Most of the time, they know. They would have to be a twit to not know. They just say the don't to "save face" and look like they would "really never knew".

Besides that's a lame excuse and lip service. They will do cartwheels and dance around the really subject at hand and that is Black folks giving their kids funky sounding names because they want their children to be unique and never find little key chains for their names.

Besides, no body says anything when it comes to a polynesian name and it sounding different. Or an asian name and it sounding different from the average American "Joe". But when Black folks do it, for whatever reason, it is ghetto or not giving their child a chance, or demeans them, or ashe...

And we all Black folks know this. So maybe it is our way of protesting our only thing we think we can control as part of our creation--naming our children.

And hey, if that is not an American Truth, then I don't know what is anymore.

EFF cultural norms and mores. EFF all that. I protest.

There's a huge difference between naming your daughter Kerala (Indian) or Shoshanna (Hebrew) and naming your child Alize'tta.

I think they know that a Temika is likely Black, but I don't think they were aware that the only "weakness" of the resume was the name and suggested race and that similarly qualified people not named Temika got through. I tend to think they would have been more careful about deliberately screening for implied race for simply pragmatic reasons. Hiring directors don't want to get sued. But I don't really know.

It's discrimination and bias never the less; I don't dispute that.


I don't think anyone questions historic, cultural names of any kind. I think what people wonder, if they wonder at all, about are made up names or names that to them seem misspelled. It projects more about background that a traditional name, whether you mean to or not. If you want to give your child an traditional African name, more power to you, except for the first day of school thing.

ETA: But is this "EFF cultural norms and mores. EFF all that. I protest" statement expected to be disregarded when selecting an employee? Is it a trait most people are hiring for in a big institution?

Oh Jesus - is this trait apparent in a person's name?

Y'know, since they didn't really . . . select . . . their own name . . . or am I missing you here? How else can I take this point?

Well, it wasn't apparent to me until it was suggested that this is the reason that people give their kids these names. Sure, people don't pick their own names, but they were raised by the same folks who named them in a lot of cases.

I'm not really defending the practice, but if unique names are a way of saying F you to the man, and you can choose a candidate who wasn't so transparently raised by people saying F you to the man and someone who might have been, is it racism alone on which you are basing your decision?

What? What is this HUGE DIFFERENCE?

The fact YOU think no thought was put into the name? That Indian or Hebrew names MEAN something MORE that a name from people the think Alize is cool beverage and want to make it their own by naming their child a derivation of that?

Oh, it's okay to infringe upon the rights of people now?

Actually, most Black kids are raised by their grandparents... Most of the time, their birth mothers that actually named these kids "Tautauniquwa", were high and left these kids somewhere, till the State found a grand-somebody to take care of them...

Then, as a result, these kids grow up to think they can be something and work in menial labored jobs or be lucky enough to go to somebody's college and apply in the mail room. But "Tautauniquwa" never knew that her name would stop her from sorting mail or checking the voicemail...

Otherwise, homegirl could hold up and rob a liquor store while assaulting a passerby, then get 7 years...

Versus, Buffy, the Vampire Slayer getting 2 days...

That is what a lot folks think on the street...

How has anyone infringed upon the rights of people?

I don't think anyone questions the thought that goes into selecting or creating names; it's a distinction between names that are traditional in any culture versus names that are created.

I think naming your kid after a beverage is less meaningful than giving the kid a significant Hebrew name for what it's worth.

As far as GreekChat is concerned, I have a lot of respect for you, AKAMonet, and you clearly have strong feelings on this issue while for me it's just a casual thing. I'll defer to your wisdom.

I was trying to get around the assumption that everyone was raised by his or her parents, but I wasn't making any cultural difference claims, for what it's worth. I was also trying to be a little understated because I thought it worked better in response to KSig RC's comment about how no one chooses his or her own name. No, we don't choose our own names, but we're raised by the people who do.

This is an incredibly oblique thought process, and I really can't agree with any of it. In fact, I think it's a bizarre connection to make.

You seriously overrate a parent's influence over child development, as well - turns out, their influence is crushed by the influence of friends, peers, teachers, associates . . . and dumb luck.

Basically, I think you're taking one terrible step too far, and there's no way to justify it.

Lord, no one is saying that it is okay to infringe upon anybody's rights. I understand perfectly what she is saying. Liking a type of liquor and deciding to name your child after it (Alize'tta, Hypnotiqua) is completely different than naming your child a traditionally Indian or Polynesian name. There absolutely is a huge difference.......sure, the latter may sound funny, but I don't think it gives off nearly as bad an impression as someone who has been named after a bottle of booze.

Touche

I think KSig responded best to the fact that the people who hold the names in question are being raised by the people who gave them the names. Eventhough we hear the 'product of environment' argument there are people who break the cycle of things that are surrounding them. So for instance is Alizita was surrounded by teen pregnancy, many unemployed adults, welfare and whatever other circumstance that my be stereotypical sh may see the need for improvement and beet the odds! Damn it! She may very well do well in school, yef get effed over because one of the first things seen on her resume' is Alizita! That is total BULL!

Agreed!

Hold on, are we now saying having good/bad parents is a consideration which is immaterial?

It's not at all immaterial - but modern developmental psychology has found that their role in shaping important factors for children is far less than most people assume. In fact, for many issues, peer group is a significantly more important developmental factor.

Let's put it this way: most parents think their child's development is 90% in their hands. It's actually more likely less than 50%. Not at all immaterial - just much more spread out than we originally thought.

When you think about it, this is actually quite intuitive, when you start to think about the link between things like poverty and such on development - or kids with otherwise "normal" parents who wind up in poor situations (or the reverse).

This also helps to show why I think alphagamuga's "bad parents" connection is hysterical nonsense.

I don't think I was even really directly asserting it. But when it was offered up that the reason people gave their kids the names was as an anti-authority statement, I wasn't sure that we could reasonably expect that to be regarded in a value neutral kind of way.

(Even if parental influence is only 50%, I think it probably still matters, but again, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that it's alright to screen out resume because you're making assumptions about people's names. I'm just saying that it MIGHT not be race alone that is getting screened out when people do this. Again, not that this is okay.)

It's not that I think we SHOULD discriminate against people because of their names, but if we know it happens, then I think parents ought to consider these effects when they name their kids.

Honestly, it hadn't even occurred to me that it was any kind of deliberate political statement before this thread. I thought that people usually named their kids along the lines of how people in their families were named and how people they knew named their kids, so I don't have a lot invested in the whole "what names really indicate and how important are they" aspect.

If you can choose a way to keep your kid free from one form of prejudice or bias, why not choose it? Sure, the world would be a better place if you could depend on people not showing the prejudice, but I, personally, wouldn't want my kid to have to count on it.