Here's What Racism Looks Like: Albom v James

Now, I wasn't going to post about Lebron James's Q-scores because it's sooo talked about in so many other places, including here at Racism Review. I didn't think, and still don't think, I had anything particularly unique to add to this discuss aside from co-signing a few others who had written about it. Though, I really love this insight:

A few weeks ago, airport-hopping while on vacation, I saw at least a half dozen Miami Heat, LeBron No. 6 jerseys -- all worn by black men. Given today's anti-LeBron climate, rocking his jersey is a fairly defiant act. It says, "Screw the rest of these folks, LeBron, I'm riding with you, homeboy." It might seem as if LeBron is on an island, right now, but something tells me he knows he's not alone.

Oh, Yeah. Yele Haiti

You probably heard that Wyclef Jean's nonprofit Yele can under "fiscal scrutiny." You may have even seen him cry on Oprah. What you probably haven't heard, cause I didn't until I googled just to be sure, is that with the exception of lack of discipline in filing tax returns, there's no cause for concern.

So feel free to donate to Yele. I just did.

Back to the Drawing Board. Seriously.

According to an article in the New York Times, college degrees aren't helping black men find jobs. "Well, No1KState, everybody's struggling now." At a ratio of 8.4 to 4.4 for black men with college degrees to white men with college degrees?

The administrators at racismreview noted that the article failed to explicitly say white hiring managers had a problem with black job applicants. The closest Michael Luo came to blaming white people was quoting stories like this one:

Mr. Williams recently applied to a Dallas money management firm that had posted a position with top business schools. The hiring manager had seemed ecstatic to hear from him, telling him they had trouble getting people from prestigious business schools to move to the area. Mr. Williams had left New York and moved back in with his parents in Dallas to save money.

But when Mr. Williams later met two men from the firm for lunch, he said they appeared stunned when he strolled up to introduce himself.

“Their eyes kind of hit the ceiling a bit,” he said. “It was kind of quiet for about 45 seconds.”

The company’s interest in him quickly cooled, setting off the inevitable questions in his mind.

Mr. Johnny R Williams has JPMorgan Chase and an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago on his résumé.

I'm not really surprised Luo fails to acknowledge that if companies were excited about a particular job applicant until they see him, then the problem is with the interviewers, not the applicant. After all, have you listened to the way people talk about slavery? Almost as though the country just had black slaves running around with no white slaveowners. As for today, this whole problem that black men with amazing resumes are having a harder time finding jobs than white men isn't white people's fault. After all,

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

And plus,

There is also the matter of how many jobs, especially higher-level ones, are never even posted and depend on word-of-mouth and informal networks, in many cases leaving blacks at a disadvantage. A recent study published in the academic journal Social Problems found that white males receive substantially more job leads for high-level supervisory positions than women and members of minorities.

See? None of this alleged "discrimination" has anything at all to do with some supposed racist conspiracy white people have against black men with degrees from Yale and MBAs from the University of Chicago. No! White employers would love to hire more Morehouse me, but

. . . [they simply gravite] toward similar people, casting about for the right “cultural fit,” a buzzword often heard in corporate circles.

After all,

they conceded, there are times when their race can be beneficial, particularly with companies that have diversity programs. But many said they sensed that such opportunities had been cut back over the years and even more during the downturn. Others speculated there was now more of a tendency to deem diversity unnecessary after Mr. Obama’s triumph.

In fact, whether Mr. Obama’s election has been good or bad for their job prospects is hotly debated. Several interviewed went so far as to say that they believed there was only so much progress that many in the country could take, and that there was now a backlash against blacks.

Now that you've gotten the basic gist of the article, I can share my true feelings. Of course, I absolutely agree with the "blacklash" theory. Also, are we really gonna consider being black "beneficial" just because some company has realized they've already met the quota for white men? Cause actually, diversity improves performance and profits.

And what the hell is "cultural fit" and doesn't it already raise a red flag?

Essentially, the phrase refers to an employee or applicant who shares the employer's business attitudes, values, goals, and overall view of how the particular business should be run. Every workplace has a style that is reflected in the way its employees act and dress; how they deal with clients, customers, and each other; and how they comport themselves in the larger work world.

I found another definition/explanation here:

In the work setting, lack of fit between an employee and an organization can be described as culture clash. Culture encompasses the shared, taken-for-granted assumptions that a group has learned throughout its history -- values held in common that extend beyond the framed mission statement hanging in the lobby. It includes the following:

 Work style -- the way work is done.

• Team orientation -- hierarchical versus egalitarian.  
• Management style -- collaborative or commanding. 
• Customer orientation -- a nuisance as opposed to reason for being.  
• Political style -- the importance of what you know versus who you know.  
• Attitudes toward things like learning and risk taking.  

Lack of cultural fit is largely due to a misguided hiring process supported by ineffective execution. Even the best-intentioned organizations - those that focus on competencies and relevant behaviors, in addition to education and experience -- frequently don't assess the issue of cultural fit accurately. Failure to do this minimizes the likelihood of arriving at a successful match.

So how does this play out in real life terms? Let's take a look at one of Harvard's Baker Scholars (awarded only to the top students of the MBA graduate class), a black man named James who kept being rejected because he wasn't the white, oh, I mean, right cultural fit. His race wasn't necessarily the problem.

He mentioned, for instance, that he was extremely fastidious in his working style, and would stay long hours to ensure that he always produced work of the highest quality. Admirable within some companies, perhaps, but others might see it as being detrimental to team spirit if James were not able to prioritise, or to relax once in a while if the work he was doing at the time wasn’t critical.

He also mentioned that he liked to take initiative and present the people around him with highly-polished work. But if the organisation was used to getting everyone involved in the problem so that the solution was jointly developed, would James accommodate this or not?

So, although the recruiter could be more helpful to James in the feedback which is given to him, there is nothing underhand going on. In fact, the recruiter is working in James’s interests to ensure that he does not join a firm where he will not fit in and excel.

So black men, here's some job advice, based mostly on what I've laid out and in the spirit of this particular post (Which I hope you realize is mostly sarcasm . . . about the reasons for the disparity in employment between black male college grads and white male college grads, not the disparity itself.).Don't demonstrate initiative.

1. Don't be so committed to high-quality work that you stay extra hours on the job making sure you get things just right.
2. Send a white guy as a stand-in for your interviews and talk into his ear using blue-tooth.
3. Use initials if you have an ethnic name.
4. Don't mention any awards you've received or organizations you've joined as a high achieving minority.
5. And if all else fells, don't get a college degree. Particularly one from a prominent university.

James became neither an investment banker nor a consultant. The deeper he looked into those careers, the more he realised himself that he would not succeed. He is now a teacher just outside of Chicago where he is able to develop young minds. And Lord knows we need more black male teachers!

No, sarcasm aside, we really do need more black male teachers in our public schools. But I'm not sure I'm okay with black men going into teaching as a last resort. What are we supposed to tell our kids? You can be anything you want, just stay in your place? Cause no matter how much you accomplish, you can still be arrested in or protested against in your own home.

And You Say Obama Has an Ego?

Yeah, gotta admit, after getting myself excited about the incredibly spectacular debacle a Rush owned team would be, I was disappointed that the whole thing fizzled out. I suppose I should be glad that racism has been rejected, and I am. Yeah, I am.

Plus, RushBo's response makes up for it a lot! (Sorry about the picture. That was not under my control.) Now, my next post should be a little more serious. But since I wrote on the issue in Ram Rush, I feel like I'm obligated to write about the conclusion. So anyway, back to your regularly scheduled program:

Limbaugh blamed DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the NFLPA, whom he called an "Obama-ite," and the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, whom he referred to as "race hustlers," for Checketts' decision a day earlier to drop him. He said his sacking was an example of the political clout wielded by the Obama administration.

Yeah. The ignorance he blathers had nothing to do with it.

"What is happening to the National Football League, what is about to happen to it, has already happened to Wall Street, has already happened to the automobile business," Limbaugh said.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and main street and unemployment numbers aside; didn't the DOW close over 10,000 for the first time in months this week? And did I miss something? When did the NFL get a bailout?

Limbaugh said he's "lost nothing" over the episode and vowed to continue being the "biggest non-paid promoter of the sport."

"On the other hand, our country has lost a great deal. A lot more than most people realize at the moment," Limbaugh said.

That's just laughable! Whatever we "lost," I'm glad we've lost "it." We should've never had "it." Setting "it" aside, wow. 8-o Wasn't aware Limbaugh was such a major player in American history. Really surprising seeing that he's not the head of the RNC or the Republican Party. Allegedly.

Lastly, "Limbaugh said the real reason he's out is the NFLPA's attempt to influence negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement."  If that's true, that makes me happy. The player contracts and the pension and healthcare ex-players receive suck.

My Thoughts On Bobby Jindal Response to Pres. Obama Address to Congress

Sorry I haven't written in the last few days. I've been CFS tired.

That said, I'm really not going to write a lot today. I'll point out that while Rupert Murdoch's apology was one of those, "I'm sorry you misunderstood what I was saying even though it should've been plain so I'm not really sorry," apologies, he was forced to make some effort at amends, and that's something.

And before we get to a response to Jindal's speech, I wanna point out two things. First, here's a quote from Jindal: "You know, a few weeks ago, the president warned that our country is facing a crisis that he said, in quotes, "we may not be able to reverse." " I italicized what's important to notice.

Now, Obama does used those words twice. Once in a speech as president-elect on January 8, 2009:

It is time to set a new course for this economy, and that change must begin now. We should have an open and honest discussion about this recovery plan in the days ahead, but I urge Congress to move as quickly as possible on behalf of the American people. For every day we wait or point fingers or drag our feet, more Americans will lose their jobs. More families will lose their savings. More dreams will be deferred and denied. And our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

Again, I italicized the pertinent words. He also repeated those words on Febuary 5, 2009 in a Washington Post op-ed, with the pertinent words again italicized:

Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

So you see, Obama meant nothing like what Jindal portrayed. And I find Jindal's purposeful misquoting of Obama despicable. Which reminds me, I'll probaby do a post about how I find Tom Delay despicable as well. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

And oh! I did like Obama's address to Congress.

Second, read this:

Issuing a news release pointing out that Jindal's first name is Piyush, which the state Democratic Party did last week, removed the racist label from the Republican Party and placed it clearly on the backs of the Democrats.

Sam Hanna, Jr, the author of those words, couldn't be more wrong. And I'll tell you why. The Republicans were trying to scare people by touting Obama's middle name Hussein. Also, Obama was fairly open about his middle name. No more or less open than we'd expect anyone else to be. No one went around talking about John Sidney McCain.

The problem that Bobby Jindal's first name is Piyush is that he's obviously fully assimilated into white America, casting his Indian heritage aside. Obama stuck to his given name, even going from "Barry" to "Barack" as he started his journey into manhood. Moreover, the name "Piyush" is perfectly neutral, having no similarities to some other figure Americans are supposed to hate, fear, and/or despise. But as usual, Republicans/racists after try to deny their own faults by mischaracterizing what they see in others. Their incapability to think abstractly would be amusing if they didn't have such influence on the lives of others.

Now, this, with a hat tip to Prometheus6, just about sums up my feelings of Jindal's response to Obama address to a joint session of Congress:

Paul Krugman
Conscience of a Liberal
New York Times
February 25, 2009, 11:08 am

What should government do? A Jindal meditation
What is the appropriate role of government?

Traditionally, the division between conservatives and liberals has been over the role and size of the welfare state: liberals think that the government should play a large role in sanding off the market economy’s rough edges, conservatives believe that time and chance happen to us all, and that’s that.

But both sides, I thought, agreed that the government should provide public goods — goods that are nonrival (they benefit everyone) and nonexcludable (there’s no way to restrict the benefits to people who pay.) The classic examples are things like lighthouses and national defense, but there are many others. For example, knowing when a volcano is likely to erupt can save many lives; but there’s no private incentive to spend money on monitoring, since even people who didn’t contribute to maintaining the monitoring system can still benefit from the warning. So that’s the sort of activity that should be undertaken by government.

So what did Bobby Jindal choose to ridicule in this response to Obama last night? Volcano monitoring, of course.

And leaving aside the chutzpah of casting the failure of his own party’s governance as proof that government can’t work, does he really think that the response to natural disasters like Katrina is best undertaken by uncoordinated private action? Hey, why bother having an army? Let’s just rely on self-defense by armed citizens.

The intellectual incoherence is stunning. Basically, the political philosophy of the GOP right now seems to consist of snickering at stuff that they think sounds funny. The party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead.

How Racism Works

I graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The one and only Carolina. I'm Tarheel born and Tarheel bred.

And I. Hate. Duke.

Hate. Duke.

I can't stress that enough. Sure, I have friends who graduated from Duke. A friend of mine is working on a doctorate degree from Duke. I may even attend Duke's grad school myself. But let me be clear.

I. Hate. Dook.

Hate'em. Hate'em. Hate'em.

It doesn't take much to rouse my hatred. Just hearing the word "Duke" pushes my buttons. Just seeing the image of a blue devil makes me wretch a little.

A lot of the time, all it takes is for me to see that deplorable Duke blue.

I can be somewhere talking about something else, say, men in general. The new pieces of eye-candy on prime time TV. I hate Gary Dourdan was killed off CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. But I love that Hill Harper is on CSI: New York. He is delicious! And what can I say about Shemar Moore other than gorgeous.

Then, as soon as I see that dook blue, whether it was a car that drove by or just a passer-by, my. skin. crawls.

Because I. Hate. Dook.

And what's funny is that I used to be a Duke fan. I used to think that Dean Smith's teams were excessively cocky and cheered anytime they got beat. Then it came time to apply for college. I applied for Carolina after a campus visit. The campus felt like home. I decided not to apply for Duke after I saw their thick application. Duke wanted to know too much. My response was, "Mind your own business." It only took a few months at Carolina to come to hate. Dook.

Now, here's how racism works. First of all, we've been steeped in white supremacy in America for centuries. It doesn't take long for European and Asian immigrants to learn that African Americans are socially a level beneath. Even immigrants from Africa and the Caribbeans know to keep their distance from American blacks. Right?

And there are lies and myths about African Americans that have been around for centuries. We're lazy. We're insolent. We hate "whitey." We're wasteful. Because of affirmative action, we get things we don't deserve. We complain. We're liars. We're cunning. By the same token, we can be easily fooled. We're easily scared. And even though we have amazing rhetorical skills, that's all we have: rhetorical skills. There's not much backing up the bluster. We're irresponsible, whether that comes to work or family. Then there're the contradictory myths of the scary black beast and the weak black "boy."

Historically, military leaders have been reticent to put African Americans at the front lines of war, believing we'd be too scared to fight. Even during the Civil War where we had the most to lose or gain. Every since then, our "love of the country" has been questioned.

But, historically, the trait white Americans have been loathed to see in African Americans is self-sufficiency. Independent black folks have historically been hated and feared. As much as some members of mainstream America complain about the amount of government assistance African Americans receive, mainstream America just doesn't know how to deal with a black person who's not accountable to some white person, preferably a white man. Read a history book. Check out some of the more recent, accurate scholarship on racial history from post-slavery to the 1950s. Most of the black men who were lynched hadn't committed any crime aside from running successful businesses. Educated black people who spoke eloquently were labeled "uppity" and were seen as definitely "out of their place."

So, what's my point? How does racism works?

It works kinda like my disdain for Duke. No one has to say, "Don't vote for Obama because he's black." Just look at him. You know he's black. John McCain doesn't have to point out that Obama doesn't look like any other person on the dollar bill to run a racist campaign. He just has to use code words. Then, when Obama tries to bring racism to the sunlight, McCain can cry "race card" as though he, McCain, is the victim.

So what do they say to be racist? They say, "Look, he's presumptuous," walking around Europe like he's already won the presidency. They say, "Look, you don't know that much about him." Cause you can never know too much about black people. (Oh, and in the past, is was seen as white people's duty to know everything about any particular black person.) They question his patriotism. I've heard/read comments about how he's an "empty suit" and how he "just tricking, cunning voters." All these are negative traits that are historically attached to blackness.

That's part of the reason Barack Obama is running from blackness in some ways. That's why he couldn't risk seconding the truth Jeremiah Wright told about America. That's why he had to reject an endorsement from Louis Farrakhan that he didn't even ask for!

They even accuse him of "elitism." A black man in America an elitist?! Take a moment to consider the facts. Black men are more likely to be in prison than college. Even for equal experience and education, they earn less than white men. The unemployment rate for black men is about twice that of the unemployment rate for the general population. Obama's the only black person in the Senate. He attended ivy league schools for both undergrad and law school. And while "ivy league" may be off-putting to people who weren't accepted, do you really know anyone who could go to such a school and wouldn't? And would you call that person an elitist or extraordinarily smart?

Now, let me be clear. It is not the case that any and every criticism of Obama comes down to racism. If you really think taxes should be low for wealthy people, that government should be privatized, that the Iraq Occupation is going great, those are all non-racist criticisms of Obama.

But if you're issue is that he's an "empty suit" or "all talk, no action," which just isn't true; you haven't been listening; that's based on racism. That's what McCain's "celebrity" attack ads are about - black people can be famous, but never serious. And make no mistake about it, black people can be racist against other black people, too. That's why Joe Watkins is always shucking and jiving, shilling for the Republican Party even if he has to lie and deceive himself. (And let me say here, my criticism of Joe Watkins, who happens to be a pastor, isn't that he's not fallen in line with black America, but that he's lying and being deceptive to the disadvantage of black America. If his criticisms were based on policy and not deception, I wouldn't be mentioning him. And while I'm on Republican shillers, Brad Blakely is an imbeccile.)

But the criticism that is most racist is the notion that he's "presumptuous" or "arrogant." I didn't hear such criticisms about Hillary Clinton while she continued to run a primary campaign even after it was clear she'd lost. I still don't hear such criticisms about either Clintons even now while they dominate the convention and refuse to get their supporters under control.

And even after John McCain upstaged the president by making a statement about the Georgia/Russia conflict before Bush did, I don't remember much criticism about his presumption or arrogance. I heard a few comments that by sending his own delegation to Georgia, he was coming close to upstaging the president in an unattractive manner. But nothing about presumption.

If you're accusing Obama of elitism on the bases of his eating arugula and shopping at Whole Foods . . . you're just delusional.

If you're afraid that he's gonna sign an executive order demanding all white Americans everyday give a black person $100 bucks, you're just racist.

So, here's some advice to help you be sure you're views of Barack Obama aren't marred by racism. Cause quite frankly, mainstream/white America, you've never been clairvoyant at recognizing racism even when it knocked on your door wearing a "I hate darkie" t-shirt, holding a noose, and introducing itself as racism.

First of all, keep your critique to policy. There's nothing racist about a policy disagreement. Second of all, keep your critique based on truth and facts. Obama's vote for the FISA act was not a flip-flop. All along, he's said he's about compromise and getting things down.

And finally, before you voice your criticism of Obama or except someone else's, ask yourself and others, "Would we be criticising him for that if he were white?"

To make my point about the racially-biased difference in descibing people as "presumptuous," Jon Stewart.

John McLiar

Update #2: Here's Bob Herbert going off on the McCain campaign. Er . . . uh . . . whoa.

You knew something was up back in March when, in his first ad of the general
campaign, Mr. McCain had himself touted as “the American president Americans
have been waiting for.”

Oh, there's more.

Update: The NY Times editorial board takes McCain to task and brings up an issue I hadn't even considered. The first time we hear of the "race card" being played from the "bottom of the deck"? . . . OJ Simpson. How's that for playing the "race card"?

John McCain, in a press conference today, said that he didn't bring up race in the campaign, that Barack Obama did. I disagree, but that's not the lie I'm referring to. The lie I'm referring to is McCain's insistence that Obama retracted the comments that started the debate. Obama hasn't. And he shouldn't.

There're also some dillusional comments McCain makes about his running a respectful campaign. Here's a pretty good assessment of the issue:

From TPM Election Central -

McCain: Our Campaign Isn't "Negative In The Slightest"
By Greg Sargent - August 1, 2008, 4:38PM

John McCain just held a presser in Florida. Here are the, er, high points:

• Said "I don't think our campaign is negative in the slightest." There are negative McCain ads running as we speak, and in the very same presser, he attacked Obama for injecting race into the campaign again.

• Blamed Obama for bringing up the issue of race in the campaign, and repeatedly said that Obama had "retracted" his charge that McCain is using race. It was obvious by the repetition of "retracted" that this was a cooked up talking point, and it was apparently a reference to the fact that the Obama campaign said it didn't think McCain had used race in the campaign.

But this wasn't a "retraction" at all: The Obama camp hasn't conceded he said that in the first place.

• Said he wants to move on from the race debate. But his campaign manager Rick Davis aggressively attacked Obama for allegedly playing the race card just today.

• Described a new Web ad implying that Obama believes he's the Messiah as "having some fun."
Is it happy hour yet?

Obama responding to the issue, "There was nobody there who thought at all that I was trying to inject race in this."

What a Joke!

Update: I was just reminded of John McCain's "The American President Americans Have Been Waiting" for ad. Others think McCain's "Celeb" ad plays the race card. And also, since I'm a fan, here's Tim Wise on "the race card." And for the record, I agree with Wise's assessment.


A day after Democratic candidate Barack Obama warned that Republican rival John McCain would to tell voters "he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills," McCain's campaign on Thursday accused Obama of playing racial politics.

Obama "played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck," McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said in a statement. He called Obama's remarks "divisive, negative, shameful and wrong."

Let me say after the last few attack ads from the McCain campaign, Rick Davis is embarrassing himself with this. Now, McCain has practically accused Obama of treason, has said Obama is too inexperienced, has compared him to celebrity airheads, has said Obama would raise taxes on electricity and wanted to import more foreign oil. McCain accused Obama of snubbing the troops and of being an "elitist," whatever that means. McCain challenged Obama to travel around the world, then complained when Obama did. McCain accuses Obama of being wrong on national security, then co-opts Obama's ideas.

So, if I were Rick Davis - and we can't be sure he or McCain, or who for the matter, speaks for the McCain campaign - I'd worry less about the particulars of what negative attacks McCain has made. The fact is, millions of Americans are worried about Obama's blackness and his name, and the Republican news outlet, Fox, is always bringing it up. McCain has flip-flopped over affirmative action, an issue certainly covered in concerns of race. And let's be clear, a lot of McCain criticisms, especially the lack of personal regard and the whole idea of teaching Obama, seem to be coming from a less than "color-blind" place.

The McCain campaign is also arguing that they're just responding tick-for-tack to accusations coming from Obama. Personally, I'd like to see what attacks Obama has made of McCain that are so shallow and untrue as what McCain has been saying about Obama. I'll not hold my breath.
So, quit joking Davis, and run a serious campaign.