The title doesn't specify the perpetrator is white and doesn't mention white supremacy. It can only mean one thing, the elephant in the room, black-on-asian violence. If someone saw the video, can you please confirm my hunch?
1. Just like Asians have been the "model minority," Blacks are treated as the opposite. There's a lot of resentment going one way, and a lot of "what did you hit me for?" going the other way.
2. There's a lot of Asians (especially those from overseas) who don't understand the historical context, and aren't privy to empathy or compassion when they're being targeted. This dynamic isn't something that's new. When I grew up in NYC in the 80s, it was like Chinese immigrants were fair game. The poorer Chinese immigrants were the only folks who other groups had any "power" over. In turn, it's been really difficult educating my own relatives about this, and the prejudice that they may have. It's sad, and I understand them.
3. The matter is something that has caused real rifts in the AAPI communities. Asians as a group are not uniformly affluent, and the folks who live in inner-city neighborhoods feel as if the "boba Asians" don't understand them. It's these poorer Asians who are subjected to the brunt of the violence and prejudice.
4. There's a fair bit of talk these days in some of my circles that there's a divide-and-conquer thing going on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots
I would also note that many discussions about American racial injustice, particularly in the education system, treats asians as if they are barely worth discussing. Only the GOP seemed to have been interested in picking up the issue, and only very little in an opportunistic way.
https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11...
Not sure I'm understanding; are you saying asians are targeted by blacks because of some "race retaliation" scheme?
> 4. There's a fair bit of talk these days in some of my circles that there's a divide-and-conquer thing going on.
Divide-and-conquer of what exactly?
But there are several cases where black attacked Asians unprovoked. Like what else was the reason for an attack??
Another reason is that blacks aren't arrested or prosecuted when attacking Asians.
There are a few examples where SF tried hard to downplay (and/or not prosecute at all) black-on-asian crime. For example, you can search for the news reporter Dion Lim where she found that a black-on-asian case is dropped silently.
This also potentially results in the side effect of Asians (specifically Chinese) fleeing the country and/or siding with the majority against African liberation and civil rights issues. This is seen as a win-win scenario.
Anyone that's closely studied colonial history intuitively understands what might be going on and recognizes the pattern.
The structures capable of this kind of sabotage (that historically operated in Asia, Africa and South/Central America) didn't die off, they just became dormant/less-active temporarily.
The reality of this is that really really crappy people exist in all racial categories and they do really crappy things to other people especially if they are different than them. These crappy people are a minority of any race but too often we talk about it as if they are majority of any given race.
If we would stop talking about race and start focusing on class then the less affluent Asians wouldn't get turned down from colleges because they are lumped in with the affluent suburban Asians. The white kids from the trailer parks in Eastern Kentucky wouldn't get turned down because they are lumped in with the rich white kids at Sidwell Friends School.
I'm only saying all this because I recently had the wonderful experience of getting lectured on equity by a CEO making over a hundred times more than the average employee at my former company. The fact that it works so well was the worst part about it. The employees were going after each other over their skin color and ancestral guilt / victimhood and completely ignoring the fact that this useless CEO isn't worth three programmers let alone a hundred of them.
I've noticed there are a number of divides like this.. minorities vs racists, women vs misogynists, foreigners vs xenophobes, millennials vs boomers, and trust vs distrust in technology/science. This list matches the fact that the labor pool is currently being diluted with increased participation of minorities and women in the workforce, outsourcing of jobs or immigration labor, an older generation that hasn't yet retired, and automation of labor.
It follows suit that a young white male with a poor education might have an extremely difficult time entering the job market. This person is the most likely to look at his dismal situation and place blame on these demographics that he's in competition with. Ideally, instead he would see them as his peers, that each of these demographics would see him as a peer, and that they would see each other as peers. But I imagine there are those at the top who do not want the finger pointed at them, and so are happy to reinforce people's existing biases
I wasn't aware he had a large base in Oakland.
They are pretty rabid Trump supporters, probably not unrelated to the fact that my wife's family are universally successful, extremely wealthy, entrepreneurs. They live in Atlanta, and therefore the topic of the massage parlor shooting came up.
The refrain I kept hearing from my wife's uncle, specifically, was that "we know what we see with our own eyes, and it doesn't match what THEY (he meant the establishment media) are trying to tell us".
It was a rather surreal experience arguing about Trump with them as a white dude, with them being the defenders.
White liberals are the white supremacists dictating to minorities what they ought to believe.
What is the difference between holier-than-thou woke elitism that is commonplace in tech versus supremacy? Why is that tech workers from white, white, white suburban backgrounds ( which includes Asians ) where their parents paid for SAT prep courses also the loudest voices in social justice movements while the blue collar minorities I talked to were busy in their hourly work during the pandemic instead of having the privilege of encouraging protests in the middle of a pandemic ?
The data shows minorities including blacks and LGBTQ have trended towards Trump since 2016 while upper class whites have shifted the other way, meanwhile the narrative of racism, inclusivity and toxic righteouness has been escalated by the left. But of course, anyone who supports Trump is racist, dumb, uneducated, when quite possibly they don’t care for him more so than the rejection of white progressive ideals and the white owned tech oligarchy
Is there anywhere I can read about this elephant in the room? I'm not sure why the label is important here; is the implication that black people are ideologically motivated to attack Asians? Are you sure this was a hate crime (the driver was attacked because was Asian) or a crime of oppurtunity (the driver was attacked because he was an easy target)? Unless you are sure it was the former, the rhetoric sounds awfully close to the 13/52 dog whistle.
>Named after a 2015 tweet from provocative conservative political commentator, Ann Coulter, Coulter's Law states that the longer it takes the news media to identify a mass shooter in the United States, the less likely it is to be a white male.
I’m not challenging you here, I’m trying to understand why it’s wrong to state it in this kind of context.
The link between skin colour and poverty is undeniable—it's right there in the aftermath of slavery and Government-sanctioned racism in the decades hence. The link between poverty and a propensity to engage in violence is also clear.
So if poverty is the critical link, if poverty is the underlying cause, why would it ever be useful to talk about levels of violent crime associated with a tangential correlate?
Consider this, if I told you Koreans only make 1% of Japan but they make up 70% of the Yakuza, what would you take away from that? The observation is true. But do you think I'm making a fair implication about Koreans in general? What if I said next that the Japanese police should be free to treat Koreans anyway they fit? Would you agree to that? I hope you would see that as insane, but that is line of reasoning that always happens with 13/52.
So currently when I read "black on asian violence is increasing" I'm not sure yet whether I can believe the author is making a fairly reasoned observation about black people ideologically attacking asians, or if they are calling for a "force" to "take a closer look at those black people".
In a more practical sense, does this statistic matter to an individual on a dark night? Will I fear being called racist as I walk down South Side Chicago on a dark night or 13/52? The choice here is not a choice at all.
Upon hearing that I don’t think anyone would focus on the statistic (that I’m implying Koreans are violent) and instead focus on the fact that it’s dangerous because is a high crime neighborhood.
Somehow you have missed the point entirely; it’s strange you bring up the lies, damn lies quote but continue to argue the statistic point. In a practical sense, if I were to travel to high crime area in Mexico or Belarus, would it be logical for me to not fear getting mugged because there are no black people? You’ve presented a false choice - you created a situation where you are a likely to mugged for socioeconomic factors and then have walked that back into carrying water for a racist trope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakuza#:~:text=According%20to%...
"While ethnic Koreans make up only 0.5% of the Japanese population, they are a prominent part of Yakuza ... The Japanese National Police Agency suggested Koreans composed 10% of the Yakuza proper"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakuza#:~:text=According%20to%...
Specifying the race has a tendency to make people correlate the violence with race, which can lead to racism.
It seems to me that the RAM available to many people is too small to fit in a complexer perspective. That's why public discussions seem to stabilize with time on some dumbed down equilibrium that can be expressed in maximum three barely grammatically complete sentences.
Slavery was banned in the major kingdoms in Africa, the slave trading minority were empowered, funded, and armed by foreigner traders. They were able to take control of a large portion of the continent this way.
Just like opium trading was banned in China, the drug trading minority were empowered, funded, and armed by foreigner traders...etc
Much of the 'slavery' in Africa was actually mislabeled, it is better described as 'human adoption'. These so called slaves lived and ate in the same house as 'owners', had wives/children (sometimes more than the 'owner'), were not forced to work, and would intermarry with the adoptive family freely. Many rose to prominence and wielded tremendous power/influence in the families/communities/tribes they were adopted into. This form of 'adoption' (which includes adults) is still common in war torn countries in Africa where families are broken apart and family members lost prematurely.
In America, the modern day equivalent would be going to a homeless tent city, moving some of the individuals into your home and sharing resources.
Chattel slavery was considered abhorrent and only arrived in certain parts of the continent after a certain point.
There were also POWs that were treated poorly and initially they were the people sold to foreign traders... preferable to leaving enemies of a tribe in jail, which posed a security risk and caused many other problems.
"The black people sold black people" line is popular in the US because it sidesteps the details and on some level freed slave owners and their descendants from moral/social burden and guilt. This retort was/is also useful in denying the case for reparations when African Americans raised/raise it.
No, its not. At all. (It includes people which hold such views, and excludes some part of the other extreme, but that’s true of any organization less hostile to Blacks than the general society.)
A lot is clearly crime of opportunity, but a lot of the high-profile cases appear to be completely unmotivated by theft (ie, the assaults on elderly asians are often just sucker-punches by a suspect who leaves immediately without taking anything).
It is. If you are going to label the problem as black-on-asian, I'd like to at least know what black people, specifically, are attacking asians. When the media uses labels about white supremacy it's usually because white mass shooters are usually ideologically motivated; they aren't killing people to steal money or eliminate competition, they are committing these crimes specifically because the victims aren't white.
What I'm trying to see if there is a common motivation (rooted in, lack for a better-term "black" supremacy), or if this just an uptick in crime by an economic class that skews black. I'm not even saying its false, and I'm passing no judgement; but I've seen this rhetoric increase and I'm wondering what the source of it is.
It's hard for me not to believe you just made this up. "ling-ling boppin" doesn't return any Google results.
Secondly, a trend in hip-hop would be a trend in American pop culture. Hip hop, is currently the biggest music genre in America - if what you say is true I can't imagine how I would have missed it. A quick Google search doesn't mention anything from the top Spotify artists about it.
… returns plenty of results. And hip-hop is a subculture of pop culture that is dominated by and mostly caters to young black people.
Let’s assume the best of each other here on HN and not accuse people of making things up.
It's not, and thats why I am pressing this point. Billboards top 5 artists of last year were all hip hop[1]. Saying hip hop only caters to black people is like saying Soccer caters to the british. There is no way such a tiny demographic could drive international recognition for the medium.
Next the results you provided don't show any sort of trend. The only relevant results link to the same subreddit which calls out a single racist rapper who made a racist tweet in 2013. The rapper Drakeo is hardly relevant (he has less than 100k followers on Twitter). I don't know how a barely known rapper tweeting out a racist remark, since 2013, constitutes a trend in the largest music genre in America right now.
I'm pushing back because I want to know how these narratives are being created. I don't think it was your intention to inflate the nature of the trend, but I'm wondering why these memes are starting to grow all the sudden.
[1] https://www.billboard.com/charts/year-end/2020/top-artists
Yeah, so are we talking the recipe site or the Kirby 3DS letsplay video here?
> And hip-hop is a subculture of pop culture that is dominated by and mostly caters to young black people.
What year is it?
We can assume the best but let's also not casually throw out significant claims without evidence and correlations based on things that haven't been true since like 1990.
The company you keep and all that.
Also pls leave these “dog whistle” or “gaslighting” labels to ideological moshpits and echo chambers. It’s considered a bad tone to use agitprop language in civil conversation.