Is Color, Criteria?

Is a person’s skin color criteria?

Please explain your answer.

This question is inspired by a conversation that Granny from King Ben’s Grandma and I have been having over @ Steve and I Discuss MAGA Hats, Government Shutdown and What is Your Freedom Worth to You?.

Advertisements

124 thoughts on “Is Color, Criteria?

  1. It is not an indication or criteria because such isn’t a “chosen” attribute.
    The very word criteria means ” a principle or standard by which something may be judged or decided.”.
    No one chooses skin color.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      So, then if it does not fall into criteria, then why is it always spoken about and why is it part of every application?

      1. People are prejudice assholes. Everyone who knows any truth about the real version of history knows that. HOWEVER, do not omit the idea of nationality and religion. Though they’re a bit less in the circle of historical hatred, as soon as diversity among our race increased, there they were.

  2. In order for someone or something to qualify, the criteria is a chosen list… If skin color IS a reason for the lack of qualification…. It’s called prejudice

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      So, prejudice is used to pre-judge the person who made the decision?

      Is skin color relevant or is it not? If it is relevant, then there must be criteria to be considered as such. Without criteria, then there is no minimum standard. If there is no minimum standard and there is no criteria, then who decides what is and what is not?

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      So, if color I irrelevant, why state it then? Not you per say, but if it is irrelevant, what’s the big deal then?

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      Ive heard it said before, “knowledge is not common”. So an assumption or generalization on your part Nova? If color is irrelevant, then why “Black History Month”?

      1. Are you Jewish? Buddhist? Muslim? Are you a woman? Mentally Disabled by definition of the early to mid 1900s?
        It’s hard to accept what you don’t understand…
        The German “Christian” Caucasian Male is the ONLY that’s never faced discrimination in some way shape or form… Don’t sit here pouring salt in wounds.

        1. bottomlesscoffee007

          Now that is a stereotype Nova, possibly prejudice as well. It’s fine, I take no offense. I don’t think that is an accurate statement made by you though, too generalized and very broad.

          What about the English Christian Caucasian Male? Could you explain all of the different sects?

  3. Here’s how I think
    Color is irrelevant as to whether I like you or not. It’s irrelevant to how well you’ll do a job or not.
    Your color doesn’t matter except as identification.
    I will refer to you as Male female, teenage, middle aged, older, tall short, black, white, pretty, ignorant, kind, or any other adjective I need to illustrate who I’m talking about. If you and I were stood next to each other people would call us him and her. If I was stood next to another female, they’ll need a different identifier. In my case, I pick the most obvious first.
    Color will always be in the description but it should never be in the criteria.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      That makes sense. I guess I just don’t understand why so many are happy to include the caveat “as a black woman” or “as a hispanic woman” etc.

      Do they say that to previse their identity as a victim or a martyr? a way to seek out pity.

      1. I can’t speak for others, I don’t know (except the media, they’re always skewed) It would be the black girl, the tall black girl, the tall black girl in the red shirt and so on until I had given enough info for you to know who I meant.

        1. bottomlesscoffee007

          I ask, because if it is criteria, I would like to understand what that criteria is. If it is not, then why is is always spoken and written about? Im not asking you per say, but just asking. Maybe its a dumb question and maybe it is not, I am however very interested to hear what you and everyone else thinks.

          1. I don’t think people use their race as criteria when they include it in the description of themselves. Sometimes they use it purely because they are providing their response from a specific perspective. Behind a computer screen, you don’t always know who is fashioning the reply. Sometimes people use it like a title, as if it gives them more credibility in wielding their opinion or perspective, but I don’t think anyone (except maybe employers and colleges) consider it legitimate criteria. Whenever I’ve prefaced a response with “As a woman…” it’s usually just to bring *my* perspective to the table…as a woman. It’s that simple.

            1. bottomlesscoffee007

              Ok, so when I hear “as a woman” to me that says that person is speaking on behalf of all women. Why not just say “As Heather”? I know speaking in the third person can come across as pompous or ridiculous, but if your speaking for yourself, why preface it then?

              1. They are prefacing it so that you know what angle they are approaching their answer. I am many things aside from being a woman, and when I preface an answer, it’s to let the reader/listener know what specific perspective I’m viewing the question from. Blogging-wise, using your name (even though that’s just idiotic, IMO) wouldn’t necessarily let any reader in on what that perspective is…and what would be the point to start an answer out as: “As Heather, I think…”, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to say “As a [woman / paralegal/ musician/ singer/ runner/ etc.]…”, so they know why I’m responding the way I’m responding. It provides context.

                1. bottomlesscoffee007

                  So, then you are speaking for all women then. You’re highlighting what you assume to be a shared experience everywhere.

                  1. Hahahaha, no. I’m a member of that particular class and speaking as such. I’m not so self-centered that I believe for one second that I speak for all of anything.

                    1. bottomlesscoffee007

                      then why the desire to add legitimacy if you in fact do not speak for all women and girls everywhere? If you speak only for yourself, then why not just speak for yourself?

                    2. I *am* speaking for myself and adding a qualifier. Not everyone knows what qualifies me to make statements. It’s used to show authority/knowledge/legitimacy.

                    3. Do you know everything about me? Do you know all the titles I’ve held, the accomplishments I’ve made, the struggles I’ve endured? You don’t, unless I tell you about them ir you’ve witnessed them first hand. Stating facts about myself in response to a question gives the reader/listener the info they need to decide whether or not they’ll take my response seriously.

                    4. bottomlesscoffee007

                      If you wanted advice from your doctor…would you ask.

                      “As a doctor what do you “x”

                      Or would you want their “professional” opinion?

                      As a doctor seems rather broad, being there are witch doctors and all. Whereas a professional opinion would communicate to me, based on their previous experiences and knowledge.

                      So, as a woman or my personal or professional opinion based on my knowledge and experiences.

                      Which one communicates clearly the intent?

                    5. I have actually asked my doctor questions that started that way, so I’m not really seeing whatever point you’re trying to make. I think it depends on what question is being asked as to what the “appropriate” answer is that communicates the intent clearly. If you’re arguing that qualifiers are unnecessary, that’s absolutely an opinion you can have, but I’ll take my responses with qualifiers please. I’m not interested in reading responses to a question I pose concerning my vagina by a man who isn’t also a qualified doctor.

                    6. bottomlesscoffee007

                      So then what matters, perception or intent?

                      What you mean or what others see or hear?

                    7. Both. We each only live in our own heads. We interpret input through our own lens. While I understand *my* intent, I also understand that I am often misunderstood. It doesn’t make them wrong just because they interpreted my comments a different way than I intended them. It’s just a miscommunication. That’s why we *have* communication – to understand each other better. Qualifiers are a part of that communication. It’s fine if you prefer yours without – I like mine with.

                    8. We don’t have to agree on qualifiers. We don’t even have to communicate the same way. That’s the beauty of being human. If we all instantaneously understood each other, it would be a pretty boring world.

                    9. Are they? First: What the hell are we doing here? Second: I think that’s what the evolution of society has been figuring out throughout history. Sometimes, society isn’t ready to handle certain questions or discussions but, in time, ideally we’ll get to them all.

                    10. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Do you think this is mainstream Heather? That’s the problem then isn’t it? What used to be accepted by society that today we scoff at and are disgusted by. So, why do we continue to allow society to dictate acceptable and unacceptable behavior?

                      Do we really think we have ascended to enlightenment?

                    11. No. I don’t think we’ve ever thought we’ve attained complete enlightenment. It’s just the evolution of society. It’s a continual learning and growth process. We *have* to let society dictate acceptable and unacceptable behavior – what’s the choice otherwise? We’ll keep refining it – that’s what we do.

                    12. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Do you think it has gotten better? I think it has been the way it always has been. Cops and robbers if you will. Good and bad, winners and losers, we decide who is good and who is bad based on the smallest of criteria. I think all of us do it.

                    13. I think, in many way, it has gotten better. We’re a work in progress. Every society is. I really don’t think we’re the exact same society that we were 100, 50, 20, 10 or even 5 years ago.

                    14. bottomlesscoffee007

                      What about murder, rape, theft, you know the basics of evil? Just because a view might have changed, that doesn’t mean these things don’t continue to happen, everywhere.

                      Every single law in every nation is based off of these three, and has been since the dawn of time. If we haven’t figured out to stop doing this, how do you think we’ve changed?

                    15. I don’t think we’ll ever wipe out all the evil – that would be attaining perfection, which is unattainable; however, I think we’ve *improved* in those areas – the percentages have decreased over time. Improvement is really any of us can expect, and we are improving.

                    16. bottomlesscoffee007

                      So, is America different in that regard or the west in general? Or has murder, rape and theft gone down around the world as well?

                    17. By and large, based on my quick Google search, it appears as though the majority of countries globally have gone down with a select few countries bucking the trend and producing a spike. Unfortunately, the reports that are readily available all seem to focus on homicide and don’t lump in all violent crime into one graph…and I, frankly, don’t have the time or desire to conduct the research to compile the data into one neat graph.

                    18. bottomlesscoffee007

                      I understand completely “ that’s just the way I talk” type of thing. Yet it seems that clarification is rarely ever asked.

                      Just one offense after another

                    19. Oh, absolutely. We all operate similarly when it comes to that. What we perceive is our own reality, whether or not it’s accurate. Our perception is merely the narration we’ve given to our own lives. We all have a base need for things to make sense and will force square pegs in round holes all day every day for that to happen – even if it’s the wrong answer. Not everyone is interested in achieving a consensus or right answer – nobody enjoys realizing (or being told) they are wrong. Many shy away from confrontation. It’s uncomfortable. They want someone else to handle the fight so they can keep watching their Netflix shows. I get it. I’m even guilty of it.

                    20. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Aren’t we all Heather. If someone cannot take the time to understand anyone, then why should anyone take the time to understand someone?

                    21. bottomlesscoffee007

                      So no man will ever be better than a woman when it comes to a doctor, concerning your reproductive system?

                      Even though they went to the same school? That sounds a little sexiest.

                    22. LOL Nice typo.

                      I meant taking advice concerning my vagina from any man at all *unless* they have qualifiers that I choose accept them as being authorities on the subject.

                    23. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Is that sexist then or is it personal preference?

                      If you have a preference, then don’t we all?

                      Are we all allowed to exercise those preferences free of recourse?

                    24. Is it sexist that I won’t take a regular dude off the street’s opinion about my vagina and insist they have some qualification to back up what they are saying? I don’t think so – it’s about creating a “relationship” of trust.

                      We all already do run our lives according to our preferences. I don’t think it’s a question whether we’re allowed to or not, except when it’s criminal behavior that is preferred.

                    25. They do, but they also celebrate them. Those who agree celebrate, those who disagree punish. I’m not saying it’s right, but that’s how it’s always been and I doubt it’ll dramatically change in the short future.

                    26. bottomlesscoffee007

                      People are people, no matter where, no matter when. There has never been and there will never be any certain group of people that was truly better than any other. We are all fallible and we are all corruptible. If evolution were true, wouldn’t our bad traits be bred out by this point? You know, since we are “better than that”?

                    27. I don’t think character traits are a part of evolution – they are formed by personal experiences and one’s place in society. Even though I don’t think character traits are truly a product of evolution, I do think they are evolving towards something better. It’s not pretty or perfect, but I do think we’re growing as a society.

                    28. Sure, from my own perspective…you know, Heather’s. 😉 And only a few…

                      1. We’re more sensitive. Some may argue this is a giant PITA (and I don’t disagree), but I think it’s a necessary first step to change by being sensitive.

                      2. We’re speaking out. Yes, sometimes it’s behind a keyboard, but opinions/feelings/thoughts are being shared publicly that historically haven’t been shared or haven’t been shared on a large scale. It’s starting the conversation for a lot of topics.

                      3. Self-awareness. We are all becoming much more aware of the consequences of our potential actions by seeing scenarios play out on the public stage (e.g., sexual harassment, racial statements, etc.). We’re learning by example what society will or will not tolerate which, in turn, helps us to make better decisions about what to do or say.

                    29. bottomlesscoffee007

                      I don’t understand what a giant PITA is.

                      Do you think that race and sexual crimes/missteps are something new? Meaning, do you think in the past no one cared? Do you think that it is only today that these types of behaviors are frowned upon?

                      Are we more aware or are we more insulated? How many would slaughter an animal for food, themselves? How many would build a home or fix their own vehicle, today compared to yesterday?

                    30. PITA: Pain in the ass

                      I don’t think that the behaviors weren’t frowned upon in the past – I think they were, but the support to *change* those behaviors weren’t in place in the past, while we seem to be actively working towards a solution now. The issue has finally landed in the spotlight and society is, more or less, prepared to deal with it – it will be interesting to see what changes we notice in society 20 years from now based on our discussions today.

                      I think we are both: more aware and more insulated. The digital age is in its infancy and we’re figuring out the consequences to certain behaviors. I believe we’ll figure it out.

                      What do your questions about skills have to do with the conversation? Aside from fewer folks possessing (or learning) the skills you discuss, it’s also a question of efficiency. I could slaughter an animal for food, but I ain’t got time for that. If forced to, I think I could figure out how to fix my vehicle or even build a house. Luckily, I don’t have to.

                    31. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Do you think things are constantly going back and forth? The heroes of yesterday are now considered the villains. The villains of the past are today celebrated. Is this by design since we don’t truly know or understand our history?

                      If we have forgotten our primitive skills, then how can we assume that we have gotten better at anything? Do we know more or do we rely more?

                    32. No, I don’t think it’s just going back and forth – I think we’re improving – even if it’s at a glacial pace. I’m not sure which villains of the past are celebrated today – do you have anyone specific in mind?

                      Do you really think we’ve forgotten our primitive skills? I think there may be fewer folks who are proficient in what you call “primitive skills”, but I think if worse came to worst, we’d figure it out. I also think we both know more and rely more – and I honestly don’t think that’s a negative thing. Relying on others isn’t a weakness. It creates bonds and community. I don’t feel like I need to, or should, know it all.

                    33. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Heroes and villains are decided based on whatever side you are on. The Indians used to be the bad guys, now they are the victims/heroes.

                      The difference between right and wrong is skewed based on popular opinion, not on accuracy. If a hero or villain is not concrete, then what else is up for debate?

            2. I agree with you on this one, when you are being specific about your pertainance it means you want to give more credit to What you are saying, for other people to know that you know What you’re talking about, that you have experience maybe. I have never spoken about myself by specifying whether I’m a woman, a Black woman or other such things. I have never had the need to.

  4. “Black” History Month to celebrate Black people and their accomplishments. We (Black people) accomplish something every day, but it’s this month that celebrates the history of Black accomplishments. We weren’t getting recognized before, so…

    And race is irrelevant but it isn’t. It’s an identifier. If you say ” the boy in the blue shirt” but there’s 3 boys with blue shirts and you want to be specific, then you would begin to describe until the right one is sought. Race is one of many identifiers.

    Now, if you’re talking about race listed on an application. I believe it’s uses to discriminate. I think it’s irrelevant in that faction because if I know how to do the job and you’re supposed to be an equal opportunity employer, then my race shouldn’t matter. But it does. We can’t prove it because it’s not directly done to us unless it has been.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      So, celebrate the black and then the person? Why not just the person and their accomplishments? What makes a person black? Is it their skin color or their genes? Why does any race need a month designated to them and only them, based solely on their color?

      Another reason why I ask, is because, it seems like people cannot make up their mind of whether skin color is relevant or irrelevant.

      If someone is accomplished, their skin color should not matter.

      Is this simply tribalism?

      1. Take that up with the government, 007 about why a month gets designated to a people.

        All of my ancestors were from Africa and they were categorized as “black”, always been.

        Could be tribalism but you’re gonna have to ask an anthropologist or a sociologist.

        1. bottomlesscoffee007

          Only a month, Scherezade. Maybe I left that part out accidentally.

          People pray and go to church throughout the year.

          This post wasn’t exclusively pointed at February. Just another thought I had.

          So, do we rely on the past to dictate our ways or are we progressive? It seems like a self defeating argument to preface or caveat things with color or culture.

          I think it is much simpler than that. I think people are afraid to be independent.

          1. I know you weren’t talking about just February. It was in response to your convo with Nova, a comment or so back. You asked about why call it “Black” History month?

            Yes, the past dictates our ways. At least people and gov’t(those who don’t want change) use the past to dictate everything. It’s the same thing with laws. Why are there so many old laws from back when the country started that are still considered laws. It’s time for progression, change.

            1. bottomlesscoffee007

              Maybe. Do people cling to their own color though? If color is not criteria or if it is irrelevant, then why cling to a color?

              1. Most people cling to their race/color. I do especially. I love being Black, it’s apart of my identity. My color/Race shaped my experiences, good or bad., made me who I am today.
                Those who chose not, it’s their prerogative.
                But can’t speak for everyone else.

                1. bottomlesscoffee007

                  So then is it ok or viewed the same by you if I were proud to be white? I dont understand the desire to be proud of something no one has any control over.

                  1. If you want to be proud to be white, then that’s you. If you’re not proud to be white because of the negative history associated with that race, then once again that’s you.
                    Maybe instead of being proud to be white, you’re proud to be Irish or Dutch, Finnish?

                    But people identify because they want to. It may not make sense to you, but it does to them

                    1. bottomlesscoffee007

                      What is the negative history with being white Scherezade? Are all white people guilty, are all black people guilty, are all men guilty, are all women guilty?

                      Is any race or color better than the other?

                    1. bottomlesscoffee007

                      Then why celebrate it if it cannot be achieved? Is this a case of everyone gets a trophy?

                    2. bottomlesscoffee007

                      You could be right. Then again, a worthwhile conversation none the less. How would I learn if I didn’t ask? Is this question not allowed?

  5. Hum, Bottomlesscoffee I have a question for you. Is there or is there not discrimination based on ethnical criteria in the US? (whether it’s affirmative action or racism, I know you discuss that word too). Many experiments have been conducted here in France which have proven that some people (employers, landlords, more exactly) make a clear distinction between a Black person and a White person when it comes to hiring (given the same qualifications and before any interview, just by the name, and/or the picture on the resume), or lending a home (here again the question is not about whether they can pay or not). So you can’t really deny that.
    What I want to say besides the question which I hope you will answer, is that I Believe that the purpose of such decisions as celebrating a Black month in this case, is to change the way certain communities are viewed because of how they were treated untill not so long in the US (the 60’s is like yesterday in the face of the world). It would be dishonnest to pretend that there is no prejudice only because you haven’t witnessed some. It’s also an Opportunity for the given Community to get out of the victim position and take the lead as to how they want to be viewed, to show that there have been achievements despite the circumstances, and that everybody is trying to move on. You can’t really ignore the past, it’s even Dangerous because if we do, that means we might make the same mistakes (Don’t tell me segregation was not a mistake). History is there to remind us of What made us who we are now, and reflect on where we want to go next.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      Discrimination is everywhere Monaminga, not just the U.S. Everyone discriminates and is discerning. Just as everyone pre-judges and is prejudice. Slavery and the slave trade still take place in parts of the Middle East and Africa.

      Does that mean that only black people are discriminated against? Is it a problem if people discrimate? Please explain.

      No one can dictate how others view them. our opinions of others are often made with the actions of those people, not their wishes or their demands.

      History can only be used if and when that history is discussed honestly. If we just pick and chose what history we want to discuss, then it really does anyone no good. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. plagiarised his doctorate and had many out of wedlock children, he was a religious leader and the leader of the civil rights movement. We idolize him and therefore pretend as if he was beyond reproach. Im not saying that what he accomplished wasn’t great, but it seems like a half truth where accurate history is concerned.

      “Many experiments have been conducted here in France which have proven that some people (employers, landlords, more exactly) make a clear distinction between a Black person and a White person when it comes to hiring (given the same qualifications and before any interview, just by the name, and/or the picture on the resume), or lending a home (here again the question is not about whether they can pay or not).” Do you know the exact parameters of the experiment or the people conducting the experiment? Do you know the questions they used and how they were posed?

      If you don’t know or don’t understand the past, do you really recognize approaching evil?

      If we cannot look at the individual and based off of their actions, then all we are left with is their skin color. Do we want to be judged off of the color of our skin or based on our actions?

      If color is irrelevant, then why the need to highlight it?

      1. I can’t say I totally disagree with the many points you made here. I also share the opinion that a certain gender, race, ethnic group, religion, or whatever shouldn’t benefit from more privileges than the others. But the truth is that at different moments in history, at some point of our life every one of us has been or can be treated unfairly. And I belief it’s not necessarily a bad thing that the human community wants to make amend to those who have been wronged. If you have an accident caused by somebody, wouldn’t you like to get reparation through justice ? I think that is what those gestures intend to do. But we agree that it shouldn’t last forever, the descendants should not have to pay the bill for the mistakes of their ascendants for the rest of their lives, that is just another injustice.
        You ask if it’s a problem to discriminate, personally I believe it is, but that doesn’t mean you have to agree with me 🙂 it’s a free world.
        The experiments I was referring to work like this. A person, Black sends a resume with their actual identity, photo, name, and gets no answers. At the same time they send the same resume, but different first name for example and no photo, the chances to be called for an interview are higher, and they are even higher if they put the picture of a White person. How does this sound to you ? They went even further by doing the option with the modified first name without picture, and when they get to the interview, the recipient’s reaction clearly showed that they weren’t expecting the actual person that came. It’s not about their bad presentation, they dressed like you are supposed to do when you go to a job interview.
        Your second paragraph from the bottom should be the way everybody is treated, judged upon the kind of individual that they are, their actions. But we must sadly admit that it doesn’t always work like that, hence the need to emphasize that “men are born with equal rights” which is not real including nowadays.
        Everybody is free to think as they want, but I think relativism has some aspects which can be questioned as well. We don’t live in an ideal world.

        1. bottomlesscoffee007

          I agree, we do not live in a perfect world. We never have and we never will. With that being said, all of the changes that we make attempting to remedy something of the past (that none of us had anything to do with) only causes more catastrophe and disrupts the delicate balance that we already do not have.

          That’s why I think it is on the individual and not the state or the society. The state and society will always make drastic changes that will cause real devastation for the inhabitants. Whereas the individual can chose and the individual can deal with the pros and the cons, without destroying others.

          1. The collective can suggest changes, but you are right, only the individual can make them real. Since there is some strength in the influence of society, it can impulse change I think.

            1. bottomlesscoffee007

              That’s the thing though, society in the past justified slavery, today society justifies abortion.

              The more we look to society, the further we move from fairness and equality and closer we get to justified debauchery and genocide.

                1. bottomlesscoffee007

                  I hit enter pre maturely.

                  Individual responsibility and individual accountability, plain and simple Monaminga.

  6. hawk2017

    The Left think it is. I will tell you, that if I needed a blood transfusion, I would not care. Human blood is human blood. I know I was a nurse.:)) That is if your are asking me. rofl I always have an opinion.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      Once justification comes into the mix, then anything and everything is on the table. Justification is hardly ever honest or fair.

      1. Justifying yourself means you apologize for being who you are and where you are. I’m fortunate to not live with such a feeling, but there are people who feel that need.

  7. Nope. It shouldn’t be criteria, and shouldn’t decide anything. If you were deciding on whether or not to hire someone, you wouldn’t pick the person based on their skin colour, you would pick them based on their capabilities and how suitable they were for the job. Skin colour should not decide anything.

Leave a Reply to bottomlesscoffee007 Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.