Look…we can go round and round on this and there will be no resolution. I understand your difficulty in dealing with and accepting this occurance. It is very hard for a member of an ethnic group to come to grips with things that are out of their control. This is certainly one of them.
Your question regarding if white privilage is simply a stereotype of white america indicates your confusion on the subject. The simple fact remains that you will never come across a sociologist who does not agree in the concept of white privilage or institutionalized racism. The fact still remains that there is an unequal playing field in this country based upon ones race and even gender and stereotypes perpetuate these biases.
And your reason for the heavier punishment for crack has no weight, for if it were the case, than meth (an overwhelmingly predominant white drug) would have a greater punishment.
sociologist have very little understanding of economics and never give the full story(NY Times) on this issue of using ‘race’ with interest rates on loans, etc. i.e. the ‘white privilage’ guilt trip.
atleast do yourself the favor of reading extensive articles on this subject from African-American economist like Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell, who tell the full story such as the all important fact that these studies do not account for such factors as each applicant’s debt burden, credit history, value of collateral, or size of down payment. …or you can dismiss these facts as “uncle Tom” spin.
Again…I state that these instances occur WHEN ALL ECONOMIC FACTORS ARE EQUAL. There have been many studies done on this occurence, as well as a week long story in the wall street journal several years ago. This thinking is not limited to sociologists…
[i]Originally posted by casstommy[/i]@Sep 29 2005, 08:30 AM
[b] I am stating that when all economic factors are equal...blacks will receive higher rates or be denied for loans. There is no justification for this. ANd this is not a couple of isolated incidents either.
[/b]
I have a hard time agreeing with this statment. From a Texas perspective, as someone who personally locks over 80 mortgage loans a month, I can tell you this: There hardly is a case when all things are equal. In this business we don’t discriminate against color, we discriminate against credit worthiness. There are precedents for lending laws in Texas that state that you cannot charge a higher rate or fees against any race unless you are charging more for white males. After we quote a rate, we may get beat up on rate by someone who has a good knowledge and will shop, but not all people are that patient or that informed. If we quote a higher interest rate to someone and make more money off them, it’s not because of their race, but because the loan is too hard to do or because the borrower isn’t beating us up on rate when another is.
Interesting statistic: A recent study actually determined that the worst discriminators against race on interest rates were hispanic women against other hispanics.
as far as I’ve ever seen the “studies” only criteria for ‘economic conditions being equal’ only include income, when there are many other factors that bankers use. if there is a study that includes the many other factors, some of which are plain common sense I’d love to read it.
I think its a little absurd to think bankers are uniquely racist, they are in business to make money and I doubt they would let there racism get in the way of profits.
sorry, but walter williams and thomas sowell and many others get brushed aside as ‘uncle toms’ regularly when they state something that others would just soon dismiss and prefer not to believe. there is prob. a 20% chance the ‘uncle tom’ slander is about to go in full swing on this next SC pick.
in a study the NY Times posted a few years back they didn’t mention but was part of findings that Asians were found to be less likely that whites to hold high interest loans. asians are about 4% of population, a Minority.
[i]Originally posted by casstommy[/i]@Sep 29 2005, 11:32 AM
[b] I don't think there is the implication that ONLY bankers are racists.
Austinniner…that is a great statistic…very interesting…do you know who did that study? [/b]
Don’t know who performed it, but it was brought up in a training class I took for Texas Savings and Loan Compliance when we were covering the issue of discrimination laws. There were 6 hispanic female loan officers in that class and we all had a good chuckle.
[b]Interesting statistic: A recent study actually determined that the worst discriminators against race on interest rates were hispanic women against other hispanics.[/b]
You didn’t capitalize the H in Hispanics. I don’t mean to insinuate you’re a racist. I want to make a point.
I think racism often goes unnoticed. I mean, we all agree that racism exists, right? :unsure:
I think racism is largely subconscious; it’s an aggregate of people’s collective unconscious. The little things add up. –Ask yourself, would you have automatically capitalized the word Americans? I would have. And I probably wouldn’t have thought to capitalize hispanics. (The spell checker caught it.)
Does it matter? I think so. (Not the capitalizations themselves, Ninerone.) What matters is recognizing that there’s no such thing as objectivity. That, like it or not, our behaviors are highly influenced by our experiences, our pasts.
(The way we see determines how we behave, which influences what we get. Every one of us sees the world through cultural lenses. There are no exceptions.)
[b] good catch, but is it discrimination if I fail to capitalize the first letter in "white" or "caucasian" also?[/b]
Well, I wouldn’t think to capitalize White because I don’t think of it as a proper noun. But that’s just me. (It could be proper though, depending upon how it’s used, like now.)
But, if, say, I were to cap Hispanic and not cap american, and if I were to catch the discrepancy, then I’d question myself: How is it I made such a mistake? Do I need to check my lenses? …up my awareness?
Is it discrimination? No, It’s just a tiny mistake. But, gone unchecked, it could contribute to something discriminatory, depending upon the situation. (Or, it could be perceived as discriminatory.)
At one of my diversity workshops it was explained to me that it is not racism when it is against the dominant group, ie whites. From their definition it is only racism when the dominant group does or says something against the subordinate group. I do not accept this at all… but this is the BS they were pushing.
[i]Originally posted by casstommy[/i]@Sep 29 2005, 08:30 AM
[b] I am stating that when all economic factors are equal...blacks will receive higher rates or be denied for loans. There is no justification for this. ANd this is not a couple of isolated incidents either.
In terms of the prison system…this one REALLY gets me going. My favorite example of the institutionalized racism that persists in the judicial system is the one refering to the punishments for crack and coccaine possesion. Both are the exact same drug…only difference being crack is easier to process and therefore cheaper. However, crack, a drug that has mass proliferation among the black communities, carries a prison sentence almost double the amount of time than that of coccaine. ??? Explain the reasoning. I can not state that this is solely to lock up black america…but it does make you think. And to think that the leading cause of inprisonment among african americans is because of a drug related felonies??? [/b]
To add on to this…Lower income groups smoke lower grade marijuana in larger, cheaper quantities to get the same high as richer people who can smoke a little bit of good marijuana. The penalties are based on how much pot you have but not how good it is. so obviously people with lower grade pot get bigger penalties for the same drug.
