5 ms·

What is the American obsession with race? I'm sure there's a more useful explanation behind these rates (perhaps family tradition of marriage, income, place of

What is the American obsession with race? I'm sure there's a more useful explanation behind these rates (perhaps family tradition of marriage, income, place of living etc. etc.).

TomOfTTB 17y ago
I've always said I'm a victim of the liberal educational system. They taught me to treat people of all skin colors equal and then threw me into a world where everyone with a different skin color (I'm white) treats me unequally. The problem, it seems to me, is that people of other races don't realize there will always be prejudice. That someone who has prejudice against another because of their skin color is no different than a person who has prejudice against someone for any other reason they couldn't prevent (grew up in a certain place, speaks in a certain way, etc...) So racial prejudice will never fully go away and people who think they can define themselves by race until it does will always define themselves by race.
arien 17y ago
Personally, I believe that it has to do with the role of women in the current society, not exactly with the race. I don't live in America, but I think the trend is present in most western countries anyway. We're jumping from the "dependant housewive" to the "independent worker". I remember my mom used to say when I was a kid that I had to find a good husband. But now I have my own house and a good job... I don't need to marry a man to provide myself. It sounds cruel, but I don't think people married in the past just because they loved each other so much. As said in the article, it was a necessity, but such thing is ceasing to exist, so the disposition of people for marriage is decreasing.
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  I don't think people would marry today just because they love each other either. The system is setup in such a way that people often have an incentive to leave the marriage and perhaps with more women being financially independent they are just as concerned with the fallout of a marriage as compared to a good long-term relationship.
- TomOfTTB 17y ago
  That doesn’t track for me. Look at men in the past. It’s against men’s evolutionary nature to marry yet they still got married just as quickly (and they didn’t need wives to support them). So your argument that women are taking a role traditionally held by men before and hence aren’t marrying doesn’t seem to hold water. Here’s the problem: The feminist narrative currently out there is a myth. It says women were always kept down and only now are rising to positions of power. But look at history and you’ll see there were women in positions of power going back thousands of years (Most pre-industrial societies gave power over a nation to the Queen if her King died first and societies like the Egyptians were ruled over by women even without men) To me this seems like a societal misfire. It seems like the majority of women in the past wanted to stay home and take care of their family (as evolutions suggests they do). Then that became their accepted role and the minority who didn’t want that felt trapped in their circumstance. They became the original feminists and rightfully won the ability to do whatever they want. Then the next generation feminists developed some kind of resentment towards women who did stay at home and attacked them. So now we have a society that has forgotten how valuable housewives were and in doing so has created a value system in which women who want to be housewives are told their inferior to those who don’t. But the housewives were the ones who were driving most men to get married. So with women feeling they’d be inferior to want to be married with a family and men screwing everything that moves (as evolution has taught them to do) we have a society where no one’s pushing marriage (and I think we’re worse off for it)
  - DaniFong 17y ago
    That's a pretty warped depiction of 'the feminist narrative,' and in any case exceptions don't make the rule. In California, in the 1850's, for example, it was determined that any property of a married woman's was legally the property of her husband. Therefore the hundreds of entrepreneurial and successful women land or business owners were suddenly rendered legally and financially dependent on their husbands. Only single women and widowers could hold property. In case you're ever interested in investigating your assumptions about man's evolutionary nature, I highly suggest you read Natalie Angier's Woman: An Intimate Geography.
    - 17y ago
jacquesm 17y ago
That's definitely not uniquely American, racism is unfortunately alive and well all over the world. Skin colour is the single item you can tell about a person at 100 meters distance, even before you can tell their gender. That makes it a prime candidate for differentiation and differentiation is a first step towards racism. If everybody would be born exactly the same shade of medium brown as of tomorrow I'm sure we'd focus on hair colour next. And anybody with red hair knows how true that is.
- gaius 17y ago
  And anybody with red hair knows how true that is. Well, that's different. The ginger gene is recessive; a community that's mostly ginger has a high probability of being inbred. Other signs include webbed feet and hands, and extra nipples.
  - RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
    That's a deeply unpleasant comment. For one thing, people I know with red hair object to being called "Ginger". To htem it's offensive on the scale of some racial epithets, and in the same way, it's OK if they use the term. For another, you've just created the possibility that people will go "Ooh, they've got ginger hair, I'll bet they're inbred." And finally, you started with "well that's different ... " which, in the context, suggests it's OK to be prejudiced against people who happen to have red hair. I hope that in real life you're less prejudiced than that comment makes you appear.
    - gaius 17y ago
      Are you claiming that the gene is not recessive? Because you're wrong. Note: I am not saying that an individual ginger should be discriminated against. But a high proportion of them is a warning sign that something is going genetically wrong with a community.
      - RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
        > Are you claiming that the gene is not recessive? Of course I'm not saying that. I know that the gene for red hair is recessive. And it's true that an entire community having mostly red hair has an increased probability of being inbred. But think of it as a test that someone comes from a community that is inbred. Almost every positive (someone has red hair) will be a false positive (they most likely are not from a community that's inbred, although the chances are increased infintesimally). Your comment, however, seems to advocate pointing at someone and saying "They've got red hair, it's more likely they're an inbreed." Now turn it around. Give everyone on HN a test for some rare condition (SRC). There are a few tests turn up positive, so you point at them and say "It's more likely they've got SRC." Yes, that's true, and completely unhelpful. It's almost certain to be a false positive. On the other hand, you said: Quoting>> And anybody with red hair Quoting>> knows how true that is. You said> Well, that's different. The text from which you quoted is this: > If everybody would be born exactly the same > shade of medium brown as of tomorrow I'm sure > we'd focus on hair colour next. And anybody > with red hair knows how true that is. So when you say "Well, that's different," your implication is that it's not OK to be prejudiced because of skin colour, but it is OK to be prejudiced against people with red hair. It's different, because having red hair makes it more likely that they are inbred. That's how your comment reads. That's what your comment appears to say. It may not be what you meant, but it's still deeply offensive, even if you don't realise it. Your comments about communities, etc, are correct, but when you insert them into a discussion about prejudice, the implications and import are entirely different. It's that juxtaposition that matters.
9oliYQjP 17y ago
I'm not American, but Americans get a bad rap on race relations. Go to other westernized countries and racism is far more systemic. I mean for crying out loud, you have the gypsies all across Europe who are marginalized, Spanish fans taunting a black F1 driver with the "N" word, Japan is a completely xenophobic mess, etc. All otherwise comparable countries in terms of standard of living. Except the United States is in a state where most races live side-by-side and tolerate each other. No, things aren't perfect and people aren't fully accepting of each other. It's 2009, but interracial marriage is still bothersome to some folks. But honestly, the United States gets a really unfair reputation for having poor race relations. Say what you will, but at least Americans don't sweep their race relation problems under a rug like some other countries.
- indiejade 17y ago
  Say what you will, but at least Americans don't sweep their race relation problems under a rug like some other countries. Good point. Besides, America is a young country, relatively speaking to white settlement. I have actually attempted to really think logically about why I'm almost never . . . um, "attracted" to white blondes from the western hemisphere, and have reached the conclusion that it's all about diversity in the gene pool. After tracing some of my genealogical roots to Native American ancestry, I guess I'm also partially resentful to the dominance of white culture and its concept of property usurping. That, and I'm pretty revolted by the concept of inbreeding. Anyway. It actually makes little sense for countries to hold fast to their racism, if they want to survive and thrive. There are two genetic mutation varieties that occur in heavily homogeneous populations: mutation and recombination. They either ensure the continuation of a line of genetics, or destroy its chances for survival. With inbreeding, the mutations / recombinations are usually manifested in unattractiveness or stupidity. Not trying to be mean, just stating my observations. So since in the USA we have this huge population of immigrants, our gene pool is actually primed to produce better people (survival of the fittest). Not specific to any race.
- noonespecial 17y ago
  As an American with lots of time abroad, I can second this. Americans are extremely uptight when it comes to race, but that might be a good thing. With all of the talk in America about race, you might start to expect, as I have caught myself doing several times, that the US must be a race relations disaster. Upon returning, I was shocked to rediscover that it wasn't any worse than the other places I'd been, and in many cases better. The thing I really like about Americans, is they're just don't throw up their hands and say "oh well, that's the way its always been, can't do anything to change it now." (The gypsies definitely come to mind here) For better or worse, they try.
fatdog789 17y ago
Americans are more open about race b/c we recognize how fucking important it has been to the development of our country. Britain, too, is fairly open about race, for somewhat similar reasons, but have less "draw"

What is the American obsession with race? I'm sure there's a more useful explanation behind these rates (perhaps family tradition of marriage, income, place of living etc. etc.).

TomOfTTB 17y ago

I've always said I'm a victim of the liberal educational system. They taught me to treat people of all skin colors equal and then threw me into a world where everyone with a different skin color (I'm white) treats me unequally. The problem, it seems to me, is that people of other races don't realize there will always be prejudice. That someone who has prejudice against another because of their skin color is no different than a person who has prejudice against someone for any other reason they couldn't prevent (grew up in a certain place, speaks in a certain way, etc...) So racial prejudice will never fully go away and people who think they can define themselves by race until it does will always define themselves by race.

arien 17y ago

Personally, I believe that it has to do with the role of women in the current society, not exactly with the race. I don't live in America, but I think the trend is present in most western countries anyway. We're jumping from the "dependant housewive" to the "independent worker". I remember my mom used to say when I was a kid that I had to find a good husband. But now I have my own house and a good job... I don't need to marry a man to provide myself. It sounds cruel, but I don't think people married in the past just because they loved each other so much. As said in the article, it was a necessity, but such thing is ceasing to exist, so the disposition of people for marriage is decreasing.

nopassrecover 17y ago
I don't think people would marry today just because they love each other either. The system is setup in such a way that people often have an incentive to leave the marriage and perhaps with more women being financially independent they are just as concerned with the fallout of a marriage as compared to a good long-term relationship.
TomOfTTB 17y ago
That doesn’t track for me. Look at men in the past. It’s against men’s evolutionary nature to marry yet they still got married just as quickly (and they didn’t need wives to support them). So your argument that women are taking a role traditionally held by men before and hence aren’t marrying doesn’t seem to hold water. Here’s the problem: The feminist narrative currently out there is a myth. It says women were always kept down and only now are rising to positions of power. But look at history and you’ll see there were women in positions of power going back thousands of years (Most pre-industrial societies gave power over a nation to the Queen if her King died first and societies like the Egyptians were ruled over by women even without men) To me this seems like a societal misfire. It seems like the majority of women in the past wanted to stay home and take care of their family (as evolutions suggests they do). Then that became their accepted role and the minority who didn’t want that felt trapped in their circumstance. They became the original feminists and rightfully won the ability to do whatever they want. Then the next generation feminists developed some kind of resentment towards women who did stay at home and attacked them. So now we have a society that has forgotten how valuable housewives were and in doing so has created a value system in which women who want to be housewives are told their inferior to those who don’t. But the housewives were the ones who were driving most men to get married. So with women feeling they’d be inferior to want to be married with a family and men screwing everything that moves (as evolution has taught them to do) we have a society where no one’s pushing marriage (and I think we’re worse off for it)
- DaniFong 17y ago
  That's a pretty warped depiction of 'the feminist narrative,' and in any case exceptions don't make the rule. In California, in the 1850's, for example, it was determined that any property of a married woman's was legally the property of her husband. Therefore the hundreds of entrepreneurial and successful women land or business owners were suddenly rendered legally and financially dependent on their husbands. Only single women and widowers could hold property. In case you're ever interested in investigating your assumptions about man's evolutionary nature, I highly suggest you read Natalie Angier's Woman: An Intimate Geography.
  - 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago

That's definitely not uniquely American, racism is unfortunately alive and well all over the world. Skin colour is the single item you can tell about a person at 100 meters distance, even before you can tell their gender. That makes it a prime candidate for differentiation and differentiation is a first step towards racism. If everybody would be born exactly the same shade of medium brown as of tomorrow I'm sure we'd focus on hair colour next. And anybody with red hair knows how true that is.

gaius 17y ago
And anybody with red hair knows how true that is. Well, that's different. The ginger gene is recessive; a community that's mostly ginger has a high probability of being inbred. Other signs include webbed feet and hands, and extra nipples.
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
  That's a deeply unpleasant comment. For one thing, people I know with red hair object to being called "Ginger". To htem it's offensive on the scale of some racial epithets, and in the same way, it's OK if they use the term. For another, you've just created the possibility that people will go "Ooh, they've got ginger hair, I'll bet they're inbred." And finally, you started with "well that's different ... " which, in the context, suggests it's OK to be prejudiced against people who happen to have red hair. I hope that in real life you're less prejudiced than that comment makes you appear.
  - gaius 17y ago
    Are you claiming that the gene is not recessive? Because you're wrong. Note: I am not saying that an individual ginger should be discriminated against. But a high proportion of them is a warning sign that something is going genetically wrong with a community.
    - RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
      > Are you claiming that the gene is not recessive? Of course I'm not saying that. I know that the gene for red hair is recessive. And it's true that an entire community having mostly red hair has an increased probability of being inbred. But think of it as a test that someone comes from a community that is inbred. Almost every positive (someone has red hair) will be a false positive (they most likely are not from a community that's inbred, although the chances are increased infintesimally). Your comment, however, seems to advocate pointing at someone and saying "They've got red hair, it's more likely they're an inbreed." Now turn it around. Give everyone on HN a test for some rare condition (SRC). There are a few tests turn up positive, so you point at them and say "It's more likely they've got SRC." Yes, that's true, and completely unhelpful. It's almost certain to be a false positive. On the other hand, you said: Quoting>> And anybody with red hair Quoting>> knows how true that is. You said> Well, that's different. The text from which you quoted is this: > If everybody would be born exactly the same > shade of medium brown as of tomorrow I'm sure > we'd focus on hair colour next. And anybody > with red hair knows how true that is. So when you say "Well, that's different," your implication is that it's not OK to be prejudiced because of skin colour, but it is OK to be prejudiced against people with red hair. It's different, because having red hair makes it more likely that they are inbred. That's how your comment reads. That's what your comment appears to say. It may not be what you meant, but it's still deeply offensive, even if you don't realise it. Your comments about communities, etc, are correct, but when you insert them into a discussion about prejudice, the implications and import are entirely different. It's that juxtaposition that matters.

9oliYQjP 17y ago

I'm not American, but Americans get a bad rap on race relations. Go to other westernized countries and racism is far more systemic. I mean for crying out loud, you have the gypsies all across Europe who are marginalized, Spanish fans taunting a black F1 driver with the "N" word, Japan is a completely xenophobic mess, etc. All otherwise comparable countries in terms of standard of living. Except the United States is in a state where most races live side-by-side and tolerate each other. No, things aren't perfect and people aren't fully accepting of each other. It's 2009, but interracial marriage is still bothersome to some folks. But honestly, the United States gets a really unfair reputation for having poor race relations. Say what you will, but at least Americans don't sweep their race relation problems under a rug like some other countries.

indiejade 17y ago
Say what you will, but at least Americans don't sweep their race relation problems under a rug like some other countries. Good point. Besides, America is a young country, relatively speaking to white settlement. I have actually attempted to really think logically about why I'm almost never . . . um, "attracted" to white blondes from the western hemisphere, and have reached the conclusion that it's all about diversity in the gene pool. After tracing some of my genealogical roots to Native American ancestry, I guess I'm also partially resentful to the dominance of white culture and its concept of property usurping. That, and I'm pretty revolted by the concept of inbreeding. Anyway. It actually makes little sense for countries to hold fast to their racism, if they want to survive and thrive. There are two genetic mutation varieties that occur in heavily homogeneous populations: mutation and recombination. They either ensure the continuation of a line of genetics, or destroy its chances for survival. With inbreeding, the mutations / recombinations are usually manifested in unattractiveness or stupidity. Not trying to be mean, just stating my observations. So since in the USA we have this huge population of immigrants, our gene pool is actually primed to produce better people (survival of the fittest). Not specific to any race.
noonespecial 17y ago
As an American with lots of time abroad, I can second this. Americans are extremely uptight when it comes to race, but that might be a good thing. With all of the talk in America about race, you might start to expect, as I have caught myself doing several times, that the US must be a race relations disaster. Upon returning, I was shocked to rediscover that it wasn't any worse than the other places I'd been, and in many cases better. The thing I really like about Americans, is they're just don't throw up their hands and say "oh well, that's the way its always been, can't do anything to change it now." (The gypsies definitely come to mind here) For better or worse, they try.

fatdog789 17y ago

Americans are more open about race b/c we recognize how fucking important it has been to the development of our country. Britain, too, is fairly open about race, for somewhat similar reasons, but have less "draw"