Black non-criminals almost as good as white criminals

[franklin]

spanic, Spain, culture comes from, Hispanic culture go to Mexico, rape women, force conversion, burn to ground, kids become part Spanish, kids are Hispanic, old culture killed, new culture Hispanic, and rape.

The culture part come out of the ethnicity, not the other way around.

 

[One Brow]

The culture part come out of the ethnicity, not the other way around.

Heritage is not inherited, it's absorbed. Everything you described becomes part of the background for anyone raised as a part of the culture, even if their parents were not in the culture.

 

[franklin]

You're using a modified definition that lazily describes Latin America.

 

[One Brow]

You're using a modified definition that lazily describes Latin America.

As I said, I'm using the definition of the reporting requirments for the federal government, to my best understanding of them. Certainly, "Hispanic" =/= "Mexican".

 

[franklin]

As I said, I'm using the definition of the reporting requirments for the federal government, to my best understanding of them. Certainly, "Hispanic" =/= "Mexican".

Sorry, I missed that. You must have added that paragraph while I was typing my response.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

According to whom?

I mean, I'm just basing this based on the reporting requirementsfor the federal government, which 1) make ethnicity orthogonal to race, so you can be white/Hispanic or white/non-Hispanic, black/Hispanic or black/non-Hispanic, etc., and 2) link Hispanic to being immagrant or first-generation from an American country south of the USA. So, I could be wrong. I'm just curious what your source is for so stating.

I'm his source, you are wrong.
- Pinata's, futbol, Rio, and the Mexican Olympic team.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Hispanic does have more to do with having roots in Spain.
Latino had to do with having roots in Latin America.

Does it even matter though?

 

[northeast]

PBS Newshour has a segment tonight related to this thread, which proposes that black consumers discriminate against black merchants.

 

[Bronco70]

So get this, I've got a black dude for a client and when he calls, I can't understand a freaking thing he says. I have to ask him to repeat himself probably 10 times a conversation. Let's assume that I'm hiring someone to answer my phones and this guy calls or comes in for an interview. There is no way I'm hiring him to answer my phones. So, does this make me a racist?

Yes, because you seem to think being black is somehow relevant to this situation (not to mention that, if the person involved was raised in American, How they speak in a working capacity can be completely different from how they speak as a customer).

Wow. I consider you a pretty damn smart dude, Brow, but you whiffed so bad on this one I don't even know where to start.

 

[One Brow]

Wow. I consider you a pretty damn smart dude, Brow, but you whiffed so bad on this one I don't even know where to start.

I do whiff them sometimes. I'm not sure why you think so here. Care to elucidate?

 

[Bronco70]

I do whiff them sometimes. I'm not sure why you think so here. Care to elucidate?

It seemed that, in Trout's scenario, his primary concern was this gentleman's ability to speak clearly - which would be critical to the position offered up in that situation. To me, it didn't appear that Trout was making any correlation between the man's speaking ability and his race. Race was mentioned, but only to give context to the question, "Would I be racist for not hiring him?"

You responded "Yes". Perhaps you feel it was unnecessary to acknowledge race at all, but in that case this hypothetical is pretty much moot. I felt like Trout's question was something along the lines of, "Am I racist if I didn't hire an under-qualified applicant who also just happened to be black." Seems simple enough, but apparently not.

I am also open to the possibility that I completely missed something that you did not, or that I might just be an idiot.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

It seemed that, in Trout's scenario, his primary concern was this gentleman's ability to speak clearly - which would be critical to the position offered up in that situation. To me, it didn't appear that Trout was making any correlation between the man's speaking ability and his race. Race was mentioned, but only to give context to the question, "Would I be racist for not hiring him?"

You responded "Yes". Perhaps you feel it was unnecessary to acknowledge race at all, but in that case this hypothetical is pretty much moot. I felt like Trout's question was something along the lines of, "Am I racist if I didn't hire an under-qualified applicant who also just happened to be black." Seems simple enough, but apparently not.

I am also open to the possibility that I completely missed something that you did not, or that I might just be an idiot.

Nothing to miss. If you do not hire because of inability to do an adequate job... has nothing to do with race.
If you do not hire because of race, then it's an issue.

This seems more like a reading comprehension issue with Brow, than anything else.

 

[One Brow]

It seemed that, in Trout's scenario, his primary concern was this gentleman's ability to speak clearly - which would be critical to the position offered up in that situation. To me, it didn't appear that Trout was making any correlation between the man's speaking ability and his race. Race was mentioned, but only to give context to the question, "Would I be racist for not hiring him?"

I agree that using the ability to speak intelligible English as a criterion for hiring for telephone is valid, and is not in and of itself racist. The notion that race would be even margianlly connected to that could come from a few of different places that I can see; all those places are basically racist (e.g., notions that minorities go around regularly making frivolous complaints, notions that having minority status makes being unintelligible more like, notions that one person hiring another person for phone work would be subjedcted to strict legal scrutiny on the basis of race, etc.). That's why I said the racist part was thinking these notions were connected.

I felt like Trout's question was something along the lines of, "Am I racist if I didn't hire an under-qualified applicant who also just happened to be black." Seems simple enough, but apparently not.

I am also open to the possibility that I completely missed something that you did not, or that I might just be an idiot.

I think, having very different life experiences, we interpret this differently, and we each occasionally will see things the other misses. That doesn't make either of us an idiot, and I have no reason to think you are an idiot generally.

My best answer to the question would be that it is not racism to refuse to hire an underqualified employee, but it is racism to say that this person is not qualified based on that context, and it would be racism to not consider hiring the person without evaluting them based on an actual trial run in the interviewing process. It's also prejudice (not always racial) to think that certain USA-made-dialects make one an inferior phone representative simply because you have them.

 

[Bronco70]

I'm curious One Brow, do you consider racially based prejudices racism, in and of themselves? Or does a prejudice need to manifest via action or words to be actual racism?

 

[One Brow]

Bronco70,

I would agree that if one harbors some deeply-buried prejudices that have absolutley no part in one's actions, reactions, interactions, etc., that it does not qualify as racism. However, if one does harbor some deeply-buried prejudices, I find basic human nature is such that, while one may not see where one's actions, etc., have been affected, one's actions are nonetheless affected in ways one does not see. Prejudices are just another form of cognitive shortcut, and the existence of cognitive shortcuts is essential to human functioning. It's just these particular shortcuts (among others) that I see as detrimental and deserving of removal.

 

[Stoked]

I'm curious One Brow, do you consider racially based prejudices racism, in and of themselves? Or does a prejudice need to manifest via action or words to be actual racism?

Discussing racism with One Brow? You have much higher tolerance for certain things than I.

 

[Bronco70]

Discussing racism with One Brow? You have much higher tolerance for certain things than I.

It's one of the perks of being dumb. I'm not going to understand, and I'm not going to change anybody's mind, so the mental investment is minimal.

 

[franklin]

Standard case for gingers who evolved from orangutans instead of chimpanzees. Glad you deal with it well.

 

[One Brow]

It's one of the perks of being dumb. I'm not going to understand, and I'm not going to change anybody's mind, so the mental investment is minimal.

What didn't you understand? I don't expect you to agree, but I at least like to be clear.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

This whole thread is black on white crime.