All these things never have happened in SE Asia correct? I mean it’s not like the largest country in that region didn’t have a caste system with a huge population of untouchables with no mobility.
Even though I don’t know of any history of SE Asian slaves in the USA, I can easily believe that a specific individual Indian with dark skin and Muslim religion might find America unwelcoming both on religious and racial grounds — if that person was rich enough to even try to move to America, I’m going to guess they’re probably not one of the untouchables. Other people’s pain doesn’t invalidate theirs; it only becomes hypocrisy if they turn a blind eye to it after experiencing it, and I have no evidence of that here.
Europe's industrialization was built on the back of religious divisions rather than racial ones for example, which makes the problems somewhat different.
Is this something you just casually throw out, or do you have some data showing that... countries with greater religious divisions industrialized faster?
In any case, "built on the back of" seems overstating things. Find some sin in the past, and claim that it is the source of all the success of a country, for which it must feel eternally guilty. That there are similar, successful countries without this sin, or unsuccessful ones that share it, are details best ignored. E.g. slavery was widespread in Africa and the Ottoman Empire, with wildly different outcomes than in the US, and imperialism certainly wasn't unique to Europe or the US.
The process as spelled out by a number of thinkers including Sir Thomas More (who was observing some of these things first-hand) and Hilaire Belloc (who was basing his thoughts on such sources as More) was that the Industrial Revolution in Britain (and hence the world since it started there) can be traced back to the way the confiscation of the monasteries lead to spending up the enclosure of the commons. Basically while the Catholic Church had an effect of spreading out power a bit more away from the state, consolidating this in the hands of the state and in the hands of landlords meant that the landlords were much more powerful and therefore pushed peasants off their land in order to raise more profitable goods such as sheep.
The result was a large number of destitute peasants who ended up in the city unable to support themselves. Some of these were shipped en masse to the New World. Others were given destitute wages in the early textile mills.
The same process starts much later in France where you have a parallel confiscation of the monasteries under an effort of secularization following the French Revolution. Although the Reformation fizzled in France for various reasons, the same political pattern of state seizure of Church lands did happen just as it did elsewhere in Europe and this lead to the same destitute masses forced to the cities.
This process closely parallels the way the Andrew Johnson administration pushed freed slaves into the wage labor system thus revving up the industrialization of the North which was jump-started by the civil war.
I love how people come up with racist justifications for structural racism. Classy.....
My wife's country (Indonesia) also had a caste system and some parts still do, but even poor people have better security in access to food and shelter than poor people do in the US. The economic problems are not so deep.
Water is an issue. But then it is an issue in much of the US too (Flint for example).
My understanding is that the Flint situation is due to mismanagement, which was done after a certain political party created laws to remove elected leadership from indebted municipalities (most of the indebted municipalities were controlled by the opposing party).
Which is to say that the Flint situation got a lot of press because it was rare, and that the motivations were likely political rather than racial. As such, in isolation it is not good evidence for your arguement. It would be appreciated if you could provide some statistcs.