4 ms·

So does the UK, Ireland, Canada, South Africa, Australia, NZ, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Denmark, and every other Western, white-dominant tech host count

by wyclif 9y ago

So does the UK, Ireland, Canada, South Africa, Australia, NZ, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Denmark, and every other Western, white-dominant tech host country.

coldtea 9y ago
Of course the workplace will be "white-dominant" if the majority is white. Not that many blacks in Ireland (1.5%) for the question to even matter. That wasn't the question, it was whether race bias plays any large role in hirings as in the US, which in UK, Canada, nordic countries etc it doesn't, as it doesn't in the societies in general. Can't speak for South Africa, Australia or NZ, far enough from Western Europe to be what I meant.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- wyclif 9y ago
  No, actually that was not the question. The unsupported grandparent statement was that the US is "crazy about race as always." Well, the US is also a lot more racially diverse than those countries. So it's a bit of an apples-oranges comparison when discussing diversity. And I already know about the homogeneous populations of those countries. A couple of points: 1. It's rather convenient for your argument, isn't it, that some of the aforementioned countries (the Scandinavian ones) don't have any substantial black population. So no need to correct race bias there...there aren't many black workers there! Nice job. 2. The UK actually does have a significant black population, and if you look at UK tech companies I think you'll see that they have close to the same percentage of black programmers as in the US. Subsidiary point: being smug about supposed Euro superiority re: race bias in tech hiring and engaging in America bashing is a weak reed to lean on.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >No, actually that was not the question. The unsupported grandparent statement was that the US is "crazy about race as always." Well, the US is also a lot more racially diverse than those countries. Well, the US also didn't have any history (as US) before 1942 or so, so of course it got populated by "more racially diverse" population -- not because of the benevolence and multiculturalism of people already living there, but because people came in from all corners, grabbed land, and established a new country (in the process giving the real native population the short end of the stick). And despite that, the US had slaves long after European countries had abolished that practice, it had segregation long after Europe has done with it (which was rarely an issue here), and is still uptight about race in ways Europe isn't. Let's not even get into how 25% of the world's prisoners are in the US that only has 4% of the world's total population -- and how many of them are black compared to the whites there. That's what makes it "crazy about race as always". >1. It's rather convenient for your argument, isn't it, that some of the aforementioned countries (the Scandinavian ones) don't have any substantial black population. Well, sorry that Sweden didn't abduct and bought people from Africa so that it can now have more blacks... They do have a 5-7% of muslim immigrants, does that count?
    - danso 9y ago
      > And despite that, the US had slaves long after European countries had abolished that practice, it had segregation long after Europe has done with it (which was rarely an issue here), and is still uptight about race in ways Europe isn't. And Europe is extremely uptight about Holocaust-related things in ways that America isn't. This isn't surprising; we should expect laws and norms to be directly affected by a country's history. That the U.S. was, as you point out, a latecomer to the abolition and desegregation, would seem to justify the U.S. being more "uptight" (some would say, "vigilant") about racial discrimination issues. Why should that be seen as being "crazy about race"?
      - coldtea 9y ago
        >And Europe is extremely uptight about Holocaust-related things in ways that America isn't. Germany perhaps. Most of Europe, not. >That the U.S. was, as you point out, a latecomer to the abolition and desegregation, would seem to justify the U.S. being more "uptight" (some would say, "vigilant") about racial discrimination issues. Why should that be seen as being "crazy about race"? Because the US still has a thing for race, in a degree and a way that western european countries don't. Not just being "uptight" but active redlining, active huge overrepresentation of blacks in jail, active police open season on blacks, active open racism and much more.
        danso 9y ago
        No argument there about the disenfranchisement that blacks and other groups still face. You're arguing that this is a result of America's "thing for race"? That if America was more laid back about it, this would help to reduce the disenfranchisement?
        coldtea 9y ago
        I think yes, because the "thing for race" cuts both ways (appears in both anti-racists and racists) -- and makes race all the more apparent (instead of something that should be inconsequential).

by wyclif 9y ago

So does the UK, Ireland, Canada, South Africa, Australia, NZ, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Denmark, and every other Western, white-dominant tech host country.

coldtea 9y ago

Of course the workplace will be "white-dominant" if the majority is white. Not that many blacks in Ireland (1.5%) for the question to even matter. That wasn't the question, it was whether race bias plays any large role in hirings as in the US, which in UK, Canada, nordic countries etc it doesn't, as it doesn't in the societies in general. Can't speak for South Africa, Australia or NZ, far enough from Western Europe to be what I meant.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
wyclif 9y ago
No, actually that was not the question. The unsupported grandparent statement was that the US is "crazy about race as always." Well, the US is also a lot more racially diverse than those countries. So it's a bit of an apples-oranges comparison when discussing diversity. And I already know about the homogeneous populations of those countries. A couple of points: 1. It's rather convenient for your argument, isn't it, that some of the aforementioned countries (the Scandinavian ones) don't have any substantial black population. So no need to correct race bias there...there aren't many black workers there! Nice job. 2. The UK actually does have a significant black population, and if you look at UK tech companies I think you'll see that they have close to the same percentage of black programmers as in the US. Subsidiary point: being smug about supposed Euro superiority re: race bias in tech hiring and engaging in America bashing is a weak reed to lean on.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >No, actually that was not the question. The unsupported grandparent statement was that the US is "crazy about race as always." Well, the US is also a lot more racially diverse than those countries. Well, the US also didn't have any history (as US) before 1942 or so, so of course it got populated by "more racially diverse" population -- not because of the benevolence and multiculturalism of people already living there, but because people came in from all corners, grabbed land, and established a new country (in the process giving the real native population the short end of the stick). And despite that, the US had slaves long after European countries had abolished that practice, it had segregation long after Europe has done with it (which was rarely an issue here), and is still uptight about race in ways Europe isn't. Let's not even get into how 25% of the world's prisoners are in the US that only has 4% of the world's total population -- and how many of them are black compared to the whites there. That's what makes it "crazy about race as always". >1. It's rather convenient for your argument, isn't it, that some of the aforementioned countries (the Scandinavian ones) don't have any substantial black population. Well, sorry that Sweden didn't abduct and bought people from Africa so that it can now have more blacks... They do have a 5-7% of muslim immigrants, does that count?
  - danso 9y ago
    > And despite that, the US had slaves long after European countries had abolished that practice, it had segregation long after Europe has done with it (which was rarely an issue here), and is still uptight about race in ways Europe isn't. And Europe is extremely uptight about Holocaust-related things in ways that America isn't. This isn't surprising; we should expect laws and norms to be directly affected by a country's history. That the U.S. was, as you point out, a latecomer to the abolition and desegregation, would seem to justify the U.S. being more "uptight" (some would say, "vigilant") about racial discrimination issues. Why should that be seen as being "crazy about race"?
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >And Europe is extremely uptight about Holocaust-related things in ways that America isn't. Germany perhaps. Most of Europe, not. >That the U.S. was, as you point out, a latecomer to the abolition and desegregation, would seem to justify the U.S. being more "uptight" (some would say, "vigilant") about racial discrimination issues. Why should that be seen as being "crazy about race"? Because the US still has a thing for race, in a degree and a way that western european countries don't. Not just being "uptight" but active redlining, active huge overrepresentation of blacks in jail, active police open season on blacks, active open racism and much more.
      - danso 9y ago
        No argument there about the disenfranchisement that blacks and other groups still face. You're arguing that this is a result of America's "thing for race"? That if America was more laid back about it, this would help to reduce the disenfranchisement?
        coldtea 9y ago
        I think yes, because the "thing for race" cuts both ways (appears in both anti-racists and racists) -- and makes race all the more apparent (instead of something that should be inconsequential).