Yeah... none of those points actually matter however.

Reason being... the studies factor out anything EXCEPT credentals.  They are ONLY using race as an indicator.  None of it is based on anything except level of qualification for a job.

In the end I CAN prove which country is the most racist.  The one where 90% of all hiring has resulted in racism.

The US is more free then any other country about racism.  There is no "unexpressed hatred"  That's the point.   The US allows MORE free speech not less.

I swear... I don't think most of you even know what Affirmitive Action really is, you treat it as if it's some big overwhelming law where people go from buisness to buisness counting minorities.

Affrimitive Action is nothing but 3 things more or less.

1) Common equality laws.

2) It allows colleges to let in underpriviliged students of a minority if they want too.  Why would they want to when your output of students effects your reputation?  Multiculutral campuses tend to perfrom better...  The smarter white children actually learn more when exposed to people of other races.

3) It allows public service jobs to put in quota's so the public service jobs are representative.  Again this makes sense...  I mean, think about your own country... say some Muslim youths are loitering in one of their suburbs infront of a store... who are they going to reaact to more negativly?  A white cop, or an Arab cop.

No country is "postracial" yet.  Which is why it's important to have the police and other public service workers represent their communities.  So there is less "they came late because of our neighborhood" or  "They're only hassling us because of our race."

Answer me this:

1- What about the poor, under-qualified white people in US? They're the ones getting hurt the most about your Affirmitive Action!

2- Why should the white portuguese have less benefits than other racial minorities?

3- Since the white portuguese were enslaved by muslims before, do they deserve to have more benefits than muslims, or less?!

So, let me get this straight.  You are blaming France's problem with not employing French-born ethnic-Africans to not doing well in school or turning to drugs and violence.  I'm sorry, but you aren't slipping out of this one.  Are you saying that your French intitutions GRADUATE drug addicts and those that do poorly in school?

Also, you don't attack discrimination at all.  France won't take employment statistics by itself for ethnicities.  So, how are you attacking the problem?  The French government completely ignores the problem altogether.  Sure, racism is against the law, but if you say "It's against the law so it doesn't happen" you are fooling yourself.  Law is nothing without enforcement.  At the job level, France does jack shit to enforce the law.

From experience, I have never worked with any non-white person in this state that has thought that they got their job through Affirmitive Action, but I know outside of California, the racial divide can be much wider.  Where it is most prevelant is in our colleges.  While I am not a big fan of it, overall, we take the steps to see how our immigrants, minorities, and economic minorities (where they are a majority, but not performing at the same level as whites) are doing.  We collect statistics and these statistics influence policy.  France does none of this.  Many French, like you, waited until you had massive student riots before you even considered there might be a problem.  Clearly, those were not even an indicator to you.  France has a law against being racist and that's just fine with you, even though you don't bother to see if it's ever enforced.

I give that post a 9.2.

Thanks guys for taking out the ridiculously huge quote nest. 

@ libellue:  Minnesota is more like France with white population and large recent black Muslim immigration.  I think we're dealing with it pretty well; I'd bet on my state against France any day of the week. 

1)  Once again... did you even read what Affirmitive Action is?  This isn't a problem.  A very SMALL amount of people are getting "hurt" to the benefit of everyone except those few small people, since having people of a different minority provides benefits for white students in the colleges, and having a more diverse police force means more respect for the police.  And you know... the statistics already PROVE YOU WRONG.  Without affirmitive action, poor white people would have an advantage over poor black people.  The fact that statistically we are better off then you pretty much proves without a doubt that white poor people AREN'T being hurt... they are having some, but not all of the benefit they hold of being white countered for.

2) They don't.  When all things are treated equally by the government... White portugese have MORE benefits than anybody else.  White Portugese aren't a racial minority.  The Majority gains advantages simply from being the majority.  Take a simple sociology class.

3) Neither.  In Portugal, there should be laws protecting the muslims from racism.  In majority arab countries there should be laws protecting white people. 

I mean... I'll go with some Sociology 1001 here for your guys benefit so you understand where I'm coming from.

In societies where one ethnic group has either been in power for a long time, or is the majority or both....

That Majority is seen as the Default. All others are seen as Deviations from the default. Deviations from the Default have built in negative advantages.


For example, in Portugal if you were to ask kids that are only 3 or 4. "Point to the smart kid" in line of kids drawn exactly the same but with different shades of race. They will pick the white kid.

It's the same with "Point to the good child" and "Point to the child you would like to be friends with."

For "Point to the dumb kid" "Point to the kid who gets in trouble and point to the child you don't like" They will all point to the darker skinned children.

This is in any country that is majority white or has recently broken free from colonialism.

Important note... you get the same results if you test minority children. You take an Arab Portuguese person... and the smart child is white, the dumb child is their colour... etc.

This is built in at such a young age, and it's unavoidable due to just how society works no matter how careful a parent you are.

The same is true for young children and even adults.

When asked to quickly identify traits with pictures of people... even the people who know it's coming, tend to ALWAYS place the positive traits with whites, and the negative traits with the minorities even minority people who take the test! These could be well dressed people and poorly dressed white people, and it doesn't matter.

Given two people with relatively even resumes... people pretty much always go for the Default. Being the "Default" race (and sex) gives you an inherent advantage even among benign "non racist" people. Unless well educated about it, few people even notice that they subconsciously make such choices every day. It takes someone who is aware of these biases to be able to overcome them.

That's in an ideal "non-racist" society. Let alone the real world societies we live in today where people exist who are actually honest to god racists.

Which is the problem with France's "see no evil, hear no evil" stance, I'm guessing. 

Yeah. 

I mean... sociologically speaking, the quickest way to get rid of racism... or rather minimize it, since you are never going to completely get rid of it is to inform and educate and allow the system to take hold by nuturing special interest groups.

It tends to be better then making laws, like affirmitive action because it allows attitudes to change quicker...

but a situation like France's just leads to aruin.   You both get the mild negative affects of laws along with there being no mechanisms to actually enforce the laws, since you can't really provide ethnicity data and it's VERY hard to prove racial discrimination anyway. 

That's why race seems to lead to discrimination in upwords to 90% of job searches there.

Heck, even people away of said biases may end up making a racist decision in todays enviroment.  I mean, say your a manager of an office or chain store or something, and you have a choice between a white guy and an arab guy who is more qualfied.

You suspect a long standing member or maybe even 2 or 3 are racist against arab people.   Chances are you may hire the white guy just to keep "workplace peace."   I mean, why take the risk?

If you hire the Arab guy and the racist guys get in a fight with him, or he sends in complaints about their racism, you have to fire them... whatever, any complaint that heads up corporates way makes you look bad and hurts your job. 

Better to play it safe with the White guy.  You make a decision that's rational but unfair.