That’s kinda where I’m coming from. When racism doesn’t provide a powerful tool in the hands of lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-income-tax conservatives, maybe the social safety net is a little stronger.
But in the US, there’s a super-long history, going back at least to the Wilmington Massacre, of using racist ideology to divide alliances between non-wealthy white and black people. I think it’s used to this day, and is a significant reason why our social safety net is so lousy.
nod
And an amusing (well not funny-ha-ha) part of this racist “cult of whiteness” makes them blind to otherwise obvious proximities.
It’s almost tautological to say that the MAGA crowd loathes Latinxs in large part due to racial or xenophobic reasons. And in turn they accuse Democrats of letting *those *people stream in due to some sort of conspiracy to get new, non-Republican voters into the country. When the actual reality is that Latinx would very probably vote Republican if the Republicans weren’t insanely racist against them. By and large Central and South Americans communities are darn hard working and entreprising, espouse traditional family values, most are hardcore Christian (and pretty macho to boot, so pretty anti-LBGT), and many are fleeing from either cartel & gang violence, failed socialist countries or political strife caused by combinations of drug trade, marxist guerillas & ultracorrupt oligarchs (oh, and the CIA, but hush, you) so it’s not exactly difficult to sell them on the idea that those things are Bad ; while the others are merely seeking economic & education opportunities bought with blood, sweat and tears. The American dream, man. In short they’d pretty much be shoe-in Republican voters.
Literally the *only *reason they don’t vote R in droves is that the Republican party is the party of La Migra, deportations, Joe Arpaio and cruelty while the Democrats work to keep them in. Talk about self-defeating stupidity.
I don’t know about her, but I don’t. Capitalism has multiple definitions, so that one is arguable. But having more protections for workers is a higher amount of socialism. Anything that empowers workers is more socialist than something that doesn’t.
With capitalism, it would depend on what you mean by “more capitalist,” however, when that is being compared to socialism, it usually means the idea that using the free market in lieu of regulations is ideal. So, in that context, I would say that Norway is less capitalist.
I think you must be using the term “capitalist” to mean something different. I would invite you to explain what you mean. And I am very curious about what you mean by “socialism.”
it’s an old computer game joke …there’s a long-running game series that simulates a trip on the Oregon trail and dysentery is a probable way to die
So he’s saying the people who made Oregon a white-only as you earlier mentioned state deserved such a fate
Although I’m told they didn’t do it because they weren’t racist
no they just wanted to avoid the whole free/slave states hassles and that was the only way to do it :smack:
So I agree with the viewpoint that in multi-racial/ethnic countries, racism and xenophobia tend to be major obstacles to progress. This is mainly because unscrupulous powers-that-be can better exploit the powerless when there is an easy way to divide and conquer them. Racism has proven itself an effective tool in enslaving poor whites to the interests of rich white plutocrats, by convincing poor whites that the real enemy has brown skin and has an accent. You’re not going to have a government that enables the redistribution of wealth and power when a huge chunk of the electorate is poisoned against minorities.
This is a different viewpoint than opining that because racially diverse countries don’t have “consensus, buy-in, and agreement” as well as less racially diverse countries, their governments can’t serve people as well. Thought experiment time: If a vote was taken tomorrow on whether the U…S should move towards universal healthcare and strong labor laws, I’m guessing there would be a “yes” consensus among non-white Americans, despite their collective racial diversity. It’s the “no” consensus among white Americans keeping us from being like Norway. Fixating on racial diversity misses the underlying forces driving this disparity.
White college-educated folk and everyone else (regardless of educational attainment) are in favor of more social welfare spending. So yeah, there is divisiveness in the white voting bloc. But the fault line isn’t ethnic-based.
Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
There are some very smart people making some very stupid arguments in this thread to avoid admitting that the US could gasp maybe learn something from other countries every now and then. To address the OP: I don’t think you were being racist, you were just making a stupid argument. But I can also see why people who don’t know you thought it was racist, because ethnic homogeneity is utterly irrelevant unless you think ethnic diversity is a problem.
It would be less eye-rolly if instead of framing homogeneity as an advantage, xenophobia and racism were described as impediments to progress. An assertion that US is handicapped by racism and xenophobia is supported by empirical evidence. Moreover, we can actually reduce xenophobia and racism through education and other policies. We can’t make the US more homogenous, not unless we do some very drastic and awful things.
Smashing that like button.
Ohh, now that you think of it, I do recall playing Oregon Trail in my salad years. There was also some Hammurabi or something. All-text games, right? I didn’t recall the dysentery thing–I recall very little about those games.
Riiiiiiiiight …
Did they say why it was racist or how you were blaming ethnic minorities?
I have heard arguments that homogeneity of culture gives you more homogeneity of values and that makes it easier to get things done.
Homogeneity of race might also eliminate the concerns of the racists and without racism.
I don’t know if we would have so many Americans opposed to a more robust social safety net if we were more homogenous. ISTM that a lot of the folks against more robust social programs are really against minorities getting stuff at the expense of their tax dollars. If the beneficiaries of social programs were all blonde haired blue eyed kids instead of minority kids, they might not mind as much.
Homogeneity of culture tends to be achieved through murder. Absent murder of minority groups, you don’t get cultural homogeneity. This is true from metropolitans down through hunter-gatherer tribes.
i’m afraid this is exactly backwards. Racists don’t just look around and say, “Hey, there are skin differences, I think I’ll become a racist!” People find an advantage to developing a racist ideology, and then they propagate it, and it becomes self-perpetuating. There are ethnically heterogenous societies in which racism is not nearly as developed and entrenched as in the US.
Socialism is ownership of the means of production.
If I may refer to Marx: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. In contrast, he believed that Capitalism meant the treatment of labour as a commodity.
So in one system, people get as many holidays as they need: in the other system, people get as many holidays as they can buy with their labour.
Which is why, 100 years ago, people thought that more holidays and shorter working weeks were the flower of Capitalism.
I’m a foreigner in my own country. I’ve had to live with linguistic discrimination my whole life. I respect your right to have the word ‘socialism’ mean whatever you, your family, your friends, and your political representatives agree it means. It also has a technical meaning, and I respect the right of other people to use the word in a technical sense.
Gosh, you would think that in Great Debates on a site dedicated to fighting ignorance and concerning a topic where there is a wealth of social science evidence over multiple decades (a century or so is a fairly reasonable figure) that someone would actually cite such evidence or even maybe consult such evidence prior to forming an opinion instead of a knee-jerk reaction of “racism!” based on “reasons.” The tendency of heterogeneous social groups to tend to increased levels of conflict, both on the micro and macro level, is well documented in those social sciences with strong evidence and replicated repeatedly in various geographic populations, at least at its most basic level (of course past this most basic level it unsurprisingly gets much more complicated). It’s also something that’s pretty obvious, given even the briefest moment of objective thought, to anyone even passingly familiar with history or current events.
But it’s funny, for instance, how the fact that the commission of street crime unquestionably correlating with young males is rarely labeled as “sexist” or “ageist” but that the similar and even stronger correlation between young African-American males engaging in a disproportionate level of criminal activity in relation to their population is often labeled as “racist.” And before anyone attempts to explain that disparity as caused by racism in the criminal justice system itself, it certainly is a factor but doesn’t even begin to account for that disparity as a whole. And yes, I can back that up with numerous cites.
Now of course heterogeneity can occur across numerous dimensions of which “race” is just one among many. Others include culture, ethnicity, religion, economic status, social class, and so on. And those can be further broken down into even more complex interactions. For instance, “race” is a somewhat nebulous concept to begin with but what is important is the perception of race, i.e. the social construction of race in the relevant population. As has been mentioned, in the US Irish and Italian immigrants were considered non-white and subject to discrimination until more obviously non-white populations became the primary focus of discrimination and other conflict and the Italian and Irish became apparently “white enough.” Similarly, there is a long and ongoing history of conflicts between populations ostensibly of the same race but differing in aspects such as culture or religion. And each of those can be further broken down into subsets where conflict arises among subcultures or religious subgroups.
The overall point is that these are incredibly complex, multidimensional issues dependent on the particular population in question and its relevant characteristics. Which is why these scientific disciplines exist in the first place, why there is such a wealth of sociological literature and study over numerous social science disciplines, and why it is ongoing. But the simple truth, backed up by all this evidence, is that people tend to get along best with people that they perceive as most like them in ways they consider to be important. It has always been this way and will always be this way as long as humans exist, because people are people. And if it’s not race then they’ll find some other way to divide into “us” and “them” because it seems to be an inherent part of our nature with an evolutionary backing.
The fact that racists co-opt and oversimplify these complex issues to ascribe negative characteristics to others based solely on race doesn’t change this underlying truth. It’s not race that is by any means the determinative factor but how race can interrelate with other factors such as economics, ethnicity, psychology, and, perhaps most generally and especially in racially diverse modern societies, with culture/subculture. This is evidenced by such conflicts occuring even when race is removed from consideration entirely. It’s not that any race possesses any inherent tendency towards criminality or violence but how race can combine with these other factors within a population to create a tendency for such behavior. And people of any race can display those tendencies given a similar social context and whether they exist as a majority or minority group.
And since I brought up all this evidence here’s a few cites among the incredible amount of existing studies on the topic which no one else has bothered to reference. Not that anyone has any obligation to provide such cites but once again, on a site dedicated to fighting ignorance it seems like a good idea to do so. And at least some in the thread seem to grasp this rather obvious truth either through simple logic and observation or via some other means. Which is good, because at least their conclusions are in accordance with the actual science. Some of the other opinions here, not so much.
Social Capital and Community Heterogeneity
The impact of population heterogeneity and income inequality on homicide rates: A cross-national assessment
PDF link
Population heterogeneity and the sociogenesis of homicide
PDF link
Racial Heterogeneity and Crime: Measuring Static and Dynamic Effects
PDF link
There’s much more out there but only so much accessible online for free or without academic credentials or otherwise registering with online repositories.
Got any kind of cite for this? Seems ridiculously hyperbolic on its face and while violence or the threat of violence has certainly been used to force assimilation do you have any evidence whatsoever that it has occurred more often than assimilation that is wholly or primarily voluntary, especially in the modern era? Also, criminal laws are a pretty widely accepted form of enforced assimilation. So where do they fit into your “theory”?
Watchu gunna do amirite?
Observing the disparity isn’t racist. It’s some of the explanations for it that are racist.
Since you’re discounting that racism in the criminal justice system as sufficient to explain the disparity (as I would, too, BTW), care to share with us what other causative factors you believe do explain it?
I don’t like arguments that small countries have it easier because they’re small. If that were valid, the U.S. could approach solutions by implementing them at the state level (a single state being the scale of a small country.)
A more serious issue is the matter of ethnic homogeneity. My impression is that Europe is becoming more diverse and this leads to animosities similar to those of the U.S.A. Brexit, for example, was perpetrated by right-wing kleptocrats preying on racist sentiments. “Socialist paradises” like Sweden do suffer from Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and so on. IIUC the influx of refugees, especially from Syria, is challenging Europe.
Face the truth: Many people are bigoted against people with different customs, different religions, or different skin color than themselves. Some people are bigots; some aren’t. What are the causes? The solutions? I dunno, but a simplistic “Europeans good, white Americans are bad” is overly simple.
Connecting this all back to questions like “Why can’t the U.S. have universal healthcare?”* it really does seem to be the case that many Americans hate the idea of their tax dollars helping those with different skin color.* Sad; that’s a key challenge America faces. It’s a key subtext for the 2020 election(s).
Put “Cultural” in front of the term and it makes sense. Groups with a shared culture, and by that I mean things like a common understanding of what the Social Contract entails, get together better than groups that don’t.
If an organization, such as a state, is comprised of groups with different, conflicting or even incompatible social norms and values obviously governance is going to be more difficult and ineffective.
Unfortunately there are people too invested in conflating culture and ethnic origin and that’s where things start to get ugly.
With respect, I’ve had conversations with you before.