White House WHITE interns

[Sparko]

simply virtually all are white except maybe one. Your trying to desperately defend the racism of Trump's administration

So do you think Trump has any actual input on the choice of interns or would want to?

[Bill the Cat]

Please keep you overt obvious racism to yourself. . .

I'm the one saying skin color doesn't matter...

[carpedm9587]

Exactly! You looked at a picture of Trump's cabinet, noticed they were predominantly white males, and concluded they were not "diverse" because you didn't see enough people with the "right" skin color.

I posted the pictures, MM. I know more about the cabinets than mere imagery.

Deny it all you want, but you're a textbook bigot who focuses on race above all else and doesn't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys about genuine diversity.

I deny nothing except the claim that I said only racial diversity matters. In this case, however, I believe racial, ethnic, and gender diversity is important, for the reasons cited. I have to admit that I find it amazing that the right seems to be attempting to say, "noting that people of other races, ethnicities, and genders are being excluded is a racist act." It is a peculiar line of reasoning.

I work with a number of middle aged, middle class white males, and we could not be more diverse. Ask any ten of us for an opinion about something, and you'll get ten different answers. This idea that whites walk in lockstep with each other is a racist lie.

I never said whites "walk in step with one another." You keep adding things to my posts I di dnot put there, and then batting them down. MM, those are strawmen arguments. If you stick with what I've actually said, the conversation can proceed along more rational lines.

[carpedm9587]

Trump could have appointed all blacks to his cabinet, and people would still accuse him of only doing it so people won't call him racist.

Damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

This is a form of "coulda been" that is a pointless discussion. You are making a statement you cannot show to be true, and any denial I make cannot be shown to be true. The discussion goes nowhere.

[carpedm9587]

Doesn't that strike you as you having it both ways?

>>Trump's a racist - he only hires white people

** But he has a black person in his cabinet

>> He's only hiring that person so he can deny he's a racist.

No - not both ways. Trump has a long history of saying things and doing things that give him "wiggle room." Having two women and one black man is a form of tokenism, and it gives him a way to say, "see, I'm not racist." The extremely white/male nature of his cabinet, out of line with both the population and the history of his predecessors says otherwise. The long history of his racist comments and actions further attests to the problem.

[carpedm9587]

For someone who likes to pretend to be civil and be against insults and such you are surprisingly good at it, in a passive aggressive way. I think I will call that "pulling a Carp"

I presume you're referring to the "doing a Sparko" part of the post? Sparko, there is a long history of you telling me what I think and what my intentions are. I've pointed it out several times, and you continually insist you know better. Why not call it what it is? However, if you find it objectionable, I will stop, and I apologize.

And you cannot use "pulling a Carp" because that has already been reserved (by you and others) for my tendency to say "last word is yours" and then add another post...

[carpedm9587]

I'm the one saying skin color doesn't matter...

We are actually not there yet. Skin color still DOES matter, and to ignore that perpetuates the problem.

I am the father of two African American boys. This has been a source of regular tension in our home between my wife and I. Her uncle bought the boys a subscription to "Black Enterprise." My response was to note I did not want that magazine in my house. When asked why, I asked them how everyone in the house would feel if the title were "white enterprise" and every cover had a picture of white people. When Obama was first elected, my boys and my wife were dancing in the living room. I wasn't. When my 9-year old asked me why I wasn't dancing with them, my response was "I'm going to wait until the day comes that a black person is elected, and nobody notices." I hate affirmative action because it is a racial solution to a racial problem - picking people by skin color and ethnicity to reverse a history of picking people by skin color and ethnicity just reverses the problem, it does not solve it.

But that is not the situation with the cabinet. I am not talking about "giving opportunity" or "making it fair." I am talking about the hard reality that growing up and living in America is a different experience for women than for men. It is a different experience for a black person than a white one. It is a different experience for a hispanic than an Asian person. A cabinet that will be leading agencies that serve these people, and will be advising the president as the highest council in the land, should represent that diversity as long as it exists. When the life of a black person and a white person in America is not different, the races of the cabinet members will not matter. When the experiences of a woman and a man in America are not different, the gender of the cabinet members will not matter.

Until those things are true, however, simply saying "race/gender/ethnicity" don't matter and turning a blind eye to a council so blatantly skewed simply perpetuates the problem. It ensures that the advise given will be predominantly from one perspective: the life of a wealthy, white, male American citizen.

[Sparko]

I presume you're referring to the "doing a Sparko" part of the post? Sparko, there is a long history of you telling me what I think and what my intentions are. I've pointed it out several times, and you continually insist you know better. Why not call it what it is? However, if you find it objectionable, I will stop, and I apologize.

And you cannot use "pulling a Carp" because that has already been reserved (by you and others) for my tendency to say "last word is yours" and then add another post...

You seem to have an equal tendency to mine of mind reading.

My powers seem confirmed by others though who also think you are saying the same things as I do.

[MaxVel]

We are actually not there yet. Skin color still DOES matter, and to ignore that perpetuates the problem.

I am the father of two African American boys. This has been a source of regular tension in our home between my wife and I. Her uncle bought the boys a subscription to "Black Enterprise." My response was to note I did not want that magazine in my house. When asked why, I asked them how everyone in the house would feel if the title were "white enterprise" and every cover had a picture of white people. When Obama was first elected, my boys and my wife were dancing in the living room. I wasn't. When my 9-year old asked me why I wasn't dancing with them, my response was "I'm going to wait until the day comes that a black person is elected, and nobody notices." I hate affirmative action because it is a racial solution to a racial problem - picking people by skin color and ethnicity to reverse a history of picking people by skin color and ethnicity just reverses the problem, it does not solve it.

With you so far. I think the insistence on making race a focus by some actually contributes to and perpetuates racism.

But that is not the situation with the cabinet. I am not talking about "giving opportunity" or "making it fair." I am talking about the hard reality that growing up and living in America is a different experience for women than for men. It is a different experience for a black person than a white one. It is a different experience for a hispanic than an Asian person. A cabinet that will be leading agencies that serve these people, and will be advising the president as the highest council in the land, should represent that diversity as long as it exists. When the life of a black person and a white person in America is not different, the races of the cabinet members will not matter. When the experiences of a woman and a man in America are not different, the gender of the cabinet members will not matter.

Until those things are true, however, simply saying "race/gender/ethnicity" don't matter and turning a blind eye to a council so blatantly skewed simply perpetuates the problem. It ensures that the advise given will be predominantly from one perspective: the life of a wealthy, white, male American citizen.

There are a host of problems with this, IMHO.

(1) By insisting on measuring someone's ability to hold a position and do a good job by their skin colour, you're doing what you decry above.

(2) Where do we draw the line? What groups are NOT worthy of being represented? Half-Hispanic, half-Asian? Asians born outside America who are now American citizens? Asexual men from Alabama? Mid-west women who were raised by single Dads?

If your criteria is some group having a different lived experience from some other group, well there are thousands, if not millions, of possible groups out there. How can you fairly eliminate

(3) It makes the (racist?) assumption that people can't fairly and competently represent people who are different from them. If they are qualified, have relevant experience, and are willing to listen and learn, I say put them in, regardless of their sex, age or colour.

[carpedm9587]

You seem to have an equal tendency to mine of mind reading.

I have been guilty of doing it now and then. The difference is, when someone points it out, I review and, if that is what I've done, I apologize. That is not my preferred way of interacting. I'd rather know what a person is actually thinking/feeling than tell them.

My powers seem confirmed by others though who also think you are saying the same things as I do.

You are definitely not the only person here who has elected themselves the authority on what Michel thinks/feels/intends. That is true.

[carpedm9587]

With you so far. I think the insistence on making race a focus by some actually contributes to and perpetuates racism.

There are a host of problems with this, IMHO.

(1) By insisting on measuring someone's ability to hold a position and do a good job by their skin colour, you're doing what you decry above.

Since that has nothing to do with what I said, I have no response.

(2) Where do we draw the line? What groups are NOT worthy of being represented? Half-Hispanic, half-Asian? Asians born outside America who are now American citizens? Asexual men from Alabama? Mid-west women who were raised by single Dads?

If your criteria is some group having a different lived experience from some other group, well there are thousands, if not millions, of possible groups out there. How can you fairly eliminate

When you have only 20 faces to work with, there will be limits. And if you work to combine too many factors, you run the risk of creating a pool too narrow to include a qualified person. So you look for the largest segments of the population where the experience of being American shows distinct differences. Today, gender, race, and ethnicity are the three largest factors. Sexual orientation is another that might be considered. Wealth is a difficult one, because it is unlikely that one will find people qualified to hold such a high-powered position in the lowest income levels. The same is true for education. Some factors are simply not practical to do.

However, the fact that we cannot get a "perfect balance" is not an argument for getting as much of a balance as possible.

(3) It makes the (racist?) assumption that people can't fairly and competently represent people who are different from them. If they are qualified, have relevant experience, and are willing to listen and learn, I say put them in, regardless of their sex, age or colour.

Not exactly - it makes the assumption that the best person to represent the life of "Group A" is a person from "Group A," and that anyone outside "Group A" is going to have a diminished capacity to represent that group. So I would not argue that an Atheist is equally capable of representing the needs/life/concerns of Christians as a Christian is. I likewise will not argue that a white man is equally capable of representing the needs/life/concerns of a black woman - so long as our culture still heavily differentiates white from black and man from women. When the lives of these people ARE equivalent, as I noted, the need for such diversity will no longer exist. Until that day, our cabinet should blend members from these groups, so long as a qualified person to hold the position can be found within the group.

[Zymologist]

What would be the appropriate number of black appointees to avoid the charge of tokenism?

[carpedm9587]

What would be the appropriate number of black appointees to avoid the charge of tokenism?

There is no exact answer to that. IMO, Bush and Obama were more reasonably diversified in their appointments, but still not ideal. Trump went the opposite direction, and his inclusion of one black person and two women, given his racist/genderist history, smacks of tokenism. That he denies this is somewhat irrelevant, given his stated position on the appropriateness of lying. When a man tells me he will lie to me if it gets him what he wants, I tend to assume he's lying when what he does is at odds with what he says.

[Mountain Man]

I posted the pictures, MM. I know more about the cabinets than mere imagery.



I deny nothing except the claim that I said only racial diversity matters. In this case, however, I believe racial, ethnic, and gender diversity is important, for the reasons cited. I have to admit that I find it amazing that the right seems to be attempting to say, "noting that people of other races, ethnicities, and genders are being excluded is a racist act." It is a peculiar line of reasoning.



I never said whites "walk in step with one another." You keep adding things to my posts I di dnot put there, and then batting them down. MM, those are strawmen arguments. If you stick with what I've actually said, the conversation can proceed along more rational lines.

I'm not putting words in your mouth or trying to read your mind. I am drawing conclusions based on the logical implications of things you've said. If you don't like the implications of your position then you need to change your position.

[carpedm9587]

I'm not putting words in your mouth or trying to read your mind. I am drawing conclusions based on the logical implications of things you've said. If you don't like the implications of your position then you need to change your position.

You are drawing incorrect conclusions.