| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ubiquitous" |
| Date: |
20 Dec 2006 06:06:30 AM |
| Object: |
Diversity Drivel |
The Boston Globe reports on a silly new study that purports to reveal
something about race relations in Massachusetts:
Despite the increasing diversity of the population here, the state's
black, white, Asian, and Latino residents are living largely separate lives
and take a dim view of race relations, according to a poll released today.
At work, in their neighborhoods, and socially, an overwhelming majority of
white residents, for example, still interact predominantly with other
whites. The survey showed that 61 percent of white respondents said they see
"only a few" or no African-Americans in daily life, and 71 percent said they
see only a few or no Latinos.
"We have made a great symbolic statement about Massachusetts as a home to
diverse people," said Steve Crosby, dean of the John W. McCormack Graduate
School of Policy Studies, which commissioned the survey along with three
think tanks at the University of Massachusetts. "But this data tells us
there is still serious work to be done in terms of race relations and
conditions for all ethnicities in our community." . . .
According to the survey, African-Americans and Latinos also associate
mostly with people of their own race and ethnicity, though they are not as
segregated as the white residents. A large majority of Asians also said they
interact with few or no African-Americans and Latinos, but they reported
seeing more white residents in their daily lives than they do people of
their own race.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of Massachusetts is
83.4% white, 5.9% black, 4.7% Asian and 7.9% Latino (that last category
overlaps with the racial ones). What this means is that if you came in
contact with a representative sample of Massachusettsans each day, the vast
majority of them (5 out of 6) would be white, while only a few would be
black (about 1 in 17), Asian (1 in 21) or Hispanic (1 in 13).
The ONLY finding the Globe describes that departs from this is that
"African-Americans and Latinos . . . associate mostly with people of their
own race and ethnicity." What sort of "serious work" would Steve Crosby do
to prevent them from doing so?
.
|
|
| User: "Paul" |
|
| Title: Re: Diversity Drivel |
20 Dec 2006 09:14:24 PM |
|
|
In article <QI-dnYkiHZzbuhTYnZ2dnUVZ_sKunZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
The Boston Globe reports on a silly new study that purports to reveal
something about race relations in Massachusetts:
Despite the increasing diversity of the population here, the state's
black, white, Asian, and Latino residents are living largely separate lives
and take a dim view of race relations, according to a poll released today.
At work, in their neighborhoods, and socially, an overwhelming majority of
white residents, for example, still interact predominantly with other
whites. The survey showed that 61 percent of white respondents said they see
"only a few" or no African-Americans in daily life, and 71 percent said they
see only a few or no Latinos.
"We have made a great symbolic statement about Massachusetts as a home to
diverse people," said Steve Crosby, dean of the John W. McCormack Graduate
School of Policy Studies, which commissioned the survey along with three
think tanks at the University of Massachusetts. "But this data tells us
there is still serious work to be done in terms of race relations and
conditions for all ethnicities in our community." . . .
According to the survey, African-Americans and Latinos also associate
mostly with people of their own race and ethnicity, though they are not as
segregated as the white residents. A large majority of Asians also said they
interact with few or no African-Americans and Latinos, but they reported
seeing more white residents in their daily lives than they do people of
their own race.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of Massachusetts is
83.4% white, 5.9% black, 4.7% Asian and 7.9% Latino (that last category
overlaps with the racial ones). What this means is that if you came in
contact with a representative sample of Massachusettsans each day, the vast
majority of them (5 out of 6) would be white, while only a few would be
black (about 1 in 17), Asian (1 in 21) or Hispanic (1 in 13).
The ONLY finding the Globe describes that departs from this is that
"African-Americans and Latinos . . . associate mostly with people of their
own race and ethnicity." What sort of "serious work" would Steve Crosby do
to prevent them from doing so?
More social engineering, of course. But that won't work either.
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ubiquitous" |
|
| Title: Re: Diversity Drivel |
21 Dec 2006 06:49:06 AM |
|
|
wrote:
More social engineering, of course. But that won't work either.
Deborah Howell, the Washington Post's ombudsman, complains that the paper lacks
"diversity":
Here's my audit of the columnists whose opinions are
splashed across The Post's pages:
Metro's columnists are Marc Fisher, John Kelly and Courtland
Milloy. A female voice is missing because Donna Britt is on
extended book leave. Add Dr. Gridlock, the alter ego of
Robert Thomson, and that makes four men. Milloy and Britt
are black.
In Business: Steven Pearlstein, jack-of-all-financial-trades;
the Federal Diary's Stephen Barr; Michelle Singletary, the
personal finance columnist; Martha H. Hamilton, who writes
on retirement finances; auto columnist Warren Brown; lobbying
columnist Jeffrey H. Birnbaum; Life at Work columnist Amy
Joyce; and technology columnists Mike Musgrove and Rob Pegoraro.
Plus Cindy Skrzycki, who writes the Regulators, and Allan
Sloan of Newsweek. Seven men to four women. Brown and
Singletary are black.
Guys rule in sports--Tony Kornheiser, Michael Wilbon, Thomas
Boswell, Mike Wise, Angus Phillips, George Solomon, Sally
Jenkins. Six men to one woman. Wilbon is black.
She goes on and on in this vein for 900 words. It's one of the most boring
columns we've ever read. If this is "diversity," we'll take uniformity,
thanks!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul" |
|
| Title: Re: Diversity Drivel |
21 Dec 2006 06:26:37 PM |
|
|
In article <D6mdnQ_gFJJfHxfYnZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@giganews.com>,
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
paul@cheese.orgasm wrote:
More social engineering, of course. But that won't work either.
Deborah Howell, the Washington Post's ombudsman, complains that the paper
lacks
"diversity":
Here's my audit of the columnists whose opinions are
splashed across The Post's pages:
Metro's columnists are Marc Fisher, John Kelly and Courtland
Milloy. A female voice is missing because Donna Britt is on
extended book leave. Add Dr. Gridlock, the alter ego of
Robert Thomson, and that makes four men. Milloy and Britt
are black.
In Business: Steven Pearlstein, jack-of-all-financial-trades;
the Federal Diary's Stephen Barr; Michelle Singletary, the
personal finance columnist; Martha H. Hamilton, who writes
on retirement finances; auto columnist Warren Brown; lobbying
columnist Jeffrey H. Birnbaum; Life at Work columnist Amy
Joyce; and technology columnists Mike Musgrove and Rob Pegoraro.
Plus Cindy Skrzycki, who writes the Regulators, and Allan
Sloan of Newsweek. Seven men to four women. Brown and
Singletary are black.
Guys rule in sports--Tony Kornheiser, Michael Wilbon, Thomas
Boswell, Mike Wise, Angus Phillips, George Solomon, Sally
Jenkins. Six men to one woman. Wilbon is black.
She goes on and on in this vein for 900 words. It's one of the most boring
columns we've ever read. If this is "diversity," we'll take uniformity,
thanks!
The thing about "diversity", too, is that it never ends. No matter what
mix of ethnicity and men to women you have, someone or some group is
always going to feel they got the short shrift.
As an aside, what would you think if someone said to you "Have a diverse
day!" instead of "Have a nice day!"? Would you think they wished your
day should include things detrimental?
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "choking hazard" |
|
| Title: Re: Diversity Drivel |
21 Dec 2006 03:28:07 AM |
|
|
Left to their own devices and tendencies, most people will _naturally_
associate with their own kind. Makes sense!
Of course, such "sense" is unacceptable to those who would be our
masters.
They've been playing this game for a very long time.
Ubiquitous wrote:
The Boston Globe reports on a silly new study that purports to reveal
something about race relations in Massachusetts:
Despite the increasing diversity of the population here, the state's
black, white, Asian, and Latino residents are living largely separate lives
and take a dim view of race relations, according to a poll released today.
At work, in their neighborhoods, and socially, an overwhelming majority of
white residents, for example, still interact predominantly with other
whites. The survey showed that 61 percent of white respondents said they see
"only a few" or no African-Americans in daily life, and 71 percent said they
see only a few or no Latinos.
"We have made a great symbolic statement about Massachusetts as a home to
diverse people," said Steve Crosby, dean of the John W. McCormack Graduate
School of Policy Studies, which commissioned the survey along with three
think tanks at the University of Massachusetts. "But this data tells us
there is still serious work to be done in terms of race relations and
conditions for all ethnicities in our community." . . .
According to the survey, African-Americans and Latinos also associate
mostly with people of their own race and ethnicity, though they are not as
segregated as the white residents. A large majority of Asians also said they
interact with few or no African-Americans and Latinos, but they reported
seeing more white residents in their daily lives than they do people of
their own race.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of Massachusetts is
83.4% white, 5.9% black, 4.7% Asian and 7.9% Latino (that last category
overlaps with the racial ones). What this means is that if you came in
contact with a representative sample of Massachusettsans each day, the vast
majority of them (5 out of 6) would be white, while only a few would be
black (about 1 in 17), Asian (1 in 21) or Hispanic (1 in 13).
The ONLY finding the Globe describes that departs from this is that
"African-Americans and Latinos . . . associate mostly with people of their
own race and ethnicity." What sort of "serious work" would Steve Crosby do
to prevent them from doing so?
.
|
|
|
| User: "ray" |
|
| Title: Re: Diversity Drivel |
21 Dec 2006 03:40:30 PM |
|
|
In article <1166693287.588677.208000@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"choking hazard" <b10893822@yahoo.com> wrote:
Left to their own devices and tendencies, most people will _naturally_
associate with their own kind. Makes sense!
Of course, such "sense" is unacceptable to those who would be our
masters.
They've been playing this game for a very long time.
So very true. I remember just a couple of years ago when the shows
"Friends" and "That 70's show" were on top of the ratings. The Blacks
complained that there were no African Americans on those shows while
failing to realize the association of all White sitcoms and their
ratings. It was simply unacceptable to African Americans that White
people would actually prefer non-diverse entertainment.
--
--Conservatives deal with facts, liberals deal with emotion--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: Diversity Drivel |
23 Dec 2006 11:17:13 AM |
|
|
choking hazard wrote:
Left to their own devices and tendencies, most people will _naturally_
associate with their own kind. Makes sense!
No offense, but even if you are white, hell, even if you were my
identical twin, after that bit of deep thought you're not remotely "my
own kind".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
