Black people in Japan speak about how they feel freer in Japan than in the USA - Page 3 - 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.
#15269009
wat0n wrote:
Racism is definitely bottom up. In particular, appealing to race (and by extension racial discrimination) can help with the internal cohesion of those members of the community who are discriminating by race. Cohesion, too, is one major reason why identity politics exists in the first place. As such, the racism held by individuals can and does translate into racism by the institutions. Institutions are not managed by robots either.

Why else do you think racism doesn't seem to go away even when the elites actively try to root it out? Racism remains even in so called socialist "paradises" like Cuba, and it's not because there is no genuine desire by the ideological Cuban Marxists to eliminate it but simply that racism doesn't go away because they want it to. The US isn't "special" or "exceptional" in this regard.



Just consider the U.S. Civil War -- there had to be a *society-wide* addressing of the problem of *slavery*. Leaving it to 'localist' / 'decentralized' parochialism wouldn't have been adequate.

Also:



In the United States, redlining is a discriminatory practice in which services (financial and otherwise) are withheld from potential customers who reside in neighborhoods classified as "hazardous" to investment; these neighborhoods have significant numbers of racial and ethnic minorities, and low-income residents.[2]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
#15269011
ckaihatsu wrote:Just consider the U.S. Civil War -- there had to be a *society-wide* addressing of the problem of *slavery*. Leaving it to 'localist' / 'decentralized' parochialism wouldn't have been adequate.

Also:


And the US Civil War is also a great example, why do you think so many southerners who didn't even own slaves volunteered to fight to preserve it?

So is redlining, one of the reasons redlining existed at all was that white residents would riot if they found out they'd have Black neighbors. We also know that because that's exactly what would happen if the government decided to do a cold integration of neighborhoods.

Wiki wrote:On July 30, 1953, the CHA moved Betty Howard, a light-skinned black woman, and her family into the project. Starting on August 5 and lasting for weeks, white residents of the projects attacked the Howard home with rocks, fireworks, with police doing little to stop them. In October 1953, the CHA decided to move 10 more black families in, sparking a new wave of violence. It was not until 1963 that blacks could go to the neighborhood park without police protection.[3][4]
#15269014
wat0n wrote:
And the US Civil War is also a great example, why do you think so many southerners who didn't even own slaves volunteered to fight to preserve it?



You're going off on a tangent -- the original subtopic was about *racism*, which is an *institutional*, top-down social dynamic that has historically had government backing, including the genocide of Native Americans.


wat0n wrote:
So is redlining, one of the reasons redlining existed at all was that white residents would riot if they found out they'd have Black neighbors.



You're *defending* white residents' potential to riot, which is *very* problematic.


wat0n wrote:
We also know that because that's exactly what would happen if the government decided to do a cold integration of neighborhoods.



This is a *hypothetical* -- do you actually *support* / propose such a government move?


wat0n wrote:
Wiki wrote:

On July 30, 1953, the CHA moved Betty Howard, a light-skinned black woman, and her family into the project. Starting on August 5 and lasting for weeks, white residents of the projects attacked the Howard home with rocks, fireworks, with police doing little to stop them. In October 1953, the CHA decided to move 10 more black families in, sparking a new wave of violence. It was not until 1963 that blacks could go to the neighborhood park without police protection.[3][4]
#15269017
ckaihatsu wrote:You're going off on a tangent -- the original subtopic was about *racism*, which is an *institutional*, top-down social dynamic that has historically had government backing, including the genocide of Native Americans.


No, it's not simply institutional or top-down.

You don't get to define the terms we'll use in this debate.

ckaihatsu wrote:You're *defending* white residents' potential to riot, which is *very* problematic.


I'm not justifying anything, I'll let justifications of violence to your camp. I'm simply pointing out the historically accurate fact that white hostility to the idea of living with black people motivated redlining, and that hostility was bottom-up, not simply top-down.

Politicians willing to avoid trouble would just take the path of least resistance, and that was redlining until the second half of the 20th century. From then onwards, those who didn't want to have Black neighbors could simply pack up their stuff and leave, and many did.

ckaihatsu wrote:This is a *hypothetical* -- do you actually *support* / propose such a government move?


It was done in 1953-1954, initially by accident but afterwards as a conscious decision. You should really go to our city's History Museum, there's a small exhibit about it.

Chicago Historical Society wrote:Image

Backstory:

The Trumbull Park riots were key events in the history of civil rights both in Chicago and nationally. It was covered locally by the Daily Calumet newspaper including this article from 1953. The Trumbull Park Homes, a lower income housing development built by the Chicago Housing Authority or (CHA) in South Deering, was completed in 1938. At the time, residents in this steel mill neighborhood were primarily from Slavic, Italian, and Mexican backgrounds. Although some black steelworkers commuted into South Deering to work at Wisconsin Steel, blacks did not live in the neighborhood. The CHA had an official policy of non-discrimination but an unofficial policy of not placing black residents in predominantly white neighborhoods. In 1953, the Howard family were allowed to move into this formerly all-white development because Betty Howard, who was fair-skinned, had not been perceived as black by CHA officials. White residents living in the neighborhood rioted, encouraged by groups like the South Deering Improvement Association. Crowds of white residents nightly set off firework “bombs,” threw bricks, broke windows, and threw garbage on the lawns of black residents. Although the CHA had not intended to integrate the unit, it responded to budding civil rights activism and brought in a handful of additional black families. White residents, motivated by racial fears as well as concerns for falling property values stoked by realtors, continued to use violent means to attempt to physically and psychologically intimidate the black families into leaving.

To contain the riots, the police department kept a massive police presence at Trumbull Park Homes, at times reaching 1000 officers. The police also imposed curfews and physically escorted black family members in and out of South Deering. The Square Deal Tavern on 105th and Torrence which had served black customers was set on fire as well as the South Deering Methodist Church that had welcomed black congregants. Violence would continue sporadically over a decade. In 1959, Frank London Brown published the novel, Trumbull Park, which was a fictionalized account of his own experiences as a black person living in the Trumbull Park Homes during the riots. This moving account gives a harrowing portrayal of the physical and mental toll of the assaults faced by black residents and how such experiences contributed to the growing civil rights movement.


It's not the only example either, Brown v Board of Education and the subsequent crisis at Little Rock central is a far better known example.
#15269018
@ckaihatsu if Wat0n does not understand that top-down chart about deductive reasoning then there is not much to explain to him is there?

Very little is understood. It has to be he never studied the subject in depth or is unwilling to study the subject of systemic racism in depth.

I think this video is appropriate.

Why are the Black people rioting in their own neighborhoods and destroying them as some foolish types asked a rioter that was Black?

Her answer:



She is not talking about the USA only @wat0n if they don't address the wealth inequality in the USA and they continue to do what they have always done to the African continent and the Latin American group of nations? They will be creating enemies for life. And once a competitor shows up on the scene competing with the USA they will collaborate to bring the USA down. Why? They have nothing to lose. They were never given real opportunities. That is what happens with power imbalances in human society.

The French Revolution was all about that. They burned society to the ground. Why? They did not own anything. They had barely enough to eat. Why should they prop up a society that does not respect their rights at all and never gives the underclass any opportunities? It is reality.

If you don't address that problem? You are asking for trouble. She is also right that Black people are not looking for revenge. They just want to be treated fairly.

But if the system refuses to even acknowledge that racism has a systemic basis in the past and in the present with mass incarcerations and so on? Then it is going to be facing meltdowns.
#15269024
Tainari88 wrote:@ckaihatsu if Wat0n does not understand that top-down chart about deductive reasoning then there is not much to explain to him is there?


It's rather off topic.

Tainari88 wrote:Very little is understood. It has to be he never studied the subject in depth or is unwilling to study the subject of systemic racism in depth.


Just because I don't agree with your view on the matter doesn't mean I haven't studied it.

I think this video is appropriate.

Tainari88 wrote:Why are the Black people rioting in their own neighborhoods and destroying them as some foolish types asked a rioter that was Black?

Her answer:



She is not talking about the USA only @wat0n if they don't address the wealth inequality in the USA and they continue to do what they have always done to the African continent and the Latin American group of nations? They will be creating enemies for life. And once a competitor shows up on the scene competing with the USA they will collaborate to bring the USA down. Why? They have nothing to lose. They were never given real opportunities. That is what happens with power imbalances in human society.

The French Revolution was all about that. They burned society to the ground. Why? They did not own anything. They had barely enough to eat. Why should they prop up a society that does not respect their rights at all and never gives the underclass any opportunities? It is reality.

If you don't address that problem? You are asking for trouble. She is also right that Black people are not looking for revenge. They just want to be treated fairly.

But if the system refuses to even acknowledge that racism has a systemic basis in the past and in the present with mass incarcerations and so on? Then it is going to be facing meltdowns.


The idea that looters loot because they think it's their only shot at getting some nice perfume or TV is ludicrous. The reality is that they do so because they see the chance to do so and then make money by reselling the stolen goods, and I would not even be sure they're all poor or even low income. It seems if anything this author (i.e. not a poor person) is once again making classist stereotypes.

That's not counting the also racist assumption that only Black people protested, looted or rioted in 2020.

Furthermore, I would not assume the interests of African Americans and e.g. Latinos are necessarily aligned. In fact, Mexican neighborhoods here were hit particularly hard by looting, it got so bad the Latin Kings did some of the policing when the cops disappeared. So I don't think there will be such great support for her position either - we'll see soon since the runoff election here is between two Democrats, one is a white guy who wants to get more cops in the street and the other is a black activist who's very much like her.

I can't also help to notice you did not address any of my points on the previous post. Will you do so?
#15269025
wat0n wrote:No. Even your definition says prejudice can be held by an individual "against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group". It is typically held against a marginalized minority but it doesn't have to.

And there are of course examples where a minority that is not marginalized still deals with racism, and sometimes ends up being destroyed by it.



For some, perhaps. But it's most definitely not the only reason of why marginalization exists.

Trailer park white trash is not part of a racial minority and I don't think most people in the US would say their situation is due to their race. Yet they are most definitely marginalized. The very term "white trash" itself makes it clear they're marginalized.

Or are you going to say these guys here are not living in the margins of society?

Image

(The whole article, too, feels like a form of "social tourism", as if the photographer had gone to some isolated community even though it's in a touristy place - Sonoma, CA).



This is quite evidently a straw man.

It is not so much about culture but institutions why the US is richer than Latin America. And it's less unequal, too.



It has pros and cons relative to American culture.



No one but Latin America itself is impeding its economic growth.

If anything, the rest of the world and specially the US would very much prefer if Latin America was more economically developed and prosperous.



Did I ever say African Americans are dumber?

In the past, indeed, they were enslaved and not considered to be actual persons. And after they were finally recognized as persons, they were left under a legal second class status until the 1960s.

Nowadays, they are still dealing with the consequences of that discrimination but it is simply not true that this is applicable to all African Americans (it definitely does not apply to those who are part of the American upper and upper middle classes) or that there are no issues originating within some of their communities, which overlap to a great deal with those affecting poor white people like those guys above.

In both there is abandonment by the rest of society, both have to deal with drug addiction, both also need to deal with poor access to public services and lack of opportunity, you can also find plenty of dysfunctional families in both, and yes in both there are also those who are just unwilling to do the sacrifices necessary to leave their current condition or who expect the rest of society to do it for them. Just like the poor everywhere for that matter, be it the US, Latin America, Europe, Asia or wherever.

None of this should be surprising for anyone claiming to be a socialist.



Racism is definitely bottom up. In particular, appealing to race (and by extension racial discrimination) can help with the internal cohesion of those members of the community who are discriminating by race. Cohesion, too, is one major reason why identity politics exists in the first place. As such, the racism held by individuals can and does translate into racism by the institutions. Institutions are not managed by robots either.

Why else do you think racism doesn't seem to go away even when the elites actively try to root it out? Racism remains even in so called socialist "paradises" like Cuba, and it's not because there is no genuine desire by the ideological Cuban Marxists to eliminate it but simply that racism doesn't go away because they want it to. The US isn't "special" or "exceptional" in this regard.


All this can be solved easily Wat0n. Go into a bank and ask them why you can't get a loan for a million dollars? Why you are not afforded credit for it? You need to possess the pre-requisites to get that loan. You do a deep dive in that system. Why did Silicon Valley Bank do risky investments? Who is making these decisions? Are they African Americans in the ghettos getting together and deciding what investments to make?

How about white trailer trash people? What power do they have to get big mortgages and so on and buy homes out of the trailer park?

Those are institutional forms of social and economic control. There is an institution--a bank in that case. Of making the decision.

If there is a law stating that in order for you to get a permit to build an expensive house in a certain plot of land and you want that land? And it is controlled by a politician who determines who gets the contract or not? Who is going to have access to that politician? A poor single mother from a Black community who is in the red in her bank account and can't contribute a damn thing to his campaign or the wealthy guy who owns the construction company and will give him 100k in wealth?

If you refuse to accept that systems are in place as a way of controlling wealth and opportunities in society? Then there is not much to debate is there?

You are just invalid. And are incapable of any form of analysis at all. It is all about individualism.

I hate to break the news to you Wat0n but societies are run as groups. Never as individualism only. Excessive individualism means excessive competition and eventually a breakdown in a sense of community duty. The cornerstone of social activism and change. If you want to change society in any meaningful way whether one is conservative or liberal, socialist or fascist, it has to be in a group. Never by just one person.

If you do not understand that? You got to be discarded forever as a decent sparring partner here.

The argument is too weak to continue. You are not getting basic stuff. Like you are here because your mother had you in her womb and you depended on her to breathe, be nourished and be born. Your father was involved. Your family. And your teachers, neighbors, etc. it was communal. If you can't understand social conditioning and social shaping of society as a group? Then you are a very weak thinker.

I am done.
#15269026
Tainari88 wrote:All this can be solved easily Wat0n. Go into a bank and ask them why you can't get a loan for a million dollars? Why you are not afforded credit for it? You need to possess the pre-requisites to get that loan. You do a deep dive in that system. Why did Silicon Valley Bank do risky investments? Who is making these decisions? Are they African Americans in the ghettos getting together and deciding what investments to make?


And those requisites exist because the bank obviously hopes that it will be repaid.

Are you saying the bank somehow racially discriminates against me just because it won't lend me $1m?

Tainari88 wrote:How about white trailer trash people? What power do they have to get big mortgages and so on and buy homes out of the trailer park?

Those are institutional forms of social and economic control. There is an institution--a bank in that case. Of making the decision.

If there is a law stating that in order for you to get a permit to build an expensive house in a certain plot of land and you want that land? And it is controlled by a politician who determines who gets the contract or not? Who is going to have access to that politician? A poor single mother from a Black community who is in the red in her bank account and can't contribute a damn thing to his campaign or the wealthy guy who owns the construction company and will give him 100k in wealth?

If you refuse to accept that systems are in place as a way of controlling wealth and opportunities in society? Then there is not much to debate is there?


Are those white trailer park people being racially discriminates against?

What makes you believe they don't have quite a few things in common with poor black people?

Tainari88 wrote:You are just invalid. And are incapable of any form of analysis at all. It is all about individualism.

I hate to break the news to you Wat0n but societies are run as groups. Never as individualism only. Excessive individualism means excessive competition and eventually a breakdown in a sense of community duty. The cornerstone of social activism and change. If you want to change society in any meaningful way whether one is conservative or liberal, socialist or fascist, it has to be in a group. Never by just one person.

If you do not understand that? You got to be discarded forever as a decent sparring partner here.

The argument is too weak to continue. You are not getting basic stuff. Like you are here because your mother had you in her womb and you depended on her to breathe, be nourished and be born. Your father was involved. Your family. And your teachers, neighbors, etc. it was communal. If you can't understand social conditioning and social shaping of society as a group? Then you are a very weak thinker.

I am done.


You're speaking as if we were bees or ants, or had a hive mind.

No, pure individualism is not a thing. Living in society means you can't do whatever the hell you want, regardless of the reason (yes, this includes looting "for social justice"). That's quite obvious and I have never said otherwise.

But collectivism is also not the panacea. There's a point in which you can't suppress the individual for the sake of the group. When you do so, you get broken individuals and social dysfunction - of the type you can in fact see in Japan. Take, for example, the Karoshi - a Japanese word for "overworking to death" -, people who work themselves to death, doing 80+ or even 100+ hours a week for months or years. And they don't do it because they are poor, it happens in high wage occupations as well. They do it because of the collectivistic concept that they must devote themselves to their company, that it's the honorable thing to do and that you shouldn't complain (and many don't) as it's best for everyone if you don't and just accept it's what society expects from you. That's an example of toxic collectivism if there's any.
#15269054
wat0n wrote:And those requisites exist because the bank obviously hopes that it will be repaid.

Are you saying the bank somehow racially discriminates against me just because it won't lend me $1m?

In a sense, yes. The reason the bank won’t lend some random person $1m is because they don’t believe they could repay the loan with interest. The reason they think that is because that person is poor. The reason that person is poor is, very often, because they and their parents and their grandparents and all their ancestors were the victim of racist government policies and social attitudes. The bank refusing (very sensibly, from their point of view) to lend that person $1m therefore reinforces that racial discrimination. Notice that there is not necessarily any personal racism involved - the bank is making an ‘objective’ decision based on ‘objective’ economic factors. Yet the end result of all this personal ‘objectivity’ is that the institutional racism of the past continues into the future, with the present generation no more able to take advantage of social and economic opportunities than previous generations. The past has a weight, a momentum of its own, and the structures of society, the institutions of our economy and of our government, reinforce the injustices of the past even while claiming to be fair and objective. This is why, to right the wrongs of the past, it is inadequate just to examine the individual conscience or the individual’s racist attitudes. Changing society requires more than just changing individual hearts; it requires changing society as a whole. This requires collective action, with collective results. Maybe set up co-operative or social banks, with appropriate safeguards, which will be prepared to lend a group of poor, Black entrepreneurs $1m to set up a business? We need to start thinking outside the box….

Are those white trailer park people being racially discriminates against?

Maybe not racially, but they are certainly being culturally discriminated against.

What makes you believe they don't have quite a few things in common with poor black people?

I’m a Marxist, and so is @Tainari88. You’re preaching to the choir here, @wat0n. ;)

You're speaking as if we were bees or ants, or had a hive mind.

No, pure individualism is not a thing. Living in society means you can't do whatever the hell you want, regardless of the reason (yes, this includes looting "for social justice"). That's quite obvious and I have never said otherwise.

But collectivism is also not the panacea. There's a point in which you can't suppress the individual for the sake of the group. When you do so, you get broken individuals and social dysfunction - of the type you can in fact see in Japan. Take, for example, the Karoshi - a Japanese word for "overworking to death" -, people who work themselves to death, doing 80+ or even 100+ hours a week for months or years. And they don't do it because they are poor, it happens in high wage occupations as well. They do it because of the collectivistic concept that they must devote themselves to their company, that it's the honorable thing to do and that you shouldn't complain (and many don't) as it's best for everyone if you don't and just accept it's what society expects from you. That's an example of toxic collectivism if there's any.

There is indeed such a thing as toxic collectivism, just as there is such a thing as toxic individualism. What is needed is a balance - a dialectical balance, if you will - between individualism and collectivism. The individual can only flourish in a society which permits and enables that flourishing, and society as a whole can only flourish if each individual within it can achieve their full personal development. If entire races or classes of people are enslaved or exploited, this does not benefit society as a whole, just the individuals doing the exploiting, because the human potential of the slaves or workers is being wasted. Society needs the individual, and the individual needs society. Only together can they both flourish. They are dialectical opposites which define and require each other.
#15269060
Potemkin wrote:In a sense, yes. The reason the bank won’t lend some random person $1m is because they don’t believe they could repay the loan with interest. The reason they think that is because that person is poor. The reason that person is poor is, very often, because they and their parents and their grandparents and all their ancestors were the victim of racist government policies and social attitudes. The bank refusing (very sensibly, from their point of view) to lend that person $1m therefore reinforces that racial discrimination. Notice that there is not necessarily any personal racism involved - the bank is making an ‘objective’ decision based on ‘objective’ economic factors. Yet the end result of all this personal ‘objectivity’ is that the institutional racism of the past continues into the future, with the present generation no more able to take advantage of social and economic opportunities than previous generations. The past has a weight, a momentum of its own, and the structures of society, the institutions of our economy and of our government, reinforce the injustices of the past even while claiming to be fair and objective. This is why, to right the wrongs of the past, it is inadequate just to examine the individual conscience or the individual’s racist attitudes. Changing society requires more than just changing individual hearts; it requires changing society as a whole. This requires collective action, with collective results. Maybe set up co-operative or social banks, with appropriate safeguards, which will be prepared to lend a group of poor, Black entrepreneurs $1m to set up a business? We need to start thinking outside the box….


So when those white guys we talk about below get their loan applications rejected is it also racism, Pote?

I think we ought to distinguish mechanisms here. What's going on, is the persistence of poverty and exclusion, and that much should be clearer as I don't think someone like Oprah should have much trouble getting a $1m loan. That may as well be part of her personal line of credit.

Potemkin wrote:Maybe not racially, but they are certainly being culturally discriminated against.


It's definitely racial, too. It's a sort of reverse discrimination, and I don't mean positive discrimination but more like "oh, so you're white and also poor? Well, that's definitely not because you were a victim of institutional racism so it's your fault, loser". Which actually has a point, historically, in the same way one can point to how many of the things that keep communities poor are the result of individual and sometimes collective decisions taken by their members, but does it solve anything?

And those kids who grow up in trailer parks, should one tell them or insinuate this when they're adults to justify (not simply explain, but justify) their status? It doesn't sound too smart long term.

Potemkin wrote:I’m a Marxist, and so is @Tainari88. You’re preaching to the choir here, @wat0n. ;)


Am I? I am legitimately not sure most of the time, and I'm not referring to you.

Potemkin wrote:There is indeed such a thing as toxic collectivism, just as there is such a thing as toxic individualism. What is needed is a balance - a dialectical balance, if you will - between individualism and collectivism. The individual can only flourish in a society which permits and enables that flourishing, and society as a whole can only flourish if each individual within it can achieve their full personal development. If entire races or classes of people are enslaved or exploited, this does not benefit society as a whole, just the individuals doing the exploiting, because the human potential of the slaves or workers is being wasted. Society needs the individual, and the individual needs society. Only together can they both flourish. They are dialectical opposites which define and require each other.


Indeed, and the same can be said about a socialist society. Such societies do suppress individuals quite a bit, sometimes even more than in countries like Japan where that's a result of the role of honor in society, since it's necessary for collectivized production. Workers in the socialist world would often be told to leave their personal aspirations aside for the collective and it worked, at least for a while.
#15269063
@wat0n you keep repeating flawed argumentation that refuses to acknowledge a systemic basis for racism.

The original OP is about why Black Americans who live in Japan and feel freer being in Japan than in the USA. They are shown George Floyd tapes of him dying at the hands of police. There is a system from the past of devaluing people of African American ancestry.

You keep insisting that there is reverse racism and do not acknowledge the collective harm that racism has done through institutional racism.

You are stuck like a broken record on individualism and can't process what is the core of all social and economic progress in society.

Since you are unable to really get beyond basic logic and admit systemic racism as a reality?

You are officially a weak thinker. From now on? That is who you are due to what you write over and over again.

You don't get anyone's explanations.

You sound like this guy debating in a BBC debate right after Donald Trump win. The guy just can't accept obvious evidence.

:lol:



You sound like that Tyrell man. It does not make sense.
#15269067
@wat0n since you brought up Oprah as an example. She will answer the question of why being Black=Poverty for most people out there in the world. Especially in Europe. Even if you are a very rich Black person....the society is racist Wat0n. If you can't get that it is not my problem eh? It is yours. Failure to connect the dots.




#15269068
Tainari88 wrote:@wat0n since you brought up Oprah as an example. She will answer the question of why being Black=Poverty for most people out there in the world. Especially in Europe. Even if you are a very rich Black person....the society is racist Wat0n. If you can't get that it is not my problem eh? It is yours. Failure to connect the dots.






Well, the fact that Oprah has a platform most of us don't have to tell us what happened to her should already tell you something about how important the figures in your checking account are, @Tainari88. I also very much doubt any bank would turn her down upon finding out who she is and how wealthy she is.

Her life story is also quite remarkable since she had a very tough childhood in a dysfunctional family, the type many people born in poverty have to live with, eventually being unable to break the cycle like she did regardless of their race.
#15269070
Tainari88 wrote:@wat0n you keep repeating flawed argumentation that refuses to acknowledge a systemic basis for racism.


And you, like others, refuse to acknowledge that racism comes from the bottom up.

Again, why do you think racial desegregation was started by the elites and not from the bottom? Why do you think some whites would often riot when they would be racially integrated with blacks in public housing projects in the 1950s? Why do you think Southern segregationist politicians had widespread white support at the time?

Tainari88 wrote:The original OP is about why Black Americans who live in Japan and feel freer being in Japan than in the USA. They are shown George Floyd tapes of him dying at the hands of police. There is a system from the past of devaluing people of African American ancestry.


And they are also shown the tapes of trial of Derek Chauvin and the 20+ years he got for the murder of George Floyd... And yet, according to you and others the system still is like in the 1950s :roll:

Tainari88 wrote:You keep insisting that there is reverse racism and do not acknowledge the collective harm that racism has done through institutional racism.


Does the term "white trash" have a racial undertone?

Tainari88 wrote:You are stuck like a broken record on individualism and can't process what is the core of all social and economic progress in society.


And you're stuck like a broken record on the 1950s at best.

It's not the 1950s or even the 1990s anymore. Society in general is far, far less tolerant of racism and also of police brutality than before. I think that's because the internet allows everyone to see how unjust these things are instead of just relying on testimony.

Tainari88 wrote:Since you are unable to really get beyond basic logic and admit systemic racism as a reality?

You are officially a weak thinker. From now on? That is who you are due to what you write over and over again.

You don't get anyone's explanations.

You sound like this guy debating in a BBC debate right after Donald Trump win. The guy just can't accept obvious evidence.

:lol:



You sound like that Tyrell man. It does not make sense.


Well, if you're such a strong thinker why don't you take my posts, break them down, and discuss the specific ideas and examples therein? I see a lot of arrogance but you don't, for some reason.

For instance, you assumed that the cases of anti-Black racism by Hispanics I've seen in real life I mentioned were the result of the media, even though I already told you that's not the case. They pointed me to specific incidents they'd experienced with African Americans and then generalized without justification about African Americans in general. That's wrong, but it's not because of something they saw on the media or the polluting of their virginal minds by evil racist white degenerates whether you like it or not. This is also not "institutional" and it's also not irrelevant as this is the kind of thing that hurts social cohesion down the line.

Have you ever considered that maybe you are guiding yourself by your own stereotypes here?
#15269086
late wrote:And he will keep repeating it..

Interesting thing about Japan, is that they are quite racist, they are just very polite about it.


Late, the Japanese were an Empire. And they have invaded various nations in Asia seeking control and power and gain. They got two A bombs dropped on them, partially for being imperialistic. The youth of Japan post WWII if you speak to them or study how they have been raised were raised to be totally against war and invasions. Japan suffered a lot and learned a lot from all that horror.


They are not the same generations. The Japanese are not having as many children as before. There are more foreigners accepted in Japan. The USA has to accept that the way African Americans have been treated in the USA is unacceptable and it is systemically racist. Unlike Japan it has not had two atom bombs dropped on it. It has not been defeated in a war and it has not had to modify its military ambitions and imperialistic endeavors and goals. If the USA does not change its constant love of warring for profit it is going to get the karma that all these ex Empires got to get in the end.

All of these wars and racist practices and wasting money, time and energy on control from afar is not something you can keep up indefinitely.

I think the USA is a diverse nation, with a great democratic tradition and a lot of positives to work on. But it is allowing fear of sharing power to destroy everything it has that is an advantage. If the glaring contradictions do not get reconciled it is not going to get better.

The worst part of all this is that the majority of Americans agree that MAGA supporters are not the majority.

But, the system has been so corrupted that it has locked out almost every possibility of rectifying the corruption. If it does not rectify in time? The fallout is going to be irreversible. Once that train leaves the station it spells the end of American response to disaster. It will be about internal collapse. That happened to the Soviets in the early nineties. It will happen to the Americans because they refuse to correct the reality that the USA in the next generations requires sharing real power with African Americans, Latinos, and Asians and other people in the society that are needing more power and more investment. If that is marginalized? Along with huge groups of white people who also are shut out of the system? It all spells disaster.
#15269087
@late Polite racism is always easier to take. That said, I have begun to doubt claims of systemic racism. I know racism exists but there are no policies for it, so it's not ingrained in any system. That doesn't mean that individuals in the system aren't racist, however.
#15269092
Godstud wrote:@late Polite racism is always easier to take. That said, I have begun to doubt claims of systemic racism. I know racism exists but there are no policies for it, so it's not ingrained in any system. That doesn't mean that individuals in the system aren't racist, however.


As I understand the argument, past racist policies have created circumstances where evenhanded policies today become racist because of the disproportionate impact left by the legacy of policies in the past.

Ok, I'm with it so far. I still have not completely understood why, for instance, targeting poverty regardless of other factors would be racist, since it would also have a disproportionate impact left by the legacy of policies in the past.

But I'm not an expert in the field and most certainly not in an American context. :)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9

Nobody is trying to distract from the humanitarian[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Again: nope. Putin in Feb 2022 only decided ... […]

Helping Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion an[…]

https://twitter.com/huwaidaarraf/status/1773389663[…]