4 ms·
No, I don't. Since we can't take it literally, it's an acceptable abbreviation to "racial homogeneity". And you all obviously knew what it meant, there wasn't a
by ttt0 6y ago
No, I don't. Since we can't take it literally, it's an acceptable abbreviation to "racial homogeneity". And you all obviously knew what it meant, there wasn't any confusion of what was actually being said here.
- gjulianm 6y agoExactly, we all knew what it meant, that's why I said it's racist. Thinking that people of the same race will vote the same policies in different countries, or that the only division that makes implementing policies harder is the one of race, or that race must be a dividing block, is just a racist way of thinking.
- crumbshot 6y ago> or that the only division that makes implementing policies harder is the one of race, or that race must be a dividing block, is just a racist way of thinking. But politicians do often try to engineer these splits down racial lines, so it often ends up that way in practice. For example, racial minorities being scapegoated for inequalities in society, to try to capture the votes of the racial majority. Dividing people who would otherwise have shared class interests, on issues of race and similar, is a political strategy with a long and sordid history, sadly.
- ttt0 6y agoI never said that the same race will vote in the same way in different countries and I never said that it must be anything. And I explicitly stated that it's not the only division. It's basically marketing, you target different audiences. You might call it racist or whatever you want, but the reality is that it works. Just ask capitalists who mastered the craft. If you're by any chance suggesting that demographics simply don't matter in marketing or politics then that'd actually be the most outrageous statement made in this entire thread.
- gjulianm 6y agoWe're going in a loop. GP comment said that it was easier to implement certain policies in an homogeneous country (and we all understand that the poster means "racially homogeneous"). My point is that racially homogeneous or not, there will be different voting blocs aligned on whatever and implement policies will be different. That's it. I'm not saying it doesn't matter, I'm saying that you can't just say "oh they're all the same race so it's easier" because it isn't necessarily true at all. You can find racially homogeneous countries with non-racial divisions similar or larger than US's racial divisions. That's it, that's the point. Talking just about "racial homogeneity" when discussing implementing certain policies does not make sense at all because then you're ignoring all other possible divisions.
- ttt0 6y agoI can say that and I did. Those divisions might change over time and it's one less thing to be concerned about. The other divisions are usually gender, age and class. You can't do anything about gender and age. You somewhat can about class. Unless you're like America already, it's very easy with race - just control the immigration.
- gjulianm 6y agoLanguage, physical location, type of work, religion... so many possible divisions that just focusing on race does not make sense. In some countries race might not be as dividing. You are thinking as if the US framework was the same as in the rest of the world, and it isn’t. I’ll put you an example: in a few months we will have elections in my region, Madrid. We have quite a lot of immigrants (15-20% IIRC) and yet it’s not an axis of division between groups. District and wealth matters much, much more.
- viklove 6y agoIt's not a racist way of thinking. It's a fact. Race and heritage play a massive role in the wants and needs of people. Just look at voting records in the US (or any country) and you'll find that racial blocs often vote together.