I‘m sitting here relaxing after a enjoyable day with my family on Christmas.   I’ve written a number of things that I’ve put on the “shelf” for one reason or another and since it’s the day after Christmas and I’m feeling too lazy to read my blog and news feeds, I figure I’ll just grab one off the shelf for this particular blog entry.

The classic example of the abuse of free speech is generally the one about someone yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there is in fact no fire.  The issue is balancing the right of someone’s free speech against causing mayhem and panic as everyone rushes to the exits because they actually believe there’s a fire.  Such is the case when yelling racism.  There’s often lot of mayhem, panic and scurrying around that occurs at the mere mention of the word.

Now I’m not suggesting that there’s not an occasional “fire” in the theatre, but my thing is once you make the accusation, then what?  Well, if we all going to grab a hose and put it out, that’s all well and good.  But, if  we going to have to sit around having a pitched battle about whether a fire exists, then I’m really not interested, especially when I’m the one getting singed.    I’d rather spend the time constructing my own theatre as that’s the absolute best way to prevent “fires” of suspicious origins.

Personally, I don’t like to accuse anyone  being a racist mainly because there’s little that’s going to come out of it for me, at least there’s nothing that’s going to come out of it that I’m interested in having.   For example, let’s assume that my leveling that accusation at someone yields me a job that I was denied.  My issue then is why would I want to be working around someone I had to sue to force them to do the right thing?   It seems to me that situation is ripe for someone to try to jerk me at the first opportunity just to retaliate. So, why cause myself a bunch of angst and stress being around it when I could be expending my efforts on something else?

It’s not like I don’t believe in fighting for my rights and I’m certainly not absolving folks of racism or overlooking America’s racist past.  It’s just that I like to pick my battlefield because I know that a winning strategy starts with choosing where you’re going to fight.  If I’m on the other guy’s battlefield to start off with, then I’m starting off behind the eight ball at the outset.   Shaping the battlefield is the key to winning and you can’t do that begging for a spot on the other guy’s battlefield.  You need your own battlefield.

The solution for 99% of what folks feel to be racism is to remove themselves from those situations or insulate themselves  by creating options.   As a matter of fact, there’s plenty of history that shows that various ethnic groups did a number of things to insulate themselves from the tyranny they suffered at  the hands of other people.  This is normally done by mitigating the effects of racism on that group’s economic status by creating one’s own economic  base. African-Americans behaved similarly during the early portion of the last millennium by creating their own businesses and communities.  When whites wouldn’t insure us, we created our own insurance companies.  When they didn’t want to bury us, we created our own mortuary companies.  There were countless examples of these sorts of rational responses to the circumstances.  In the aftermath of the civil rights struggles, we lost knowledge of these sorts of things.

Creating an economic base doesn’t necessarily mean that one has to be an entrepreneur.  Living below one’s means is a great means of insulation as well.  There’s no slavery worst than the one created by living high on the hog thus increasing one’s reliance on a job and being forced to  work with folks who you’d prefer not to be around.  That sort of stress has ruined many.

In my view, our current struggle has been misdirected and is fraught with strategic error.  The error results in us directing the bulk of our efforts towards the least of our problems. We’ve defined our problem as one of injustice and all initiatives are directed towards resolving that.   This is an error of major proportions and the result is a massive misallocation of resources towards that end while real problems go unattended.

Our problem is power, or more precisely, the lack thereof. When one is oriented towards power, then he knows that obtaining justice is  made far simpler as power positions one to demand redress. When one is after power, then the orientation becomes one of what you can do, rather than what someone else can do for you or  even what they may be attempting to do to you.   I’m convinced that the route to power for African-Americans comes from a source not often considered that’s right in front of us.  We have to direct our resources towards addressing the various problems in our communities.  I’ve always felt that the any group who successfully addressed some of these issues would be among the most powerful group of people in America.

It’s necessary however that we arrive at a common definition of power as that means different things to different people.   I’ve got something on the shelf that I’ll dust off one day soon to talk about that.

Last week seven black employees of the Northlake, IL Dr Pepper Snapple warehouse filed a racial discrimination lawsuit against the company for failing to stop the harassment, which allegedly continued for more than two years.

The workers claim that Hispanic supervisors repeatedly hurled racial insults at the black employees and called them such things as “donkey,” “monkey,” and “n—-r.”

In addition, the lawsuit alleges that racially offensive graffiti was written across the black workers’ lockers twice this year. 

A spokesman for Dr Pepper Snapple Group said that the company immediately launched an investigation when it received the workers’ complaints and that it fired a number of employees.

———————

Got a tip about a bad boss that eBossWatch should feature?  Do you want to expose your toxic boss?  Let us know!  Send us an email at tips@ebosswatch.com 

Connect with eBossWatch on Facebook and Twitter and support our struggle against workplace bullying!

Rate your boss at eBossWatch

In September, the EEOC announced that an oilfield service company based in Alice, Texas as agreed to pay $60,000 to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the lawsuit against the company after it investigated complaints by a white worker who was discriminated against by his Hispanic managers because of his race.  After the worker complained to the HR department about the harassment and hostile work environment, the company allegedly fired him in retaliation. 

——————-

Got a tip about a bad boss that eBossWatch should feature?  Do you want to expose your toxic boss?  Let us know!  Send us an email at tips@ebosswatch.com 

Connect with eBossWatch on Facebook and Twitter and support our struggle against workplace bullying!

Rate your boss at eBossWatch

Racism and racial discrimination are obviously human rights issues, but so are work and unemployment. If you have doubts about the latter, maybe this will sway you. Moreover, protection against unemployment is also a human right.

Racism expresses itself in different ways, one of which is discrimination in employment:

In 2004, Jean-François Amadieu, a sociologist at the Sorbonne, sent out 500 CVs replying to ads for sales jobs in the Paris region. The CVs were identical except in one regard: some applicants had north African names, and others traditional French ones. The white male French names received five times as many job offers as the north African ones. When Amadieu repeated the exercise in 2006, the ratio was 20:1. (source)

Such examples of racism in employment policy have an impact on unemployment rates across races. Here are some data for the U.S.:

racial differences in joblessness

(source)

unemployment by race

(source)

And these numbers exclude those who are in prison. Given that there are 5 times as many blacks behind bars as whites in the U.S., including them in unemployment statistics would make the gap even wider. (And why shouldn’t we include them? They obviously don’t earn a living and can’t provide for their families).

Of course, this difference between the unemployment rates for blacks and whites isn’t entirely caused by direct discrimination in employment decisions. Other elements play a part:

• Jobs are often concentrated in white suburbs, difficult to reach for blacks without cars.
• Blacks can’t rely on networks of family businesses as much as whites or Latinos.
• Blacks ”have been relegated to precarious, low-wage work … at disproportionate rates” (source), making them more vulnerable to recessions, outsourcing and competition from immigrants.
• Indirect discrimination: if blacks receive substandard education, are less healthy and more poor, then this will affect their employment prospects:

(source)

The Bahama Breeze restaurant chain agreed to settle an EEOC racial harassment lawsuit filed on behalf of 37 black workers at the Bahama Breeze restaurant in Beachwood, Ohio.  Bahama Breeze has agreed to pay $1.26 million to settle the lawsuit.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had accused managers at the Beachwood restaurant of ongoing acts of racial harassment and workplace bullying directed against its black workers.  Black workers were frequently called offensive names such as “stupid n—–r,” “homeboy,” “Aunt Jemima,” and “you people.” 

Managers would imitate the stereotypical black mannerisms and speech.  In addition, black workers were often denied breaks while their white coworkers were allowed breaks.  Even though the workers complained about the harassment, Bahama Breeze management did not stop the abusive behavior.

EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru said, “No worker should ever have to endure a racially hostile work environment in order to earn a paycheck.  It is particularly disturbing when managers engage in and condone the very unlawful conduct they are required to prevent and correct.  This sizeable settlement should remind employers of the possible consequences of a failure to promote and maintain a discrimination-free workplace.”

——————-

Got a tip about a bad boss that eBossWatch should feature?  Do you want to expose your toxic boss?  Let us know!  Send us an email at tips@ebosswatch.com 

Connect with eBossWatch on Facebook and Twitter and support our struggle against workplace bullying!

Rate your boss at eBossWatch

I’ve now enquired of the Equality and Human Rights Commission about the best course of action to take regarding what I consider to be the racially discriminatory aspects of the national-identity and ethnic-group questions in the 2011 Census for England and Wales (see last post). This was following a reply from the ONS to my previous email to them. This is the text of the ONS’s response:

“Dear Mr Rickard

Thank you for your further email of 6 December regarding classification of
an ‘English’ identity in the 2011 Census. As you will be aware a question
on national identity and a question on ethnic group is to be included in
the census. Whilst these are two separate questions on the questionnaire
they are designed so that the resulting data could be combined to give
exactly the kind of detailed breakdown of ethnicity that you describe.
Rather than have a huge ethnic group question that would include separate
options for ‘English’, ‘Welsh’, ‘Scottish’, ‘Northern Irish’ etc repeated
under each of the ethnic group categories (‘White’, ‘Asian’, ‘Black’ etc),
it was decided to split the question into two to make it more
understandable for the public and easier to complete.

In this way people who feel that their ethnicity/identity is ‘White
English’, ‘Black English’, ‘Asian Welsh’, ‘Chinese Scottish’ etc; will be
able to record this directly by using the national identity and the ethnic
group questions and be classified as such in the resulting statistical
outputs. Therefore, for instance people who report that they are ‘English’
in the national identity question and ‘White’ in the ethnicity question
could therefore be classified as being of a ‘White English’ ethnic group.
The form of the output classifications will be decided in consultation with
users.

ONS believe that this allows for a much more detailed breakdown of how
people view themselves in the eventual census data tables (should this
level of data be requested)

The Census (England and Wales) Order 2009, which sets out the question
topics to be asked in the 2011 Census has recently been approved by
Parliament, without amendment.

Yours sincerely

Helen Bray”

To which I’ve replied in the following terms:

“Dear Ms Bray,

I’ll keep you posted about further developments.

A story out of Philadelphia.  Asian students at South Philadelphia High have got the school board under pressure to do something about violence after being set upon by African-American students.  They’re currently boycotting by not attending classes until the board can assure their safety.  Apparently they’ve had to contend with racial epithets and attacks on their persons by unruly thugs.

There comes a time when we as African-Americans when we can’t give short shrift to these sorts of stories and dismiss or be silent about this.  We all know that Al & Jesse would be running around like a banshee if Asian, white or whatever color students were attacking African-American students while yelling racial epithets.  Yet their silence is deafening when it comes to something like this and it simply can’t be justified.  There’s no excuse and these kids are taking their cue from our collective failure to condemn this sort of behavior.

I’m down with Bill (Cosby) who says African-Americans are reluctant to air our dirty laundry.   This is crazy, because whether we air it or not, everyone knows we have “skid marks” in the drawers so we might as well publicly acknowledge that fact in an effort get them cleaned out.  Every African-American leader in the country should have descended on that school and read those kids the riot act.  As it is, we all look  duplicitous.

For those of us who know better, it’s time to break ranks and break our silence.

Asian students describe violence at South Philadelphia High

By Kristen A. Graham

Inquirer Staff Writer

In emotional testimony yesterday, Asian students described being victimized at South Philadelphia High for years, often as school staffers stood by, encouraged the attackers, or hurled racial slurs.

Duyngoc Truong, a South Philadelphia student who was beaten last week, told the School Reform Commission that being let down by those in charge “hurt our bodies, it also hurt our hearts. We have the right to go to school and we need to be treated fairly.”

The meeting was a dramatic crescendo in a situation that began Dec. 2, school officials said, when a disabled African American student was beaten up by two Asian students outside school.

The next day, large groups of African American and Asian students attacked at least 30 Asian students, seven of whom required treatment at a hospital. Some of the attackers went from room to room, looking for students to target. District officials said the Thursday attacks were retaliatory, but Helen Gym, a board member of Asian American United, challenged that.

“By linking the two incidents, which involved two absolutely different sets of youth, the district seems to imply that there’s an undercurrent of justification for what happened on Thursday,” Gym said.

Officials announced last night that an outside investigator would probe what happened, beginning next week.

Six African American students and four Asian students have been suspended, and police and School District investigations are ongoing.

In her first remarks on the subject, Superintendent Arlene Ackerman said the South Philadelphia violence “is only a symptom of a more serious problem which has its roots in racism – not only in our schools, but in the larger community. It is the proverbial elephant in the room.”

She warned the audience not to blame one racial group for the violence.

Ackerman said that the district had beefed up security in and around the school and formed a Task Force for Racial and Cultural Harmony to recommend changes, both at South Philadelphia and districtwide. A U.S. Department of Justice program will work with students on racial and ethnic issues, she said.

The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission will also address the situation at a previously scheduled Dec. 21 meeting in Philadelphia.

About 200 Asian students and community supporters packed the meeting, waving signs that read “Stop School Violence” and “Grown-ups Let Us Down.” More than a dozen testified, some through translators.

Fifty Asian students are boycotting South Philadelphia this week, investigating the incident and possible changes on their own.

Ellen Somekawa, executive director of Asian Americans United, said the attacks against Asian students were disturbing, but more so was the district’s reaction, which she characterized as slow and defensive. Almost a week later, some students involved have still not been interviewed, Somekawa said.

“We have seen a total lack of moral leadership,” Somekawa said.

District spokeswoman Evelyn Sample-Oates said the situation was complex and the investigation would be thorough.

“We’re trying to get names,” Sample-Oates said. “Many kids don’t want to give names, which we understand.”

Somekawa described students at the school being mocked by staff: ” ‘Where are you from? Hey, Chinese. Yo, Dragon Ball. Are you Bruce Lee? Speak English,’ ” quoting what students had told her.

Troung, the South Philadelphia student, recited a litany of problems with school staff. She singled out the security officers, who she claimed forced Asian students to follow them into a lunchroom where they were attacked and who directed the frightened students to leave school after they were beaten.

Yan Zheng, another student, said that when students were fighting in the lunch room last Thursday, “the lunch lady did not do anything to stop them, and went around cheering happily. . . . The staff shouldn’t just stand there and watch and say, ‘Stopping fights is not my job.’ “

Duong Thang Ly said the school’s security officers “are the big problem,” saying they looked the other way when a group of African American students interrupted a lunch line and heckled a group of Asian students. They ignored groups of students as they roamed during class time, Ly said.

It’s not just Asian students who are suffering, Truong said.

“Most of the students at South Philadelphia High School – Asian, African American, Latino and white – are just like us. They are trying to get an education in a school where they do not feel safe or respected,” said Truong.

Xu Lin, a community organizer for the Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corp. who works closely with South Philadelphia students, said immigrant students are often not provided with appropriate language assistance when they report incidents.

“When Asian students report incidents, the school officials in the building often do not respond professionally,” Lin said. “Many incidents went neglected.”

Lin said South Philadelphia’s new principal, LaGreta Brown, had been unresponsive to the Asian community.

Brown did not attend yesterday’s meeting and has not been available to comment on the allegations.

Sample-Oates, the district spokeswoman, said all staff will be held accountable and disciplined if found culpable.

A New York civil rights attorney drew parallels to a 2004 situation at a Brooklyn school where Chinese immigrant students were attacked.

“The severe, rampant and unchecked nature of the racially motivated attacks against Asian students at South Philadelphia far exceeds what I have seen” in Brooklyn, testified Cecilia Chen, an attorney with the Asian American Legal Defense Fund.

The four commissioners listened to more than three hours of sometimes painful testimony. After several speakers said they felt the district had not appropriately apologized, Chairman Robert Archie Jr. said that the SRC and district “want to say we’re sorry for the injuries that you sustained as a result of the incidents which took place in South Philadelphia. . . . We’re going to move with all deliberate speed to try to address this issue.”

Commissioner David F. Girard-diCarlo said he welcomed the outside investigation. “Clearly, from the comments that we received, we do need to evaluate the conduct of our adults to make sure that we have balanced appropriately where the problems really lie,” he said.

In an interview, another commissioner, Johnny Irizarry, said the district needs to enforce a diversity policy adopted 15 years ago.

“Either we continue to live in sustaining or almost approving violence by not intervening,” Irizarry said, “or we say, ‘OK, this is the time that we make radical change.’ “

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20091210_Asian_students_describe_violence_at_South_Philadelphia_High.html

THE DICTIONARY DEFINES RACISM AS FOLLOWS:

1.  The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.  2.  Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

As early as 1943, and again through the 1950’s and 1960’s, the Catholic Bishops of the United States voiced the moral concerns of our Catholic people with regard to discrimination and racism.  The Pontifical Justice and Peace Commission on November 3, 1988 issued the first Vatican document to deal solely with the subject of racism. The document was entitled: “The Church and Racism: Toward a More Fraternal Society.”

In their statement of November 14, 1979, entitled “Brothers and Sisters to Us,” the Bishops of the United States accurately defined racism and located the center of the issue: “Racism is a sin: a sin that divides the human family, blots out the image of God among specific members of that family, and violates the fundamental dignity of those called to be children of the same Father. Racism is the sin that says some human beings are inherently superior and others essentially inferior because of race. It is the sin that makes racial characteristics the determining factor for the exercise of human rights. It mocks the words of Jesus, ‘Treat others the way you would have them treat you.’ Indeed, racism is more than a disregard for the words of Jesus; it is a denial of the truth of the dignity of each human being revealed by the mystery of the incarnation … The heart of the race question is moral and religious. It concerns the rights of man and our attitude toward our fellow man.”

Clearly, the religious consciences of the American people provided the spiritual courage necessary for the legislative and administrative changes that have occurred since the late 1950’s. To a great degree, religious leadership among Catholics, Protestants and Jews spurred the dynamic changes that began to untie the institutional prejudices that bound our land. Although discriminatory laws and institutional prejudices have, to some significant degree, been overcome, the demands of Christian conscience still require that the battle against subtler forms of racism which still continue in our society be faced.

Christians have come to recognize ever more clearly that Jesus’ enunciation of the Great Commandments admitted of no exceptions: “You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, with your whole soul, and with all of your mind … and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

In the teaching of Christ Jesus the Lord, the love of God is inextricably bound up with our love for our neighbor. As the Apostle John teaches us in his First Epistle, it is not possible for Christians to profess love for God whom we do not see, while at the same time ignoring, or even hating, the brother or sister whom we do see.

When Jesus was asked “Who is my neighbor?”, He responded with the parable of the Good Samaritan, who came to the aid of the person in need. Despite the fact that wide ethnic and religious differences existed between the Samaritan and the “man in need” (in much the same way as wide ethnic and religious differences exist today between Israelis and Palestinians), the Samaritan responded to the demands of justice and love.

Evidently, in accord with Jesus’ own teaching and that of Christian Tradition, “my neighbor” is any and every person who needs, deserves and can rightly expect my care, my concern and my love. “My neighbor” may be male, female, Protestant or atheist, African, South American, Australian, Asian, already born into the world, or still in the protective care of a mother’s womb. No distinguishing fact of race, country of origin, or stage of biological development alters the fundamental call of Jesus.

No super-imposed criterion of “usefulness” nor any human judgment about who is “wanted” or “unwanted” in this world can be used to make exceptions to Jesus’ explicit teaching about “my neighbor.” All are “neighbor to me.” Our love of God, therefore, will be as wide and as deep and as extensive as our willingness to call each and every member of the human family “neighbor to me.”

One of the most consistent paradoxes of our contemporary political and social life has been the willingness of liberals to play the race card in the ‘game’ of life.  Very few conservatives ever mention a person’s race when debating some burning issue before the American people.  Yet, liberals, who were in the forefront of the battle to abolish slavery and who were so vocal in blaming Jim Crow on the Republican party, when in reality it was Southern Democrats who opposed the abolition of discriminatory laws, are now the only ones who play the race card.  The recent diatribe by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) in which he accused conservatives of being racist is only one of many examples.

Now, we have the Tiger Woods tragedy.  Here is Jeff Jacoby’s commentary on the racist aspects of the story:

************************************************************************

Throw out the race card

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
December 12, 2009

http://www.jeffjacoby.com/6692/throw-out-the-race-card

WHATEVER ELSE might be said about Tiger Woods, he has never confused his ethnic and racial makeup — he is part Asian, part black, part American Indian, and part white — with his identity. “My parents have taught me to always be proud of my ethnic background,” he said as a 19-year-old U.S. Amateur champion in 1995, but “the critical and fundamental point is that ethnic background and/or composition should not make a difference. It does not make a difference to me. The bottom line is that I am an American.”

Race didn’t turn Tiger Woods into a great golfer any more than it made him a serial philanderer, and it is hard to imagine anything less relevant to his current marital turmoil than skin color. Yet from the Associated Press comes a report headlined “Tiger’s troubles widen his distance from blacks” — an entire news story devoted to “the race of the women linked with the world’s greatest golfer.” Apparently they have all been white. Apparently some people think that matters.

It isn’t just the AP. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson suggested last week that “the most interesting aspect” of Woods’s humiliating fall is “the whole Barbie thing.” Robinson disavows any desire “to pronounce judgment on Woods’s moral fiber” — he would rather dwell instead on “how much the women who’ve been linked to Wood resemble one another” and why none of them have “yellow or brown skin.”

Is that really what matters in the Tiger Woods drama — the racial diversity of the women he has allegedly slept with? Must everything be turned into a matter of race?

Few cultural ideas are more pernicious than the race fetish — the regard for skin color or ethnicity as the most significant factor in human behavior. Few falsehoods have caused more misery. If anything ennobled 20th-century liberalism, it was the conviction that human beings ought to be treated without regard to the hue of their skin or the shape of their eye. As Thurgood Marshall argued in a 1948 brief for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, “Classifications and distinctions based on race or color have no moral or legal validity in our society.”

America’s greatest modern domestic achievement was to transform itself from a society in which invidious racial classifications were entrenched in law and custom — a society in which the “wrong” skin color was a bar to everything from decent schooling to political power — to one in which blacks can be anything: judges and entrepreneurs, journalists and lawmakers, billionaire golfers and four-star generals — and president of the United States.

Over the past two generations, in a blink of history’s eye, America was transformed from a nation in which the race card trumped nearly everything to one in which it trumps nearly nothing.

So why do so many people keep trying to play it?

When US Representative Artur Davis, an Alabama Democrat, voted against the House leadership’s health care bill last month, he was denounced in racial terms by members of his own party. “You can’t vote against health care,” Jesse Jackson told a Congressional Black Caucus reception, “and call yourself a black man.”

When posters appeared in which President Obama’s face was Photoshopped to resemble Heath Ledger’s creepy Joker from the Batman movie The Dark Knight, it was promptly slammed as racist. “All that’s missing is a noose,” wrote LA Weekly’s Steven Mikulan — despite the fact that Ledger was white, the Joker is white, and the poster’s one-word message — “Socialism” — had nothing to do with race.

Or is “socialism,” too, a racial issue? In an essay the Christian Science Monitor published in October, University of North Carolina professor Christopher Lee insisted that Obama’s critics use the S-word to disguise their true “xenophobic, hypernationalistic, and, yes, racist” views.

It is so odious, this impulse to make everything a racial matter. Whether it comes from right or left, whether the context is congressional legislation or celebrity gossip, the race card invariably diminishes and divides us.

“There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America,” declared Barack Obama at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. “There’s the United States of America.” True, we may not be there yet. But isn’t the surest way to an America in which race makes no difference to stop speaking and acting as if it does?

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)

– ## –

I’m not sure what I feel about having a racial slur called at me.




I’ve been ambushed by kids with sticks before when I walked to school in Toronto as a 8 year old or whatever. They did say a load of crap as well, but honestly, I have little collection of what they said. But I did remember them saying some shit to my dad once, who doesn’t speak English and so it had little effect. Ha, ignorance is bliss I suppose.




As I jogged past a couple of youths hanging out in Victoria Park the other night, one of them casually looked at me and said, “Chink chink. I love you long time.”




Now, to have someone declare their love for you is always good isn’t it? Perhaps I should evoke positive thinking and take heart in the fact that someone who’s never met me before loves me.




I suppose I could’ve taken offense and punched him for the chink part but I didn’t because:

1) I was in the middle of an army bootcamp fitness session and was having a doggedly hard time keeping up as it was. I needed to conserve any energy reserves for the next round of sprint to that tree, do 10 touch jumps and sprint back and get into the plank position NOW!

2) As far as I can remember, I don’t recall anyone ever calling me a chink and so I was surprised and confused more than anything really. The offense part came only after I’ve rested my legs enough to think about it.




But am I really offended though?

I suppose it didn’t really affect me because, although I know the word and its connotations exist, I’ve never really seen it used, against me or anyone else. A word can mean anything, it can be a slur or not, depending on how it’s delivered. I’ve read about black people reclaiming the word “nigger”, and by using them in a different light, they turn the word back on itself and makes its use less offensive.

Perhaps because I’ve never experienced the use of “chink”  in real life, it didn’t really get to me.




On the other hand, I know I will be definitely upset if people came up to my face and start going “Ching chong kong bing ding ding” or shit like that, because I’ve had that used against me and others, together with much taunting and sholving, and so I know I’ll feel it if it’s ever used again. For that, I would definitely stuff your nose in.

But then, isn’t that the whole point though? The more you take offense, the more delight people take in using the terms. Perhaps I should start referring to myself as a chink then?




(At risk of undermining its offensive impact: On reading what I’ve written above, I decided to read “ching chong kong bing ding ding” out loud. Try it. To be honest, if not for the way it’s been used, I actually find it quite funny.)

Equal Opportunities?

Ipswich Unemployed Action would like to alert Flexible New Deal clients that an Ofsted report for ”TNG (Avanta) Bedfordshire & Hertfordshire New Deal” raised massive concerns about the central structure of TNG/Avanta being racist at its core.

During the Ofsted report inspection, the inspector noted some “inappropriate language and images” by both TNG staff and subcontractor staff – whereas Ofsted didn’t state whether these fell under racism, sexism, disability discrimination or a mixture of more than one, it raises extreme concerns especially when Equal Opportunities is written in the core of New Deal contracts.

DWP/Jobcentre Plus are aware of this concern at the time prior to the inspection and forced the holding company to establish an equality of opportunity representatives’ group (although this was for Avanta not TNG itself) and to immediately implement equality and diversity policies, procedures and staff training in TNG.

The report concluded that although had given plenty of time to do so prior to the Ofsted inspection most staff did not receive training on equality and diversity and the direct results of this are present when such staff couldn’t suppress such behaviour when being inspected by Ofsted, resulting in them being caught speaking offensive language and advocating the presentation of disgusting images to participants. Any attempts to include equality and diversity in TNG’s adult training public service environment have failed. The staff racism etc. was solely noted on this contract area although the failing’s in the company as a whole was raised i.e. if they dont have policies and procedures in place and staff aren’t trained – the situation will be a problem nationally.

Although these are major concerns (and on the tendering stage potential provides have to show awareness of Equal ops, harassment policies etc. these are also policies which form part of the New Deal contract hence why providers mention them on induction as they have to) TNG kept this prime contract. They also managed to secure Flexible New Deal.

Ofsted Report Snippets

18. Arrangements to implement and evaluate equality and diversity policies and procedures
within TNG and its subcontractors are inadequate. During the year before inspection, the
main holding company established an equality of opportunity representatives’ group. This
group has established its terms of reference and agreed an immediate action and
development plan to improve the organisation’s approach. However, due to staff changes,
this group has not met sufficiently regularly or recently to achieve its aims and objectives.

19. The analysis of data in relation to participation rates by gender, ethnic group and disability
has been undertaken only very recently. The analysis of progression rates to employment
has not yet started. A well designed electronic learning package for the development of
staff understanding of equality of opportunity and diversity has been introduced but it has
not yet been completed by many of the staff working on this prime contract. The use of
some inappropriate language and images by both TNG and subcontractor staff was noted
by inspectors.

Reinspection 2009 Snippets

TNG managed to get a reinspection (that is not a new inspection to normal timescales but a new inspection designed to replace the previous one) for the same contract. This is likely enforced by Jobcentre Plus/DWP to jumble figures, some months later, the Grade 4s disappeared (4 is Inadequate) and replaced with Grade 3 (Satisfactory).

Whats the point of an Ofsted report when middle management enforces an inspection to redone so performance looks better?

Below snippets of Equal Opportunity section in the new report is as follows:

Staff and participants have adequate training and induction on equality and diversity matters.

It is clear they have finally decided to pull their weight, I presume, on threat of contract termination.

Learning materials do not promote equality and diversity sufficiently.

Reinforcement of equality of opportunity and diversity with participants is insufficient.

Clearly they have printed some poorly designed leaflets – whats the point if not enforced?

Further to my previous post on this topic, I received the following reply to my complaint alleging racial discrimination in the way the national-identity and ethnic-group categories are structured in the proposed 2011 Census form for England and Wales:

I have now replied in the following terms:

6 December 2009

Your ref. TO 09 103

Dear Ms Bray,

Thank you for your letter of 4 November 2009, in response to my earlier email drawing the attention of the ONS to my concerns about the national-identity and ethnic-group questions on the proposed 2011 Census form for England and Wales.

I am sorry it’s taken me so long to reply: I’ve been preoccupied with other work and personal matters.

I appreciate your setting out of the ONS’s position and note your points. I do, however, continue to think that the national-identity and ethnic-group questions are discriminatory in two main ways:

1. Non-white ethnic groups are not treated equally to the white-British ethnic group, in that there is no official acknowledgement – as reflected in the ethnic-group categories used in the form – that they might wish to refer to their ethnicity as ‘English’ (or Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish) instead of, or in addition to, ‘British’. There are no categories such as ‘Asian English’ or ‘Black English’, only ‘Asian British’ and ‘Black British’. This makes English by implication a purely white-racial ethnicity that is not to be officially ascribed to non-white persons. This is quite racist, in my view.
2. The white-British ethnic group is not treated equally to non-white ethnic groups, in that the form makes it admissible for non-white ethnic groups to break down their ethnicity into major regional or national sub-categories (e.g. Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi; or African and Caribbean) but does not regard it as admissible in the same way for white-British people to specify English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish separately. If non-white groups were treated in the same way, this would be like saying to them that they had to treat ‘Asian’ or ‘Black’ as a single category (albeit one that subsumed the respective sub-categories) without separate tick boxes for those sub-categories.

I expect you might respond by saying there is no actual ‘white-British’ ethnic group in the form, which actually reads ‘English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish / British’ as a sub-category of ‘White’. But this does equate to a white-British ethnic group, by virtue of not separating out the constituent parts of Britain, and by differentiating between UK and non-UK white groups. As you yourself write: “there was not a strong need expressed to identify separate components of the ‘English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish / British’ tick box of the ethnic group question since such a breakdown is offered in the national identity component of the question in England and Wales”. But national identity is not at all the same thing as ethnic group. What you are effectively saying is that, for official purposes, it is irrelevant (or merely ’subjective’, as you say elsewhere) if a white respondent regards their ethnic group as ‘English’. Officially, whatever that person thinks, they will be treated as ethnically British; and the only official recognition that is given to that person’s Englishness is as a national, not ethnic, identity.

Summarising my two points above, the two ways in which the form is discriminatory and even borderline racist are:

• ‘English’, ‘Welsh’, ‘Scottish’ and ‘Northern Irish’ are white-only ethnic terms – not officially accorded to non-white persons: this discriminates against non-white persons
• At the same time, ‘English’, ‘Welsh’, ‘Scottish’ and ‘Northern Irish’ are not officially allowable as stand-alone ethnic groups, but may be treated separately only if considered as national identities: this is discriminatory towards white-British persons and is tantamount to a sort of whitewashing and censorship of their ethnic identity.

I suppose another argument that you might bring forward at this point is that the mere fact that there is not a tick box for a given category does not prevent individuals from writing it in. That is true; but the very fact that there are no tick boxes for certain options results from choices driven by administrative and political considerations. And these choices can be seen to be a manifestation of racial discrimination and ethnic-identity politics whenever there is no objective, rational or scientific basis for ascribing certain national and / or ethnic designations to one racial group in society while denying it to others. Why shouldn’t black or Asian people be encouraged to think of themselves as English as well as British? Why should white-English people be denied official recognition of their Englishness as an ethnicity while officialdom does recognise separate Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi ethnic groups? After all, these latter are national terms, in the first instance (like English, Scottish, etc.), rather than ethnic; but they’re treated as valid ethnic-group categories, while English, Scottish, etc. are not.

Damagingly, the form is also racist in a more all-embracing and subtle way: it makes Britishness more fundamentally a property of racially white persons than non-white persons. This is how:

• ‘English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish’ are applied to white persons only
• In addition, ‘English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish’ stand in a privileged relationship to ‘British’: they are treated as sub-categories, or ‘components’ (to use your word), of the white-British ethnic group within which they are subsumed – making them effectively interchangeable with ‘British’
• As a consequence, ‘British’, too, is implicitly regarded as more properly applicable to white persons
• This is manifested in the fact that ‘British’ (i.e. ‘English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish / British’) is a sub-category of ‘white’, whereas it is not allowed to be a sub-category of the Asian, black or mixed categories. If ‘British’ were genuinely an ethnic-group term, not a white-racial term, then there should be no problem in listing it, with a tick box, on the same level as ‘Indian’, ‘Pakistani’, etc. or as ‘African’, ‘Caribbean’, etc. In this way, you could describe yourself, for instance, an ‘ethnically British’ (or, indeed, English etc.) and racially Asian or black person at one and the same time.

  Adding ‘British’ to the generic terms used in the form for non-white ethnic groups (e.g. ‘Asian British’ and ‘Black British’ ) makes ‘British’ a designator neither of such persons’ race nor of their ethnic group. The form does not postulate anything such as a ‘Black British race’ or an ‘Asian British race’, and the term ‘British’ here is used merely to signify national identity; e.g. ‘Asian British’ means a ‘British-identifying, racially Asian person of the Indian / Pakistani / Bangladeshi / etc. ethnic group’.

• Ultimately, then, non-white British persons are denied a fully British-ethnic identity, equal to that of white-British persons, because British ethnicity is implicitly derived from the white race. And, at the same time, the white-British race is identified with the terms ‘English’, ‘Welsh’, ‘Scottish’ and ‘Northern Irish’, which are also seen in purely racial terms and are denied to non-white people.

To summarise the above arguments: by denying non-white persons official recognition as English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish, they are also excluded from British identity on equal terms to white-British persons. This is because the British-ethnic identity is ultimately still seen as rooted in the white-race-only indigenous national-ethnic groups of the UK.

Perhaps this is the fundamental reason why ‘ethnically British’ persons are discouraged by the form from thinking of their ethnic group as ‘English’, ‘Welsh’, etc. The fear perhaps is that if people are given official ‘permission’ to think of themselves as ethnically English, they will construe this in purely racial terms, rather than in a civic or cultural sense. But these racial assumptions are in fact those of the Census form itself. This sees Englishness (and the identities of the other UK nations), and the British ethnicity of which Englishness is regarded as an integral part, in purely racial terms. And because of this, non-white British persons are regarded as British only in respect of their national identity and nationality (citizenship), not their ethnicity.

By negating the idea of whites and non-whites meeting on a common ground of Englishness – English culture, English civic society and English ethnicity – the form drives a wedge between the different ethnic groups of England, making even the ideal of a shared Britishness elusive: the Britishness of white-English persons being racial-ethnic as well as national, while that of non-whites living in England is that of British nationals only.

In view of the above points, I still consider that there could be a case for racial discrimination and racism to be examined by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. However, I would still be interested in your response to my points before I submit a claim to the EHRC.

Yours sincerely,

David Rickard

African-American joblessness – nearly twice the national rate – is quickly becoming the first showdown between Black leaders and the nation’s first Black president as national Black and civil right leaders raise their voices telling the Obama Administration it’s time to end the jobs crisis in the Black community.

“We’re sending a strong message to the president and Congress that we need to step up. We need immediate jobs – not some time six, eight and 10 months down the road,” National Urban League President Marc Morial said in an interview with the NNPA News Service. “African-American leaders are not just saying do something. We’re offering solutions.”

Morial has sent a letter to the Obama Administration and Congressional Leaders outlining specific recommendations for job creation as President Obama prepares for a job summit this week in the wake of national unemployment numbers that grew into double digits – 10. 2 percent – in October. In his letter, dated Nov. 24, Morial reminds the Administration that the Black community has suffered double digit jobless rates for well more than a year.

“While I applaud the Administration for publicly acknowledging the gravity of our nation’s employment situation, I would add that double-digit unemployment has been a reality for communities of color since last summer – for African Americans since August, 2008, and for Latinos since February, 2009,” he writes. “As President and CEO of the National Urban League, the nation’s oldest and largest community-based movement devoted to empowering African Americans to enter the economic and social mainstream, I have firsthand knowledge of the tremendous obstacles these families have been facing, not just since national unemployment reached 10.2 % in October, but for over a year now.”

That’s great press – but it is a massive oversimplification of the issue. The issue is that there continues to be irrefutable and documented evidence of employment discrimination. Discrimination which is severely impacting that portion of the black population who did the right things, went to college, and developed successful resumes based on accomplishment. This is a continuation, and legacy of the Bushit Justice Department intentionally ignoring cases of real job discrimination, in favor of the racially driven search for “reverse discrimination” which produced the same results as searching for WMDs in Iraq.

But there is ample evidence that racial inequities remain when it comes to employment. Black joblessness has long far outstripped that of whites. And strikingly, the disparity for the first 10 months of this year, as the recession has dragged on, has been even more pronounced for those with college degrees, compared with those without. Education, it seems, does not level the playing field — in fact, it appears to have made it more uneven.

College-educated black men, especially, have struggled relative to their white counterparts in this downturn, according to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate for black male college graduates 25 and older in 2009 has been nearly twice that of white male college graduates — 8.4 percent compared with 4.4 percent.

Various academic studies have confirmed that black job seekers have a harder time than whites. A study published several years ago in The American Economic Review titled “Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?” found that applicants with black-sounding names received 50 percent fewer callbacks than those with white-sounding names.

A more recent study, published this year in The Journal of Labor Economics found white, Asian and Hispanic managers tended to hire more whites and fewer blacks than black managers did.

The discrimination is rarely overt, according to interviews with more than two dozen college-educated black job seekers around the country, many of them out of work for months. Instead, those interviewed told subtler stories, referring to surprised looks and offhand comments, interviews that fell apart almost as soon as they began, and the sudden loss of interest from companies after meetings.

So the real issue here – is why hasn’t the Obama Administration put on a full court press on job discrimination?

On Al Jazeera this weekend, a very interesting debate took place hosted by Avi Lewis regarding The Color of Recession.  According to statistics, the unemployment rate for minorities is around 34%, while unemployed white Americans are only at 7.2%, says the NY Times.

The programme featured four panellists who debated the issue of race, including ‘Jesse Jackson of the Rainbow Coalition; Rosa Clemente, an activist and former Green Party Vice Presidential candidate; Linda Chávez, director of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity and the Reverend Greylan Hagler of the United Church of Christ.’

The discussion focused a great deal on the Obama administration, at times criticizing the new president’s failure to focus on helping minorities, who have been affected more strongly by the economic downturn.  Referring to Obama’s focus as a ‘colour blind approach’, Lewis puts the question to the panellists: Is Obama letting down people of colour?

The answers, surprisingly, are more varied than one might expect.  Rosa Clemente, for example, was dissatisfied with Obama’s actions so far, criticizing that the President has not focused his energies on minority unemployment issues.  Linda Chavez agreed, but also added that Obama is offering the ‘same old solutions’ to the economic crisis.  She believes this will only cause more problems for America in the future.

Reverend Jackson, who in many ways represents more traditional ideas about racial inequality, didn’t show any great opposition to President Obama.  Jackson did, however, disapprove of banks investing from the ‘top down’ rather than the ‘bottom up.’

Obama’s only supporter seemed to be Reverend Hagler, who suggested that people support the President rather than holding him to ridiculous standards.   He reminded the audience that Obama is a president, who must answer to and work with other groups such as the legislative branch.  ‘He is not a king,’ said Hagler.

Reparations

Though the discussion centred around the effects of the economic crisis on minorities, there was ultimately an argument about reparations to people of colour.  Should reparations be made?  All but one believed there should be.  Chavez maintained that the generation of minorities existing in America today are so disconnected from those who suffered from racial discrimination that there would be no point to making reparations. 

What was most disturbing about the discussion is that in almost everyway it seemed to undermine what President Obama is trying to do.  And what is Obama’s goal?  Is it simply to get a nation through one of the worse economic crises it has ever experienced?  Is it to end a war, while ensuring that Afghanistan is not left in such a weak state that the Taliban can easily overtake it again?  While all of these goals are no doubt part of Obama’s plans, it becomes clear from his campaign that a loftier goal is in place: Saving a nation from their own short-sidedness in regards to race.

So much of Obama’s presidential campaign appears to have focused on race.  And it seems clear that Obama understood what Europe has known for many years; Race is America’s greatest problem.  The children of oppressors and the oppressed have been taught by their ancestors that race is indeed, a huge subject and should be treated as such.  And while this poses no problem for the American who is accustomed to making race a very big issue, it consistently undermines the great cultural theorists of this generation who wisely maintain that the only way to overcome racism, sexism and the classification of ‘Otherness’ is by giving absolutely no respect to the ideology of classification.  In other words, ignoring the idea of race forces or at least impels others to deal with a person’s humanity rather than their skin colour.  It is a reminder of that which makes us similar, rather than what makes us different.

President Obama is, no doubt, a part of this new school of thought at least to some degree.  While he does not ignore race, he certainly has committed himself to making decisions that do not focus on the race of the American in crisis.  His proposals for healthcare, economic solutions and war will likely not include reparations to any race in particular.

Is this a good plan of action?  It may be more accurate to say that it is a necessary plan of action.  Who among us wants a leader, who makes decisions based on skin colour?  It was morally wrong when it was done by those who formerly held positions of power.  It would be wrong now.  In fact, it might further destroy the task of healing the wounds between races in America.  The ‘what about me’ syndrome exists on both sides.   

People are discriminated against for all sorts of reasons including gender and race.  It is ridiculous to believe that an epoch of racial prejudice has not been passed down to both black and white Americans the way family heirlooms are passed down to grandchildren.  Why would you believe even the most righteous of equality leaders over your own parents unless you were ready to challenge everything you had ever been taught?  Yet, it is equally ridiculous to believe that the consequence of such programming does not also include a fundamental fear and mistrust of anyone who is different.  Even small children teach us this in grade school where the slightest abnormality causes a student to be the focus of ridicule and cruelty.

Beyond Race

Still, what is crucial here is whether or not Obama’s regime of ‘colour blindness’ seeks to be an example by teaching people to function beyond the idea of race.  If the goal of the current administration is to eliminate the need for classification, the very idea of discrimination, therefore, is called into question. After all, is it productive to use classification as a defence?  For example, is it effective for someone to say, ‘He is treating me inappropriately because I am Indian and a woman?’  Or is it more effective to say, ‘He is treating me inappropriately?’  How much more useful would it be to focus on the issue of mistreatment, rather than the issue of race or gender?

There is no doubt that if Obama is a student of the school of thought that seeks to take the focus from classifications, therefore eliminating the power of ‘Otherness’, he has his work cut out for him.  Enticing people from a lifetime of programming is not something that can be done in four or even eight terms of a presidency.  Yet, Obama’s biggest followers have often interpreted his message as one of hope.  And since a minority has managed to obtain the highest position in America, then we can only imagine that change is possible and that perhaps, Americans are on the cusp of that change.

For NY Times statistics on unemployment in America, please go to http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/06/business/economy/unemployment-lines.html

Playing the race card is getting a bit old now.

Apparently, in July this year, a black woman won the title of Miss England. The first black woman to do so.

Then 2 weeks ago, she was stripped of her title due to her alleged involvement in a nightclub cat-fight over her man.

In an interview I read of her in The Sunday Times Magazine, she lamented why so few have come out to support her and why her winning Miss England should be a much bigger deal than it is.

“If I was the first black Miss America, I wouldn’t be able to sit at this table talking to you, I’d be mobbed.”

Woman, having a black person win a beauty pageant in America 26 years ago was a big deal because racial tensions back then were much higher than it is today and racial equality was still a comparatively new concept. The fact that no one is falling over themselves to make a big deal out of a non-white Miss England is because it is so much less of an issue these days. Consider this an achievement. Consider this proof that we have in fact come a long way. Consider this as progress. Consider this an acknowledgment that you, a black person, is being treated so much more equally now than back in the day when Vanessa Williams won Miss America and that is why no special hoo-hah is being made over you being black.

However, I suspect the main and bigger reason why there is little reporting in the media  is simply because people don’t give a shit about beauty pageants anymore. Towards the end of the interview, the article basically answers her questions:

“Britain fell out of love with Miss World in the late 1980s…’Things got so bad I had to do it in Blackpool one year because we had no sponsors, no TV backing, no media interest at all.’ Miss England used to be held at the Dorchester; now it is at a Hilton under the A40.”

I think using your race or ethnicity as a basis of claim for every alleged injustice against you is really just taking the piss and unfairly undercuts the cases of real racial discriminations that occur. It will eventually end up working against you and other ethnic minorities. Remember the boy who cried wolf?

What would you think if I write to Boris Johnson to complain about the lack of packing space for bikes in Chinatown and proceed to exclaim that that is evidence of racial discrimination by his government by assuming that Asians don’t cycle and continue by assusing him of ignoring and not supporting the minority Asian cycling population? Look! He is building bike racks in and around white neighbourhoods but not in Chinatown! Perhaps I should form the London Asian Cycling Coalition (hey, not a bad name actually!) and sue his administration for racial injustice?

While writing that, I will conveniently overlook that fact that bike parking is also a premium in locations like Covent Garden and he is basically just not providing enough amenities in the whole of London in general for an activity that he has so enthusiastically advocated for.

Racial discrimiation, ignorance, and injustices do occur, but don’t take the piss and over do it. Sometimes, when things don’t go your way, you have only yourself to blame.

So you think all the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture does is (not) protect Fido from killer Chinese pet food?  Actually, the USDA has its grubby little fingers in plenty of other pies (mad cow?), but I only had to write a paper about racial discrimination at the department, hence today’s topic:

The USDA exterminated the black farmer.

Before the First Great Migration, blacks (then almost all rural-dwelling) had made considerable headway in getting out from under the sharecropping system’s thumb and buying their own farms, with black farmers owning over 925,000 farms in 1920. After Pigford v. Glickman, a class action lawsuit (and largest civil rights lawsuit ever) alleging USDA discrimination toward thousands of black farmers between 1983 and 1996, was settled for $400 million in 1999, it was estimated only 20,000 black farmers remained.

Causes are, of course, legion, but I argue that the single greatest was discrimination by USDA farm reform programs designed to create a weed- and small farmer-free South starting during WWII:

- The three preeminent USDA programs (FHA, ASCS, FES) were in essence run by county committees comprised of local whites.  No black was elected to a committee until 1964, and by a civil rights investigation five years later, there were two black committeemen among hundreds of thousands, thanks to voter intimidation and sham elections policy.

- USDA bureaucrats displayed a mastery of red-tape racism, making up problems on applications, withholding forms, and fabricating allotment numbers (gov’t decided how much of their land farmers could cultivate) to place black farmers at a disadvantage. Or they’d draw a farmer into debt and then “clean him out.”

- Nixon’s first secretary of agriculture filled his civil rights advisory committee with appointees chosen for their lack of interest in civil rights, his successor helped states in violation of antidiscrimination laws avoid losing their USDA funding, and Reagan’s stopped investigating black farmers’ complaints altogether.

Some of this racism is festering at the USDA even today: County committees are still in charge (a major reason why black farmers, including Pigford himself, spoke out against the $400 mil settlement), and now Native American farmers are alleging the same kind of discrimination in a pending suit. Will Obama live up to rhetoric about institutional racism?

In other words, pet food’s the least of it.

¿Y si tu no piensas en mí? Si no soy tan importante como tú eres para mí… Siento que te hablo y hablo y tu no me escuchas, ¿qué no ves que aquí estoy? ¿por qué no me reconoces? ¿Acaso te desagrado? … ¿Te hago falta como tu a mí?… ¿Por qué sólo escucho eco?… Siento que te pierdo…y aún no te he tenido…y siento que no entiendes lo que digo…y tu si sabes como herirme, como decirme las cosas en dónde más me duelen…sí, vaya que lo sabes.. No sé por qué no se te ha ocurrido verte en el espejo y reconocerme…

Four African-American employees have filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Harbor UCLA Medical Center.  The employees, Zena Branson, Laverne Geh, Vickie Moore and Brenda Lee-Richardson, allege that their boss, Candyce Gray, subjected them to a hostile work environment where they suffered from harassment and were discriminated against because of their race.

The lawsuit alleges that Gray referred to African-American employees as “those people,” mocked their speech, and called them derogatory terms such as”lazy” and “uneducated.”  Candyce Gray allegedly repeatedly slammed doors in the plaintiffs’ faces and threw objects at them.

Under Candyce Gray’s supervision, other employees would refer to the African-American employees as “monkeys” and would tell them to “go back to their cages.”  Management allegedly did nothing to stop this harassment.

The lawsuit also alleges that the Harbor UCLA Medical Center disciplined African-American employees without cause, gave them lower scores on their performance evaluations, and hid promotional opportunities from black employees.

————–

Rate my boss on eBossWatch

I study racial disparities in criminal justice, but this still completely blew me away. I started clicking around and have ended up collecting links to a large number of quite amazing videos of racial interactions that would be great discussion-starters in class. The two segments that just make my jaw drop were broadcast last February on ABC 20-20’s “What Would You Do?” series last February. They are a little over six minutes each after a 15 second commercial*. The setup is a parking lot in a public park in a White suburb. In part 1, for several hours three White boys overtly vandalize a car. Dozens of White people walk by, looking but doing nothing. Only one ever calls the police; a few say something to the boys. In part 2, three Black boys do the same thing: lots of people call the police, many more people intervene.  In both cases, there is overt criminality going on, although possibly so overt that people might have defined it as some kind of stunt. On balance, a clear demonstration that failure to sanction overt White crime is part of a racial disparity pattern, not just response to Black crime. But the real shocker: while the White kids are vandalizing the car, the police DO get TWO 911 calls from the same parking lot. What they call about is Black people SLEEPING in a nearby car: they phone it in as “possible robbery!”

Vandals 1 (white)
Vandals 2 (black)
(*I found these originally on Youtube but link to ABC despite the commercial opening in the interest of supporting copyright holders where possible.)

There are also some really chilling Driving While Black segments available.

This 10-minute segment was produced by a New York news station about Nassau County. It is really quite incredible, the tester ends up handcuffed and held for thirty minutes after making a U-turn on a residential street and refusing to explain what he is doing in the area. No response to White testers who duplicate the action, although the Blacks in the trailing news car are stopped and hassled.

This ABC Primetime episode on Driving While Black is also very good, but the YouTube versions are all scratched and vertically stretched. I cannot find an on-line version of the original. The first segment is 10 minutes, the second is about 2 minutes of wrap-up
10 minute main segment
2 minute wrap up

A Fox news video shows a black customer being surrounded and beaten by whites but the black man is the only one arrested

The ABC Primetime What Would You Do? series also has a number of great segments (generally 8-10 minutes long) about bystander intervention into overt cases of racial/ethnic discrimination. Actors play the part of store clerks or real estate sales people who overtly insult and harass Black or Muslim or Spanish-speaking lower class (day laborer) shoppers (also actors). Bystander responses are videotaped. Each segment shows lots of people either standing by without intervening or in some cases approving the discrimination, but also highlights people who do intervene. John Dovidio (a psychologist known for work on bystander intervention) provides commentary that praises those who do intervene. Again, these seem like great discussion-starters. I linked to YouTube when I could not find the segment on the ABC site.

Real estate agent insulting Black and Muslim couples looking at a home.

Black shopper in a upscale clothing boutique gets insulted and even frisked

Muslim woman trying to buy an apple Danish (quite a few shoppers join in on the discrimination, while a White man who says is son is fighting in Iraq challenges it)

Spanish-speaking guys in work clothes trying to buy coffee (quite a few shoppers again join in on the discrimination, few seem to speak against it)

H/T to http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/ which pointed me to the Muslim shopper video on YouTube, from which I found the rest through YouTube searches, ABC News searches, and Google.

The black card? I can guarantee that he would believe he is not a racist. And he might not be, but his silence and comment both question his view on racial discrimination.

Like most blacks, shopping/driving/eating/walking/breathing while Muslim does come hand in hand with other racial discrimination. I’ve only recently started wearing the Hijab and since then I’ve been subjected to various discrimination from different people. Some are quite funny actually . I recall a time where I was called a “sand nigger”, which made me burst out laughing.

I am not afraid of racists or bigots, because it indicates the insecurities, low self-esteem, selfish and timid cultural attitudes they have for themselves. Projecting it on others is just an indicator of their deficiencies.

However, too many people are afraid of standing up for what’s right.  People are more prone to sit on the sidelines discussing how wrong it is, than actually stepping up and defending equality.

So I ask how racist are you? The video might have been set as a social experiment, but it is part of life. I’m not suggesting you might be a racist or bigoted, but what would you really do in this situation? Don’t consider the socially acceptable response, be honest as some of the people who did nothing were in this video.