki at 03/07/2008 @ 2:51pm
loveloki, i actually wasn't criticizing her. i was supporting The Nation, and in turn this author, by deflecting the charges made by mary. mary said that The Nation uses a critique of sexism and racism to forward its agenda of 'collectivism' or socialism. mary gave no evidence for this, so i criticized her by saying that this particular author has no stated allegiance to The Nation, by virtue that her time is temporary, and she is free to say whatever she wants. The Nation might not agree with what she says.....
as for you second comment, loveloki, i am utterly baffled. the reason there are more black men, than white men, in jail does not mean that we are a racist society. it means that (and bear with me here) there happen to be more men in jail who, over long periods of time, got a lot more sun than white people.
the only difference between me and a white woman is that my genes got more sun that her genes. my dark skin is only a matter of evolution vis a vis geography, topography.
that my people were taken from their land and forced into slavery had nothing to do with that fact that my genes got more sun over time. that whites came and looked in disgust at our skin had to do with a very superstitious religion, and its awful adherents, and not skin color.
Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2008 @ 3:25pm
when people choose to rally, or unite, or confirm their understanding, around aesthetic or style (i.e. skin color, religion, ethnicity, etc), then we have lost focus of the deep structured meanings underneath it all.
the Subconscious. the Id/Ego. it all comes back to Freud and Nietzsche.
Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2008 @ 3:28pm
she is basically a temporary intern, who probably has yet to finish undergraduate studies. by the time she gets to grad school, she'll find out that racism and sexism have indeed vanished......
Posted by DARLADOON 03/07/2008 @ 12:56pm | ignore this person
It would've taken you a few seconds to read the bio. She actually has her undergrad degree and has done graduate work, although she hasn't a master's yet.
Posted by brunowe at 03/07/2008 @ 3:53pm
Posted by DARLADOON 03/07/2008 @ 12:56pm ::: yea was this supposed to be a sarcastic post or are you actually serious.
Posted by jro555 at 03/07/2008 @ 4:09pm
heights.
marybretbrad, what kind of evidence are you looking for? i mean, seriously, economics is a really easy way of quantifying various problems (heck, our government even assigns dollar values to soldiers' lives to determine the costs of war)...
with that said, there's a really concise chart here [infoplease.com]: of wage disparities broken down by very broad racial and gender categories. the existence of such marked disparities in earnings potential for people with different skin colors or body parts is one bit of evidence of institutionalized racism in this country.
yet another is, as another reader pointed out above, the very stark disparities in meting out of criminal justice in this country. this gets even more visible if one looks at how these numbers break down from arrest to conviction to prison time. while this is years old, this study [hrw.org] outlines u.s. criminal justice biases in very sharp detail.
perhaps more evidence is required, but it is most certainly out there and probably doesn't belong here.
darla, while i wish i could agree with you, the popular discourse surrounding the viability of a black president in the u.s. (there have been plenty worldwide) or of a woman president in the u.s. (likewise) tells a different story. that sentencing disparities are only now being dealt with in regards to crack and powder cocaine supports that narrative...
as does the continued segregation of neighborhoods, education, etc. all around this country (why is it that, in nyc, kids are bussed all the way from washington heights to chinatown only to be placed in classrooms with other kids who look just like them? is that really what brown v. board of ed. was all about?)
while, in truth, race does not exist, but as a theoretical construct, it is a construct which has a very tangible bearing on the physical realities of millions... even billions... of people, every day. if one is truly concerned about that universal soul, it only makes sense to address the very real problems affecting the vessels for those souls.
and, as evidenced in these comments, as elsewhere, it is very difficult for a white woman to understand and appropriately address the unique problems facing an arab woman or that arab woman to address the issues facing a black man or that black man, the issues facing a latino man - and so on.
and, until we become more capable of truly listening to one another without casting assertions such as "I don't see any evidence ... of racism and sexism" around lightly, I don't think it's possible for the sort of deep universal unification which is necessary for a really transcendent politics. similarly, i don't think folks born with silver spoons in their mouths rightly understand what poverty means. so, let's keep that universal goal in mind and do everything we can to attain it... including not silencing the voices of those who don't have quite as much privilege.
peace and blessings, puck
btw, what's the story with the unqualified capping on samhita's educational credentials? having a hard time really refuting what she has to say, so y'all gotta resort to ad hominem attacks? really.
Posted by puckalish at 03/07/2008 @ 4:09pm
I think her education is completely irrelevant. And for that matter, it is downright cowardly for anyone to attack her bio if your own damn bio isn't linked on your comment for the world to see. After all, if she's going to be attacked personally for her thoughts on the matter, why the heck shouldn't we be attacked for ours?
It's also pretty easy to say that structural inequality does not exist when we have yet to define what structural equality even looks like. And if you think we're living in it, leave your own neighborhood for a change. Follow me: if we are going to continue arguing over what is unequal and what is not unequal, it's a perpetual race to the bottom. "What is not unequal" is not that same as "what is equal."
Why battle oppressions? We need to firmly identify that strategy as a manifestation of conservative-produced culture wars meant to create conversations among [presumably] progressive minds that go nowhere.
Writing like this is completely necessary in a mainstream media that offers no analysis of its own commentary. To respond to one poster; unfortunately yes, there are people out there who take Maureen Dowd seriously.
Posted by PeterT at 03/07/2008 @ 4:11pm
just because criminalization finds higher numbers among people who have had more sun over tens of thousands of years means NOTHING to me, puckalish. why should i feel guilty or concerned about this? what can i actually do about it?
now, if you wanna talk about poverty, despite skin color, i'm all ears.
Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2008 @ 4:18pm
what motivated the takeover of non-white peopels by white peoples the last 500 years?
can anyone address this question PRIOR to reducing high theory to questions of race/gender/ethnicity?
Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2008 @ 4:25pm
critical theory is really at an impasse on identity politics, at least since deleuze.
Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2008 @ 4:33pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/07/2008 @ 1:12pm
I'm just saying the institutional structures that supported racism and sexism are gone.
What do you call the gender pay gap, if not a structural problem?
Try this quote:
The pay gap between female and male college graduates cannot be fully accounted for by factors known to affect wages, such as experience (including work hours), training, education, and personal characteristics. Gender pay discrimination can be overt or it can be subtle. It is difficult to document because someone's gender is usually easily identified by name, voice, or appearance. The only way to discover discrimination is to eliminate the other possible explanations. In this analysis the portion of the pay gap that remains unexplained after all other factors are taken into account is 5 percent one year after graduation and 12 percent 10 years after graduation. These unexplained gaps are evidence of discrimination, which remains a serious problem for women in the work force.
Many of the factors controlled for are also influenced by systemic preference for males - reflect on who decides to care for children and impact on experience, for instance - but even when masked behind "experience" in general, you are looking at a statistically significant difference. Your claim, therefore, isn't supported by the facts.
I could do the same thing for race, but it is a trivial Google search. Feel free to make the effort to inform yourself.
http://www.aauw.org/research/upload/ExecSummary_PayGap.pdf
Posted by srjenkins at 03/07/2008 @ 4:37pm
Arguing over statistics and whether they reflect bias or just reality is also a losing battle. Very, chicken vs. egg.
Oh and very clever of you to ask that last question, but I don't think anyone can address 500 year old motivation. To deny that a legacy exists is just plain ignorant though.
Posted by PeterT at 03/07/2008 @ 4:37pm
Can anyone tell me how having a master's degree has anything to do with this discussion - other that to provide another example of the typical terrible arguments of people that identify as right leaning on this forum?
Posted by srjenkins at 03/07/2008 @ 4:38pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/07/2008 @ 2:12pm
No doubt. MBB should try a John Griffin's Black Like Me experiment. Or these days, perhaps a little time spent trying to be like Cat Stevens might open his eyes a bit.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/07/2008 @ 4:49pm
These unexplained gaps are evidence of discrimination, which remains a serious problem for women in the work force
if there is such a thing as "minority," then there is such a thing as difference. if there is difference, then there is unequal pay. that's how the market works.
Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2008 @ 4:53pm
Can anyone tell me how having a master's degree has anything to do with this discussion - other that to provide another example of the typical terrible arguments of people that identify as right leaning on this forum?
you should read the clarifications before commenting on the matter.
Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2008 @ 4:55pm
why are all human motivations reduced to antipathy towards the Other? if the crime is higher in the black part of the city where i live, is this because of racism? if so, can someone please explain?
Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2008 @ 5:12pm
To everyone who commented
Her education has nothing to do with her post as if that isn't obvious already...someone else made a comment about her education level so I thought I would look it up. I thought it was kinda dumb for her to state "I have a master's degree, except that I don't actually have a master's degree".
But if it makes everyone feel better...at least she's hot.
Posted by usc1 at 03/07/2008 @ 5:52pm
Can I grab a torch and burn down all the strawmen? Please?
Posted by yutsano at 03/07/2008 @ 5:57pm
...the pay gap that remains unexplained after all other factors are taken into account is 5 percent one year after graduation and 12 percent 10 years after graduation. These unexplained gaps are evidence of discrimination,...
Posted by SRJENKINS 03/07/2008 @ 4:37pm
Maybe the answer is so simple, no one looks for it! More women are college graduates....greater supply, lower `price'! Sure, straight out of school, through campus recruiting or whatnot, all employers have the same starting salaries (in the same co.) in a formal `recruiting season'....but then, overall supply/demand exerts itself.
Considering women makes up 41~52% of all population, and much higher than that in terms of college graduates, 5% to 12% less pay do NOT sound unreasonable to me.
Another thing, we both have professional wives....and I know my wife takes off, on company time, for medical or misc. reasons far more than I ever did when I was in the corp. world. Maybe it's sexism that women are just informally `permitted' to do so while for a guy, it JUST DON'T LOOK SO GOOD! Another word, the guys work longer, on average!
Posted by Happy at 03/07/2008 @ 6:05pm
people who have had more sun over tens of thousands of years means NOTHING to me, puckalish.
The very idea of genes getting ten thousand years of sun holds about the same amount of meaning for me.
Posted by habiba at 03/07/2008 @ 6:06pm
Correction:
Considering women makes up 51~52% of all population...
Posted by Happy at 03/07/2008 @ 6:07pm
I'm 35, BTW. ;)
Posted by habiba at 03/07/2008 @ 6:08pm
zero is correct.
and as for this comment:
The very idea of genes getting ten thousand years of sun holds about the same amount of meaning for me
well, what can you (a white person, i suspect) do to change that fact that you have less pigmentation than i (a black person)? if we affirm levels of pigmentation as an indicator of a certain type of person, aren't we re-affirming those aspects of authoritarianism and cultural dominance which identity politics purportedly has been fighting against?
Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2008 @ 7:11pm
for instance, if liberal universities seek out types of minorities, broken down by ethnicity and race and class and sex, aren't these universities profiling their applicants, and discriminating against white men (who are obviously the dominant type)?
Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2008 @ 7:14pm
DARLADOON -- Trying to argue that racism/sexism exists though is sort of like making the case that the holocuast really happened. It's too self-evident to be denied and anyone like you denying it is so obviously off-base to most people regardless of politicla leaning that it's not impt to rebut.
MASK -- Thank you for your logic--How can one take credit for something they're admiting they don't have. It's called humor USC. You might not find it funny but try to give it an honest reading.
MARY -- Lemme put aside the Leninist agit-prop for a minute to chatise you for being so willfully ignorant. (Though SRJENKINS has already done the task.) This is a fact of sexism: women are paid less on average for the same work, in many fields, than men. This isn't opinion. It's fact--the "evidence" you have such a hard time finding.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 03/07/2008 @ 7:28pm
It's too self-evident to be denied
i'll leave aside your attempt at emotional blackmail by invoking the holocaust to make your argument, but i digress......i am not denying the existence of racism, i'm just questioning what it means.
if race and sex are things which you feel are determinate, fixed, static, etc, then you must also concede the profound differences that exist between the races and the sexes.
for instance, take the typical masculine stereotypes: aggressive, dominant, etc. well, men are so aggressive and dominant that they pay themselves more, and run the government. and run most of the countries of the world.
and women? well, we take care of the kids, do the cooking, cleaning, and make babies. whatever.
peter, if you want to invoke the reality of the holocaust, i will invoke the reality of the sexes.
Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2008 @ 7:54pm
do decent people (which, i assume, we all are) actually continue to be intentionally racist? or is there some other abhorrent mechanism out there which pits races/sexes/genders against each other?
and why isn't class the primary issue?
Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2008 @ 7:56pm
Posted by DARLADOON 03/07/2008 @ 4:53pm
Counter-example: There is a difference between having attached ear lobes and detached earlobes. But is there a pay difference?
In other words, there are differences that are subject to discrimination, and there are those that are not. I leave you to figure out why the logic of your argument is bad - and fix it.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/07/2008 @ 6:10pm
You argument assumes that economic considerations are the only considerations - which is actually assuming the question in any racism discussion. Speaking of shallow thinking - and bad logic.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/07/2008 @ 6:19pm
Being emotionally impacted by racism is different from having fewer opportunities due to it. Again, shallow thinking.
Posted by DARLADOON 03/07/2008 @ 7:11pm
Show my the college or university that has a student population that mirrors the demographics of the communities they service. If a national university like Harvard, then that would be national and include class. Your argument might work in those few universities that can say they accomplish this - otherwise it is another case in bad logic.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/07/2008 @ 8:38pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/07/2008 @ 8:24pm
I'll give you anedotal counterexamples. Congress does not reflect the sexual, racial, cultural, and other aspects of the demographics they represent. If that is true, then there are systemic problems that put certain groups more prominent than others.
We could also make the obvious counter-point that a black man or a woman has never been elected to the office of President - proviing anecdotal evidence that such systemic problems are still in place.
Care to come again?
Posted by srjenkins at 03/07/2008 @ 8:45pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/07/2008 @ 8:28pm
I'd also love your parsing of ethnocentrism and racism into different categories where one is solved and the other isn't. Possibly the worst argument offered out of the many on this thread.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/07/2008 @ 8:46pm
It's a cultural preference for crack vs. poweder, not race
sorry, it's an economic necessity, not a cultural preference.
Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2008 @ 8:54pm
We could also make the obvious counter-point that a black man or a woman has never been elected to the office of President - proviing anecdotal evidence that such systemic problems are still in place.
Care to come again?
Posted by SRJENKINS 03/07/2008 @ 8:45pm
Since your into statistics.... More white male Presidential candidates have lost than candidates of ALL other racial/sexual make-up combined.
Posted by Sliver at 03/07/2008 @ 9:03pm
mary,
i think liberty answered your question. he has personal, anecdotal evidence to support the claim that racism still exists. your statistics, although valid, do not compete with his situation.
how do you respond?
Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2008 @ 10:26pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/07/2008 @ 9:04pm
I was unaware that governing people is performed better by people with higher IQs or those that scored higher on their SATs. Have any evidence for that? I've never once seen an elected official offer that up as a reason to elect them to office.
I also notice how you have a hard time understanding social factors and physical ones.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/07/2008 @ 10:06pm
People probably have more important things to do on Friday night MBB. I know I do.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/07/2008 @ 10:09pm
The fact that it is less, doesn't really help your argument that it isn't systematic. You still don't have a valid argument.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/07/2008 @ 10:32pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/07/2008 @ 10:09pm
Oh, and my wife is a woman of color too. Cheers.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/07/2008 @ 10:33pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/07/2008 @ 8:28pm | ignore this person
the turban is for Sikhs, not muslims.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/07/2008 @ 11:11pm
I'm just saying the institutional structures that supported racism and sexism are gone.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/07/2008 @ 1:12pm | ignore this person
no they're not. check school funding of black schools vs white schools, to name just one instance. also women still are not paid the same for same work. when 50% of the CEOs are women we'll talk again.
of course YOU can't see it, you're blind.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/07/2008 @ 11:15pm
The 100 fastest time in the 100 meter dash are held by blacks. Is that racism?
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/07/2008 @ 8:58pm | ignore this person
this is a not true. who hit the 10 second 100 meters mark? a white man, named Armin Harry, wait for it, a German.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/07/2008 @ 11:23pm
no they're not. check school funding of black schools vs white schools, to name just one instance
there are no such things as "black schools" and "white schools". public schools are mixed race; private schools are mostly white. but private schools are funded by the people who attend them. public schools are funded by every taxpayer.
if black people want to pool their resources together, and start a private school, they can do so. nothing is preventing black people from doing that.
Posted by darladoon at 03/07/2008 @ 11:29pm
see Mary, you can't just make this shit up. not while the Emile is around.hahahahha.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/07/2008 @ 11:34pm
Posted by DARLADOON 03/07/2008 @ 11:29pm | ignore this person
cut the crap Darla. schools in Harlem are black schools. schools in Bed sty are black schools. in this country race and class are intertwined. I'll give you that. but check out Oakland, check out Newark.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/07/2008 @ 11:36pm
I would be eating a ham and bacon sandwich,
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/07/2008 @ 8:28pm
good-bye, heart.
(;+] hope not. be safe.)
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/08/2008 @ 02:13am
So there are important differences from Congress and the US population.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/07/2008 @ 9:04pm
so, why the fork don't they seem to have any idea what's going on?
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/08/2008 @ 02:17am
When and where did this occur? Was it in institutionally racist Nazi Germany? In present-day America, where I claim institutional rasicm is gone, how many white are on the US Track and field team in the 100 meter dash? Remember, whites outnumber blacks in the US 4 to 1.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/08/2008 @ 08:44am | ignore this person
you are an ignorant ass. if you're going to raise the issue of the 100 meter record holders you should at least have a rudimentary knowledge of the subject.
for your information the 10 sec record, which like the four minute mile was a landmark was set by Armin Harry in 1960.
the connection you are after in regards to racism has eluded your not very prodigious brain. the NBA used to be a white league. blacks were relegated to he Harlem Globetrotters. baseball was white until Jackie Robinson.
today the NBA is international, the reigning MVP is a guy from Würzburg, and the next best white player is from Argentina.
all of this proves very little.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/08/2008 @ 09:48am
when a state spends twice and three times as much to educate a suburban child, read white, than an inner city , read black, child, that is institutional racism.
it is true we have moved far beyond the color barrier but it is premature to declare victory.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/08/2008 @ 10:57am
when a state spends twice and three times as much to educate a suburban child, read white, than an inner city , read black, child, that is institutional racism.
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/08/2008 @ 10:57am
Any proof of this, any state?
Posted by Happy at 03/08/2008 @ 12:29pm
one more on track and field. in 1936 at the Olympics in Berlin, Jesse Owens won four golds, competing against a field of white runners. back at home Jim Crow was still in full sway, blacks were still being lynched in great numbers. oh and the Us would not let their jewish runner compete.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/08/2008 @ 1:06pm
A person's maximum potential is dictated by his genetics.
this has by no means been accepted by the scientific community. it's also more than just a bit racist.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/08/2008 @ 1:08pm
today the NBA is international, the reigning MVP is a guy from Würzburg, and the next best white player is from Argentina.
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/08/2008 @ 09:48am
but the smartest player is canadian.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/08/2008 @ 1:12pm
and won MVP twice I believe. whether the GM is smart, remains to be seen. that Shaq trade...
Posted by emile duBois at 03/08/2008 @ 1:31pm
this should go over big in Canada
http://www.cruzincooler.com/
Posted by emile duBois at 03/08/2008 @ 1:36pm
you are far too simplistic and just don't have the intellectual equipment to make a contribution to the old nature vs nurture debate.
and you were proven wrong on your sprinter assertion.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/08/2008 @ 2:12pm
Marybretbrad - Clearly you don't understand statistics, if you assume that you can just throw the numbers out by themselves to support your argument. Statistics are dependent on context, and - believe it or not - results have causes. And btw - cells mutate more quickly in acidic environments because the acid *causes* mutation.
Dardaloon - Dropping names of influential thinkers does not, by itself, support any point you might be trying to make.
I'd say I agree with PUCK's comment, but my opinion is probably not valid, as I haven't typed up my MA thesis, yet.
Posted by Deadra at 03/08/2008 @ 3:01pm
Sadness and melodies.
Usually, when the sound of a pine-wood touches a care and a beautiful darkness, I hear a picture and a fallen desire, and here, in my childhood, a flower escapes...
Francesco Sinibaldi
Posted by Sinibaldi at 03/08/2008 @ 3:07pm
Mary -
George Washington John Adams Thomas Jefferson James Madison [...] George W. Bush
Using Wikipedia and Google image search I was able to confirm that all of these men were/are white. Are you going to argue that this is just coincidence?
Posted by Deadra at 03/08/2008 @ 3:26pm
Mary -
You're forgetting some variables in your oh so complex math. Again...C-O-N-T-E-X-T...look it up...
Posted by Deadra at 03/08/2008 @ 3:34pm
So what you're saying is that since it's not apartheid, it's not racism?
I also note that you completely dropped the sexism part of the discussion.
Posted by Deadra at 03/08/2008 @ 3:38pm
The 100 fastest time in the 100 meter dash are held by blacks. Is that racism?
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/07/2008 @ 8:58pm | ignore this person
let's try that again. you did not say "today". if you were to look it up, whatta concept look it up, you will find that this is not so.
duh indeed. a box of rocks masquerading as an intellect.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/08/2008 @ 3:43pm
Darin,
You can be a professor and I'd sign up for your class....nothing like having somebody who know theories and how they work in the real world....something many life-tenure faculties (of today) have lost sight of!
California just affirmed some ridiculous ruling of the 1950s' that parents can't home school kids if NOT certified....as if certified teachers of our great public schools have done such wonderful jobs! School choice & Charter schools, are the next best thing (to home schooling)!
What is your `theory' on the fact the 9/11 19 are all Arabs? Institutional, as the Libs will claim, or primarily genetics--ie born Muslims?
Posted by Happy at 03/08/2008 @ 4:09pm
MARY -
Okay...here's what I mean by context: Running is a comparatively cheap sport, that makes it more accessible than, say, sailing or skiing (100% of WorldCup skiers are white - I'm sure you'd argue that this is due to biological reasons...). Following on from there, there are social circumstances where sport is an attractive (sometimes the only) way to improve your situation . (do sports scholarships sound familiar? or sponsorship deals?) And then, there comes a point where the choice of sports becomes somewhat self-perpetuating - people are more likely to choose a path if they can see role-models they can identify with.
Your "math" assumes equal starting points and equal conditions throughout, which is just so far removed from reality that I refuse to go into it.
Posted by Deadra at 03/08/2008 @ 4:15pm
How does what happened in 1960 have any bearing on whether there is institutional rasicm in the US today?
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/08/2008 @ 4:02pm | ignore this person
yes, how does the fact that 100m sprinters are black have any bearing on whether there is....
Posted by emile duBois at 03/08/2008 @ 4:32pm
hoisted on your own petard.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/08/2008 @ 4:33pm
actually the story of the white sprinter IS relevant. if it was all genes, the record holders should ALWAYS have been black.
let's try again. all blacks got rhythm. some of the best dancers have been black, see Bojangles. too bad it's by no means true.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/08/2008 @ 4:48pm
Exactly Emile...Nureyev was the blackest man I ever saw [/sarcasm]
Posted by Deadra at 03/08/2008 @ 4:57pm
Posted by DEADRA 03/08/2008 @ 4:57pm | ignore this person
good points you made.
but have you ever seen Desmond Richardson or Bill T Jones dance?
Posted by emile duBois at 03/08/2008 @ 5:18pm
Mary -
I'm not talking about genetics (or IQs). I'm talking about whether or not you have the chance to go to the good school in town. Whether you'll have the chance to finish highschool. Whether or not your parents will give you the belt whenever you 'forget your place'. Whether people have the opportunity to go to college. Whether that college is a community college in Downtown Middle-of-Nowhere or an Ivy-League school. Whether you'd be the fifth generation of your family to attend that school, whether you'll be able to do your internship with one of dad's old pals.
What I'm talking about is a level playing field, rather than one that is uphill for some people, more or less flat for others, and slanted towards the goal for some others. You are stuffing your fingers in your ears, singing loudly, to deny the existence of privilege.
Posted by Deadra at 03/08/2008 @ 5:32pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/08/2008 @ 08:40am
Even if we assume causation between being smart and being elected - which our current President provides the perfect counter-example, it doesn't explain why so many smart people of color, women, non-Christians or what have you are not representing people in the very highest levels of government or in business.
To use your economics example, you could also argue that white people are more successful at making money - when you limit your geographic focus to the U.S. I think you cannot make an argument about whiteness and making more money without talking about racism. It's systematic priviledges that are often the bottleneck on potential.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/08/2008 @ 09:04am
A person's maximum potential is dictated by his genetics.
Watch Gattaca to understand the flaw behind this line of reasoning. I'm sorry. We aren't clockwork oranges and many other factors come into play such as environment, personality, and so forth that are not directly determined by genetics - even for elite athletes.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/08/2008 @ 3:24pm
The problem with this line is that you are assuming that there is a genetic difference between the cultural elite, and there isn't. Cultural elite means they rely on systems of priviledge - and there is a reason why Skull and Bones member George Bush is President and ran against another Skull and Bones member to get to his current administration that has nothing to do with his genetics. And frankly, this line of discussion borders on just being silly.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/08/2008 @ 5:48pm
Oh, and would you kindly make it clear to me in what way genetics and/or parenting of a job-seeker will explain how, in a job selection process with several equally qualified candidates, the panel are more likely to choose the candidate that is the most like them? (Note: Statistically speaking, that means white and male)
Posted by Deadra at 03/08/2008 @ 5:50pm
Thanks SRJenkins - I get carried away... Anyway, I'm signing off for the night.
Mary - have fun in your parallel reality!!
Posted by Deadra at 03/08/2008 @ 5:52pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/08/2008 @ 5:52pm
Let me ask you this: Is it instutional racism when the good school in town is in a white neighborhood, nine times out of ten?
Is it institutional racism, when you have to drop out of high school to help support your family - irrespective of your intelligence or potential?
Is it institutional racism that has poor kids - often kids of color - enrolling in the military to get the G.I. Bill so they can cover the costs of college?
I'll take a stab that the reason this is all transparent to you is because you didn't come from circumstances where you had to struggle with these issues. I suggest you might learn something by listening to those that did have to struggle to get to college, who had to settle for a public school, who wasn't mentored because you are a woman and have no business being a surgeon (you are just going to quit at some point to have babies anyway), etc. - despite their intelligence. That's institutionalized blocks.
And this fantasy that all money is just available to people on merit? Shit, anyone who has ever held down a job knows that promotions, particularly when you move to the level of C-level executives, has very little to do with merit. Much like everything else in life. How did you get to your age and still carry around this idea that being smart or deserving something means you'll get it? Yeah, wouldn't it be great if the world worked that way - but it is obvious, it doesn't. What you deserve rarely has anything to do with what you get...although perhaps that too is a blessing.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/08/2008 @ 6:13pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/08/2008 @ 5:57pm
Government can promote policies that achieve a desired result - like greater diversity in Congress filled by all the smart, capable people who actually know their constituents because they grew up like them and actually understand their perspective.
Not too hard, and it doesn't require a nanny - or a police - state to accomplish.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/08/2008 @ 6:17pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/08/2008 @ 6:00pm
The environment in the film is the logical conclusion of your line of argumentation. It's a thought experiment. Like Einstein's theories on relativity.
Anytime someone argues about something being fiction, I start thinking they don't have much imagination. Is there a test that measures that? Maybe we should hire people based on whether they score highly on that test or not, rather than the equally bogus IQ test.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/08/2008 @ 6:20pm
Let me ask you this: Is it instutional racism when the good school in town is in a white neighborhood, nine times out of ten?
Is it institutional racism, when you have to drop out of high school to help support your family - irrespective of your intelligence or potential?
Is it institutional racism that has poor kids - often kids of color - enrolling in the military to get the G.I. Bill so they can cover the costs of college?
no, no, and no.
Posted by darladoon at 03/08/2008 @ 6:28pm
that there are people with more skin pigmentation who happen to go to bad schools is a matter of pure chance. what can i possibly do about the fact that i have more skin pigmentation than white people?
is someone poor because their skin has more pigmentation?
Posted by darladoon at 03/08/2008 @ 6:30pm
when one says something is "racist," one is only invoking race into the matter. that is all.
Posted by darladoon at 03/08/2008 @ 8:18pm
Posted by DARLADOON 03/08/2008 @ 6:30pm
Nine times out of ten, ain't chance, Darladoon. And unfortunately, poverty is the logical conclusion of racism. Just as ignorance is the product of bad schools and poor/no education (although there are plenty of ignorant "educated" people, as they boards stand in daily testament).
You can't talk about the problems of race without also bringing up the problems of class, patriarchy and other forms of systemic priviledge.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/08/2008 @ 8:44pm
Nine times out of ten, ain't chance, Darladoon
are you suggesting that white people deliberately create worse conditions for non-white people? if so, then you are, in fact, the racist, and not me, as i do not believe that race (or the pigmentation levels of one's skin) are a contributing factor in how public schools are funded.
You can't talk about the problems of race without also bringing up the problems of class, patriarchy and other forms of systemic priviledge
i don't believe there are any problems of race, only class. at various moments in our planet's history, there have been many non-white peoples in power. there have even been moments when women were in power.
do you have anything to say about poorly funded educational institutions during the hellenic era on the island of crete? if so, i would love to hear it.
last, you can provide as much evidence as you want that black people continue to suffer, but it will be extremely difficult for you to prove that this is the effect of ostensibly racist (i.e. harmful towards non-white peoples, as opposed to white peoples) policies, institutions, goverments, etc.
the reason i say, "as opposed to non-white peoples," is because you have set up a bifuraction between white/non-white, with the former causing the problems.
you see, i don't believe that white people cause the suffering of non-white people, at least in the western world. white people may fear non-white people, rationally (living near a ghetto or housing project) or irrationally (succumbing to those fears which have no basis in reality), but they don't go out of their way to make sure that non-white peoples have it worse than they do.
racism and sexism are both words that many liberals (myself included) casually throw around in order to rally around a cause. well, i hate to say it, but you don't see to many rallies or protests aimed at stoking up anti-racist bigotry or hatred. they tend to draw (maybe) 100 people, at most. the california immigration rallies were a tremendous exception, but that involved something wholly different, i feel.
my final point is: to say something (Racism or Sexism) exists, is not an argument in and of itself. you need to take it one step further, and provided causal evidence that fear of the Other is the primary motivating factor behind attempts to limit or harm minorities' abilities to not only survive, but excel in life.
Posted by darladoon at 03/08/2008 @ 10:52pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/08/2008 @ 10:47pm
One thing I know for certain is you don't have any information as to what level of involvement I have had with c-level executives. You are foolish to make any assertion regarding it and are even more so to assert I am unable to comprehend what they bring to the table.
My comments are based on my experience doing research for a professional services company working with c-level and senior executives. I know them not only as people - but I know the problems they wrestle with and the questions they ask about them. I'm not an academic. So, you can stow your "I know more than thou" asshatry.
Posted by DARLADOON 03/08/2008 @ 10:52pm
Actually, my argument is that there is systemic problems. You folks are the one's arguing that racism is all individual. There is a difference between how inner city schools get funded and suburbs - and to pretend race isn't a factor? Well, you go ahead with that, living in your suburb and feeling you're not part of the problem.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/08/2008 @ 10:52pm
I'm not concerned about tears. I'm concerned about diversity - which we don't have in the top levels of government, business or in our professions, and the reason why don't have them is because of systemic problems that discriminate based on race, gender and class.
As an side note, I find it interesting how you pretend to offer logical arguments, and then make these lame attempts to try to get people to bait on bullshit positions that look absurd to further your agenda.
Your whole biology is destiny argument is bullshit. Your argument that people in power are biologically superior has been used before by people supporting positions like slavery. But to use it based on cultural positions, defies comment.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/08/2008 @ 11:49pm
thanks srjenkins. i, for one, greatly appreciate your efforts here.
Posted by loveloki at 03/09/2008 @ 12:09am
"are you suggesting that white people deliberately create worse conditions for non-white people? if so, then you are, in fact, the racist, and not me, as i do not believe that race (or the pigmentation levels of one's skin) are a contributing factor in how public schools are funded."
First of all, I am not sure that saying racism exists and is perpetuated by the majority is racists. Naively believing that racism or sexist do not exist or do not influence funding/pay/etc does not change the fact that white schools are consistently better funded than inner city schools, to which socioeconomic status clearly does complicate the issue. But then why is it that certain groups are consistently kept in poverty? If we cannot move more than one economic status from our family, those groups have been kept in poverty because of low paying jobs and lack of education that stemmed from institutional racism. Clearly the problem still exists and is still manifesting problems.
Sexist language continues to exclude women from certain professional or educational opportunities. The persistent use of "he" as the default pronoun only illustrates the marginalization of women by men through written and spoken language, MARYBRETBRAD. People argue that we all know that "he" or "man" means everyone, but really? Clearly, people have proven that men and women are different, so to only refer to one within a text illustrates that this one is more important and worthier of attention. It points to the years of male dominated rhetoric; women were excluded then and women continue to be excluded now.
Posted by jln04a at 03/09/2008 @ 01:01am
I'm concerned about diversity - which we don't have in the top levels of government, business or in our professions, and the reason why don't have them is because of systemic problems that discriminate based on race, gender and class
it is ILLEGAL to discriminate based on race, gender and sexual orientation. so, i have no idea where you are going with this one. if discrimination continues, in spite of the law, then you cannot make the argument that public and private institutions continue to legally discriminate based upon race, gender or sexual orientation.
Naively believing that racism or sexist do not exist or do not influence funding/pay/etc does not change the fact that white schools are consistently better funded than inner city schools, to which socioeconomic status clearly does complicate the issue
if inner city schools (which whites attend as well) are under-funded, is this necessarily an indicator of racism? or is this an indicator of the extraordinary stupidity of american capitalism? in most western countries, all schools, from K-University, are paid for by the State. if americans started paying for all the education of all of its citizens, then where does your argument stand? does it have any ground to stand on whatsoever? if you really, truly believe that blacks are left out in the cold in this country, then i suggest you vote for someone like nader (who really does believe in public education, health care, etc.).
if cities are underfunding black schools, where drop rates are severely high, then i suppose that the investors of said schools do not see a return on their investment (sad as it may seem). these schools are no profitable. so, how do we fix this problem? like i said, goto any other european nation. they eliminate the capitalistic equation altogether. paid for by the State.
another thing: someone brought up why so many blacks are in prison. well, why is the high school drop out rate for blacks so high? why do so many young, black males see more of a future in selling drugs? you tell me. seems like a problem of poverty, not race.
Posted by darladoon at 03/09/2008 @ 01:29am
"mush mean"...........
"I may no longer be true."............
MBB
hmmmmm.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/09/2008 @ 01:49am
Posted by HAPPY 03/08/2008 @ 4:09pm
religion is encoded in dna?????
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/09/2008 @ 01:51am
"if cities are underfunding black schools, where drop rates are severely high, then i suppose that the investors of said schools do not see a return on their investment (sad as it may seem). these schools are no profitable. so, how do we fix this problem? like i said, goto any other european nation. they eliminate the capitalistic equation altogether. paid for by the State."
Perhaps there is no return as you say because there are no expectations. There is a saying within education: "Students will rise to the bar set." If you expect nothing out of students, there will be more drop outs and most students who fail. But if you expect high grades, then students will achieve more.
Why do they see a future selling drugs? Because that is what society gives them. They aren't told that they can be CEOs or lawyers or doctors. Their future lies in poverty and the cycle continues. Perhaps it isn't institutional racism, but there is a problem when African Americans face higher unemployment rates, lower income levels, and less access to education. As I said before, even if there is no institution racism now, America is experiencing the results of years of government sanctioned oppression. The lack of education and jobs has kept certain groups of people (race and sex included) out of jobs, neighborhoods and income groups.
I don't believe that "blacks are left out in the cold" completely. I believe that this so called American dream is more difficult for minorities and women because of acceptable forms of racism/sexism. The run-down schools, outdated textbooks, default masculine pronouns, and degrading language (i.e. bitch or slut or whore, which when applied to a man are often preceded by "man" or "male") are accepted and are often unquestioned. Few people hesitate to call Hillary Clinton a Bitch because she is powerful. And is Obama black enough? As long as gender and race are important factors, America will experience the effects of racism. Truly it doesn't matter if it is institutional as many understand it, because it is condoned by nearly every institution in America.
Posted by jln04a at 03/09/2008 @ 03:30am
MARY -
I asked you to bear in mind that statistics don't exist in a vacuum. How is that a non sequitur? I questioned your argument, so it must be beyond my comprehension? How condescending can you possibly be?
Also - what JLN04A and SRJENKINS said.
Posted by Deadra at 03/09/2008 @ 07:49am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/09/2008 @ 09:30am
It is unfair that between three equally capable people the male with white skin gets chosen much more frequently over the one with brown skin and the female candidate. While we may not be able to control how lions socially organize themselves, the weather or people's God given gifts, we certainly can do something about the system that chooses the white male - by virtue of his whiteness and his maleness - over others.
When I say racism and sexism I'm talking about society's laws and rules and how decisions are made.
Like Darlaloon in her @ 01:29am post (as well as some of her other posts), you are making the rather large assumption that making something illegal means it doesn't happen anymore. It's obviously false.
Example: The Civil Rights Act of 1875 stated that everyone was entitled to the same public accommodations. Yet, there were Jim Crow laws and inferior accomodations for blacks until the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To pretend that passing the law is enough, is exactly the problem in the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
You also keep making this statement about making life totally fair. My position is that it is better that leadership reflects the society that it leads. I believe that more diverse leadership leads to better representation of the population and better solutions. We don't have that. We can take measures to make this a reality, and it makes our society fairer in the process.
You clearly don't understand my position. You haven't even bothered to address the arguments I have made - such as this line:
Finally, the nature/nurture debate is partial bullshit because it presupposes the false dichotomy that the answer must be one or the other. In the US this year, there will be about 1 million births. No more than 1000 will have the genetic potential to be President. No more than 10,000 will have the genetic potential to lead a fortune 500 corporation. Nurture will chose the handful that "win".
The crux of my critique focuses on nurture, and how - among people with similiar talents - we still see that particular groups dominate. You don't even touch on this point, because your implicit assumption is that they dominate because the talents are dissimilar. I'm repeatedly questioned this assumption, and you are failing to defend it. Not only that, but your argument fails on it own terms.
Let's go with your numbers and your position that somehow being President is related to one's genetics (which is nonsense - but let's go with it for now). Even if you assume that somehow, white men are a greater proportion of this set, how do you explain that a woman and a black man haven't been nominated to run for President before? How do you explain the proportion of genetically gifted people that have brown skin or are female that are excluded from leadership positions, if not by systemic structures of racism and sexism - or at the very least continuing effects of them?
How do you explain that Congress is only 15% female? Maybe because it's Congress is filled with people with IQs in the 140 range? You see, the numbers don't match up and something happens between the genetic distribution, in your argument, and the result - which you state, "Nurture will chose the handful that 'win'."
The point that I, and others, are making is that "nurture" seems to be favoring being white and male to "win", as your phrase it. Neither of these qualities have anything to do with one's competence, and which makes it clear that - despite the beliefs of you, Darladoon, and others - that "nurture" isn't choosing the best qualified, "genetically gifted" (unless genetically gifted means being white and male), and so forth.
Further, you could find out for yourself. Try talking to any friends you have that are professionals that are a person of color and female. I know many female physicians, and there is a reason why they aren't chairman or in positions of leadership in medicine, because it's still an old boy's club. Logically, anecdotally - on every dimension it is an obvious problem. And then, I run across people like you that want to pretend that somehow these women aren't genetically gifted for leadership positions. Demonstrating not only the problem, but that fact that it isn't even recognized as a problem by the people perpetuating it.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/09/2008 @ 11:12am
DARLADOON 03/09/2008 @ 01:29am
...you cannot make the argument that public and private institutions continue to legally discriminate based upon race, gender or sexual orientation.
I'm not making any arguments around its legality. I'm saying it happens.
...if americans started paying for all the education of all of its citizens, then where does your argument stand?
We don't. Right now, we have locally funded public education. Those that can afford private schools, generally use them. Those that can afford moving to the suburbs with a good school district, generally do. Those that can't afford it, take what they can get. It's both racism and classism - and demonstrates that the two are frequently linked and making it hard to argue that it is a problem of poverty and not race.
...if you really, truly believe that blacks are left out in the cold in this country, then i suggest you vote for someone like nader (who really does believe in public education, health care, etc.).
I might just do that.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/09/2008 @ 11:25am
It's both racism and classism - and demonstrates that the two are frequently linked and making it hard to argue that it is a problem of poverty and not race
if some white people have to "take what they can get," then is it still "racist"? if so, then your argument that this is a non-white problem has shaky ground on which to stand.
you are making the rather large assumption that making something illegal means it doesn't happen anymore. It's obviously false
i never made the assumption that "it" doesn't happen anymore. i said it was illegal. there isn't much more a society can do to prevent "it" from happening than punishing those who engage in "it."
Why do they see a future selling drugs? Because that is what society gives them
if you are in school, and you drop out to sell drugs, then that is your choice. that is not society's choice, sorry. if you stay in school, and work hard, and get good grades, you will get into almost any state-level university of your choice (especially if you are black).
Posted by darladoon at 03/09/2008 @ 12:10pm
mr. rothberg claims that racism is so self-evident in this country that it cannot be denied.
if there are 'lesser' or 'marginal' peoples in life (A), then the treatment they receive by the dominant peoples is racist (B). "A" automatically leads to "B".
if A always and already equals B, then what is the point in always pointing it out? that's what you might call a tautology.
Posted by darladoon at 03/09/2008 @ 12:18pm
is this thing still working?
Posted by darladoon at 03/09/2008 @ 12:41pm
"The rule I learned is that when a singular pronoun is require and the sex isn't clear, the writer should use his (or her) own pronoun. So I'm trying to write better by using, 'A person should clean his plate.'"
That is interesting; I have never heard that, but I have studied gendered language in my Master's program. It is becoming more acceptable to use "their" when there is not a determiner ("a" or "the") before the noun. "Does everyone have their coat?" doesn't sound awkward whereas "The photographer has their camera" makes it seem as though the camera belongs to more than just the photographer.
If anything weakens your argument, it is the use of gendered language--yes, the default "he". Most style guides and writing manuals tell you that it is not acceptable to use "he" only, and while "he or she" sounds awkward, if you must express gender, it is preferable. Also you can write sentences that don't use gendered pronouns, which are stylistically better anyway. Of course you could use "one" which does sound a bit inflated: "A person must clean one's plate". Here is the thing with this sentence, gender is unimportant. It does not matter if the person is male or female, and by defaulting to one gender, (and perhaps you as a male get the 'worst of it') one group remains privileged.
Posted by jln04a at 03/09/2008 @ 1:14pm
That was supposed to be "must mean" and "It may no longer be true. Thank you.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/09/2008 @ 09:02am
i was just saying that your grammar karma is trying to prevent you from continuing certain arguments........
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/09/2008 @ 1:37pm
Posted by JLN04A 03/09/2008 @ 1:14pm
genderless pronouns:
heesh -- subject pronoun
shim -- object pronoun
hizzer -- possessive pronoun
hizzers -- possessive noun
shimself -- reflexive pronoun
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/09/2008 @ 1:41pm
Presidents and Congress are drawn from the very tails of the distrution. They are the smartest, most attractive, most competitive, most personable people in the population.
are you sure?
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/09/2008 @ 1:43pm
Even if we pass laws that ensure perfect racial and sex balance in Congress, our elected officials will never, ever be representative of the population.
but it would be closer than a whole bunch of white dudes...........
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/09/2008 @ 1:43pm
the conclustion is that the make up of Congress is not proof of sexism or racism.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/09/2008 @ 1:41pm
no, the make up of sexism and racism is the face of congress.
darin, i think you really need to go somewhere where they just don't like white people. you need to experience being made to feel inferior for no other reason than your skin color.
feelings and their effects on the psyche are unstatisticalable.........
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/09/2008 @ 1:47pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/09/2008 @ 1:41pm
I demonstrated how the scientifically observed fact that men have a higher standard deviation of intellegence will produce ten times as many male candidates for Congress as females (just based on IQ which isn't the only criterial, but one very important one.)
Think this through, and tell me what some of the flaws are in this argument is. Frosty provides one clue, among the many problems. Using your intelligence argument - flawed as it is - it would require Congress to have a average IQ above 140. Obviously, that's not the case. Science apparantly is only brought in when convenient.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/09/2008 @ 2:49pm
SRJ @ 11:12 am: To pretend that passing the law is enough,.....My position is that it is better that leadership reflects the society that it leads.......We can take measures to make this a reality, and it makes our society fairer in the process.
I've truly enjoyed reading your debates (DARLA too) and let's pretend I am a `student' among the audience raising a couple of quick question directed at SRJ's statement above!
Mr. SRJ, you say on one hand that "passing the law" is clearly not enough to further diminish racism & sexism, yet, you also say we "can take measures". My question is, what kind of "measure" do you have in mind that isn't based on passing laws?
My next question is on your assertion that a society's leadership should much more closely reflect the society. My question is, since our society, no different than most, at any and all time, have its share of children, criminals, athletes, retail workers, union members, shopkeepers, the infirm, the illegals, foreigners touring or on business, pedophiles, etc....it sure appears you are arguing that all the elements of our society needs to be reflected in our leadership. As a student, I don't think that's reality-based....I have always been told to strive to be the best I can be and model myself after someone I admire and is a leader and you don't seem to believe this is a good `model' for???
Posted by Happy at 03/09/2008 @ 3:02pm
My question is, what kind of "measure" do you have in mind that isn't based on passing laws?
Posted by HAPPY 03/09/2008 @ 3:02pm
ever been to school?
my son has painted chinese new year dragons, coloured menorahs, learned to pronounce diwali..........
i see no conspiracy to brainwash the kiddies.
far from it, it shows the folksters that being who i am is cool, and just as cool, is that you are you. (just don't be a dickhead.)
and i see the kids play. they don't give a toodly-doo about this "skin" stuff. sure, some go awry as their judgement is perpetually bombarded with prejudices carried through families and "tribes",
but on the whole,
i'd say that more and more kids just aren't buying into this nonsense that is racism........
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/09/2008 @ 3:23pm
the bigger the target, the more difficult the generalization........
the larger the populace, the less one person is able to reflect the values and etceteras of the people they are to lead.
and i can't finish this cause i'm stuck.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/09/2008 @ 3:46pm
I do what I can, but it is an uphill battle.
Oh, and I still stand by my original statment: although there are individual racists, institutions have dropped their unfair policies based on race.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/09/2008 @ 3:41pm
the tendency is now actually downhill, i feel.
sure there some (many) moments of uphillishness,
but it seems the fractal growth of non-racist thought is overtaking the perpetuation of stupidity.
(or maybe were hybridizing at an ever faster rate.)
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/09/2008 @ 3:50pm
have dropped their unfair policies based on race.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/09/2008 @ 3:41pm
some, not all.
downhillishly we go...........
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/09/2008 @ 3:51pm
Posted by HAPPY 03/09/2008 @ 3:02pm
Well, Happy. One way to look at it would be to use the organization of government as a proxy for understanding it. There are laws on the books, that are not enforced by the police. There are laws that are enforced by the police, that regularly get thrown out of court - which is partly the role trial by jury is supposed to serve. So we have at least two other components beyond the legislative when we are talking about government, executive enforcement and judicial.
You can take statistics from EOEE to illustrate the point about enforcement and how some can be done directly and some need to use the courts.
http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/518861.html
I'm personally less interested in government solutions. I think groups like the Democratic and Republican parties could seek out women and minority candidates. I don't think either party does a good job of looking for and supporting women or minorities.
I also think that Congress will be the last place we will see parity. You have to have the opportunity to go to college, earn your legal degree and get experience as a prosecuter, before you can get elected as your local state's attorney. Same goes for state and federal positions. This is something people need to recognize as a problem and solve for themselves - by helping out the poor, minorities and so forth get access to the opportunities that will open the doors to the experience that qualifies them for these positions.
And this is where I think both conservatives and liberals can find much ground for agreement. I remember reading your work in your local charter school, and I totally respect that as a move in the right direction - even if I'm not so sure about charter schools themselves.
In my local community, we had a number of candidates for local state's attorney, and despite the endorsement of the local Democratic leadership and incumbant of the number 2 white male of the office, voters went with a Hispanic woman that was just as qualified. Given the racial divisions in my community, it just reaffirms my faith that voters are a lot smarter than some people give them credit for. She was the best candidate, for many intangible reasons, but she won because she was qualified and could bridge gaps of race, gender, and so forth. Ten years ago, she wouldn't have had a prayer, and while it speaks volumes that she was able to win, I don't fool myself into thinking the problem has now been solved.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/09/2008 @ 3:07pm
The question is that out of all the women and blacks with college degrees, why aren't there more in Congress or in other leadership positions? Your answers is that it is biological. Your answer is wrong.
We are talking about racism and sexism - so we have representatives that understand the concerns of their constituiencies. Not packing Congress with people with the average rate of STD infection or whatever.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/09/2008 @ 4:14pm
the bigger the target, the more difficult the generalization........
the larger the populace, the less one person is able to reflect the values and etceteras of the people they are to lead.
and i can't finish this cause i'm stuck.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/09/2008 @ 3:46pm
As Gordon Gecko said: "To be stuck is GOOD!"
Let me help to UNGecko you:
the greater the diversity of people, the less one ethnic type is able to overwhelm the others....
the lengthier the peoples' life span, the more wisdom & respect we ought to accord the oldest amongst us (well, those not yet senile :~)....
the more `stuff' that people accumulates, the less able he/she can tell others to forgo `stuff'......
Posted by Happy at 03/09/2008 @ 4:43pm
As someone who has been pro-school choice for some time, and recently began working part-time for a major charter school organization, it is my responsibility to educate--as I did last night with some friends just last night who still confuse charter schools w/private schools--and to help ensure the integrity of this movement....the below article is truly disturbing.....Could Minnesota become the first quasi-Islamic state of the U.S.? In case some don't know, MN has already used taxpayer money to build foot-washing basins in community colleges for Muslim students.
Are taxpayers footing bill for Islamic school in Minnesota?
By KATHERINE KERSTEN, Star Tribune
Last update: March 9, 2008 - 10:20 AM
Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA) -- named for the Muslim general who conquered medieval Spain -- is a K-8 charter school in Inver Grove Heights. Its approximately 300 students are mostly the children of low-income Muslim immigrant families, many of them Somalis.
The school is in huge demand, with a waiting list of 1,500. Last fall, it opened a second campus in Blaine.
TIZA uses the language of culture rather than religion to describe its program in public documents.....
But the line between religion and culture is often blurry. There are strong indications that religion plays a central role at TIZA, which is a public school financed by Minnesota taxpayers. Under the U.S. and state constitutions, a public school can accommodate students' religious beliefs but cannot encourage or endorse religion.
TIZA raises troubling issues about taxpayer funding of schools that cross that line.
Asad Zaman, TIZA's principal, declined to allow me to visit the school or grant me an interview. He did not respond to e-mails seeking written replies.
TIZA's strong religious connections date from its founding in 2003. Its co-founders, Zaman and Hesham Hussein, were both imams, or Muslim religious leaders, as well as leaders of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota (MAS-MN).
....TIZA shares MAS-MN's headquarters building, along with a mosque.
MAS-MN came to Minnesotans' attention in 2006, when it issued a "fatwa," warning Muslim taxi drivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport that transporting passengers with alcohol in their baggage is a violation of Islamic law.
Journalists whom Zaman has permitted to visit TIZA have described the school's Islamic atmosphere and practices.
"A visitor might well mistake Tarek ibn Ziyad for an Islamic school," reported Minnesota Monthly in 2007. "Head scarves are voluntary, but virtually all the girls wear them." The school has a central carpeted prayer space, and "vaguely religious-sounding language" is used.
According to the Pioneer Press, TIZA's student body prays daily and the school's cafeteria serves halal food (permissible under Islamic law). During Ramadan, all students fast from dawn to dusk, according to a parent quoted in the article.
In fact, TIZA was originally envisioned as a private Islamic school.....
TIZA claims to be non-sectarian, as Minnesota law requires charters to be. But "after-school Islamic learning" takes place on weekdays in the same building under MAS-MN's auspices, according to the program for MAS-MN's 2007 convention. At that convention, a TIZA representative at the school's booth told me that students go directly to "Islamic studies" classes at 3:30, when TIZA's day ends. There, they learn "Qur'anic recitation, the Sunnah of the Prophet" and other religious subjects, he said....
Posted by Happy at 03/09/2008 @ 5:15pm
Posted by HAPPY 03/09/2008 @ 3:02pm
I realized I didn't answer your second question specifically. Congress has 535 members, so you don't have enough members to get a representative sample. Still, we can figure out what the percent of variability will be based on certain assumptions and maybe come up with a target range where we try to get qualified women to make up 40-60% of Congress and same through other relevant demographics - which means qualities that define significant portions of the population such as gender, race, ethnicity and so forth and not things like whether someone is a truck driver or has Down's syndrome or whatever.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/09/2008 @ 5:46pm
Still, we can figure out what the percent of variability will be based on certain assumptions and maybe come up with a target range where we try to get qualified....
Posted by SRJENKINS 03/09/2008 @ 5:46pm
Not to drag this out but I find this idea of yours, leadership to (truly) be reflective of our society, to be a fallacy. Leaders, of any kind, are supposed to be exceptional people....even Hitler, Stalin or Mao....capable of killing massive number of people for what they deem the `greater good', for their own kind of course.
My one big gripe of our Congress, and I have no solution other than what I detest, via law, is the huge imbalance between lawyers and non-lawyers. Most young folks with any interest in leadership, like those that began by running for Jr. High Student Council, just know that they HAVE TO study law to boost their chances. That is truly pathetic.....one major, major reason common sense has lost its importance in our society....we now must define every f*&king thing instead of using a preponderance of generally acceptable `sense'....all of these laws/regulations/etc. make less and less America and allow others (and I'm not worried about Europe) to close the gap much, much faster while we raise more and more lawyers.
Posted by Happy at 03/09/2008 @ 6:12pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/09/2008 @ 5:52pm
Actually, it would only require an awareness of the problem, leadership by the respective parties to look for diverse candidates, and people casting their votes.
Why does everything reduce to coercive government for conservatives? We don't need constitutional amendments and other unnecessary measures. It's there only so you can dismiss the issue rather than figure out how your party can address it. Fine by me, let the Democrats field those candidates, because as you so aptly pointed out, there are many factors people put into the balance when deciding who to vote for.
Posted by HAPPY 03/09/2008 @ 6:12pm
I disagree with you regarding leadership. While not everyone can do it, I don't think it is a particularly scarce human quality. Just to take one measure, people that score as ENTJs on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, which is sometimes called the Field Marshall, make up about 2% of the population. While 2% isn't a lot, it still leaves plenty of people across all demographics who have leadership personality characteristics.
As for your gripe about lawyers, you are preaching to the choir. I think our focus on law is an abomination, but I used it as my example because people that are interested in making law are often lawyers.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/09/2008 @ 6:44pm
While 2% isn't a lot, it still leaves plenty of people across all demographics who have leadership personality characteristics.
Posted by SRJENKINS 03/09/2008 @ 6:44pm
I assume you're NOT suggesting that the "2%" applies to all: cashiers at Safeway, sanitation `engineers' riding garbage trucks, baggage handlers at the airport, teachers, NFL players, bloggers here, reporters/writers, etc....and "have leadership personality characteristics" sufficient to inspire hundreds of thousands to millions of voters?
It's not hard, and there surely have been studies, to assume the 2% come overwhelmingly from parents who were in the top 1%~50%. Genetics! IF one believes in inherited predispositions at all.
Posted by Happy at 03/09/2008 @ 10:10pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/08/2008 @ 3:12pm
As you are probably aware it is a taboo, for those who are opposed to both sexism and racism, to affirm that there is any genetic difference between the ethnic groupings that make up the human family. That is a little harder to do with men and women than say blacks and whites.
There are those who suggest that blacks of West African heritage or more correctly a subset of that group are faster than any subset of any other ethnic grouping because of the type of leg muscle structure they possess. One would imagine that that is quite a harmless exercise but the "thought police" as you have noticed here are quick to jump on a genetic difference argument.
It seems excessive but it doesn't take long to find out why. The now discredited IQ test (high IQ scores are not a good predictor of academic or job success) consistently showed that whites had higher IQ scores than blacks (incidentally Asians, such as Japanese, consistently achieved higher scores than whites). The suggestion was/is that blacks could thus be characterised as being superior to whites athletically but inferior intellectually. That was based on the assumption that both were dependent on genetic factors.
So your proposition about 100 (and 200) metre sprinters falls not on it's scientific merits but because it in a way encourages things like IQ testing which would, it is thought, give scientific credence to racism. So we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
(I don't think it is very hard to show that most men and women do have different intellectual and emotional responses, which translate into things like perseverance in problem solving etc and which probably are partly genetic in origin. Those of us who are married to a woman and are able to observe our male and female offspring are in a unique position to evaluate some of the reasons for the inequalities cited in the "sexism" portion of the debate).
Posted by harvey 79 at 03/09/2008 @ 10:20pm
Posted by HAPPY 03/09/2008 @ 10:10pm
Correct. I don't know of any data on it, but I would guess that most ENTJ's would self-select out of the kinds of occupations you identify, since they don't appeal to their strengths.
I'd also point out that Representatives represent less than a million - 300 million / 435 - and most are about as inspiring as a tall glass of lukewarm tap water.
I'll agree that genetics has an influence on personality and personality influences leadership, but that's a long road to cover to say genetics are important to leadership. I'm inclined to guess that they have a small part to play.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/09/2008 @ 11:47pm
The way the media and democrats play identity politics is the reason why imo they are gonna lose in the general election. Hilary and the media in particularly keep dividing groups and piting them against each other. She appeals to woman blatantly you should vote for me because I'm woman. The media consistently help by saying Lationos white females over sixty AA or young people are Hilary and Obama's bases. Its almost like they are saying to people vote this because this is where you belong and American's wont rebel because quite frankly I think in part because of the Bush Admininstration and 911 we've become a do as your told population. Fear has got us so frightened we dont fight or rebel anymore we just go into our little categories without questioning why we are there.
Carol
Posted by harriscrl3 at 03/10/2008 @ 09:24am
My only comment is that Darladoon is in complete denial. I'm sure his/her parents wanted to instill self-confidence and wanted her to know she could be whatever she wanted. That's understandable. My parents did the same but they always told me that I had to work three times as hard to get to the same place as a white man because not only was I black but also a woman. Ya'll can take that however ya'll want to. My parents didn't wan tme to be fooled. I've seen sexism on a personal level. The sad thing was that it was committed by a woman. I worked as a counselor for the YMCA's afterschool program. The supervisor for our site was a woman. She always gave the men the highest evaluation scores: 90 - 100 (100 was highest). The women always received 70-80 even though the men did not work any harder. Of course I was pissed and talked with the head of the program. Eventually I just said "fuck it" and got another job. I was young then and not as concerned about worker's rights as I am now. As far as racism, I've had the typical stuff: followed aroung through the store, not being able to browse, white students being astounded that I had actually finished the homework(I swear I wanted to smack the shit outta that white girl). No biggie for me. I was forewarned as a child and am not blinded by it. There will come a time when Darladoon will be faced with a situation and "genetics" will not be able to explain it away. I have to go now. I just can't believe the naivete and plain ignorance of some posters.
Posted by k330k at 03/10/2008 @ 11:55am
You've choosen a heavy topic. I applaud you for that. I think your argument needs to be tweeked slightly. You don't have sexism except for racism. Racism has developed in the western world out of white supremacy and the need for white genetic survival. Because the greatest threat to this goal is miscegenation, white men can't have white women copulating with black men. The gene pool would be corrupted. Therefore, white women, whose ideal mate is tall, DARK and handsome, must be oppressed by white men. Racism begets sexism. If you choose to define racism as a "feeling" what I am saying won't work. You must look at racism as a system of survival for those individuals that practice it. Thank you for this article.
Posted by Heru at 03/10/2008 @ 12:49pm
Racism has developed in the western world out of white supremacy and the need for white genetic survival. Because the greatest threat to this goal is miscegenation, white men can't have white women copulating with black men. The gene pool would be corrupted....
Posted by HERU 03/10/2008 @ 12:49pm
Utter rubbish! Go read up on the history of slavery....I just did on such a chapter in Thomas Sowell's book "Black Rednecks/White Liberals". You probably don't know but, Mr. Sowell is black!!
Slavery begun among the same races and spread. Any Christian or Jew know that. As specifically for blacks, the Arab Mid East imported far, far more African slaves than the Americas.....the difference is that the Arabs preferred the women for doemstic work while African men were castrated as eunichs--like the Chinese did with its slave men....hence, few progenies of the slaves.
Posted by Happy at 03/10/2008 @ 12:58pm
MBB (this is not just to you, but starts with a quote from you), regarding incarceration rates as they relate to actual crimes committed, arrests and convictions, you said: "On sentencing, again this is culture. If the law said black people cuaght[sic] with cocaine get twice the jail time of whites, that would be racism, buy you know it doesn't say that. It's a cultural preference for crack vs. poweder[sic], not race."
Really? So economics does not come into the preference for crack (cheaper) over cocaine (more expensive)? And the sentencing disparities are there because one culture deserves harsher punishment or is there another reason? Does crack actually have a demonstrably harsher impact on individuals and communities than powder cocaine? I challenge you to find proof that didn't come from local news. Call it cultural problems, call it what ever you will, but it the sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine disproportionately affect people of color in general and black people in particular. Perhaps, as these sentencing guidelines were being written, no one came out and said, "Hey, look, guys, here's an opportunity to put some of these field negroes in cells so they can build furniture and work in call centers for pennies on the dollar," but the outcome is much more important than the stated motivation.
In the decision of Plessy v. Ferguson, the majority opinion clearly claimed, "We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it."
Overtly, this is an argument that enforced segregation is not an expression of white supremacy and that "the colored race" are the only ones talking about racism. Now, you may agree with the majority opinion and, if you do, let me know, because that's batshit crazy and makes it completely worthless to continue discussion. If, on the other hand, you could see how this argument for racist segregation in a very clear and consistent application was clothed in a language which gave a nod to "equality," you can see that a law need not state that people of color should receive harsher sentencing if it can simply target similar activities which are more often practices by people of color.
Does this mean that the Louisiana law was really equitable or that it was not influenced by an ideology of racial superiority/ inferiority? The clothing of the Louisiana law in racially ambiguous language allowed for a racist regulation to pass the censors.
Can you see how hundred-fold sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine could be a very similar expression of a criminal policy targeted at people of color, masked in racially ambiguous language? Or, do you agree with the majority opinion from PvF?
Regardless, if you ever do take the time to read the article I cited (which I'm sure you can do with your exceptional intelligence to which you've alluded several times), you'll see that sentencing disparities happen on a more ground level. There are many reasons for this, but I'm not going to continue on this tack right now - read the article, it's much more cogent that I could be and does correct for a number of the mitigating factors you mentioned. But, then, you wouldn't know that because you clearly didn't read it.
Mind you, all of this is not to detract from the very real issues of personal responsibility (sentencing disparities don't usually affect people who are not involved in crime at all). However, those are two different - if related - issues. The point I'm making is that, for the same crimes, people of color face harsher consequences due to mediated and legislated biases inherent in the system (ie, institutional racism). This does not negate that, if one does not commit any crime, one's chances of being run through the system are drastically reduced.
Regarding IQ, I'd like to reference a really interesting article [wired.com] I read in Wired this month. It's specifically about autism, but references two standard "IQ" tests - the Wechsler Intelligence Scale and Raven's Progressive Matrices and mentions some of the criticism of the WIS, which may account for some of the variance in IQ scores. In other words, a testing system based on previously-learned vocabulary and idioms (one example on wikipedia is "What does 'kill two birds with one stone' mean?"), as well as information (again, wikipedia, "Who is the President of Russia?") has problems accurately representing the intelligence of people who were not prepared for the test. Testing for innate potential by quizzing an individual's general knowledge is problematic at best. When coupled with inadequate public schooling, cultural issues (folks who don't ever leave the neighborhood), etc., you can put a lot of doubt into the use of the WIS as a means for determining genetic predispositions toward intelligence, etc.
However, the WIS is still useful for comparing individuals in closed systems in order to determine how best to instruct, for sure. On the other hand, it's a gross misuse of IQ and the tests which determine it to apply them to broad generalizations of populations. Disparities in results between populations more likely outline errors in the testing methodologies than genetic predispositions to intelligence.
But, hey, if it proves your point that women are less exceptional than men, that black people are dumb or that asians really are a model minority, than go ahead with your bad self. Just know that, most likely, you're wrong.
Further, this does not devalue the worth of your work or anyone else's. However, it does demonstrate systematic biases which allow, particularly, for certain - otherwise normal - individuals to fail in some cases and succeed in others. The exceptional individual is capable of breaking these barriers (as my mother has done, despite hitting about six glass ceilings on the way up, having to quit her jobs and search out work where she had the potential to achieve that of which she is capable); however, the exceptional individual is most often able to break out of systematic contexts.
To bring to light certain institutional imbalances does not detract from anyone's achievement. What it does is to recognize that more people would be capable of such achievement if the scales were better balanced. In the end, the system defeats itself in that the intellectual and labor capital of our society, in particular, and the world, in general, is artificially reduced, depriving us of many incredible inventions, works of art, industrial efficiencies, etc., to which we would be privy if we were less fucked up, for lack of a better term.
In the short term, of course, balancing the scales might produce more competition at the upper levels of certain organizations (and I do know a few C-level execs, by the way, some of whom are very smart and some of whom clearly "fell up"), which might displace the privilege of certain individuals. I think this is a small price to pay for releasing more of our collective human potential.
Other people, though, might prefer to just leave things as they are because they've got theirs and if someone else is hard up, it's their own fault. I think opportunity has something to do with it, though. I had the opportunity to take a number of AP courses at my high school and did not have the opportunity to sell drugs when I was 9 and highly impressionable. I've worked with some children where their experiences have been quite the opposite.
My success, now, as a designer and programmer is very much due to my own motivation, hard work and long hours (I'm entirely self-taught, too... woo fucking hoo). However, to ignore that I had certain influences and opportunities that other individuals did not and that I did not have others that they did is dishonest. To recognize that I grew up in a (relatively) emotionally healthy family with motivated and supportive parents and that this plays a role in my current success is so common sense it hurts.
This isn't about quotas. This is about, first and foremost, recognizing that there is a problem and it doesn't all rest on the shoulders of the individual.
Oh, and Darla, I just want you to know that I don't think you should feel any particular way or need to do any particular thing. I really don't care about you. Maybe if we were to meet, it would be a different story, but, for now, all I care about is punching holes in your argument that racism and sexism are not modern problems. If you care to look into that or do something about it, that's great. If you feel guilty, well... that's stupid and counterproductive, but, in the immortal words of Bobby Brown, that's your prerogative.
Peace and blessings, puck
Posted by puckalish at 03/10/2008 @ 12:59pm
Racism has developed in the western world out of white supremacy and the need for white genetic survival.
Posted by HERU 03/10/2008 @ 12:49pm
but what about the long ears and the short ears?
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/10/2008 @ 1:53pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/10/2008 @ 10:07am
Because the Parties have no central authority to deny candiates access to the ballot. Your party places a lot of emphasis on diversity and this year you have Obama and Clinton. Problem solved, right? Well, you are still complaining, so logically, quotas are the only thing left.
It's not about denying people ballot access. It's about who gets institutional party support. And as crazy as this sounds, the race for U.S. President isn't the only race. That's why I keep talking about Congress because it represents the systemic problems you deny. Just like you keep making ridiculous comparisons like Trading Places - while I keep emphasizing qualified candidates.
If you have 50,000 applications to Harvard with 10,000 qualified applicants and 2,500 spots in the opening class, then where exactly is the problem when you choose those 2,500 so that they represent the diversity of the nation? There is a world of difference than just taking the unqualified C student because his father is an alumni or taking some homeless guy off the street, and choosing among equally qualified candidates.
Apply the same argument to Congress, judicial appointments, etc. It's not really even that hard - but your efforts to try to make it seem hard are interesting.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/10/2008 @ 1:55pm
If you have 50,000 applications to Harvard with 10,000 qualified applicants and 2,500 spots in the opening class, then where exactly is the problem when you choose those 2,500 so that they represent the diversity of the nation?
Posted by SRJENKINS 03/10/2008 @ 1:55pm
wouldn't a lottery be fairer?
better yet, build 3 more harvards.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/10/2008 @ 1:57pm
I swear I wanted to smack the shit outta that white girl
that'll get rid of "racism"!
Posted by darladoon at 03/10/2008 @ 2:19pm
Disparities in results between populations more likely outline errors in the testing methodologies than genetic predispositions to intelligence
if this were true, then why the desire to develop and expand cloning technologies? why do the powerful breed with the powerful, the beautiful with the beautiful, across many species of animal?
there must be some genetic predisposition in all organisms.
he will go bald.
he will have small, crooked teeth.
he will drink heavily.
he will get diabetes.
he will feel suicidal.
etc, etc
Posted by darladoon at 03/10/2008 @ 2:25pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/10/2008 @ 1:57pm
Let's imagine, as MBB might, that 80% of that 10,000 are white and male. A lottery system still seem fair to you under those circumstances? You think it would help create a diverse student population?
If the set of qualified candidates was more or less random, I would agree. If not, then I'm arguing for policies that promote diversity.
As for building three more Harvards, it is a fact that we have scarcity in this world, and I agree with MBB that merit should be an important factor in who has access to scarce resources, such as world class educational opportunities.
But then again, we also have to recognize that there isn't a lot of difference in merit once you get beyond a certain level of qualified candidates - and other values come into play. It's like talking about the difference between Wilt Chamberlain and Michael Jordon, Hank Aaron and Cal Ripkin, Arnold Palmer and Tiger Woods, etc. They are all great, but it is also a fact that you just can't take everyone. So, you need to have some additional criteria for choosing - and instead of selecting candidates based on whose daddy is an alumnus perhaps we should be choosing to spread the opportunity around a bit.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/10/2008 @ 2:43pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/10/2008 @ 2:21pm
The continued flaw in your argument is that you keep assuming that the candidates in question are not qualified, when I assume the opposite. Try assuming that is the case, as I do, and see how your argument looks.
As for unqualified candidates going to Harvard or anywhere else, I'm flat out against it, and we agree. But, this still leaves you explaining what the problems are with qualified candidates - which you can't do, which is why you keep going the unqualified route.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/10/2008 @ 2:48pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/10/2008 @ 12:55pm
Acutally I said, "fuck it" because I was in college and knew my career wasn't in child services. I can see your reasoning in regards to the evaluation but in this case you are wrong. I work hard, very hard and if I'm not carrying my weight, then I definitely deserve a low evaluation. Again that was not the case. Also my point was not that the YMCA was sexist was that I experienced sexism, period. While I do believe that institutional racism does still exist, it was not in those particular instances. Besides, I was commenting on Darladoon's ludicrous assumptions but thanks for the input!
Posted by k330k at 03/10/2008 @ 2:58pm
that'll get rid of "racism"!
Posted by DARLADOON 03/10/2008 @ 2:19pm
Exactly. That's why I didn't do it. It would have made me feel better but world have so counterproductive. By doing that I would have proven her point, in a way.
Posted by k330k at 03/10/2008 @ 3:03pm
Sorry, world = would
Posted by k330k at 03/10/2008 @ 3:04pm
MBB,
First off, I think I'm the only here who's referenced any studies. Next, my statement is based on studies, some of which I've read and some of which I've only been able to read summaries or abstracts of because I don't have access to pubmed or other journal libraries right now and don't want to drop 26$ a piece to read certain journal articles.
However, I have located a couple of reviews of studies, which are available for free on the internet. One such study is titled The Invalidity of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III [nzmera.orcon.net.nz] and speaks specifically to the issue at hand. The WAIS-III is the current version of the test, though another version is due for release this year, hopefully with some adjustments for issues addressed in the aforelinked (new word!) article. The WAIS-III is the most widely adopted test of what is commonly referred to as IQ.
Also, you can check out the following link (it's too long to embed, but it's worth pasting back together): http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:1LszeaRqPPAJ:www.icherney.com /Teaching/Courses/Intelligence/Presentations/Wechsler.ppt+wechsler+intel ligence+scale+criticism&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=us This Powerpoint (converted to HTML by Google) is based on several reviews of the WISC-III (referenced at the end of the PPT), which is the children's version of the test.
Mind you, it's a summation of reviews of the WISC-III, which was superceded by the WISC-IV in 2003, I believe, and there is not so much data available for review for free on the WISC-IV. However, the WISC-IV is fundamentally the same as the WISC-III, although, pertinent to this discussion, a big change in the WISC-IV is that it has attempted to address some of the cultural and ethical issues in previous versions and there are now multiple language versions of the test. However, the categories are still overbroad and scoring of the exam is still done by a person, who must make certain subjective judgment calls in execution of the test.
Further, these criticisms are geared at recognizing problems with the WIS as an assessment tool for delivering educational and related services to individuals. The WIS was never designed as a method for comparing populations and many of its problems stem from an inability to correctly compensate for different cultural and social backgrounds.
Beyond that, if you are interested in learning something, you can research Alfred Binet, whose work (Binet-Simon Scale, etc.) underpins IQ classifications (though he never used the term "IQ") and who said, "The scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured." He also developed this scale in order to deliver appropriate education to individuals, keeping in mind that intelligence is fluid and can be influenced by various environmental factors (such as education, for one).
Also, if you have the time, read The Mismeasure of Man by SJ Gould (who you probably think was a pinko commie traitor or something, but was actually a pretty well-reviewed researcher).
I really appreciate that you choose to chalk up my statements to "wishful thinking," while I referenced data and studies which document systemic problems and you pretend we live in a perfect world based on your cursory understanding of IQ and Olympic records.
By the way, you seem to realize that the differential between black and white subjects of IQ testing has been moving (from 1 SD not too long ago to 0.7 SD now). Do you think this is because of miscegenation or could it be due to environmental factors and testing errors? Maybe it's magic. Maybe it's Maybeline.
So, talk all the smack you want, but I've provided ample evidence, based on peer-reviewed journal articles, which is more than I can say for your tenuous argument that black people are dumb and fast. Seriously, I think the only desires at work here are my desire to realize a world a shade more rational and compassionate than when I came into it and your desire to reason away your privilege.
Thanks for asking, though.
Posted by puckalish at 03/10/2008 @ 3:05pm
Well, Ms. Samhita you've certainly hit a nerve. Good job!
Posted by k330k at 03/10/2008 @ 3:10pm
Oh, Darla, I'm not arguing that genetics don't exist, but that drawing conclusions about the intelligence of populations from data which is not designed for such use is flawed at best and decidedly political and racist at worst.
There are, most probably, even genetic indicators for inherent intellectual capacity. There is not, however, a suitable metric for measuring this and to use whatever weak correlations you can find to reinforce an assumption you already believe is dishonest and one of the weaker (if more common) apologies for racism around these days.
BTW, I believe someone argued these points before ... there was a book, by the title of The Bell Curve, which was received popularly and subsequently derided in almost every scientific forum to which it alluded. You could do yourself a service by reading some of the criticisms of this best-seller, including the Gould book mentioned above; A Reanalysis of The Bell Curve, by Sanders Korenman and Christopher Winship; Heritability Estimates Versus Large Environmental Effects: The IQ Paradox Resolved, by William Dickens and James Flynn; Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, published by the APA; Verbal Ability and Socioeconomic Success: A Trend Analysis by RM Hauser and MH Huang; and so on.
Really, in a scientific environment, it's best to pose a question and determine the answer based on the evidence, rather than to start with an assumption and cherry-pick the evidence which supports that initial assumption.
Have a brilliant afternoon.
Posted by puckalish at 03/10/2008 @ 3:45pm
WOW! I can't believe that sparked a 5 page list of comments...
Samhita, can't wait for your next post!
Posted by PeterT at 03/10/2008 @ 3:54pm
Yes, don't get what up with Dowd. But then don't get what's up with Steinem either. Stupid and pointlessly avoiding dealing with issues of opportunity and equity. But then nothing more mind numbing than those demographic voter surveys which tell us percents of women or men under thirty or over sixty, incomes over under 40K, who voted for Clinton or Obama and tells us nothing about the reality of candidate's economic, health care delivery or foreign policies and what can translate into governing. General impetus is to avoid any discussion beyond what the candidates themselves say, and play everyone against everyone.
So yes, sexism and racism remain alive and well. Also now we also have anti Muslim bigotry. All serve their purposes and should be addressed directly and critically by The Nation among others since major media will never....
Charlie M.
Posted by cmsandia at 03/10/2008 @ 5:24pm
I see lots of claims of racism and sexism; I don't see any evidence of it. The things you list (forclosures, health care, education, jobs) are all economic in nature. You don't provide any evidence that a person's race or sex causes unfair treatment. You simply treat it as an article of faith.
And you don't have to assume racism and sexism are in the past, you just have to observe it. Basically, the only reason they are not in the past is because writers at The Nation want to drive political policy toward greater collectivism and throwing around charges of racism and sexism are ways of getting what you want whether there is any substance to the charges or not.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/07/2008 @ 12:15pm | ignore this person
You're a white guy, aren't you?
Posted by edwriter at 03/10/2008 @ 7:21pm
You're a white guy, aren't you?
Posted by EDWRITER 03/10/2008 @ 7:21pm
The implications of this question by a black to a white is rich! Fits the times.....the most race- and gender-centric election of our times!
Posted by Happy at 03/10/2008 @ 7:44pm
And you don't have to assume racism and sexism are in the past, you just have to observe it. Basically, the only reason they are not in the past is because writers at The Nation want to drive political policy toward greater collectivism and throwing around charges of racism and sexism are ways of getting what you want whether there is any substance to the charges or not.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/07/2008 @ 12:15pm
Well there you go. It's the damn Nation's fault. So, writers stop this particular discourse so racism and sexism can end. Wait 'til I tell my 63-year-old mother. She'll be happy to know this. I only wish my grandmother was alive today to see the end of racism and sexism. Well, that solves those problems. Next!
Posted by k330k at 03/10/2008 @ 7:54pm
Can Racism be such a big problem--on par with broad failures of education, for eg--when blacks HAVE reached the pinnacles of all facets of American society, such as billionaires Robert Johnson & Oprah......What explains Obama against the best known white female in the world? Guess all non-blacks must be mistaken, Magic is white after all!
Posted by Happy at 03/10/2008 @ 8:46pm
If the question is, "are there IQ differences by race?"
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/10/2008 @ 5:08pm
but, please define race.
my son is half-mexican, half-english.
but the mexican half is made up of aboriginal and european mixes and the english is made up of all the cultures that have conquered england throughout the ages.
etc.,
you're trying to define the indefinable.
on the census form i listed my son's race as "hybrid".
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/10/2008 @ 10:41pm
To a very large extent, the culture you're raised in and become comfortable with is the "fault" of your parents, not institutional racism or sexism.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/08/2008 @ 5:30pm
I think you are pretty well across the topic whilst others are perhaps unaware of the apparent anomalies, which may go part of the way in explaining the different than expected outcomes in things like wages.
We all are aware of the anecdotal evidence and tend to dismiss it in favour of a "scientific" approach. I was looking through the local paper today and noticed a person with whom I'd attended primary and secondary school. I was quite shocked to learn that he was the CEO of a moderate sized international bank. The bank had just rewarded him with a second contract at 30 million over two years. He was a C and D grade student prior to going to college where he gained an undergraduate degree in economics. He was "coloured'", if you please, of Christian Lebanese background.
In fact it was really an article about school failures that were winners in business. There also was a white female in her late twenties who was a poor student academically and did not even make it to college but had become a multi millionaire many times over, had written several books on property investment and was lecturing undergrad students in investment fundamentals.
Those of us who are aware of these sorts of exceptions to the rule can only smile at all the chip-on-the-shoulder posters here and their highfaluting ideas about racism and sexism because there is another element in success which has to do with confidence and getting off one's bum and doing something about your own life. That doesn't mean all those, with the right personality and with poorer academic abilities and records, are likely to make it to the top but there is plenty of room for them on the way up the "pyramid".
Perhaps, just perhaps many of the formally educated are best sticking to things they do best, like teaching and working in academia. Or making solemn pronouncements about how the world works on forums like this one.
That perhaps is part of the reason there is a disparity in wages; not so much that one's educational qualifications are disparaged, at least implicitly in terms of wages, because of racism or sexism but that the degree of education one has does not necessarily translate into being a more productive or a more co-operative and hence higher paid worker.
Posted by harvey 79 at 03/11/2008 @ 02:05am
MBB,
No problem, re: the courtesy. I think these issues are of extreme importance and, while I understand the impulse to respond with fire, I don't think that accomplishes much more than convincing people who already agree with one another that they agree with one another (which is to say, nothing).
Regarding what question we should be asking, I think the first step would be, "Is Intelligence Quotient a reasonable longitudinal measure of inherent intellectual potential across populations?" Your question, among other things, assumes that the answer to that is "yes" and it assumes that, as Frosty points out, "races" are discrete genetic groups, as opposed to a social construct.
This then relates to your idea of rapid brain evolution. This specific claim of rapid evolution is not really supported by any scientific evidence, to my knowledge. Further, neo-Darwinism, or modern evolutionary synthesis, is simply the argument that mutations arise in response to environmental pressures and that, under extreme pressure (your acid bath example), such evolution happens at a rapid pace. To suggest that humans have been under such extreme environmental pressure to evolve over the last several decades is tenuous at best. Rather, I think we've been under increasingly less and less evolutionary pressure.
For someone who is convinced my arguments are the result of a "desire to live in a world where all groups of humans have the same intellectual and physical charicteristics despite thousands of generations of geographically isolated development and evolution," your assertion that technology is somehow changing our DNA at a rapid pace smells strongly of science fiction fantasy.
On the other hand, the Flynn Effect [a gradual increase or change in IQ in large populations over time], to which you refer, has been discussed to a very large degree, and almost no one treats the idea of genetic basis seriously at this point. The more common explanations are nutrition (also credited with a centimeter/decade increase in height), smaller family size, better education, greater familiarity with multiple-choice testing, greater exposure to braise-teaser-style games, etc. These are environmental factors which do not change the genetic makeup of the individual, but rather influence one's performance with regards to certain assessment tools (and tools is what they are).
According to an article published in American Scientist, the influence of education can be extreme:
"One especially unfortunate example of that principle appeared in the 1960s, when some Virginia counties closed their public schools to avoid racial integration. Compensatory private schooling was available only for white children. On average, the African-American children who received no formal education during that period fell back at a rate of about six IQ points per year." http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/24612?full text=true&print=yes
Compare that 6 points per year to the Flynn effect, which, in the United States, reflects a rate of 0.3 points/year [http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Locations.aspx] and you can see pretty clearly how environmental factors are heavily influential.
It is also easily demonstrated that the originators of the idea and practice of creating a linear measurement of rational processing were well aware of the limitations of such measurements (again, please read up on Alfred Binet and his peers).
The simple answer, then, is that the limitations of IQ testing, particularly as a tool for determining genetic predispositions to innate intellectual capacity, are incredible - far too incredible to be used to support racist assertions such as those posited here.
Mind you, this is all without even treating the problems of using a test which has been revised several times in the past fifty years as a basis for any multi-generational longitudinal study.
"Faced with that evidence, you choose to believe that the difference must be attributable to a flaw in the test, yet nobody has created a test that eliminates the difference, they've only thrown rocks at the current test."
MBB, again let me reiterate that linear measures of intelligence in general, IQ in particular and the WIS to be terribly specific, were not devised in order to compare populations. All of these metrics were developed in order to better target instruction and therapy. One must use the right tool for the right job and no tool has been devised to compare the innate intellectual capacity of populations with any degree of accuracy. That no appropriate tool exists is not a sufficient excuse to use an inappropriate tool. If I don't have a tire iron, a screwdriver will not help me change my tire. This is not about choice or about belief, it is about appropriate and inappropriate uses of data. But there are more accurate assessment tools than the WAIS-III, such as Raven's Progressive Matrices, but that tool is not as easy to administer as the Wechsler tools. Further, this is not a flaw in the tool, this is a flaw in your application of the tool's results - a flaw which the creators of these tools have recognized as a potential problem from the beginning (again, see Binet)
"I also didn't think I was talking smack..." Well, I took your dismissal of my points as the result of desire, choice and belief, despite the fact that they reference an incredible amount more data than any of the racist (and I don't mean this in a purely perjorative way) arguments posited here as "talking smack." Apologies are in order since it seems that was not your intention, but rather than you sincerely feel I am indulging in a pipe dream - albeit one based on an absurd amount of studies and information.
Oh, and Harvey, perhaps, just perhaps, an overwhelming amount of evidence carries more weight than a few anecdotal stories. If not, than I've got an overwhelming amount of anecdotal stories ranging from watching my mother be passed up for partnership after partnership for younger men who were more adept at golf than she until she finally found a firm which cares more about results than being a boys' club to bearing witness to a law student (who is now a public defender) repeatedly getting pulled over and harassed by police for driving a late model Honda while wearing too dark a color of skin - to the point where one of his professors had to pull strings to get him out of jail (it's hard to pay bail on spurious charges while being a heavily endebted student) in time for a law school clinic. In the interest of full disclosure, I am neither an academic nor do I hold an advanced degree. Further, I work for a living and am self taught in my trade, though I'd worked in a variety of fields in the past. I just like to know what I'm talking about before I open my mouth or tap on my keys and this is a subject about which I care a whole lot, because, among other things, I know my child(ren) is going to face these assumptions about his or her abilities based on skin color and that's just plain dumb.
At this point, though, I think I've beaten the dead horse well enough, so good night and let's see if I can get this programming worked out before the sun rises.
GOOD MORNING and have a blessed day.
(P.S. Apologies for the presentation of links, but they are too long for the Nation to properly render them.)
Posted by puckalish at 03/11/2008 @ 04:54am
"Oh, and Harvey, perhaps, just perhaps, an overwhelming amount of evidence carries more weight than a few anecdotal stories...."
Posted by PUCKALISH 03/11/2008 @ 04:54am
Not sure I had you in mind as an academic or grasp what is the relevance of your "anecdotes". Specifically the topic was the disparity in wages between males and females and the disadvantages that non-whites experience because of sexism and racism.
I mean the guy in the Honda may have been fairly booked for traffic offences or aggression toward the police and who knows but that his time in jail was not the making of him as a wake up call. His experiences and skin colour certainly didn't stop him making it in the end. Which is the point I'm making.
Your view, and that of some of those who claim to have post grad degrees as well as others, when promoted as a reason for disadvantage, has been referred to as one that perpetuates a victim mentality in the disadvantaged and does nothing but lock them in to disadvantage. Those who wander through life feeling hard done by, I suggest, will rarely make it successfully in any job.
One cannot help being cynical about the motives of those who promote victimhood. I mean sociology departments and think tanks actually employ people to do all that well paid scientific research (wasn't that what you called it?) Further it's been suggested that academic feminists would be out of a job if they could not portray women as victims. It may be a way to keep those trained in the social sciences in a job and that is good for the government's employment figures but are they really contributing to an improvement in the situation they are addressing or do they make it worse in the way suggested above?
I noticed somewhere that some black Republicans were claiming that the Democratic Party, come election time, sought to convince blacks that they were victims of the racist system but by their policies would keep them in a position of dependency on government handouts so that they would always remain disadvantaged and provide a reliably disgruntled Dem voting block. Who knows, it may not be intentional but what better way to prevent a group moving upward in society.
If you are a tradesman and get around you should be only too aware that successful businesses are stacked with the type of "self educated" high achieving people to which my anecdotal "evidence points". I was reminded of that in stark terms when I saw the face of a former fellow student peering from a news sheet, whom I and my fellow students thought would end up in a labouring or menial job, running a successful bank that trades in the US as well as Asia and Europe. Now that is an exceptional example but it illustrates that one's skin colour and one's poor school record (in a public school) is no bar to great success in life.
It reminded me of many people I have observed in all sorts of different jobs, who have been very successful despite their sex, their race and sometimes lack of a sound early education or a seeming inability to benefit from it at least whilst at school or even college.
Posted by harvey 79 at 03/11/2008 @ 11:04am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 03/11/2008 @ 08:41am
so, what race is my son?
what race is my wife, for that matter?
please tell me, for i have no idea.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/11/2008 @ 11:34am
Rare African DNA Discovered in White British Males
James Owen
for National Geographic News
January 24, 2007
Rare DNA previously found only in people from West Africa has turned up in white males from northern England, a new study reports.
The surprising discovery was made during a survey of genetic diversity in the United Kingdom based on the male Y chromosome.
This sex-determining chromosome is copied from father to son, providing a record of male ancestry.
The uncommon DNA, a chromosome called hgA1, had previously been detected only in a region of West Africa that includes Mali, Senegal, and Guinea-Bissau, the team says (Africa map).
"It's a really special chromosome, one that's only been reported before in a handful of men in Africa," said Mark Jobling, a genetics professor from the University of Leicester who led the research team.
The hgA1 chromosome lies near the root of the family tree of Y chromosomes in Africa, Jobling added.
"It's an ancient type that's African specific."
But the team found hgA1 in one white British male who took part in the survey, despite the man having no known African family connection.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070124-british-genes.htm l
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/11/2008 @ 11:37am
'United Press International
October 10, 1986
MOSLEMS IN BUCKINGHAM PALACE
Mixed in with Queen Elizabeth's blue blood is the blood of the Moslem prophet Mohammed, according to Burke's Peerage, the geneological guide to royalty. The relation came out when Harold B. Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke's, wrote Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to ask for better security for the royal family. ''The royal family's direct descent from the prophet Mohammed cannot be relied upon to protect the royal family forever from Moslem terrorists,'' he said. Probably realizing the connection would be a surprise to many, he added, ''It is little known by the British people that the blood of Mohammed flows in the veins of the queen. However, all Moslem religious leaders are proud of this fact.''
Brooks-Baker said the British royal family is descended from Mohammed through the Arab kings of Seville, who once ruled Spain. By marriage, their blood passed to the European kings of Portugal and Castille, and through them to England's 15th century King Edward IV. '
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/11/2008 @ 11:39am
we are all hybrids -- the closer you look, the more diverse we become.
there are 6,534,234,657 races.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/11/2008 @ 11:40am
'United Press International
October 10, 1986
MOSLEMS IN BUCKINGHAM PALACE
Mixed in with Queen Elizabeth's blue blood is the blood of the Moslem prophet Mohammed, according to Burke's Peerage, the geneological guide to royalty. The relation came out when Harold B. Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke's, wrote Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to ask for better security for the royal family. ''The royal family's direct descent from the prophet Mohammed cannot be relied upon to protect the royal family forever from Moslem terrorists,'' he said. Probably realizing the connection would be a surprise to many, he added, ''It is little known by the British people that the blood of Mohammed flows in the veins of the queen. However, all Moslem religious leaders are proud of this fact.''
Brooks-Baker said the British royal family is descended from Mohammed through the Arab kings of Seville, who once ruled Spain. By marriage, their blood passed to the European kings of Portugal and Castille, and through them to England's 15th century King Edward IV. '
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/11/2008 @ 11:44am
oops
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/11/2008 @ 11:45am
MBB,
That was not actually the point at which I was getting. My point was that almost no one (in the scientific community) argues that the Flynn Effect is due to genetic changes; rather, the most popularly held reasonings are that the Flynn Effect is due to environmental changes. The conclusion to draw from this is that IQ is not an appropriate measure of genetically-determined innate intellectual ability. If it were, it would track at a similar rate to genetic mutation/evolution; rather, it is a much more rapid process, suggesting that IQ cannot be used to determine which "races" are more or less intelligent or exceptional.
Re: what is a race, I believe Frosty's point is that the Mexican and English background of his/her child is composed of Amerindian, Negro and Caucasian (what a misleading term!) genetic traits. As such, where does such a child fall in within racial boxes? Further, considering that Latino or "Brown" is considered a "race" by popular definition, this helps to understand that race is more a social construct than an accurate expression of genetic difference. Further, if one is to look at the size of the contents on which various "races" are located and then consider the millennia of trade and exchange which have occurred between individuals in similar latitudes, the concept of discrete races breaks down even further. Negro, Caucasian, Asian - these are very overbroad phenotypes which contain an incredible amount of variation within them. Not to mention that, among other things, the term Caucasian is one of the most misleading concepts in popular thought. I mean, I would be Caucasian, by virtue of my Scotch-Irish heritage, but Scotland and Ireland are a far way from the Caucases. Not quite as far as the "Negro" people of Senegal are from the "Negro" people of South Africa, though, or the "Asians" of Pakistan are from the "Asians" of Japan.
Cheers
Posted by puckalish at 03/11/2008 @ 12:00pm
Posted by PUCKALISH 03/11/2008 @ 12:00pm
he's got lots of spanish (i.e. southern european (maybe basque!?) + north african) from his grandfather's side, too.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/11/2008 @ 12:04pm
Ooops!
Frosty, you had a whole different cogent point undermining the concept of race as discrete groups. Sorry 'bout that.
Posted by puckalish at 03/11/2008 @ 12:07pm
Racism and Sexism (the latter of which I consider a non-word) will ALWAYS exist Samhita. The question is how much it dominates the social scene. Based on that fact, feminists need to stop using the two as a continued excuse for bad behavior. The laws are on the books, peoples attitudes change, and its really not an issue here anymore. If you want to do some good, go to Saudi Arabia and fight there, where women are still flogged for the crime of "learning".
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/11/2008 @ 2:56pm
Harvey,
My friend is actually more mild mannered than I - and my wife often charges me with not having enough testosterone for her taste. He had been pulled over several times prior and was never issued so much as a violation. By the time he was locked up, he was probably a wee bit pissed off, but to hear his telling of it the next weekend, it was as if his heart rate barely rose at all. On the other hand, he is a Black man and they are wild creatures[/sarcasm]. Further, he still has a 100% clean driving record (which is more than I can say for myself, but I don't get regularly pulled over). However, I appreciate your assumption of his guilt. Apparently, you're wrong, because all charges were dropped given that the officer had no grounds on which to even pull him over and he was held in jail because it was a Friday night and he couldn't et a bail hearing until Monday morning. It is telling that, when a Black man is charged with a crime, a White man, who knows absolutely nothing about the incident, finds it very easy to see his personal responsibility being the only issue.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
More anecdotes:
I used to always get a ride from a college friend back home during breaks. I lived in a predominantly white neighborhood. She's Black. Roughly 2/3rds of the time she dropped me off, once I was no longer in the car, she would get pulled over and released when the police couldn't provide a good reason for detaining her. Never once did she get so much as a fix-it ticket, but trust that if she had had a broken tail light, that would have been 30$ here, 50$ there... Unless her driving changed dramatically whenever I was in the car, there's no other explanation for this than that race played a role.
When I was in high school, I remember going to see Rene Harris Pure Movement (an incredible dance group) perform at Prospect Park with another White friend of mine. On the way there, we got turned around, ran into a police officer in the subway and asked for directions. This (White) cop, rather than just letting us know what train to take, decided to let us know that we should reconsider our plans, as we'd be "two grains of salt in a whole sea of pepper." Perhaps he was referring to dietary habits in Brooklyn, but I have a feeling he was warning us that people of color are dangerous - in which case, I wonder how he treats people of color relative to how he treats white people and I wonder if all those people of color bring it on themselves by behaving badly as you suggest.
Oh and, regarding this: "I mean sociology departments and think tanks actually employ people to do all that well paid scientific research (wasn't that what you called it?)"
Nice jab. Too bad you're wrong. Much of the research to which I was referring was specifically in regards to genetics and statistical analysis of IQ testing methodologies. This is not "sociological research", though I appreciate that, like MBB, you have chosen to argue with the position you assume I hold and the arguments and data you assume I put forward as opposed to actually following up on any of my points or the articles to which I actually referenced. As such, I can only assume that further conversation will only be met with more blind assertions that anecdotes outweigh evidence and that my arguments are only as good as the assumptions you have about them without actually having read them.
There are exceptional people, I have said this over and over; however, one of the aims of civil society and of democracy in general is to give normal people an even chance. In fact, some refer to this as "the American Dream." My mother, as mentioned before, is one such exceptional person, but she faced severe adversity due to her second X chromosome on the way up. So, now she is successful, to be sure, but she is not as successful as she would have been if she had not had to move through four previous firms due to the partners' of those firms (all of whom were male at the time of her employment) willingness to pass her over for partnership in favor of younger, less experience men who were better at golf.
One cannot help being cynical when data from various disciplines (psychology, economics, criminal justice, biology, etc.) is refuted with talking points, anecdotes and unqualified assertions as to the disciplines from which those data come. I mean, seriously, only one of the studies I referenced could be perceived as really "sociological" in nature, and that's the study regarding sentencing disparities, though its heavy reliance on quantifiable data takes it outside of the range of made up statistics you seem to be asserting I'm replying upon.
Further, as a tradesman I am also well aware of the overwhelming number of chummy white men with executive positions in large corporations who are essentially worthless and have cost me innumerable work hours due to their incompetence. I am also aware that those who achieved success through self-education and hard work are in the minority when compared with those whose success is due to connections, MBAs and "being a good fit." Having actually been on hiring boards, I've seen this crap first hand.
As a tradesman who previously worked as a literacy consultant, history teacher, substance abuse counselor and legal assitantant in a public policy office, I am more than familiar with the inequalities present in access to public education, consequences of drug use (a leading cause of incarceration of people of color) and access to treatment and other expressions of what is commonly referred to as "institutional racism."
On the other hand, I know a fair number of people of color and women (including the illustrious Ms. Samhita and my aforementioned public defender friend) who, while consciously confronting racism and sexism in various forms do not view themselves as "victims." The "victimhood" assertion is merely a strawman argument, similar to the charge that lbgt folks are seeking "special rights" by wanting to be able to get married and not fear getting killed by bigots. Having worked in education, and continuing that work through martial arts education today, I have made a point of making sure the youth with whom I work don't hold on to victimhood, but rather recognize the systemic pressures at work, and how they can overcome them personally while working to dismantle them institutionally. I don't think Rosa Parks saw herself as a victim even though she risked jail time to directly take on institutions which were bent on keeping her and her people down.
It seems you'd rather see Ms. Parks as a victim, as she is popularly portrayed, because it allows you to feel superior, rather than to see her as a powerful woman who took conscious steps to unhinge a system of racist oppression clothed in a language of equality (see the Plessy decision referenced above). This will let you, as a white man, feel more secure in that you've earned all that you have, and will allow you to dismiss other perspectives as weaker and inferior because of an ideology of "victimhood" forwarded by liberal think tanks filled with highly educated do-nothings who would be living in cardboard boxes if it weren't for patsies like me.
Again, thanks for dismissing what I have to say, clearly without having read it, and dismissing the studies I referenced without even looking at from whence they came (I never knew the APA, Massey University, Creighton University, the National Bureau of Economic Research, Wired Magazine, and Psychological Review were a liberal think tanks - you learn something new every day).
Seriously, you clearly haven't read any of the studies of which I made mention, but you feel at liberty to assume that you know more about my attorney-friend's attitude or driving habits. So you're arguing that one should rely entirely on anecdotes and no quantifiable data in coming to conclusions? I guess you don't work in marketing. I mean, really. I do website development and I base a lot of my work on what could be seen as "sociological" data in that I pay attention to quantifiable behavioral responses to design choices (unique page visits, time spent on each page, etc.) That seems to translate pretty well into cash for my clients, but I guess they're wrong because they're just a waste of time, keeping databases and scripts off the welfare rolls.
Peace and good luck learning anything with attitude like that.
Posted by puckalish at 03/11/2008 @ 3:20pm
Posted by puckalish at 03/11/2008 @ 3:21pm
Oh, and Harvey, my reason for bringing up anecdotes is that you seem to trust stories more than numbers. Just trying to humor you.
Posted by puckalish at 03/11/2008 @ 3:22pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/11/2008 @ 12:39pm
From your posts on this thread, it seems you find institutionalized discrimination in our representative government against people of color and women.
That is correct, I do. The evidence is the fact that they do not reflect the population they represent, and I haven't seen anything here that addresses that point.
My question is are you proposing that forced mandates for proportional representation in government by gender and ethnicity/race?
No. I'm not. There are other ways of solving this problem and that kind of measure would create other problems.
Also, I haven't seen addressed in your points or directly in questioning by others (although I could have missed it), what has been the proportional make up of the candidates running for office vs the election results?
I don't know of any studies. I'd be surprised if there aren't any, but I think the common sense, anecdotal answer is that anyone looking at their ballot can figure out that there aren't as many women or people of color on it as there are in their community. Do you dispute this assertion? And if so, on what grounds?
If women candidates for example make up only 15% (hypothetical and not based upon any data), do you then force women to make up a larger proportion of the candidates?
Not hypothetical. You can type in women and Congress into Google as easily as I. If you do, you'll find out that there have been a total of 244 women who have served in Congress and 89 are currently serving. So, you do the math - 89 / 535 = 16.6%
There are a number of possible solutions. One solution is for both the major parties to seek out women and people of color. Another is for voters to factor diversity into their selection criteria for candidates. While quotas are another method, I think the conservative criticism that this tends to subvert merit incentives and promote unqualified candidates has some truth to it. I generally don't prefer government solutions when there are other, better alternatives - and in this case, there are.
And worse, do you force male candidatest who win elections to decline their victories if not enough women are elected?
No. This isn't about a single election cycle or race. It is about providing a catalyst for a historical process, so it happens sooner. This is a problem that will be addressed over decades, but I think warrants some effort to get to the "tipping point" now.
In other words, how in a democratic republic such as ours would you ever force the levels of proportionality you want?
Well, I'm not one for "forcing" anything. I think the people that care about this issue, can raise awareness and get their local party establishment and their friends and family to support greater diversity in elections. As a republic, we can very well institute these changes ourselves - without any kind of "help" from the government.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/11/2008 @ 4:38pm
SRJ,
I actually crunched some numbers on race and gender representations in federal government on Feministing [feministing.com], Samhita's other other blog and I'll just post them here right quick. Feel free to use them in any way you see fit. Like you, I did not posit these in order to suggest a quota system or anything of the like, but just to, well... bring to light that a good amount of our compatriots are, as they used to say, suffering from "taxation without representation."
if you'd like to see some numbers in reference to representation of poc's and women in our government in general, here (in the interest of space, i'll still keep it vague and exclusive):
numbers: us population (2006)/ senate (2007)/ house (2007)
african-american 12.4%/1%/9.2%
asian-american 4.4%/2%/1.4%
indigenous american 0.8%/0%/0.2%
latino 14.8%/3%/5.1%
now, onto gender... we've got about a 50/50 split here in the us (especially among people old enough to run for office)...
there are 16 female senators (16%) and 73 female representatives (roughly 16%)
now, let's make some ratios...
the ratio of representation of a group in federal government would be the house and senate %ages divided by the demographic makeup of the country...
so...
african-americans: senate: 0.24 house: 0.74
women: senate/house: 0.32 (same)
asian-americans: senate: 0.45 house: 0.31
indigenous americans: senate: 0 house: 0.25
latinos: senate: 0.2 house: 0.34
mind you, "1" would be a ratio of even representation of the demographics nationwide and none of these numbers come close to "1".
Peace and blessings
Posted by puckalish at 03/11/2008 @ 5:02pm
oh, and before anyone gets all upset, i'm fully aware that we live in a system that is largely winner-takes-all, so it's no wonder that minority populations are underrepresented in government. however, that doesn't make it less of a problem and is, perhaps, an argument (among many) for reforming our electoral policies to more accurately represent the population.
Posted by puckalish at 03/11/2008 @ 5:04pm
Posted by PUCKALISH 03/11/2008 @ 5:02pm
I think having numbers published to reflect demographics at various levels (local, state, federal) and how they compare to the people in elected office at the corresponding levels, like you have done here for legislators at the federal level, would be one way that diversity could be brought to the fore and help people appropriately factor that into their voting.
While I understand the problems of winner-takes-all, proportional and other types of electoral selection processes, I don't think that that is a significant source of the systemic problems of sexism or racism. I can easily imagine diverse demographics in Congress more or less reflecting the national population under a winner-takes-all approach.
I think the systemic problems come in when we start looking about how the establishment vets and supports candidates, social factors that cut down on opportunties to get appropriate experience for these groups and so forth. If winner-takes-all is an issue, it's a relatively small one - in respect to racism and sexism. If we are talking getting beyond two party politics, well, that's a whole different discussion - and you are totally on point as far as that goes.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/11/2008 @ 6:32pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/11/2008 @ 9:57pm
I understood your question perfectly. I said:
I don't know of any studies. I'd be surprised if there aren't any, but I think the common sense, anecdotal answer is that anyone looking at their ballot can figure out that there aren't as many women or people of color on it as there are in their community. Do you dispute this assertion? And if so, on what grounds?
I also think your arguments about forcing men not to run or women to run is pure fantasy. It's merely about parties and citizens encouraging outstanding members from under-represented groups to run.
Proportionality is a goal. It isn't something that comes with guarantees - something you can't have in free elections anyway. But we do, in a two-party system, have the ability to give people more representative options - and the primary problem is creating awareness and doing something about it.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/11/2008 @ 10:11pm
Posted by PUCKALISH 03/11/2008 @ 3:20pm
Well in fact I wasn't responding to your posts on IQ evaluation but to your unsolicited response to a more general post of mine about other reasons for apparent disadvantage.
Perhaps you are not aware that psychology is generally considered a subset of the social sciences so I was not limiting the scope of my criticism at all. The often scientifically questionable use of the "soft" sciences, to which I was referring, is not limited to liberals or liberal think tanks. It is a pretty general disease that can be observed pretty much across the political spectrum.
None of your "anecdotes" or the development of the case of your friend with the Honda is convincing evidence of racism as there is plenty of the same sort of evidence to show that whites are targeted by police in the same way. Perhaps it is in the eye of the beholder? It seems that you are hardly a disinterested observer and perhaps you see what you want to see. That's the sort of skepticism to which my training in the "hard" sciences leads me.
Posted by harvey 79 at 03/11/2008 @ 10:32pm
Harvey,
Let's break it down this way:
Your anecdotes are invalid because exceptional individuals are no way of determining what effect systemic issues have on normal individuals (although your subjectivity in interpreting your anecdotes doesn't matter since you're such a "hard" scientist... you are a scientist, right?). My anecdotes are invalid because I'm a subjective observer, as is everyone I know.
Really, though, all anecdotes are invalid for addressing large issues and systems, except for in so far as stories allow for individuals to connect better with the re-telling.
Statistical analysis of social trends are invalid because social science is pure quackery and "scientifically questionable." How, then, do you propose to study and address large social issues? Should we just trust the system to admit its own faults? That didn't work in Plessy v Ferguson; what makes you think it would work now?
Or do you think addressing social issues isn't really worth the effort because they're not as easy to quantify as, say, acceleration due to gravity?
Finally, regarding your reference to my comment being "unsolicited." I had assumed you were posting in a public forum. Silly me!
I'm done.
Posted by puckalish at 03/12/2008 @ 1:25pm