Hacker News Reader

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".

> 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.)

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.