Do you think you are an expert on the effect that something like this that you would never notice on your own has on black children? Do you honestly think you know more about that than Thelma Dye does? Really? Are we back to “it doesn’t bother David so it’s not a problem”?

Laura(southernxyl): She’s going to have a whole lot more experience than I am in dealing with black kids and the problems they face. That doesn’t make her automatically right, but I think it would make me look like an a-hole if I assume that I know more than she does about an issue she faces every day and I can only speculate about.

Conversely, it makes it more likely that she is looking for these sorts of things, as is and has been easily parodied.

Laura(southernxyl): The second thing I see is that she says, in so many words: “While it’s clear that’s not what was intended, sometimes these things have collateral damage.” This is exactly what I was suggesting earlier: she’s not saying that Walmart did this on purpose, she’s talking about the effect that this kind of thing has on black kids.

She’s only talking about the negative effects; the basenote points out positive effects she seems to have ignored.

It’s an ill wind that blows no one harm; especially when dealing with unintended consequences one should look at the net impact. Otherwise one is open to the accusation that one is cherry-picking to feed a bias or an agenda.

Laura(southernxyl): The fact that you are offended by it possibly means that you are a bit too sensitive.

Since you are not a white male, you cannot know what it is like to be repeatedly accused of racism and sexism.

“The implication of the lowering of the price is that’s devaluing the black doll,” said Thelma Dye, the executive director of the Northside Center for Child Development, a Harlem, N.Y. organization founded by pioneering psychologists and segregation researchers Kenneth B. Clark and Marnie Phipps Clark.

“While it’s clear that’s not what was intended, sometimes these things have collateral damage,” Dye said.

The first thing I see here is her job title and employer. She’s going to have a whole lot more experience than I am in dealing with black kids and the problems they face. That doesn’t make her automatically right, but I think it would make me look like an a-hole if I assume that I know more than she does about an issue she faces every day and I can only speculate about.

The second thing I see is that she says, in so many words: “While it’s clear that’s not what was intended, sometimes these things have collateral damage.” This is exactly what I was suggesting earlier: she’s not saying that Walmart did this on purpose, she’s talking about the effect that this kind of thing has on black kids. Surely you are not unaware of the concept of unintended consequences. Sometimes they are the worst, because if they’re not brought to someone’s attention, they’ll go on and on because people rely on their good intentions to keep them from doing harm rather than think objectively. And then react negatively, as if they are being accused of bad intentions, if they’re asked to think, even if the speaker SAYS she doesn’t suspect bad intentions. I actually think her remark is very temperate. The fact that you are offended by it possibly means that you are a bit too sensitive.

Should your viewpoint automatically be the one considered when the decision is made whether to do that? David says it’s not a problem, so if anyone disagrees with him we’ll just disregard? That’s what I mean by “the default viewpoint”.

I see. No, I have to defend my viewpoint if I want to convince others. I can appeal to my authority, as a heuristic time-saver, if that’s applicable.

it hurts his little girl’s feelings to see that black doll priced less than the white doll.

I never doubted that this might be a black little girl’s impression. This would be a good opportunity for him to explain to his daughter that not only is there nothing nefarious in this[*], for the reasons discussed here, but in this case it works to her advantage.

There are plenty of real offenses to be hurt by; one will be happier if one doesn’t find them where they don’t exist.

[*]At least on WalMart’s part — is it demanded less because people prefer dolls that look like them, and there are more white people than black people shopping there, or is it because people of all backgrounds prefer white dolls to black dolls, or is it because Barbie has the name recognition that Theresa doesn’t?

Is Theresa one of those mythical economic goods where increasing price increases demand? In that case the geniuses in Benton should add that to their algorithms, but if it’s so they probably noticed that discounting Theresas didn’t move them any faster.

I should also add that my viewpoint as a white male should also be valued — just as the little girl is offended by WalMart, and Ms. Dye is offended by WalMart not anticipating a problem, I’m offended by Ms. Dye finding a problem where there shouldn’t be one, and next time I hear a claim of racism or racial insensitivity my a priori assumption will be to believe it that much less.

How much effort must I make to see something one way before declaring it to be wrong?

That’s actually the question I started out with, I think.

Is there an answer?

Well, IMO, people need to make enough of an effort to satisfy their conscience and not to look like an idiot. Some people will need to make more of an effort than others, I guess.

I am cool that my viewpoint on everything is my default

I’m cool with it being your default, too. I am not cool with the assumption that it is THE default, if that is what you are assuming. Do you see a difference?

I’m not sure. People may disagree. We can try to convince each other.
I think I’m hearing from you that you think I think my being white and male has some bearing on whether my current viewpoint is correct. I deny that that fact has any bearing (except for correlations, and that my own experiences have been impacted by that situation.)

My opinion again – there is a difference between viewpoints being correct and being default. Going back to the Walmart case – if it was a matter of inventory control algorithms that priced those dolls differently, which it looks like it was, then it is incorrect of anyone, regardless of viewpoint, to say that Walmart was being deliberately racist. But if the question is not what Walmart’s intention was, but rather, is it a problem that a black child sees that the dolls are priced differently – well, your viewpoint might be “that’s not a problem” and that of a person who is raising black kids and sees stuff all the time that you are oblivious to might be “it’s just another brick in the wall”. Suppose that somebody at Walmart said that they could fairly easily code items so that a price disparity like this one would be flagged for a person to look at to make sure that at least the dolls weren’t displayed side-by-side. Should your viewpoint automatically be the one considered when the decision is made whether to do that? David says it’s not a problem, so if anyone disagrees with him we’ll just disregard? That’s what I mean by “the default viewpoint”.

As a matter of fact, the energy auditor was black. I believed him. Not because he was black, but because he was trained in energy audits and seemed to know his stuff and explained it.

Exactly. Now suppose that this black energy auditor, who has already struck you as being a person who knows his stuff in that area and therefore has some sense, tells you that it hurts his little girl’s feelings to see that black doll priced less than the white doll. He has a different viewpoint than you do b/c you’ve not seen a little black girl in the act of noticing something like that, and he has; and a girl who is dear to him, as well. Whose viewpoint is more relevant on this issue?

How much effort must I make to see something one way before declaring it to be wrong?

That’s actually the question I started out with, I think.

Is there an answer?

I am cool that my viewpoint on everything is my default

I’m cool with it being your default, too. I am not cool with the assumption that it is THE default, if that is what you are assuming. Do you see a difference?

I’m not sure. People may disagree. We can try to convince each other.
I think I’m hearing from you that you think I think my being white and male has some bearing on whether my current viewpoint is correct. I deny that that fact has any bearing (except for correlations, and that my own experiences have been impacted by that situation.)

If the viewpoint of a black person or a woman differs from yours on an issue that they have extensive first-hand experience of and you have none at all, and that perhaps you haven’t had occasion even to give serious thought to, do you not think their viewpoint might have more worth than yours on that issue?

As a matter of fact, the energy auditor was black. I believed him. Not because he was black, but because he was trained in energy audits and seemed to know his stuff and explained it. And he wasn’t selling anything (which brings the analogy closer) – he didn’t care if I bought a new boiler or not, so I didn’t doubt that the numbers he gave me were accurate.

How much effort must I make to see something one way before declaring it to be wrong?

That’s actually the question I started out with, I think.

I am cool that my viewpoint on everything is my default

I’m cool with it being your default, too. I am not cool with the assumption that it is THE default, if that is what you are assuming. Do you see a difference?

I find it offensively racist and sexist that you find my viewpoint less worthy because of my race and sex

If the viewpoint of a black person or a woman differs from yours on an issue that they have extensive first-hand experience of and you have none at all, and that perhaps you haven’t had occasion even to give serious thought to, do you not think their viewpoint might have more worth than yours on that issue?

Exactly how many little black girls have you personally felt responsible for helping to develop a positive self-image? I don’t know you, for all I know you have fostered or helped raise black children. But if the answer is zero, can you say in the first five seconds of viewing a story such as this, that it’s not a problem and not an issue? Or would you feel that you would have to stop and look at the other person’s argument, consider it seriously, and apply some thought, before you decided that it was appropriate to mock that viewpoint, as another commenter said upstream?

How much effort must I make to see something one way before declaring it to be wrong? And how much noise must I make about that effort when the person is quoted in a news story quoted in a blog?

I am cool that my viewpoint on everything is my default, and I’m cool with the conditions of my birth. I find it offensively racist and sexist that you find my viewpoint less worthy because of my race and sex.

I try to be scientific enough that if facts show me to be wrong I’ll change my viewpoint, without any regard for the race or sex of the speaker of those facts. (I don’t have enough time not to take into account the speaker’s expertise and biases. If an expert without a dog in the fight tells me something believable I might be more inclined to believe it as a squirrel away that factoid. I’m thinking HVAC so this week I learned I am supposed to seal off my attic, boilers heat water and furnaces heat air, you’re not supposed to use duct tape on duct work, and you shouldn’t consume hot tap water even in a new system. Do you want to know the races and sexes of who taught me that stuff? Learned some math stuff and some cooking stuff this week too.)

And I don’t see anybody responding “You __(group)___ are always making stuff up because you like to cause trouble”, where (group) is members of a particular race or ethnicity or religion or gender.

The people who talked about professional complainers were not complaining about their being black, but about their being professional complainers. That’s true. But when you accuse someone of just wanting to find something to gripe about, you are asserting that they do not have a valid complaint. If a black person says he thinks something is racist, or a woman says she thinks something is sexist, I don’t think it makes sense for a white man to immediately say that it is not, and “mock” the person who says it might be, without making some kind of effort to see it their way first. Feel free to disagree with me about that, but if you do, perhaps you’ll admit that that means that the white male viewpoint is assumed to be the default, and any other viewpoint is a probably defective variation on the default. And that you are cool with that.

A paparazzi spends three days trying to get some titillating shot of Stupid Celebrity A, but all he gets is her sniffling away because of a miserable cold. Next day major tabloid headline reads, “Does Stupid Celebrity A have a cocaine problem?” Read all about it here! See the photos!

And given that half of the Forbes 100 richest people list is composed of Waltons, Walton children, Walton children’s children, Walton pet animals, and their pets’ pets, it gives us great pleasure to note that all the Waltons are ugly and look like 19th century farm peasants who recently changed their hairdos to the 21st century. But that “milking the cows” look is quite with them to this very day.

Laura(southernxyl): If I tell you that you are being sexist, and that you are insensitive to my concerns because you are sexist; and rather than tell me that you see how I could see sexism in whatever it is but objectively speaking it isn’t there b/c blah blah, you respond that we women are always making stuff up b/c we like to cause trouble, is my perception not real?

If you tell me “Nice weather we’re having” and I respond that women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, your perception would be real. Hypotheticals are not reality.

Lightning hits more people than get discriminated against because of race.

You mean, than people who have actionable racial discrimination that they can prove, right? If Wal-Mart is in fact downgrading these dolls because they’re black, that’s not illegal and they can’t be sued. That fact would not mean that there is not racism involved.

Also, not always sure that perception isn’t reality. If I tell you that you are being sexist, and that you are insensitive to my concerns because you are sexist; and rather than tell me that you see how I could see sexism in whatever it is but objectively speaking it isn’t there b/c blah blah, you respond that we women are always making stuff up b/c we like to cause trouble, is my perception not real?

I think you are right, that perception is important. But is it more important that members of this ‘problematic group’ look at the truth —factual truth— about what is really happening.

According to the EEOC, whose job it is to enforce these discrimination laws, their news page lists a dozen or so cases per year in the entire nation. I believe the real number is higher, but if the number is a hundred times higher, actionable racial discrimination is (statistically) a non-issue. Lightning hits more people than get discriminated against because of race.

Perception is not always reality. It makes for eyeballs on newspapers, cash for lawyers, votes for politicians, and influence for special interests. It just isn’t real.

Ken Arromdee: The problem is that the answer can’t be “we must try infinitely hard”. So where do you stop? You’ve got to stop somewhere, and you probably want to stop at some point before you’ve just handed power to the most easily offended person.This gets especially bad when the activity1) can happen by chance as a result of factors unrelated to racism (like setting prices based on an inventory system that doesn’t even have pictures of the dolls) and2) is offensive for vague enough reasons that acting differently, or even doing the opposite, could still have offended someone

Ken, my point is that it’s probably worthwhile to stop for a moment and ask onesself if one is being fair before minimizing another person’s concern. It could be that if you really thought about what it would be like to be that black parent noticing this, which would retroactively require really thinking like that about a whole lot of other stuff b/c it wouldn’t work out of the context of everything you would experience, you’d decide that it’s not really a concern.

Or it could be that you would decide that it was.

I could be wrong, but I think I see a lot of, excuse me, white men, (not that there’s anything wrong with that,) with the attitude: “I don’t see a problem from my perspective, therefore there’s no problem.” I think that before a person who is not a member of the problematic group makes that assertion, he or she needs to make a good-faith effort to see it from that group’s point of view. If you don’t feel that you can see it from that group’s point of view well enough to make an assertion either way, maybe the best you can do is acknowledge that the other person has expressed concern, and leave it at that. Case in point: the blog that was linked to earlier, with the suggestion that we mock it. I looked at it and I don’t find it mockable; in fact, it looks pretty interesting to me. Perhaps it is not the blog that the person who linked to it would have, and he thinks that if you’re not like him or don’t do what he would do, you should be put down and laughed at. You could mock my blog too. Or you could say “vive le difference” and move on.

But whatever isn’t specifically required in the Constitution must be forbidden!

Lymis: And precisely how much of the census SHOULD be taken up with name and age?

A better question might be what percentage should be taken up by race. Some might argue zero. Some might argue that the census form has gone well beyond the information that the constitution requires.

subpatre: What a legacy we pass to the future, that our government’s most pressing concern about a person was their racial purity. It says far more about us than it says about the individuals listed on the form.

Powerlineblog is publicizing an effort to persuade people to check the box marked “other” and insert the word “American” in the blank.

Btw, I wonder what they make of other examples. For instance I know off the top of my head that the two action figures that sold the most from The Phantom Menace was Darth Maul and Mace Windu (sp?). Maul was of course that black-clad devil-looking guy. They said he was one of their biggest sellers since Boba Fett, and let’s face it he was so bad-a–ed he almost saved that movie. He wasn’t even human, so no race applies. The other, Mace Windu, is the Jedi Samuel L. Jackson played. So thousands of kids went out and asked for the Jackson doll… er, I mean action figure.

I said this before and i will say it again. We need to stop counting who is what color. We really need to stop. Its just getting stupid.

But i will add this. Walmart keeps having reports of actual racism in their employment decisions. So maybe part of the problem is that Walmart doesn’t enjoy any benefit of the doubt on this subject.

Lymis: And precisely how much of the census SHOULD be taken up with name and age? 
Short questions with short answers are going to be a smaller part of the form. Uh, duh?
Work harder on your outrage.

Since the constitutional mandate to the Congress was to ‘enumerate’, even obtaining the name and age seems to be more than called for.

Past censuses have included occupation, amount of education, last address, birthplace, property owned or income. The census needs to count the country’s population, but it should also help illuminate the condition of the nation today, something that race does poorly. The census’ primary purpose it to show where we have been, what the American people are doing, how they are changing. Race doesn’t help that; race is of no historic significance.

Since Sarcastro brings it up, what race is “white”? The Serbians and Kosovars are different races; which one is “white”? What about the Franks and Gauls? Greeks and Turks? Russians and Georgians? The Sammi and Norse? All are better definitions of ‘race’ than the Census has for assigning different ‘races’ to people from adjacent Pacific islands with identical appearance and DNA.

Whether it’s Thelma Dye trying to promote it or Sarcasstro trying to ‘defend against it’, race has become nothing more than an industry; cash for lawyers, votes for politicians, influence for NGOs.

The EEOC news shows about one case of racial discrimination per 25 million people in each year. Being struck by lightning is 50 times more common, but even at 100 times that rate —extremely improbable given the huge cash rewards for discovery— it’s time to turn that offense over to private attorneys and move on.

Laura(southernxyl): When somebody who is of a group we are not a member of expresses a concern having to do with that group, how hard should we try to understand their viewpoint? It’s easy to say “that doesn’t bother me so it shouldn’t bother you”. It’s real easy when we don’t suffer daily slings and arrows that that group suffers.

The problem is that the answer can’t be “we must try infinitely hard”. So where do you stop? You’ve got to stop somewhere, and you probably want to stop at some point before you’ve just handed power to the most easily offended person.

This gets especially bad when the activity

1) can happen by chance as a result of factors unrelated to racism (like setting prices based on an inventory system that doesn’t even have pictures of the dolls) and

2) is offensive for vague enough reasons that acting differently, or even doing the opposite, could still have offended someone

subpatre: On the 2010 census form, the amount of space devoted to the questions is

Because the space devoted to a subject has nothing to do with how difficult it is to get a subject across, and everything to do with racial purity!

WAKE UP WHITE PEOPLE!

subpatre: In case nobody noticed, this nation is obsessed with ‘race’ —whatever that means— and it is now official.On the 2010 census form, the amount of space devoted to the questions is (in order):
.

And precisely how much of the census SHOULD be taken up with name and age?

Short questions with short answers are going to be a smaller part of the form. Uh, duh?

Work harder on your outrage.

subpatre: In case nobody noticed, this nation is obsessed with ‘race’ —whatever that means— and it is now official.On the 2010 census form, the amount of space devoted to the questions is (in order):
.
10% NAME
15% RELATION
04% GENDER
10% AGE & DOB
50% RACE
11% RESIDENCE Half the questions are devoted to whether the individual is Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin like Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, or Spaniard; or White, Black, African Am., Negro, American Indian or Alaska Native (print name of enrolled or principal tribe), Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Other Asian such as Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Native Hawaiian, Guamanian or Chamorro, Samoan, Other Pacific Islander such as Fijian, Tongan, or some other race (print race).What a legacy we pass to the future, that our government’s most pressing concern about a person was their racial purity.It says far more about us than it says about the individuals listed on the form.

So now we know what happened to all of those bureaucrats from the South African apartheid regime. They were hired by the Census bureau.

Half the questions are devoted to whether the individual is Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin like Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, or Spaniard; or White, Black, African Am., Negro, American Indian or Alaska Native (print name of enrolled or principal tribe), Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Other Asian such as Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Native Hawaiian, Guamanian or Chamorro, Samoan, Other Pacific Islander such as Fijian, Tongan, or some other race (print race).

What a legacy we pass to the future, that our government’s most pressing concern about a person was their racial purity. It says far more about us than it says about the individuals listed on the form.

ceebee: Typical of walmart. Do you really think these big corporations such as walmart give a damn about people’s opinions and feelings? No. The only thing they give a damn about is $, $ and $.

I would suggest by that definition that Congress is a Corporation as well.