They can thank the democrats that control most every black community in the nation, and have for decades. The dems created inner city life.
White Privilege
- Thread starter genuineoriginal
- Start date
No more than the Moors used their superiority to create a system to favor Africans when they conquered Spain. They had the power, which did not make them superior to white people.
Indeed, the fact that black people used their courage and ingenuity to throw off segregation in states were it was law, gives lie to the idea of white superiority. Doesn't mean that blacks are superior either; it merely means that segregationists aren't very bright people, and when faced with a novel way of fighting their oppressiive laws, they responded in ways that played into the hands of black people, being no match for the genius and courage of blacks seeking freedom.
Since you now know that they all look the same, are you willing to admit that democrats have held them back, "keeping them on the plantation" for decades now?
Economists Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan wanted to explore racial bias in the job market.
They responded to help-wanted ads for a variety of positions in the fields of sales, administrative support, clerical services and customer services posted in The Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune with fake resumes. The researchers plugged in made-up names on the resumes that are associated with African-Americans (they used Lakisha Washington and Jamal Jones as examples) or whites (Emily Walsh and Greg Baker) based on naming data for babies born between 1974-79 in Massachusetts. The name on each resume was randomly assigned, so the same resume in some cases had a black name and in others had a white name.
Then they counted the callbacks.
The resumes with white-sounding names spurred 50 percent more callbacks than the ones with black-sounding names.
After responding to 1,300 ads with more than 5,000 resumes, the researchers found that the job applicants with white names needed to send 10 resumes to get one callback, but the black candidate needed to send 15 for one.
It didn’t matter whether the employer was a federal contractor or was described as an "equal opportunity employer," as those also discriminated like the others.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/
...realitically accepting an ugly fact of American life. White privilege is a fact of life, that non-whites have to face almost daily.
No that's wrong too. White people don't look all the same, either. I can't believe you're serious.
For decades now, the number of black CEOs, engineers, scientists, millionaires, and so on have been increasing.
Many African Americans had limited opportunities for advancement to middle class status prior to 1961 because of racial discrimination, segregation, and the fact that most lived in the rural South. In 1960, forty-three percent of the white population completed high school, while only twenty percent of the black population did the same. African Americans had little to no access to higher education, and only three percent graduated from college. Those blacks who were professionals were mainly confined to serving the African American population. Outside of the black community, they often worked in unskilled industrial jobs. Black women who worked were frequently domestic servants. However, black women in the post-slavery emerging middle class also worked as teachers, nurses, businesswomen, journalists and other professionals. [12]
Economic growth, public policy, black skill development, and the civil rights movement all contributed to the surfacing of a larger black middle class. The civil rights movement helped to remove barriers to higher education. As opportunity for African Americans expanded, blacks began to take advantage of the new possibilities. Homeownership has been crucial in the rise of the black middle class, including the movement of African Americans to the suburbs, which has also translated into better educational opportunities. By 1980, over 50% of the African American population had graduated from high school and eight percent graduated from college. In 2006, 86% of blacks between age 25 and 29 had graduated from high school and 19% had completed a bachelor's degrees.[13] As of 2003, the percentage of black householders is 48%, compared to 43% in 1990.[14]...While the vast majority of whites are centrally middle-class, the majority of African Americans are also considered middle-class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_middle_class
The Bush recession hit blacks harder that whites, but the fact remains that there are far more middle class black people today than before the civil rights act and the war on poverty.
The frantic anger against black people we see on the right is focused mostly among the working poor whites, who are deeply aggrieved that many black families now have better jobs and higher incomes than they do.
Don't name your kids Trayvon or LaQuisha :idunno:
Because there are a lot of people like GO out there, some of whom are in hiring positions, and so if you're black and looking for a job, you don't let your race be known until you absolutely have to.
"Frantic anger"? You're a piece of work. "Deeply aggrieved"? I know you think the unemployed blacks are taking the poor working whites' jobs but they aren't.
genuineoriginal
New member
That is not an example of white privilege.
That is an example of cultural bias, not racial bias.
genuineoriginal
New member
If whites have privilege other skin colors do not have simply because of skin color, then it should be obvious that the people with white skin are superior to people with other skin color because of that.
The ancestors of the people with so-called "white privilege" would have had to be superior in order to bless their descendants with that "privilege".
The logic is "A" (white privilege) therefore "B" (white superiority), "A" (white privilege) equals "B" (white superiority), and "B" (white superiority) therefore "A" (white privilege).
If you don't accept that logic, then find a way to prove that there is "white privilege" without "white superiority".
genuineoriginal
New member
Yes, we know you liberals are wrong, since both left and wrong are the opposites of right.
genuineoriginal
New member
It makes them the ones that are telling you that you are an idiot.
(People who can be identified as black from their resumes are shown get about 1/3 less interviews than identical resumes with "white sounding" names)
Giving whites a significant advantage in hiring is exactly white privilege.
It is. There are different sorts of cultural bias. If it is for religion, it's "religious discrimination." If it's for race, it's called "racism."
Giving whites a significant advantage in hiring is exactly white privilege.
It is. There are different sorts of cultural bias. If it is for religion, it's "religious discrimination." If it's for race, it's called "racism."
genuineoriginal
New member
If the resume of a person named "Clarence" is treated the same regardless of whether his skin is dark or light, then that is not white privilege.
And if it is not for race, is it still considered "racism"?
Here is the update to the old study you are talking about:
Hiring bias study: Resumes with black, white, Hispanic names treated the same
New research on hiring bias found resumes bearing names traditionally held by blacks and Hispanics are just as likely to lead to callbacks and job interviews as those bearing white-sounding names.
The findings, announced last week by the University of Missouri, diverge from the results of a famous study from more than a decade ago that found Lakishas and Jamals were far less likely to get job interviews than Emilys and Gregs.
New research on hiring bias found resumes bearing names traditionally held by blacks and Hispanics are just as likely to lead to callbacks and job interviews as those bearing white-sounding names.
The findings, announced last week by the University of Missouri, diverge from the results of a famous study from more than a decade ago that found Lakishas and Jamals were far less likely to get job interviews than Emilys and Gregs.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
I don't have any 'white liberal guilt' as I made clear in my response that you've selectively edited, which in turn makes you deliberately dishonest.
That's kinda thick on your part dude.
genuineoriginal
New member
The conservatives were not liberals and were not trying to make you feel guilty for the color of your skin.
That was the only part of your post that was relevant.
If you don't have any "white liberal guilt" then you have no reason to believe in "white privilege".
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No, my entire quote was relevant and it was deliberately dishonest of you to edit it. It's no surprise where it comes to you frankly. If you can't debate without selective quote mining then you shouldn't bother at all. The fact of the matter is that there's puerile cranks on here (you very much included) that make asinine assumptions due to zealous bias and you have sod all to back it up with.
Go back to your inanimate object attraction lunacy dude.
lain:
genuineoriginal
New member
The only thing relevant in your post was your statement about conservatives accusing you of white liberal guilt and your question about what that made them.
Whether you have white liberal guilt or not doesn't factor into the answer to your question.
It is irrelevant.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, the answer is that it makes them liars, morons, tools with an agenda or just flat out thick.
Take your pick.
