Malthus, my opinions aren't necessarily contrary to yours but you were stating:
"No-one denies racism exists, but I think its real importance as to who does well and who doesn't is far overstated."
Where as I was suggesting that in my opinion it is perhaps understated not overstated. "It" not necessarily meaning racism but the importance of selective culturally or ethnically influenced bias. Infact, society need not be racist in the negative sense at all to still create the outcome of racial segregation or bias. No negative decision making or intolerance need occur in peoples behaviour in order to create conditions of disadvantage for a group. It is sufficient to create positive advantage for people who are like yourself and even be tolerant of all peoples and yet still through your decision-making contribute to the marginalization of those people who are different. Is it wrong to selectively create positive advantage for people like yourself? That is a completely different question, but we all do it in some form ethnically, culturally, regionally or even genetically (such as your biological family). My main point is simply an opinion that these forms of bias have a profound influence on our behaviour and the shape of our society and that this extends into the work place and creates genuine disadvantage, unfairly or justifiably so, for visible minorities.
If I may return to an earlier point - I apologize for a late reply, I'm not a frequent visitor.
This is a very good point, and as I believe you mentioned earlier it is a double-edged one.
I agree with everything but the last half of the last sentence: "...that this extends into the work place and creates genuine disadvantage, unfairly or justifiably so, for visible minorities". It may do so, but it is not guaranteed to do so.
To my mind, there is no question that groups chose others "like themselves" through networking and other informal bias and selection mechanisms.
But that creates two more issues:
1. What is "like myself"? Is it someone with the same skin colour or someone of the same
social class? I think the latter is more commonly chosen these days - someone who wears the same sort of clothes, listens to the same sort of music, eats at the same kinds of restaurants is more "us" than someone who does none of these things, but has the same colour skin.
2. Another and narrower cleavage is that of a common background or culture. Some groups are tighter and more coehesive than others in this respect; but again this need not line up with 'race'.
The point I'm making is that I agree with your analysis but it does not necessarily lead to your conclusions - that a person is disadvantaged because of the colour of their skin. Class is often a bigger drawback in terms of unconcious bias.
Another example I know well is that of Iranian-Canadians, who tend to be very well educated - the majority of whom I know are well educated upper middle class types (who were able to bribe their way out of Iran right after the revolution); they have had no particular trouble fitting in the upper middle class here, as they share the same tastes and inclinations - in spite of the fears of anti-Muslim and anti-brown skin prejudice, they by and large are able to convince Canadians of the same social class that they are "like us".
[Somewhat ironically, Iranians in Canada often I have found tend to get along particularly well with Jews, in my experience - they share similar predelictions, such as a preference for the medical profession]
