3 ms·

It goes back to the civil war and every step of the way when black people here were actively denied their rights that the civil war was supposed to have guarant

It goes back to the civil war and every step of the way when black people here were actively denied their rights that the civil war was supposed to have guaranteed them. I have lived in multiple countries across different continents. Even if race was not as big of a hot topic issue, eceryone could tell if a person of a different race is standing in front of them. So, to simply say racial blindness is the way to go is ridiculous. The fact that they were usually a very small minority and had no historically brutal ties to the founding of that country is probably the reason why it wasn't considered such a big issue. Nevertheless, ultimately, one can't go through life blaming everything on racism. However, fighting for centuries to be free, to gain rights, only to be systemically rebuffed, ignored and even oppressed and brutalized along the way in different forms, that has to be recognized for what it is. Using a single event to disprove racism and even arguing that some historical things never happened at the very least is willful ignorance. Then, by the same token, reversing certain laws that were meant to safeguard and protect those rights that they finally did end up receiving. Ignoring what that time and history would do to any community to reinforce ones own stereotypical views, as political leaders use it as a way to stir up support from other disenfranchised communities. In the end, the problems only get worse as the next generation kicks the can down the road. The issue could have been, perhaps, resolved a long time ago. At this point, things look even more complicated and the longer it goes on the more difficult it is to overcome or resolve.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> black people here were actively denied their rights that the civil war was supposed to have guaranteed them. The Civil War was not supposed to have guaranteed anyone any rights. Some changes to the Constitution rammed through after the Civil War were, but it's important to separate those from the war, which was about the objective that, even before the rebellion, the notionally-abolitionist Republicans expressly put ahead of treating blacks as humans, the preservation of the unity of the Republic.
- ILMostro7 5y ago
  Granted.
skissane 5y ago
> I have lived in multiple countries across different continents. Even if race was not as big of a hot topic issue, eceryone could tell if a person of a different race is standing in front of them. Really? I'm of predominantly Irish-British descent – are Spaniards, Italians, Greeks a "different race" from me? How about Turks, Syrians, Lebanese, Israelis, Palestinians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Iraqis, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Persians, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Indians? You can travel from one end of Eurasia to the other, and people in Western Europe look rather different from people in South or East or Southeast Asia (who in turn look rather different from each other), and yet they are just different extreme points of a smooth continuum – where on that continuum do you draw the line and say that people on this side are one race and people on the other are another? I can't do it, and I don't believe you can actually do it either.
- fingerlocks 5y ago
  The United States government pigeon holes all human beings into five racial categories[0]. All of Eurasia is White, including the Middle East and India. I imagine this is policy driven but haven’t speculated much. It’s an oddity that seems to percolate culturally as well. [0]https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/note/US/RHI625219 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/note/US/RHI625219 Not defending OP here, just providing some possible context for their unfortunate choice of words.
  - skissane 5y ago
    Oh yes, I'm familiar with the US Census Bureau's definition of "races". They themselves admit that it is a US-specific cultural construct: "The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. In addition, it is recognized that the categories of the race item include racial and national origin or sociocultural groups." [0] And yet many Americans seem to treat it, not as a cultural construct specific to their own country, but rather as some sort of objective universal fact. The idea of "race" in itself is not specific to the US, of course – but the US seems to be one of the few countries in which it has been elevated into a government-mandated formal categorisation scheme, as opposed to a vague and ambiguous informal concept. > All of Eurasia is White, including the Middle East and India Not India. People from "the Indian subcontinent" are classified as "Asian" not "White", with India and Pakistan explicitly called out as "Asian". I believe, that as far as the US government is concerned, the boundary between "White" and "Asian" runs along the Iran-Pakistan and Afghanistan-Pakistan border. So, a Pashtun is "White" if they come from Afghanistan, but "Asian" if they come from Pakistan? It seems utterly ludicrous – and yet, so many Americans seem unable to see just how ludicrous it is. > I imagine this is policy driven but haven’t speculated much. It’s an oddity that seems to percolate culturally as well. I don't think it can be explained simply as "policy-driven" or "culture-driven", I think there is a circular feedback loop "culture -> politics -> policy -> culture". [0] https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html

dragonwriter 5y ago

> black people here were actively denied their rights that the civil war was supposed to have guaranteed them. The Civil War was not supposed to have guaranteed anyone any rights. Some changes to the Constitution rammed through after the Civil War were, but it's important to separate those from the war, which was about the objective that, even before the rebellion, the notionally-abolitionist Republicans expressly put ahead of treating blacks as humans, the preservation of the unity of the Republic.

ILMostro7 5y ago
Granted.

skissane 5y ago

> I have lived in multiple countries across different continents. Even if race was not as big of a hot topic issue, eceryone could tell if a person of a different race is standing in front of them. Really? I'm of predominantly Irish-British descent – are Spaniards, Italians, Greeks a "different race" from me? How about Turks, Syrians, Lebanese, Israelis, Palestinians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Iraqis, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Persians, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Indians? You can travel from one end of Eurasia to the other, and people in Western Europe look rather different from people in South or East or Southeast Asia (who in turn look rather different from each other), and yet they are just different extreme points of a smooth continuum – where on that continuum do you draw the line and say that people on this side are one race and people on the other are another? I can't do it, and I don't believe you can actually do it either.

fingerlocks 5y ago
The United States government pigeon holes all human beings into five racial categories[0]. All of Eurasia is White, including the Middle East and India. I imagine this is policy driven but haven’t speculated much. It’s an oddity that seems to percolate culturally as well. [0]https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/note/US/RHI625219 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/note/US/RHI625219 Not defending OP here, just providing some possible context for their unfortunate choice of words.
- skissane 5y ago
  Oh yes, I'm familiar with the US Census Bureau's definition of "races". They themselves admit that it is a US-specific cultural construct: "The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. In addition, it is recognized that the categories of the race item include racial and national origin or sociocultural groups." [0] And yet many Americans seem to treat it, not as a cultural construct specific to their own country, but rather as some sort of objective universal fact. The idea of "race" in itself is not specific to the US, of course – but the US seems to be one of the few countries in which it has been elevated into a government-mandated formal categorisation scheme, as opposed to a vague and ambiguous informal concept. > All of Eurasia is White, including the Middle East and India Not India. People from "the Indian subcontinent" are classified as "Asian" not "White", with India and Pakistan explicitly called out as "Asian". I believe, that as far as the US government is concerned, the boundary between "White" and "Asian" runs along the Iran-Pakistan and Afghanistan-Pakistan border. So, a Pashtun is "White" if they come from Afghanistan, but "Asian" if they come from Pakistan? It seems utterly ludicrous – and yet, so many Americans seem unable to see just how ludicrous it is. > I imagine this is policy driven but haven’t speculated much. It’s an oddity that seems to percolate culturally as well. I don't think it can be explained simply as "policy-driven" or "culture-driven", I think there is a circular feedback loop "culture -> politics -> policy -> culture". [0] https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html