Crooked Timber

I predict that this is going to fail someone’s “smell test.”

Maybe the darker-skinned people are spending more (too much!) time tanning in the sun, and not working.

Maybe the darker-skinned people are spending more (too much!) time tanning in the sun, and not working.

As an Irish person, I have a mild tendency to take Irish people without tans more seriously than those with them, at least if they clearly have the means to take sun holidays. Easily overridden by a couple of minutes’ good conversation, or a well-observed and appropriate joke, but there, and it’s my ethnic group, I feel fine with making superficial observations about it.

I’m about to read the paper, but am interested in how she controlled for the previously observed data that the taller you are, the more your average wage.

Hmm, the paper doesn’t mention any controlling for height, despite that the Washington Post article mentions it.

Given that (IIRC) the primary sources of immigration to the US are Latin America, India, and China:

Given that both Latin America and India have class systems in which skin color is an important component

I wonder how much of the effect is from US discrimination vs how much is from home-country discrimination?

Um, barry, read a little more carefully. My speculation isn’t blaming the darker-skinned black people at all. If anything, it’s casting a little blame (maybe 5%? 10%? who knows?) on lighter-skinned blacks who, by denigrating and discriminating against darker-skinned blacks from childhood, might cause them to be more withdrawn or nervous or ill at ease, i.e., the sorts of attitudes that could affect employment patterns in subtle ways.

It is an undeniable fact that light-skinned blacks discriminate against, insult, and signal disapproval of darker-skinned blacks all the time, and have done so since the days of slavery. Also, if you read any literature or memoirs or news stories at all (dealing with blacks, that is), you will know that darker-skinned blacks often highly resent this sort of treatment from high yellows. So, could it be possible that resentment against lighter-skinned people might affect one’s overall attitude and demeanor, such that one’s job experience might be affected compared to those lighter-skinned people?

Seems to me that there is at least something to investigate here. But, just for the sake of clueless commenters, I’m not saying that this is a major cause of anything. To repeat, my concededly wild guess is that it might explain 5 or 10% of the results.

What’s the purpose of comment boards? From the reaction of barry and engels, one might suppose that the only comment allowed on this post is something like this: “Wow, great post! Racism sure is bad. I totally agree.”

Now, it might indeed be the case that the CT folks do yearn to have a comments section of that sort. But I’ve been laboring under the impression that a comments section is available in order for people to: 1) agree with the major point, 2) contest the validity of the major point, 3) address a minor but irksome detail that seems wrong, 4) bring up some additional information on another aspect of the question, not because it’s a major issue, but merely because it came to mind, 5) ask a question about the substance or methodology of the post. And, of course, number 6) in the lack of anything informative or intelligent to say, issue non-substantive insults towards other commenters.

So obviously, barry and engels think that numbers 1 and 6 are allowed. Is it the comments policy of CT that number 4 (the category of my observation) is off limits, and that every comment must directly support and agree with the major contention of the post? If so, why?

“I wonder how much of the effect is from US discrimination vs how much is from home-country discrimination?”

Seeing as the study controls for work history, occupation, education, language skills, etc., I would presume that the extent to which foreign discrimination matters is not all that significant. If X and Y are two Salvadoran immigrants with similar prior earnings, work history, education, language skills, type of visa, and both are or are not married to an American citizen, then whatever significant discrepancy in their salaries is observed must be (in the statiscal aggregate) evidence of local discrimination, notwithstanding the obvious backdrop of discrimination they must have experienced back in El Salvador.

Personally, as one of ‘em Mediterranean types, I’m not even trying to compete with ‘em high brow blond beasts. It’s just futile – motherfuckers beat me hands down every time, every freakin time. A man’s gotta know his limitations, that’s all.

Functional – Feel free to say whatever comes into your head. Perhaps you can point to where in my #12 I suggested that you’re not “allowed” to do so. But will you allow me to do the same?

I’d like to take this discussion one step further away from Belle’s post than you did by asking people to discuss this issue: why is it nowadays that every time someone brings up the issue of racism in America, certain people always want to talk specifically about racism within the black community? That’s seems to me to be a really fascinating issue.

why is it nowadays that every time someone brings up the issue of racism in America, certain people always want to talk specifically about racism within the black community?

By “certain people,” you can’t mean me. If so, the comment was sloppy and stupid. I’ve never brought up that topic before now, and wouldn’t bring it up at all, except for the fact that the very thing under discussion (i.e., light-skinned vs. dark-skinned blacks) is precisely the area where certain blacks discriminate against others.

Pedro says,

Seeing as the study controls for work history, occupation, education, language skills, etc., I would presume that the extent to which foreign discrimination matters is not all that significant.

That’s exactly the assumption I’m questioning.

Take 2 Indian programmers, both with a Master’s degree and no work experience, who come to the US on an H1-B visa and gain permanent residency status 7 years later.

It seems to me that if one’s father was a prominent businessman, and the other’s father was a bus driver, their knowledge of business, network of contacts, and so forth could still be substantially different.

It’s also easy to see why the nigh-transparent complexions of Irish university profs give them an edge in the US job market.

Not to mention the desirability/status of different accents. Not all Irish people have pale skin (for example, Colin Farrell). However, Irish accents are considered poetic and charming. Whereas other accents, especially from non-white countries, are not considered nearly as adorable and charming and quaint. Witness the endless stream of complaints from students who have Chinese or Indian TA’s.

But back on to the article, the fact that these researchers did control for education, occupation, work history and such things that might be expected to impact an immigrant’s success, suggests that there is some form of discrimination tied to skin color going on.

“the nigh-transparent complexions of Irish university profs give them an edge in the US job market”

well, if you’re trying to insinuate that Kieran did not get his job solely on the basis of his intellectual merits, then I think that’s unfair and invidious of you.

And for that matter, I think I met Kieran once, and his complexion was, well, a bit spotty. or blotchy. Can’t remember exactly—but I’m sure he can save his scholarly reputation by posting a pic.

And for that matter, I think I met Kieran once, and his complexion was, well, a bit spotty. or blotchy. Can’t remember exactly—but I’m sure he can save his scholarly reputation by posting a pic

This “blotchiness” allegation is totally unfounded.

I’m having difficulty seeing why barry and engels have such a problem with functional’s posts. He certainly doesn’t seem to be saying it’s their fault. Engels, if you could offer specific instead of ad hominem arguments, I might understand your objections.

Jeremy – I frankly couldn’t give a shit whether you understand my posts. (They weren’t all ad homimen by the way, but yours is.) Any time you want to contribute something to the discussion, rather than haranguing me over my personal conduct, go right ahead.

I apologize if what I said seemed like an attack; that wasn’t my intention. I didn’t (and don’t) understand your problem with functionals remarks so I’m looking for clarification.

Jeremy – Oh dear, how tedious. The study is about racism in general. Functional said that he thought it would be “interesting” to think specifically about racism among black people. My complaint (which I stated very briefly) was that this would be changing (or avoiding) the subject. This set functional off on a lengthy rant about CT comments policy, implying that I was trying to censor him. I pointed out that I am not trying to censor anyone, and I tried to give some further justification for what I had said by pointing out that the move functional made is, in my opinion, a very common one in present day America. This brought forth a largely ad hominem post from functional, who took my post personally and responded by calling it “sloppy and stupid”. You then posted an entirely ad homimem comment, which raised no substantive points at all but accused me of making nothing but ad homimen arguments. And here we are! Isn’t this fun?

engels: Judging by this comments thread, it happens because anything other than a monocausal explanation requires that we treat all possible contributing factors with equal discursive weight, irrespective of their varying contribution to the outcome in question.

Also, #1 appears to have been right.

#42 Who’s going to break it to Steve Sailer that Santa Claus doesn’t exist?

parse: you have a point. it would be better to say that invidious discrimination based on skin color is not dead.

Also, penguins. (You’ve seen the movie. What do you think they’re doing, standing around in huddles for months? Plotting, that’s what!)

And here we see the tedious dishonesty of “engels”:

The study is about racism in general. Functional said that he thought it would be “interesting” to think specifically about racism among black people.

1) The study is not about racism in general. It’s about darker-skinned minorities doing worse than lighter-skinned minorities, even though they’re both minorities.

2) I didn’t refer just to “racism among black people”: I said that if the subject is lighter-skinned vs. darker-skinned, then it might be worthwhile to consider the well-known fact that lighter-skinned minorities are themselves often biased against darker-skinned minorities. I absolutely did not say that this is the only thing anyone should think about. To the contrary, I expressly said—twice—that this is surely not a major cause of anything, only that it’s another factor to throw in the mix. I’m not sure why anyone has trouble understanding that point.

“…but this study ISN’T about “racism”, since one of the factors controlled for was race (as defined by white men, admittedly).”

Discrimination on the basis of skin tone is quite deserving of the label “racism” in my idiolect. Curiously, even though I readily concede that I intuitively believe my own society of origin to be more racist than American society, I have also experienced a stronger emphasis on skin-tone in American society when it comes to defining similarity between people.

I do not perceive skin-tone as being highly correlated with an immigrant’s ability to navigate the job market competently, and the suggestion strikes me as implausible, but since there is no data, I can only speculate that it is wrong to attribute the discrepancy in salary to this and effectively give substantially more agency to job-seekers than to employers in shaping the job-distribution outcome.

(Isn’t there a study of the hiring practices of orchestras, that found that once the hiring process was blind, women started getting hired significantly more than they used to—this, hilariously after some interviewers gave assurances that they could actually tell the gender of a person just by listening them play an instrument?)

On the other hand, it is quite plausible that people unconsciously discriminate along skin-tone lines in the U.S., just as they do in other countries, and perhaps even more so than in some of those other countries. I certainly detect a stronger emphasis on skin-tone in gauging similarity among people in the US as opposed to my own home country, where facial features are more important. (By way of example, my son is perceived by Americans as looking just like me, and to my eyes and those of my family back in my own country, this is largely due to skin-tone, and decidedly not due to facial features like eye-shape.) Perhaps the history of racial relations in the US sheds a light on this matter.

I distinctly remember when I went to the US Embassy in my home country to get my student visa to come to the US. People on the queue were routinely treated in a demeaning way, but not uniformly so. And my personal experience is that there is a discrepancy in the particular ways in which different cultures associate value to phenotypical characteristics.

“However, Irish accents are considered poetic and charming.”

Yuuve nyever spoken ta ah fellah wyit a Byelfahst aksenht, then, huvya?

Gyuarantid ta cyut throo glahss, itis.

Are you really such a simpleton

No, functional, I’m not a “simpleton”. Also, I am not “stupid” or “dishonest”. In fact, I am a lot smarter than you!

I have expressly said no fewer than three times that it is NOT the case that “we should be discussing this issue

Great. Let’s stop now then, okay?

you haven’t had anything whatsoever to say about the “general point.” What’s stopping you?

You are!

engels, honey, here’s how you could do it: “I doubt that Functional’s additional factor is relevant for the following reasons ___[you’d have to come up an actual argument here]. Thus, it is not relevant to the main point, which I find interesting because __ [again, you’d have to come up with an actual argument to fill in here.]”

See how easy that would be? So again, what’s stopping you?

Jeez, I spent most of my adolescence trying to tan—and ended up with 2nd degree blistering burns which I am now told make me a candidate for skin cancer.

Believe me, status doesn’t attach to maximal skin fairness. The status configuration for women at least is a tall, slim, blonde, golden-brown-skinned Scandanavian-Polynesian hermaphrodite with big boobs and slim hips. I’m a short, fat, flat-chested, brunette but wondering if there’s any way I can capitalize on being pale—and, at least seasonally, bright pink.

“Discrimination on the basis of skin tone is quite deserving of the label “racism” in my idiolect.” – Pedro

This is often true, but it depends on the context. In Vietnam, darker skin tone is undesirable mainly because it is a marker of low class status: dark-skinned people are presumed to be farmers or laborers who work outdoors and acquire deep tans. It would be difficult to term skin-tone discrimination among Vietnamese “racism”. This is not to say that there are not elements of prejudice against particular dark-skinned minorities, particularly the Cham, which have been incorporated into general skin-tone prejudice. But the primary discriminatory motivation is class-based.

It would be interesting to look at whether the medieval European preference for “fair” skin was related to similar class prejudice, and to what extent such class-coded prejudice against dark skin played a role in the early formation of prejudice against Africans and other dark-skinned peoples.