As an individual you are better off hiring the best qualified candidate vs. the person with the most similar skin tone. As an individual you are better off treating every potential collaborator/friend/person as an equal vs. prejudgement based on skin tone/facial features. As an individual racism is counter-productive.
As a tribe (e.g. white people) your reality may exist ...[text shortened]... cultured before it can be advantageous. There is no individual advantage to racist thoughts/actions.
Wildgrass shows an inadequate (at best) grasp of racism.
In particular, he shows no comprehension of the real barriers encountered by
non-white people attempting to enter a previously all-white workplace, even
if it does not seem overtly racist.
"As an individual you are better off hiring the best qualified candidate vs. the
person with the most similar skin tone."
That untrue dogmatic claim has several problems.
First of all, it's often unclear who's 'best qualified' because it varies according to
the metrics applied and because the evaluation of qualification is quite *subjective*.
Second, the concept of 'better off' also can be very *subjective*.
A white executive may prefer to hire a white secretary who will accept (laugh with)
his casual racist jokes than hire a non-white secretary who can type faster (one objective metric)
but may report his casual racist jokes as harassment. So, in terms of self-interest,
this white executive would be better off hiring the white secretary who accepts his racism.
"There is no individual advantage to racist thoughts/actions."
Reality keeps showing that many people strongly believe otherwise.
Harvard University bases its admissions in part upon scores on its 'personality test',
where a Harvard official (almost always white) assigns a score to an applicant's personality.
It has been revealed in court that Harvard consistently ranks Asian applicants as
having significantly lower personality scores than white, black, and Latino applicants.
Is there any objective basis to conclude that Asians have 'inferior personalities'?
No, but it gives Harvard a very useful pretext to discriminate against Asian applicants.
Ron Unz, a white American Jew who graduated from Harvard, has written that IF
Harvard's admissions were based *only* on academic merit, then there would be
a major increase in Asian admissions. Perhaps 40% (or more) of Harvard's undergraduates
would be of Asian heritage. That would be utterly politically unacceptable.
It presumably would horrify most white people to see 'too many' Asians in Harvard.
So there might well be a popular demand to set a hard racial quota ceiling on
Asian admissions (such as no more than 5-10% of undergraduate admissions).
While 'blackface' has long been condemned as racist, to this day, Hollywood practices 'yellowface',
*preferring* to hire white actors (in make-up to change their eyelid shapes, etc.)
to play some major characters of East Asian heritage. Given that major roles of
East Asian heritage are scarce in Hollywood, actors of East Asian heritage deeply
object to being deprived of these opportunities on account of institutional racism.
In the Debates forum,, several white writers have argued or implied that 'yellowface
is NOT racist (though most of them concede that 'blackface' IS racist) because
they believe that white actors are intrinsically superior to actors of East Asian heritage.
So it seems to be a rather common white belief that white actors are *better* than
actors of East Asian heritage at playing East Asian characters.
In *every* Charlie Chan film, the Chinese detective was played by a white actor.
Genghis Khan was played by John Wayne (who was very similar, right?).