3 ms·

> Asian Americans represent 41.8 percent of Google’s workforce. [..] Forbes diversity writer Ruth Umoh summarized the report’s data as indicating both “modest g

by MikeUt 5y ago

> Asian Americans represent 41.8 percent of Google’s workforce. [..] Forbes diversity writer Ruth Umoh summarized the report’s data as indicating both “modest gains in representation for women and people of color,” and “a disproportionately white [52%*], Asian and male workforce.” The US is 61% white. I've lost count of the number of articles that casually call companies where whites are under-represented as "disproportionately white". *https://diversity.google/annual-report/representation/ https://diversity.google/annual-report/representation/

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
The older generations are whiter (it did used to be illegal for non-whites to emigrate to the USA, leading to an odd series of legal cases where different nationalities tried to prove their whiteness) so it may well skew figures in one direction or another if you include people who are too young to work or old enough to retire. I tried to find out what numbers Google were using, but I can't find your quote on the page you link to? Edit: ah it's from the article.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- MikeUt 5y ago
  > it did used to be illegal for non-whites to emigrate to the USA You must be mistaken. It's well known that the USA was conceived as a "melting pot nation", a nation of immigrants, and those agitating for the opposite are rightly rebuked as un-American. Diversity is our strength, e pluribus unum, etc. That is simply not compatible with ever having had white-only immigration laws, let alone so recently that it would still affect the age-structure.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - vitus 5y ago
    Well, non-whites were not generally eligible for citizenship until the Civil War (14th amendment). We have a long and illustrious history of discriminating against different races, when it comes to immigration. Just to list a few examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 "The law limited naturalization to "free white person(s) ... of good character", thus excluding Native Americans, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks and later Asians, although free blacks were allowed citizenship at the state level in a number of states." (note that Dred Scott v Sanford later explicitly declared that black people couldn't receive citizenship.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act (followup to the Page Act of 1875, which banned Chinese women so Chinese male laborers who came over to build the railroads wouldn't reproduce.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924 "The Immigration Act of 1924 ... prevented immigration from Asia, set quotas on the number of immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere, and provided funding and an enforcement mechanism to carry out the longstanding ban on other immigrants." Only in 1952 with the McCarran-Walter Act was this exclusion on Asian immigrants lifted, and the National Origins Formula (attempting to keep the racial composition status quo) was in place until 1965.
    - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
      The person you are replying to seems not to be disputing this history, but moving onto the "..but if it did happen it was a good thing" stage of the argument.
      - MikeUt 5y ago
        Certainly it was not a good thing for anyone non-white that wanted to immigrate or was already a resident - I'm not sure what part of my comment implies otherwise. I am only highlighting that the oft-repeated claim that America was conceived as a nation of non-discriminatory immigration is a lie. It only moved in that direction with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
        5y ago
Macha 5y ago
Yeah, we occasionally get Americans complain about how little diversity is in our European branch office because it's like 5% black, 10% Asian, 80% white. The country is 95% white, 2% Asian and 1.5% black. Public discussion of discrimination then tends to be focused on travellers (a white ethnic group) and eastern Europeans (also white) but it doesn't fit into American trends as much so internally its rarely discussed
silicon2401 5y ago
Many times, "diversity" and similar terms are dog whistles for "less white"

by MikeUt 5y ago

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

The older generations are whiter (it did used to be illegal for non-whites to emigrate to the USA, leading to an odd series of legal cases where different nationalities tried to prove their whiteness) so it may well skew figures in one direction or another if you include people who are too young to work or old enough to retire. I tried to find out what numbers Google were using, but I can't find your quote on the page you link to? Edit: ah it's from the article.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
MikeUt 5y ago
> it did used to be illegal for non-whites to emigrate to the USA You must be mistaken. It's well known that the USA was conceived as a "melting pot nation", a nation of immigrants, and those agitating for the opposite are rightly rebuked as un-American. Diversity is our strength, e pluribus unum, etc. That is simply not compatible with ever having had white-only immigration laws, let alone so recently that it would still affect the age-structure.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- vitus 5y ago
  Well, non-whites were not generally eligible for citizenship until the Civil War (14th amendment). We have a long and illustrious history of discriminating against different races, when it comes to immigration. Just to list a few examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 "The law limited naturalization to "free white person(s) ... of good character", thus excluding Native Americans, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks and later Asians, although free blacks were allowed citizenship at the state level in a number of states." (note that Dred Scott v Sanford later explicitly declared that black people couldn't receive citizenship.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act (followup to the Page Act of 1875, which banned Chinese women so Chinese male laborers who came over to build the railroads wouldn't reproduce.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924 "The Immigration Act of 1924 ... prevented immigration from Asia, set quotas on the number of immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere, and provided funding and an enforcement mechanism to carry out the longstanding ban on other immigrants." Only in 1952 with the McCarran-Walter Act was this exclusion on Asian immigrants lifted, and the National Origins Formula (attempting to keep the racial composition status quo) was in place until 1965.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    The person you are replying to seems not to be disputing this history, but moving onto the "..but if it did happen it was a good thing" stage of the argument.
    - MikeUt 5y ago
      Certainly it was not a good thing for anyone non-white that wanted to immigrate or was already a resident - I'm not sure what part of my comment implies otherwise. I am only highlighting that the oft-repeated claim that America was conceived as a nation of non-discriminatory immigration is a lie. It only moved in that direction with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
      - 5y ago

Macha 5y ago

Yeah, we occasionally get Americans complain about how little diversity is in our European branch office because it's like 5% black, 10% Asian, 80% white. The country is 95% white, 2% Asian and 1.5% black. Public discussion of discrimination then tends to be focused on travellers (a white ethnic group) and eastern Europeans (also white) but it doesn't fit into American trends as much so internally its rarely discussed

silicon2401 5y ago

Many times, "diversity" and similar terms are dog whistles for "less white"