Looks like a halfbreed but is still considered black. Maybe Mr. Sims is only half angry.... Bottom line to these topics: Poor/middle class whites don't get why minorities should get "hand outs" or "free passes" when none is given to them. Minorities don't get why all whites don't remember the siginificance of what happened 40 years ago and more. They think white people are ignorant, but the burden is upon poor/middle class to smarten up. Rich people don't need to nor care....
White people are stereotyped as being racist, so, yes, they sometimes have to watch their step in these issues, not unlike a black man in a car who has to watch himself when he is driving ("sir, you didn't turn on your signal when changing lanes, please step out of the car and let me search your vehicle."). Also, people have different opinions on what defines racist. For some, its racist if it simply offends others. For others, it is racist if it offends others and they are reckless when they do so. For some others, it is only racist if it intends to be racist. We see all these different personal interpretations in this thread, and these different opinions conflict. I think T_J is a racist and I'm sure many others think so too, even though he might not intend it. So what if he thinks he isn't? I don't expect him to change, nor do I really care, he's entitled to his own opinions. Also wondering, would anybody be offended if an opposing team's organization painted their fan's skin yellow, got them buckteeth and "squinty eyes" whenever Yao visited their arena? What if the organization said they were only doing it to celebrate Yao's ethnicity?
Give me a break. I work for a Fortune 100 financial services company and no I don't "sell" insurance (though there's nothing wrong with that and people should be more cognizant of their own finances - but I digress). 1. Many people are now refusing to serve on boards because they have no idea what's going on and they don't want to be responsible, especially because they have their own companies to worry about. Do you really believe these guys have a clue who the "star" players are in the company and who is getting promoted and why? Really? So it's not based on how many alliances you have and who with and what department you're in, and blah blah blah. No company would have a discrimination "policy" but people choose to promote people who share similiarities and because of past discrimination, the pool of candidates is mostly white. We have many minorities in our company but mostly are lower rank and file employees. Once you get into upper management, it's a a struggle among mostly white males over who gets the top positions and what departement they run and which product lines are in their department, blah blah blah. 2. As far as the stock options, ESOPs, 401 (k)'s. Once again, are you serious? They unlike you, understand that a company's success is dependent on a lot more issues than if Joe White or Jack Black was CEO or president, or senior VP. That's why it it's more lucrative if their own individual agendas are met and protected - and they do so by making alliances. Making the wrong alliance is political suicide. Who cares about ESOPS if you're fired or demoted to AVP. They are either solidifying their existing positions or they have eyes on much bigger prizes. And they solidify their positions by not making waves and sticking with who they are "comfortable with". You are completely delusional if you believe upper management thinks hiring a senior officer will magically turn their company around and make their options worth millions. Talk about text book thinking.
RIET, your response pretty much avoided all of my questions, probably because you didn't have answers to them. By reading your post, it appears as though your argument rests on employees forming political alliances and board and shareholders being unable to identify top performing manageers. I can tell you that you are 100% completely WRONG in your assessment. Ever heard of a proxy fight? Are you familiar with the growing influence of hedge funds in corporate governance? Are you familiar with the trends of increasing diversity on corporate boards? The independent directors that SarbOx requires? Are you familiar with corporate search firms that seek out employees to fill CEO positions? Are these firms racist? Do you think that any rational businessman would prioritize his own financial position over an alleged racial preference? Honestly, by reading your response, your answer is yes. That to me indicates a severely flawed argument. Again, why do corporations that authorize affirmative action policies then turn around and implement racist promotion policies at the highest levels? How can you make this argument? You have a lot to learn, if you truly believe what you are posting. See if you can get your hands on the minutes of your company's last board meeting. You might learn a few lessons in corporate governance that will change your mind.
I have answered your questions. 1. Board of Directors have no clue what's going on within a coporation. If you really believe they do, you are very naive. And in their search for a "qualified" candidate for CEO, the majority of candidates who "qualify" are white. Why? Are they inherently smarter or have better leadership skills? No. It's because "whites" have the requisite management experience - experience based on promotions within a company garnered from other white counterparts who hold the majority of upper management positions. This is why 98% of Fortune 500 CEO's are white and 95% of top paid employees of Fortune 500 companies are white. 2. Shareholders have no clue what's going on in a company. Tell me exactly what's going on in the upper management of Cisco Systems, GE, IBM, DELL, Exxon, Wal-Mart, Merck. Who will be promoted and who will be fired? WHo are the "stars" of the company? Just as nobody knew what was was going on at Enron or Adelphia. Just as nobody knew about company wide discrimination at Coca Cola less than 5 years ago. Coca Cola - the beacon of Americanism. Do you really believe that African Americans who were battling to get into many colleges only 40 years ago (and only those brave enough to withstand outward hatred) are on an equal playing field as those who were openly admitted 90 years and generations prior to that?
neither Statement is true you are what you focus on The reason for mostly White CEOs is more of a grandfathering effect WHITE CEO's are picked by mostly white boards of directors from a history of mostly white companies Rocket River
Depends what industry you're talking about. Did you follow the situation at Morgan Stanley. Boards of fin. svcs companies know who their producers are. I think that experience/production plays more of a role than race/culture in choosing CEOs, etc. You see minorities in higher profile positons in the fin. svcs. industry because you've got a more diverse pool of employees/producers to draw from. At companies like GE,3M,Merck, etc.--CEOs often have an engineering/product dev background. Not as diverse a pool to draw from there.
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. It's attitude and not skin color that correlates most to success in today's world.
Having been with many black people when stopped by the police (and myself too, looking nothing like a halfbreed in person) I have never been in a situation where I've been asked or been with someone asked to step out of a vehicle. You're making another point for me. Stereotypes of white people (police in this case) as racist is completely acceptable even without proof. You'll hear endless people complaining about racism without having experienced the racism of the 60's that some did. You guys seem to forget that many of the people crying racism have grown up in the POST 1960's era. I don't remember ever being forced to drink from a different fountain because of the color of my skin. Should I walk around with a chip on my shoulder because my grandparents had to? I don't think so.
This is actually a question I have been curious about for quite a while and wanted to start a post about. I completely understand how wearing blackface to be a minstrel or something of that nature is very offensive. What about for a specific person? Would most black people (or at least the ones on this board) be upset about blackface to look like, say, Samual Jackson? What about a plastic mask that looks like him from a costume shop? What is the line that would be drawn?
I haven't done the research but if what you say is true, it only furthers my point. A financial salesperson is not really part of the "corporate culture" and therefore less dependent on political battles. This creates a wider pool of minority applicants.
1. No matter what I focus on, I will never be able to dunk the ball or have John Stockton's court vision. Even Larry Bird (considered the great white workaholic) had to be 6'9 to be effective. You can improve your game to distinguish yourself from the thousands of college basketball players. However, you still need an inherent genetic makeup to have the ability to play NBA basketball. Even short players have other attributes to make them successful such as quickness and great hand/eye coordination. 2. And how is this board of directors argument different than what I stated? It's what I said except simplified to the nth degree.
SNL and MadTV people play famous people of different ethnicities/gender all the time. I personally find Mrs. Swan offensive, but some Asians don't. There isn't a line, but Kickingstallionsims doesn't have black colored skin or gold teeth.
be offended all you like. i really don't care. i don't think i said don't be offended...i just said get over it and remember that this type of stereotyping is rampant in the black community and culture towards white people. its not like i am allowed to be offended when black people make jokes about white people or say its bad to act "white". so like i said get over it and move on.
I am black and when I was eight my father took me and my two brothers to see Soul Man. Ron Reagan Jr was in it, he and another guy were in a gym choosing people for a pickup basketball game and they were both fighting over who would get C. Thomas Howell's "black" character on their team. Then he goes out, plays basketball and he sucks at it. (Denzel Washington had a similar scene in "Carbon Copy," his early '80s masterpiece with George Segal). There was also a very funny scene with Julia Louis-Dreyfus, where C.Thomas's character pretends to be deaf, but I digress. The stereotypes presented in Soul Man were done in a way that very clearly showed them as flawed. The whites who made negative assumptions were chastized (Arye Gross with the landlord, I think) or shown to be incorrect, the two whites who made black jokes were (unjustly) physically assaulted even though they apologized every time they were caught making these jokes. When C. Thomas spoke as a black person, he still used his normal voice, he did not affect a stereotypical black patois. At the very end, he acknowledged that being black was difficult and that he was lucky that he could change back if he didn't like it. I did not watch White Chicks out of sheer disgust, but the few things I gather from it present a very different scenario. The two white chicks that S & M Wayans play are named the Hinton sisters, an obvious dig at the Hiltons which simultaneously presumes that all 105,000,000 white females in this country are wealthy, dumb and spoiled. There is no underlying social or political message here as there was in Soul Man (which was presumably overlooked because of its implied objection to affirmative action), the sole (and failed) purpose of this movie is to somehow justify the resentment and envy that we blacks, even wealthy, successful ones like the Wayans, have for white America. That having been said, these girls are scholarship athletes, ie paid public representatives, for a University. And who do Universities market themselves to more than anyone else? Future students, ie impressionable children. In the damn South. Should they decide to don blackface and dress up like specific black people, in the South, they probably shouldn't be wearing the clothes of their school (ie employer) or accessorize the costume with gold teeth, or take pictures standing next to caucasians giving goofy black gang-signs and they should probably choose a shade lighter than Obsidian Cobalt Tar. By the way, if those girls are like any of the people I went to elementary, junior high or high school with only 9 years ago, in the South, then they knew exactly what the f*** they were doing.
Great post, thanks for that. The whole premise about "where is the outrage for White Chicks," as if a piss-poor Wayans Brothers movie is gives a blank check for whites to (re-)open season on nasty racist humor is a real stretch. As if there has been no context for Americans - not just blacks, but all Americans who are offended at systemic exploitation on the basis of skin color (or explotiation al all...) - to be somewhat sensitive to white people in a position of priveledge and power de-humanizing blacks / native americans as they plunder their humanity for profit and gain. It's gross, and Americans - espeically white ones - need to accept that blemish, be humble about it, repair what can be repaired, and understand it. Not fixate on it, not feel personally judged by it, but understand it and do the damn right thing. Dressing up in blackface does not indicate someone is "getting it." Quite the opposite. Whoever from earlier in this thread was going to dress up as Morris Day - now, look, that is a good call. Morris Day = Funny. But going in black makeup does not necessarily mean you hate black people based on their skin color - but it does mean you are pretty damn insensitive to the history of black americans, who were freaking mocked with white people in makeup using their complicated plight as fodder for evening entertainment. While their families were crushed under inhumane economic, social, political and educational injustices, much of white america was laughing. At them.
