Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 10:59:35 +0200
According to Josh, at 18:09 on 13 May 99, the word on
the street was...

> We must love generalization. I disagree with the term Racism. I think it is
> Socialism. IE: Discrimination based on social status and nothing else.

Socialism is a political movement, and (at least in its perfect form) one
where discrimination in _any_ form doesn't exist. Rather a poor word for
what you're tring to describe, isn't it? :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I can't help it...
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 2
From: Josh grimlakin@****.com
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 13:39:31 -0500
Gurth wrote:

> According to Josh, at 18:09 on 13 May 99, the word on
> the street was...
>
> > We must love generalization. I disagree with the term Racism. I think it is
> > Socialism. IE: Discrimination based on social status and nothing else.
>
> Socialism is a political movement, and (at least in its perfect form) one
> where discrimination in _any_ form doesn't exist. Rather a poor word for
> what you're tring to describe, isn't it? :)

Well the common defenition yes it is a poor word. What is a word for Discrimination
based solely on social status?

>
>
> --
> Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html

Grimlakin
Message no. 3
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 14:51:45 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 14 May 1999, Josh wrote:

> Well the common defenition yes it is a poor word. What is a word for
> Discrimination based solely on social status?

Typically the term used is "classism."

Marc
Message no. 4
From: Josh grimlakin@****.com
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 14:17:28 -0500
Marc Renouf wrote:

> On Fri, 14 May 1999, Josh wrote:
>
> > Well the common defenition yes it is a poor word. What is a word for
> > Discrimination based solely on social status?
>
> Typically the term used is "classism."

Wow and that word I did not know existed. See learn something new every
day. Welcome to a democracy based on a CASTE system.

>
>
> Marc

Grimlakin
Message no. 5
From: Scott Wheelock iscottw@*****.nb.ca
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 01:35:28 -0300
"And now, a Channel 6 editorial reply to Gurth."
] > We must love generalization. I disagree with the term Racism. I
think it is
] > Socialism. IE: Discrimination based on social status and nothing else.
]
] Socialism is a political movement, and (at least in its perfect form) one
] where discrimination in _any_ form doesn't exist. Rather a poor word for
] what you're tring to describe, isn't it? :)

I think what they were aiming for is "classism." Would that be
right? I gave up sociology a while ago, so I could be wrong...

-Murder of One
Message no. 6
From: Scott Wheelock iscottw@*****.nb.ca
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 02:08:48 -0300
"And now, a Channel 6 editorial reply to Josh."
] > Typically the term used is "classism."
]
] Wow and that word I did not know existed. See learn something new every
] day. Welcome to a democracy based on a CASTE system.

Actually, if we lived in a caste system, I'd be a doctor. But I'm
not. I'm a call centre employee. Prejudice usually erects obstacles,
not barriers :/
Incidentally, for a good read on the subject of the caste system, and
the Untouchable caste in particular, bump on down to the library and
loan out _Untouchable_ by Mulk Raj Anand. It's an oldie, but a goodie.

-Murder of One
Message no. 7
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 10:59:53 -0700
>Well the common defenition yes it is a poor word. What is a word for
>Discrimination
>based solely on social status?

Racism includes socioeconomic factors. Saying that discrimination exists,
for the most part, based only upon relative wealth is ignoring cultural
bias and perpetrating the myth that racism doesn't happen.

>Grimlakin

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 8
From: Josh grimlakin@****.com
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 14:54:33 -0500
Adam Getchell wrote:

> Racism includes socioeconomic factors. Saying that discrimination exists,
> for the most part, based only upon relative wealth is ignoring cultural
> bias and perpetrating the myth that racism doesn't happen.

I am not saying that it doesn't happen. Socioeconomic discrimination is
more prevelant. That is really all I am saying.

> --Adam

Grimlakin
Message no. 9
From: Strago strago@***.com
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 16:51:41 -0400
Adam Getchell wrote:

> >Well the common defenition yes it is a poor word. What is a word for
> >Discrimination
> >based solely on social status?
>
> Racism includes socioeconomic factors. Saying that discrimination exists,
> for the most part, based only upon relative wealth is ignoring cultural
> bias and perpetrating the myth that racism doesn't happen.
>

Racism, in it's purest (and I use that term very loosely) form, is
discrimination of someone because of their RACE. A racist hates a person of
another race whether they are rich, poor, or middle class. Where you get the
idea that racism includes socioeconomic factors is beyond my comprehension,
but maybe that's just because I'm a member of the dominant white male
echelon.

> >Grimlakin
>
> --Adam
>
> acgetchell@*******.edu
> "Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu



--
--Strago

The gene pool in the 21st century needs a deep cleaning. I am the chlorine.

SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2++ !SR3 h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN++ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+ (o++ d+) gm+
M-
Message no. 10
From: GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 17:08:24 EDT
In a message dated 5/18/99 2:00:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
acgetchell@*******.edu writes:

<< Racism includes socioeconomic factors. Saying that discrimination exists,
for the most part, based only upon relative wealth is ignoring cultural
bias and perpetrating the myth that racism doesn't happen. >>

No. Saying ALL discrimination is solely racist, or ethnic / cultural, in
basis perpetrates the myth that CLASSISM does not happen.

Let's face it: we have more kinds of prejudice than we have kinds of PEOPLE
on this planet.

Acknowledge them all, deny none of them. Otherwise you are just lying to
yourself. :-)

Sean
GM Pax
Message no. 11
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 15:24:41 -0700
>I am not saying that it doesn't happen. Socioeconomic discrimination is
>more prevelant. That is really all I am saying.

Here are some facts and figures for you:

Economic and Demographic Profile of Los Angeles Ethnic Communities:

Tenure: Anglos Blacks Hispanics
Homeowners 57 43 27
Renters 43 57 63

Poverty:
% below
Poverty line 11 30.4 33

Occupations:
Managerial-Prof 34 15 5
Tech, Sales-Adm 38 35 17
Service 9 21 20
Farm, Forestry 7 1.3 2.6
Craft 10 8.6 15.2
Laborers 9 18.3 38.5

Education
<= 8th grade 7 12 47
High School 40 53 39
College 40 31 12
College+ 14 4 2

Age
16-24 18 25 35
25-32 18 19 27
33-40 13 14 14
41-48 10 11 9
49-56 12 10 -
57-64 11 10 7
65+ 18 12 9

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Burea of the Census, Census of
Population and Housing 1980 Public-Use Microdata Samples-Los Angeles

Personally Experienced Discrimination Reported by Blacks, Mexican
Americans, and Asian Americans

Respondent Personally Black Mexican Asian
Experienced Prejudice 62% 36% 46%

As % of Those Who
Said Yes, Most Serious
Discrimination Personally
Experienced:

Social Situation 26 40 55
Job 52 32 23
Education 7 13 7
Housing 7 12 6

Carole J. Uhlaner, University of California Irvine, "Perceived
Discrimination and Prejudice and the Coalition Prospects of Blacks,
Latinos, and Asian Americans", _Racial and Ethnic Politics in California_,
p. 347

I could cite many, many more facts and figures, but that should be enough
to grasp the point.

>Grimlakin

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 12
From: GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 19:22:13 EDT
In a message dated 5/18/99 6:25:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
acgetchell@*******.edu writes:

> Age
> 16-24 18 25 35
> 25-32 18 19 27
> 33-40 13 14 14
> 41-48 10 11 9
> 49-56 12 10 -
> 57-64 11 10 7
> 65+ 18 12 9

These figures partially invalidate the numbers given for rental/homeownership
and education: the 16-24 age group is FAR more likely to rent than own. And
_should_ by rights be in school still, if we are shooting for college and
college+ educational levels.

And as for employment: how many 16 year olds work in managerial capacity?
How many 18 year olds?

When the survey includes adult-oriented questions, the younger folks need to
be excluded from the respondant group.

And as they say, "lies, damned lies, statistics, and GOVERNMENT statistics."

Sean
GM Pax
Message no. 13
From: Josh grimlakin@****.com
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 18:29:53 -0500
Adam Getchell wrote:

> >I am not saying that it doesn't happen. Socioeconomic discrimination is
> >more prevelant. That is really all I am saying.
>
> Here are some facts and figures for you:
>
> Economic and Demographic Profile of Los Angeles Ethnic Communities:
>
> Tenure: Anglos Blacks Hispanics
> Homeowners 57 43 27
> Renters 43 57 63
>
> Poverty:
> % below
> Poverty line 11 30.4 33
>
> Occupations:
> Managerial-Prof 34 15 5
> Tech, Sales-Adm 38 35 17
> Service 9 21 20
> Farm, Forestry 7 1.3 2.6
> Craft 10 8.6 15.2
> Laborers 9 18.3 38.5
>
> Education
> <= 8th grade 7 12 47
> High School 40 53 39
> College 40 31 12
> College+ 14 4 2
>
> Age
> 16-24 18 25 35
> 25-32 18 19 27
> 33-40 13 14 14
> 41-48 10 11 9
> 49-56 12 10 -
> 57-64 11 10 7
> 65+ 18 12 9
>
> Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Burea of the Census, Census of
> Population and Housing 1980 Public-Use Microdata Samples-Los Angeles
>
> Personally Experienced Discrimination Reported by Blacks, Mexican
> Americans, and Asian Americans
>
> Respondent Personally Black Mexican Asian
> Experienced Prejudice 62% 36% 46%
>
> As % of Those Who
> Said Yes, Most Serious
> Discrimination Personally
> Experienced:
>
> Social Situation 26 40 55
> Job 52 32 23
> Education 7 13 7
> Housing 7 12 6
>
> Carole J. Uhlaner, University of California Irvine, "Perceived
> Discrimination and Prejudice and the Coalition Prospects of Blacks,
> Latinos, and Asian Americans", _Racial and Ethnic Politics in California_,
> p. 347
>
> I could cite many, many more facts and figures, but that should be enough
> to grasp the point.

Yea noone cares about opression to the white man. <Just very slightly
serious>

> --Adam

Me again.
Message no. 14
From: Geoffrey Haacke knight_errant30@*******.com
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 17:47:37 CST
Not to start another arguement, but what exactly are anglos? Pure English
stock? German? Italian? It can make a difference!

Geoff Haacke
"if you not part of the solution then you are part of the precipitate."

>From: Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.edu>
>Reply-To: shadowrn@*********.org
>To: shadowrn@*********.org
>Subject: Re: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
>Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 15:24:41 -0700
>
> >I am not saying that it doesn't happen. Socioeconomic discrimination is
> >more prevelant. That is really all I am saying.
>
>Here are some facts and figures for you:
>
>Economic and Demographic Profile of Los Angeles Ethnic Communities:
>
>Tenure: Anglos Blacks Hispanics
>Homeowners 57 43 27
>Renters 43 57 63
>
>Poverty:
>% below
>Poverty line 11 30.4 33
>
>Occupations:
>Managerial-Prof 34 15 5
>Tech, Sales-Adm 38 35 17
>Service 9 21 20
>Farm, Forestry 7 1.3 2.6
>Craft 10 8.6 15.2
>Laborers 9 18.3 38.5
>
>Education
><= 8th grade 7 12 47
>High School 40 53 39
>College 40 31 12
>College+ 14 4 2
>
>Age
>16-24 18 25 35
>25-32 18 19 27
>33-40 13 14 14
>41-48 10 11 9
>49-56 12 10 -
>57-64 11 10 7
>65+ 18 12 9
>
>Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Burea of the Census, Census of
>Population and Housing 1980 Public-Use Microdata Samples-Los Angeles
>
>Personally Experienced Discrimination Reported by Blacks, Mexican
>Americans, and Asian Americans
>
>Respondent Personally Black Mexican Asian
> Experienced Prejudice 62% 36% 46%
>
>As % of Those Who
>Said Yes, Most Serious
>Discrimination Personally
>Experienced:
>
>Social Situation 26 40 55
>Job 52 32 23
>Education 7 13 7
>Housing 7 12 6
>
>Carole J. Uhlaner, University of California Irvine, "Perceived
>Discrimination and Prejudice and the Coalition Prospects of Blacks,
>Latinos, and Asian Americans", _Racial and Ethnic Politics in California_,
>p. 347
>
>I could cite many, many more facts and figures, but that should be enough
>to grasp the point.
>
> >Grimlakin
>
>--Adam
>
>acgetchell@*******.edu
>"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
>
>




______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 15
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 16:49:25 -0700
>These figures partially invalidate the numbers given for rental/homeownership
>and education: the 16-24 age group is FAR more likely to rent than own. And

Publish a detailed statistical counter-analysis of this, and I'll believe
you. I gave you the references, you can read the methodology and paper for
yourself.

>_should_ by rights be in school still, if we are shooting for college and
>college+ educational levels.
>And as for employment: how many 16 year olds work in managerial capacity?
>How many 18 year olds?

This explains why only 5% of Hispanics have Managerial/Professional jobs?

>When the survey includes adult-oriented questions, the younger folks need to
>be excluded from the respondant group.

I can give similiar figures for San Francisco in Richard Deleon's "The
Progressive Urban Regime: Ethnic Coalitions in San Francisco" from _Racial
and Ethnic Politics in California_.

This strongly suggests an overall correlation between socioeconomic factors
and race.

>And as they say, "lies, damned lies, statistics, and GOVERNMENT statistics."

You conveniently harp on a few particular numbers (which you have yet to
prove), but your assertations still do not change the overall conclusion in
any way.

>Sean
>GM Pax

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 16
From: GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 20:42:13 EDT
In a message dated 5/18/99 7:50:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
acgetchell@*******.edu writes:

> >These figures partially invalidate the numbers given for rental/
> homeownership
> >and education: the 16-24 age group is FAR more likely to rent than own.
> And
>
> Publish a detailed statistical counter-analysis of this, and I'll believe
> you. I gave you the references, you can read the methodology and paper for
> yourself.
>
> >_should_ by rights be in school still, if we are shooting for college and
> >college+ educational levels.
> >And as for employment: how many 16 year olds work in managerial capacity?
> >How many 18 year olds?
>
> This explains why only 5% of Hispanics have Managerial/Professional jobs?
>

Not that large a difference, no. But, SOME of it, yes.

Think: based on the demographic data you supplied for AGE of the respondants,
something on the order of every third hispanic respondant (35%) was in the
age group of 16 to 24. Yet the whites included a mere 18%, less than one in
FIVE, respondants in the same age range.

Now think: that means, of those 25 or OLDER, that there were only 65% of the
Hispanic respondants, and there was 82% of the White respondants. The whites
had roughly 1/3 more 25+ individuals respond to the survey. Individuals 25+
are "more likely" to hold managerial positions. Ergo, SOME difference can be
expected right there, without factoring in ethnic, racial, economic, or OTHER
effects.

NO, I do not dispute the numbers are still at least partially supportive of
your points. I _do_ dispute their absolute accuracy, and the confidence you
expect us to place in them.

Statistics can be used, given the SAME set of data, to prove BOTH sides of a
mutually-exclusive-opposites argument. It all depends on the _weight_ you
give to each datum, your screening/filtering process, and your presentation.

Ergo, the statistical analysis you provided us with is _interesting_ but
_hardly_ definitive. As any well-versed statistical mathematician with a
sufficient streak of honesty will tell you. I know, that's what _I_ was told
... :-)

> >When the survey includes adult-oriented questions, the younger folks need
> to
> >be excluded from the respondant group.
>
> I can give similiar figures for San Francisco in Richard Deleon's "The
> Progressive Urban Regime: Ethnic Coalitions in San Francisco" from _Racial
> and Ethnic Politics in California_.
>

And still, do the questions lead to answers more fitting of fully adult,
established individuals, and did the survey / respondant group include
NONadult, NONestablished individuals? If so, then negative responses are
going to be artificially inflated. Which undermines confidence in the
statistical modeling, and removes some or all of the credibility of the
_entire_ study.

> This strongly suggests an overall correlation between socioeconomic factors
> and race.
>

Yes, with _potentially_ misleading figures, gained through a study whose
combinations of questions asked and respondants sought/accepted leads to a
drop in confidence in the calculates statistics.

IOW, the study used, IMO, a flawed sampling of the population, leading to an
innacurate (partially or wholly I cannot and will not judge) statistical
model of trends and traits within the communities measured.

> >And as they say, "lies, damned lies, statistics, and GOVERNMENT
statistics."
>
>
> You conveniently harp on a few particular numbers (which you have yet to
> prove), but your assertations still do not change the overall conclusion in
> any way.

Incorrect, Mr. Getchell. Not once have I "harped" on even a single number.
May I suggest you get your opponents in this debate straight? :-)

Sean
GM Pax
Message no. 17
From: Ojaste,James [NCR] James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 12:35:28 -0400
Adam Getchell [mailto:acgetchell@*******.edu]
> >These figures partially invalidate the numbers given for
> rental/homeownership
> >and education: the 16-24 age group is FAR more likely to
> rent than own. And
>
> Publish a detailed statistical counter-analysis of this, and
> I'll believe
> you. I gave you the references, you can read the methodology
> and paper for
> yourself.

Oh, come on now. It's a rare 16-24 year old who actually owns a
house. No, I don't have actual numbers on my person but sheesh.
I'm at the upper end of that bracket and most of my friends are
above that bracket. The people in my social circle aren't starving
for money (well, apart from a couple of people still attending
university) but I don't know *anybody* in that age group who
actually owns (or has a mortage on) a house.

> >_should_ by rights be in school still, if we are shooting
> for college and
> >college+ educational levels.
> >And as for employment: how many 16 year olds work in
> managerial capacity?
> >How many 18 year olds?
>
> This explains why only 5% of Hispanics have
> Managerial/Professional jobs?

I'd say that the educational statements help that one along quite
nicely. Education was consistently ranked 3rd in terms of severity
of prejudice behind social (!) and job-related. Does this explain
why 54% of "anglos" (although "anglophone" is a term which actually
applies to most of the people answering this survey, but I'll let
that pass) have a college degree or better and "blacks" and
"hispanics" (I love how they categorize these things - what if
one parent is "black" and the other is "hispanic"?) were at 35% and
14% respectively?

Considering that professional and managerial positions frequently
*require* a bachelor's degree or equivalent, we find that:
The ratio of M/P jobs to college or better degrees is:
Anglo Black Hispanic
0.63 0.43 0.36
Which tells a different story. Instead of saying "anglos have
seven times as many M/P jobs as hispanics", why not say "educated
anglos have *twice* as many M/P jobs as educated hispanics"?

With 47% of hispanics not having a high school degree, is it any
wonder that 38.5% of hispanics work as labourers? Yes. The wonder
is why the number isn't higher. 7% of anglos don't have high school,
but 9% work as labourers. This implies that educated anglos are
finding jobs as labourers while uneducated hispanics are finding
jobs *other than* labour. Hmm. Now we seem to be supported
prejudice against anglos. Statistics. Go figure! :-)

> >And as they say, "lies, damned lies, statistics, and
> GOVERNMENT statistics."

Yes and know. "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics Interpreted To
Support A Given Position". Statistics on their own are just
numbers - it's once people start drawing conclusions from the
numbers that dangers arise.

> You conveniently harp on a few particular numbers (which you
> have yet to
> prove), but your assertations still do not change the overall
> conclusion in
> any way.

Whose conclusion? I've kept the numbers the same in my little
analysis above, but I've changed the conclusion.

James Ojaste
Message no. 18
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 08:58:55 +1000
Ojaste, James writes:
> Oh, come on now. It's a rare 16-24 year old who actually owns a
> house. No, I don't have actual numbers on my person but sheesh.
> I'm at the upper end of that bracket and most of my friends are
> above that bracket. The people in my social circle aren't starving
> for money (well, apart from a couple of people still attending
> university) but I don't know *anybody* in that age group who
> actually owns (or has a mortage on) a house.

If your ShadowRN buddies count, you know at least one, James...

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 19
From: Adam Getchell acgetchell@*******.edu
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 17:17:39 -0700
>Oh, come on now. It's a rare 16-24 year old who actually owns a
>house. No, I don't have actual numbers on my person but sheesh.
>I'm at the upper end of that bracket and most of my friends are
>above that bracket. The people in my social circle aren't starving
>for money (well, apart from a couple of people still attending
>university) but I don't know *anybody* in that age group who
>actually owns (or has a mortage on) a house.

Here's some more facts and figures for you:

Comparisons of Anglos, Asians, Hispanics, and Blacks on Selected
Socio-Demographic Indicators: San Francisco, 1980
Anglos Asians Hispanics Blacks Total
%Managerial-Prof 34.5 18.4 14.1 14.9 26.7
Low-wage service occup. 6.3 14.3 15.4 10.4 9.4
Government workers 17.5 16.6 15.8 33.4 18.8
Some college+ aged >% 59.3 47.4 34.1 35.7 51.5
Per capita income $ 13408 9902 9256 9288 11837

Earning > $14,999 30.3 19.2 15.9 17.3 24.7
Earners with income from
interest, dividends, rent 42.0 37.1 16.6 10.1 34.9
Income below 125% poverty 15.3 17.1 22.1 27.8 18.0
Earners receiving public
assistance 5.7 8.0 10.0 16.7 7.8
Homeowners 39.7 49.6 38.2 39.1 41.4
Homeowners with first morgage 52.1 77.4 67.5 80.1 62.5
Lived in same house in 1975 48.5 47.5 45.1 53.4 48.3
Lived in foreign country in 1975 3.2 23.4 10.8 0.7 7.8
Total pop < 8.4 20.9 24.4 23.7 15.0
Total pop >` 26.5 14.4 11.8 13.7 20.3
Individuals in
nonfamily households 49.0 14.4 21.9 27.2 36.4

"Table 1 compares Anglos, Asians, Hispanics, and blacks on selected
socio-demographic indicators. Six general patterns can be seen in the
comparitive statistics. First, Anglos occupy a much higher socio-economic
status (SES) than the other three groups. Proportionally more of them are
in the upper-income strata, own income-producing assets (wealth), have
formal schooling at the college level, and work in professional-managerial
careers. Second, Anglos are also distinguished from the other three reacial
groups in terms of family life-style characteristics. As a group they are
older, have fewer children, and are much more likely to live in nonfamily
households. third, Asians as a group are more socio-economically advanced
than Hispanics and blacks (especially in terms of wealth and education) but
similiar to them in terms of family life-style characteristics. Fourth,
blacks a a group are significantly poorer and more reliant on public
assistance and local government employment than Asians and Hispanics.
Fifth, the recent growth of the Asian and Hispanic populations is fueled by
high levels of immigration, Asians much more than Hispanics (at least in
terms of official census statistics). Sixth, variation in the rate of
homeownership across the major racial groups is surprisingly small
considering the large interracial differences in SES. This implies
significant levels of low-income homeownership in all racial groups, a
prediction confirmed by breakdowns of the PUMS data showing homeownership
rates for those earning less than $10,000: Anglos, 38.2%; Asians, 44.2%;
Hispanics, 36.0%, blacks, 34.8 percent. (See Jackson, 1988, for a very
similiar profile of ethnic group differences in Los Angeles.)"

Richard Deleon, San Francisco State University, "The Progressive Urban
Regime: Ethnic Coalitions in San Francisco", _Racial and Ethnic Politics in
California_, Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California at
Berkeley, 1991, pp. 161-2.

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 20
From: Penta cpenta@*****.com
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 20:24:09 -0700
<snip useless stats from Adam Getchell>

Oookay. Before I snap, I'm going to say what I've said in school to people who
generally use statistics as the only concrete indicator of something, whether
those stats are quoted from a book or not: Statistics Mean Bullshit. Folks, I'm
going to say this: GridSec, PLEASE. Maybe there were lessons being learned
earlier. NOW this has gotten pointless. Kill it NOW, I BEG you. This is
becoming worse than something about woodchucks or grounding through
quickenings.

John
Message no. 21
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 10:39:32 +1000
Adam Getchell supplied several pages of figures.

Some points:
> Comparisons of Anglos, Asians, Hispanics, and Blacks on Selected
> Socio-Demographic Indicators: San Francisco, 1980

a) That was 1980 data... nearly twenty years ago. If you want to talk about
current problems, please use current data. Furthermore, that was for one
city, San Francisco. That is not necessarily indicative of nationwide
trends. The report you are quoting is also eight years old (and should have
been suspect at that time, if it was using data that was 11 years old as its
primary reference).

b) So what? All of the data there can be inferred from the earlier fact
posted showing the disparity in education. In and of itself, the data shown
is not evidence of racism, but of the economic facts of life: skilled,
educated workers get better jobs and more money.

c) There's no breakdown into age groups, either. Given that many immigrants
(hispanics, in particular) arrive in the US as unskilled labour, take
poor-paying jobs, work hard, and try to give their kids a better crack at
life, a breakdown in age groups might well show less of a disparity in the
younger age groups (as the better education available to children of
immigrants vs the immigrants themselves starts to have its economic effect)

Finally:
> Second, Anglos are also distinguished from the other three reacial
> groups in terms of family life-style characteristics. As a group they are
> older, have fewer children, and are much more likely to live in nonfamily
> households.

DINK households in all racial groups are better off financially. More money
coming in, fewer required expenditure.

So, the data you presented is somewhat, um, lacking in information.
Furthermore, the conclusions Mr Delton presents are somewhat bland. The data
merely shows that better educated people have better jobs. Well, excuse me
while I go "duh!". It has no evidence of racism present.

And before you start, Adam, no, the fact that Anglosaxons have better
education is not evidence of racism, either! It's simply a reflection of the
fact that the Anglosaxons are, on a whole, better off. But that's not
racist, either: it's an historical accident.

Take two kids, one white, one black. Put them both into economically
disadvantaged families. They're going to have the same sort of problems.
They're both going to struggle getting into college, due to financial
restraints. If they don't go to college, they're both likely to end up in
blue-collar, probably low-paying jobs. If one succeeds in life where the
other fails, it'll almost certainly come down to personal traits, or plain
luck, not the colour of their skin. The biggest handicap to both will be
their socio-economic background, which limits their resources.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 22
From: GMPax@***.com GMPax@***.com
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 20:41:55 EDT
In a message dated 5/20/99 8:18:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
acgetchell@*******.edu writes:

> Comparisons of Anglos, Asians, Hispanics, and Blacks on Selected
> Socio-Demographic Indicators: San Francisco, 1980

That data is from almost twenty years ago.

Was there an additional study performed in 1990? and in 1970?

From those three points we could PERHAPS draw some conclusions, especially as
to trends.

And Mr. Getchell, NOONE here denies that minorities get shafted. We deny the
following assumptions you have stated as such or clearly implied by the
entire body of your writings here (as in, in this thread and it's spin-offs):

(A) All white folks get an easier ride from the system than all nonwhite
folks.

This is clearly a racially-biased generalisation, and thus
unworthy of your stated purpose and position.

(B) No white person can ever understand what it is to be an oppressed,
discriminated-against, disadvantaged person; only minority peoples can ever
understand that ...

(C) ... because it only happens TO minority people, not you lucky, wealthy,
always-get-the-special-breaks white folks.

Which above two statements are also racially biased,
in the extreme. Now I grant, they may not be what you MEAN ... but the
intent you have managed to communicate to us is, by and large, JUST THOSE
THREE POINTS, and little, if nothing, else.

Sean
GM Pax
Message no. 23
From: Strago strago@***.com
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 22:38:49 -0400
Penta wrote:

> <SNIP> This is becoming worse than something about woodchucks or grounding
> through quickenings.
>
> John

I wasn't there for those threads. Could I find an example of a post of one of
these threads? I honestly cannot understand how you could debate (or why you would
debate) "how much wood can a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood".
Which word was the bone of contention? Help?

*Strago hopes people will realize he is absolutely serious and just send him one of
the messages, instead of a thwapping*
--
--Strago

The gene pool in the 21st century needs a deep cleaning. I am the chlorine.

SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2++ !SR3 h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN++ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+ (o++ d+) gm+ M-
Message no. 24
From: Geoffrey Haacke knight_errant30@*******.com
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 22:46:08 CST
>Comparisons of Anglos, Asians, Hispanics, and Blacks on Selected

You still haven't defined "Anglos". And I am really curious as to the
definition.

>--Adam
>
>acgetchell@*******.edu
>"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
>
>




Geoff Haacke

"if you not part of the solution then you are part of the precipitate."



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 25
From: Allen Versfeld moe@*******.com
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 08:45:15 +0200
GMPax@***.com wrote:
>

> And Mr. Getchell, NOONE here denies that minorities get shafted. We deny the
> following assumptions you have stated as such or clearly implied by the
> entire body of your writings here (as in, in this thread and it's spin-offs):
>
> (A) All white folks get an easier ride from the system than all nonwhite
> folks.
>
> This is clearly a racially-biased generalisation, and thus
> unworthy of your stated purpose and position.
>
> (B) No white person can ever understand what it is to be an oppressed,
> discriminated-against, disadvantaged person; only minority peoples can ever
> understand that ...
>
> (C) ... because it only happens TO minority people, not you lucky, wealthy,
> always-get-the-special-breaks white folks.
>
> Which above two statements are also racially biased,
> in the extreme. Now I grant, they may not be what you MEAN ... but the

I don't consider this to be racism at all - frankly, President Nelson
Mandela and cronies are more racist than this... (listen to the
speeches they make when they think the press aren't listening to see
what I mean). Must be nice to live somewhere that merely making
assumptions about people based on race is considered racism.

>
> Sean
> GM Pax


--
Allen Versfeld
moe@*******.com
Wandata
Message no. 26
From: Ojaste,James [NCR] James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 09:22:35 -0400
Geoffrey Haacke [mailto:knight_errant30@*******.com]
> >Comparisons of Anglos, Asians, Hispanics, and Blacks on Selected
>
> You still haven't defined "Anglos". And I am really curious
> as to the
> definition.

Well, in Canada, "Anglo" means "Anglophone" (as opposed to
"Francophone"). Seeing as there's far more, err, linguistic tension
(can't *really* call it racist, as it isn't) with the whole
Québec thing...

Which, to tie this into SR, will just get worse. Right now, there
are a bunch of silly laws (primary signage must be in french,
alternate signage must be smaller and may be in english, stuff like
that). How can these laws be evenly applied? Should a Chapters
located in Shawinagan Falls be renamed "Chapitres"? Should Star Wars
be advertised as "Guerre d'Étoiles"? What happens with non-english
stuff? "Atari 2600" -> "En garde 2600"?

"Aztechnology" is an obvious english name. I don't think that ORO
would go for "Aztechnologie". Ares Macrotechnology? Hey, wait,
what about "Cross Applied Technologies"? That's even based in
Québec...

James Ojaste
Message no. 27
From: Geoffrey Haacke knight_errant30@*******.com
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 09:51:27 CST
>Well, in Canada, "Anglo" means "Anglophone" (as opposed to
>"Francophone"). Seeing as there's far more, err, linguistic tension
>(can't *really* call it racist, as it isn't) with the whole
>Québec thing...

Oh yeah, I know that (I'm a Canuck as well :)), I was asking for the
American definition. That aklso leads to something interesting....Quebec in
SR. I know that it formes it's own country and all, but I'm curious as to
what it would be like. I know of the language laws and such, but what about
business, culture etc?

>James Ojaste
>
>




Geoff Haacke

"if you not part of the solution then you are part of the precipitate."



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 28
From: Ojaste,James [NCR] James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 15:39:47 -0400
Geoffrey Haacke [mailto:knight_errant30@*******.com]
> >Well, in Canada, "Anglo" means "Anglophone" (as opposed to
> >"Francophone"). Seeing as there's far more, err, linguistic tension
> >(can't *really* call it racist, as it isn't) with the whole
> >Québec thing...
>
> Oh yeah, I know that (I'm a Canuck as well :)), I was
> asking for the
> American definition. That aklso leads to something
> interesting....Quebec in
> SR. I know that it formes it's own country and all, but I'm
> curious as to
> what it would be like. I know of the language laws and such,
> but what about
> business, culture etc?

Have you read Blood in the Boardroom? They talk about Cross Applied
Technologies there, headed by Lucien Cross. Québec levies heavy
penalties to foreign companies operating in Québec, and I get the
general impression of a strong military presence (to keep the corps
in line, if nothing else).

James Ojaste
Message no. 29
From: Geoffrey Haacke knight_errant30@*******.com
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 13:58:46 CST
>Have you read Blood in the Boardroom? They talk about Cross Applied
>Technologies there, headed by Lucien Cross. Québec levies heavy
>penalties to foreign companies operating in Québec, and I get the
>general impression of a strong military presence (to keep the corps
>in line, if nothing else).
>
>James Ojaste
>

No! Never heard of it! When did it come out!?! Is it a sourcebook?


Geoff Haacke
"if you not part of the solution then you are part of the precipitate."


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 30
From: Pamela Zerbinos pez215@*****.acns.nwu.edu
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 15:13:18 -0500 (CDT)
On Fri, 21 May 1999, Geoffrey Haacke wrote:
>
> >Have you read Blood in the Boardroom?

<snip>
>
> No! Never heard of it! When did it come out!?! Is it a sourcebook?

no, just an adventure about the corp war. i'm not sure when it came out,
but you can still get it from the fasa site if you can't find it in
stores.

--
thief@***.edu...
...now you see me, now you


http://pubweb.nwu.edu/~pez215
Message no. 31
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 11:38:43 +0200
According to Pamela Zerbinos, at 15:13 on 21 May 99, the word on
the street was...

> > No! Never heard of it! When did it come out!?! Is it a sourcebook?
>
> no, just an adventure about the corp war. i'm not sure when it came out,
> but you can still get it from the fasa site if you can't find it in
> stores.

AFAIK it's still in print, so it shouldn't be too hard to find/order.
Calling it an adventure is stretching the definition, though -- it's one
of those "tracked adventure" thingies that I really hope FASA don't
publish again.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I never seem to be able to finish what I
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about [OT and political even] Re: How much is how much...?, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!