@EDaily yes, people will make judgements about me because of the colour of my skin, regardless of what it is. I'm not happy about that, but it's life. Whether I'm black, white, yellow, brown, whatever, people will make judgements. Even in this very thread, someone decided that I must be white because of my philosophy. I find that both amusing and sad. The reason that I'm not telling you my skin colour is that I'd like to be judged based on my beliefs, not on my skin colour. I don't want to read "you're black, therefore..." or " you're white, therefore...".
@EDaily yes, I agree with you. Unionising can definitely result in better outcomes. I was thinking about the original poster's reference to relocating. Yes, it is inconvenient to relocate to a better job market and there are obstacles. That said, I've done so twice and will move again if needed.
@Eric18 indeed. I'll go check out the New York Times and Washington Post to get the conservative perspective on this issue :)
@honey cowl So my opposition to defining people by the colour of their skin means that I'm white. I'm going to treasure this reply. Thank you.
@EDaily life is not as simple as defining people by the colour of their skin. I don't agree with doing so, which is why I asked for your interpretation of it. For example, if I have white skin and am a Mormon in South Carolina, am I a minority? If I have black skin, but was adopted at birth by a white couple, am I a minority? If I have white skin, but was raised by a black family, am I a minority? The question is more complex than simple skin colour. I had hoped that you had a better definition.
@EDaily you asked me if I'm a minority. If I'm Japanese, I'm a minority in Denmark, but not in Japan. If I'm Jewish, I'm a minority in Japan, but not in Israel. And so on. I therefore didn't know how to answer your question. As far as not being from the US and commenting about it, I see Americans commenting to the Chinese about human rights, Afghanistan about women's rights, Syria about chemical weapons and so on. I didn't realise that people from other countries aren't allowed to talk about events in the US.
@Jake Reinhardt fair enough. I'll give you an example. I am at a corporate presentation with several hundred people in the audience. The CEO announces a new product which will be targeted at a specific demographic (e.g., a new Eskimo barbie or whatever). When the floor is open for questions, I say that the CEO is a racist for targeting a specific ethnic group and he should be ashamed of himself. This is an example of self-righteous posturing. There is little to no chance of my comments having a positive effect, but I feel better about standing up against racism and demonstrating my superior moral clarity. I have voiced my opinion about what I think is a racist policy, will probably lose my job and won't have made any difference at all.
@EDaily since I don't live in the US and don't fill out those government forms, it would help me to answer your question if you could explain the definition to me. What qualifies as a minority, so I'll know if I belong or not. Thanks.
@Jake Reinhardt believe it or not, I agree with you about something. I work at my job for money. The income from my job helps to support my family. I'm not there for fun. I'm there to be paid. Throwing the job away for a bit of self-righteous posturing must be weighed against the impact to my family if my income stops while I find another job.
@Allison there are different ways to handle difficult situations. In this case, we agree that the COO was mistaken in her opinion. The question is how to deal with it. One way is to confront the person in public, call her a racist and demonstrate one's superior moral judgement. We see this at public demonstrations, where two sides chant and scream at each other. How effective is this? How many minds are changed? I'd argue not much and not many. Another way is to understand the person's point of view and then to provide examples of why those views are mistaken. This is usually done in private, because it minimises the likelihood of embarrassing the other person. The goal is to convince them, not embarrass them. I'm not disregarding racism. I'm suggesting that rational, quiet, one-on-one discussions are more effective with dealing with it than how it was done in the original post.