Diversity @HuffingtonPost (That Pic): Kind Of, Maybe, Maybe Not, Let's Test It, Well...

Monday, May 23, 2016

So there's been this small thing that popped up on some feeds in regard to the Huff where the executive editor tweeted the above pic and asked "Notice anything about this @HuffingtonPost editors meeting?" and people came up with some of the following:

As you can see, answers all over the board. Some expected, some guessing, some stupid - and what's funny to me is that while it's great for people to call out diversity in a liberal outlet much like you can do elsewhere - some of the callouts can't quite see anything other than white - not even shades.

You have to zoom in a little to get a better gander I think to truly make a good guess (because at this stage in the game, since no one's background is being put out there, you just have to make the guess).

Let's do it (and I'd download the pics or click on them to see them bigger).

Quick note: I'm not trying to vanillafy or becky-fy anyone. White people. You have you heritages too. But in this context - you're all standard White.

Quick second note: Not everyone has the chip - and that's a part of the point. Give me guff - but I'm just human and why don't you try and give it a shot.

From front to back: White, White, White, White. Asian, Black/Blasian, Asian - and no to comments that this is the Chinatown portion of the section. That totals 7.

From front to back: This is the tough row, but outside of #4, #6, and #7 (I'm numbering from front to back) which I go with White - I'm not betting the house on anyone (#1 and #5 I thought could go White but that's a 50/50 bet). I'm going with (and not in order) some Hapa (although maybe it's Winnie Cooper syndrome), maybe some Latina, South American, and maybe Iranian mixes.

Again - mess me up all you want - 'cause I have things to learn and be better at too - but give it a whirl with you and your friends.

It's Futile But It's Not

When a liberal outlet like The Huff puts out a pic and asks that question - be ready. Be ready for it all (Whiteness, ageism, and of course - mac elite, or maybe I should say pc'ist). And if we look at that out of 14 women sitting at the table that we can clearly identify 7 as White - that's 50% - and if we push it up to 9, now we're getting into the 64 percentile range, which is only 1 White person away from 71%.

At the same time - I can't say who is, and who isn't Native American and American Indian. Maybe there could be two (of which I've already given the White label to).

All of which points to the fact that guessing what race and ethnicity people belong too isn't as easy as we can make it out to seem and if we're going to talk about diversity - let's make sure we're trying to be inclusive of true diversity and not count all fair skinned people as White, or that fair skinned isn't actually fair skinned at all.

Cause there are shades.

Other questions/comments remain

1. Is 50% too much Whiteness? I think we can all agree on 71% being too much and I think 65% is pressing close to an absolute answer as well.

2. Doesn't it say something when technically it doesn't necessarily do anything for the status quo because it's not like we're playing let's try and find the White people?

3. Where are the Black women? If I go with there's already one, and then I say there are two Asians and one Happa - I feel like I should at least see the same amount of Black women.

And that's all I have right now.