Hypothetically, if Japan is safe because Japanese people live there, and Japanese culture prevails, what would happen if Japan let in large numbers of people from dangerous countries?
“Dangerous countries” can mean a lot of things… assuming you mean “countries experiencing refugee-causing catastrophes”, then lots of people would suffer around the world that probably wouldn’t if Japanese policy was less bigoted. Japan might experience slightly less crime in the short term, and miss out on the benefits of diversity in the long term.
Systemic discrimination would be a phenomenon in which the rules, protocols, inducements and other factors regarding enrollment resulted in the exclusion of applicants.
To demonstrate such systemic discrimination, one would identify the number of applicants by ethnic group, then determine what aspect of the rules, etc., affected both the number of applicants and the numbers of applicants who were successful.
I do not have any of that information and it is possible that Berkeley is, indeed, discriminating against certain classes. A simple difference in percentages between a group and the general population may be cause for investigation, but it is not a de facto indication of discrimination. (This is a point on which I disagree with a number of people who look at those ratios and cry “discrimination” without further analysis.)
This, however, does not seem to be the result of discrimination. Male applications to college have been dropping for several years while applications by women have continued to climb as we move further away from the period in which women were dissuaded from seeking a college education. Unless one discovers a specific policy that dissuades men from applying to college, there is no evidence that men are being excluded from a college education.
Dangerous countries could mean a lot of things; or it could mean countries that are dangerous.
Then the question would be: are countries dangerous because of their names, or their shapes; or because of the people who live there?
There could be a million reasons, whatever “dangerous” means in this instance, and I don’t see what it has to do with this discussion. If you’re trying to get to a point, please go ahead and make it.
In the case of identity politics, whether those issues are real or not…
This morning I saw this, where a BLM activist*, among other things, calls Trudeau a white supremacist for saying that he (or Canada rather) would take any refugees refused entry into the US:
I wasn’t aware that the Canadian state was founded on slavery, so I went to check:
“Slavery within Canada’s current borders was practised primarily by Aboriginal groups.”
I put that part in bold because she also rants about Trudeau erasing the history of Canada. :rolleyes:
In order to fix a problem the first step is to understand what the problem is and what is causing it, with identity politics what I see is people failing constantly at that and instead creating self serving, projecting narratives to push forward their agenda.
*That would be the same activist that got under the spotlight by saying things like :
“Our struggles should never be silenced so KKKanada can maintain it’s innocence. The very premise of this state is inherent racism - and the state sanctioned violence that systematically targets black people for existing in their black skins is real.”
“Plz Allah give me strength to not cuss/kill these men and white folks out here today. Plz plz plz.”
Now this person is using, what’s the trendy word these days?, alternative facts to incite people to raise up and fight.
Tomndebb did a fine job covering the college stuff, so I’ll just reply to the rest:
There’s a shared economic interest among farmers, among union members, among teachers, among investment bankers, and so forth. The same isn’t true of ethnic groups, except to the degree that one might be disproportionately rich or poor, or face economic barriers that others don’t.
I mention this to underline that ethnicities aren’t the only political identity groups.
Because the practical result of white male identity politics has been racism and sexism. Look to White Citizen’s Councils as an example of the former. This isn’t particularly mysterious; privileged groups work to maintain their privileges; underprivileged groups work to get a fair shake.
Well, what would you propose? Take my example of Muslim Americans overwhelmingly voting for Democratic candidates in the years since 9/11. Should Muslims Americans vote 50/50 for Democrats and Republicans, even though Republicans are loudly demonizing them, and using the law as a weapon against them?