Black people in Japan speak about how they feel freer in Japan than in the USA - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties from Japan to Turkmenistan to New Zealand.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#15269192
@wat0n I've expanded my research into things by going to sources I would have dismissed outright, and am seeking a middle ground. I find most arguments actually seek this out, anyhow. Many of the "conservative" stances aren't actually that extreme, and are often common sense. Both sides have extremists/allies, who take the arguments to absurd places.

This applies not only to claims of institutional racism, but also to modern feminism. The claims are there, but these oppressive policies simply do not exist. In fact, it's often a biased playing field making it easier for the groups claiming victimhood(eg. affirmative action).
#15269196
ckaihatsu wrote:Again, that's *myopic* -- here's the 'big picture':


A big picture that is not applicable to the person at hand, i.e. Oprah.

That is, there is quite evidently heterogeneity in the situation of African Americans and quite frankly one shouldn't just adopt a one size fits all. It may sound obvious but it seemingly is not, and it's most certainly relevant when discussing racism.

ckaihatsu wrote:Also, please recall *your own* particular treatment of *government*, historically:


Would you please elaborate your point more clearly? Just because a government bureaucracy can't adapt, it does not really make it racist. It could be incompetent, or just unable to adapt to changes in its context quickly enough.

ckaihatsu wrote:'Kids' equals *one* particular social-minority status, and 'poor' equals *another* particular social-minority status, so 'poor working class white kids in 2023' does *not* equate to 'privileged whites using cultural imperialism', as you seem to be insinuating.


That's vague and does not get to the point.

Should these poor whites get as much assistance or priority as others living in poverty who are not white or they should not and should instead be held, at least partially, responsible for their situation since their ancestors were neither enslaved nor segregated? Please provide a straight answer.

I think the very term "white trash" exists to draw a clear line between those poor whites and poor African Americans who can indeed be reasonably said to still be victims of the long term consequences of institutionalized discrimination which made them fall into the poverty trap to begin with. I do find it odd is that it's not seen as tasteless to label them as such, even when many may as well be the sons or grandsons of poor people and thereby have also lacked access to opportunities even if they or their ancestors were never racially discriminated against - all in a moment in history in which there is (allegedly) a concern among the educated bien pensants about all the dimensions under which one could be privileged.

@Godstud fair, I agree people tend to go to the extremes when it comes to debates about race and racism. We don't see that anymore but I don't forget certain racist right wing types were claiming genetics as the primary reason for the issues presently faced by African Americans circa 2013-2014 here in PoFo, despite the lack of credible scientific evidence to that effect, as a way to just brush aside all sorts of alternative environmental explanations (of which systemic racism is just one of many possible causes, all of which can and should be analyzed on their merits).
#15269209
Godstud wrote:
Correlation does not equal causation. Have you considered the likelihood of stress of being upper income earner being a factor? Most upper income earners deal with more stress and women of higher incomes tend to feel it more than men in a similar situtation, simply due to biological and societal pressures.

Did they do this with white or lower income women, too? Most people in upper income jobs have a higher mortality rate, and "poor white women in childbirth" isn't much of a deal because of the level of medical care in the USA, that even poor BLACK women can access. Did they also do a study on upper income white women?

Poverty is the largest problem for the USA and the claims of systemic racism, and it's true that due to historic reasons black communities have larger problems when it comes to this, and that, in turn, leads to higher crime, etc. Most would argue that most policing is not done with racism as an foundation, and that systemic(institutional) racism isn't actually systemic, but law dealing with the fallout of a larger poverty problem.

That the USA is dealing with the problems of PAST racist policies, cannot be denied, but there is little to no evidence that there are current racist policies in place that would support claims of systemic racism. That there is more black poverty cannot be denied, and this correlates with higher criminality rate in these poor areas. Culture also affects this, and black culture within communities can increase problems, as gang lifestyles are romanticized in media. Note: As of 2015, at 77.3 percent, black Americans have the highest rate of non-marital births among native Americans. In 2016 29% of African Americans were married, while 48% of all Americans were.

Another problem is that they normally measure "systemic racism" by OPINION polls, too.

To address the OP, poor black people are not going to Japan, so is the lack of racism simply a by-product of that?



Once you get past the denial, you will see a lot of it.
#15269257
Institutional racism and individual racism can cause each other to happen. They interweave and enforce each other in many ways.

The fact that we can point to examples of individual or institutional racism that are not apparently caused by the other does not contradict this.

Instead, we are simply accept the more nuanced view that institutional and individual racism can cause each other but this is not always necessarily the case.

Having said that, examples like white violence in reaction to forced integration are a clear example of how institutional and individual racism can enforce each other.

White neighbourhoods create policies excluding BIPOC, which is clearly an example of individual racism creating institutional racism, but also an example of how individual racism is caused by institutional factors like redlining and systemic poverty of BIPOC.
#15269258
@Pants-of-dog how did institutionalized racism create the individual racism of the rioters in the 1950s Turnbull Park project? I find it hard to say so, since the housing project was from the late 1930s - i.e. it wasn't a particularly old one.

More generally, how does systemic racism start to begin with? Can it begin even if nobody or too few people are individually racist?
#15269259
Godstud wrote:Correlation does not equal causation. Have you considered the likelihood of stress of being upper income earner being a factor? Most upper income earners deal with more stress and women of higher incomes tend to feel it more than men in a similar situtation, simply due to biological and societal pressures.


This does not seem to be borne out by evidence. A study from Korea showed that the higher the income, the lover the chance of maternal death. This is consistent with all other studies that also show that rich people tend to be healthier and have better access to better medical treatment.

Did they do this with white or lower income women, too? Most people in upper oncome jobs have a higher mortality rate,


The evidence does not show that people with higher incomes have a higher mortality rate. In fact, the higher the income, the longer the life expectancy.

and "poor white women in childbirth" isn't much of a deal because of the level of medical care in the USA, that even poor BLACK women can access. Did they also do a study on upper income white women?


Again, the evidence seems to say the opposite. One of the main reasons for the disparity in maternal death among races in the USA is due to access to care which is correlated with income.

More BIPOC people are poor, so they have less access to medical care, so more of them die in childbirth.

Poverty is the largest problem for the USA and the claims of systemic racism, and it's true that due to historic reasons black communities have larger problems when it comes to this, and that, in turn, leads to higher crime, etc. Most would argue that most policing is not done with racism as an foundation, and that systemic(institutional) racism isn't actually systemic, but law dealing with the fallout of a larger poverty problem.

That the USA is dealing with the problems of PAST racist policies, cannot be denied, but there is little to no evidence that there are current racist policies in place that would support claims of systemic racism. That there is more black poverty cannot be denied, and this correlates with higher criminality rate in these poor areas. Culture also affects this, and black culture within communities can increase problems, as gang lifestyles are romanticized in media. Note: As of 2015, at 77.3 percent, black Americans have the highest rate of non-marital births among native Americans. In 2016 29% of African Americans were married, while 48% of all Americans were.

Another problem is that they normally measure "systemic racism" by OPINION polls, too.

To address the OP, poor black people are not going to Japan, so is the lack of racism simply a by-product of that?


This part seems unclear.

Are you arguing that systemic racism is over and the problems affecting BIPOC communities are due to unwed mothers and rap music?
#15269284
wat0n wrote:
A big picture that is not applicable to the person at hand, i.e. Oprah.

That is, there is quite evidently heterogeneity in the situation of African Americans and quite frankly one shouldn't just adopt a one size fits all. It may sound obvious but it seemingly is not, and it's most certainly relevant when discussing racism.



'One size fits all' implies something *prescriptive* / political, and we've all been discussing racism (institutionally and individually) *empirically* so far -- not-so-much regarding *policy*.


wat0n wrote:
Would you please elaborate your point more clearly? Just because a government bureaucracy can't adapt, it does not really make it racist. It could be incompetent, or just unable to adapt to changes in its context quickly enough.



My *point* is this:


ckaihatsu wrote:
If *governments* can be 'particularly slow to adapt', then that fact indicates an *institutional* culture -- that government has 'a-life-of-its-own' that has to be analyzed *institutionally*.



viewtopic.php?p=15269184#p15269184



The following framework 'indexes' / indicates the vertical 'dimension' of *scale*:


History, Macro-Micro -- simplified

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
'Kids' equals *one* particular social-minority status, and 'poor' equals *another* particular social-minority status, so 'poor working class white kids in 2023' does *not* equate to 'privileged whites using cultural imperialism', as you seem to be insinuating.



wat0n wrote:
That's vague and does not get to the point.

Should these poor whites get as much assistance or priority as others living in poverty who are not white or they should not and should instead be held, at least partially, responsible for their situation since their ancestors were neither enslaved nor segregated? Please provide a straight answer.



Certainly. The *politics* called-for here is that of *means*-testing, as in this following diagram:


[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

Spoiler: show
Image



---


wat0n wrote:
I think the very term "white trash" exists to draw a clear line between those poor whites and poor African Americans who can indeed be reasonably said to still be victims of the long term consequences of institutionalized discrimination which made them fall into the poverty trap to begin with. I do find it odd is that it's not seen as tasteless to label them as such, even when many may as well be the sons or grandsons of poor people and thereby have also lacked access to opportunities even if they or their ancestors were never racially discriminated against - all in a moment in history in which there is (allegedly) a concern among the educated bien pensants about all the dimensions under which one could be privileged.
#15269287
ckaihatsu wrote:'One size fits all' implies something *prescriptive* / political, and we've all been discussing racism (institutionally and individually) *empirically* so far -- not-so-much regarding *policy*.


That prescription also implies a rather specific view about the empirical reality.

ckaihatsu wrote:My *point* is this:

The following framework 'indexes' / indicates the vertical 'dimension' of *scale*:


History, Macro-Micro -- simplified

Spoiler: show
Image


This is as uninformative and vague as your initial comment.

ckaihatsu wrote:Certainly. The *politics* called-for here is that of *means*-testing, as in this following diagram:


[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Indeed, and it's means testing, not race testing. But I find it odd, then, that the focus on the political debate is about the latter and not the former, it's irrational given the current voting patterns of the population and particularly the population one would expect to benefit from a means tested approach.
#15269288
@Pants-of-dog Yes poverty is a factor but it's unrelated to race. I am sure that they would find the same problems when comparing poor white people to rich black people.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you arguing that systemic racism is over and the problems affecting BIPOC communities are due to unwed mothers and rap music?
Asinine and I didn't mention "rap music"(Strawman). I am pointing out that there are OTHER factors that are unrelated to the claims of systemic racism, and culture is but one. Poverty is one, and while I acknowledge that racism was a factor in the past(there being a legacy of poverty), I do not accept that it is an ongoing "systemic" problem. Poor people are poor regardless of skin colour.

Please show me a racist policy that affects all BIPOC in the USA.
#15269291
Well, the out of wedlock births phenomenon is also heavily correlated with household income. And there is plenty of evidence that dysfunctional families correlate well, all too well perhaps, with poverty as well.

One thing I haven't been able to find yet is which factors correlate best or if there are any interactions. Thankfully, I think this is something one can estimate from the American Community Survey, its data is publicly available so maybe I could check it out myself, which I find kind of annoying to be honest.

I will also mention gang culture is not a purely black or even a nonwhite thing. There are also white gangs, some of which are decades old. But I don't think gang culture is a big thing in middle and upper class households (just like pretty much anywhere, not just the US), but I may be wrong.
#15269294
wat0n wrote:
One size fits all


wat0n wrote:
That prescription also implies a rather specific view about the empirical reality.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
myopic



viewtopic.php?p=15269182#p15269182



Handshakes?


= D


---


wat0n wrote:
Would you please elaborate your point more clearly? Just because a government bureaucracy can't adapt, it does not really make it racist. It could be incompetent, or just unable to adapt to changes in its context quickly enough.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The following framework 'indexes' / indicates the vertical 'dimension' of *scale*:


History, Macro-Micro -- simplified

Spoiler: show
Image



wat0n wrote:
This is as uninformative and vague as your initial comment.



Let's just leave it at 'institutional', if you don't mind -- this is going *nowhere*.


---


wat0n wrote:
Indeed, and it's means testing, not race testing. But I find it odd, then, that the focus on the political debate is about the latter and not the former, it's irrational given the current voting patterns of the population and particularly the population one would expect to benefit from a means tested approach.



What planet are you *from*, wat0n -- ? Can't you see that you've reached the political *industry*, in its billions -- ?

Does *any* business privately benefit when organic and modern needs and wants can be satisfied *without* their for-profit ownership and 'leadership' -- ?

Perhaps this is simply part of your newfound political *consciousness*, however *grudgingly* on your part.
#15269296
Godstud wrote:
racist policy



---


ckaihatsu wrote:



inheritance as leading causes for the growth of the [wealth] gap,



viewtopic.php?p=15269191#p15269191



---


wat0n wrote:
I will also mention gang culture is not a purely black or even a nonwhite thing. There are also white gangs, some of which are decades old. But I don't think gang culture is a big thing in middle and upper class households (just like pretty much anywhere, not just the US), but I may be wrong.



Thanks-for-the-visuals, but 'gang culture' extends all the way up into the *boardroom*, if you mean cartels of capital in to-the-death mortal competition with each other, whatever the industry, spilling over at times into warfare and even *world* war.
#15269297
Godstud wrote:@Pants-of-dog Yes poverty is a factor but it's unrelated to race. I am sure that they would find the same problems when comparing poor white people to rich black people.


Again, this seems doubtful and is contradicted by evidence like the fact that relative to other racial groups, physicians are twice as likely to underestimate black patients’ pain, and many doctors believe the false notion that blacks and Hispanics are more likely than whites to abuse drugs.

Since these beliefs are held regardless of the patients’ income and are exclusively about race, it is illogical to assume it is all about income and not at all about race.

Asinine and I didn't mention "rap music"(Strawman). I am pointing out that there are OTHER factors that are unrelated to the claims of systemic racism, and culture is but one. Poverty is one, and while I acknowledge that racism was a factor in the past(there being a legacy of poverty), I do not accept that it is an ongoing "systemic" problem. Poor people are poor regardless of skin colour.

Please show me a racist policy that affects all BIPOC in the USA.


All you have done is point out that systemic racism is only one problem affecting BIPOC communities in the USA. This does not contradict the existence of systemic racism in any way.

Also, no one claimed that systemic racism needed to have an effect on all BIPOC in order to be systemic.
#15269320
ckaihatsu wrote:Let's just leave it at 'institutional', if you don't mind -- this is going *nowhere*.


It is going nowhere because you're being vague here.

ckaihatsu wrote:What planet are you *from*, wat0n -- ? Can't you see that you've reached the political *industry*, in its billions -- ?

Does *any* business privately benefit when organic and modern needs and wants can be satisfied *without* their for-profit ownership and 'leadership' -- ?

Perhaps this is simply part of your newfound political *consciousness*, however *grudgingly* on your part.


Actually what I'm saying is how political economy in most countries outside the Anglo world works.

ckaihatsu wrote:Thanks-for-the-visuals, but 'gang culture' extends all the way up into the *boardroom*, if you mean cartels of capital in to-the-death mortal competition with each other, whatever the industry, spilling over at times into warfare and even *world* war.


I think you are aware white collar crime and its associated culture are not the same as gang organized crime. A different niche, if you want.
#15269325
@Pants-of-dog If it's not built into the system, then it's not systemic. No one said racism doesn't exist. Systemic racism doesn't exist, however. There are no broad-reaching policies that are inherently racist, which is why you can't provide an example of one. You speak of individual bias, that is making these people(like doctors), exercise racism. I doubt there's a policy that tells doctors to expect exaggerations from black people on the level of their pain.

If you encounter a police officer, he may, or may not, be racist. If he exercises bias against black people due to his experiences with them, then it may not necessarily be "racist". eg. If every call involving women turned violent, then a police officer would learn to err on the side of caution and assume a call involving a woman was going to be violent. Would that be sexist? Possibly. Would it be warranted?
#15269331
ckaihatsu wrote:
Thanks-for-the-visuals, but 'gang culture' extends all the way up into the *boardroom*, if you mean cartels of capital in to-the-death mortal competition with each other, whatever the industry, spilling over at times into warfare and even *world* war.



wat0n wrote:
I think you are aware white collar crime and its associated culture are not the same as gang organized crime. A different niche, if you want.



*Or*....



IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation is a book by investigative journalist and historian Edwin Black which documents the strategic technology services rendered by US-based multinational corporation International Business Machines (IBM) and its German and other European subsidiaries for the Nazi government of Adolf Hitler from the beginning of the Third Reich in January 1933 through the last day of the regime in May 1945 at the end of World War II.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
#15269338
Godstud wrote:@Pants-of-dog If it's not built into the system, then it's not systemic. No one said racism doesn't exist. Systemic racism doesn't exist, however. There are no broad-reaching policies that are inherently racist, which is why you can't provide an example of one. You speak of individual bias, that is making these people(like doctors), exercise racism. I doubt there's a policy that tells doctors to expect exaggerations from black people on the level of their pain.

If you encounter a police officer, he may, or may not, be racist. If he exercises bias against black people due to his experiences with them, then it may not necessarily be "racist". eg. If every call involving women turned violent, then a police officer would learn to err on the side of caution and assume a call involving a woman was going to be violent. Would that be sexist? Possibly. Would it be warranted?


None of this contradicts the fact that systemic racism exists.

Meanwhile, medical professionals think systemic racism exists and it has negative impacts on the health outcomes of BIPOC people. While looking up your claims, I read several studies that confirm this.

So, I will go with the studies and lived experiences of BIPOC people and assume that it is incorrect to claim that systemic racism foes not exist.
#15269342
Pants-of-dog wrote:None of this contradicts the fact that systemic racism exists.


Godstud is exactly saying it doesn't exist. Either you are suggesting he is lying, or you are lying yourself.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9

Blah blah. If Russia uses nukes, the rest of the […]

World War II Day by Day

March 29, Friday Mackenzie King wins Canadian el[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]

The rapes by Hamas, real or imagained are irreleva[…]