Think of it this way: a big proportion of the people who are doing hiring are probably older. Many of them are probably in their late 40s or 50s.

Anyone who is 50 years old spent their first 13 years in a different country, race-wise. And those are some important years. The earlier years are formative, after which people selectively perceive and mostly strengthen their beliefs.

The 60s weren’t so long ago.

Well, yeah, they were. Thirty-seven years ago, by my count, but I was a liberal arts major so it’s possible my math is off.

Hundreds of years of a legacy filled with slavery, genocide, and outright disrespect versus 37 years of court-mandated civil rights?

No, mythago, it really wasn’t that long ago.

Well, yeah, they were. Thirty-seven years ago, by my count, but I was a liberal arts major so it’s possible my math is off.

Some of these are stereotypical, some are not. But, I don’t know how YOU meant it, so I’m asking.

And what kind of behavior constitutes not “acting white”?

(I never read this blog, I just saw annoyingness in the comments.)

Althgough this question seems to have been lost in the shuffle: Not much, i don’t think, except to educate and wait. Or to train more folks who are applying to act differently, though that’s also a difficult and problematice option.

this response stems from honesty and not wishful thinking, though I personally would prefer that my honest assessment was different.

but IMO it is extraordinarily difficult to disentrench years, decades, or near-lifetimes of mental “organization” of the type that “blacks are ___” and “whites are ____” and so on. The 60s weren’t so long ago. I don’t think that retraining the people in curent hiring-decision positions will ever occur.

I also don’t think it’s realistic (for a variety of reasons including enforcement issues and Constitutional problems) to legislateracism issues at the personal level.

Hell if there were an easy solution, it’d be solved.

Abandon Marxism and go back to the civil rights critiques formulated before Marxism made its run on the academy in the 1960s. There’s a hundred years of anti-racist activism that made big strides with the population of the US; it’s still a viable, if no longer vital, set of concepts. I think there are other reasons for the stalled civil rights movement post-1965, but this is one of the big ones.

Do you mean to say that capitalism automatically exploits people? Or that it can be used to exploit people? Or something else?

and democracy (when it dilutes minorities)

What does “dilutes minorities” mean?

I never said I didn’t have a clue about that. Please don’t put words in my mouth that I didn’t say. I asked a question, which you have yet to answer.

And, no, I’ve never heard anyone use the phrase you quoted, or anything like it.

So how can we make our criticisms more valid so that it is palatable to mainstream America? How can we incorporate more righty-economics and politics (since the left ones you mentioned lack validity)?

There are extremely tight and specific studies - such as audit studies - which, due to their extremely labor-intensive nature and the limits of funding, pretty much have to be concentrated on a small group. These studies tend to show that discrimination exists beyond any question, but to generate the response from conservatives that because they are local studies, we cannot use them to draw any conclusions about discrimination in general.

Then there are studies conducted using existing national data sources. These studies, by definition, are not as tightly-focused, but generally find that there’s significant differences in outcomes that cannot be explained by any measured difference in ability or qualifications - that is, holding factors like education, experience, work hours, etc.., constant, non-whites simply get paid less and promoted less than whites. But these studies are often dismissed by conservatives because - unlike a local audit study - they cannot control for all hypothetical unmeasured factors.

YES YES YES!!!! That is my gripe it all boils down to people saying “Well since you can’t prove that this is racism, then there really is no racism happening at least at the level you say”. This and similar type arguments are not so far a jump from the type of argument folks like Robert use to say“Well really, what you say is racism may not really be racism” leading to the “Well the racism you guys are talking about just doesn’t work, let’s US talk about the real issues.”

Some twenty plus years ago, most US orchestras were comprised almost entirely of men. Then a miracle happened. Err. Then some bright boy came up with the idea of auditions behind a screen so that the person choosing the musician could not see the person’s race or gender. The percentage of women in US orchestras skyrocketed, and the field has nearly reached gender parity in terms of hiring.

A simple black magic marker wielded by an administrative person before the first selection process leading to call backs, eliminating all personal information including name and neighborhood, would eliminate much of this bias, at this stage of the hiring. Add a competency based test or similar measure, administered blindly either through a computer or again an administrative person, and two steps in the hiring process have been race and gender blinded. At this point, at the face to face interview, you’ll see a lot more people of color and women making the final cut, and with two opportunities for isms eliminated, the field has been, though not completely, greatly leveled.

You’re willing to admit that their probably is racism in educational opportunities, in poverty, in family status, as well as in hiring. Not surprisingly, there is a vast range of studies to support these conclusions. But you really don’t want to concede that there is personal racism, rather than some sort of generalized instituional racism. Why?