Off-topic: Race.

[Ollie]

I do, actually. I've had academic and non-academic education on the subject.

Your ivory (ironic ain't it) tower credentials are impressive and are certainly helping you win these arguments.

Whateva, bro. The point is I'm not talking out of my ass.

Ollie and Freemage, you guys are right.

We should give all the land back to the native Americans.

what is with the people in this thread acting like racism is equal in every direction making up things never said? Take a step back and reconsider what is being said before jumping to funny conclusions.

Again, race and class/wealth are not the same thing. It sucks that your school had such massive racial divides, but your high school doesn't change the way the entire country and most of the world functions.

"Racism against whites doesn't exist" amirite?

Not by the sociological definition, no. Does that mean that racial discrimination can still happen? Yep.

A band of people from Minority Group X attacking or harassing or whatever a person or people from Privileged Group Y happens, and yes it sucks. A lot. It shouldn't happen. But that doesn't make whatever form of discrimination that is magically equal. Person group Group Y still gets to enjoy the privileges of said group, even if it's not all the time and every moment. The world has not magically changed. http://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/1662103.pdf

[Freemage]

Black Americans, however, are predominantly derived from slaves. They had their families shattered and communities were non-existent. They simply were spontaneously declared 'free' (but not eligible for all the rights of freemen for decades after that moment). With neither a community to turn to, nor a base default setting where their skin color didn't matter, they had to build from scratch. Black America is, in many ways, hundreds of years "younger" than white America--we started settling in numbers in the 1600s; they started "settling" in 1865 or thereabouts. Given how long it took to get voting rights and even nominal equal rights on being able to move where they wanted and work where they were able, their "independence" was almost 200 years after white America's, too. The notion that they somehow are in a fair race is absurd. Color-blind, merit-based systems invariably focus on the current status, not the struggle to achieve. Thus, they fall short in recognizing just how much has actually been accomplished. They also fail to offer any corrective action that would make the next generation proceed significantly differently.

Native Americans frequently killed themselves rather than submit to slavery and every problem you have listed here is eclipsed by what whites did to them, yet you're not tilting your lance at windmills for them. Freemage, are you yourself black or are you feeding me someone else's agenda? Why aren't you championing the worse-off victims (that have less voting power)?

Actually, I was going to mention Native Americans in my original post, then forgot about it because my post was already getting long. As a matter of fact, you're correct--they're the one other group in America that got the same sort of short-shrift that slave-descended black Americans. There are some key differences, but some of the biggest bits--the destruction of the culture, the absence of a community they can rely on to help lift them up--are definitely there.

That said, your comparison between "giving back the land to the Native Americans" and the foundation of Israel is, in fact, complete hogwash. Why? Because Israel's founding entailed a privileged group (Britain and the other western nations) taking land from one disadvantaged group and giving it to another, thereby creating hostility between them both. A land repatriation in the US, OTOH, would entail the descendants and inheritors of the people who actually stole the land in the first place returning it to the descendants and inheritors of the people from whom it was stolen. No, I don't think it's either practical or a useful situation, but I do think some form of genuine repatriations is both the ethical and logical approach to dealing with the situation.

[sgtrock]

Whites can be the victim of racism, and that's bad, duh. It's also the case that in our societies whites will be the victim of racism far less than anyone else, and will not be the victim of systematized racism, since they built the frigging system. All else being equal, it's better to be white than otherwise, and Scalzi's metaphor was trying to raise *awareness* of that, not contrition. That's step two, if ever -- actually, you don't need to be contrite at all, you just need to be aware and to try to contribute to the problem and fight it when you can. But you have to acknowledge there's a problem before you can fight it.

The U.S. is the ONLY developed country in the world where medical costs are the primary reason for personal bankruptcy with 1.6 MILLION in 2011. That's up from 700,000 in 2001. So, Obamacare apparently made things worse, not better. Why? Because rather than crafting a sane national healthcare plan based upon any number of working models used everywhere else, the pharmaceutical, medical, and insurance industries siezed the opportunity and lobbied hard to ensure that their nests were padded even deeper in our dollar bills.

So, apparently you don't know that 'Obamacare', aka the PPACA, hasn't happened yet. The bill passed, some minor things have taken effect, but the core reforms are not scheduled to take effect until 2014, because Congress wanted to give time to adjust or something. Never mind that Massachusetts did things in a year and that this is a state-by-state implementation. You can blame Congress for going slow, but you can't blame PPACA's reform for not working when they're not even trying to work yet.

Also between 2001 and 2011 there was this minor thing known as the Great Recession or even Great Depression 2.0, which would have some little part to play in the increase in personal bankruptcies. Along with the usual 8% or whatever rise in medical costs over that period. Nothing to do with Obamacare.

Oh, and PPACA is based on a working model used somewhere: 'Romneycare', in Massachusetts. Which isn't perfect, but I moved here partly because of it and I'd pretty much refuse to live anywhere else in the US now. And it's got similarity to how universal health care is handled in Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, and Japan, though not perfect similarity. (They use mandatory-subsidized private insurance, but they also regulate the insurers and prices more than we'll be.)

Funny you should mention Romneycare:

CONCLUSION: Massachusetts’ health reform has not decreased the number of medical bankruptcies, although the medical bankruptcy rate in the state was lower than the national rate both before and after the reform.

Let me repeat myself for the hard of hearing: No. Other. Developed. Nation. IN. THE. WORLD. sees personal bankruptcies due to medical causes. As a nation we pay a MUCH larger percentage of our GDP than they do for healthcare for demonstrably worse results. Still think it's worth living in Massachusetts over anywhere else in the U.S.?

If Obamacare has barely been implemented yet and it's modeled on a failed system, I don't think we're going to see any improvement after 2014. Do you?

[Zanosuke Kurosaki]

The infuriating thing about "Obamacare" is the people that speak so vehemently against it. Because when you ask them "Okay - so what do you suggest?" They either want to keep going with the same system that's not working for us*, or they just don't have an alternative, but they still want to get rid of something that's still not nearly as bad as the system that's so busily and happily screwing us.

*I can personally vouch it doesn't work - I haven't had healthcare for almost 9 years now. I haven't been able to see a dentist in that much time, I haven't been able to get my ankle that was damaged by a car back in '03 fixed, I haven't even had a check-up in that long. Occasionally, I feel that lack. =/

[Otaking]

That said, your comparison between "giving back the land to the Native Americans" and the foundation of Israel is, in fact, complete hogwash.

I think decades of bloody conflict are a pretty good illustration of the difference between good intentions and practical solutions is all. It very much would apply if we were to hypothetically give all the land back to the Native Americans now because there are other races living here now that wouldn't take kindly to it, such as whites and blacks. People think too small. Life is this crazy jungle where lions eat the antelopes and they think we'll gate off the poor antelopes...then their population grows too large, they fester with diseases and threaten the whole population of the jungle. It's just one small example of a system with too many control valves for people to comprehend. Bureaucracies like large government are terrible at providing systemic solutions to systemic problems because they are a systemic problem themselves and are horribly inefficient. The solution that might even work gets translated into garbage by the time it comes out of the other end of the law making machine.

No, I don't think it's either practical or a useful situation, but I do think some form of genuine repatriations is both the ethical and logical approach to dealing with the situation.

So we have no practical solution but as long as we're feeling bad about it things are better? Hand-wringing. Repatriations have been attempted and become increasingly meaningless as we move generationally away from the events in question. Only a second event equal in magnitude to the first is really going to make up completely for it. Giving the land back, all whites in chains, etc. There are white people that seemingly won't be satisfied until those things occur due to their own sense of guilt, their agenda they're pushing, etc. and will keep writing nonsensical articles where they feel guilty about having a band-aid or barbie doll the same color as their skin or getting a cab faster. Write to Mattel, Johnson & Johnson, or the cab company, instead of putting an article out there with your so PC white guilt on display if you really care fuckall about what you're talking about. Enjoy wasting your time too while the world burns because resources are dwindling, healthcare is failing, economies are tanking, and governments are becoming increasingly martial and invasive.

Conclusion: If you're white and adopting a liberal stance of "Oh how guilty I feel and so should you." then you're a hypocrite unless you've given away everything you own, because obviously the system got it for you. If you're not ready to firebomb the almighty system beginning with yourself, a component of the system, I feel you lack the courage of your convictions.

Before you point the finger
You should know that
I'm the man,
And if I'm the man,
Then you're the man, and
He's the man as well so you can
Point that fuckin' finger up your ass.

Point being you CANNOT make up for these things. I don't enjoy being a hypocrite, so I'll argue my own interests instead, thanks. I'll also argue interests of the people, not just those of X race. I can make a performance based hiring (or firing) decision at my company with a clear conscience. Because if you want racism to end, you can't keep putting X race ahead of others which puts us back to Mr. Freeman again. I can take someone's background into account..there are programs out there for those of poor backgrounds..(more if you're a 'minority' now than if you're white and poor) there are programs out there for EOE etc but at some point you're just creating a new kind of racism again by twisting the control valve too far in the other direction. You're saying it's ok for people of disadvantaged races not to have to try, you're saying it's ok for them to treat us like crap. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[LookingIn]

Funny you should mention Romneycare:

CONCLUSION: Massachusetts’ health reform has not decreased the number of medical bankruptcies, although the medical bankruptcy rate in the state was lower than the national rate both before and after the reform.

Let me repeat myself for the hard of hearing: No. Other. Developed. Nation. IN. THE. WORLD. sees personal bankruptcies due to medical causes. As a nation we pay a MUCH larger percentage of our GDP than they do for healthcare for demonstrably worse results. Still think it's worth living in Massachusetts over anywhere else in the U.S.?

If Obamacare has barely been implemented yet and it's modeled on a failed system, I don't think we're going to see any improvement after 2014. Do you?

Sgt. Rock, there is something else about that program that people outside of Massachusetts would not have the least bit clue about- IT HAS ALMOST BANKRUPTED THE STATE!

After implementation went into effect the state saw a spike in the amount of money it had to shell out to pay for the publicly-funded portion of the law that now had to cover even more people than ever before. This huge chunk out of the budget required the reduction in funding across the board to dozens of state sponsored programs AND more importantly saw the state cut funding to local aid which the cities and towns of the state rely on to pay for teachers and public safety personnel. This cut in funding led to the reduction of police, fire, EMS, and teachers.

So in reality, things were worse off than they had ever been before the law and at the same time it caused a ripple in the budgets of cities and towns that we are still recovering from almost a decade later.

[mindstalk]

Funny you should mention Romneycare:

CONCLUSION: Massachusetts’ health reform has not decreased the number of medical bankruptcies, although the medical bankruptcy rate in the state was lower than the national rate both before and after the reform.

Let's quote it more:

Between
2007 and 2009, total bankruptcy filings in Massachusetts increased 51%, an increase that was somewhat
less than the national norm. (The Massachusetts increase was lower than in 54 of the 93 other bankruptcy
districts.) Overall, the total number of medical bankruptcies in Massachusetts increased by more than one
third during that period. In 2009, 89% of debtors and all their dependents had health insurance at the time
of filing, whereas one quarter of bankrupt families had experienced a recent lapse in coverage.

So total bankruptcies went up by 50%, as the economy crashed but medical bankruptcies went up by only 1/3. Their conclusion "has not decreased the number of medical bankruptcies" is technically correct but misleading. Medical stuff became less of a reason driving people into bankruptcy.

Not only that, but the definition of medical bankruptcy is a bit dodgy here. It's not just being unable to afford medical care:

n 2009, 45.6% of the entire sample (86.2% of the medically bankrupt) had high med-ical bills or specifically cited illness as a cause of their
bankruptcy

The remaining 13.8% of the medically bankrupt (7.3% of the entire sample) were classified as medically bankrupt because they had lost significant work-related
income because of illness or had mortgaged a home to pay medical bills.

Plus what they say in page 2, on methods. They're combining and conflating bankruptcy due to medical bills with bankruptcy due to lost income due to being sick, or due to staying home to care for a sick family member. The only place where they ever distinguish between "unpaid medical bills" and "loss of income" is in the data line about mortgaging a home to pay for medical bills, which is a small fraction. No one ever promised that health care reform would prevent you from going broke because of not working.


As I said, it's not perfect. You want to get into the gritty details? One of the imperfections is that it's tiered, including the Bronze tier of the cheapest premiums (about $300/month) but $5000 out of pocket maximum, or $10,000 for a family, vs. $2000/$4000 for Silver. It'd be tempting to gamble on the lower premiums, but then if you're dinged for an extra $5000 you don't have, whoops. Plus you need to be paying those premiums; if you lapse... I'm not sure what happens. There are state programs covering the poor, but there might be time gaps.

Let me repeat myself for the hard of hearing: No. Other. Developed. Nation. IN. THE. WORLD. sees personal bankruptcies due to medical causes

Not to medical bills specifically, no. But if you let medical bankruptcy include bankruptcy due to illness and loss of income, *as they do*, then sure they do. Certainly keeps coming up in anime.

. As a nation we pay a MUCH larger percentage of our GDP than they do for healthcare for demonstrably worse results. Still think it's worth living in Massachusetts over anywhere else in the U.S.?

Uh, yes. You made a huge non sequitur there. Look, I'd rather have Medicare For All, and I think poorly of Obama and the lead Democrats for not even putting it on the table, even if it was unlikely to get the votes. But in its absence, I'd rather live in the state where insurers can't even ask about pre-existing conditions or deny me coverage or personally jack up my rates or get rid of me. Getting insurance is literally as simple and automatic as going to a website and entering your name, age, and address. (Getting subsidized insurance a bit more complicated, but that's about proof of income.)

If Obamacare has barely been implemented yet and it's modeled on a failed system, I don't think we're going to see any improvement after 2014. Do you?

You were the one who said Obamacare has made things worse, when it hasn't even happened yet, and the worst you alleged the "failed system" to have done is failed to make things better. Do you admit you were wrong?

And yes, I think we'll see improvement, because lots of people will be able to get insurance and thus health care they can afford, and in turn more people will be able to try their hand at self-employment or small business without worrying about getting insurance at all. It won't be perfect, but it'll be an improvement, and one that can be made even better by tweaking the numbers, rather than having to bring in a whole new system.

[mindstalk]

The infuriating thing about "Obamacare" is the people that speak so vehemently against it. Because when you ask them "Okay - so what do you suggest?"
They either want to keep going with the same system that's not working for us*, or they just don't have an alternative, but they still want to get rid of something that's still not nearly as bad as the system that's so busily and happily screwing us.

Well, that depends on the people. On the right, you get no suggestion, or suggestions for even more "free market". On the left you have quite specific suggestions for either public option or single-payer/Medicare for all.

So in reality, things were worse off than they had ever been before the law and at the same time it caused a ripple in the budgets of cities and towns that we are still recovering from almost a decade later.

Six years is almost a decade? Seriously, implementation started in June/July of 2006. It's been barely 6 years exactly.

As for supposedly 'almost' bankrupting the state, that's not exactly obvious to me. The economy crashing would seem to be a rather bigger deal. Also, contrary to 'Taxachusetts' reputation, MA is almost perfectly average in the portion of the economy taken as taxes. We're trying to run high-road services with middle-road tax levels; naturally there's strain. One obvious solution would be to raise taxes a bit...

[Freemage]

Otaking, this is my last post to you on this subject, for one simple reason--you're now just pulling shit out of your ass, and being disrespectful in the bargain. I see no advantage in continuing the discussion.

There is no significant segment of the white population which believes that whites need to be enslaved, or that we should literally give the entire country back to the Native American tribes, in order to advance the cause of social justice. Curiously, there ARE significant numbers of whites in this country who think blacks should be shipped off or put back in chains, and who believe the only error in dealing with the NatAm tribes was 'not finishing the job'.

Secondly, no, it's not hypocritical to not go to absurd (and simultaneously futile) personal sacrifices while advocating for a systemic approach to these problems. I'd be just as affected by the solutions I'm proposing as the next cis straight white guy, so I fail to see the hypocrisy there, sorry.

Finally, your argument that since we can't achieve perfect justice, and therefore should do jack-shit, is little more than a pathetic excuse for your own selfishness and apathy. Systemic approaches can and do work--not perfectly, not one-hundred percent, but well enough to justify their cost and effort. As an example: Title IX. When it was passed, around seventeen percent of the female population in high school were involved with sports. Now it's a bit over forty percent. It seems to have leveled off--imperfect fix. But it closed the gap tremendously, and changed a lot of lives for the better. But hey, you just keep looking out for Number One.

[Otaking]

There is no significant segment of the white population which believes that whites need to be enslaved, or that we should literally give the entire country back to the Native American tribes, in order to advance the cause of social justice. Curiously, there ARE significant numbers of whites in this country who think blacks should be shipped off or put back in chains, and who believe the only error in dealing with the NatAm tribes was 'not finishing the job'.

Secondly, no, it's not hypocritical to not go to absurd (and simultaneously futile) personal sacrifices while advocating for a systemic approach to these problems. I'd be just as affected by the solutions I'm proposing as the next cis straight white guy, so I fail to see the hypocrisy there, sorry.

Finally, your argument that since we can't achieve perfect justice, and therefore should do jack-shit, is little more than a pathetic excuse for your own selfishness and apathy. Systemic approaches can and do work--not perfectly, not one-hundred percent, but well enough to justify their cost and effort. As an example: Title IX. When it was passed, around seventeen percent of the female population in high school were involved with sports. Now it's a bit over forty percent. It seems to have leveled off--imperfect fix. But it closed the gap tremendously, and changed a lot of lives for the better. But hey, you just keep looking out for Number One.

Yes the examples were absurd because since and including the Scalzi article, no one posted any specific solutions except Valerie and myself. I'm contrasting something against what is missing from all the rhetoric in here.

I don't argue you should do jack-shit, I argue that putting things out there designed to make whites feel bad are inflammatory and racist...and pointless...unless they come with a proposed course of action that actually might work. Since taking this stance in this thread, I've been relentlessly flamed, not on any course of logic but mainly due to the fact that I don't feel bad enough or that I believe you can be racist against whites too and I don't believe in a magical delineation point between systemic and non-systemic racism. I feel a lot of group-think being thrown at me.

I know about Liberal group-think and I know about Republican group-think because I've spent a lot of time in both of their strongholds, namely CA and TX. You guys are a picnic compared to real Berkley-ites and Ron Paul devotees btw.

We're talking about a social and corporate structure in 2000-2012 here, not from the 1960s-80s which seems to be when some of your textbooks have been printed.

Title IX was signed in 1972, also it was about gender, not race...so what now? I'll give you that a systemic approach can do some good but that was 1972 when the national will was a little more unified due to civil rights movements and Vietnam and now I see things breaking down moving through Congress lately here 40 years later. Where's the action to take in Scalzi's article? Just feel bad, I got it. I'll tell you, I get apathetic a lot of the time because this kind of crap is the best naturally divisive Libs can come up with and Republicans are going to crush them like the homogenous voting block that they are. I mean an article tactically designed to alienate white males is being promoted...wow. Where are the solutions where everyone can win?

That's even to the extent I allow myself to believe in the system after what I know about it, see the splitter comments from earlier.

[Embre]

Where's the action to take in Scalzi's article? Just feel bad, I got it.

Forgive me if I've missed something else in one of your posts, but the suggestions on courses of action you seem to be offering are very...material (e.g. hopefully tongue-in-cheek jab at giving land back to the natives). However, I'd like to think that Scalzi's article, while not offering any magical one-step-fix-all solutions to such a complex issue, would get people to think about their own behavior and their attitudes towards people of different races.

If guilt or bad feelings or general-negative-insight-regarding-oneself is what you* feel, I would hope that you use those feelings to be productive in trying to change your attitude and behavior. I would hope that you can acknowledge any time that you might have had a racist thought or uttered a racially-stereotypical comment, and simply do what you can to prevent yourself from doing so in the future. Now, personally, I don't think that guilt-tripping is the best method of achieving this result (though that's really only because I react terribly to anyone that tries to guilt-trip me), but it is what it is.

*and by "you", I just mean the reader of the article. And not even Scalzi's article specifically, just anything that might get people to think on any time they've displayed racial prejudice.

You seem to be pretty dismissive towards the social sciences, but I felt it important to note my background in the following anecdote. I studied anthropology in college, and took some classes and my graduation requirement seminar on race and ethnicity. My school is enamored with Latin American/Chicano studies in particular, so lower- and upper-division courses in the field were also unavoidable. Fast forward to about a month ago, and I was in-line at the register at a local grocery store behind a woman, with a toddler, who was using some foodstamp-type coupons to buy food, while toting a designer purse and wallet.

My first thought when I noticed this: "Sigh. Another Mexican abusing the system. Use the money you spent on a friekin' $400 purse towards food."
After a momentary pause, a blaring alarm went off in my head: "What the fucking hell was that? I SHOULD KNOW BETTER."

I didn't have the slightest clue on this Hispanic woman's circumstances. The purse could have been a gift. Perhaps she bought it a some years ago, when she and her family had extra money to spend on luxury items (perhaps pre-child, cause babies be expensive).

I'm pretty sure something akin to my first thought was shared by the older white woman behind me in line. She started audibly commenting with snips like, "Oh my God" and "You're kidding me...who uses food stamps? Here, of all places!" I must be good at keeping my face neutral in the midst of mental self-flagellation (plus the wtfery at her comments), as the white woman didn't take notice of how uncomfortable I was feeling, right then; white lady was like some spectre, embodying the attitude I'd just berated myself over, coming to make me feel even more guilty for my ignorance.

I don't know that simple acknowledgement of moments of racism/racial prejudice, and trying to adjust one's attitude in the aftermath, can really "fix" the major issues, but I think I'm a better person for it. I'd like to see the day when I don't have to get the passing feeling that the white males (likely also to be straight, hurr hurr hurr) at stores aren't as cordial with me as they are with the white family in front of me because I'm Asian and probably can't speak English well**. I'd like to eventually stop getting comments like, "But Asians are supposed to be smart at math and science and stuff!" (I happen to be terrible at math). And I'll keep trying to get my mother to see that she doesn't need to be clutching her purse closer to her body just because we happen to pass a black man on the street (this mortifies me, because she sometimes gets all hunchy and eyes them suspiciously and I just...><).

**On that note, the words "I'm impressed, you don't have any accent!" have actually been said to me when I told a white classmate that I didn't grow up with English as my first language. I still...don't even know what to think about that. O.o

[oddtail]

**On that note, the words "I'm impressed, you don't have any accent!" have actually been said to me when I told a white classmate that I didn't grow up with English as my first language. I still...don't even know what to think about that. O.o

I'm curious as to the reason for your confusion. The comment should probably be taken at face value - most people have a strong native accent when speaking a foreign language, and the accent can be, depending on the speaker *and* the listener, be perceived as anything from sexy to jarring to making the speech nigh-incomprehensible. Many people learning a foreign language do their best to develop a more natural-sounding accent, if not eradicate any traces of foreign accent (I know that I do... I assume I have a very slight accent and would not be immediately recognised as Slavic, but I doubt I'd pass for a native speaker of English when speaking to a person with a keen ear), and it takes a lot of effort. Speaking without a noticeable accent is usually perceived as a high level of skill in a foreign language. So, "you don't have any accent" is a compliment akin to "you speak very good English".

Granted, I'm amused at the notion of "speaking without accent". Accents of native speakers are accents, too... and with a language with many regional variations, like English, the description "he speaks without accent" is a lovely display of mild ignorance and considerable cultural imperialism. But that's for a different thread altogether...

[NoPasaNada]

I wanted to add there was another minority in my company who did VERY well in my department. She was a black female and didn't have the same attitude as the black females from Oakland. She just did her job and did it well, and surpassed the white guy from Oakland and most of the people in the department.

"Female?" What's wrong with the word "woman"?

[NoPasaNada]

So we have no practical solution but as long as we're feeling bad about it things are better? Hand-wringing. Repatriations have been attempted and become increasingly meaningless as we move generationally away from the events in question. Only a second event equal in magnitude to the first is really going to make up completely for it. Giving the land back, all whites in chains, etc. There are white people that seemingly won't be satisfied until those things occur due to their own sense of guilt, their agenda they're pushing, etc. and will keep writing nonsensical articles where they feel guilty about having a band-aid or barbie doll the same color as their skin or getting a cab faster. Write to Mattel, Johnson & Johnson, or the cab company, instead of putting an article out there with your so PC white guilt on display if you really care fuckall about what you're talking about. Enjoy wasting your time too while the world burns because resources are dwindling, healthcare is failing, economies are tanking, and governments are becoming increasingly martial and invasive.

Conclusion: If you're white and adopting a liberal stance of "Oh how guilty I feel and so should you." then you're a hypocrite unless you've given away everything you own, because obviously the system got it for you. If you're not ready to firebomb the almighty system beginning with yourself, a component of the system, I feel you lack the courage of your convictions.

Recognizing white privilege is not about guilt, and if you feel guilt when you examine your privilege, you might want to consider why. Being aware of white privilege is directly related to problem solving. You cannot fix the underrepresentation of dark-skinned dolls if you don't realize or refuse to admit that it's a problem! I have seen so many white people argue, "I had black dolls and it didn't affect *my* self-esteem, so black kids should suck it up and play with white dolls!" but the fact is, it's different. The situation is not the same for a white child, surrounded everywhere by white children on TV and in the toys section, and a black or latin@ child who does not have that. Even when a woman of color (I am using women because the beauty standards are harsher) is in the spotlight, often she is lighter skinned. I am thrilled that young latin@s can look up to someone like Selena Gomez, and I'm glad SG produces bilingual songs. But she's also a token. The fact that she is out there means that some producer can say, "We've got enough latinas in music and acting, just look at Selena Gomez." Meanwhile, a white child can hardly choose between all the great (and many of them are great!) white role models.

And if you're mixed, you're constantly finding yourself pulled towards the more represented group. One day you turn and look back and find yourself completely alienated from your other identity.

This idea of having to choose one course of action always makes me smile. It takes less than fifteen minutes to adapt an article/column and send it to the companies you mentioned, and by publishing it as an article as well, you inform and mobilize more people so that your letters are actually given some consideration.

[EagleEye]

**On that note, the words "I'm impressed, you don't have any accent!" have actually been said to me when I told a white classmate that I didn't grow up with English as my first language. I still...don't even know what to think about that. O.o

I'm curious as to the reason for your confusion. The comment should probably be taken at face value - most people have a strong native accent when speaking a foreign language, and the accent can be, depending on the speaker *and* the listener, be perceived as anything from sexy to jarring to making the speech nigh-incomprehensible. Many people learning a foreign language do their best to develop a more natural-sounding accent, if not eradicate any traces of foreign accent (I know that I do... I assume I have a very slight accent and would not be immediately recognised as Slavic, but I doubt I'd pass for a native speaker of English when speaking to a person with a keen ear), and it takes a lot of effort. Speaking without a noticeable accent is usually perceived as a high level of skill in a foreign language. So, "you don't have any accent" is a compliment akin to "you speak very good English".

Granted, I'm amused at the notion of "speaking without accent". Accents of native speakers are accents, too... and with a language with many regional variations, like English, the description "he speaks without accent" is a lovely display of mild ignorance and considerable cultural imperialism. But that's for a different thread altogether...

I agree with oddtail. Unless there is more to the story here, I'm not sure what was wrong with your classmate making that particular comment. Most people who do not grow up speaking a language retain the accent of their native language instead of the accent of whatever language they learn. Case in point, a Russian friend of mine speaks English very well, but you would have no problem figuring out that he was Russian. It comes through with every syllable he pronounces. The same is true for most people who learn a second language over a certain age. One of my friends' fathers, from Romania, spoke no English until he arrived in the US at age 13 and he has no discernible accent, but that is the rare exception, and I'm pretty sure I said something similar to him when I found out. ("without an accent" meaning, as oddtail noted, that he sounded like everyone else that lives in the area of the country I'm from).