5 ms·

The rural area where my family comes from was segregated by European origin. The English got the best lands, then the next areas went to Scotts, Irish, Germans

The rural area where my family comes from was segregated by European origin. The English got the best lands, then the next areas went to Scotts, Irish, Germans and Poles depending on time of arrival. My grandparents wedding was not attended by both families because one ethnicity (Germans) thought they other ethnicity (Irish) were 'alcoholics'. (I mean, it's a little bit true ...). In the urban area where the other side of my family is from, it's broken up into Little Italy, Greek Town, China Town, Jewish Market etc.. Whether that era was better or not I won't or can't say - but it certainly was more richly diverse than the McDonald's and Starbucks drinkers of today. Also it should be noted that even without regressive and overt kinds of racism (rooted in slavery), segregation will have happened anyhow. I think framing systems purely in 'Black ex-slaves' vs. 'The Others', presumably White is a bit misleading. Italians and Greeks in NYC probably were not even considered 'white' during that era. It's much more nuanced. There are vast numbers of very poor people of all groups who have been 'serfs' since the dawn of time, who have never had any status, and similar segregational policies will have been applied to them as well. Though I'm looking forward to learning more from sources such as this book.

whimsicalism 5y ago
Eh, I find this is a common narrative, but the gap in treatment between the various European "ethnicities" is just not anywhere as close to the gap between how black vs. other is treated. > even without regressive and overt kinds of racism (rooted in slavery), segregation will have happened anyhow. You really do not have the evidence to make a claim like that. > similar segregational policies will have been applied to them as well. Not in the 1970s they didn't.
rayiner 5y ago
There’s a lot of confusion caused by thinking that “white people” are a coherent group. For example, we talk about racial income gaps as if incomes among white ethnic groups are uniform. But there’s a huge gap between those who report themselves on the census as “American” Americans (usually Scots Irish folks who came here long ago) rank near the bottom of the income distribution, lower than recent immigrant groups like Bangladeshis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U...
- selimthegrim 5y ago
  There's usually an educational filter on Bangladeshis (excluding perhaps the large NYC population)
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  You seem to be shadowboxing an opponent that doesn't exist. People who discuss categories such as "white" are not making the claim that "race is all that matters for determining one's circumstance, class does not matter at all." This claim is a strawman that very few people actually believe. But without race, you can't explain stuff like realtors discriminating against black homeowners in 50% of interactions [0]. Even the poor from Appalachia could pose as home buyers and get the "white" service experience from the realtor. [0]: https://projects.newsday.com/long-island/real-estate-agents-investigation/ https://projects.newsday.com/long-island/real-estate-agents-...
  - rayiner 5y ago
    Of course people recognize that white people come from different classes—that’s not what I’m talking about. What people don’t recognize is that those class differences among white people also map onto ethnicity. “White people” aren’t a single ethnic group any more than “brown people” (south Asians) or “black people” (Africans) are a single ethnic group. And when you look at the different subgroups of “white people” the story becomes much more nuanced. As to your hypothetical—that may be true but is also mostly irrelevant. It’s pretty uncontroversial among people who study these disparities that economic and other differences between subgroups is caused by structural issues, not prejudice. That’s why, for example, incomes for second-generation Nigerian Americans exceeds those of third+ generation whites even when adjusted for age and education: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23780231211001971 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23780231211001.... And as to your larger point, that’s true in theory but not in practice. In practice, one division dominates the others. In the current political environment, race is given the highest emphasis. Thus as a “person of color” I fall into the “oppressed” camp (despite being from a wealthy family back home) while my wife’s family falls into the “oppressor” camp (despite being poor the entire time since they came here 350 years ago).
jrm4 5y ago
So, it isn't misleading at all. I think perhaps the smarter way to look at this: If not for the unifying force of "whiteness," you probably would have much stronger and more serious distinctions between those groups you mentioned; I could easily envision something like "Oh, the Irish folks shouldn't be on the Italian side of town at night," today. But that is practically nonexistent, at least here in the US, and the reason should be relatively obvious by now.
II2II 5y ago
> I think framing systems purely in 'Black ex-slaves' vs. 'The Others', presumably White is a bit misleading. Even if we could magically make racism disappear today, we would still have to deal with the legacy of racism. It affects everything from where people are today to the future they can build for their children. Take something as simple as wealth. It affects where people can afford to live, and those with children and the means will typically choose to live where they have access to better schools. We should also remember that these ethnic communities are not simply cute little bastions of cultural diversity or places where immigrants choose to settle to live among their own people. In some cases, those who live there had very little choice in where to settle. In some cases, they were told where to settle. Even if they were given a choice where to live and these ethnic communities emerged because it's where land was available when they arrived, we have to remember that immigration policies are frequently based upon race. Consider the prairie provinces of Canada, where there are various communities that have strong cultural ties. Many of those communities exist because particular peoples were allowed in at the end of the 19th century. Other communities never existed, since those peoples were not allowed in. We also need to remember that the diversity within a race is also meaningful. Think of it this way: we have Little Italy and Greek Town, but not Little Europe, since European cultures are distinct in our eyes. On the other hand, China Town arose since it is distinct from European culture yet it fails to consider the cultural diversity within China. If you're black, both cultural diversity and culture are typically overlooked altogether. A Little Ethiopia may sneak in here or there, but the acknowledgement of culture is usually overlooked all together. My apology for the rant, but I believe that the claims of racism are both historically valid and legitimate in the present. While monocultures are distressing, legitimizing segregation is also problematic.
- shrooms12345 5y ago
  [flagged]
- jollybean 5y ago
  While it's true the legacy of racism does exist, people come form all over the world, from all races and walks of life and do just fine. The legacy of racism exists, but I suggest is vastly overstated in most scenarios. Frankly, I think the issue is really acute in super high-crime/high-poverty areas, without which, America by the numbers might be a very different place.

whimsicalism 5y ago

Eh, I find this is a common narrative, but the gap in treatment between the various European "ethnicities" is just not anywhere as close to the gap between how black vs. other is treated. > even without regressive and overt kinds of racism (rooted in slavery), segregation will have happened anyhow. You really do not have the evidence to make a claim like that. > similar segregational policies will have been applied to them as well. Not in the 1970s they didn't.

rayiner 5y ago

There’s a lot of confusion caused by thinking that “white people” are a coherent group. For example, we talk about racial income gaps as if incomes among white ethnic groups are uniform. But there’s a huge gap between those who report themselves on the census as “American” Americans (usually Scots Irish folks who came here long ago) rank near the bottom of the income distribution, lower than recent immigrant groups like Bangladeshis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U...

selimthegrim 5y ago
There's usually an educational filter on Bangladeshis (excluding perhaps the large NYC population)
whimsicalism 5y ago
You seem to be shadowboxing an opponent that doesn't exist. People who discuss categories such as "white" are not making the claim that "race is all that matters for determining one's circumstance, class does not matter at all." This claim is a strawman that very few people actually believe. But without race, you can't explain stuff like realtors discriminating against black homeowners in 50% of interactions [0]. Even the poor from Appalachia could pose as home buyers and get the "white" service experience from the realtor. [0]: https://projects.newsday.com/long-island/real-estate-agents-investigation/ https://projects.newsday.com/long-island/real-estate-agents-...
- rayiner 5y ago
  Of course people recognize that white people come from different classes—that’s not what I’m talking about. What people don’t recognize is that those class differences among white people also map onto ethnicity. “White people” aren’t a single ethnic group any more than “brown people” (south Asians) or “black people” (Africans) are a single ethnic group. And when you look at the different subgroups of “white people” the story becomes much more nuanced. As to your hypothetical—that may be true but is also mostly irrelevant. It’s pretty uncontroversial among people who study these disparities that economic and other differences between subgroups is caused by structural issues, not prejudice. That’s why, for example, incomes for second-generation Nigerian Americans exceeds those of third+ generation whites even when adjusted for age and education: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23780231211001971 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23780231211001.... And as to your larger point, that’s true in theory but not in practice. In practice, one division dominates the others. In the current political environment, race is given the highest emphasis. Thus as a “person of color” I fall into the “oppressed” camp (despite being from a wealthy family back home) while my wife’s family falls into the “oppressor” camp (despite being poor the entire time since they came here 350 years ago).

jrm4 5y ago

So, it isn't misleading at all. I think perhaps the smarter way to look at this: If not for the unifying force of "whiteness," you probably would have much stronger and more serious distinctions between those groups you mentioned; I could easily envision something like "Oh, the Irish folks shouldn't be on the Italian side of town at night," today. But that is practically nonexistent, at least here in the US, and the reason should be relatively obvious by now.

II2II 5y ago

> I think framing systems purely in 'Black ex-slaves' vs. 'The Others', presumably White is a bit misleading. Even if we could magically make racism disappear today, we would still have to deal with the legacy of racism. It affects everything from where people are today to the future they can build for their children. Take something as simple as wealth. It affects where people can afford to live, and those with children and the means will typically choose to live where they have access to better schools. We should also remember that these ethnic communities are not simply cute little bastions of cultural diversity or places where immigrants choose to settle to live among their own people. In some cases, those who live there had very little choice in where to settle. In some cases, they were told where to settle. Even if they were given a choice where to live and these ethnic communities emerged because it's where land was available when they arrived, we have to remember that immigration policies are frequently based upon race. Consider the prairie provinces of Canada, where there are various communities that have strong cultural ties. Many of those communities exist because particular peoples were allowed in at the end of the 19th century. Other communities never existed, since those peoples were not allowed in. We also need to remember that the diversity within a race is also meaningful. Think of it this way: we have Little Italy and Greek Town, but not Little Europe, since European cultures are distinct in our eyes. On the other hand, China Town arose since it is distinct from European culture yet it fails to consider the cultural diversity within China. If you're black, both cultural diversity and culture are typically overlooked altogether. A Little Ethiopia may sneak in here or there, but the acknowledgement of culture is usually overlooked all together. My apology for the rant, but I believe that the claims of racism are both historically valid and legitimate in the present. While monocultures are distressing, legitimizing segregation is also problematic.

shrooms12345 5y ago
[flagged]
jollybean 5y ago
While it's true the legacy of racism does exist, people come form all over the world, from all races and walks of life and do just fine. The legacy of racism exists, but I suggest is vastly overstated in most scenarios. Frankly, I think the issue is really acute in super high-crime/high-poverty areas, without which, America by the numbers might be a very different place.