mindover

Don’t count where? If a person looks like they are from a warmer region and speaks Portuguese - unless they object - they will be classified as a PoC by most people in the US. Maybe the government disagrees but that is relevant only in very few specific situations.

Also, if their parents moved to Brazil in the 1960s they somehow became a PoC? Does the actual ancestry matter or are we just assuming that everyone who is not from Europe is a PoC?

There is way more to race classification than the government classification. Talking to people, selecting the right choice in a questionnaire, applying for a job - no one is verifying person’s ancestry. If you are from Brazil you are a PoC by default, unless you object.

I disagree. This is just a different relationship with work - not better and not worse. Being focused on career advancements doesn’t make them (sorry for generalizing again) worse engineers or worse colleagues. Eg I don’t care about my IC level and enjoy coding, someone else cares more about their IC level and enjoys coding. Why should I care?

I know I am not in a position to complain (I am a “white” European) but I would be furious if I was so often grouped into a completely arbitrary race/ethnicity/skin color/country of birth based group and made assumptions about.

I have never met a single European who would differentiate between a Portuguese and a German based on their skin color. But if that Portuguese person moves to the US they are suddenly a PoC and a victim of white oppression.

How is it describing it though? What does a white-looking immigrant Brazilian of European ancestry have in common with a Native American? How does labeling both as PoC address any inequality?

It’s ok to question any hiring discrimination and share personal observations about group behavior.

However I agree with you that some of the comments are close to being derogatory.

In my experience (as I have shared below) many Indians are more career oriented than, say, Europeans. No criticism here, I personally don’t care and love my Indian colleagues.

There is no group culture fit at tech companies. It’s always a company culture fit, ie “groupless” in theory.

In my experience many Indians are very career oriented (mean that with no criticism). Ie they focus on promotions, career advancements, power consolidation, and not as much on work as the end goal in itself. Again, not criticizing, just an observation. In some cases I wish I was more career oriented too.

Never noticed that in tech. I guess flattery is not very common in this industry in general.

Agreed. The dream is for everyone to have a medal and cake. Even for disadvantaged while people in the US, who are not “colonizers” or some lucky “white privilege” beneficiaries.

It sounds more and more like in the US (and, perhaps, in Canada too) people are being divided into essentially 2 categories: white and non-white. But to complicate things, people with identical ancestry and of identical skin color can be considered white or non-white based on the country of their birth.

Interesting, looks like some sexual orientations fall into the “underrepresented community” definition. I wonder how the gauge this type of diversity. Would it be “sufficient” if half of the board are bisexual white men?

Why are you conflating interpersonal racism with systemic? Both exist. If a white person is racist towards a black person do you call that racial bias? If you do, you are just replacing the established definition of racism, not addressing the phenomenon itself.

Racism by default means interpersonal racism. That’s why when we talk about systemic racism we add this qualifier.

There might not be systemic anti-white racism in the US but there is certainly interpersonal racism against whites in the US. Insisting on dismissing that is not helpful to literally anyone: whites or people of color.