its just a slightly more specific term than racism as its specifically discriminating based on skin color when racism can have other points of basis.
2
deleted
· 5 years ago
Oh goodie. Just the other day I was thinking we didn't have enough social justice issues on the go- and here we are the answers to my prayers.
.
Now were in for a treat. Within seconds guest will be here to lay down 4 pages of why this new issue is so necessary and empowering.
Expect him to show up in around 5 hours, seems to be when he's online. Although he still owes me a continiuation to a discussion. And yeah, the colorism thing is completely retarded anyway.
Colorism is when lighter skin is favoured within specific “races”, and is certainly a real thing. Take, for example, the prevalence of skin bleaching treatments in South Asia, Southeast Asia, Latin America, and Africa. It’s the beauty standard. In the United States, darker skinned African-Americans are more likely to be suspended from school. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12552-013-9104-z
A quick google search will reveal studies on discrimination in hiring linked to skin colour beyond race. It is a real issue, and dismissing it so quickly is foolish.
Yeah, no. If you are going to claim that there is discrimination based on skin color, then you will have to account for all other variables, including the percentage representation of different races/skin colors in the job market, their relative qualifications, their economic and educational background, and etc.
If a person is more qualified for a job, they will be hired. If two people are equivalently qualified for a job, the employer can choose whoever, and it's his fucking right to do so. If there are few people of colour in an industry, or the workforce in general, they will have relatively little representation.
Unless the studies you googled account for that, they ain't worth much.
Also, about that study you linked, it's behind a paywall, how nice, but also, does it list their economic background and household status? Because living in a single parent household and no having a lot of money, might contribute to doing shit that will get you suspended.
@vitklim "This finding was robust to the inclusion of controls for parental SES, delinquent behavior, academic performance, and several other variables."
Took the liberty and time (5min) to read the abstract for you.
I would still need to see their actual findings to see how these variables related to suspension rates, and in how many cases they were included. Plus, this might be a stupid question, but what does SES stand for?
Frankly I might come off as harsh... because I'm not sure who to root for here. I am a middle toned minority so I can't say either view really applies to me. That being said, while yes the response was a very passionate and justifiable response to a very real issue, the initial post didn't suggest colorism didn't exist and if anything was partially proved right by the following response.
I just reread, and the first line of the response literally reads "-you have never experienced-" and "Your points are completely invalid" the almost exact wording of the two points the post makes.
It’s seldom if ever fair to invalidate a persons view point regardless. Your vet may not have a dog at home but can still give good advice and perspectives. A person who doesn’t have kids may have good advice and be able to relate to aspects of having kids even if they don’t know exactly what your life is like. So a persons opinion isn’t automatically meaningless because they lack experience- it is important though that a person realize that they might lack some of the first hand emotional context, and that when discussing matters of different view points that a person coming from a different matter might not have access to the same resources nor see things from the same perspective.
However- “your opinion is invalid because of your skin color” is not relevant. Change the narrative. Pretend you’re poor and Jane is rich. You and Jane discuss an issue of the poor. Jane says: “well- poor people....” and you reply to Jane that she is showing bias against the poor, and that her perspective makes her incapable of seeing the issue from a poor perspective. Are you being biased against the rich? No. It’s coincidence the discussion they are having is about skin color- but regardless of the subject matter, a person who hasn’t experienced a thing first hand may or may not have insights or some level of empathy, but cannot fully understand the issue as though they’d experienced it. They can relate it it to things they know of, from a perspective and knowledge base formed through their life experience. That’s as close as it gets. So we should hear each other out, but it isn’t inherent hypocrisy to say a person who hasn’t lived through a thing can’t speak as a first hand expert.
.
Now were in for a treat. Within seconds guest will be here to lay down 4 pages of why this new issue is so necessary and empowering.
A quick google search will reveal studies on discrimination in hiring linked to skin colour beyond race. It is a real issue, and dismissing it so quickly is foolish.
If a person is more qualified for a job, they will be hired. If two people are equivalently qualified for a job, the employer can choose whoever, and it's his fucking right to do so. If there are few people of colour in an industry, or the workforce in general, they will have relatively little representation.
Unless the studies you googled account for that, they ain't worth much.
Also, about that study you linked, it's behind a paywall, how nice, but also, does it list their economic background and household status? Because living in a single parent household and no having a lot of money, might contribute to doing shit that will get you suspended.
Took the liberty and time (5min) to read the abstract for you.