Candidate Banned From [private] Debate ‘Cause She’s White

[emazur]

http://www.thefoxnation.com/culture/2010/06/03/candidate-banned-debate-cause-she-s-white

“We called them, we asked to participate,” said Carter’s campaign manager, Cheryl Prater. But she said Newsmaker Live’s event moderator, Maynard Eaton, told the campaign that because Carter is white, she’s only allowed to sit in the audience and not participate.

Newsmakers Live is a black media organization, which according to its website has a “global urbane perspective” and publishes a weekly journal and video show that “embodies a unique ‘infotainment’ concept that specializes in intense interviewing of prominent personalities and political figures.” Its website includes videos titled, “Are Black Babies An Endangered Species,” and “Moving African-American Businesses to the Next Level.”

Though in poor taste, though I don't call for the initiation of force to be used against this Newsmaker Live. Let's see if Maddow et al initiate a week long verbal bashing though. Imagine if Rand participated in "whites only" debate organized by a private company. Newsmaker may try to claim "we just did this so we could find which candidate would be best for black America", but people would be shitting bricks if another group said they were seeking the best candidate for white America.

[Cynanthrope]

I concur. Don't use governmental force against private individuals acting offensively within private properties.

As for media coverage (Ha!) you can be assured there'll be close to zero. None.

The politically-correct and the "progressives" will probably de-emphasize the situation as a rare an insignificant situation compared to the oh-so-many racist whites and their behaviors.

[BlackTerrel]

This is the thing that people don't understand. There are no "white people issues". If there are issues that white people care about it becomes an issue for the nation.

Individual whites can. But not whites as a group.

I am sure what this group is doing is no different from what many "sub" groups of white people would do. Irish, Italians, Jews, Catholics - do they not have their organizations.

There are no issues for white people. Because any issues for white people are the issues of the majority.

YouTube - Eminem - White America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZIzD0ZfTFg)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This is the thing that people don't understand. There are no "white people issues". If there are issues that white people care about it becomes an issue for the nation.

Individual whites can. But not whites as a group.

I am sure what this group is doing is no different from what many "sub" groups of white people would do. Irish, Italians, Jews, Catholics - do they not have their organizations.

There are no issues for white people. Because any issues for white people are the issues of the majority.

YouTube - Eminem - White America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZIzD0ZfTFg)

Tell that to all the white people overlooked on promotions, hirings, and other such activities because companies are forced to comply with backwards legislation like Affirmative Action (We could also delve into all the minority benefits paid by the population writ large -- just because of their ethnicity/skin color...). That said, that is not a white issue, but a property issue. Rights aren't derived based on the pigment of your skin. Racism, is racism, and today it seems the overwhelming majority of racists do not descend from the white ranks.....

Who would have guessed this would of come from someone named "Black" Terrel anyways....:rolleyes:

[MN Patriot]

Democrats keep screaming at us saying we are racists.

Freedom is color blind.

[emazur]

This is the thing that people don't understand. There are no "white people issues".

The Brazillian prez blamed whitey for the financial crisis
http://www.cnbc.com/id/2991007/Brazil_President_Blames_White_People_for_Crisis
Nearly all issues of one race or another involve the shifting of blame and/or the attempt to draw as much power as possible to their race.

[BlackTerrel]

Tell that to all the white people overlooked on promotions, hirings, and other such activities because companies are forced to comply with backwards legislation like Affirmative Action (We could also delve into all the minority benefits paid by the population writ large -- just because of their ethnicity/skin color...). That said, that is not a white issue, but a property issue. Rights aren't derived based on the pigment of your skin. Racism, is racism, and today it seems the overwhelming majority of racists do not descend from the white ranks.....

White people complaining about affirmative action is like tall people complaining about not getting to get jobs as elves around Christmas. Yeah that's one issue you aren't ahead but come on. You really can't argue that it's advantageous to be black in this country - that's absurd.

This guy explains it better than I do

YouTube - Louis CK - Being White (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY)

[Lord Xar]

This is the thing that people don't understand. There are no "white people issues". If there are issues that white people care about it becomes an issue for the nation.

Individual whites can. But not whites as a group.

I am sure what this group is doing is no different from what many "sub" groups of white people would do. Irish, Italians, Jews, Catholics - do they not have their organizations.

There are no issues for white people. Because any issues for white people are the issues of the majority.


Well, "blackterrel", if you knew your history - groups like this DID exist for Italians back in the day. The good thing is, the italians moved past this mindset, and excelled. Like most immigrants that have come here to the United States. They didn't create a vicious circle of victim-hood. Creating a quagmire of dependency that could be justified as modern day slavery. It is precisely what this organization is doing that keeps "black america" on the bottom rung, rather than a participant in equal scale - of course, with a rather huge helping boot on the back, from the left... to help keep them down.

[Lord Xar]

White people complaining about affirmative action is like tall people complaining about not getting to get jobs as elves around Christmas. Yeah that's one issue you aren't ahead but come on. You really can't argue that it's advantageous to be black in this country - that's absurd.

This guy explains it better than I do


BT, it is people like you that create the stigma that black americans just can't seem to shake. Victims. Validation of victimhood. Funny how you resort to "white people", you just went collectivist and showed your true colors. If a white person loses a job in which they are more qualified, more experienced than a black person etc.. because of a quota system, you better believe that is unjust, and they should complain. AND vice-versa.
You subsidize mediocrity, you get more of it.. is this really what you are advocating? Sounds marxist/statist to me.

[libertythor]

I concur. Don't use governmental force against private individuals acting offensively within private properties.

As for media coverage (Ha!) you can be assured there'll be close to zero. None.

The politically-correct and the "progressives" will probably de-emphasize the situation as a rare an insignificant situation compared to the oh-so-many racist whites and their behaviors.

This made the front page of Digg, but it got buried in less than 40 minutes. Yeah it will get zero coverage.

[Krugerrand]

This is the thing that people don't understand. There are no "white people issues". If there are issues that white people care about it becomes an issue for the nation.

Individual whites can. But not whites as a group.

I am sure what this group is doing is no different from what many "sub" groups of white people would do. Irish, Italians, Jews, Catholics - do they not have their organizations.

There are no issues for white people. Because any issues for white people are the issues of the majority.
....

The underlying question is why should a white candidate not be allowed to participate and share ideas? Would not black people want to vote for whoever has the ideas that are better?

[dean.engelhardt]

The underlying question is why should a white candidate not be allowed to participate and share ideas?


If the debate was paid for by private funds and conducted on private property, I have no problem. It may be racist, or immoral but being racist and immoral on your own property with your own money is an individual right.

Is there a case that the white candiate's rights were violated?

[specsaregood]

If the debate was paid for by private funds and conducted on private property, I have no problem. It may be racist, or immoral but being racist and immoral on your own property with your own money is an individual right.


I agree with you, BUT going by the current legal thinking, no doubt they were using some public resource. utilities, roads, etc. :)

[sratiug]

Were there no black issues in South Africa BlackTerrel? Just because the majority is victimized that makes it right? Long live apartheid? Is that why it was ok for Zionists to steal land from the vast majority of arab Palestinians, because they were there? We can't have a problem with illegal immigration because legals are a majority? WTF are you talking about?

[Krugerrand]

If the debate was paid for by private funds and conducted on private property, I have no problem. It may be racist, or immoral but being racist and immoral on your own property with your own money is an individual right.

Is there a case that the white candiate's rights were violated?

Oh, I have no problem with a private group inviting whoever they want. I just the situation exposes their forum as a fraud.

[Krugerrand]

I agree with you, BUT going by the current legal thinking, no doubt they were using some public resource. utilities, roads, etc. :)

S - T - R - E - T - C - H
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4040/4427347667_4bf5f8b7be.jpg

[specsaregood]

S - T - R - E - T - C - H


Isn't that the exact stretched reasoning that allowed the federal govt to enforce the civil rights act on private businesses via the interstate commerce clause? I don't think this group has anything special that lets them get out of it. They no doubt use some type of tax-paid resource. They no doubt cause some effect even if minor somehow on commerce, even if it is only donuts and coffee for the event.

[Krugerrand]

Isn't that the exact stretched reasoning that allowed the federal govt to enforce the civil rights act on private businesses via the interstate commerce clause? I don't think this group has anything special that lets them get out of it. They no doubt use some type of tax-paid resource. They no doubt cause some effect even if minor somehow on commerce, even if it is only donuts and coffee for the event.

perhaps. I mainly wanted to post a stretch picture. :o

[Slutter McGee]

BlackTerrell is right. Look, the situations where whites are specifically targeted and passed over is fairly rare. I don't agree with the concept of afirmative action, but at the same time I am not going to go around pretending that the white man is now oppressed. It is ridiculous, especially when there are more important issues, and ones that are not racially divisive.

Sincerley,

Slutter McGee

[catdd]

That's right, go back to sleep everyone. Everything is fine. You are getting verrrry sleepy...

verrrrrryy sleeeepy......

[dean.engelhardt]

Oh, I have no problem with a private group inviting whoever they want. I just the situation exposes their forum as a fraud.

I agree. If a group is a fraud, they should be allowed to be a fraud in broad daylight. ;)

[Valli6]

In the end Carter was allowed to participate, but it sounds like Newsmakers was forced into it. Incumbent Hank (Guam might tip over) Johnson backed out, and candidates Connie Stokes and Vernon Jones refused to participate unless Carter was included.

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/news/23775949/detail.html

ATLANTA -- When James Welcome, executive producer of the Newsmakers Live political forum, opened the show Wednesday night, he made this statement: "Tonight we are being called racists all over the web because we failed to invite Liz Carter."

Liz Carter is one of four Republican candidates vying for the 4th District Congressional seat.
Carter is one of only two white candidates in the race that's historically won by a black Democrat.
Carter said organizers of this Newsmakers Live political forum would not let her participate because she is white.
"When I called he (Maynard Eaton) said, 'it was black candidates only,' and it saddens me it really does," said Carter.
Carter said she had that conversation with Maynard Eaton, so Reporter Tony McNary asked Eaton the tough questions.

"Is this a black-only forum?" asked McNary.

"No, we’ve had – how could this be black only? Newsmakers Live, our reputation suggests we’re anything but that. We endorsed Mary Norwood. We’ve had a plethora of white guests. This just happens to be a forum where there are just black guests invited this time,” said Eaton.
Newsmakers Live didn't invite Carter, but it did invite the only black Republican candidate.

"Why wasn't she (Carter) invited?" asked McNary.
"We didn't know about her. Who is Liz Carter? She was a no-name politically," said Eaton.
Democratic candidates the district may be familiar with are Connie Stokes and Vernon Jones.
Jones tried to avoid McNary's tough questions.
"The story that I'm doing is about Liz Carter. She says she is not being allowed because she is white. This is a black-only forum. How do you feel about that?" McNary stated to Jones.
"Here's how I feel about it. If there are any issues, she needs to address them with the organizer," said Jones.
"What if this was a white-only forum. How would you feel about that?" asked McNary.
"I am here, clearly, to talk about Hank Johnson not being here," stated Jones.

Jones and Stokes would not to participate in the forum unless Carter was allowed, so the organizers gave her a seat and allowed her to participate.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/twitter-use-lands-candidate-540533.html

On Saturday night, Carter said she was told she would not be allowed to participate in a debate hosted by "Newsmakers Live" at the* lounge Vino Libro in southeast Atlanta. Carter claimed on her Facebook page that the producers of the Web site, which planned to run a live video feed of the debate, told her only black candidates would be involved, including Cory Ruth, an African-American running in the GOP primary.

Earlier Wednesday, Maynard Eaton, the moderator, said he was lambasted with negative messages from Massachusetts to California, two of Carter's former states, suggesting racism. Eaton also insisted he and producer Jim Welcome wouldn't be bullied into including Carter. Eaton said the candidate misconstrued what he said and unfairly brought race into the issue. He said the real problem was nobody knew who she was.
"We didn't try to exclude her; we did not know her,"* he said. "It is not her party. It's our party. ... She is trying to break into the party."

What I found most interesting about the whole thing, is the fact that the organizers of the forum appear to feel that a private organization should indeed be allowed to exclude some individuals based on race.

According to this blogger it wasn't much of a debate:
http://www.peachpundit.com/2010/06/02/liz-carter-gets-her-chance-to-speak/

[UPDATE] It’s 7:22 p.m. and this farce of a “debate” is now over. It’s pretty clear after this display that Maynard Eaton truly isn’t a good journalist. His five questions were different versions of “You really think you can win, you horrible Republican?” followed by calling Carter “combative,” “hard,” and clearly intimating that he didn’t like her.
...Publisher Jim Welcome then stood up and made sure to get his final dig in, by describing Liz Carter as “Sarah Palin-ish in her approach to politics.”

[Pete Kay]

Beyond the legality of this issue which seems to be the focus of most of the comments so far, this really highlights the ongoing double standards applied to racial issues in America. All groups are allowed to form coalitions based on race without question or condemnation except White people. Disparate groups such as Asians and Pacific Islanders form political alliances, so the argument that Whites are not a unified peoples so they have no business petitioning for group interests are baseless. Whites are certainly lumped into one group by the census and by common social categorizations.

[erowe1]

She should ask them to prove that she's white.

[axiomata]

In the end Carter was allowed to participate, but it sounds like Newsmakers was forced into it. Incumbent Hank (Guam might tip over) Johnson backed out, and candidates Connie Stokes and Vernon Jones refused to participate unless Carter was included.


So your telling me the debate was integrated without government interference? That certain key players threatened to boycott the debate unless she was included so they ended up including her? That's unpossible!

[RM918]

On the whole of it all I'm not against it (Legally) in the slightest, if everything was done using private funds.

Personally, something is not 'racist' or 'not racist' because of a bunch of qualifiers you stuff in about one side being the majority or a bunch of actions by people completely unrelated to the situation. It's just bending words to get your way.

It was racially discriminatory, to a 'T'. They were only having black candidates, this woman was not black, they discriminated their candidates...racially. Racial discrimination. But it's going to happen, and it's not a necessarily evil thing, but things like this will continue to be blown out of proportion so long as people insist ALL racial discrimination is evil incarnate rather than just differing cultures and insist on allowing 'victimized' races to get away from the dogma while constantly harping on the 'non-victimized' races that don't. So long as they insist on having their cake and eating it too, this sort of crap will continue.

If you want to discriminate in a private forum for blacks, don't get into a holier-than-thou hissy-fit if whites do the same in a private forum.

[Todd]

BT, it is people like you that create the stigma that black americans just can't seem to shake. Victims. Validation of victimhood. Funny how you resort to "white people", you just went collectivist and showed your true colors. If a white person loses a job in which they are more qualified, more experienced than a black person etc.. because of a quota system, you better believe that is unjust, and they should complain. AND vice-versa.
You subsidize mediocrity, you get more of it.. is this really what you are advocating? Sounds marxist/statist to me.

I didn't hear him say anything like that at all. He pointed out that it's more advantageous to be white than black. He's right.

That doesn't mean we don't hope for a day when our vision of ignoring it prevails.

[RM918]

I didn't hear him say anything like that at all. He pointed out that it's more advantageous to be white than black. He's right.

That doesn't mean we don't hope for a day when our vision of ignoring it prevails.

The problem people have here are the guys that set up this kind of thing and defend it are the FIRST ones who will rabidly jump on any whiff of white-induced discrimination, no matter how harmless. Different rules for different peoples. That is my take. While something like this, on its own, doesn't tick me in the slightest, the fact that these guys would be mobbing the venue if some words and pigments were changed around does.

[Pete Kay]

I didn't hear him say anything like that at all. He pointed out that it's more advantageous to be white than black. He's right.

That doesn't mean we don't hope for a day when our vision of ignoring it prevails.

It's more advantageous to rich than poor too. We should condemn the rich for their situation in life then too like good little Marxists.

[tremendoustie]

I didn't hear him say anything like that at all. He pointed out that it's more advantageous to be white than black. He's right.

No, I don't think it is. It's advantageous to be wealthy and suburban, which more white people are.

Although no doubt racism still exists in some corners, advantages are mostly socioeconomic. Wealthy suburban black people are advantaged too, and poor white urban kids are not.

The while white-black thing is a damaging distraction. We need to get past race, and start focusing on socioeconomic conditions.

And racism is wrong, period, no matter what race the victim is.

[Todd]

No, I don't think it is. It's advantageous to be wealthy and suburban, which more white people are.

Although no doubt racism still exists in some corners, advantages are mostly socioeconomic. Wealthy suburban black people are advantaged too, and poor white urban kids are not.

The while white-black thing is a damaging distraction. We need to get past race, and start focusing on socioeconomic conditions.

And racism is wrong, period, no matter what race the victim is.


So it's essentially a class warfare issue?

[dean.engelhardt]

So your telling me the debate was integrated without government interference? That certain key players threatened to boycott the debate unless she was included so they ended up including her? That's unpossible!

I am too shocked that individuals could make a moral decision without government force.:eek:

[tremendoustie]

So it's essentially a class warfare issue?

I just mean that if we're going to look at reducing disadvantagement in this country, we'd be far better off focusing on socioeconomic conditions rather than race.

I'm sure there's plenty of hard evidence for this. Compare the success of black kids growing up in a stable upper middle class Greenwich village home, to the success of white kids growing up on the streets of East St. Louis. It wouldn't even be close.

[Noob]

If she was black, MSNBC, ABC, Fox News, CBS, and CNN would on it 24 hours day, crying that it was racists, and violets her civil rights. Al Sharpton Reggie Jackson would condem it, Obama would make an emotional charg speech about how America is still racists, bias towards blacks and minortys, demand that even new hate crime laws be pass, that gives blacks and minorities candidates automatic access to debates, free political aid time on TV and Radio and automatically have thier names place on the ballots, with out having to go throw petition of registered voters, and other hoops that white candidtes would than have to go throw.

I could see that happen, and white members of Congress, Democrats more than likely, would support such bill out fear of being branded as racists.

[Stary Hickory]

It's her fault for being born white

[Todd]

I just mean that if we're going to look at reducing disadvantagement in this country, we'd be far better off focusing on socioeconomic conditions rather than race.

I'm sure there's plenty of hard evidence for this. Compare the success of black kids growing up in a stable upper middle class Greenwich village home, to the success of white kids growing up on the streets of East St. Louis. It wouldn't even be close.

Right. I agree. But the fact that you notice and acknowledge the class distinction of privilege does not make you a Collectivist Marxist any more than it makes Black Terrell a collectivist as he was accused.

[pdavis]

No, I don't think it is. It's advantageous to be wealthy and suburban, which more white people are.

Although no doubt racism still exists in some corners, advantages are mostly socioeconomic. Wealthy suburban black people are advantaged too, and poor white urban kids are not.

The while white-black thing is a damaging distraction. We need to get past race, and start focusing on socioeconomic conditions.

And racism is wrong, period, no matter what race the victim is.

I disagree. The racial-wealth gap has increased drastically in the past 20+ years, even between high-income black and white families.

The Wealth Gap Gets Wider (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/22/AR2009032201506.html)

Racial Wealth Gap Brief (http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Racial-Wealth-Gap-Brief.pdf)

[tremendoustie]

Right. I agree. But the fact that you notice and acknowledge the class distinction of privilege does not make you a Collectivist Marxist any more than it makes Black Terrell a collectivist as he was accused.

I don't know, I didn't follow all of the discussion with BT, and I'm not trying to go after him. I'm just wary of statements that start with "whites are" or "blacks are".

It's always better to take the time to understand someone's situation, and attributes, as an individual. I just don't see racial categories as an accurate characterization of who people are. I have a lot more in common with a black guy who grew up where I did, or likes some of the things I like, than a white guy who's totally different in these ways.

In the segregationist south, the color of your skin really may have said something significant about your situation: You were a person who was excluded from certain businesses, the front of buses, etc. I just don't think it's very useful today -- it's become just a really shallow way to group people.

I'd rather they had a debate centering on issues of inner city poverty, for example, with questions selected by people who know a lot about those particular problems.

As it is, it's almost like a debate about "green eyed" issues or "redhead" issues -- not completely, but close. It doesn't make much sense, and it seems unnecessarily divisive..

And of course, excluding people on these basis is especially wrong.

[John Taylor]

BlackTerrell is right. Look, the situations where whites are specifically targeted and passed over is fairly rare. I don't agree with the concept of afirmative action, but at the same time I am not going to go around pretending that the white man is now oppressed. It is ridiculous, especially when there are more important issues, and ones that are not racially divisive.

Sincerley,

Slutter McGee

This is absolute bullshit Slutter.

When kids I beat in college academically, and then beat on the LSAT by a substantial number of points, are admitted to Ivy League law schools because their pigmentation is a few shades darker than my 1st generation American skin, that IS racism, it IS discrimination, and it is evil.

If you match two people with the same qualifications of different skin colors, under the racially discriminatory system currently in place, the "minority" will be chosen.

If you have received a denial letter and the same day had to choke down your own disappointment when congratulating a minority former teammate who got in to the same school while knowing your scores were higher, or when you discover that the minority sitting next to you in your constitutional law class in 1L year was hired as a summer associate at a prestigious firm despite a sub-superlative academic performance (below one's own) in the first year, perhaps you would comprehend just how wrong you are here.

It is far far far easier for minorities to be accepted into law schools, medical schools, dental schools, professional schools, and corresponding professional positions, than it is for the non-minority oppressors. Affirmative Action is alive and well in this country, and despite the Supreme Court statement that discrimination on the basis of race is unconstitutional, the Court only 7 years ago upheld the racially discriminatory practice.

[tremendoustie]

I disagree. The racial-wealth gap has increased drastically in the past 20+ years, even between high-income black and white families.

The Wealth Gap Gets Wider (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/22/AR2009032201506.html)

Racial Wealth Gap Brief (http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Racial-Wealth-Gap-Brief.pdf)

Figure 2 in the second link does bother me. Really they should have made sure their "high income" and "Middle income" categories matched to start with -- but I wonder why "Middle income white" crosses "High income black".

I really think the reasons must be socioeconomic ... some possibilities include: Urban wealth decreasing relative to suburban wealth, certain job sectors shrinking relative to other ones, etc. Also, are they including rich kids on their first job with middle age workers? -- because that would obviously cause problems if you're tracking the growth of their long term wealth.

Certainly economic distortions by the Fed have caused manufacturing income to drop off relative to banking, for example. What are the other options? I just don't think racism is anywhere near that significant these days ... I suppose there could be cultural effects, but I'm reluctant to suppose that there's some sort of "black culture" which affects even affluent blacks.

I'd really have to dig into the numbers better.

I mean, how can you account for this difference? Do you really think there's some significant difference between a white and a black family living in the same neighborhood with the same income and the same job? If so, what?

I have a hard time believing there is.

[John Taylor]

Figure 2 in the second link does bother me. Really they should have made sure their "high income" and "Middle income" categories matched to start with -- but I wonder why "Middle income white" crosses "High income black".

I really think the reasons must be socioeconomic ... some possibilities include: Urban wealth decreasing relative to suburban wealth, certain job sectors shrinking relative to other ones, etc. Certainly economic distortions by the Fed have caused manufacturing income to drop off relative to banking, for example. What are the other options? I just don't think racism is anywhere near that significant these days ... I suppose there could be cultural effects, but I'm reluctant to suppose that there's some sort of "black culture" which affects even affluent blacks.

I'd really have to dig into the numbers better.

I mean, how can you account for this difference? Do you really think there's some significant difference between a white and a black family living in the same neighborhood with the same income and the same job? If so, what?

I have a hard time believing there is -- I really think racial differences are a secondary effect, and there are other factors at work here.

This all overlooks the fact that as far as public POLICY is concerned, we can only establish a policy which treats people equally under the law. If people CHOOSE to give more resources to others, and such a distribution offends us, we can voluntarily patronize others, and give them of our resources, but none of this, even if 100% true, creates a cause of action which does not offend justice, the rule of law, and equality under the law.

[tremendoustie]

This all overlooks the fact that as far as public POLICY is concerned, we can only establish a policy which treats people equally under the law. If people CHOOSE to give more resources to others, and such a distribution offends us, we can voluntarily patronize others, and give them of our resources, but none of this, even if 100% true, creates a cause of action which does not offend justice, the rule of law, and equality under the law.

I certainly agree with this. I'm not advocating any sort of discriminatory law, just trying to understand what's going on.

[John Taylor]

I certainly agree with this. I'm not advocating any sort of discriminatory law, just trying to understand what's going on.

We have a system of voluntary ghettoization, and "minorities" are taught that they are oppressed from a young age, and have always been held down, so what do they do, they become defeatist and horribly self-pitying. With hard work and the massive benefits in place from state sanctioned racial discrimination (Affirmative Action), minorities should be among the wealthiest people in America on a per capita basis.

[BlackTerrel]

Well, "blackterrel", if you knew your history - groups like this DID exist for Italians back in the day. The good thing is, the italians moved past this mindset, and excelled. Like most immigrants that have come here to the United States. They didn't create a vicious circle of victim-hood. Creating a quagmire of dependency that could be justified as modern day slavery. It is precisely what this organization is doing that keeps "black america" on the bottom rung, rather than a participant in equal scale - of course, with a rather huge helping boot on the back, from the left... to help keep them down.

On what world do groups like this not exist for Italians? There are plenty:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=italian+american+groups&aq=f&aqi=g2g-m1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CxTLJVawJTIPQOIXUM8vi_dAKAAAAqgQFT9BGiDc&fp=c15ecbf3104b10e7

People seem to be more "outraged" when blacks do it though.

[BlackTerrel]

BT, it is people like you that create the stigma that black americans just can't seem to shake. Victims. Validation of victimhood. Funny how you resort to "white people", you just went collectivist and showed your true colors.

I hope the irony of this statement is not lost.


If a white person loses a job in which they are more qualified, more experienced than a black person etc.. because of a quota system, you better believe that is unjust, and they should complain. AND vice-versa.
You subsidize mediocrity, you get more of it.. is this really what you are advocating? Sounds marxist/statist to me.

I'm not advocating it but I am putting things in perspective. The people that whine about losing jobs due to affirmative action have no legitimate argument to stand on. There have been countless studies that people with "black sounding names" get less callbacks on the EXACT SAME RESUME than people with "white sounding names". I conducted a study like this myself when I was in undergraduate and believe me you get a lot more responses when your name is "Eric" than when your name is "Terrel".

That's life. I'm not going to bitch and whine about it. I'll live with it. And that's one of the reasons I started my own company. With two Asian partners, and one white partner.

But let's be real here. If you really think it's an advantage to be black you are incredibly naive. And that's putting it nice. As I said, this guy explains it well.

YouTube - Louis CK - Being White (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY)

[BlackTerrel]

Were there no black issues in South Africa BlackTerrel? Just because the majority is victimized that makes it right? Long live apartheid? Is that why it was ok for Zionists to steal land from the vast majority of arab Palestinians, because they were there? We can't have a problem with illegal immigration because legals are a majority? WTF are you talking about?

You're really comparing white people in America to blacks under apartheid rule in South Africa? Really? Really?

Look there can be legitimate arguments against this debate. Or against affirmative action. But not with this sort of hyperbole. You have to put things in perspective.

[tremendoustie]

I'm not advocating it [quotas]


Good -- I think racial discrimination is wrong, period.


There have been countless studies that people with "black sounding names" get less callbacks on the EXACT SAME RESUME than people with "white sounding names". I conducted a study like this myself when I was in undergraduate and believe me you get a lot more responses when your name is "Eric" than when your name is "Terrel".


So, you had identical resumes, with different names, randomly sent them out to companies that were hiring, and got fewer callbacks for "Terrel"?

That's ... disappointing to say the least. What was the difference in the rate of callbacks, and how many cases did you try?

Here's an interesting idea, as a sidepoint: how about selecting one national chain, and doing this test using advertised openings nationally? Then, different businesses could be rated according to how much they discriminate. I know I would seriously take this into account when selecting where to shop.

I would have hoped it would be just about 0% difference ... perhaps I've got my head in the sand.



That's life. I'm not going to bitch and whine about it. I'll live with it. And that's one of the reasons I started my own company.

Well done -- congratulations :).



But let's be real here. If you really think it's an advantage to be black you are incredibly naive. And that's putting it nice.

Yeah, I agree -- especially if you're one of the many blacks who have to overcome adverse socioeconomic conditions.



As I said, this guy explains it well.

Well, I don't know ... it seems like most of his points are about discrimination in the past. And I certainly disagree with the "we'll totally deserve it" comment (I know that's his comment, not yours). People should be treated as individuals. The slaveholders would deserve it, but not some innocent person simply because they have the same skin color. I mean THAT's racism too.

[tremendoustie]

On what world do groups like this not exist for Italians? There are plenty:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=italian+american+groups&aq=f&aqi=g2g-m1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CxTLJVawJTIPQOIXUM8vi_dAKAAAAqgQFT9BGiDc&fp=c15ecbf3104b10e7

People seem to be more "outraged" when blacks do it though.

I'm not a fan of that kind of thing either ... unless it were to help people with the culture change while immigrating or something, that would make sense.

Here's one example:



The NIAF works closely with the national government in Washington DC as a major advocate for Italian Americans for thirty years.What does THAT mean? Nothing good.



The foundation offers grants and scholarships to Italian American students,
Why not anyone? Why does the fact that a person is of Italian descent matter?



supports the teaching of the Italian language and the continuation of Italian traditions and culture. Part of this mission is to monitor the portrayal of Italian stereotypes in national media and to support more positive portrayals of Italian Americans. The NIAF also works to helps to keep strong social and economic ties to Italy as well as helping Italian Americans with dual citizenship queries.The rest of this seems more reasonable.

I think promoting the continuation of cultural practices and languages makes sense to me -- while promoting individuals because they are of a particular race doesn't -- and lobbying government regarding people of a certain race certainly doesn't. I think that's where I'd draw the line.

A club dedicated to promoting Italian, or African American politicians: Bad.
A club dedicated to holding traditional italian or african folk dances, meals, or teaching the language(s)? Good.

Preferring people of one race over another? Bad.
Promoting and maintaining culture? Good.

[BlackTerrel]

Good -- I think racial discrimination is wrong, period.

I concur.


So, you had identical resumes, with different names, randomly sent them out to companies that were hiring, and got fewer callbacks for "Terrel"?

That's ... disappointing to say the least. What was the difference in the rate of callbacks, and how many cases did you try?

I don't remember the exact percentages with my study and it varied by name. But if you go to Google there are plenty of studies that have been done by much more reputable people than my college paper. Here is one example from a year ago.

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

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

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

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

Clearly having a white name gets more callbacks than a black name. Exact same resume. And I think it's pretty safe to assume that carries over when it comes time to hire as well. If affirmative action was really the terrible thing that some people claim it is this would not be the case. Look it is what it is. I'm not going to sit here and whine about it. But whites making a big fuss of discrimination against whites are disingenuous at best and trying to stir up animosity at worst.

It is an advantage to be white in this country. You have some disadvantages. That's life. I used the example of a normal sized person complaining that he can't get the job of Santa's elf in Christmas - really? You have every other single advantage in the world, this is one advantage that they have. And you're going to make a big deal about this one?

[james1906]

IYou have some disadvantages.

Yep, we'll never pull off a purple pinstriped three-piece suit, people look at us with disgust if we scream "Oh skeet skeet skeet" in public, and we also have a chance of rejection from fat white girls.

[tremendoustie]

I concur.



I don't remember the exact percentages with my study and it varied by name. But if you go to Google there are plenty of studies that have been done by much more reputable people than my college paper. Here is one example from a year ago.

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

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

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

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


Wow, Aisha gets 2.2% and Carrie gets 13% -- if those are really identical resumes, that's really bad ... I guess I had too high of an opinion of my fellow man.

I'd really love to see a breakdown by the age of the hiring person. It's my opinion that younger people are far less likely to be racially biased than older people. Assuming that's the case, it'd be a positive indication for the future.

[axiomata]

There was a chapter in Freakanomics about the disadvantages of blacks sounding names. The effect is real.

It has also been shown that some companies choose against hiring qualified black candidates in the first place because they fear race-based lawsuits should they wish to fire them in the future.

[BlackTerrel]

Wow, Aisha gets 2.2% and Carrie gets 13% -- if those are really identical resumes, that's really bad ... I guess I had too high of an opinion of my fellow man.

I'd really love to see a breakdown by the age of the hiring person. It's my opinion that younger people are far less likely to be racially biased than older people. Assuming that's the case, it'd be a positive indication for the future.

That study would be considerably harder to conduct but I agree with you. It's a problem. But for the most part it's a disappearing problem

I saw LeBron James interviewed on Larry King today and Larry asked LeBron if he had ever been discriminated against and LeBron said no, but that he had heard stories from older people of a much different world. I'm about the same age as LeBron.

In 50 years this will be irrelevant.

[Carson]

I bet she was required to foot the bill for it.

[Pete Kay]

These studies are misleading. Uncommon White names would probably have a similar effect. In the South, some Whites have names like Kaleb and Lamar and these tend to be seen as rural country names. Depending on the job, they most likely wouldn't get call backs either.

[james1906]

These studies are misleading. Uncommon White names would probably have a similar effect. In the South, some Whites have names like Kaleb and Lamar and these tend to be seen as rural country names. Depending on the job, they most likely wouldn't get call backs either.

Yeah, same with hippie names like Sunshine and Meadow.

[The Patriot]

On what world do groups like this not exist for Italians? There are plenty:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=italian+american+groups&aq=f&aqi=g2g-m1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CxTLJVawJTIPQOIXUM8vi_dAKAAAAqgQFT9BGiDc&fp=c15ecbf3104b10e7

People seem to be more "outraged" when blacks do it though.

I am Italian, I have ever heard of these groups. They certainly don't have the money or political pull of La Raza or the NAACP in Washington, nor do they have people on the cable news circuit talking about various social and economic policies.

[Philmanoman]

what exactly is a black issue and what exactly is a white issue?examples?

[BlackTerrel]

These studies are misleading. Uncommon White names would probably have a similar effect. In the South, some Whites have names like Kaleb and Lamar and these tend to be seen as rural country names. Depending on the job, they most likely wouldn't get call backs either.

Assuming you are correct why would that make the study misleading? The study says that common white names get a much better response rate than common black names. Those studies have been done time and again with always the same results.

Now you are hypothesizing that certain names that are common among rural whites might also experience bias. Maybe and maybe not. If you want to test that hypothesis go ahead.

Doesn't change the validity of the original study.

[BlackTerrel]

I am Italian, I have ever heard of these groups. They certainly don't have the money or political pull of La Raza or the NAACP in Washington,

What kind of pull does the NAACP have? What are the big issues they worry you about?


nor do they have people on the cable news circuit talking about various social and economic policies.

That's because the issues effecting Italians are generally not as big as the issues attacking blacks and other minorities. When is the last time a cop stopped you for being Italian?


what exactly is a black issue and what exactly is a white issue?examples?

There are no issues for white people because whites are the majority. If it's an issue for white people it's an issue for the entire country.

As an example of a "black issue": Driving while black, cops in a certain neighborhood stop blacks much more often than they stop whites. That would be one example, there are others.

[tjeffersonsghost]

No, I don't think it is. It's advantageous to be wealthy and suburban, which more white people are.

Although no doubt racism still exists in some corners, advantages are mostly socioeconomic. Wealthy suburban black people are advantaged too, and poor white urban kids are not.

The while white-black thing is a damaging distraction. We need to get past race, and start focusing on socioeconomic conditions.

And racism is wrong, period, no matter what race the victim is.

Well said.

[Philmanoman]

so being targeted by cops is exclusive to black people.
wow,BT has it all figured out.

[torchbearer]

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154559

[Philmanoman]

What happens if black or mexican people become the majority some day.I guess there wouldnt be black issues anymore,all that would go awaty.Right?Then there would be white issues only?Im sure black people and mexican people would be ok with that...

Its all the white mans fault because he thinks he has white issues that are more important than black issues.Everyone has issues or problems that come up no matter the color of your skin.

[torchbearer]

What happens if black or mexican people become the majority some day.I guess there wouldnt be black issues anymore,all that would go awaty.Right?Then there would be white issues only?Im sure black people and mexican people would be ok with that...

Its all the white mans fault because he thinks he has white issues that are more important than black issues.Everyone has issues or problems that come up no matter the color of your skin.

I am a minority in Alexandria. over 51% of our population is dark skin, but people with dark skin still get "special privileges" as a minority.
I would expect this trent to hold. Meaning, even if people with dark skin become a majority, they will still be a special class of people with special privileges, and anyone who points out the fallacy will be assassinated with charges of racism.

[BlackTerrel]

so being targeted by cops is exclusive to black people.
wow,BT has it all figured out.

Yeah that's exactly what I said :rolleyes:

You asked for an example of a "black issue". I gave one. If cops target everyone that is an issue for the population at large. If cops target black people at a much higher rate than white people then that is a "black issue".

Kind of like the number of ramps at the mall would be a "handicapped issue". It would not effect able bodied people. There are no groups for able bodied people because they are the majority and any issue that affects them is a general issue, not one specifically to their group.

[BlackTerrel]

I am a minority in Alexandria. over 51% of our population is dark skin, but people with dark skin still get "special privileges" as a minority.
I would expect this trent to hold. Meaning, even if people with dark skin become a majority, they will still be a special class of people with special privileges, and anyone who points out the fallacy will be assassinated with charges of racism.

Like what kind of priveleges? Maybe I'll check this out - what do I get if I move there?

[torchbearer]

Like what kind of priveleges? Maybe I'll check this out - what do I get if I move there?

first, you get to use the victim card anytime anyone calls you out on anything. the race card, don't leave home without it.
two, you can have organization dedicated to "black" people, and it not be considered backwards and racist.

[BlackTerrel]

first, you get to use the victim card anytime anyone calls you out on anything. the race card, don't leave home without it.

Give an example. This does not actually seem very useful. Never been for me. Maybe I should move to Rochester though.


two, you can have organization dedicated to "black" people, and it not be considered backwards and racist.

How does that help? Sounds more like a waste of time and resources. What do they do in those groups that you'd like to take part in? And what would you do if you had a white group?

[Philmanoman]

Its a lost cause...theres just some people out there that think...

"Everything is the white mans fault and black people are perfect...all white people hate us and target us"


...and of course theres people that think...

"Everything is the black mans fault and white people are perfect...all black people hate us and target us"


...Im glad Im neither of those people is all I can say.

[BlackTerrel]

I'm not one of those people. And 90% of blacks and whites aren't those people either. You have a small group that likes to make a lot of noise - and that small group is amplified on the Internet.

Check out some YouTube videos for an example.

[Pete Kay]

Assuming you are correct why would that make the study misleading? The study says that common white names get a much better response rate than common black names. Those studies have been done time and again with always the same results.

Now you are hypothesizing that certain names that are common among rural whites might also experience bias. Maybe and maybe not. If you want to test that hypothesis go ahead.

Doesn't change the validity of the original study.

Black people are in the minority. Therefore even a common Black name is uncommon in the larger society. Where was the study carried out? Atlanta? Probably not. These types of studies are purposefully misleading because they don't offer a control to show other possible outcomes. What if they carried out the reverse in a majority Black city? Would the results be the same? We don't know because the study was poorly executed.