posted
I agree that telling minorities to just get over it and pull themselves up is unfair. This idea of "unconscious" prejudice really bothers me, however. There's no way to refute it because the person making the charge can just say, "Of course you don't see it. It's unconscious."
Even if it's true, it's seldom useful to get people to change by saying, "Here's why you're a bigot." Even if the speaker doesn't mean it that way, that's how it will be heard.
quote:Here's why you're a bigot." Even if the speaker doesn't mean it that way, that's how it will be heard.
That's what you heard because you are defensive about it. That is not what I said.
With being the majority, you get power and priviledge. If the status quo needs changing, the majority could lose that power, so it's very hard to change. If the majority didn't want, in some way, an ism to exist, it wouldn't. The majority has the power and the priviledge to make dramatic and sustained change. It hasn't happened yet, and it isn't because minorities don't want it to.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Lets take Jesse Jackson as an example. He uses the strategy of monetary shakedowns to blackmail businesses into giving preferential treatment to minorities. The NFL being the biggest example of this. They have setup "diversity committees" and enacted a racist bylaw that requires teams which are searching for a new headcoach to interview at least one black applicant. Rev. Jackson has the power to threaten businesses through the willing media who will jump at the chance to show his Rainbo coalition clowns picketting anything on tv and give him national air time.
quote: What mysterious black leadership?
The above mentioned Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Qwasi Imfume(spelling?), Donna Brazil, et al. They are not very mysterious, they get quite a lot of media attention.
quote: And the message would be that there is no chance for black success in this country without the help and support of the majority,
Exactly what we want to avoid, placing the well being of some in the hands of others. The individual is as far as that responsibility should go.
quote: Unpack that, please.
By "the enslavement of others" I mean placing restrictions on people's freedoms in the interests of "diversity". Burdening some, with the financial well being of others. There is no provision in the consitution for redistribution of wealth or well being. And before anyone runs to claim the "general welfare" clause, first consider that this clause was intended to mean the welfare of ALL, as in general population, not those of a specific group at the expense of another group.
quote: I think for people to take responsibility for their own roles in racism, whether conscious or unconscious and take steps forward from there.
Personal responsibility is right on the money. What "steps forward from there" do you suggest? That is the open door you leave for oppresion of the many in the interests of the few.
quote: And right now, American Culture IS primarily white culture because whites are the majority and the united states is not the melting pot it proclaims to be.
Our legal system is based on the British system. Our economic system likewise, with additions of more personal freedom. The vast majority of people living in this country emmigrated from european counties. If you can define the sum of all these things as white culture, go for it. But I would put forth that there is no white culture. The cultures of Europe are not shared amongst one another. For your idea to be true, white people everwhere would have to be part of this culture. If you want to say that American culture is rooted in European culture, I will agree with you.
quote: We are, by demanding that minorities pull themselves up out of what we see as the mire of their culture and join ours, to think as we do.
Who is demanding this? I certainly am not. If a persian wants to move to this country, and live according to persian culture, while obeying our laws, I would take no issue, it is this person's right. If you would like to exempt people from our laws based on their race, then we need to have another, more serious discusion.
quote: What distortions are you naming?
There seems to be major ommissions in many realms of history, not just US history. One major issue is the diefication of FDR. This is a president who destroyed what was remaining of the economy with his central planning and works projects. But he unleashed a nasty surprise on southern blacks in promoting minimum wage laws and compulsory unionism. The minimum wage made unskilled labor not worth employing by raising its price to that of skilled labor. This caused massive cutbacks of mainly unskilled black laborers, over 600,000 in fact. The unions, which fought to raise wages above market value, also banned blacks from membership. This is but one example of important history that is typically left out of most history classes at all levels, excpeting a few college courses.
A major example of non-US historical amnesia is that of the muslim conquest of the christian world from 700ad onward. It is often forgotten and left aside to spend undue amounts of time on the christian cruisades. While no one would excuse the cruisades as anything but brutal blood letting, it is important to place such events in context with the muslim conquest of the iberian and Balkan penninsulas. Not to mention Egypt, Tripoli, Syria, Lebennon, Iraq, and Turkey, all of which were christian countries until around 700ad.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mack, when I was a young teenager my family complained that I hummed at the table and told me to stop. Trouble was, no matter how hard I tried I couldn't hear a thing. Since there was no way for me to tell when I was doing it, there was no way I could stop. (Perhaps it had something to do with my vocal chord problems; I really don't know.)
If a bias is really unconscious, how in the world can we ever do anything about it? We really can't fix what we can't tell we're doing. And, of course, if other people have to tell us there's no way we can be sure if they're sincere or lying to exploit us. For these reasons I resist the whole concept that there can be a truly unconscious bias.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is why education of white people can help them see the unconscious biases.
Actually one of the easiest places to see it, is your local grocery store. Look at the people walking the aisles. How many of them are minorities? How many of the checkers are minorities. How do the checkers treat the minorities vs. everyone else. How are Asian minorities treated. Even though we often view them as "upper" class, often they aren't treated well either.
If there aren't any minorities at your grocery store than you live in a geographically white area, and of course you have no idea of whether you have any predjudices (conscious or unconscious) or not, because there is no test data for you to pull from. At that point you have a choice, you can choose to believe those of us who have "been there" who say there is unconscious predjudice or you can say we are out of our minds. If you choose to reject the data given by trustworthy people, as impossible because you haven't seen it yourself, then the world is flat and the moon is made of green cheese as well.
posted
To tie in to Maccabeus example, even though you couldn't hear the humming, you WERE humming. That is exactly what an unconscious bias is. And you were at least aware when you were at the table that you MIGHT be humming even if you yourself couldn't hear it. That is the beginning of the education process. While I realize you have vocal chord issues, if you were humming you should be able to put your hands on your face or throat and feel the vibrations, even if you couldn't hear them. That is how Beethoven composed once he went deaf!
posted
Okay, this goes back a little in the thread, but I want to revisit it.
I conducted an informal survey of friends and family to find who knew what "hoopty" meant.
Dad: No Grandpa: No 55-year-old aunt from Houston, no religion: No White, 45-year-old, Catholic co-worker: No 27-year-old Mormon schoolteacher at inner-city school: Yes 30-year-old Mormon male living in Logan Utah: No 27-year-old Baptist co-worker from Dallas: Yes 24-year-old Mormon friend from Dallas: Yes 26-year-old Mormon friend from Idaho: No
So, those from Dallas, vraious religions: Yes Those from Utah, Idaho, and Houston and the Catholic: No
It's a cultural word. The same people were questioned as to what a "home teacher" is, and that split completely down religious lines. It's also a cultural word. "Home teacher" will never appear on the SAT, and I don't believe it should. It's not part of the nation's literature, except for a small and inbred Mormon lit group that doesn't get read outside the group.
That was revelation number one.
Revelation number two:
Where you take the SATs will affect your score. If you take the same test and answer the same way in rural Texas and in Dallas, Texas, your score will be higher if you take it in Dallas, Texas. Considerably.
As much as I hate to admit it, this explains my GRE score. I live in a sketchy part of town, and I took the test from a testing center in a poor neighborhood, and I KNOW I didn't answer all the questions perfectly. I got a perfect score anyway.
That's the answer to the cultural bias. The scores for the SATs are curved based on where you take the test.
I found this out from the previously mentioned schoolteacher friend, who was instructed to instruct her students to be sure to take the test in Dallas instead of the outlying areas.
[ January 06, 2004, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes Javert, when you said "home teacher" I thought you just meant a homeschooler, because my mother has called herself that for years. Then I thought and I realize in the LDS context it is more someone who comes to your house and conducts an in-home Bible study (or something like that?)
posted
Yes. Your home teacher is one of two guys in the ward assigned to you and your family. A home teacher typically has 3 - 10 families on his roster, and he visits each every month, delivers a message, and generally sees if they need anything.
If you need something from the ward - and this changes with the ward (in singles' wards, it is most often help with moving) - your home teacher is the person you call and he talks to the leadership and takes care of the rest. It's a way for the leadership to take care of everyone without having to do it all in person. It's also supposed to cover the "comfort those who stand in need of comfort" and the "feed my sheep", "take care of each other" parts of the gospel.
It's great. I love my own home teacher, had him for most of the time I've been in Dallas, and he's a complete sweetie who gets things done for me and gives me help when I need it. We are not really friends - i.e., we don't hang out - but he's wonderful and even withstood me going through a three-month period of standing him up.
Great word. Will NEVER appear on the SATs.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. I can't believe Hatrack has NO comments on the scores on the SATs being dependent on where the test was taken.
Nothing about where you were sitting changing your score?
My opinion? Well, since you asked...
My first instinct was complete outrage. The heck? HOWEVER, most students do not apply out of state. Most students who go to college go to a college in their state, and often within their city.
If you take the test in Dallas, you get a higher score, but you are almost certainly going to be a attending one of the fifteen colleges and universities within Dallas, so you are competing against other people who have an artificially inflated score. It cancels itself out. As for those who DO apply out of state and to colleges where a handful of points on the SATs mean the difference between getting or not, more power to them. It does fix some of it.
The only people that are being treated completely unfairly by this are, well, those like me, who got a much higher score than I surely deserved by taking it in Dallas, and who plans (maybe - I think) on applying out of state.
-----
Fugu, I listened to Dean this morning talk about fiscal responsibility and the impossibility of paying for everything, and I'm back on the fence.
[ January 07, 2004, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
As for the location mattering thing, I do consider that a very bad thing, sort of. Its a private company, so it can do what it wants. Of course, its also used by almost every major US university in determining admission -- essentially, its a way for the universities to have need based admission without having need based admission. I deplore the strategy being used, but I see nothing inherently wrong with a university having need based admission (that is, poorer people get in easier). There are a number of strong arguments for it improving the economy, increasing the median standard of living, and reducing homelessness and poverty.
However, I hope the increasing unreliability of the already remarkably subjective SATs will result in a move towards more subject oriented tests, which I feel better demonstrate learning aptitude -- if a person has done well on even one subject test, its a strong indicator they could do well on others provided the proper motivation, whereas teh SATs subject matter is so narrow it can easily downgrade swaths of people who are really into, say, biology, but find neither math or english particularly appealing.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually guess my surprise was, Kat that you didn't know that already.
I lived in a dorm with over 100 people that "aced" the SAT. The ONLY thing in common was that these people all read books (it was where I was introduced to OSC). However when you start comparing actual scores, the state you come from makes all the difference. Why? Because National Merit Scholars are the top 1/100th of 1% of the PSAT takers by state. This means that in my year I had to score nearly 30 points higher in CA to get the "National Merit" designation than my friend who was from Kansas did. As I recall that year the CA cut off was 218ish, and the Kansas cuttoff was 190ish.
Another thing they do there is that they separate the minorities out and make them "National Achievemnent Scholars" rather than "National Merit Scholars" The standards are lower for the "Achievement" mark. The problem is that if you are non-white and check the box saying so, you will NEVER get awarded a straight National Merit title, even if your score was there fair and square because they won't do it.
That was why we thought it was a joke, though we weren't complaining that we got free rides for filling in some circles correctly.
I don't know exactly how things change on the GRE but I think it is the same people administering the test, and knowing what goes on with the SATs it doesn't suprise me at all.
posted
Oh yeah and doing it by state, to equalize public school systems doesn't matter either since the high scorers in lousy education states (like CA) mostly went to private schools.
posted
fugu the problem with requiring subject tests is that many states are using the SAT IIs for that... same company so they can skew grading once again however they want to.
No wonder test scores are such a joke! Not only do they only measure how well you can take a test, the results are fudged based on what little circles you can fill in.
I don't know for sure that the GRE does this, but it does make sense. And it clears up a mystery.
What can they be replaced with? If test scores are a joke, I can't begin to talk about grades. This same friend who told me this was also informed that despite most of one of her classes getting 30% or less average for the semester's work, she was only allowed to fail a couple students.
[ January 07, 2004, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe everyone doesn't know. But the pattern was obvious to us so-called "smart" people once we put our heads together and compared data. Maybe because we were looking for it, unlike the types who score the same as us and choose to pay to go to an Ivy-League school rather than taking the free ride at a state school like U. of OK. They probably want to believe in the veracity of the test more, because they are going to more "elite" institutions. Either that or they know it was money that got them in, because grandma has made a donation and has a wing of some building named after her. Though that is only a hypothesis I have no proof!
posted
I got my free ride to a state school because of a test as well, but it wasn't the SAT.
*sigh* I think I was barely in this world in high school. I didn't know the PSATs even existed, so I never took them. I do remember the day everyone got their scores back, and wondering if that was important. It worked out, though. Fools and children get taken care of.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Banna, my tendency is not to think that people who report unconscious bias are out of their minds, but to suspect they are trying to pry inappropriate favors out of the system. I suppose that in itself could be suggested as bias, but I think much the same thing of anyone who reports perceiving something I can't, unless they have some kind of special equipment--my first guess is that they have some kind of ulterior motive.
In this case, what you suggested is also problematic. I seem to have difficulty telling what feelings are expressed by people's body language and expressions, except for the most blatant, and frequently suspect I am being looked down on or teased when I am not. I will try to take note, though.
As a matter of fact, I did grow up in an area that tends toward open racism; Marshall County, KY, is virtually 100% white. (There are some Asians, and recently some Hispanics have begun moving in.) Though I have heard some disparaging comments about the latter, almost all of the bias is focused on blacks, who are virtually absent and have been since the Depression. (Sometimes it saddens me, but I can see the progress over the course of my life.) But the thing is, when I tell this to other people, they are always startled and horrified. I find it difficult to believe that anything remotely resembling this is present in the nation at large (as opposed to in some communities like mine); surely outsiders would simply nod their heads knowingly or something like that. "Yeah, it's like that all over the place, just not quite so much."
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Macc I would say your situation is extremely common for most of the country, away from urban population areas. Of course this is based on my own personal experience. I could probably google up population facts to support at least the population density and diversity distributions though away from major cities.
posted
I think there is a difference between racism based on ignorance and racism based on... whatever racism is based when it takes place in places where people see and work with each other.
The one based on ignorance seems more easily eradicated.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also Macc, I have no reason to "pry favors out of the system". I am a well paid engineer (though possibly less than a man in the equivalent job) and have a college degree. I also am (in skin tone) as white as white can be, with blond hair and blue eyes. Other than being female in my profession I shouldn't be discriminated against, and walking down the street most certianly not, unless someone is envious of blondes in general.
However, what makes me different is that I was raised as a minority in a predominately Hispanic culture. I KNOW what it is like to be different because of your skin tone, because I was. I was more than occasionally looked at askance because I didn't "fit in" with the way everyone else looked, in places like the supermarket or the blockbuster. I was the outsider and if they didn't know me personally, unconsciously the group whether children or adults would close ranks and leave me out.
I was truly appalled at the amount of de facto segregation I witnessed when I went to school at the U. of Oklahoma. And Oklahoma is one of the more live and let live states in that region, because of their large Native American community. Even with the "large" native american community, when you went to the grocery store, even in the University town where there was more diversity because of international students etc, mostly everybody was white. I went into culture shock, because of all the white people, and didn't realize it was actually where I "fit in".
I didn't realize how strongly I, myself, identified with Hispanic culture, because at home I was always the one on the fringe as the little white kid. There was a hispanic guy on my floor from south Texas, who was a Mariachi trumpeter. I walked passed his dorm room one day and heard him practicing, and started crying from the homesickness. I hadn't heard mariachi trumpet in months, but where I came from hearing it drifting out to the street was a way of life.
But in Oklahoma very few white people would be caught dead at a mariachi concert. There was a large anual event on that campus called Stompdown, that brought in thousands of people and groups from other schools in traditionally black fraternites. It was a performance and a contest, where they all stomped to various rythyms and coreography. You would have thought that such a large event (it took up the basketball stadium) would have had a cross section of campus attending just for the entertainment. But no, I went with one white friend and one black friend. We were two of only a handful of whites in the audience. I view the fact that no other white people were there as a tragedy of enormous proportions for a campus that is supposed to be over its predjucies and biases.
Understand, the black people that were there, were extremely highly educated. They could speak "correctly" or in slang, which ever they felt like at the drop of a hat. They were the ones going to college and graduating. If education was all they needed then why weren't the whites interacting with them? It was rediculous. These were the people that were suceeding in living the American dream and yet their artistic expresions were still completely cloistered and isolated away from the rest of the community at large.
And then as I've said before, it is the multi racial kids who really have it hard, especially if they choose to embrace both their heritages. Black people look on them as having "sold out" and tend to reject them, and for the whites they end up being the "token black" friend, which may or may not actually be friendship.
Steve, my bf though half black (ancestors arrived in New York via Cuba and Jamaica so they never had the American South experience), was never socially accepted by any other black people on campus except the nerds who were themselves ostracized, because his skin was so light that he could basically pass for white as long as he wears a hat. He is also the sort who wont ingratiate himself with anybody so his attitude has always been if they don't like me screw them. But, he shouldn't have had to develop that attitude as a defense mechanism to begin with!
Was really interesting, a couple of months ago, when my neighbor that I grew up across the street from Giovanna, came out to Chicago because she is a cellist. Her father is Guatamalan, mother is white, with Castillian features. Father has the curly "African" hair and darker skin though he is techically Latin American, and has no idea if his ancestors were ever in Africa.
She married a guy named Kevin, who is black for at least the most recent couple of generations, but has blue eyes. He also has the curly hair. When you saw Giovanna, Kevin and Steve sitting near each other, an racially unaware person would have asked if they were siblings since their skin tones and hair are all approximately the same. Yet if you actually look at their facial features you could not be more shocked at the differences. I was sitting there with them, realizing that once again, I was the "different" one. And also realizing that if they are the faces of what the world will become if all the bloodlines homogenize, that there is still an infinite amount of variety within the human genome.
Being of white skin color has always been over-rated in my experience, based on sunburns alone!
posted
Thanks for the clarifications, Banna. And I hope you understand I wasn't accusing you of anything; I'm just a naturally suspicious person.
You're right...white skin can be a pain, literally. I could tell you about the time I was dozing in a paddleboat with some friends for a few hours without considering that my sunscreen had washed off....but there's not much to it. I can't tan at all.
(Reminds me of a science-fiction tale I read years ago about a message to humanity from aliens. Humans were the descendants of colonists long ago, but the colony had collapsed because of a peculiar disease that had disrupted their society. "If any of you are still white, we can cure you.")
I don't know about your mariachi tale. It's amazing how popular rap is in my hometown, and not just because of Eminem. I have a hard time seeing cultural art or other preferences as racist, even if it leads to occasional embarrassment or isolation as with your friend. Why should people who have never been exposed to mariachi music care for it? For my own part, I eat mostly southern food--fried, generally, with lots of meat and bread--and almost never eat foreign foods, not (so far as I know) because of bias but because I have a really sensitive digestive tract. Spicy foods upset it, and I haven't yet found any foreign cuisine unspicy enough to let me feel good afterwards. Yet some people seem startled that I won't eat Mexican with them, as though they think I'm biased against Hispanic culture.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't handle spice well either, actually. I wasn't saying that everyone should like Mariachi, I was using that more as an example about myself. I was suprised about no white people being at Stompdown, because the music, while loud was pretty mainstream.
All of the stuff that I've discribed, and a multitude of other things, like the fact that if I did have a child with Steve, it would be multi-racial, make me very passionate on the subject though.
quote: I think there is a difference between racism based on ignorance and racism based on... whatever racism is based when it takes place in places where people see and work with each other.
The one based on ignorance seems more easily eradicated.
I'll take your last statment first, by saying fear of the unknown is one of the more powerful fears we have. If the unknown wasn't fearful in a way, no religions would exist.
The racism that happens in places where multiple races see and work with each other is based on ignorance too, possibly more so than someone who works in an homogenous environment. People who do that will use stereotypes as excuses "Mexicans are lazy" for example, which probably doesn't even apply in their own work atmosphere, much less anywhere else. If anything it is laziness on the part of the person making the stereotypical statment because nine times out of ten they can't acutally give you a specific instance of it happening, they've just assumed the stereotype and never bothered to check it against reality.
Everyone is going to have someone that they work with that they don't get along the greatest with. That is also part of "community" in the greater sense though and has nothing to do with the actual color of the skin involved.
And to tie in back to the original statment, what is going to get white people to overcome their fears and laziness other than education? The fear that a higher educated non-white might take their job is probably justified in some cases, particularly if the person is a lower educated white person to begin with.
posted
I heard something similar this morning on the radio, AJ.
I purposely set my alarm clock radio to a conservative AM news station so I wake up and get pissed off in the morning and will get out of bed.
Anyway, the announcer commented on Bush's Human Immigration Plans and was incredibly pissed off about it. He commented on the politically correct change from the nomenclature of "illegal aliens" to "undocumented workers." He said it was horrible that these illegal aliens (he refused to say undocumented workers) would be allowed to contribute to retirement funds and pay into social security and recieve benefits at retirement.
...but both of those benefits COME from a lifetime of working. You have to work to get social security when you're old.
He also commented these illegal aliens are taking away jobs from Americans. He said that any American that claims the workers take jobs that Americans wouldn't do has no right to complain about unemployment or work leaving the US for other countries. That it was high and mighty of those Americans to be unwilling to pick lettuce. Then he said he would be politically incorrect and said, "You're all saying that migrant work is SPIC work and unfit for Americans."
Obviously, I turned off the radio and got up at that point.
Migrant workers DO fill jobs that Americans won't do. If Americans did them, then the undocumented workers wouldn't be.
The tirade also talked about how Americans that are IN American need the jobs and that immigrants should stay out.
Obviously he's forgotten that unless you're Native American, you're descended from immigrants to America.
Anyway.
I find the SAT stuff horrid. The test is largely unreliable and colleges are beginning to move away from using it for entrance requirements.
quote: I think there is a difference between racism based on ignorance and racism based on... whatever racism is based when it takes place in places where people see and work with each other.
The one based on ignorance seems more easily eradicated.
Katie, you're absolutely right. There IS a difference and realizing that there is a difference is very hard to do. I think it's why most people get angry and defensive when you mention unconscious bias and/or racism, because they automatically think of the outspoken, vehement and ill-intentioned racist folks.
Unconscious racism is quite and institutional. It is hard to grasp at first and hard to change, but generally people who are ignorant of their own unsconscious bias are also the most well-intentioned people, and that's where the hope is. That once these people get past being defensive, realize their priviledge and power, and use that to institute change in their majority group, steps can be made.
It is the majority's responsibility.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Javert/Kat I think you misinterpreted my comments on page 2. I do not blame the minority kids for not taking advantage of programs. It's not a matter of blame.
My point is that in many an inner city community trying to get an education is looked down upon, wanting success outside of the status quo around you means you are somehow "selling out"
I asked the question "why?" That is what I think needs to be changed, much more so that then education of the "white folks". Somehow the attitudes of young minority teens need to be changed. I don't know how, but I think there is where the focus should be and not on blaming others.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And sadly, I think this is where the Democrats have missed the boat and lost the next election.
When we talk of race issues in America, it is purely about black and white. The Democrats still work on this side of the equation, striving to meet the needs and requests of what they perceive to be the black community. Locked into this, they haven't done very well addressing the wants and needs of other minority groups.
When was the last time you heard the Democrats working to strengthen their times with the Asian-American community? Or the Eastern European-American community? Or most tellingly, the Hispanic/Latino community within America?
The Republicans seized on some important issues early on. Firstly, the Hispanic community is the largest minority in the United States, especially counting immigrants legal and illegal, as well as naturalized and natural-born citizens. It is a strong and powerful voting block. It is also an economically important one. The Hispanic community is also one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy.
What did the Republicans do? The new policy dealing with illegal immigrant workers was a step in that direction. Numerous candidates who speak Spanish fluently (Pres. Bush included) and continued broken relations with Cuba (which is a strong point with Cuban residents of Florida who see Castro as an evil man).
The Republicans also looked at the numbers in many key, Democratic, states. Florida, Texas, New York, New Mexico, Arizona and California all have large numbers of Hispanic voters.
Had the Democrats been more attentive to Hispanic voters on the local, state and national levels, the last presidential election would have turned out quite differently.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Sopwith, the Democrats have been doing right by Hispanics for some time. It's the Democrats who fight for bilingual education, and against the installment of English as a national language. The Democrats are more willing to allow looser borders and it's the Democrats (if I remember correctly) who allowed the children of illegal immigrants, provided they were born in the US, to become citizens. Right now in California, the Dems are even pushing for a law to allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses (in hopes of them subsequently buying insurance and avoiding that many more hit-and-run accidents).
That's not to say the Republicans haven't made some flashy moves -- the nomination of that suit Estrada to the courts was brilliant, demonizing the Democrats for shooting down a horrible candidate by making it look like they're shooting down a Latino. But while the Republicans definitely have a wider understanding that they're trying to get Hispanics, as far as I've seen, the Democrats are the only ones who put any substance behind their efforts to recruit Hispanic voters.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lalo said: it's the Democrats (if I remember correctly) who allowed the children of illegal immigrants, provided they were born in the US, to become citizens.
Actually, that was the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." If anyone gets credit that would be Republicans, but clearly not the current batch.
quote:Lalo said: the nomination of that suit Estrada to the courts was brilliant, demonizing the Democrats for shooting down a horrible candidate by making it look like they're shooting down a Latino.
quote: Right now in California, the Dems are even pushing for a law to allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses
This is a major reason why the dems will keep losing important elections.
quote: Democrats are the only ones who put any substance behind their efforts to recruit Hispanic voters.
Too bad most people realize that this type of pandering is detrimental to our country. Making laws that weaken our security and economy to get votes from a special interest group is seen as counter-productive to most americans.
The whole issue behind this is supposedly racial sensitivity. We come to the same point as we do when discussing black americans. Laws passed to benefit the few, at the expense of the many, are not the way to decrease racism. The constitution applies to all citizens equally, it doesn't give special opportunities to minorities, or majorities to violate any of its amendments.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, what about Bush's current plan to give illegal aliens/undocumented workers legal status?
I remember when this was first an issue, before September 11. One of the reasons Vicente Fox was elected was because of his promise to change the current situation with immigration into America, and Bush was enthusiastic about helping him.
Some have labeled the move as an attempt to go after Hispanic votes. I don't deny that it is; every move is political, but I do beleive reform is needed and this move is not out of character with Bush's actions as governor of Texas.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If Americans did them, then the undocumented workers wouldn't be."
Let me put that a different way: if Americans were willing to do these jobs at the low salary and without the federally-mandated benefits that they currently demand, "undocumented workers" would not.
But because "undocumented workers" are coming from situations that pay even less and offer even fewer benefits, and believe that getting out of their country makes up for almost any hardship, they're willing to work under conditions that American workers aren't actually legally able to endure, because we don't treat our citizens that way. Businesses take advantage of this, naturally, to keep the bottom line down.
This means that "undocumented workers" are exploited, wages are kept low, and Americans lose jobs. On the other hand, prices for certain goods stay slightly lower.
IMO, "undocumented workers" by their very nature should not be entitled to ANY benefits. No driver's license. No education. No Social Security. Not a single tax dollar should be spent on their benefit.
This sounds harsh -- harsher even than the Republican position on the issue. And it may sound xenophobic. But I assure you that I'm not frightened of the "Other," or reacting irrationally to "foreigners stealing our jobs." But the simple economic fact is that the rate of illegal immigration is exceeding the growth of new jobs, which both increases legitimate civilian employment and depresses wages across multiple industries. Since most of these illegal aliens are not paid living wages and are forced to live in substandard conditions, without health care, most of them add a substantial cost to society (and taxpayers) that exceeds the value of their individual labor. And when you start considering SPECIAL costs for these workers -- ESL classes, bilingual hiring, outreach -- the numbers just don't make sense.
It's all very well to say that we should throw open our borders, but if that's going to be our approach, we should literally just throw them open and let anybody in. By letting people SNEAK in, and then forcing them to hide from authorities and work in jobs that do not meet federally or state-mandated standards -- jobs about which they feel they cannot complain, or risk being kicked out of the country again -- we burn the candle at both ends.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Too bad most people realize that this type of pandering is detrimental to our country. Making laws that weaken our security and economy to get votes from a special interest group is seen as counter-productive to most americans.
The whole issue behind this is supposedly racial sensitivity. We come to the same point as we do when discussing black americans. Laws passed to benefit the few, at the expense of the many, are not the way to decrease racism. The constitution applies to all citizens equally, it doesn't give special opportunities to minorities, or majorities to violate any of its amendments.
You realize that this statement, taken within the context of the current visa proposals which only apply to Mexican immigrants, is a little ironic. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Agreed. I would point out though, that the current proposal is a weak attempt to gain middleground voters, and hopefully not a trend in republican policies. Democrats have a long and storied history of using the issue as a club.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Economically, there are essentially two options: we either give the illegal workers the same protections/benefits citizens get as workers, or we lock them out completely (this is assuming the current system for citizens remains the same).
This is true because the current protections act as a depressant on the labor market, and while there are a certain number of jobs that could be filled at lower wages without changing the wages for higher waged jobs at all, there are also jobs that must be done, period, but which would locate much lower on the wage scale if it were not for our protections -- a key thing to note, its the protections that are causing this to happen, not just the presence of the illegal workers. So if we want this to not happen, we need to give illegal workers the same protections, and then they'll be part of the same labor market, or we need to lower the protections (I'm in favor of a combination of both; certain protections are necessary and warranted, others aren't).
Tom's statements about flooding the labor market are sort of true. Workers are a resource. However, one of the wonderful things about resources is they're also an incentive to produce more, provided other resources are not limiting factors. In the short term there would be "too many workers" but in 6 to 10 years (rough guesstimate, could be less, wouldn't be more) our economy would be greatly strengthened, because we do have the resources to take advantage of a much larger number of workers. Unfortunately, I think I can count the number of times the US government has looked at least 10 years ahead on my fingers.
Of course, keep in mind what happens if we do lock the illegal workers out of the system. Companies with resources from the US go to Mexico and other places, taking large amounts of those resources with them and combining them with the large labor resource in Mexico. This reduces, at least temporarily, the job market in the US, particularly in areas like manufacturing, as well as other resources that have been taken abroad, but will greatly invigorate the Mexican economy (provided the government there is smart enough to set up free trade areas where they want the economy stimulated and such).
So its ironic really, what's costing US workers jobs isn't the presence of illegal workers, but that those workers aren't given the same protections as US workers.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem, of course, is that illegal aliens don't get the same protections as citizen workers for three reasons:
1) They are willing to work for much less, since it is an improvement on their old conditions, and do not always comprehend why this is a bad decision in the long term.
2) They do not understand what these protections are, and would not think to demand them.
3) They are afraid to complain, for fear of repercussion.
NONE of these are easy to logically address. A full amnesty for all illegals might soften #3 a bit, removing some -- but not all -- of that fear, but will otherwise do nothing to address the issue of illegal workers undercutting American labor.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
A personal anecdote on the labor situation. My company built a plant down in Mexico several years ago. They are now realizing that it was a bad economic decision. Because the US engineers are separated from the direct production lines the quality of the parts have gone way down, and they are spending more fixing the parts than they would have leaving the entire plant here in the first place. But they aren't willing to just chuck their investment either because then they are losing even more money. So they are now bringing many of the small crucial sections of the work back to the US in order to get the quality they need.
posted
Why are we even considering this point? If we can muster the resources to give these people driver's liscences, why cannot we locate and deport them? Would immediate deportation of illegals be wrong? I say no. The working conditions of people in other countries are the concerns of those other countries. It is not our responsibility to spend the money of the american people to provide these people with healthcare and a competitive wage. Deportation is the best policy.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
My family's business hires a lot of immigrants, and they always check for paperwork, but when I was talking with my dad about this yesterday, he expressed some skepticism about the veracity of the documents. He thinks Bush's idea is marvelous, and will help both the immigrants and the people who hire them.
Why do they hire mostly immigrants? It's salary. Labor is far and away the most expensive bill, and it's killer. There are razor-thin profit margins in the anodizing business, and there is simply an upper-limit to the hourly wage the business can pay. Adult Americans will not deign to work for it.
Where's the solution to that? If the hourly wage goes up, the price goes up, and it's suddenly cheaper to ship everything to China. The workers aren't taking jobs from Americans; they are taking jobs from Chinese.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The workers aren't taking jobs from Americans; they are taking jobs from Chinese."
I hear this a lot, but I'm not entirely sure it's true. Moreover, it seems to ignore the cost of encouraging "under-the-table" employment and the sub-standard lifestyles that result (and which must then be propped up by taxpayers.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, by the nature of the work, automation is not an option. It would be lovely if it were.
Well, Tom, you're welcome to your doubts, but do you want names and specifics? We get outbid on a regular basis by companies that outsource the labor to China.
There's no under-the-table, working conditions are fine and safe, and there's stuff set up for everything from tuition if you want it to health insurance. That's part of why hourly wage is low. There are about 80 employees, and 32 have worked there for five years or more. They recently threw a party for the five years or longer employees at some swanky place downtown. The business can withstand whatever scrutiny you wish to throw on it, but starting wage is still $8.35 per hour. Americans don't stay.
[ January 08, 2004, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The situation you describe -- in which workers' papers are checked, they can purchase medical and educational benefits, work with a company for years, and start considerably above minimum wage -- is not typically the one discussed when people talk about abuses of immigrant labor.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are jobs that are being taken from those in China, and there are jobs that are being taken from those in the US. Some jobs are those that would not otherwise be done in the US, and some jobs are those that need to be done in the US.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:is not typically the one discussed when people talk about abuses of immigrant labor.
And Americans still won't stay. I can't even imagine how much prices would have to go up to bring the rest up to speed.
Not that it isn't worth it, but it simply isn't going to happen. At least with this, there is some documentation and protection.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I'm going to pop in here with a stupid question -- and maybe Kat (is that Javert Hugo?) can answer this -- simply because I'm not around or involved with illegals anywhere that I know of.
My question is -- what is keeping these illegals from simply applying to become LEGAL? How hard is it to enter as a LEGAL immigrant as opposed to an Illegal? Why don't they just file the paperwork and lose the illegal status?
quote:That's not to say the Republicans haven't made some flashy moves -- the nomination of that suit Estrada to the courts was brilliant, demonizing the Democrats for shooting down a horrible candidate by making it look like they're shooting down a Latino.
What's one difference between a Republican and a Democrat?
When a Republican nominates a minority for something, that person is an Uncle Tom. (Colin Powell).
When a Democrat nominates a minority for something, they're "doing right by that minority".
Yeah, you don't hate Dubya Eddie, like I don't hate root canals:)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Surely we can all agree that there is more than one single step necessary to cure racism. Insofar as it can be cured. What I mean is that for racism and its symptoms to be largely a thing of the past, more than one step is necessary. Racism and bigotry will never be wholly expunged from humanity. Just when we do, we'll probably meet the Kilrathi or the Klingons or the Jawas or something, and they're all well-deserving of contempt after all
But the single biggest roadblock in dealing with racism-or as I'm more fond of terming it, unconcious racism, is the majority. This is simple logic. If anyone agrees that racism or some form of economic prejudice exists in America today, and it's a widespread problem (this is not to say it's not getting better), then logically the most expedient route to resolve the problem is to alter how the majority behaves.
There are two measures of equality, I think, in any civilization. Equality of opportunity and equality in the present. The first measures the fairness of opportunity to people of all backgrounds. The second measures things like percentages of minorities vs. majorities in highest-paying jobs, college educations, etc.
I know y'all know this, but I'm only saying it so that it's clear which definitions I'm using. Might clear up any disagreements before they start.
I personally believe that there isn't a minority-member in America who doesn't have the chance to do just as well economically and socially as a white Judeo-Christian background male. However, along with that belief is another belief: that almost universally, a minority-member will have to work at least a little harder, and usually a great deal harder to get there.
This can be observed by the distribution of high-paying jobs and college educations in America. Obviously a disproportional percentage of minorities in America do not do things like go on to get a degree in college, and thus the numerous opportunities for good-paying jobs with stability and benefits.
There are really only four basic reasons to believe that this happens (it cannot be reasonably argued that it doesn't happen). One is that racists and bigots are right: non-whites are stupider (is that even a word? I swear I feel...well, stupid...using it) and simply incapable of doing as well as whites in any arena, except perhaps sports. Second is that there really is a widespread problem of bigotry and active racism in America, with whitey trying to keep a brother down. Third is things are getting better, but there still remains work to be done, or else things are getting better but all the necessary changes have been made, they just take time to implement. Fourth is that there is an unconcious form of racism, the kind where white people, having been primarily born, raised, educated, and working with other white people, are simply more likely to choose other white people to live near, school with, and work with, just for an unconcious familiarity.
Does anyone think there's another broad explanation for the disproportionate percentage of minorities who, broadly put, don't achieve success as well as white Americans? If so, lemme know-might also clarify any other disagreements.
Given my mingled belief in three and four, it is obvious to me, at least, that any steps taken to "cure" racism will meet with utter failure if they do not include a large amount of "educating white folks" (Dean is not to be praised for his choice of phrase here). Either that, or it's wait a few score more years for the minorities to simply scrabble up the incline by their fingernails, losing some in the process, to equality in the present.
I also believe that for any cure to be workable, it's necessary to educate minorities away from any tendancies to feel like victims until whites get their act together. Our best civil rights leaders, men like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were very proactive in that regard, and rightly so. But given that minorities make up a good deal less than thirty (I think it's actually twenty, but the figure escapes me) percent of America's population is white, obviously this isn't the biggest part of the solution.
I am not fond of Dean, and think he would be a disaster for America in even more ways that Dubya has been, but I think he is right, even though I think he was unwise in his phrasing. I also cannot help but find it ironic that while Dubya, so frequently lambasted as a babbling idiot for putting his foot in his mouth, Dean faces no such criticism to my knowledge. Ironic, but unsurprising. Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
