Great essay. Some of it made me smile only because it reminded me of the slights I faced as an Asian in the Midwest, such as being mistaken for the one other Asian in town, or having to come up with an opinion about the Vietnam war even though it happen far before I was born. But these to me were mostly harmless things that I learned to tolerate, though I completely understand why other Asians absolutely hate such slights. But being treated like an Oriental oddity is, as far as I can imagine, is much different than being seen as an aggressor.
Being attacked or harassed for racial (or any reason) is always unpleasant, but I've always found it easy to rationalize such experiences as outliers, as in, "Well, some people are just ignorant assholes". So I've found the things that happen at an everyday level to be far more deeply unsettling. I've been in a few countries where Asians are rare (yes, rarer than in Iowa) and while I hadn't been physically attacked, the experience of people just staring at me, everywhere, while I'm going for a walk or waiting in line at the grocery, was so unpleasant that I just found myself just not going out at all very much. Not as a conscious decision, but from a reluctance that built up subconsciously, and something that I only realized after I returned to the States.
It's not that egregious acts of harassment don't happen to minorities today. But when I think of why so few [insert minority group here] are in [insert role/geography here], I believe it's because of the undramatic but accumulated things that the OP mentions, all of which may sound like whining to people who, while genuinely disapproving of overt attacks, don't realize that lesser slights can be enough to create a dampening effects.
That happened to me (a white guy) in China. Not in Beijing or Shanghai, but in the "smaller" interior city of Zhengzhou (Zhengzhou has a population of 2.5 million). It was very unnerving at first but having my Chinese wife with me helped alleviate the anxiety.
> the experience of people just staring at me, everywhere, while I'm going for a walk or waiting in line at the grocery, was so unpleasant that I just found myself just not going out at all very much.
I've been in places where white people are very rare and I low-key enjoyed the attention. I find being ignored more disturbing. YMMV of course ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm a white guy who used to have long hair and lived in the South of the US. I would often get the stares, and they were often from people trying to intimidate me or who felt threatened or disgusted by my hair. Apparently many of them thought it meant I was gay or transgendered (even though I dressed like every other male around me), which they felt was wrong, and gave them the right to look at me in ways or say things to me that they wouldn't have otherwise. I can totally understand how not enjoyable being stared at everywhere you go is. Heck, even celebrities don't like all the attention they receive just going about their business.
The way I see it is that race is but one of many reasons for getting stared at/being viewed as an outsider.
I remember driving across the US and stopping in Nevada at a gas station/cafe in the middle of nowhere. I walked in (white male) and got some very hard stares from the locals. Not comfortable at all.
Then I realized it wasn't because I was white (they were white too), it was probably the way I was dressed and the fact I didn't fit in. I was an outsider to them.
> I've been in places where white people are very rare and I low-key enjoyed the attention. I find being ignored more disturbing. YMMV of course ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Except this is America, where black people aren't very rare. And the attention the author is talking about, more often than not, is negative.
When you were out and about in these places with, were you afraid of being stopped by the police?
Of course not. But the person I replied to wasn't black in America, nor was he complaining about police harassment, mistreatment, employment discrimination, or anything of the sort.
It simply made him uncomfortable to be an outsider at whom people stared. Something for which I find it hard to fault the residents of Iowa or the other unnamed country.
Are you trying to say that your experiences of being a foreigner in some other country are somehow comparable to his experiences as an American in America?
He was originally responding to a comment talking about:
> I've been in a few countries where Asians are rare (yes, rarer than in Iowa)
I think experiences of being a white american visiting a country where white people are rare are probably at least somewhat comparable to experiences of being an asian american visiting a country where asian people are rare?
Except this is America, where black people aren't very rare.
That depends where in America. There are plenty of place (some large cities - SF I'm looking at you) where black people are pretty rare. Or at least rare in the areas people frequent.
The funny part is I talk to the folks I know from the South and they have a TON more interactions with blacks than anyone from the Northeast or West Coast do.
I grew up in the town where James Meredith went to school. In that part of the country, about a fifty-fifty split is normal most places that aren't major cities - I can't guess why, but those tend to be as heavily polarized in the Old South as anywhere else. Outside the cities, and probably for the most part inside them as well, nobody of any skin color really seems to want to start trouble over it.
(We had a lot of that kind of trouble in the 1960s, maybe you know, and the strong impression I formed growing up is that while the results aren't perfectly satisfactory to anyone, the compromises are sufficiently so to everyone, and nobody finds the state of things upsetting enough to want to go beyond within-the-system incrementalism.)
Beyond that, and not to get at you personally, but nobody where I'm from thinks about "[having] interactions with blacks". That's a chilly, sociological way of looking at things, and it's hard to be chilly and sociological about people with whom you've spent your life cheek by jowl. It's just not the natural frame of mind.
On the other hand, since moving away from home and to a city whose black population is twice the size of its white, I've discovered the remarkable experience of being hectored on the subject of racial harmony by white people who choose, for reasons on which it would be invidious of me to speculate, to live where there are almost no black people at all.
I've never known a black person from anywhere to assume that, because I'm from Mississippi, I must be racist. I've known plenty of white people from places like New York and California to do exactly that. I don't really know what conclusion, if any, to draw from this, but I sure do find it curious.
This lines up exactly what I've heard from Southern friends.
Like you said, I've heard that despite the reputation and history of the South, there is a lot more racial integration in day to day life than most parts of America.
And yes, it irks me to no end to hear whites from big coastal cities (who rarely ever interact with blacks) shit all over the South (most of them who have never been there).
I've lived mostly in Memphis, TN metro area in West Tennessee and Northern Mississippi dealing with lots of people. I corroborate that most of us don't care about your race in the least. More about treating people with respect and doing one's job well. Biases are usually residual ones operating unconsciously or barely there outside of straight racists. More likely to show up in negative situations where a person mentally assesses another to understand how it happens & assign blame to something.
As another comment said, though, the sides feel so strongly about that topic of race that bringing it up can have negative consequences in a big way for simplest opinion. They're more likely here to get irritated and dismiss you as an idiot than anything. Maybe shout counter-points at you. Both sides. You have to be in the black ghettos or deep, white, rural areas before it gets dangerous. Still more likely to intimidate you into leaving than hurt you but you take chances there.
Things only heated up recently with the BLM protests. They shut down the main Interstate and airport in Memphis recently. Pissed everyone off in a city with lots of white and black fans of 2nd Amendment. Anxiety & tension is high but no violence I think. A testament in itself, yeah? Hopefully the crap is over soon so race relations & traffic conditions go back to normal. Except I-240 where the speed is about the same. :)
Pretty good points, esp on incrementalism. That's an interesting way of phrasing it. Far as this...
"I've known plenty of white people from places like New York and California to do exactly that."
A lot of white racists think other people see the "obvious" that they see by default. Many were hesitant to say something until they had a few good times with me. Then, they'd drop it expecting me to nod or laugh. I'd just brush it off with a simple No or something instead of arguing with them. Pointless.
" I've discovered the remarkable experience of being hectored on the subject of racial harmony by white people who choose, for reasons on which it would be invidious of me to speculate, to live where there are almost no black people at all."
They trip me out, too. I get more confused the more they talk about "Black" perspectives as differences add up between their statements and those of Southern Blacks. Maybe I just haven't lived in as many hoods and mixed areas as them. Maybe. ;)
> There are plenty of place (some large cities - SF I'm looking at you) where black people are pretty rare. Or at least rare in the areas people frequent.
I think it will be helpful here to specify what type of people you're talking about in the second sentence, otherwise you're implicitly excluding black people from the general term "people". I don't believe this was intentional, it just reads weird.
I meant people in the sense of everybody; humans. Places where the population at large frequents (downtown SF).
I called it out because the SF population is something like 10% black, but most are in black neighborhoods. People that don't live there rarely go to those neighborhoods.
It would be a very interesting project to trace down the facebook social graph to see what % of none-black has black friends/relatives in their direct connections.
Actually, in a lot of places they kind of are: a little over 12% of the population, very much concentrated in the Old South states and a relative handful of cities almost all east of the Mississippi. (Six percent of San Francisco's population as of the 2010 census, if you're wondering.)
America is a very big place, and incredibly diverse. This diversity expands to being both very diverse in places and completely mono-cultural in others. Some areas are heavily black, some areas are heavily Hispanic, some are enclaves of immigrants from any number of other places, and some are almost completely lily-white.
Anecdotally, growing up, there were a half-dozen Hispanic kids (who were my cousins, as my great-uncle had married in Arizona when he was in the Army), one (adopted) black child, and one other (adopted) Indian child. That was the sum total of the ethnic diversity in the entire thousand-person school district in one backwards corner of Maine. We had to rib on the French-Canadians and fall back on home-town stereotypes... There were actually more Asians around, because the Boston Chinese food restaurant cartels/mafia expanded northward. I never met anyone who was Jewish until I went to college.
The guy you are replying to specifically mentioned that a lot of that 12% are concentrated in the south, and thus in some places black people are very rare.
such as Oregon, only ~2%
Montana - ~0.6%
It may be 12% overall, but it's obvious to anyone that downtown Seattle looks nothing like downtown Atlanta. My high school (small town in Georgia) was ~30% black. Which of course was fine with me. I had lots of black classmates from first grade on.
When I got to college in Chicago, though, I was surprised that for most of my fellow students' high schools, black people numbered in the single digits.
> If you assume your figure of 12%, that means 1 in 10 people identifies as black.
Closer to 1 in 8, actually. But that's nationally -- the US is a big nation with lots of regional (both large- and small-scale) variation. Its under 7% for California (and SF is pretty close to the statewide ratio, though neighboring Oakland is close to 30%.)
I won't argue that it's dependent on situation. I grew up knowing just a handful of Asians until after college. Obviously I coped with being a rarity. I think the combination of being in a foreign country exacerbated the issue. As for being ignored, I guess I've since lived in big cities enough to just accept that as the norm :)
But people quickly grow tired of needing to be the token spokesperson for their group, and needing to explain the frustrations again and again (without actually perhaps seeing them changing).
No one ever asks me (a white guy) what it's like to be a white programmer.
One of my friends is a pretty famous guitarist, who happens to be a woman. For the longest time, the first interview question was "What's it like to be a famous female musician?", to which her response eventually became, "It's a lot like being a male musician, except you get this question every interview". Thankfully, the better interviewers have now caught onto this and don't ask such.
So yea, it's good for people to learn about the difficulties/differences in being X in Y, but it's also tiring to explain those frequently, especially if people aren't asking you other things that you might find fun.
Exactly - And lets look at the opposite outcome - if you agree become a standard bearer for your group, you risk getting looked on as a clown by both insiders and outsiders (you may not have street cred / who TF wants to talk about this stuff all the time?)
So yeah, fielding this kind of innocuous question on a daily basis either tires you or (if you take the bait) puts you on a pedestal where others wonder who made you king.
Mental exercise: replace "black/asian" with "female" and you'll see why it sounds wrong.
The decision to grow a beard is (I imagine) one that takes some commitment. I think some people are genuinely interested and will attempt to use it as a conversation piece to get to know you.
I've actually liked talking to strangers who were vets and want to talk about what Vietnam (the country, not so much the war) was like. I can't speak for the OP but I'd like to believe he would happily accept the annoying conversation starters you deal with, as a trade for all the conversations he believes he is shut out of because of his race.
> The decision to grow a beard is (I imagine) one that takes some commitment.
This is in danger of getting too specific, but perhaps it is relatable to the topic.
I don't understand the common perception that any amount of commitment would be involved. However, daily routines, product consumption and professional requirements all sound like commitments to me.
I see your point. I think it wasn't the best counter.
You made me realize that its actually certain things that we as a society decide as sacrosanct and not grounds for prejudice. So it can be with race, which involves no choice, but also religion, which does involve choice. Or political affiliation, which also does involve choice.
The only thing that really matters is people's ability to make decisions. Their religious and political views can very easily reflect a failure to make good decisions, and that has a real social cost. Race is nothing like that. Neither is most physical disability, sexual orientation, nor suitably passive statements about political matters or religious affiliation. That's why those things are protected.
>Are you suggesting that having the option to make that choice is somehow a way out? It's merely symptomatic and utter blasphemy.
This hypothetical doesn't really go anywhere because you can make the beard choice with worldly experience vs. choosing race at birth and growing up as that race. It doesn't even compare.
Even if we were to change this around and ask "What if people could change their race only once in adulthood after some life experience?" the racism chart just gets two additional hate columns for the race-changers.
I am. It's about conforming to a norm and not conforming to a norm. If the norm is whiteness, no matter how much you may want to conform as a non-white person, it's not an option for you. You can't just weigh the discomfort of conforming and the discomfort of deviating and decide ultimately to go with the flow, or switch between conforming and not conforming as the cultural climate changes.
As for any sentiment about whether someone "should have" to conform or not: if many people don't have the option to conform, then that angle is a part of a different conversation. It also confuses the issue - in that it places innate characteristics (which have absolutely no functional implications other than the ability to stay in the sun longer in the case of dark skin) that are focused on within a particular culture on the same level as any expression anybody wants to take i.e. once we accept everything, we'll accept black people, therefore we should be working on general acceptance of all things rather than racism specifically.
It's a cop out. We have a race problem. We have a lot of problems, but race is a very serious problem. Not everything should be accepted; people need to conform in a huge number of ways, or else we don't have a civilization. Things should be taken on a case by case basis based on the degree of human suffering and the societal costs of accepting or ignoring variations from the norm. Race, in America, is maybe the most important thing we need to deal with (second only to sexism in my estimation.) Race, especially anti-black racism, pervades and corrupts everything in the US.
Why should that matter? You could say the same thing to a transgendered person. He or she can wear the clothes for the gender people assume they are. They have a choice. That doesn't make it any more right for people to be prejudice against them.
I wouldn't even say that being gay necessarily works this way. I am a gay man, and I can look back over the timeline of my life and identify several key turning points that could have caused me to take a different path. I may have decided that being gay was a "phase" and decided to be straight. To date, despite identifying as and clearly being gay, my longest relationship was with my highschool sweetheart, a woman whom I am still friends with to this day.
Gender identity is fluid, and not nearly as clear cut as something like race. I'm sure there is some genetic influence that affects ones biological tendencies (For example, I am biologically attracted to men, and I can't really change that no matter how hard I wish to "will" it away) but ultimately how one expresses gender, and whom one decides to be interested in, is influenced by so many learned behaviors, social pressures, and factors that go beyond the biological component. Relationships are much more complicated than "Gee, I would like to have sex with that person." One's preferences in this regard are far more than a simple boolean variable, and the choice of expression is ultimately up to the individual.
Every person will have a unique story and their own outlook on this, so I don't think it's fair to place people into boxes and say, "This is the way things work, so this is the label I will assign you." That's not fair on any basis. Not race, not gender, not sexual orientation or any attributes that are out of the control of the individual. You must instead judge the individual based on their unique characteristics, their behaviors, and their own merits, separate from the group to which they supposedly belong.
> Gender identity is fluid, and not nearly as clear cut as something like race.
Racial and ethnic identity is a product of social context and probably somewhat fluid fundamentally, but the social context most people are exposed to probably results in it not tending to express all that fluidly in most cases, especially given that there is less social acceptance of divergence between socially-ascribed race and racial identity than is even the case with gender identity (even in the case of people of mixed ancestry, there is often strong social judgement if they don't identify primarily with the race that is perceived by others to be dominant in external expression.)
That's irrelevant. Maybe one gay person did choose to be gay and maybe another didn't. Maybe people's gender preferences are on a spectrum of varying intensity. None of this has any bearing on how we should treat them, because these issues are completely irrelevant to one's ability to be valuable to society.
Your statement is complicated by the fact that "race" is not a scientific term, and is not actually a thing.
However, racism does exist, but it's a social construct premised on an imaginary distinction between humans based on the amount of melanin in their skin.
Eastern and Central European Jews have higher risk for Tay-Sachs, but that doesn't make them a race.
Also, it would be very strange if only African Americans would have higher risk of diabetes, but Canadians or British people of similar descent wouldn't.
If there's anything to learn from the diversity conversation, it's that really, we're all quite different, and we shouldn't be afraid to act like it. Participants in monoculture are the real culprit.
Notable that in this instance where we're talking about opting-out of a popular practice, akin to sobriety or un-dyed hair, but followers of mainstream culture still treat it as a deliberate act.
If you look at the author's list, you'll notice that the majority of the items aren't "Hey, are you a lumberjack?"
It's not a "diversity" issue, it's an issue with prejudice - one which can manifest as an unconscious bias (i.e. dismissing with false equivocations between skin color and facial hair).
I think you're missing the point - choosing to have a beard (or weird hair, or be sober, or what have you) is a different than being born with a different skin color without any choice of your own.
Sure, one shouldn't be afraid to express their individual differences. But one also shouldn't be expected to explain a difference that was a) not one of choice or inherent significance, and b) is often fraught with extreme negative emotions because of the treatment one receives from it.
I have worn a fairly long beard at times. People did ask me about it. What people didn't do, as far as I could ever tell, was act in a prejudiced way towards me because of it.
In this data mining age of ours, anyone know how to gather statistics on beard length? Like if you wanted to make a histogram of beard lengths with bins like 0-1cm, 1-2cm, 3-4cm, etc.. Or maybe an easier question would be with hair length. Does anyone have a database with those sorts of metrics? For "random" samples, if not an entire population?
I don't know of any existing data on that, although there's a remote chance it could be part of something like the GSS[1]. If not, you could propose it as an addition to the GSS for future years[2]. If you're willing to fund[3] the collection of the extra data, so much the better.
> No one ever asks me (a white guy) what it's like to be a white programmer.
True, but also you won't see any blogs "what it's really like to be a white programmer" either. It's just not a topic that is popular or being discussed as such, so people do not ask about it. People are discussing why there are so few Black programmers in SV all the time in the media, and make declarations and actions and establish programs, etc. So when they meet somebody that they feel belongs to the group they heard so much about, they feel curious. It can be annoying to a specific person to be treated as a representative of a group, but I think that's natural. If the topic of riding bikes was discussed constantly, then at least some bike riders would get asked such questions, because people's curiosity is primed by the discussions. It's just that "white programmers in SV" is not a particularly interesting group one would seek some special insights about. But if you visit some place where being programmer from SV is unusual, you could very well be asked what it's like to be a programmer in SV.
> her response eventually became, "It's a lot like being a male musician,
I think the point of the article is kind of that it's not "like the male musician", at least not entirely like - or, in this case, white programmer. And the point is these differences are specifically linked to being black. There's a community founded by the same person who founded the blog, http://www.devcolor.org/. Obviously, there's something common on which this community is based, or at least it exists for some people that participate in this community.
I kinda wanna start a Medium blog where I to tell people what it's like to be a white guy programmer, and pointing out the places where I uncomfortably recognize the benefits I gain simply from being 33, white and male... with a beard. I get way too much credit for my ability simply based on how I look, whereas I know far better qualified minority women who get very little in comparison.
It's fairly common for invisible minorities to be asked why they didn't disclose that they were X, in some instances it's fairly clear that the person asking is trying to make a case that the person is embarrassed or ashamed of being X.
The best answer I've heard to that question is, "Because X isn't the most interesting thing about me."
Sure, but it's much different to want to voluntarily talk about it versus being asked randomly. If I open up on a sensitive subject that is hard for me to talk about, great. If someone randomly asks me to open up about it, not so great.
I'm not sure we can have the kind of frank discussions about race in America that we need if just asking about someone's experience is considered out of bounds.
The problem is that random people you work with who happen to be African American aren't vending machines dispensing resolutions for your concerns about race in America. But they can sometimes get treated that way.
Is it _that_ different from being a foreigner in another country and being asked about one's opinion about American interventionism (or whatever) or GWB or Obama? Perhaps it is. I got used to it. (not everyone does). In parts of the world, as an American, you get stared at because you're different (especially countryside). I get used to it, some people find it grating as well as something yo commiserate or bond over.
Some people deal with these norms differently, for sure. For me, I get used go it and think little of it.
I'm not comparing the bias, racism, I'm specifically asking about bringing up tropes and being the rep for a whole country or culture.
Well, yes, because that 'american politics' question means that you're in a foreign land. Being asked questions that make you feel foreign is expected there. Being asked questions that make you feel foreign in your homeland is a problem.
That happens both ways. Be a teacher in a disadvantaged area. See and hear experience the stereotypes come your way, in your own country and state, if you're culturally different from your student body.
It would even happen to a Georgian in NYC or vice versa. This is quite common.
Things like curtness, impatient, bad driver, accent, Mafiosi, rude, etc. Or uneducated, rednecks, eat odd critters, are racists, intermarry, uncouth, unintelligent, etc. Transplants experience these things in country by their same ethnicities.
These people can retreat to different, but still pleasant places. In America, when black people concentrate, services are withdrawn from that area by a majority white voting base.
Notice your second sentence. Even your hypothetical assumes that the place where white people are considered alien is a disadvantaged place, and that the white person is arriving to educate the locals.
Yes, people can retreat. But they should not have to. Just like the blogger should not have to retreat to somewhere, some other industry, etc. That said, personally, when I've worked abroad and experienced some of what I've related, I simply don't care enough to bother about it --it bothers others sometimes. [As a foreigner you can also be ignorant of the lurking dangers you walk into]
The second sentence isn't hypothetical. I've been in the middle of those convos.
I've also worked with lots of working class people from all the major racial groups while in HS and uni. From my personal experience, there are two which are unafraid to speak their mind and express unreserved stereotypes of the others --even of their own. So, I can tell you from my experience working with working class people, upper middle class people are not especially problematic. Every ethnicity and class has this tendency, some expressed more then others. Some more freely than others.
I appreciate a good "should not have to" argument with a lot of things, but it's becoming such a common refrain left to stand on its own with no argument more rigid to support the uncomfortable objective weight of "what should be" against "What is", I wonder, when looking at all the overwhelming evidence and indicators happening with such frequency and intensity of what factually takes place if "should" has any real weight as a counterpoint anymore.
There's probably a much less loaded way to phrase this question, it's escaping me right now-I'm afraid.
edit: This wasn't an attack on your argument specifically, it just conjured an idle thought to mind.
In an idealized mind of an 18 year old, yes, the world would be simple. People would not poke fun at each other, wouldn't be mean, would treat each other well, care for each other, not see flaws and hold no prejudice.
However, we live in a varied society which was pushed to live together in many ways forcibly. (This kind of conflict can be seen in Northern Ireland, historical Middle East, Rwanda, Sudan, India, etc. where disparate/different peoples are made to live together because by history they did not emerge homogenous-ish like Japan, Korea, Sweden (Suomi not withstanding), Estonia, etc. In these places people comingle but they retain their own identities and vie for dominance, justice, etc. Should we have conflict like this? Ideally no. Does it happen? It does. Can we avoid it? With lots and lots of effort --maybe and it could fall apart in one fell swoop.
So, yes, it should not be like that. A countrywoman should not be treated like an ignorant oaf who is out of her league in the big city --but there will be cityfolk who try to take advantage of the "bumpkin" -even in China. People may do this out of fear, bonding ritual, insecurity, ignorance, maybe outright malice, etc.
Is it _that_ different from being a foreigner in another country and being asked about one's opinion about American interventionism (or whatever) or GWB or Obama?
The only difference is that most people would understand that to be a rude question.
If you travel out of capital cities in the eastern hemisphere, it's common and totally not considered rude by locals. It's lots of people's way of introducing themselves into a convo and chit chat with a strange person, the likes they rarely see outside of TV/movies.
My girlfriend is American and she was asked a couple days ago here in Europe what is up in the US with Dallas and guns and police and Trump etc. It was not rude, it was just small talk.
But ultimately it's also a novelty to her. She can go back to the US and not feel out of place. An African American cannot unless he stays in majority-black districts.
Relatedly, a friend of mine worked in Switzerland for eight years, making very good money as a programmer. I asked why he came back and he said "because I always felt like an outsider."
A number of people don't think so much that we need "frank discussions about race" in America, we just need people to stop being treated as if their role in society is defined by their race.
Including the role of "educator specializing in the subject of the experiences of non-white people". There are plenty of people who -- on a professional or amateur basis -- have chosen that role for themselves, many of whom advertise their willingness to take on that role (or provide canned accounts to the public for free.) But its an imposition to assume that any non-white person you meet is, simply because they are non-white, eager to step into that role.
And we never will when you oversimplify someone sharing their lived experiences because of your personal unawareness of said experiences, and definitely not when one pithily reduces someone's expressions down to that.
Please be civil, there's really no reason to be rude -- even if you disagree. I believe the point that they were trying to make is that on the surface it seems like a double-standard. We have a huge cultural focus on diversity where we want to see more success from those who aren't cisgender heterosexual white males in tech, but when we talk about that focus there's usually a critique that someone is being disingenuous.
We, as a culture, are focused on giving people with social disadvantages opportunities to be successful, and so it makes sense to applaud that success, ask questions, and highlight how successful you've been despite said-disadvantages.
On the other hand, I understand that it gets old quickly, and that eventually the label ends up feeling like it's taking over your real identity -- putting you in a lesser league compared to your peers. It feels like, as you said, that you're reducing someone's expressions down to their minority status.
The only way to appease both sides would be to give people opportunities based on their social disadvantages as a minority and then when they make it big pretend like it never happened. Sure, it's more comfortable for everyone involved, but it seems to me to be intellectually dishonest. What do you think?
It's not out of bounds, but there's a time and place for it. Maybe listen for that person speaking about something that frustrates them, and then say, "That's really shitty. Do you want to tell me more about it? I also understand if you've got other stuff on your mind"
If someone like the author wants to talk about those issues, let them bring it up. Don't be the one to force the conversation. Definitely don't do it in a professional setting.
I am struggling with the point that one should never ask a black person "what is like being black in [some setting]?" more or less the way I struggle with it if you replace "black" with "gay" or "girl" or "socially awkward" or "obese."
How are whites possibly going to understand white privilege if they are never taught what it is to not have all those default advantages? (never having to waste extra time at airport, never having to waste time in courts, never having to not be helped purchasing expensive items, never having to be asked to explain the actions of whites, never having to feel guilty for the actions of people who only look like you, etc etc.)
This is more or less the same thing that happens to rich or wealthy people who cannot understand that not everybody has an iPhone or can blow $10k to go to Hawaii.
First, I totally understand your perspective. It's essential for people to have empathy about the conditions of those unlike themselves and part of empathy is curiosity about another's world.
That said, there are two topics of this question: the general and the specific.
The general question is both easier to ask and much harder to answer. How /are/ things for black people in silicon valley? That's a big question for anyone - much less a single person who spends most of their time living life and not doing ethnographic surveys of black people in silicon valley. This is the question that people don't like being asked because they are constantly being asked to stand in for huge, diverse sections of the population. How has it felt when people ask you how the "tech industry" feels about its reputation in San Francisco?
The specific version of the question is, "How are things for you in silicon valley?" It doesn't mention being black, because obviously the person you're asking is black and they'll be answering it as such. That is a question we can all answer and are generally happy to answer - because we can just answer for ourselves and not for everyone is is "like" us in some way. It is also an answer that is almost entirely about the person answering the questions, though obviously it will reflect their experience with race in some way.
So to answer your question about how to learn - seek out people who have chosen to give their answer to the general question in public and use that information to inform your understanding of the specific answers you get from people you meet. Keep in mind that the general answers are always wide and generalize, while specific answers focus on the circumstances of the person and aren't reflective of their thoughts about things "in general."
> How are whites possibly going to understand white privilege if they are never taught what it is to not have all those default advantages?
There are plenty of people volunteering to teach you about those things. Heck, there are entire public awareness organizations, university departments, and other institutions devoted to providing education on that issue.
Its not the job of every person of color you meet on the street to be your racial-experience teacher. The same is true, mutatis mutandis, for LGBTQ, female, socially awkward, or obese people.
"Heck, there are entire public awareness organizations, university departments, and other institutions devoted to providing education on that issue."
They promote specific, biased views given most of them are liberal & pushing similar claims. I meet many Blacks in the South, from other cities, and from other countries whose views contradict points I learned from such organizations. There's a whole spectrum of opinion. Certain things most will agree with for sure but the differences can be pretty big.
Funny thing is people involved in the organizations you mentioned often argue with those views until I say they came from Black people. Then they still argue with them. So, do they represent Black people or a subset of them's views? I'm leaning latter. Means I listen to them, read blogs of many types of people (Black or otherwise), talk to individuals about the issues if they bring up the topic, and listen to white opposition, too. Learned plenty by listening to people from all walks of life instead of just the most vocal groups.
From there, the question remains about how best to do that without causing people discomfort. Seems 90% art 10% science if that. I get mixed results...
I'm glad to have read this. There's one point I want to address:
It’s equally crazy how much more comfortable I feel around other Black people, or in other countries. I took a trip to Cuba for 2 weeks, and everyone there actually thought I was Cuban — which was surprising, but kind of awesome at the same time. I’ve never felt so accepted in my life.
I'm American and Jewish, though hardly religious. Judaism is a part of my identity, though not readily apparent unless I tell someone. I've been to Israel three times. I feel more comfortable there as a Jew, while at the same time less comfortable as a non-Israeli. It's a hard feeling to explain.
I wonder if this feeling of fitting-in is just a fact of life when you're a minority.
Please don't get me wrong: I'm not at all saying that being Jewish in America is the same as being Black in America. I'm just saying, in some ways, I feel that the Jewish part of my identity gives me some insight into what it's like to be a minority.
To add some levity to my comment: I'm surprised to learn that anyone could hate watermelon. It's just not a strong enough flavor to be that offensive. Funnily enough, I used to not like it so much myself, but I kept giving it a try and now I think that cold watermelon on a hot summer day is hard to beat for a refreshing snack. I'm not sure why I ever disliked it. (I've similarly taught myself to like bananas, olives, and various other foods I used to dislike.)
It's hard to explain, but it's more visceral than just being comfortable over common ground. My personal take-away after visiting Israel was that Judaism was a bigger part of my identity than I'd realized.
Maybe it's that things like skin color, religion, nationality and language have been much more significant markers of in-group/out-group than say sports team or profession or favorite pastime.
Whaaaat!? I'd have never thought the combination. But Greeks and Israeli's, huh? So, do you just sprinkle some on one? Put a thin layer over the watermelon piece? How to properly combine them?
I just eat a bite of watermelon and then eat some cheese, but any way is fine. Just find a ratio of watermelon to cheese that you like, usually about 3/1 or more (feta is pretty salty).
Since American culture is so fragmented, it kinda makes sense that people of one nationality or race would feel more comfortable around people who look and act like them. I was born Jewish (on my mother's side), and I'm also American. While I am technically part of a minority, I never felt that way....I always considered myself to have grown up in an upper middle class American culture, not a Jewish culture. My mother's family kept up with a few of the traditions, as well as celebrating the big holidays like Hanukkah (wherein my mom lights candles for 8 days), Rosh Hashanah (with my mom calling me to wish me a happy new year), Passover (with a seder dinner at my aunt's house), and Yom Kippur (ehh...maybe we'll sit this one out). Even the Jewish people I knew growing up who mostly hung out with other Jewish kids did so because their parents made them go to Hebrew school and that's where they met everyone they became friends with. I never went to Hebrew school, or CCD, because my parents weren't trying to shove any religion down my throat. This "Hebrew school subculture" that formed carries friendships on to this day. I'm friends with some of those folks, but not nearly as close with them as the kids they went to Hebrew school with. That said, my parents gave me the choice of religion and culture, so if I wanted to I could have attended Hebrew school and become friends with those kids back then. But that's not the path I wanted to take.
That long story was to set up this point: In America, the majority demographic (white people) can make a choice as to what subculture they're a part of. But if you inherently look different from the majority, your choice has already been made to some people who were not culturally exposed to people who look like you early enough to accept them as "just people" and not "people who look like this that do $stereotype". There are a lot of people living out there in Small Town or Suburb, USA who have really never had close interactions with a non-white person before. How many years do you have to live like that before it becomes embedded in your mind that people who have a certain color skin act a certain way, just like you have it embedded in your mind that a disheveled dude sitting on the street holding a sign doesn't have a home? If you never meet a black person in real life, and only watch movies/TV that star or are about black people, why wouldn't you think that's how all of them act?
I think that's how prejudice in general starts, and mixed with just the right amount of racial tension, this can lead to full-on racism. I also believe that if you're a kid growing up and all you see of cops are YouTube videos of police shooting innocent men and women, meeting a police officer in real life must be a scary situation. Being a police officer after the last couple years is going to be a lot more challenging than it has been previously.
I have had the same self reflection wondering what I was saying or doing when someone is intimidated (for lack of a more polite phrase) by the color of my skin. A woman I currently work with is startled Everytime she sees me and rushes away and I found myself making excuses for her. Trying to reason about why she should obviously be afraid of a 5'10, 170lbs, 23 year old who talks like he's a valley girl...
I wonder whether this is a generational thing or if xenophobia is simply inherent in us as a people.
I tend to believe it's more inherent than generational. It's been around all throughout the course of history in some form or another. My armchair rationalization is that humans are social creatures and form these groups (where outsiders are to be feared) and skin color is one of the easiest "group identifiers" to latch onto :/
I don't think it's something inherent that we can't (as a species) consciously overcome. I have never heard of such justification before now, and I think having it written out emphasizes really well how ridiculous these xenophobic reactions are.
Different cultures have different reactions to other humans that are outside of the group. Some take aggressive stances, others practice a more welcoming approach.
The Sentinelese people react violently to outsiders, but many (maybe even most) first contacts of Europeans with various natives was peaceful on the part of the locals.
There's enough variation even in just the modern world that I'd feel comfortable saying that aggressive responses to strangers/outsiders is not inherent but a feature of some cultures.
Why it's in some cultures and not others is probably a very complex topic worth investigation.
You are both in agreement it seems. Individuals could be predisposed to xenophobia and racism but external social structures and cultural forces could overcome those predispositions in some circumstances.
> The Sentinelese people react violently to outsiders, but many (maybe even most) first contacts of Europeans with various natives was peaceful on the part of the locals.
I think it's sort of telling what the evolutionary stance is on being peaceful and welcoming. Look what happened to the natives as a result. In fact being unwelcoming and aggressive can be seen as a show of strength, which is evolutionary advantageous.
If you saw a person that looked significantly different from you and your tribe in the ancient world, they were likely to be one of:
- A foreign soldier that plans to kill or conquer you and everyone you know
- A traveling merchant that you might be able to get along with, but need to be wary of in case he tries to swindle you
- A wanderer that does not pose an existential threat but still cannot be trusted not to steal from you or kidnap your women and children
- Or you could be any of the above to someone else who is going to fight back kicking and screaming
Innate xenophobia is makes perfect sense within this context. Frankly it would be weird if we didn't feel it. The really troubling thing about it to me is that people don't want to accept it as a fact of life and figure out healthy ways to deal with it because it conflicts with their political ideologies.
Is it cultural? If so then why haven't we overcome it.
I can say it cannot be baked into our genes, because of the timespan it takes for such a thing to occur. The last time humanity had any real genetic shifts, were when the population was small enough that (to a modern day observer) everyone would look like they were of the same race.
Your reaction is extremely human and social, nothing to worry about I'd say. Xenophobia is inherent to being human as well I'm afraid, we're very good at the us against them game, and very good at de-humanizing entire populations. It's just a convenient character trait when you're out, waging war against the bad guys.
Its really f'ed up to think that the reason why we think that way might be the reason why our ancestors were able to survive and propagate.
Luckily, we do have the unique human gifts of reflection, empathy and critical thinking. So while we may be genetically indisposed towards racism, we can still choose to act differently.
That might make sense if it were isolated, but this is a covert aggression that one adds to a heap of daily transgressions that are similar. You can't avoid spending emotional energy on it: the unconscious mind has already integrated the behavior and reacts to it, forcing you to deal with the emotional response.
> I wonder whether this is a generational thing or if xenophobia is simply inherent in us as a people.
A certain degree is probably inherent, but a big part of it is cultural (and the cultural component probably has all kinds of association -- there's some generational component, but also regional, ethnic, class, and other factors) and some part of it is probably individual experience.
One thing I find interesting is, as white guy, I've had very similar experiences when living in the US south. I would often be the only white guy in a store or on the street in certain areas - and felt like I didn't belong or fit in, and was treated differently. I got used to it over time, but it was still there.
I don't at all equate my experience to how difficult it can be in the US to be a black person - MOST of the places I go that aren't in certain parts of the south are mostly white (I think the US is something like 70% white?) - it's horrible the prejudices non-white, and especially black, can encounter in the US.
I DO wonder if, whenever an area is mostly one race, that if someone is not of that race encounters the same kind of thing.
I live in a very non white neighborhood. I have been told on more than one occasion from different people on the street that I am a "stupid white person", "This cracker needs to get out of here", "this cracker doesn't belong in my park".
Recently some black kids got on the commuter train and walked the aisles and said things like "Look at all these stuck up crackers"
I have been treated strangely in non white neighborhoods.
I had a similar experience in Beijing some years ago, where I was treated as "the rich white guy" or "movie star" (but surprisingly not in Shanghai). It was annoying because I was a poor grad student at the time and the expectation to open my wallet for everything was frustrating.
It's nowhere near what the author of this story has had to live with on a normal basis though, so racial biases do manifest all over the place, but in different ways with different levels of prejudice.
I am a white guy, but lived in an area of the US that is over 80% black. I did not feel what you are describing at all, so I would say no - it's more about how you view yourself in that situation.
shrug I guess you could say the same thing to the original author (it's just in your head). If you lived in a place that is 80% black, at least in the south, and have not run into a black person that is not very racist towards white people, then I'm not sure what to tell you - this wasn't really a "feeling"; it's what people said and how they acted towards me vs others. I actually get WHY as how THEY are treated by some white people, not that it makes it ok.
It seems to me that many (but not all) of the experiences he describes here are things that most of us go through. He can attribute them to his skin color, but really, most people are outsiders in one way or another, and sometimes feel awkward about how well we fit in with various groups. So I'm inclined to attribute some of his concerns to being just the normal (if unfortunate) human condition.
Even as a middle-aged guy, I sometimes feel that the seat next to me is the one people are avoiding. And I've definitely seen moms grab their little girl and march away when I smile at them (the little girl, that is; and then my smile melts from sorrow at the world we live in).
I've been guilty of accidentally referring to one gay guy at work by the name of another gay guy (and it was pointed out to me later by a third person). But the thing is, they both held the same position at different times, and that confusion over their roles was the actual cause of my mistake. Surely it's not necessarily their sexual preference (or skin color in the case of the article) that's serving as an alternate identifier.
I feel awkward when people talk about sports (I'm just not interested and so have no knowledge) or popular culture like TV (I don't even have cable TV).
Now, it's not right to sweep all of his concerns under the carpet. I'm sure that some of it really is racial in nature. But I'm equally sure that some of it is just normal. And because it's not possible for us to live the experience of the other, I can't actually see what it's like to be him, and he can't see the awkwardness that I and others experience.
I'm sad that we're in a position where racial bias seems a reasonable default explanation for such things. But I'm also sad that people also continue to make accusations of racism, because it also hurts to be on the receiving end. I'd have to admit for myself that I sometimes have impure thoughts, but I honestly do my best to make my actions correct.
At the end of the day, I think the only way to get past this is for everyone to be color blind. We need to guard against acting out of bias. But on the other side, those people potentially on the receiving end need to get past it, too. It's not fair. But unless we let it be water under the bridge, the bad feelings will keep passing back and forth like a pingpong ball.
What you've written is pretty much nothing like what the author is talking about.
> I feel awkward when people talk about sports
You don't like talking about sports, but it's a topic of conversation, because by and large many people in the US like sports. That is different than assuming you must be an athlete because of the color of your skin (racism).
> Even as a middle-aged guy, I sometimes feel that the seat next to me is the one people are avoiding.
For whatever reason, sometimes people don't take the empty seat next to you. That reason isn't because the color of your skin.
> And I've definitely seen moms grab their little girl and march away when I smile at them
Yes, this is something all men should be aware of. Don't act creepy to little kids. Parents typically do not spirit away their kids when adults simply smile at their children. Something other than your smile is causing that parent.
> I'm sad that we're in a position where racial bias seems a reasonable default explanation for such things.
At the risk of telling you how to feel, how about feeling sad that people are actually victims of racism.
> At the end of the day, I think the only way to get past this is for everyone to be color blind. We need to guard against acting out of bias.
I disagree with the first part, but agree with the second.
A persons skin color is part of their identity, and we should recognize that, but not use that as a way to group, categorize, or otherwise use as the basis for how we behave towards that individual. We should also be aware that it's human nature to feel defensive against those that are different from us, and to not give into that behavior.
I am amazed at how a man smiling at a child is presumed to be creepy. I mean, we are biologically programmed to like kids (at least the sight of them, sound may be a different matter :), a phrase "cute kid" is as cliche as it can get. And still, if a man smiles to a child, he must be a creep. Strike that, he is a creep, it's definite and sealed. And, of course, it's his fault - after all, he should know that as a man he can't do such perverted things as smile at the sight of a cute kid.
Is that unique US thing? I've never seen so much paranoia about kids and males as in the US in other countries. It feels really weird to me.
> At the risk of telling you how to feel, how about feeling sad that people are actually victims of racism.
One can do both. Both feel sad at people who are victim of real racism, and people who are victims of everything being reduced to racism.
> I've never seen so much paranoia about kids and males as in the US in other countries.
The US is, I believe (its been a while since I've seen stats on the perception and reality, this was definitely true last I did see them) in a multi-decade long media-driven misperception of a rising tide of crimes involving stranger (especially male stranger) abduction and violence against children, while the actual incidence of such crimes has been declining for decades. So, yeah, its probably a uniquely (or at least, especially) American thing.
Unless they're white, at which point they get shunned if they even try to embrace that part of their identity.
If a black man says he's proud to be black, that's perfectly fine. If a white man says he's proud to be white, people think "what's wrong with being any other skin color?"
I wouldn't assume there is such a thing as a single, monolithic "white culture", to start with. (Or black culture, or Latin culture, or...)
Stuff White People Like describes what is specifically the culture of coastal urban white hipsters, which is a relatively small subset of white people in the US. It's really inaccurate to think of those traits as "white culture" period. And I'd call what SWPL does with its subject matter less "celebration" than "savage excoriation". Maybe the people it describes don't take it so; I don't know. I've never yet knowingly run into anyone who took it any other way.
The United States is the only place that I have lived that has celebrated 'black culture'. It's in fact, the only place where the culture is even defined like that.
Because the native ethnic cultures, and tribal ties were destroyed by years of slavery, the United States is one of the few places which has a culture for 'blacks' that's uniquely different from anything of a specific tribe.
Being from a W. African country, I'm keenly aware that we do not celebrate 'Africanism', or even nationalism in any respect despite the government's best efforts to get us to do so. Everyone is broadly aware of their family, their tribe, and their choice religion/philosophy.
With respect to white culture, I think it must be hard to celebrate it in isolation. Almost anything that you would want to celebrate, could be given to a specific nation (thus be patriotic, not race pride), or given to a specific European ethnicity (e.g. most foods, older music, and the like).
> The United States is the only place that I have lived that has celebrated 'black culture'. It's in fact, the only place where the culture is even defined like that.
Oh yes, that's a good point. In Europe, Germans celebrate German culture, Frenchmen celebrate French culture, etc. Culture is not considered to be the same thing as skin color.
> With respect to white culture, I think it must be hard to celebrate it in isolation. Almost anything that you would want to celebrate, could be given to a specific nation (thus be patriotic, not race pride)
Or in other words, already celebrated everyday here in America.
That sort of celebration happens defacto. I guess you prefer it to be called out explicitly?
Or when you were in grade school, did you only learn about ["black","asian","latino"] authors, musicians, scholars, scientists, inventors, actors, etc etc?
It depends what country you went to school in. So, yes, there are quite a few places where you will get only "["black","asian","latino"] authors, musicians, scholars, scientists, inventors, actors" till you get to university and get exposed to more. I mean, you don't think in Columbia, or Ukraine or the Philippines you'll read much American authors, musicians, scholars, scientists, inventors, actors, etc., other than those part of the global patrimony?
If I'm born in my Australia, and my parents were, and their parents were, and their parents were, I'm not Irish or Italian or German or whatever majority-white European country you want to pick that I have a vague connection to. I'm Australian.
The same applies to the Aboriginal people who have been here for thousands and thousands of years, before my ancestors invaded under a false pretense and treated them like garbage.
However, those were my ancestors. Each generation is progressively less racist than the one before, and we're just as Australian as each other.
The issue is not one of national identity but one of racial and cultural identity. Realistically, it's something that white people will have to put up with and understand as we're still in the long hangover of our more racist years. However, at some point our children (or our children's children) are going to ask why it's it's socially fine to embrace other races and cultures when it's shunned to embrace their own for reasons that are totally out of their control.
> Yes, this is something all men should be aware of. Don't act creepy to little kids. I was the same way, until I had a kid of my own. You're better off smiling at the mom first, before making gestures toward small children.
This may be good practical advice, but it's worth comparing your suggestion to this quote from the piece:
I would say things like, “oh, well I understand that I’m a big, Black guy, and that if I don’t shave for a few weeks and walked down the street at night, I’d probably be afraid of me, too.... what?”
That is, you're suggesting it's the parent's responsibility to cater other people's fears of him. Yet I assume you would not make the same suggestion to the author of the piece? Is there a fundamental difference? What about if a mother grabs her child as a big black man walks past? Is that okay, because her justified fear of men (white and black) around her child over-rides any implications of racism? Or is it not allowed, because of the suggestion of racism (even though race is not, in fact, the motivator of her fear in this case)?
> Yes, this is something all men should be aware of. Don't act creepy to little kids. I was the same way, until I had a kid of my own.
Let me clarify this statement a bit: before having a kid, I was mindful of how I interacted with strangers and their children.
> Is that okay, because her justified fear of men (white and black) around her child over-rides any implications of racism?
I can't speak for all parents, but I hope if my wife feels uncomfortable about a situation, she does something about it, especially if our kids are involved.
A persons safety trumps any desire protect someones feelings against racism. If a 6'2 male is going to cross my path when it's dark, I will certainly become more aware of my surroundings, regardless of their race. I will also turn and make sure they continue walking past me.
Right, I get it. I feel the same. But the thing is, the logic "A persons safety trumps any desire protect someones feelings against racism" is exactly the logic that racists use. Some of the people who want to build a wall feel genuine fear, never mind its basis in reality. In their reality it's real.
I'm not arguing that the logic is in itself wrong -- but whether that logic is being used in a reasonable way (as you seem to be doing) or being twisted into the service of something unfair and evil is, in the end, a matter of judgement and context.
> Yes, this is something all men should be aware of. Don't act creepy to little kids. I was the same way, until I had a kid of my own.
Teaching your children that a friendly smile is creepy is a great way to reinforce the statistically irrational stranger danger and bring them up with the idea of men-as-beasts and women-as-prey that reinforces patriarchal societal structures.
Please consider reading up on enough basic feminism to realise just how much of a disservice that would be to your children.
That's what the parent commenter said, and I've seen it happen.
It should be possible for an adult male to smile at a female child without being assumed to be a would-be child molestor. It should also be possible for an adult non-white male to smile at an adult woman without being assumed to be a would-be rapist.
Sadly, neither of those things are anything like guaranteed at the moment; maybe in a generation or two we'll be less fucking stupid about it.
> At the risk of telling you how to feel, how about feeling sad that people are actually victims of racism.
Both can be true - racism surely exists, and that is sad. But people attributing things to their race or sex that are not actually caused by their race or sex can also be quite tragic and self-defeating. My impression is that it happens a lot, at least with feminists - I have less experience with the issue of race (not living in the US).
> But people attributing things to their race or sex that are not actually caused by their race or sex can also be quite tragic and self-defeating.
I was at AWS re:Invent last year and had heard that a PagerDuty was having a party, and that we (a customers of theirs) could stop by their booth and pick up a wristband for VIP access. I stood behind a couple of my coworkers, who walked up, got wristbands and left. When it was my turn, I asked, but was turned away saying they are only handing out a limited number of wristbands. I explained I was a customer, and she had just given two wrists bands just seconds earlier to my coworkers, but she was very adamant about not letting me have one.
I went to my room and angrily penned an email to our rep, asking why I wasn't given a band, when my two white coworkers were. Their response was that they only had a limited number of bands. The people working the booth were using their own judgement for who should get one and who shouldn't. At that moment, I wasn't Alan, director of engineer, an attendee of a poor public school system, the first in his family to graduate from high school (let along college). Instead I was just some brown guy who wasn't worth anything. In that moment, it made me remember my most painful memory of racism: when I was 14 years old, and having to comfort my mom as she cried because her boss denied her vacation time, then approved another of her coworkers vacation, despite my mother having more seniority, and having submitted her vacation first.
The point of my story: if you've never really been a victim of racism, it's probably hard to understand why those of us who have been living with constant racism, turn to it first as a reason for how we are treated.
You _assume_ that, at AWS re:Invent, you were a victim of racism, but you don't really _know_ that is so. Nonetheless your default stance was, and remains today, to _assume_ racism.
Also you speak of "constant racism". So, even when you're alone, do you feel the pressure of "constant racism"?
You cannot change the past and you cannot change how others act, but you can change how you think. Is it good for you to have a base assumption that you will be racially discriminated against? Are those the color of glasses that you want to wear in this modern world? What will it gain you?
There have been studies that show that it best to take the optimistic assumption: e.g., in this instance that they indeed were limiting the number of wristbands. Being a "realistic optimist" is a healthy frame of mind.
And really, if a denied wristband is the worst instance of perceived insult that you have experienced, count yourself lucky. I've been treated far, far worse at conferences, not because of racism, but because people can be jerks.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most white people are afraid of being labeled a racist, especially white people selling something. Why don't you use that to your advantage? As director of engineering, I'm sure you can vote with your company's dollars. The beauty of capitalism is that the overtly racist company is only going to get money from overt racists. Companies that want to do well don't treat people like that. Not to diminish all the hurtful discrimination certain groups of people face, but I'm not sad that the New Black Panthers probably don't want me in their club, and neo-nazis for that matter, but I don't think those clubs should be outlawed. People like you and me just say fuck'em and find places that make us better people. Doesn't sound like PagerDuty is that place. Their loss.
As I said, I think racism is real. Your story about the VIP party sounds like a clear cut example. Just hearing it makes me really angry - I hope if I had been your coworker, I would have told the PagerDuty people to shove their wrist bands somewhere unpleasant. Wouldn't want to go to a racist party anyway.
That said, for example I also struggle with connecting to coworkers. It is a constant worry for me, to somehow stay connected to the "loop". At that conference, maybe I would have been the last person who heard that there is a party (or maybe I wouldn't have heard at all).
No doubt that is nowhere near the issues people affected by racism face every day. Just an example that there are many things that can be attributed to racism, but maybe aren't. In my case, it is probably being introvert, interested in other things than other people, things like that. Or a feeling that stuck from childhood to not fit in, for various reasons.
I think there are also barriers that are difficult to overcome. For example as a dad, I think I simply don't connect to the other mothers in the same way as mothers talk among each other. I don't think they don't like me, but women among themselves will probably talk a little bit differently than with me present. Or they have it easier to also become friends with each other. It's just a little thing, but maybe over time it adds up - it's the tips and gossip you don't hear. Maybe there is a deadline to register your kid with a certain school, or an opportunity for some special event to participate in, that you miss out on - without any malice or bad intentions. Or even simpler, the lack of suitable playdates for your kid.
In the same vein, maybe if I had coworkers of a different race, it would be just a tiny little bit more difficult to connect. I wouldn't be sure if they are interested in the same things I am interested in, things like that. (Not sure if it would really be an issue, just a theory). So without bad intentions, they would be a bit less "in the loop".
I don't think you are being very fair to the poster.
> That is different than assuming you must be an athlete because of the color of your skin (racism).
They could be thinking he plays a sport because of his race, or it could be the fact that he is 6'2" and weighs 240 pounds. Likely it is a combination, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. We make assumptions based on race because a lot of things correlate to race. I have been 6 feet tall since middle school and was always asked if I played basketball because, well, a lot of tall black kids play basketball. When trying to have a conversation with a person I don't think their is anything wrong with trying to find a topic based on that person's appearance (i.e. clothing, height, weight) why should race be excluded?
> That reason isn't because the color of your skin.
Again, I think it is unfair to just say his feeling that people avoid sitting next to him is not only true, but it is because all those people are distrustful of him because of his skin color. Everyone feels like people avoid at times, an ugly person may thing it is because they are too ugly, a person who just ran a marathon may think it is because they stink. I don't think you should take his feelings as fact.
> how about feeling sad that people are actually victims of racism.
It is unfair to imply he doesn't already feel sad about those who actually experience racism, just because he is sad about something else. You can be sad about multiple things. And I (a black dude) think it is perfectly reasonable to be sad about racial divides that feel as if they are growing year by year.
> A persons skin color is part of their identity, and we should recognize that, but not use that as a way to group, categorize, or otherwise use as the basis for how we behave towards that individual.
I kind of agree here, but I find your statement somewhat hypocritical. You say a person's skin color is part of their identity but you also say we shouldn't group or categorize people based on skin color. You were also unhappy earlier about assumptions being made based on race. It sounds like you can't assume any cultural or societal standards for anyone based on race then it is just skin color, and then I don't understand why you would have a problem with everyone being colorblind, if you don't think race correlates to anything. Or do you think people should just completely ignore these correlations despite their existence, no matter how benign (like being more likely to ask if you play a sport you look like you could play based on physical appearance)?
> Or do you think people should just completely ignore these correlations despite their existence, no matter how benign (like being more likely to ask if you play a sport you look like you could play based on physical appearance)?
Okay, I don't personally find things like that annoying, but I can see how some people would take some of the things I have experienced as social slights or just, ya know, annoying. Thanks for answering.
> You say a person's skin color is part of their identity but you also say we shouldn't group or categorize people based on skin color.
It's a part of your identity you don't get to choose, and how you identify with it - if at all - is solely up to the individual. So, no grouping or categorizing.
Yeah, I don't think I worded this in the best way. I am not trying to advocate for people making significant decisions about others based on race, or really any decisions at all. But he criticized the reommendation of a color blind world and then, in my opinion, advocated for one. I was trying to show that by removing the assumptive part of race (as I think you mostly should) you can only react to people based on their actions and how they say they want to be treated. I believe this is a color blind society. No presumptions, but people can still address their race.
I don't personally believe in a purely color blind society, though. I mean, in the article he talks about how it makes him feel when people are surprised by the fact he works in a technical field, which is fine, his feelings are valid. I just don't see anything strange, rude or racist about a person being surprised about a black person doing CS, we are a very small portion of the degrees given in CS, in particular, degrees from prestigious universities (At Stanford about 6%, compared to Asians at 36% and Whites at 38%). And we are a much larger percentage of, say, football players or basketball players. I am not saying you should go an buy your black neighbor Air Jordans so he adds you to his posse when he goes pro, but I do think acting like some one who asks a 6 foot 2 inch tall, 240 pound black guy if he plays football is racist is counterproductive.
When I went to the courthouse in St Louis to get our marriage license, both me (dark brown) and my wife (very white) had to swear under oath that we were not related.
I get a chuckle from telling that story, but it's a silly attempt to be "color blind."
To me, "color blind" means the complete abolishment of race as an issue, and I think that will actually hold us back from the real goal: where people are measured and judged by the content of their character, and not by the color of their skin.
I believe your race makes up a part of who you are, and society should not do away with that.
> I just don't see anything strange, rude or racist about a person being surprised about a black person doing CS, we are a very small portion of the degrees given in CS
A single person, just an isolated incident. Happening over and over again, I can easily empathize there.
///
Another anecdote about me and race. As a teenager, I worked at Burger King at a local mall. I noticed that by and large, black people would either get Orange Soda, or Sprite with their combo meals, with the occasional person asking for iced tea. It got to the point where I would automatically hover over the "sprite" and "orange" buttons on the cash register when a black person would order. Then there was one black guy who ordered a coke.
Some or most of it may not be due to race, but enough of the behavior is truly different from what you and I experience (police harassment, store owner suspicion, people avoiding you on the street, as well as stuff the author didn't mention: explicit discrimination from landlords, banks, restaurant hosts, and more), that even the little things can add up more than they do for those of us who are closer to the "norm".
I experience both of these things when I was younger. Not so much anymore.
people avoiding you on the street
As I related above, I've had moms keep their little girls away from me. Is the perceived potential danger from a middle-aged guy much different from that of a black guy?
explicit discrimination from landlords
Funny you should mention that. As it happens, my wife is Asian. I know for a fact that in at least two rental situations, we were given preferential treatment because of that. It cuts both ways.
Again, as long as people keep pointing fingers at me and telling me I'm a racist, I will grow increasingly inured, and even angry. I think that in the end, you start to have the opposite of the effect you'd like.
> I know for a fact that in at least two rental situations, we were given preferential treatment because of that. It cuts both ways
Black people getting the short-end of the stick while Asians (allegedly) getting preferential isn't "cutting it both ways".
> Again, as long as people keep pointing fingers at me and telling me I'm a racist, I will grow increasingly inured, and even angry. I think that in the end, you start to have the opposite of the effect you'd like.
It's your prerogative. Not specifically directed to you, but it is important to note that racism is not a state of mind - it's the way you act. A lot of prejudiced people do not feel like racists even after their obviously racist tirade has been recorded. Being a racist is a terrible thing and they obviously aren't terrible people, so how can they possibly be racist?
> Black people getting the short-end of the stick while Asians (allegedly) getting preferential isn't "cutting it both ways".
In both of the cases mentioned, my wife's race was really just acting as a proxy for "immigrant", and the people on the other side weren't fellow asians showing solidarity. In these cases, it was landlords who were themselves (non-Asian) immigrants, feeling empathy for someone else going through the difficulties of being an outsider.
In the movie "Bulworth", Warren Beatty's character, Sen. Jay Billington Bulworth, who is running for the Presidency, is asked how to solve racism. Part of his answer:
"Rich people have always stayed on top by dividing white people from colored people, but white people got more in common with colored people then they do with rich people. We just gotta eliminate them - white people, black people, brown people, yellow people - get rid of 'em all. All we need is a voluntary, free spirited, open-ended program of procreative racial deconstruction. Everybody just gotta keep fuckin' everybody til they're all the same color."
I think he's right! Of course Bulworth makes it look easy by falling in love with Nina (Halle Berrie). You can read Bulworth's full answer at
>Now, it's not right to sweep all of his concerns under the carpet.
And yet that's exactly what you are doing in your entire comment, drawing parallels that are not equivalent and then sweeping under the rug the racial issues as nonexistent. You are discounting the experience of the vast majority of black Americans.
Great piece, I used to think there was no more discrimination in my generation. I grew up with black, Indonesian and white people in my class (they former two were minorities though). I never though anything of it, didn't even realize there was a difference until we were taught about neo-nazis. I guess kids now do realize the difference with the whole black-pete discussion in my country [0]. Honestly, when I see a black person I try to be extra nice to compensate somehow for all this shit. But that is so stupid as well, I wish I (and everybody) would just not see it. I feel your pain, lets hope the following generations will experience less and less of this nonsense.
> Being told by cab drivers that they’re the first Black person they’ve ever had a positive encounter with
Now, is that really a case of racial discrimination? Maybe, for some reason, black people are more likely to give cab drivers a hard time? Even if it not related to skin color directly, such as which neighborhood one is at.
> Feeling out of place when I can’t identify with certain pop culture references or cultural norms (like being able to swim, liking baseball, listening to rock/country or playing golf), because I grew up differently
I think this is key. Why is it that you have to grow up differently if you are a black person? Would it be (in the US), because there's still segregation, in terms of territory? You can find neighborhoods that are almost entirely "black", next to "white" neighborhoods. What gives? I've never really understood why that is. Why is hip-hop associated with black people, but not rock? What about swimming?
The rest of the list is even more depressing. As a white guy, I have never experienced that.
> Now, is that really a case of racial discrimination? Maybe, for some reason, black people are more likely to give cab drivers a hard time? Even if it not related to skin color directly, such as which neighborhood one is at.
The author didn't say it was racial discrimination. The author said that is something he has experienced.
To the point or racial discrimination, if cab drivers make the connection that picking up black passengers will lead to a negative experience, they might conclude that all black passengers should be avoided. That is racial discrimination.
*
I remember 2 years ago being out at night with a coworker (who is not from the US) in Chicago trying to hail a cab, and several empty cabs drove on by. When she went to hail one, the first one she hailed stopped, and I quickly got in with her.
She was surprised that no cabs would stop for me. I told her "Welcome to America. This is what racism is like."
Because of course it has to be one or the other, because politics.
More realistically it's likely a mixture of racism and sexism (and possibly, depending on dress style and expectations classism as well), entirely possibly to different degrees on the part of different drivers who didn't stop - and also on the part of the driver who did stop for the white woman stood near the black man.
"Even in Canada, I felt more comfortable than I do in Silicon Valley."
Now is this a function of Canadians being less racist, or black people in Canada being different than (the "average") African Americans? Or in other words, do African Americans have a distinct culture? My suspicion is a combination of both, with the former being a result of the latter, and the latter likely having the ultimate root cause being slavery. As a Canadian, in Canada black people are just people whose skin is black, for the most part there's nothing otherwise particularly unique about them, and if there is generally they are immigrants from a wide variety of countries, so there's not a single unique culture, but many.
I think the ultimate "blame" for this unfortunate situation rests mostly with white people, but if we ever want to fix it, it's going to take both sides to acknowledge real differences in our cultures, and consider working on changing any that might be a barrier to a more harmonious future.
Black Canadians tend to act a lot more like other Canadians. The difference is probably that many(most?) of the Black people in Canada, at least that I've met, are either immigrants or descendants of recent immigrants. Most in the U.S. seem to be the descendants of enslaved people.
I suspect that the Black Canadians fit in better because they decided to be part of Canadian culture, then moved; or are the children of people who also made the conscious decision to become a Canadian. For the majority, I think they came to Canada to be Canadians.
In the U.S, most black people are from the post-emancipation culture, which on top of never consciously deciding to go to America, also endured segregation and significant racial violence in many decades following emancipation. This has led to an understandably very different culture.
It seems to me like a few decades ago there was more interest in integrating the post-emancipation culture with the two or three other distinct cultures in the U.S. That's where you got all the "ebony and ivory living in harmony" stuff. One of the outcomes of that is, when there is a cultural question, and there can only be one answer, one of the two will always have to adopt the other's answer. Fewer different answers to a question is good for cultural integration, but it makes people feel as though they've been hijacked or gentrified.
As for the consequences belonging to "white people". All of the people who did anything which contributed to this are dead. The enslaved africans of the trans-atlantic slave trade were largely slaves taken in local wars by warlords. I don't blame contemporary coastal African societies for the trans-Atlantic slave trade, so I won't blame contemporary American society for it either. We can deal the consequences on the basis of individual effect.
> You can find neighborhoods that are almost entirely "black", next to "white" neighborhoods. What gives?
A considerable amount of private violence, durable contractual arrangements (including the ones that set the ground for modern HOAs), and deliberate government policy went into creating durable racial segregation in housing in the US; plus, the economic system tends to make poverty generational and correlated with race, and there are lots of factors leading to wealth segregation in housing, which -- because of wealth/race correlation -- reinforces racial segregation.
Looking into "redlining" is a good place to start.
> You can find neighborhoods that are almost entirely "black", next to "white" neighborhoods. What gives? I've never really understood why that is. Why is hip-hop associated with black people, but not rock?
I really don't think you want people on HN to try to explain de facto segregation and the history of race in American music to you -- you should really look for reading material by academics on these subjects.
Comments like this are lazy, dismissive, and self-righteous. Please try to add something to the discussion, especially if you're a PoC - we certainly need healthy discussion.
I disagree. These are incredibly complicated issues and no single HN comment could possibly do an incredibly broad and vague question like "why are some neighborhoods black neighborhoods?" or "why does hip-hop exist?" justice -- especially given that this community is not primarily made of qualified experts in the area. Telling the commenter they should really be looking for expert opinions on these topics is hardly dismissive and self-righteous.
What exactly was dismissive and/or self-righteous about the comment? A question like "Why is hip-hop associated with black people, but not rock?" is 1) absurdly broad, and 2) beyond the obvious parts, so full of nuance that doing it justice in a single HN comment is impossible.
I would also like to add that it's discouraging that someone who is evidently a white American is so ignorant about these things. Not having at least a cursory understanding of "why do black people like hip hop more than rock?" and "why are neighborhoods still racially segregated?" means you probably aren't capable of engaging in any healthy discussion about race in the US.
> Now, is that really a case of racial discrimination?
Let's just break it down into whether it's discriminative thinking, or perhaps just reduce the thinking down to whether that single proposition might likely be a logical fallacy or not.
"Person A of set X is the only one I have ever interacted with, with the properties of said interaction being Y."
Well...how many people of set X have you met? Two? A dozen? One hundred? That number matters. If the cab driver had met two previous people of set X prior to A - why did he choose to say it at that time? Intuition tells me that it's because the cab driver had expected that all future people of set X would have properties Y, and is voicing his expectation. If the number had been 100, then he was voicing an observation.
But, even if the number had been 100, and he was voicing an observation, then where did that assignment of property Y come from? With the property Y being, "positive," suggests all-or-nothing thinking...e.g. that interactions can either be positive or negative, rather than gradations and interactions in between. Typically this kind of, "all or nothing," thinking is considered fallacious.
Just because some kind of fallacious thinking may have occurred, does not mean that the cab driver was necessarily thinking discriminatorily. It's possible that in the world somewhere, there is a cab driver who happened to pick up only the worst, nastiest people of a type X, greater than 1,000 of them, representing all different subcategories of X from his point of view, from all over the world, for his entire career up until that very day when he for the first time, encountered a positive interaction, amazingly. But the simpler explanation is that he was just discriminating.
Here in New York many, if not most, of the cab drivers are first generation migrants from India and Asia where (believe it or not) they are virulently racist against blacks. I can't tell you how many times a foreign cab driver has made spontaneous, openly racist, disparaging comments about black people (I'm white).
> Maybe, for some reason, black people are more likely to give cab drivers a hard time? Even if it not related to skin color directly, such as which neighborhood one is at.
You're getting really close to sounding racist, and some would say you already are.
Why would there be a reason black people would give cab drivers a harder time than other skin colors? There isn't any good reason.
As for neighborhood differences, that's a problem of racism (segregation) too.
> Why would there be a reason black people would give cab drivers a harder time than other skin colors? There isn't any good reason.
This is clearly happening, based on the anecdote of cab drivers avoiding picking up black people as well as telling the OP he is the first black person who they had a positive experience with. Some stereotypes are based in reality, and it isn't racist to acknowledge this.
The statement, "Some stereotypes are based in reality," is very ambiguous. Hard to falsify what you're saying there.
What the above parent wrote is, "there's no good reason for black people to give cab drivers a hard time." This implies that, given that there's not a good reason, it is not likely true.
So, what do you think the reason would be that black people would unanimously give this cab driver a hard time, except for this one guy? Based upon your above proposition, you may also want to explain why your explanation is not racist.
The some stereotypes are based in reality comment was meant to indicate that the fact is there are real differences between the average behaviors of different groups of people. So when shown clear evidence that groups behave differently, it isn't racist to point out that groups behave differently. It would be great if we could have a discussion about real differences in how groups of people act without being called racist.
I could definitely believe that black people are less likely to tip (or avoid paying altogether), as black people are poorer (on average). Black people are also much more likely to commit violent crime (on average). Note that cab drivers are likely to not be white (on average), at least in my experience. I did some research and it appears to be common for cab drivers to avoid picking up black passengers - this is pretty strong evidence that cab drivers have had negative experiences with black passengers.
It is racist for cab drivers to avoid picking up black passengers, but we shouldn't pretend that they don't have a reason for it.
>As for neighborhood differences, that's a problem of racism (segregation) too.
But that isn't the cabbies problem to solve. Its perfectly reasonable for a cab driver to try to avoid high-crime areas that are much more dangerous even if he doesn't have one racist bone in his body.
> Feeling out of place when I can’t identify with certain pop culture references or cultural norms (like being able to swim, liking baseball, listening to rock/country or playing golf), because I grew up differently.
For swimming, the norm in America is to think you know how to swim. 80% claim they can swim, but only 56% can demonstrate the five core skills that the Red Cross considers to be basic skills. The skills are (1) step or jump into water that is over your head, (2) return to the surface and float or treat water for one minute, (3) turn around in a full circle and find an exit, (4) swim 25 yards to the exit, and (5) climb out of the water [1].
The author, though, is from Jamaica. I would have guessed that swimming would be much more common there, since it is an island nation. However, to my surprise, a bit of Googling reveals that apparently Jamaicans are no more inclined toward swimming than are those who live nowhere near large bodies of water.
> I would have guessed that swimming would be much more common there, since it is an island nation.
You could assume that. But in the islands you'd find that public access to open water is highly restricted. Most beaches are owned by resorts. The one remaining public beach in Jamaica was sold off to Chris Blackwell, who owns other resorts in Jamaica. Anthony Bourdain covers this in Parts Unknown.
With so few opportunities to swim it should come as no surprise that most island people can't.
I think you're misunderstanding him. What he meant was the cultural norm (or more accurately imo: "the stereotype") in America around black people is that they can't swim, don't like baseball, don't listen to rock/country or play golf.
This got me curious and a cursory search seems to hint that blacks are proportionately represented (as per the percentage of the US population that identifies as such) in baseball, and disproportionally represented in sports like basketball.
For baseball:
> 60% of the players in the league are White, while 28.53% are Hispanic. That leaves roughly 12% available for Black and Asian players[1]
For basketball:
> NBA in 2015 was composed of 74.4 percent black players, 23.3 percent white players, 1.8 percent Latino players, and 0.2 percent Asian players.
In that exactly as many black people play baseball professionally as you'd expect, just looking at population numbers.
Yeah, it's amusing that the conquerors who incompetently called the people here "Indians" are somehow native to America. It's a bit like those people running around in "cowboy" clothing in what's now called Texas, aping the Mexicans they stole the land from.
You are bringing up something completely unrelated. I am talking about race, you are talking about some historical event that happened more than 170 years ago. It was a war, and America won.
No, Texas is in America, it is not America. (America was taken from the... so-called "Indians"... and Texas is something of a microcosm of that.) Furthermore, your earlier post was literally predicated on "some historical event that happened more than 170 years ago": in the "early 1800s". Finally, it is clear I discussed race.
I don't know who's "right", but here's a recent counterpoint by another black technologist:
So no, despite the prevailing atmosphere of hysteria, I’m not afraid of being killed by the police. Quite the contrary: sadly, the data shows I’m much more likely to be victimized by a fellow black man than by a white police officer. So may the police remain sharp, aggressive, and strike fear into criminals so the good people don’t become victims.
So these victims of the system, as he says himself, just deserve to be shot in the street? Failed experiments of welfare that should just be swept up with the rest of the trash? I understand you're just providing the counterpoint to this article, but its like it touches on some of the right points but too many of the wrong ones for me. A very cold, judgmental view of the members of your community (assuming you're American, I am not) that are the most vulnerable and offered the least opportunities.
He says it himself in the article, that it's a problem that runs much deeper than "Don't resist arrest", and then immediately tries to solve it by saying "Don't resist arrest", dumping the problem on the victim and expecting them to figure it out on their own.
Sorry if that came across strongly, like I said I'm just an outsider looking in; I appreciate the discussion :)
The police are people I (we) pay to protect against criminals. When I have to fear police as much as criminals there's a problem, since I'm actually paying the police. Not to mention I'm harrased by law enforcement far more than I've ever been by civilians. Sure we might kill more of our own than the cops (after all we make up a bigger population than cops), but it goes beyond just killings, to how even non-lethal encounters unfold.
As a large framed 6'2" male I got a lot of negative reactions when I was very fit with short hair. Back in collage I ended up growing very long hair to move from the thug stereotype to Fabio. Which was kind of amusing, but also a good way to move things in a positive direction. Except that one cab driver who hated people with long hair because the hippy movement killed off his local barber shop.
So, yes people will judge you. But, you can also distract people by giving them something else to focus on which is under your control. While I am not suggesting you walk around in clown shoes, but if you did that's going to be the first thing on everyone's lips.
This is the quote that stood out to me most too. It's quite appalling to me that this is "normal" for the guy. I can't help but feel like our perception of others has been molded too much by things we see instead of the things we have done.
It's interesting to see that the author strongly dislikes the question "So, what’s it like being a black guy in Silicon Valley?" since I could easily see it being a gesture of wanting to engage from someone who doesn't know how to otherwise engage.
You regularly see white people "embarrass" themselves by engaging on this topic in the "wrong" way, even if they have the right intentions, without a clear idea of what to do (e.g. Howard Schulz, Macklemore, etc.) ("White People. Don't talk about racism." "White People. You have to lead the conversation on race.") Given such limited upside and very significant downsides, it's no surprise that the vast majority of white people refuse to engage on the issue, even if they actually do want to contribute positively.
I myself follow this rule religiously -- I run a small startup in Silicon Valley, with male and female engineers, all white, Asian, and one Latino. But I'd rather chew on broken glass than ever discuss any "controversial" topic, such as diversity, racism, Black Lives Matter, Donald Trump, immigration, etc. etc. -- I just will not discuss it in any context and in any forum, because there's nothing to gain and too much to lose.
I just have a complex about being a good enough front end engineer. Otherwise I dont mind if people refer to me as the black guy and I love watermelon. I get people mixed up all the time so Im not offended if someone mistakes me for another black guy.
I believe that your experiences are somewhat related to the apologist behavior he mentions in the first paragraph. I'm easy going as well and I've never been terribly bothered by people mistaking me for somebody else as a result.
That being said, I can see how it would be bothersome especially if a source of the confusion was due to something I'm sensitive about. I imagine (from your post) it'd be like if somebody mixed you up with "that other guy who isn't good enough to be a front end engineer". Even if both of you were plenty qualified to be front end engineers, due to your sensitivity it might be a little bit more raw. Thankfully most of us don't have to walk around with evidence of our sensitive issues all over our bodies.
The cross-race effect is a thing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-race_effect] and is not unique to whites making this mistake, so it's a little bothersome that someone would have a problem if you get mistaken for someone else. I think it can be an honest mistake that anyone can make.
Who doesn't love watermelon? Try it with good feta cheese - that is the way we traditionally eat it in the Balkans. The tartness of the cheese is match made in heaven with the sweetness of the watermelon.
I never understood this stereotype. Yes, my entire family and I love fried chicken, who the hell doesn't??? I wonder how different things would be if the stereotype was pizza, cake, or some other universally loved foodstuffs.
Probably not so much with things like chicken legs and wings per se, but 'soul food' (or at least certain offerings) have their roots going back to sharecropping and late slavery (probably even throughout the entirety of the American slave trade) where certain scraps of meat and animal deemed "unfit/unsavory" for the plantation family to eat were given to the slaves to feast on and were eventually integrated as part of the culinary tradition of Black Americans.
I would imagine, without going too far down the research rabbit hole (because this is a close topic to me being both black and a lover of food history in general) that the whole "fried chicken and watermelon" thing are likely poorly understood branches coming from that evolutionary tract.
I totally agree and have read supporting evidence backing your entire first paragraph. But I've never seen that evidence suggest chicken and watermelon fell into the chitterlings and ham hock category.
Yeah that's why I say I think it's just a misunderstood thing coming from that tract; meaning over time casual associations of certain food groups now considered "staples" of soul food became less and less understood and discussed along with other aspects of that era of time to the point where foods that were never there to begin with got tossed in, no one checked it and everyone else ran with it.
Take Huey P. Newton for example, I've had plenty of frank, honest and open discussions with individuals who want to tell me everything they know about Huey P. Newton and his "radical-ness" and his "anger" and his "passion" as a Black Panther because of whatever oral tradition they've had passed down to them informing their viewpoint of the man-but it never goes very far beyond surface-level descriptions, and rarer still his philosophies or doctoral essays. Substitute Newton with James Baldwin, Clarence Thomas, MLK, heck even Dr. Cornel West.
I think the same unfortunate blurring of the culinary traditions of Black Americana has happened re: Fried Chicken and Watermelon-thin, surface-level oral traditions passed down time and time again until we got where we are now "Fried chicken, watermelon and purple koolaid" are for good or ill tied into every conversation of "black foods".
Thanks for clarifying. I can see exactly what you're talking about when I hear people talk about how Malcolm X needed to die because he wanted to kill all whites as if he wasn't excommunicated for preaching peace and unity after his pilgrimage.
I live in Boulder, CO, and not liking fried chicken (amongst numerous other, less-racially-charged foodstuff) is a status-signaling thing here, I think.
Not to say there isn't a huge problem with attitudes towards race in Boulder, but I've encountered people here who broke off long term relationships because a partner refused to go militant vegan and instead remained merely vegetarian, so I wouldn't place too much stock in the mind blowing food neuroses that tend to be common around these parts.
And not to derail the conversation, but as a fellow Boulderite who desperately misses having a a Popeyes within 20 minutes, have you found any good fried chicken places? I have yet to find anything besides Yellowbelly and the exceptionally terrible KFC on Arapahoe.
I always thought the most lasting remedy for xenophobia would be to simply have more to do with the group in question on a regular basis. At that point the brain, hardwired to fear the unknown no matter how much your rational bits protest that it's being unreasonable, has time to readjust your gut reaction. Then you'll instinctively (rather than rationally) treat each of "them" as individuals with an irrelevant common trait rather than just a specimen of a homogeneous group linked to negative statistics and over-reported incidents.
Of course, if your particular lifestyle doesn't result in you getting to know anyone in the specific group naturally, it's probably impossible to fix that gut reaction. Humans are very much slaves to their instincts.
Everyone just has to stop caring, honestly. About race. If you are racist...well, that's an instant loss obviously. If you are deathly afraid to be racist and want to be politically correct (read: hyper race-conscious), you are unwittingly reenforcing separation and division and boundaries. I truly believe that overthinking it is what keeps us from getting over it.
Four of the things he has grown accustomed to experiencing are feelings. (e.g. Feeling relieved when people don’t verbally address the fact that I’m Black
Feeling out of place when I can’t identify with certain pop culture references or cultural norms (like being able to swim, liking baseball, listening to rock/country or playing golf), because I grew up differently
Feeling like I have something to prove because I’m Black
Feeling like I was chosen for certain photo/video opportunities at work and during other activities to feign diversity and acceptance)
We cannot be responsible for how other people feel. Feeling alienated and out of place is something that's common for all people.
Once you have an inner locus of control, things flow more naturally. If you think of your feelings as subject to the whims of the external world, then you are always going to be in a world of hurt, no matter what color you are. You can always find a reason to feel bad about yourself.
> We cannot be responsible for how other people feel.
I don't recall him asking anyone else to be responsible for how he feels. (And each of those describes an event that he has also become used to -- in one case implicitly by opposition to the one triggering the feeling. In some cases those actions are ones for which someone else might reasonably be responsible -- though, again, he's describing his experience, not saying anyone should be responsible for those experiences.)
> At a certain point in my life, I realized that I had no positive role models (let alone ones I could relate to), so I > set out to become a positive role model for my siblings.
This is the best part I took from this. I don't believe I have many positive role models in my life that align to my goals.
Hi mate. I'm Brazilian as well (deve as well), but white as it gets. I always wanted to hear from a black person about their experiences in general (not only in IT industry). I never asked for 2 reasons: 1 - very few black colleagues, 2 - afraid of sounding condescending or that the guy may not want to talk about it.
It's very sad to see how few "majority" people are able to observe the obstacles faced by any minority and, in the case of Brazil and UK (where I live now), black people.
I was very nice to read about the author's experiences and how he felt about it because it gives me a bit of insight on this matter. At least now I know I was right about not asking "how is it to be a black guy at..." hahaha
I'm really happy to see a bunch of positive and supportive comments as well; anything about identity can be a bit of a minefield on this site sometimes.
Even most of the the not-so-good comments are well-intentioned, even if ignorant.
I'm sorry but black people are responsible for an inordinately larger proportion of criminal activity than those of other skin color. Being "wary" of a black person you see on the street (probably not dressed in a suit but perhaps in gangster like clothes) will make anyone feel uncomfortable. This is human nature and essential to survival. This is not racism.
What are gangster-like clothes? A hoodie? Is it only gangster-like clothing if its worn by a black person?
What are the odds that any particular black person is a gangster? What are the odds that any particular white person is a gangster? How is near-zero different from near-zero?
I do not think anything in the essay is surprising. There can be no doubt that in absence of other information, everybody uses whatever is immediately discernible, such as race, age, gender, attire, height, athleticism, beauty, etc, to modulate behavior. A sane individual will improve the accuracy of the initial rough assessment as more information becomes available. What else could anyone be reasonably expected to do? Ignore whatever they learned about the world and treat every individual exactly the same regardless of their outside characteristics as if these outside characteristics gave absolutely no clue about what kind of behavior is appropriate ? That seems impossibly stupid.
I was never good at knowing someone's perspective prior to having experienced it. The common pattern throughout my life has been once I have experienced it, I'll tend to feel much more empathy than I would prior to someone in that situation. The problem is in this case, I'm white well mostly at least in the cultural sense I look it so its not going to be something where I will ever be able to properly empathize. I'm all for justice and equality etc. regardless so more of that please.
> The ones in bold are the ones that have affected me the most.
I was surprised that some of the things in the list that I would have though to be the most innocuous turned out to be the ones that actually affected him the most. I guess this goes to show that its the little but pervasive things that hurt the most.
When applying for US jobs I am always a bit startled by the questions that ask me to categorize myself by race. I know this is meant to protect against bias in hiring but you are forced to categorize yourself with each application. It makes it hard to just be people applying for a job.
The dynmaic in los angeles is quite different. For one thing white people in the industry are the minority. Hollywood is heavily white but outside of hollywood jobs im always a minority to an asian majority.
"Feeling out of place when I can’t identify with certain pop culture references or cultural norms (like being able to swim, liking baseball, listening to rock/country or playing golf), because I grew up differently."
I know many people of all kinds that don't know how to swim, that don't like basketball or listen to country or play golf. In fact, I would say a minority of the people I know do all these things and I'm not even sure most people I know do most of these things.
I can't draw a larger conclusion at the moment (I am sure the larger HN community has many ideas), but I don't think you should feel awkward about this.
If you're a white person who doesn't know how to swim and it gets brought up in conversation, your interlocutors might be a bit surprised - because swimming is a somewhat common skill in 2016 in most parts of the world - but that'll be the extent of it.
However, it is my understanding that if you're a black person who doesn't know how to swim and it gets brought up in conversation, you get to hear semi-frequently something along the lines of "oh yeah that's right, black people can't swim" (not necessarily that explicitly stated, but you get the idea).
I hope you can see why it might problematic to repeatedly have this kind of interactions in your life.
I'm guessing it's related to segregation, specifically public pools. Swimming is commonly learned in a pool, so if you don't have access to one it would be hard to lean.
Obviously it's pretty outdated, but stereotypes are rarely concerned with accuracy.
being big is going to invoke more fear in smaller people. Size is correlated with ability to bring the pain (see: weight classes in MMA). Of course, your color should have nothing to do with it though.
ie: Its natural to be afraid of big people. Its racist to be afraid of only big people who are black.
As someone who is extremely tall, it's not very nice to see people crossing the street to avoid you at night. How is making statistical inferences using my height any more justified than making statistical inferences using my race?
The notion of justifiable discrimination will take you to a very scary place if you apply it consistently.
I'm a 6'6" mesomorph, and never been in a fight in my life, not even in the schoolyard. I'm used to people being a bit apprehensive of me on a lonely street, and sometimes if I'm behind a woman and we're walking about the same pace, I'll cross the road to avoid potentially stressing them out. When people meet me and make some reference to me being someone 'not to mess with' because I'm big, I tell them that most big guys are teddybears, and to think of other big guys they know (I stress most, but not all). Almost invariably, their face shows that the light-bulb clicks, as they can't think of any aggressive big guys amongst their friends.
So I'm used to one of the things listed in this article. I'm fine with this preconception people have, as it's not that much of a problem on it's own, and it's easy to take it in my stride. However, it's the gestalt of all those things that the author is talking about that is the problem. They all work together, and if I experienced all of those working against me, I'd feel unfairly treated as well. "People fear me unfairly on the street? No worries, I'll be at work soon, and I don't have to deal with that shit there..."
I may not have been clear. I don't feel particularly discriminated and don't really care in any case. It's incredibly minor.
However, I strongly object to the idea that it's okay to discriminate based on unalterable characteristics as long as you're not discriminating against a member of a legally protected group.
Having rights doesn't stop you being morally and factually wrong, which is the point of this piece: while you are allowed to cross the road when you see a black man, doing so is a dick move, because it upsets the man in question.
I never demanded you stop crossing the road because you're scared of specific groups, and for that matter neither did the author of the article, although our situations are obviously very different. It has merely been pointed out that doing certain legal things can have a negative impact on other people. In my case, I am pointing out that crossing the street to avoid someone has a negative impact on whoever is being avoided, regardless of race. This is clearly not the same as calling for legislation to prevent unlawful street crossing.
As you have noted, the government won't stop anyone from calling you a dick. If you don't like being called a dick, well, that's too bad.
It likely is a genetic mechanism rather than "discrimination." Fact is that in an adverse encounter, the big (tall) fellow is more dangerous. So its wise for smaller persons, and especially women and children to minimize encounters with taller/bigger persons, and strangers also.
I believe in many places (Western countries) white people are more easily scared of black people (big or not) than big and white. I guess that's what the author was talking about.
I was born I Brazil and now live in UK where, despite the abyssal difference in physical/verbal violence against black people, it's still very easy to see how white people act more "jumpy" around black people. Mind you I'm "very" white (german descendant) and even to me it's clear the difference.
I am a white guy of about the same size, and scruffy to boot, and I do get some of the same thing with strangers being a little nervous around me, particularly smaller women; but it's definitely not as bad as he's saying here. Hell, I feel a bit nervous when I see a black guy my own size coming towards me, which really bugs me; I know it's stupid but I can't seem to suppress it. Racism is insidious.
"I see a black guy my own size coming towards me, which really bugs me; I know it's stupid but I can't seem to suppress it. Racism is insidious."
But is it necessarily racism? Possibly it is a survival mechanism? After all, don't you notice a white guy of your own size or larger coming toward you?
I think it is natural, and likely a genetic trait, to pay attention to and/or even avoid persons of larger size. Color may add to this wariness, since it is common knowledge that black men are more dangerous than white men. Neither is racism: the first is IMO genetic, the latter is based on statistics.
As a white man, I definitely think that the problems of gender in tech are still huge and I'd like to help address them. But I also feel like I can't help, because people, both black and white, are so tense about race. As a white man, literally even talking about race is risking being called a racist. And god forbid I have an actual opinion that might disagree with a person of color--even though people of color don't even agree on everything.
For example, I think that the reason people mistake the author of this piece for other black men is that white people have spent most of their lives around other white people, so they become accustomed to the kinds of differences in facial features that white people have. We have less practice differentiating between the facial features of black people, so naturally we're going to be worse at it. It's not malicious or racist.
And in my lifetime, I've had a few people just outright say to me that all white people look the same to them. Which isn't offensive--it's because they grew up around people who looked like them, and have less practice differentiating between white people.
But tensions are so high, that this innocuous common mistake is seen as discrimination merely because it's related to race, not because of any malice or even intent behind it. And I'm quite sure that many people would call me racist for even having the opinion that mistaking people of color for other people of color isn't racist. Even though it could actually be helpful to people of color. If people of color see that white people don't have trouble recognizing you because they dislike you, but because you literally look different from people who they have practice recognizing, that might encourage confidence.
And to be clear, I'm not complaining. It doesn't hurt me at all to keep my mouth shut, and not say anything on the topic of race. The only people who are hurt by my not helping are people of color. Which sucks, but is the result of how tense people (both black and white) are about race.
In short, everyone (of all colors) should chill out and focus more on the problems that are clearly problems, not just assuming anything any white person says or does that is race related is racist. That just alienates allies and makes people of color feel hurt.
EDIT: I do want to point out that while I don't think mistaking one person of color for another is racist, I do think that many of the behaviors the writer of this piece pointed out are racist. I don't want to say that what the author wrote is all incorrect or invalidate his opinion.
EDIT 2: A flurry of downvotes without responses prove my point--people can't point out logically why they think I'm racist, but they downvote to express that they think I am. :)
> And in my lifetime, I've had a few people just outright say to me that all white people look the same to them. Which isn't offensive--it's because they grew up around people who looked like them, and have less practice differentiating between white people.
Honestly, all people look mostly the same to me. The only ones that stand out are the beautiful ones. If you ask me to mentally visualize faces of people I've seen during the past few days or weeks, the ones that will stand out the most will be the attractive ones (regardless of race, although being white, I am a tad biased).
The other ones who stand out will be people with features similar to mine, from a certain European ethnicity.
However I grew up in an area which has 4 towns that are the most racially diverse in the US, so I may be accustomed to all the races, so I have to find other features that stand out more (Probably 99% of my days I see people of all races, and probably from every continent as well)
This seems as good a place as any to post something I've been thinking of. (It doesn't really have anything to do with the story, just is on topic generally.)
I'd like to do a small study personally, that should take me about 10-20 hours, and I'd like people's feedback here about what they think about the methodology.
- First, I'd put together ten generic keyword-laden resumes using machine learning from a large dataset - which means it should somewhat reflect an "average" programmer, without representing anyone in particular. It will literally therefore be the creation of a non-existent person.
- Next I would edit it by hand so that it doesn't seem grossly machine-generated. At this point I'm still blinded, and I'd have ten programmer resumes.
- Next I would generate a separate list of common first names and surnames. Since most people are white, likely most names are somewhat white but this shouldn't be that relevant, also given that people have the right to change their name legally. The importance of this is that with such generic names, it is almost certain that there are a large number of programmers with that name, and so googling by the employer won't point to anyone in particular. At this point I have ten resumes and ten names.
- Finally, I would find stock art of a generic black man and generic white man. I would try to pick neutral images that if I were such a person I could actually have taken of myself, and may actually use on a resume. I would only just find two, since the goal of the experiment would be to do A/B testing on just the effect of this image. This is what is being studied.
- For the experiment itself, I would create email addresses for the ten names, and write cover letters that match the ten resumes.
- From each email I would email twenty-thirty companies based on a keyword search from the associated resumes for positions that seem a match. I'd be careful to pick all different companies.
- I'd carefully rewrite the cover letters (in my own voice) about how excited I'd be to work there and what a great match the position seems to me, as they can see from the attached resume.
- Finally, and this is the tricky part, when actually attaching the resume, in a blinded way I will use a script to insert either the black or the white man's picture. I must not see it in order for this to be a doubly blinded experiment. This is actually easy to do technically: .docx files are just .zip files, you can rename them, change the image in the zip file, and zip it back. I don't need to record anywhere which of the two the script chose (randomly), because as soon as I send it it will be in the sent folder.
The same name and resume must go to a mix of companies, some being sent the picture with a black man, some being sent the picture with the white man. Since I'd be careful not to email the same companies, it doesn't matter if the same name/resume is sent to some companies as a black man and some companies as a white man.
What my prediction is, is that the picture will have a statistically significant effect on emails back. (I don't want to bother setting up ten real phone numbers, what a pain, so the phone number will have to be omitted from the resumes.)
Now, this method isn't perfect. For example, real programmers frequently have github profiles or a large online presence. Still, by sticking to the most common of common names, perhaps there should be enough of a profile to be worth an email back, especially given an enthusiastic cover letter, even if they can't find this programmer in particular.
Finally, after the experiment the recipients could be informed that they were part of a study. But perhaps this is not so important. After all, if they don't email back they likely have forgotten about the resume, and even if they do, if the applicant does not answer their email then the applicant must simply be busy with other offers.
Of course, for authenticity purposes, it would be better not to share this methodology here, where some people might read it and be tipped off.
But given that I am not certain that I am doing things right, and haven't run an experiment in the social sciences before, while at the same time I've heard many people here report on experimental methodology, I thought I would run this methodology past the HN crowd. What do you think? Is it scientifically well-constructed? Is it possible for it to show an A/B effect?
Short of literally reusing people's real resumes with a fake image, I don't know of any way to improve this proposed methodology.
-> Shall I run the experiment?
-> Is there anything I can do to improve it?
-> Would the results be meaningful in either case? (If it does show a statistically significant deviation in email-back percentages, and if it doesn't.)
Thanks. I think I read that study (or a report about it.) But I didn't like it so much. (Maybe that study inspired the idea for my study - I don't remember.)
The reason I don't like that study as much is because it's about people's names. But people's names do in fact reflect the level of education of their families, and in an extreme case they can choose a new name if they want. The poster we're reading about, for example, is called "Richard Smith". (Whether by birth or a name that he adopted doesn't really matter.) I like names. If on a dating site I were given, sight unseen, the chance to view an Octavia or a Hermine I would choose it over any Susan or Latisha. Because it seems to me much more likely that Hermine would be educated and interesting.
Does this make Hermine a racial name?
Why couldn't Hermine (or Octavia) be black? In fact they could.
So I would say that the effect of a person's name, and a picture showing them as black, are, as this blog post already shows, somewhat orthogonal. Richard Smith isn't a "black name", but this poster had a black experience.
It's also quite important to point out that parents have almost complete choice over what to name their children. As some linguist pointed out, it's one of the few times that people get to name something (someone) in the world!
So I don't like it as a signal. A picture is much more pure. And also not something anyone can change.
Finally, in my case I'm specifically interested in programmers and tech. So my small "study" would be very targeted.
I'm still very interested if anyone has any comments about the methodology. I've never done any social science research before (well not formally anyway), and I'd be very curious if I'd be making some mistake in the methodology that I could avoid.
> But people's names do in fact reflect the level of education of their families, and in an extreme case they can choose a new name if they want.
Good point -- I hadn't thought of that. But wouldn't the resume reflect the actual education of the applicant? Maybe the discrimination against names you describe is cultural, which could also be of interest in the tech world ("this guy wouldn't fit in with us").
I did see a study on the success rates of people that had changed their names to be less "ethnic," and it was high, but of course there's a self-selection problem, since someone would have to be a very motivated person to change their name to get ahead.
One disadvantage of using pictures is that it makes race immediately apparent, and people might deliberately change their behavior to not appear racist. Maybe they offer an interview to the black candidate to check off a box on the HR form, even if they'd never hire him/her.
Anyway, just some thoughts -- I'd love to see the results of the study here on HN if you manage to pull it off!
thanks! oooh, excellent point about deliberately changing behvaior to offer interviews (which can be patronizing.) Now I really, really, really, really want to see the results of my study. I am 100% putting it on my plate, this should be doable. I've got this :)
Hi Richard, good to have you in SF! Expat here, living in SF for the past 2 years. Throwaway, because America.
There are three major things entangled here:
> I thought it was normal to feel apologetic that I may have looked or seemed “threatening” to passersby, if I thought I invoked any feelings of fear or discomfort in my presence.
* Personal observation: people who move to SF, for reasons that I speculate to include _baseline niceness_, weather, and lack of generally bad things happening to them become after a while really socially, self-conscious, and apologetic. This spikes, but never really goes away, until you go somewhere else, and get hit by a stranger.
Except...
* There is a massive homeless problem in SF, compounded with mental illnesses, and visible behavioristic problems. Speaking strictly of personal observation, a homeless of a race do not hit one of the same race, which means all those white dudes? yeah, they've been shouted, and crapped at by persons of color.
* People are also, psychologically, can't reliably distinguish people of other races prior to knowing a few members of them personally for an extended period of time. This is not uniformally distributed. People who care about you matter. The average Joe down the street does not.
This checks the "why" on racism, and judgement. Which leads us straight into...
* There is a structural incentive problem in how information ecologies replicate themselves, and feeds to action under conditions of visible racial differences, that is best summed up here: https://i.imgur.com/yjfiYG2.png . Essentially, ideas which cause anger, and anxiety have a higher delta-replication rate, than every other piece of information any human being can imagine up, ever.
For this reason, here is what you can, actually, do about stuff:
* Get off the toxoplasma. Unfollow people who replicate stuff, which makes you feel compelled to react to hatred.
* IF you read something, which makes you feel hatred, ALWAYS, always check the source. In case of law, read the original statement made by court. In case of newsreports, why are you watching newsreports? see 1. Not enough? open up newsreports 5 years ago, and determine how relevant is whatever they are writing to the now-you.
* BE THE SYSTEMATIC CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD. Does writing " I felt like I had to say something. Anything" solves problems directly? No. Does it suddenly induces fear into >20K people? Heck yes. Does it also generates you traffic? Yes. (you see the incentive problem here?) But is it quality traffic, that will convert? Only to other fear-inducing things. Is this the sort of system you want to increase? If not, can you take that ~40 minutes of writing an article into planning? If not, can you code, and donate whatever you've made in that same 40 minutes? Both hacks at the joints of the problem, instead of escalating it.
Would you tell Ta-Nehisi Coates or James Baldwin to take action instead of writing about their experiences? Writing is a perfectly fine way of taking action.
We don't even know what the writer does in his spare time. He might be doing those things already.
These are interesting. As usual, I have some points from personal experience as a white minority and others just general. His bullet list is mostly good to illustrate what he's describing as racial bias affecting him. However, a few got my attention more than others.
"Being mistaken for another Black person at work"
This is common and should be expected by any minority anywhere if significant differences exist between how two groups identify their members. The reason is that intuitive parts of the brain work based on what input they've received so far. They generalize the patterns out of the data, especially relevant vs data to ignore. Then, they use that for classifying or reacting to new data. Further, what varies the most on Black people is different than what varies the most on white people. Both sides get used to focusing on details important in their area. Simply put, these people probably see very few Black people, look for different traits for identifying them, and therefore suck at differentiating Black people in a casual way (i.e. not focusing).
Just need more Black people in Silicon Valley to increase exposure. Then, this problem starts going away. Meanwhile, it's somethign that sucks a bit but isn't necessarily racism. Just how the mind works that forces a person to work to get noticed & remembered. Happens to me, too, since I intentionally look plain (but nice) to differentiate which people are worth my time. People even trip over me in stores sometimes because they can't remember they saw me. Unless I wear a hoodie: almost everyone, esp cops, sees me then haha.
"Being asked things like, “So, what’s it like being a Black guy in Silicon Valley?”"
May be good or bad. Many people are curious about others' experiences. Yet, despite this being a problem, he's writing an article on what it's like being a Black guy in Silicon Valley. He feels better getting it out of his system and possibly hopes to help others understand the perspective. Similar to why some ask. They can't ask but do tell.
"Feeling out of place when I can’t identify with certain pop culture references or cultural norms"
That's due to both location and race. It was very hard to keep up with the Black ones as a white minority since both the references and the language itself change so fast. I stayed confused by something even when I got a lot of it. Just nodded, grinned, or looked shocked like the rest. So, I relate to this one as a painful, social barrier that will persist unless he embeds a lot with white culture and activities as I had to do with Blacks. It will still persist but he'll have it easier since whites prefer people acting more like them. It's the opposite with Blacks, at least in the South, where they often get angry if whites imitate their culture.
"Being the most athletic person in a particular group, and having people say things like, “…of course it would be the Black guy”"
Black people have been telling me for years they're better at sports. All kinds of them young and old. This is one of those things, though, that I wonder if Blacks themselves put into white consciousness. I wondered it myself at one point as a kid thanks to them repeating it nonstop. Especially over basketball and boxing. I'm not sure how long or far Blacks have been saying it due to lack of broader data. Could be white sourcing, too.
"Feeling like I was chosen for certain photo/video opportunities at work and during other activities to feign diversity and acceptance"
This one is more open for debate as it looks totally racist at first. Then, you have to think of all the lawsuits by Jesse Jackson et al where they look at number of Black people, what they make, what words people used, what relationships were like, and so on to argue for massive, financial damages. These events are probably the rare case but will be on media enough to put them into white, management's minds. You also look many Blacks pushing for affirmative action or voluntary quotas to "embrace diversity." With that backdrop, many will try to reduce liability, improve image, or both by hiring some more Blacks or other minorities. They'll also try to show it so people notice. So, this is another case where specific groups of Blacks and/or liberals in general act in a way that, combined with media and whites' own thinking, collectively increases odds Black people might be treated this way. I even warned them it would happen when I opposed most forms of affirmative action & associated liabilities.
Those being hired might be anything from "token hires" to the minority member among several qualified candidates. The latter isn't so bad but the former can make for very, bad situation. This dynamic sucks for all the races and any solution I've presented came with realistic objections from some party involved. One I promoted a long time ago a combo of blind auditions & performance reviews from third party along with, if even applied, quotas only for qualified candidates that resulted from auditions. Everyone, whether ideal candidate or not, will know they earned their place with race/gender having minimal impact. Tricky thing to promote for many reasons. Given that, it was extra-neat for me reading here about GapJumpers putting similar ideas in action. Time will tell...
"At a certain point in my life, I realized that I had no positive role models (let alone ones I could relate to), so I set out to become a positive role model for my siblings. I didn’t want them to have to resort to gangs, violence, or go looking for love to find ways to identify with others and gain acceptance. I wanted them to learn to love themselves, and learn to love & empathize with others."
Should've been the conclusion. This is exactly how the most awesome and successful Blacks formed in the down-trodden areas I was in. Probably most from any race if I thought about it more. Just was studying Blacks more as they were the majority. I just noticed, in hateful schools, there were people that were different. They treated whites as well as anyone else, judging on words and actions. Nothing could hold them back academically with some exceeding me with sheer determination & effort. Later learned their parents and role models, including some teachers, were probably the reason. So, I wish the man success on helping his siblings achieve greatness by teaching and showing them. Great stuff.
Mistaking people is an interesting one because it's totally not-deliberate. I'm a bearded-redhead who's been mistaken with another bearded-redhead at the place I work, but I try not to read too deeply into it.
I just think learning to differentiate faces is just a function of experience and I don't read into it, and I hope others don't read into it when I make mistakes.
@sctb: Which part of the guidelines do you feel he violated? If it's "Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them", one could argue that offering a link to a rigorous statistical analysis on this topic that come out last week will be new information to many readers.
(responding to Snargorf here since direct reply isn't possible to dead comments)
It was a fine article up until it repeated this Great Lie: "The amount of senseless shootings and beatings by the police towards other people of color is alarming."
It's not necessarily a lie to say that the number of shootings of one group is alarming just because other groups are being shot in statistically equal numbers. For example, I might truthfully say that "the degree of extreme poverty in major US cities is alarming", even if there is also extreme poverty in rural areas, and even if the situation is worse in cities outside the US.
In the context of the article, despite a high level of crime in Jamaica, he seems genuinely worried about the safety of his siblings were they to visit him in the US. Should the new statistical study alleviate his fears? Perhaps, but I'm sure you're familiar with the joke about the statistician who drowned in the river that had an average depth of just 2 feet.
Statistics can be "true" without being universally applicable. Considering that the Bahamas (another majority-black Caribbean country) just released an official travel warning for travelers to the US, perhaps some of his fear is justified: http://mofa.gov.bs/ministry-of-foreign-affairs-and-immigrati...
(I wonder if the lack of apparent bias in general shootings is actually multiple biases stacking up together; given the prevalence of same-race violent crime, a lack of enforcement priority for violent crimes against blacks would, ceteris paribus, mean less encounters -- proportionately to the crime rate -- with black violent criminals, which might be offset by an increased propensity -- compared to provocation -- to escalating to lethal force against blacks in encounters to look, in aggregate, like a lack of bias in shootings, but also would tend to create a justified feeling of disproportionate numbers of unjustified shootings targeting blacks.)
I think it's more like, people feel more comfortable around groups that of the same culture / social class. I'd certainly feel more comfortable around middle-class college educated black people than I would around some hooligans from Glasgow despite being of Scottish extraction. Unfortunately in the US we're pretty segregated by race, so it's often an effective proxy for culture / class.
You have anything to debunk other than some snide remark. Yes, people feel comfortable in their ethnic groups, that does mean they do not have friends outside of it or inter-marry. Look around yourself, and spare me of snark.
"Being told by cab drivers that they’re the first Black person they’ve ever had a positive encounter with"
So either the cab drivers are lying and saying that line to every black person they encounter for some reason I can't fathom -- or they're being honest about their experiences.
"Being asked things like, “So, what’s it like being a black guy in Silicon Valley?”"
And yet you wrote a blog post to tell us what it's like. I read it because I was interested, but does my interest therefore mean that mean I'm actually part of the problem?
"Feeling like I was chosen for certain photo/video opportunities at work and during other activities to feign diversity and acceptance"
You probably were. That sucks, but it's one of those damned if you do/don't things. If they don't do it, somebody's going to accuse them of something.
Being attacked or harassed for racial (or any reason) is always unpleasant, but I've always found it easy to rationalize such experiences as outliers, as in, "Well, some people are just ignorant assholes". So I've found the things that happen at an everyday level to be far more deeply unsettling. I've been in a few countries where Asians are rare (yes, rarer than in Iowa) and while I hadn't been physically attacked, the experience of people just staring at me, everywhere, while I'm going for a walk or waiting in line at the grocery, was so unpleasant that I just found myself just not going out at all very much. Not as a conscious decision, but from a reluctance that built up subconsciously, and something that I only realized after I returned to the States.
It's not that egregious acts of harassment don't happen to minorities today. But when I think of why so few [insert minority group here] are in [insert role/geography here], I believe it's because of the undramatic but accumulated things that the OP mentions, all of which may sound like whining to people who, while genuinely disapproving of overt attacks, don't realize that lesser slights can be enough to create a dampening effects.