Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Americans have really thin skin because they fought a civil war over whether people with one color of skin could own people with a different color of skin. And until very recently,[1] people with one color of skin had to go to different schools than everyone else, they couldn't get married to each other, etc.

[1] To put things into context, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, and the other tech luminaries in their generation would have gone to segregated schools had they been born in the south instead of in California and Washington. If Ken Thompson had exercised his right to vote in his native Louisiana when he turned 18, he would have done so on ballots that, pursuant to state law, listed the race of each candidate.

The Voting Rights Act (which made it illegal to have "whites-only" hotels) and Loving v. Virginia (which ended laws banning interracial marriage) are roughly contemporaneous with UNIX--both being products of the late 1960s.

One more fun fact: Americans' approval for black-white marriage crossed the 50% mark sometime between the release of Windows 95 and Windows 98: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-wh....

View on HN

I'm from the South where this has been beat into us from youth. It's not fun to know that your state at one point seceded so the wealthiest elites could practice slavery. That and the Jim Crow laws are to our eternal embarrassment. The only good thing about it is our opportunity to learn from it.

I take some exception to your response, however, which seems very directed. There is not a single spot on this earth which hasn't had problems with racism, or a single one of us who has an ancestor who wasn't a racist. Latin America has its own problems with racism, as does Europe, Asia, and god-forbid even enlightened parts of the North and Pacific Northwest, too.

I don't disagree with your point, but I'm not sure of its relevance.

Of the "western democracies", or the "industrialized western countries", or however you want to lump those countries together:

* The US has unusual size, both geographically (which matters here) and population

* The US has unusual diversity

* The US has an unusually toxic history with racial diversity, in large part because unlike (say) Belgium, their racial history occurred almost entirely within their own borders

The argument therefore isn't that the US is distinctively racist. It's not! Japan, for instance, is far more racist: it's an overt part of the culture. No, the issue is instead that racism germinated and produced toxic effects in the US to a greater degree than it did in other countries.

We're still grappling with those effects. We incarcerate a huge percentage of our population, and almost 45% of our prison population is black. The median income of a black family is just over half that of a white family. Black people are poorly represented in executive ranks. Look around you: they're poorly represented in technology as a whole! As a demographic, they get less value from the public school system than any other, and so we have persistent pipeline problems reinforcing these disparities. Black people can't even reliably rent rooms on Airbnb. In 2016.

"Race realists" and "HBD people" would have you believe those phenomenon are due either to biological differences between black and white people, or to our pathological responses to those biological differences. That's horseshit, as the HBD's aptly demonstrate when they try to deploy and extrapolate from their corpus of dubious or cherry-picked statistics.

So I'd say: unless you truly believe that the black/white disparity in the US is genetic, the evidence for the US's outlier cultural issues with racism is right there in the numbers.

We're politically correct in part because we're right in the middle of trying to fix these problems.

Political correctness isn't a good thing. Also: when I take antibiotics, they wipe out my gut bacteria and give me stomach problems. That's not a good thing either! It is, in fact: a bad thing! But I don't call the whole enterprise of eradicating a bacterial infection in my body into question over it, nor do I back off the dose to try to minimize the bad side effect.

> The argument therefore isn't that the US is distinctively racist. It's not! Japan, for instance, is far more racist: it's an overt part of the culture. No, the issue is instead that racism germinated and produced toxic effects in the US to a greater degree than it did in other countries.

I think this is completely fair, but I also wonder if it's just because of America's inherent exposure. In Latin America, for example, "race" isn't as pointed (see the notion of a Mexican race), but skin color sure as hell does matter on a lot of levels, and that's because the rulers (Spanish) were light-skinned. That divide is still endemic and the cause of many issues in those countries. Is that any less toxic than what's happening in America? If you are one of those affected there, obviously not, and even to those not directly affected, it is arguable, or rather, it can't be argued at all.

> We're still grappling with those effects. We incarcerate a huge percentage of our population, and almost 45% of our prison population is black.

Absolutely. The system targets African-Americans. But what might be even more important is what % of our prison population is poor. Poor people go to prison because the system doesn't care about them, whether that's due to skin color or being born into the wrong family in a small town or any number of issues.

> The median income of a black family is just over half that of a white family. Black people are poorly represented in executive ranks. Look around you: they're poorly represented in technology as a whole!

This is undoubtedly true, but keep in mind that African-Americans are only about 12% of the population, in other words, they should be 1/10th of your co-workers (if we're going by ratio of the entire US population), which isn't as extreme as the racial disparities we might expect. Hey, in the Southwest, the bigger disparity lies with Hispanics - they are not represented fairly in tech, but we often don't think about them to the same extent.

If I'm trying to make a point, it's that these issues are endemic, and they are hugely problematic, but we have an undue focus on different parts of our society, whereas the problems that create them are often much wider in scope. We're looking for a bug in function B when it's really in function A and it's causing problems in function C, too...

What's happening is our modern economic system is balanced against a lot of people. If you are poor, your condition sucks, no matter your skin color. African-Americans see this disparity and it enrages them (as it should), and that creates movements (political or not). Poor whites see their condition and their (incorrect) recourse is to fight against this vague notion of "political correctness", and then you see the rise of Trumpism and other bad things.

I think trying to focus too much on race is to miss the larger systematic issue in our society, which is crony capitalism combined with globalism, and that doesn't care about your race.

I believe crony capitalism and poorly managed "globalism" are serious problems, but I see time and again direct evidence that economic circumstances aside, there is a black/white racism problem in the US, and I object to the pretense that we can ignore it while working on some fundamental root problem that will be a cure-all for other problems as well.

Wealthy black people have trouble getting rooms on Airbnb. Wealthy black people get stopped by the police at a disproportionate rate. The cops aren't doing that because Alcoa told them to.

I don't advocate ignoring it. In fact, I'd prefer that we did a much better job of desegregating the major cities (especially the school districts). It just doesn't do us any good to act like race in America is a southern problem, and it's odd to only cast it as such, which is what the OP did.

It's the same issue. You can't ignore problems, but you can't also assign them to a different scope than they are.

> It just doesn't do us any good to act like race in America is a southern problem, and it's odd to only cast it as such.

I don't think that's what was being said. The original comment was very specifically talking about the south in the past, and how past southern practices may have informed peoples experiences if they grew up there, and how recent some changes are.

But again, why bother talking about the south at all?

We are now far afield, and I'll stop arguing the point after this, but the topic is about Mexico, which then led to a discussion about "political correctness", and then the post in question which tried to say the reason Americans have issues with race are...only southern examples specifically cast against Western states.

Those same Western states have issues with racism; they would be just as effective to cite.

> But again, why bother talking about the south at all?

To specifically cast the experiences of people growing up in different parts of the country with different against each other to highlight how their views on race and racism may differ. The South is not being used for the purpose of vilifying it, but to explain how as a country people over a certain age may have had very different experiences with race in different areas of the country. It says absolutely nothing directly about the current state of the South, that's something you seem to have inferred from the comment (and whether it was meant as an implication is debatable, but it is not factual).

A statement could be made comparing and contrasting experiences of certain citizens of the United States 150 years ago and some other country that did not allow slavery. I wouldn't necessarily think that's meant to cast the US in bad light, but to use it as a tool to illustrate a point. It's obvious the US of today is not the same as the US of 150 years ago. It's also obvious the South of 40-50 years ago is not the same as the South today.

I think perhaps you're just a bit more emotionally invested in the perception of the South, and have seen the South as it currently is denigrated unfairly to a degree, which I'm sure happens, and you are conflating that type of occurrence and this. I just don't think they are equivalent.

I am emotionally invested, sure.

However, if you are trying to contrast things fairly, we could say:

* talk about racist policies against the Chinese in California in the 1800s

* talk about racist policies against the Irish and sentiments against Catholics throughout the country even just prior to JFK's election in 1960

* talk about racist views and policies towards interracial marriage in the South and Southwest

That's contrasting different experiences in time and place. That's being fair. The alternative...

> * talk about racist policies against the Chinese in California in the 1800s

Which does not directly affect current discourse, being removed by multiple generations from those alive today.

> * talk about racist policies against the Irish and sentiments against Catholics throughout the country even just prior to JFK's election in 1960

Sure, but then you're bringing religion into the mix. That seems unwise when trying to make a specific point that to that point has not included religion. It will just muddy the waters.

> * talk about racist views and policies towards interracial marriage in the South and Southwest

Also applicable, but less well known.

The point isn't to correctly spread the blame for bad behavior around equally, it was to explain why Americans have thin skin regarding race issues. The South is a valid example of this,and is the common example because it is so well known and recent. That may strike you as unfair, but fairness wasn't the point, communication was.

"Wealthy black people have trouble getting rooms on Airbnb. Wealthy black people get stopped by the police at a disproportionate rate. "

This is unfortunate and should be addressed but neither of those things will cause massive disenfranchisement among people.

Finishing high school and not joining gangs will do 1000x more for any community than any outside intervention.

>In Latin America, for example, "race" doesn't matter,

Unfortunately that is very wrong. The non-indigenous populations have very prejudice views of them throughout the region (central / south america). Not always overt (but often is) but from ingrained, subconscious views of them as lazy, slow, drunks etc.

Generally, if you watch the news here or TV in general you would be forgiven for thinking there are no indigenous peoples and would be shocked to find out that in fact they may make up 20, 30, 40+ of the population (depending on country).

Sorry, I edited that shortly before or after you posted, as I realized that's not a nuanced statement...

The point I was trying to get across was the very racist views towards natives while still embracing larger national notions of "race".

African-Americans see this disparity and it enrages them (as it should), and that creates movements (political or not). Poor whites see their condition and their (incorrect) recourse is to fight against this vague notion of "political correctness",

Totally false.

Asian Americans outscore their counterparts in every academic endeavour, and we wouldn't attribute their success to anything but their hard work.

Now - because 'Blacks are poor and commit a vast amount of crime' - they are justified in indicating this is due to racism - but when White people are poor - your indicating it must be their own fault.

This is delusional liberal thinking.

Yes, their is racism in America. Have you ever hung out with a group of Asian friends and gone drinking - and then asked them what they think of Black people? My cousin married a Chinese woman who is not hostile, but openly thinks blacks are inferior. She's not really even aware that it's 'racist' to her, it's just a matter of fact.

Most success and failure in America is due to what people chose to do with their lives, macro economic factors, and class. Not race.

> Now - because 'Blacks are poor and commit a vast amount of crime' - they are justified in indicating this is due to racism - but when White people are poor - your indicating it must be their own fault.

I don't think that was the assertion. I think he was saying the cause it poverty, the reasons for poverty are sometimes shared and sometimes different, but they attribute the source of the cause differently. If I understand him correctly, then his point is that poverty is the cause for problems, not racism, and both white and non-white people often assess the cause incorrectly, but in different ways.

I hear you.

But I think that the default assumption by so many is:

'Racism exists, ergo, racism is the primary driver of poverty, inequality' etc..

I strongly object to this assertion.

Of course racism exists, and it's a problem, and it needs to be dealt with - however - I don't think it's the primary root cause of anything. In fact - 'over aggressive policing' is probably a function of 'mass crime zones' - and not the other way around. Obviously there is a feedback loop here, in that extra hard policing creates more negative outcomes ... but if there weren't crazy amounts of crime, cops would be chill.

My grandparents were born on farms and grew up very poor by today's standards. They had almost nothing. There were guns on every farm ... and yet crime was rare. There were no gangs. They were of specific ethnic groups and certainly faced open discrimination - many would not speak or interact with my German great-grandparents. My grandfather's extended family did not attend his wedding because he married a Catholic (!). My great-grand parents on one side were disowned by both families because she was 'French Quebecois Catholic' and he was 'English Upper Canadian Protestant'. And yet somehow there wasn't 'mass crime'.

I'm not insensitive to the systematic issues some people face - and it's terrible - but by positing that 'the system is the problem' entirely removes really bad individual decisions that are made on a daily basis within some communities and this I find to be wrong and we have to be careful about.

We give a 'free pass' to some groups for upholding as 'de facto' role models, the absolute worst, most terrible role models imaginable.

I'm thinking 'Chief Keef' to start with. Brilliant artist. But his brand of music is boils down to: 'Look at me funny and I will kill you. See: here are the guns I will use. Of course, a 13 year old kid mocked him on youtube, and a few hours later, the kid dead, murdered by one of Chief Keef's goons. His videos boil down to shirtless teens in a room with guns, Ak-47's pointed at the camera - in threatening poses. So 'we' as a society - handed him over $1 Million dollars for a recording contract. Because of his ethnic background - we turn a blind eye to his call to mass murder- worse, we make him the role model for the community, what everyone else aspires to be. Nobody on CNN calls it into question. It's complete insanity. In 2016, you can literally call people to murder others, make a video about it, and as long as it has a nice beat - and you are from a group that is marginalized - you're a hero, you get a million bucks and hundreds of acolytes around town trying to copy you. These cultural issues I believe are closer to 'root causes' than police, trying to do their jobs, some of whom are idiots.

"Mass crime zones" are a direct product of racism. There's a reason that all the crime in Chicago is concentrated around Lawndale and Englewood: black people were redlined into the those neighborhoods, until the early 1970s.

I linked upthread to a Ta Nahesi Coates article. I think you should take 30 minutes and read it with an open mind. I thought I was on top of this stuff. But, damn.

> I linked upthread to a Ta Nahesi Coates article.

Okay, I just wasted more time than I'm comfortable admitting looping through trying to look for that link, getting distracted by new parts of the conversation, and starting over. Mind pointing it out?

Sorry!

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case...

(By the way: I don't particularly think reparations are a good idea. But: damn.)

Oh, that wasn't directed at you. I'm just too frazzled by the week I've had (first week back from vacation is always a zinger) to to function well at the end of a Friday, so figured I would cut to the chase. :) Thanks!

As for the Coates Article - I agree with a lot of the sentiment. And thanks for the link by the way.

Listen - I AGREE - that perhaps there should be 'reparations' - I'm not really against that. I AGREE that historical injustices have led to Black people being marginalized. I generally support affirmative action programs. I AGREE that copes, in some circumstances are simply racist idiots and something must be done about it.

But listen - in 1962 - young Black kids, with incredible poise, had to face down KKK open-racism to get to school.

In 2016 - the 1/2 Black Chicago police force had to create 'golden paths' - specially protected zones for kids to get to and fro school safely - so as not to be killed by other Black people. Getting kids to attend school, let alone graduate - is a serious problem. There are tons of resources and people doing everything they can to help. This is the opposite of the 1960's.

The situation is not anymore like the 1960s. We now have a large cohort of African Americans who seem to be doing pretty well - improving. But another cohort who are out of control. The rate of crime in some areas of America is the highest in the world where it's recorded. Chicago, New Orleans, Baltimore - all have higher crime rates than those 'crazy violent' countries like Nicaragua, Coloumbia etc.

In the early 1960's - still very 'racist America' - there was 1/8th as much crime as there was in 1992, and the crime rate now is still about 4x what it was during 'racist America'. Nobody can say the America is 'more racist' now - the article affirms this.

So why - after so much 'social progress' - is there massively more crime in these areas?

I fully support addressing this problem - but racism is not the cause of 'mass violence' - and that we turn a blind eye to terrible behaviour is adding to the problem.

"Mass crime zones" are a direct product of racism. "

This is mostly false.

Many ethnic groups faced (and continue to face) serious racism over the years - and yet those places did not turn into war-zones.

Have you travelled the world? You will find 'high ethnic concentrations of marginalized people' in almost every country.

Go to a Korean enclave in Japan: the Koreans face open and overt discrimination and racism - and yet - no mass crime. In fact, hardly any crime at all.

Black people are openly discriminated against in Northern Africa by the Arabs there - but guess what - no mass crime. Crime by Sub-Saharan Africans in the Maghreb (at least in Tunisia) is lower than that of African Americans in America.

Americans are in reality some of the least racist people in the world. Outside of the Western world - racism is basically the standard - it's out in the open. It's not often considered a 'social issue'.

Do you see racist acts around you? Probably not. Is it acceptable for anyone to use the n-word? No way. It's exceedingly rare for Americans to act in overtly racist manner, though obviously, a lot of systematic racism exists.

On the contrary - there is an extreme degree of racial sensitivity in America in almost every organization and societal level.

Obviously - African Americans are a very special case, and racism is a contributing factor - but it is not the root cause.

Turning a blind eye to extraordinarily bad behaviour - and worse - glamorizing it - is probably the worst thing we could possibly do to help. Validating the worst possible people as 'role models' for young, troubled men is basically insane.

+1 to this.

> Latin America, for example, "race" isn't as pointed (see the notion of a Mexican race)

The notion of the Mexican race (more accurately, the Mexican-originated concept of a distinct Ibero-American race which had ancestry in all of but was distinct from the other races) was a 20th Century deliberate propaganda construct of the Mexican Revolution, specifically intended to (and not entirely successful at doing so, though it certainly had some effect) address the fact that race was historically an enormous dividing force in the country -- which had the same kind (with different details) of official complex categories of pure and mixed races and social hierarchies between them as many other heavily-race-divided societies.

So, it kind of illustrates the opposite of your point.

And, in practice, while the detailed hierarchy and rules of mixture no longer exists, and efforts to create a unifying identity have nibbled away at the edges, the high level social hierarchy between European, indigenous, and African races is still very much a thing (and not just a matter of "skin color", though, as most places, that's obviously one of the most visible and powerful indicators of race.)

I don't disagree with your general point, which from what I understand is that the US has had, and still has, some nasty problems with racism.

But I have to take issue with this statement:

>racism germinated and produced toxic effects in the US to a greater degree than it did in other countries.

The two countries that you mentioned, Belgium and Japan, have absolutely horrific history of violent occupation/repression of other ethnic/racial groups, anchored in no small part by racist ideology. I'll throw in Germany as well, but I think just about any country/culture with much of a history will have some examples of the abysmal treatment of some minority group.

I dispute your view, if I understand it, that the US has a worse history or track record with racism. I'd say by in large, human history has a pretty poor track record in this respect.

Both Belgium and Japan have horrific track records of racism, and Japan's remains part of its culture, but the US is unique in that its worst problems with racism have been contained within its own borders. Ordinary Belgian citizens weren't routinely confronted with the Congolese.

I think I understand your point. Not to be argumentative, but the slave trade was a global enterprise. Beyond that, US support of European colonial rule, US support for apartheid South Africa, the war in Vietnam, there are many examples. These all had their racist overtones, if not outright racist justifications. I don't believe such a hegemonic culture/country has managed to keep its racist elements contained within its borders.

I'm not disputing that racism is endemic to humanity and prevalent in all cultures. I'm saying that the US is unique in having racism challenges that impact all its citizens on a day-to-day basis, directly, in ways that it is actively struggling to mitigate and/or metabolize. I'm not making a moral argument, just a descriptive one.

You keep responding as if to rebut an argument that the US is the world capital of slavery, or that the Europeans somehow have clean hands. I'm the wrong person to have that argument with.

> The two countries that you mentioned, Belgium and Japan, have absolutely horrific history of violent occupation/repression of other ethnic/racial groups, anchored in no small part by racist ideology.

Now imagine that 12% of the population of Belgium is Congolese, or that 12% of Japan is Korean/Chinese. Picture what that would do to the cultural and political dynamics of those countries.

The U.S. is relatively unusual in that its culture and political institutions have had to adapt to integrate a large minority population that, until recently, it viciously oppressed.

... and then another huge population of another disfavored minority.

I think the only country that comes close is the UK, but the UK's worst institutional racism excesses were offshored.

> The U.S. is relatively unusual in that its culture and political institutions have had to adapt to integrate a large minority population that, until recently, it viciously oppressed.

The US is relatively unusual in that these oppressed populations remain visible minorities. Without that difference lots of countries have similar problems, but if you are mostly only able to distinguish the oppressed group from the favored group by things like accent and elements of culture that blend with integration, you don't really have the same durable problems.

Yeah, as someone from the South this bothers the crap out of me too.

Bill Gates went to an elitist private school that is still having problems with diversity: http://crosscut.com/2007/04/lakeside-schools-dirty-little-se...

There was a really good article in a Boulder (where I live) newspaper recently about how living in a majority white area can really skew people's ideas of racism since they aren't confronted with its challenges on a daily basis like people in the South: http://www.boulderweekly.com/news/black-in-boulder/

I mean, just go to certain parts of LA, or the entirety of Boston, to get a good dose of any kind of racism. The idea that racism is the South's problem or that all racial tension is the South's fault boggles my mind and has, in my personal experience, been a extremely accurate indicator that the person who parrots such things has never in their life had to live in an area where you are forced to coexist with people of a different race or ethnicity.

It's been found time and time again that the refusal to acknowledge racist attitudes within one's own community, regardless of one's personal or outward ideology or rhetoric, is one of the largest contributors to the vicious cycle that perpetuates discrimination. But I guess given recent events I shouldn't be surprised that we're still seeing such denial.

It's just funny to me how the vast majority of the POC I know from my hometown and college ended up moving to "racist" places like Greenville, Nashville, New Orleans, and Atlanta instead of "enlightened" cities like Seattle, Denver, San Francisco, and Portland. Weird, huh?

The point, as I see it, was to compare and contrast the experiences people may have had growing up 30-50 years in the past, not to say anything about the current state of the South. Part of accepting past bad behavior and mistakes is letting it be used as examples where applicable. The only thing getting defensive in this case does it make it harder to discuss past mistakes, which in turn makes it easier to repeat them. Every state (or country, for that matter) has parts of its past it would rather not discuss, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

I think if you feel the South is being attacked in this instance, it's more your perception than reality.

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here, but if you don't think GGP's almost explicit inference that if those men had been in the "racist" (read: "South Eastern") parts of the US we wouldn't have had their contributions to society isn't a form of dog whistle than we're not going to have a constructive conversation here.

P.S. I'd invite you to visit any of the southern cities I mentioned above to discuss past inequities with any of the hundreds of political organizations that make it their duty to right those past wrongs. Regardless of what you want to believe, we're not all hillbillies spitting into confederate spitoons whenever someone of color walks by, and we most assuredly do not deny the atrocities that occurred in the name of our geographical region. Something tells me you won't take me up on that offer though.

> I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here, but if you don't think GGP's almost explicit inference that if those men had been in the "racist" (read: "South Eastern") parts of the US we wouldn't have had their contributions to society isn't a form of dog whistle than we're not going to have a constructive conversation here.

I don't think that was what was being said at all, if I did then I would agree with you. I think "tech luminaries" were used as examples of people that would be known here, and that have fairly liberal views on race that could have been different with a different environment when young.

That the South has in the recent past (relatively, as in people are alive today that experienced it) had policies that contributed to racism and occurrences of extreme racism is not in question. That makes it fair game to illustrate a point.

That point was to explain to some degree why Americans have "thin skin" regarding some race issues. As I understand it, the point was to point out that people have seen fairly distinct differences in how different parts of the country have treated people based on race, within their lifetime.

None of that says anything about the South as it is now. It does say some factual things about the South as it was. By conflating this with some negative assessment of the South as it currently is, I think you're accidentally presenting a straw man argument.

To put this another way, I will make a definitive statement. The South had racist policies. Unless you find reason to argue against that statement, I'm not sure what your problem is with the original comment, since I think for the purpose of what you're upset about, they reduce to the same thing.

> I don't think that was what was being said at all, if I did then I would agree with you. I think "tech luminaries" were used as examples of people that would be known here, and that have fairly liberal views on race that could have been different with a different environment when young.

Bill Gates is actively trying to segregate schools by forcing public school systems to adopt magnet and charter schools. Statistically, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the creation of magnet and charter schools results in increased segregation. Sacrilege, I know.

To put this another way, I will make a definitive statement. The entire US is filled with racist policies regardless of region, both in the past and present. Unless you find reason to argue with this statement I'm not sure what your problem is with my refusal to accept the pigeon-holing of the South as the US' paragon of racism.

> Bill Gates is actively trying to segregate schools by forcing public school systems to adopt magnet and charter schools. Statistically, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the creation of magnet and charter schools results in increased segregation. Sacrilege, I know.

I think that topic is complex enough that a simple correlation based on what maybe proposed is not easily provably, much less a causation. Unless you are making an argument that he's both aware of race problems this might cause and doesn't care (as in, has no plans to mitigate or reverse it in any way), I'm not sure how this speaks towards his feeling on race equality, and therefore I'm not sure how it's relevant.

> Unless you find reason to argue with this statement I'm not sure what your problem is with my refusal to accept the pigeon-holing of the South as the US' paragon of racism.

Since you've graciously given me an opening to express what I think is wrong with that statement, I'll do so, rather than ignore it in favor of a non-sequitur. Everywhere in the US is filled with racist policies, regardless of region. Some places more so than others, either currently or in the past. That makes them useful as examples. Just as Everywhere in the world is filled with racist policies, regardless of country. Some places more so than others. That doesn't mean we can't draw meaningful comparisons based on how they compare relatively.

Unless you are ready to address why it's unfair to reference past southern racism, which I've gone to pains to point out I think was the point and you haven't refuted in any way, I don't see any reason to continue. I get it, your're upset at how the South gets singled out. That doesn't really make it unfair. It's possible and understandable for both to be true.

If you're from the South, then you know it's been beaten into you with a wink and a nudge. The South is terrible for the "but everybody REALLY knows" line that happens when you are no longer in mixed company.

Most Southern whites are particularly thin-skinned when it comes to anyone calling them out on either their racism or their inability to perceive racism... and I say this as a white guy whose family owned plantations.

I personally feel no shame for the sins of my ancestors. They lived in their own time with their own set of rules and laws and morals. It's the behavior of my living kin that bothers me.

I've found that here in Louisiana people tend to be less racist overall, while those who are don't hide it. There are the guys who get drunk and throw slurs around, and worse, but I've also never seen as many interracial couples anywhere else. The openness makes it easier to know who your friends and enemies are.

I agree with not feeling ashamed about the sins of your ancestors, but I also don't believe in blaming others for their ancestors' sins. One branch of my family owned a plantation in Haiti. Then the revolution came, and that branch came to an abrupt end. While I'm extremely bothered that the revolutionaries killed the children as well, I'm not going to blame their descendants.

Thinking of racist people as "the enemy" isn't going to solve anything.

There is not... a single one of us who has an ancestor who wasn't a racist.

Well, my mother isn't a racist, and never has been. Perhaps you meant to say, "there is not a single one of us who doesn't have a racist ancestor"?

Comparing America, which since World War I has been the wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth, with some backwater country in Asia or Africa which has oppressive, racially motivated policies is not really honest.

The South has a lot of problems many of which it created for itself by not keeping up with the times and instead violently opposing those changes. This pattern plays out again and again and again with a multitude of important issues: Inter-racial marriage, gay rights, gay marriage, climate change...

Attitudes can change if the extremist activists stop creating an environment where there's such tremendous social pressure to conform to these extreme views. It's difficult to be an outlier in some parts of the US because you'll be persecuted, shunned, all but run out of town. The loud, angry Tea Party crowd puts everyone in a difficult position.

So congratulating yourself that South Carolina isn't as racist as South Sudan is really not helping.

It also doesn't do people any good to sit in offices and pat themselves on the back for being better educated than the average person 1500 miles away.

Debate, the interchange of ideas, is not possible without stating a position.

> Comparing America, which since World War I has been the wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth, with some backwater country in Asia or Africa which has oppressive, racially motivated policies is not really honest.

Who should we compare America to then?

France? France is hardly a model society with its outlawed burkas on beaches and the home of the LePen family. Moreover, apparently anti-semitism is such a pressing issue that it has been outlawed in France (along with Holocaust denial) since 1990.

Greece? The Golden Dawn Party (a Neo-Nazi party) holds 18 of the 300 seats (6%) in the Greek parliament.

South Africa? The end of apartheid is barely twenty years old and racism is apparently "alive and well"[0].

Norway? In 2011 a far-right extremist group (anti-Muslim) killed 77 people and members of the UN claim the government is doing too little too combat right-wing extremist violence against Muslims.[1]

Germany? In June a poll found that more than 40% of Germans support a ban on Muslim immigration.[2] Additionally, apprently 60% of Germans believe Islam has no place in their country, and last year attacks on refugee camps increased 500%.

The Balkans? In the '90s these countries were entirely reformed through a nearly 10-year period of war and ethnic cleansing.

Sure, maybe the ideal might be similar to Canada, Australia, or Great Britain, all of which are predominantly single-race societies. But where is that shining city on the hill out there that we should be comparing ourselves to? I can't find it. Our goal can't be to become "less racist" than any of those "Western" countries listed above. It just has to be to get better.

For clarity, I'm not claiming that the U.S. is any more or less racist than any of countries above. I'm just saying they all have their problems too.

[0] http://www.relativityonline.com/home/racism-alive-and-well-i...

[1] http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYe...

[2] http://aa.com.tr/en/europe/anti-muslim-sentiment-in-germany-...

[3] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-crisi...

Canada and Australia have really shameful legacies of mistreatment of indigenous people. Much of which happened while these two countries were legally and culturally part of the UK (Dominions). The UK has a really complex past full of its own great crimes against humans.

I agree with your larger part in that racism is a human problem. I don't think that acknowledgement serves to excuse anything the US has done.

Of those countries mentioned only South Africa is one on-par with the level of consistent, simmering racial tension as the US.

France, Greece, Norway, Germany they all have their minority populations for various reasons, in the case of France and England it's largely due to colonial history, but there's an important distinction here.

In none of these cases were the minorities imported as slaves and then emancipated and later systematically discriminated against, marginalized, and basically left to die. Although some of these countries participated in slavery, the legacy of those policies lives on in places like Brazil and various ex-colonies in the West Indies.

> Sure, maybe the ideal might be similar to Canada, Australia, or Great Britain, all of which are predominantly single-race societies.

Wrong. Canada has a significant indigenous population, as does Australia. Great Britain has several groups with a very strong identity that do not always get along. The simmering tension in Northern Ireland is, to this day, a serious problem that's largely along religious/cultural lines. Canada is not immune to criticism here, but these groups were never kept as slaves, nor forcibly segregated. Where discrimination exists, and it does, it's often personal attitudes that need to be fixed, not the express policy of any local government.

The problem with America's racism is unlike Poland or Lithuania where minorities are rare, America has states with a significant population of African-American or Latin-American people that to this day are treated very, very poorly.

Demographically America is on track to be a "majority minority" country within decades. That's a sign that as a country America needs to get its shit together and deal with its past.

LOL! Thinking that the US is socially superior to Norway, Germany or France, and then selecting the Commonwealth as the "ideal".

Funniest thing I have read in a while.

Interestingly, despite all the problems in the U.S., there is an argument to be made that America is among the least racist countries in the world[0]. I also imagine fighting a civil war in which race was a controlling issue within the last 200 years is something a sizable share of nations have done.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15...

> It's not fun to know that your state at one point seceded so the wealthiest elites could practice slavery.

Civic pride is an interesting concept that can have positive and negative impacts on behavior and psychology. Your desire to feel proud of your state is impeded by its history of slavery, but I'd argue that you shouldn't feel ashamed of living someplace simply because of its history. I feel proud to be part of a culture and civilization that openly acknowledges the mistakes of the past. I also feel distraught that so many people continue to hold on to racist beliefs, but I don't let this make me ashamed of the state I live in.

First and foremost, we are humans. We should feel bonded by that before being bonded as Louisianians, Californians, or by any other political structure. And as you rightly point out, no US state can point to a clean history of love, peace, and harmony. So don't feel bad to be from the South. It sounds like you reject that ugly piece of its history anyway, so as long as you stand up for what's right today, then you can rightly feel proud of yourself and your fellow citizens.

My main point is that the 'feel-good' you get from blind flag-waving patriotism is not worth the price you pay: that price is ignorance or hand-waving about historical evils. Recognize the evils of the past, but don't let that make you feel ashamed about your citizenship.

I don't know if it's so much as collective thin-skinnedness as it is that diversity is such a cornerstone of our society that we're forced to deal with the tensions it creates on a constant basis. This foments debate, much of it good, and some of it trollish, but I see it as a natural result of the freedoms and diversity that America has aimed to aspire.

I don't mean to say that achieving diversity is some kind of Grand Experiment designed by the Founders, but it's what we have because of our past and geopolitical circumstances, and we've struggled with and benefited greatly from it.

> I don't know if it's so much as collective thin-skinnedness as it is that diversity is such a cornerstone of our society that we're forced to deal with the tensions it creates on a constant basis

I don't think that argument holds: Canada is a pretty diverse place but I don't think there are simmering/barely-contained tensions there as much as in the US.

I think a lot of the tension results from specific 'environments'; in reverse chronological order: the "southern strategy", Jim Crow laws and ultimately chattel slavery. For most of its history, the prevailing, unquestioned belief was that one race was inherently superior. It will take several generations to rollback that mindset back to any significant degree

>Canada is a pretty diverse place

I know Canadians like to tell themselves this, but your country is ~80% white

The US is ~73% white, it's hardly that different.

source? last I checked it was about 60%

e: Non-Hispanic Whites totaled about 197,870,516, or 62.06% of the U.S. population. [1]

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans

"Non-Hispanic Whites totaled about..."

Hispanic white people are white as well if by white you mean of predominately European descent.

For the purpose of a discussion about diversity, I think the more important measure is how they identify themselves culturally. Being able to genetically trace your roots to the mayflower but being raised steeped in Mexican (to avoid the term in question) culture (for example, adopted) would still yield more diversity, by the definition we are usually using when referring to national diversity (which I think is generally interpreted as cultural diversity of a nation).

They're not considered white by the locals until they lose their accent. White is what you're considered by the relevant whites under discussion, not a meaningful physical category. Mediterranean-bordering, Irish, and Slavic people have just gotten to be white in the US fairly recently.

"The locals" is an odd term. I lived in New Mexico, where some of people who are raised in Spanish speaking households trace their local ancestry back to before the founding of the US.

The Hispanics of Puerto Rico were there before the US took it over as part of the Spanish–American War.

These Hispanics are more local than the new-comer English-speaking people, no?

This is a very good explanation of why some humans might have negative emotional reactions to a rational discussion of science.

Nevertheless, jpablo is right to call this out as a terrible failure of rationality on our part. 20 years before I was born, some folks that vaguely look like me were total jerks to other folks that look a bit different from me! That doesn't mean I should turn off my brain and reject science that triggers negative emotions.

Ignoring reality won't help us achieve our goals, whatever they happen to be.

> To put things into context, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, and the other tech luminaries in their generation would have gone to segregated schools had they been born in the south instead of in California and Washington.

They still probably went to segregated schools. I certainly did, in Chicago, in the 80s. We had one white kid at our school from K - 8th grade. His name was Patrick. His stepfather was black, and his mom had died.

You might not be aware of this yet, so read up a bit on sistema de castas [0].

Both Americans and Mexicans have the strength to change what can be changed, and the resolve to endure what cannot. But being American myself, I think that only the Mexicans also have the wisdom to know the difference.

Are you really going to cure racism with an essay written into the comments section of an article? Really? No. But we Americans are generally ashamed and embarrassed by those aspects of actual historical events that tend to contradict our beliefs in American ideals. One of those ideals being "all men are created equal", the natural conclusion is that America cannot be racist. But it is. It is so very racist. And so the idealists have to plug their ears and loudly sing "lalalalalala" whenever the actual evidence of it appears.

I'm glad that people of other nationalities find it amusing, but they don't have to live with those people.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casta

>>Americans have really thin skin because they fought a civil war over whether people with one color of skin could own people with a different color of skin.

you do realize that there were black slaveholders as well? matter of fact, one of the (if not THE) first "officially documented" slaveholders was black (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist))

What can we infer from that? Did the black slave owners own whites? For a short period, whites were even indentured servants. Are you going to equate white slavery experience with black slavery? How many blacks owned slaves, were they really black or mulatto, did ruling whites only accept that practice during a short early colonial period or did that practice proliferate until the Civil War? Could freemen be buying slaves to free a family member, where they actually were not subsequently treated as slaves?

The only question of yours that is not answered by the Wikipedia link I provided is the timing (although I'm sure you can google that ) - this went on from the very beginning of the transatlantic slave trade in the U.S. all the way through the civil war.

And the point of course is that the civil war wasn't fought to abolish "the right of whites to own blacks" as things were a bit more complex than that. Cherokee Indians for example owned thousands of slaves too. There's a pretty interesting issue that goes on right now with descendants of Cherokee-owned slaves suing the Chetokee nation for the right to be a part of the Cherokee nation.

I still don't get the point you are trying to make. In 1830, 3,776 free blacks owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States. Many of those slaves owned by blacks may have been treated as slaves but many were also bought to be freed, as they were family members. Whites could be indentured servants but they were not slaves for life. By the 1700s indentured servants were scarce.

The point I'm trying to make is that the statement I originally replied to (with a quote so not sure what's not clear exactly) inaccurately states that the civil war was fought to abolish the system of ownership of blacks by whites.

Hardly an excuse

" Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, and the other tech luminaries in their generation would have gone to segregated "

I'll bet you $100 that Bill Gates' private school was 'de facto' segregated with almost zero, or in fact zero Black kids.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com