After reading Edward's post about Detroit's mayor, I was reminded by a man who pulled the race card at one of my old jobs. That guy was a real piece of work. But that got me to thinking, while he was a jerk, the company played a role in the situation by hiring him when he should never have made it through the screening process.
Have you ever observed a situation in which a person was given privilege or extra advantage because of their race, gender, age, or appearance? How did you feel about it?
Here's my example....
Back in the early 90's, I worked at a company that was trying to change its image. It was a public organization, meaning state officials had some amount of oversight on it because we received a state tax break. The state questioned why we had so many white female employees. The answer was easy - we lived in a predominantly white city - as in, very white. And my industry is 80% female across the nation. Our leaders didn't accept those reasons. They moved the white HR managers into other jobs, hired black HR managers, and told them go hire some people of other ethnical backgrounds, hopefully some of them being men. I would have considered legal action as the old HR team. The new HR team did the best they could. They got few candidates that fit the mission. At the time I was assistant internal auditor to the corporate auditor (I had inside information), and I was moving from that job to a full time training course to learn another job. My training class of about 12. 4 were men, 8 were women. 2 of the women were internal (me and a woman from another unit). 3 of the people in my class were black. 1 was Asian. The rest of us were white. I don't know the backgrounds of all the students, but the 2 black men were new hires and failed all the way through the class. Can you imagine how awkward that was for all of us? 1 of the men sued the company based on race. He said he was unable to pass any of the tests required because he was racially targeted. He was angrily vocal and refused to take responsibility for any of the failing grades he got. The other tried but he had a tough time. We all had to study and start from zero, and most of us had no knowledge of the subject matter. I understand there may be times when, culturally, concepts are difficult to grasp for some populations, but that is where skillfull hiring comes in. You don't hire people wrong for the job! What pissed me off was that the HR managers forced the instructor to continue those people in the class even though they were failing all the way along, she had counseled them it may not be a good fit for them, and the REST of us would be kicked out of class if we failed even ONE of the 11 or 12 quizzes along the way. In the end, only the one who sued and did the worst in the class (not even close to passing) didn't get a full time job out of the course. And within a couple years, the other that should not have passed was fired, and has since changed industries to one that better suit his background and interests. The company didn't do them any favors, and it created an unfair situation. Those two should not have been hired in the first place, but because of the focus on hiring to satisfy race/gender requirements, a mess was made. I am an advocate for equal rights and EEOC, but I believe as complicated as it can be to attract and recruit in some areas, there are sane and balanced ways to go about it. I don't think anyone is fooled when a company hires someone obviously not suited for the job, and that person knows better than anyone else, I'm sure. It sets them up to be sensitive to the issue. I have since become a manager and hired people of all races for the job, and our region is less and less white, thank goodness. But my focus has been to hire the right personality and skill set for a position - not make my company 'look' more race or gender friendly by putting people in positions that are a bad fit.
This is just one example. Yours may be something like, she got the job because she was skinnier and prettier - he got the job because our clients are white males and the manager didn't think I, as a black man, could sell to them - I have an accent they didn't want - I'm a mechanic and the guys in the shop told the manager they wouldn't work with a female mechanic - etc.
Have you ever observed a situation in which a person was given privilege or extra advantage because of their race, gender, age, or appearance? How did you feel about it?
Here's my example....
Back in the early 90's, I worked at a company that was trying to change its image. It was a public organization, meaning state officials had some amount of oversight on it because we received a state tax break. The state questioned why we had so many white female employees. The answer was easy - we lived in a predominantly white city - as in, very white. And my industry is 80% female across the nation. Our leaders didn't accept those reasons. They moved the white HR managers into other jobs, hired black HR managers, and told them go hire some people of other ethnical backgrounds, hopefully some of them being men. I would have considered legal action as the old HR team. The new HR team did the best they could. They got few candidates that fit the mission. At the time I was assistant internal auditor to the corporate auditor (I had inside information), and I was moving from that job to a full time training course to learn another job. My training class of about 12. 4 were men, 8 were women. 2 of the women were internal (me and a woman from another unit). 3 of the people in my class were black. 1 was Asian. The rest of us were white. I don't know the backgrounds of all the students, but the 2 black men were new hires and failed all the way through the class. Can you imagine how awkward that was for all of us? 1 of the men sued the company based on race. He said he was unable to pass any of the tests required because he was racially targeted. He was angrily vocal and refused to take responsibility for any of the failing grades he got. The other tried but he had a tough time. We all had to study and start from zero, and most of us had no knowledge of the subject matter. I understand there may be times when, culturally, concepts are difficult to grasp for some populations, but that is where skillfull hiring comes in. You don't hire people wrong for the job! What pissed me off was that the HR managers forced the instructor to continue those people in the class even though they were failing all the way along, she had counseled them it may not be a good fit for them, and the REST of us would be kicked out of class if we failed even ONE of the 11 or 12 quizzes along the way. In the end, only the one who sued and did the worst in the class (not even close to passing) didn't get a full time job out of the course. And within a couple years, the other that should not have passed was fired, and has since changed industries to one that better suit his background and interests. The company didn't do them any favors, and it created an unfair situation. Those two should not have been hired in the first place, but because of the focus on hiring to satisfy race/gender requirements, a mess was made. I am an advocate for equal rights and EEOC, but I believe as complicated as it can be to attract and recruit in some areas, there are sane and balanced ways to go about it. I don't think anyone is fooled when a company hires someone obviously not suited for the job, and that person knows better than anyone else, I'm sure. It sets them up to be sensitive to the issue. I have since become a manager and hired people of all races for the job, and our region is less and less white, thank goodness. But my focus has been to hire the right personality and skill set for a position - not make my company 'look' more race or gender friendly by putting people in positions that are a bad fit.
This is just one example. Yours may be something like, she got the job because she was skinnier and prettier - he got the job because our clients are white males and the manager didn't think I, as a black man, could sell to them - I have an accent they didn't want - I'm a mechanic and the guys in the shop told the manager they wouldn't work with a female mechanic - etc.
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Tue, April 22, 2008 - 8:20 AMI switched jobs over the winter, and the store manager who did (and still does) the hiring is a RED HEAD (firey red too). While the hair on my head is more auburn now than red, my beard is RED! The store has a huge number of redheaded employees, way above the average. So I can only summize that the manager, whether he realizes it or not, has a preferance based on a superficial criteria (which is what "race" is).
And as much as I enjoy redheads, it causes problems because not everyone is hired because they are qualified to do the job (some are way over-qualified in fact, which I think causes different problems). -
-
Unsu...
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Tue, April 22, 2008 - 8:24 AMSometimes companies are almost forced into makeing certain hires based on what they have related to EEOC /race/sex/ etc. I have seen female and African American candidates either hires or promoted into positions in an effort to make the company look good even though the most qualified candidate might not have been female or African American. It's a tough balance as I believe it should always be the best person for the job regardless of race and sex. It's just not always the way things are.
-
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Tue, April 22, 2008 - 8:44 AMfrankly, i've never seen such a situation, but I'm sure they exist. why it is an issue i don't quite understand, although i suspect it has something to do with a degree of latent racism.
look, incompetent people have been hired since hiring began, for all kinds of reasons. for a couple hundred years in this country, incompetents were hired simply because they were white, in order to keep black candidates from getting the job. incompetents are hired because they're related to someone, or they're the friend of the boss' mistress, etc.
the implication in these stories always seems to be slanted toward "these people were hired just because of their race (or gender) and they can't really do the job!" as though the specific race (or gender) has a monopoly on incompetence. the truth is, there are competent candidates of all gender and races for virtually every position available. the problem is with an HR department that is too lazy to grow their pool of job applicants, and too wimpy to insist on competence. there are no rules or regulations from the government that require hiring an incompetent. the rules are simply that you can't discriminate on the basis of race (or gender). -
-
Unsu...
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Tue, April 22, 2008 - 8:52 AMTruth be told if a purple person came to me for a job today I would hire he/she on the spot. -
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Tue, April 22, 2008 - 9:23 AMI was in the top two for a job that I not only wanted but really really needed (few jobs pay well around here) and the other woman got it - she was Asian. Had nowhere near my experience. It was at a college and I suppose that they needed to show equal opp hiring, especially in those days--and in this area there were, and still are, few minorities to start with. But I was seriously pissed off. I'm still pissed off now that I think about it!!! I really really needed that job, and it was a very long time before another one came my way. I don't think she was in the same situation as I was, not at all. Grrrrr!!!
-
-
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Tue, April 22, 2008 - 10:30 AMHR people are an antsy bunch to begin with. EEOC requirements (and all sort of other stuff) scare employers.
They will do this kind of stuff to cover their asses.
A lot of this stuff depends on where you live, and it can get weird.
My wife, attending College out West, got part-time and summer work easily. Reason - Single Appalachian Female with income below the poverty guidelines. Back home, forget it honey.
Personally, I'd hire a female mechanic. A "wrench Munky" might just do the job!
-
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Tue, April 22, 2008 - 7:10 PMEdward, I'm a total wrench junkie and would love to do an internship as a mechanic. My ex-boyfriend says I'm a natural and I worked all last summer on our Harleys. We were just getting started on his custom cars when we broke up. I miss it tons! I was even thinking of going back to school to learn Harley or bike mechanics in Florida. Bummer I need the money from this job. Oh well.
-
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Tue, April 22, 2008 - 6:37 PMi have more than 20 years of experience as a recruiter at all levels, and have worked with many companies who were focusing on bringing more diversity into their departments. one thing i learned early on, is that companies will hire people who fit their company image, and that goes regardless of gender or race. you're either an IBM type or you're not, and you're either a Google type or you're not. so trying to create diversity within that limitation is another hurdle.
there are fields where certain races or sexes really are dominant. for instance, here we are in the 21st century, and i'm working right now on a CFO position, and out of about 100 resumes i've looked at so far, three are women. that's 3% -- really, wft? do i look more hopefully at those resumes, hoping to get a woman into that job? you bet your ass i do... will i refer someone who's background doesn't cut it just because they're a woman? absolutely not. and if it was a CTO position? i have only once placed a woman in a CTO role, it is that rare.
it is a reality of business that there is a complete imbalance in many jobs, and any aware company wants to do something to rectify that... the hard part is doing it without settling for less. it sounds like, in your example, that someone thought you can just pick some unqualified person because of their race, and think they'll be able to do the job. that is entirely idiotic, and totally ineffective in the long run, as your story shows, munky.
i also have heard a gazillion people's feedback about their disappointment in not getting jobs they wanted... and usually that is some version of "they made a mistake, i was the best person, but they picked the other person because... they were a friend, they were younger, they were older, they were white, they were black, they went to the same school... fill in the blank with any kind of justification...
but the real truth is usually (really, just about always) that they chose another candidate because they thought they could do the job and ***they liked them better*** and the hire was the easiest and most risk-free way to go -- people hire people they like... sure, sometimes it's easier to like them because they feel familiar and they relate to them, but people also often like people because they are interesting, flexible, excited about the job, optimistic, seem trustworthy, and a whole long list of other qualities that shine through just about everything else.
can a minority candidate milk being a minority that for all it's worth? hell yes. and i think they should if they're smart. you should use anything you can to make yourself stand out from the others when you want a job... and if being a minority gives a little extra oomph, use it.
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Tue, April 22, 2008 - 6:51 PMthe truth Munky some people would have no chance in hell to get decent jobs had there not been affirmative action.
And as much as folks might get upset that a hispanic or black gets hired....women, handicap and older people have also benefited from affirmative action.
And I agree with Red...incompetence comes in all colors and genders....and perhaps they hired someone incompetent just to make sure they can't evolve further then the level entry positions.
Also companies intentionally hire people they know are going to fail, so when they have to fire them, they can do so without being questioned...
I have been hired in jobs I hated because of a quota. They often give me positions they know I don't qualify for on purpose, so when they were ready to fire my ass they can fall back on the excuse I wasn't doing a good job.
As a matter of fact, I was hired to a supervisory position in a job that the boss knew I wasn't qualified for...and I told her I had my limits. And she insisted it would be ok...the trick was they needed a person to keep the funds, so basically she used me for my social security. When June came (the fiscal period) she had the nerve to tell me that I wasn't doing a good job, which was bullshit since we didn't have much work for me to fail on. I told her this on my last day that I knew she needed my social security number, why hire someone who lacked experience. She got beet red with embarassment....
You also have folks hiring folks because of friendships...my boss was hired by her friend...and she has no clue how to do her job... -
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Tue, April 22, 2008 - 7:17 PMI think affirmative action works when it gets the foot in the door and the hire for people who need the work and wouldn't be considered for bullshit reasons - and they would otherwise be qualified. But if they are unqualified and fail miserably, it's not fair to let them skate and punish those who work to get the same job just because they don't fit the quota requirement. I really believe that.
Leslie, I think we all have to earn our way, and if I don't get a job, I figure oh well, there is a reason, and time to move on. Sometimes it's a crappy reason I find out about, and sometimes I never know. I don't blame employers for having affirmative action criteria, but let's not lean so far out there that competent, hard-working people lose to people who are not qualified.
There is a distinction there. One I had to deal with, and navigate as a manager, was our City's EEOC requirement that we interview others even if we knew that we would ultimately pick a candidate already on our staff. We weren't supposed to admit it, or let anyone know, because that would be inconsistent with the spirit of EEOC, but give me a break. If you have a business need, and a staff member is already interested, has demonstrated real talent, and they fit well in the team, would you NOT hire them? No! As a manager, you REWARD your staff for taking on new tasks and showing initiative. Yet I had to make them interview for jobs I knew I would give them, and bring people in to interview them, knowing I would now hire them. It was an unfair situation, and it happens every day. In fact, it happened to me twice this winter. I was the one they brought in but didn't hire. Talk about annoying.... I was vocal about it as manager, at first, but learned quickly to shut up or make the city nervous about EEOC violations.
-
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Tue, April 22, 2008 - 8:21 PM"a staff member is already interested, has demonstrated real talent, and they fit well in the team, would you NOT hire them? No! As a manager, you REWARD your staff for taking on new tasks and showing initiative."
Makes sense to me, and I did just that whenever I could.
There is another factor to consider, a tongue-in-cheek golden rule for employees: If you are hired at $8.00/ hour, and want to work your way up, give your employer $8.50 to $9.00/hour worth of work. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES give your employer $10.00 or more per hour worth of work. You will be lauded to the sky and remain in that job till the day you die. -
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Tue, April 22, 2008 - 11:42 PMA historical racist past cannot be undone by more racism. Martin Luther King's idea of a racist-free society had nothing to do with what Affirmative Action is. This heightened racial sensitivity causes more problems and tension than healing.
".... the stress on "diversity" has made interracial interaction strained and superficial; multiculturalism has caused political correctness".
Affirmative Action generates it's own sickness. The very people that benefit this program are now questioned as to their skill set and experience. "Were they just a shoe-in"?
My question is that, in this day and age, is it racism?
Of course it is.
And "yes", I've been the victim of affirmative action racism. -
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Wed, April 23, 2008 - 8:32 PMSo I'm a thread killer now????
LOL =-) -
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Wed, April 23, 2008 - 9:43 PMNo, you're a victim, as are we all.
Contraversial - shouldn't that be Controversial?
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Wed, April 23, 2008 - 10:08 PMSo I'm a thread killer now????
Al, thread killer of the highest order, took a real shot in the Pitts thread.
Don't see anyone in a rush to answer his challenge. . .
-
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Wed, April 23, 2008 - 10:03 PM"Affirmative Action generates it's own sickness. The very people that benefit this program are now questioned as to their skill set and experience. "Were they just a shoe-in"?
My question is that, in this day and age, is it racism? Of course it is."
And it was Racism when my WASP wife was given preference for a job when she was in college out West?
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Thu, April 24, 2008 - 4:16 PMHeeerrreee Al; the thread killer. LOL
Nah seriously this is too vital and important a discourse to fail to engage in it. If I have made anyone uncomfortable I am overjoyed. If I have made anyone seriously consider my thesis I am elated. If I have offended anyone I regret it and ask your understanding.
The recent victory by Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania's Democratic Primary over Barak Obama gets right to the core of those issues we are examining here. Both candidates are extremely intelligent. One has graduated from Yale Law (where she was on Law Review) and the other from Harvard (where he was Editor of Law Review). Both are worthy of consideration of the entire Democratic electorate as potential candidates for the November election. Yet race is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room and it is "politically incorrect" to discuss it honestly. It is like Cornel Wilde's description of Homesexuality; "the love that dare not mention its name." Barak who is just as white as he is black is considered by a vast majority of white folks to be black. Is this not the rule that 1/16 portion of black blood would turn the other 15/16 black?
Anecdotal evidence such as Munky started this thread off with is just that anecdotal. We can exchange our tales which support our sense of victimization. The corrosive nature of this situation is that the situation which Munky describes happens all too often. I have seen Blacks hired for positions for which they were not qualified far too many times. I have been called "house nigger" and "uncle tom" and even worse when I have terminated them. The sense of victimization is a license for many people. Yet inequality and the conditions of racial preference are also realities.
In listening (reading) to Munky's dialog I recognize the unfairness she describes in this situation. However lets be clear on this; if discrimination and racial animus against blacks were the historical norms then the affirmative action and equal opportunity regulations would never have been created. The great issue of our times is to recognize the history, acknowledge the improvements, and still be empirical in examining the STILL EXISTING conditions that limit the opportunities for non-whites in this society. Let us also recognize that for every one of the "jerks" like the one that Munky described there are 5 or 6 potential Colin Powells, Kenneth Chenaults, Barak Obamas, or Reg Lewises who are highly qualified and never reach their full potential because they spend their entire professional lives "proving themselves." "I just don't know," or "I just have a feeling about him(her)" or the famous "just who does he think he is" are the sorts of things the competent blacks have to deal with.
In Munky's example she started with "Back in the early 90's." That is approaching 20 years ago. Most racial discrimination suits are dismissed now. The types of underqualified or unqualified individuals are often red herrings hired intentionally in order to fail. When she stated, "What pissed me off was that the HR managers forced the instructor to continue those people in the class even though they were failing all the way along," my spider sense tingled. This sounds like the traditional situation when a company or organization which has blantantly discriminated against minorities or women in the past is faced with a negative repercussion attempts to build a countervailing argument by demonstrating that women or minorities are incapable of performing the tasks connected with the position. This happened over and over again to women who attempted to integrate all male environments such as police and fire departments. Hiring decisions were made selecting not the best candidates, but the ones most likely to fail.
Munky's following comments made me believe that she is sensitive to this process. When she said, "Those two should not have been hired in the first place," and "I don't think anyone is fooled when a company hires someone obviously not suited for the job, and that person knows better than anyone else, I'm sure. It sets them up to be sensitive to the issue. I have since become a manager and hired people of all races for the job, and our region is less and less white, thank goodness. But my focus has been to hire the right personality and skill set for a position - not make my company 'look' more race or gender friendly by putting people in positions that are a bad fit." I think that it demonstrates the contemporary employment model. The kind of "right stuff" or "guys like us" mentalities of the 80s & 90s thankfully no longer exist in most business environments. -
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Thu, April 24, 2008 - 8:19 PMAl, that's exactly what i was trying to point out earlier.
When I was hired to met a quota...I knew they gave me a position I didn't have skills for. However I took it because i needed a job. But they hired me, simply to make it look like women/minorities are not capable of handling certain positions. Which is bullshit. Anyone of any race can lack skills.,
They can find people within my gender and race who can perform better, but if they hired them, then they have to created an excuse not to hire "more" minorities. Afterall all they are lazy, late and unreliable.
Munky and Al excellent points!! -
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Thu, April 24, 2008 - 11:16 PMAl,
Maybe you'd like to comment on my seperate statements above, and now below. ;-)
<Martin Luther King's idea of a racist-free society had nothing to do with what Affirmative Action is. This heightened racial sensitivity causes more problems and tension than healing.
".... the stress on "diversity" has made interracial interaction strained and superficial; multiculturalism has caused political correctness".>
Just curious.
Roger -
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Fri, April 25, 2008 - 3:10 PMHmmmm. First I think that it is important to establish exactly what MLK said and what words have been put into his mouth posthumously. Many people tend to attribute things to Rev. King to bolster their arguments especially when it comes to matters of race and racial interactions.
In your statements I can't tell what he said and what was the interpretation of his words. Rev. King never said a word about "Affirmative Action." The Affirmative Action programs and the designation itself were not even created until after his death. This other statement, "the stress on "diversity" has made interracial interaction strained and superficial; multiculturalism has caused political correctness," is also not a statement of Rev. King. He never used the word diversity in this context.
Now he also never worked toward a "racist-free society." All of his words and works wered dedicated to Justice, Equality, Compassion, Human (as opposed to racial)Unity, and Reverence to a Divine Power. Here are some of his actual words:
"Many of the ugly pages of American history have been obscured and forgotten. A society is always eager to cover misdeeds with a cloak of forgetfulness, but no society can fully repress an ugly past when the ravages persist into the present. America owes a debt of justice which it has only begun to pay. If it loses the will to finish or slackens in its determination, history will recall its crimes and the country that would be great will lack the most element of greatness — justice."
Where Do We Go from Here : Chaos or Community? (1967), p. 109
"If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas."
from a 1968 Playboy magazine interview
His other most famous words on employment:
" We must create full employment or we must create incomes. People must be made consumers by one method or the other. Once they are placed in this position we need to be concerned that the potential of the individual is not wasted. New forms of work that enhance the social good will have to be devised for those for whom traditional jobs are not available."
Where Do We Go From Here? (1967)
"The tough mind is sharp and penetrating, breaking through the crust of legends and myths and sifting the true from the false. The tough-minded individual is astute and discerning. He has a strong austere quality that makes for firmness of purpose and solidness of commitment.
Who doubts that this toughness is one of man's greatest needs? Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think."
Strength to Love (1963)
"Throw us into jail and we shall still love you. Bomb our homes and threaten our children, and we shall still love you. Send your hooded perpetrators of violence at midnight hour to beat us till we are half-dead, and we shall still love you. Be assured that we shall wear you down by our capacity to suffer. One day we shall win freedom, but not only for ourselves. We shall so appeal to your hearts and conscience that we shall win you over in the process and our victory shall be a double victory."
Statement after his release from the Selma Alabama Jail (1965)
And finally the words that led to the decision to have him murdered as an "Enemy of the State"; also from "Where Do We Go From Here?" (1967)
"Don't let anybody make you think God chose America as his divine messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with justice and it seems I can hear God saying to America "you are too arrogant, and if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I will place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God. Men will beat their swords into plowshafts and their spears into pruning hooks, and nations shall not rise up against nations, neither shall they study war anymore." I don't know about you, I ain't going to study war anymore."
Of course this preceding comment sounds very similar to the words of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Like many of Martin's last statements they were universally criticized and marginalized. I don't think that he would have been in favor of Affirmative Action. He operated from a much higher standard than that of a "spoils" system in which individuals of any race were entitled to a portion of the economy as a matter of birth. He would have seen the AA system as being a component of the racist system of inferior education, inferior opportunity, and inferior rights as citizens endured by Black folks. These inferiorities are what keep the masses of Black Americans locked into 2nd class citizenship. We wouldn't even have discussion of the need for Affirmative Action, if it there was a guarantee that Blacks had received a full and equal educational opportunity to whites. The "supposition" that Blacks are in a position as a result of "favoritism" or quotas is a direct reflection of the awareness of White America of the inferior education and environment that Blacks grow up with.
-
-
-
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Fri, April 25, 2008 - 3:18 AMThere are only two ways to get hired. 1) Be so incredibly and undeniable competent and talented at what you do, that employers seek you out. 2) Find, make, or have a friend who can get you your first position. Most people seem to get hired from the latter.
Since white cultural is still in the dominant position in our society, a minority is dependent on gaining entrance into that culture to find a upper or middle level career. My sister was hired by a large company right out of college, her only job application and interview, because her roommate's dad (ethnically the same) was the head of the department doing the hiring. He helped her fill out her application and establish her pay level at his home. She has been with that company for over 25 years and has been fairly financially successful.
I often think social skills trump academic skills.
I opted out of the whole resume, interview, testing, peeing in a cup, job review, promotion process. I struggle financially, but I believe working for yourself is the greatest freedom you can have in this country. Its a helluva lot simpler at least. If you have a good reputation, you find work. You do the job as honestly and as skillfully as you can. If people like and trust you, they use you - If not, they don't. If you don't like them, you don't work for them. -
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Mon, April 28, 2008 - 10:53 AMLook, I'll be straight. So long as blacks pull the race card they will stay second class. This is why Reverend Wright will drag Obama into defeat. McCain will be our next president because Clinton and Obama are tainted with character flaws. In the greater picture, the race question simply means as a white person you need to find a better job where people that are somehow tainted or challenged are weeded out.
On my warehouse job there is far too much overlooking of errors (racially motivated) going on, and this is why at some point soon I will either get a promotion or a new job. Likely a new job. White guilt stinks. Obama is a loser it's just you all haven't gone through what happened to McGovern's presidential campaign of 1972 this smells just like his campaign. Also the Iraq situation is JUST like Vietnam LOL but thats another story. McGovern had liberal views that were radical just like Obama. The truth is middle America won't buy Obama. Especially after Wright. It's over the corpse is starting to stink. -
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Mon, April 28, 2008 - 11:01 AMAnd as soon as they stop playing the race card, white america will bend over backwards to make sure they hire the best qualified person, even if the person is black, right? Just like what was happening in the 1950's.
Having gone through the McGovern campaign myself (and the McCarthy campaign 4 years earlier), I would say that I see little similarity between McGovern's campaign and Obama's. Campaigns have changed a lot since then.
But thank god we elected a person without character flaws instead of McGovern - that would be Richard Nixon. -
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Mon, April 28, 2008 - 12:02 PMBiting sarcasm comes withg age and maturity.
We elected Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt (either one), and Johnson (Imagine the record Lyndon would have had sans Vietnam)but then . .
We went daft and elected the likes of Nixon, Carter and Bush 1and 2.
Campaigns are different, they are media popularity contests. While Clinton and Obama beat each other up, McCain (maybe with Huckabee) is biding time his time and loving every minute.
Why not just have an "American President" TV show, we can cast our votes online. -
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Mon, April 28, 2008 - 1:45 PMI didn't say I LIKE the current situation I am simply pointing out how it is going. Myself I voted for McGovern and learned a hard lesson in that America is driven by power and money. That's what I am interested in thusly. You can't do good or right without Money and Power. Nixon had both, and appealed to the country to elect him. America gets what it deserves. If it deserved decent socially sensitive government it would get it. But nothing has changed since 1972 not ANYthing the race card is still played blacks and liberals are still second class they are ANGRY about it and there is nothing that will get accomplished because most americans are middle of the road or conservative not to mention christian as well. So I have thus grown up a lot since then and see that there are still people who don't get it. It's not my fault that America would rather elect right wingers than adopt serious social change but thats the way it is. Work your best advantage, make a decent life for yourself and don't be a problem. Because IF you are they will dig up dirt and marginalize do ANYthing but help. Because it's all about business as usual in America, money and power. Get with it it won't change.
-
-
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Mon, April 28, 2008 - 8:58 PM>>>So long as blacks pull the race card they will stay second class.<<<
So that's what I've been doing for the past 56 years. I didn't realize it. So if I decide that America is a Meritocracy and just put my nose to the grindstone, accepting my responsibility for my own condition; ignoring any form of injustice I will cease being second class. WOW!!!
The solution is soooo simple and elegant. My 18 years of school. My ability to speak 4 languages. My skill with computers. My Metaphysical and Psychic Training. My years of experience as a Trainer and Motivational Speaker. My years of experience as a Manager and Business Owner. All these are actually INFERIOR. The occassions when white friends have confidentialy told me about racist remarks made against me and the decision made by White people in higher positions to "teach that nigger a lesson," were all just me playing the race card. WOW I never realized it.
Look, really, some blacks do blame everything on race. Some whites blame everything on reverse-discrimination. I have heard bunchs of ill prepared angry whites bitch and whine about the AA preferential treatment that has held them down. Yet the final question still remains; "if black people have so much power, as to force whites to discriminate against themselves, when and where did we get it?"
If we have this power why do any of us continue to live in ghettos, receive inferior education, suffer from heightened health issues, live shorter lifetimes than whites, etc.? This "reverse discrimination" bullshit that marginalized whites get indoctrinated with is just one part of the "process" by which the entrenced Power Elite (almost exclusively white) maintain control of this society. They have and still continue to create this animosity between blacks and whites because as long as we can make blacks the scapegoat, poor whites will never realize that they are being screwed by OTHER WHITE PEOPLE.
Organizations like the Klan, WAR, The Brotherhood, ANP, The White Identity Church, and all the rest of the pot stirring "Pro White People" organizations and all the Anti-White groups in the black community are created and maintained by the same group of MOSTLY WHITE PEOPLE who are among that one half of one per cent of the American population who control 80% of this nations wealth. Pastor Jeremiah Wright would have been a one day news item, if they didn't believe that they can continue to keep it in front of "working class" white folks and give them an excuse to overcome there basic belief in fair play and activate the racism they have been programed with since childhood. It isn't a crime against Barak Obama as much as it is against the American People. The worst thing about it is what it shows about the truth of American White Folk.
That ugly truth is demonstrated by Hillary Clinton and her campaign for the Presidency. Neither she or Bill are racists. However; they will use Pastor Wright and the racial fears of the electorate to win the Democratic nomination. This low moral standard is replicated throughout this country in businesses, schools, churchs, government, and all other parts of society. White people are most fair minded about equal opportunity whenever it doesn't cost them anything. As soon as it looks like they will lose a fair competition, they start acting like Hillary Clinton and her campaign. -
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Mon, April 28, 2008 - 9:10 PMhmmm
Racism is real. And if anyone things its a made up problem experienced by only a selected few...you need to really listen.
Folks don't cry racism for shits and giggles....
People are held back because of race...and I will say its not only a "black" problem.
The key to race relations is becoming aware of a problem and not pretending its not serious. Denial will not make racisim vanish. Education, communication and awareness will help heal this aliment that impacts ALL Americans.
Blacks need to realise they are not alone in racism. Whites need to realise they are not ALL being blamed for the sins of a few, who unfortunate are very influential in affecting various TYPES of folks.
Hispanics, Asians, Blacks, Poor whites, women, gays and disabled are often treated poorly by those in power.
Folks when are we going to look for a solution?
I suggest rather then play mud games...let's focus on developing a solution to SOLVE the race problem.
The problem will not go away by telling blacks its all in their heads....and definitely it won't go away if we fail to recognize that generalization hurts every race.
At this point in American history is the problem is not about who caught the first slave....or who made fun of whites...but rather HOW can we solve the problem.
We are all aware of the history of racism, and that history will haunt ALL people.
Now, history needs to be a place of learning so we can create a better future....
I say can we start today? how do we heal race relations?...hmmm I say a new thread
-
Re: Contraversial - race question....
Mon, April 28, 2008 - 11:03 PM"They have and still continue to create this animosity between blacks and whites because as long as we can make blacks the scapegoat, poor whites will never realize that they are being screwed by OTHER WHITE PEOPLE. "
You have in this statement given the very reason my State of West Virginia has never had a significant racial problem. In this State, where in some Counties, 70-80% of the land area is owned by Corporations headquartered elsewhere, all workers were in the same pot. Everyone was crapped on and used with no discrimination whatsoever. Coal was king, and to a great extent, still is king. Some years ago, we elected a Governor who stood up to the coal and other big interests. He ended up driving a taxi in Chicago.
While working in Southern WV with a Black man named Perry, the white lady we were talking to asked "Did you say your name was Perry? That's my maiden name, we might be related." There were, it seems, "Light" Perry's and "Dark Perry's", the result intermarriage among the labor brought into the area to build railroads and mine coal years ago. "I owe my soul to the Company Store" has more truth than you can imagine.
There were "Colored" Schools and "White" schools. Integration was no big deal from my experience, aside from the irate Black teachers and parents of the junior high I attended, who were concerned their standards would be lowered. (Yeah, lowered!) All in all, though, West Virginia Schools taught the three R's - Readin, Rriting and the Road to Ohio.
We grew up with this kind of equality, the have and have-nots, most of the rest of the US did not.
Now, as jobs are being lost nationwide, the poorer are loosing ground, and are turning on each other. When the pie is to small for everyone to eat his fill, there's a fight to get a slice. You tend to blame the other man, the Black, the Jew, the Mexican, the Hispanic, anybody.
-
-
-