zlacker

>>saeedj+(OP)
How is it racist to assume that in a country of mostly white people, the CEO would be white? That isn't racist. Unless you consciously thought the black person in the room was less competent just because they were black, it isn't racism.

If I was in India, and walked into a company meeting with a diverse set of people, I would assume the Indian looking person is the CEO. If I was in Japan, I would assume the Japanese looking person was the CEO.

This isn't racism. This is the human brain using pattern recognition to evaluate a situation and infer information as best it can under the circumstances.

>>Thoren+jj1
This is the human brain using pattern recognition to evaluate a situation and infer information as best it can under the circumstances.

That isn't a different thing than "racism". When you don't know, don't assume.

>>jessau+bk1
Easy to say that, but the human brain does this - to its advantage - multiple times daily. It's how humans learn and adapt. It is a central part of what makes humans better than other species as adapting to environments and performing well in unfamiliar situations. There is nothing racist about making an unintentional mistake. This whole premise assumes that being a CEO equals competence and a higher level of ability - a claim which I thoroughly reject anyway.

>>Thoren+Gk1
If it makes it easier for you to understand, think of it as small-r "racism" rather than capital-R "Racism". It's not equivalent to lynching somebody, but it's still an assumption based on race that harms someone. One doesn't have to harbor ill intent in order to exhibit racist behavior.

One shouldn't think of oneself as the center of this situation. Your dubious appeals to evopysch relate to what's going on (or not) in one's brain, while one's behavior that is observable to others just says "black people are subordinate".