Hacker News Reader

>Talking about helping poor children doesn't get people as riled up, and has the risk of actually leading to agreement and a solution.

Funny, but let's not underestimate how much class warfare there is in modern politics. Even if they do a great job using identity politics to lampshade it.

I think Occam's razor suggests the reasons of race are much simpler: race is considered a public statistic, one not trying to be hidden behind welfare, stocks, shell companies, tips, etc. Financial status is much more complex and varies based on COL. Easier statistic, easier to focus on.

To give a bit of context to all the sibling comments:

We are talking about a history where: a) A decision to not occupy a defeated country was made because they were impure/non-white (Mexico)... [I don't think I have encountered a similar historical example. I will spend some time looking/reviewing just in case I am forgetting some similar situation.] b) Called Germans and Finnish immigrants "non-white":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_th....

Italians and Greeks faced the same treatment. Everything and everyone had to be assigned at some class/color. The wikipedia article goes even more in depth about the issue that also posed for Asians in the U.S. which is a whole lot different rabbit hole, and which I am still confused about.

c) Gun control and argumentation started because of racism. NRA actually did support gun control at one point: when the Black Panthers tried to exercise their right to bear arms. And when Reagan introduced the Mulford Act in response, evidence shows it was enforced based on race.

https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-...

https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-mulford-act-and-americas-r...

And going way back: Black Codes were a big part of Jim Crow measure: everyone could have a gun; unless you were "black." (Or other undesirable.)

And to place the final nail: https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers...

There is the claim that the 2nd amendment was enacted to ensure slaves wouldn't revolt. Not sure yet how much weight one should place to that claim; but the world history supports such considerations. [Review cf. Spartans for instance or the Japanese class system.]

Do you have a source regarding the theory that the race was the primary factor in deciding the territory following the Mexican American war? I haven't encountered this example before. I'm obviously skeptical but willing to read more.

As a counterpoint, the last several centuries are full of examples of countries establishing territories or colonies in foreign lands with different ethnicities. In those cases, the local population was generally not given much power for self governance, if at all.

The US has a pretty long history of returning militarily conquered territory back to locals for self governance. These countries usually remain within the US sphere of influence of course, and often retain a US military presence, but we dont call it occupation or the territories colonies. Instead we call them allies (e.g. Germany, Japan, the Philippines, S Korea, ect).

Certainly, good point: 2003 UCLA LAW Review: https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/15_...

See first paragraph section C, page 11 (293) -- also citation, but didn't have time to link it here.

Fascinating. Thanks for sharing. While Calhoun comments seem crass, they have significant parallel in contemporary politics.

Yes which makes other contemporary politics topics (cf. Puerto Rico statehood as a lighter one) more enlightening.

>The USA is currently obsessed with race, and this influences all discussions.

The United States has always been obsessed with race. The south had completely different schools based on a child's skin color. What makes you think this is new?

I totally agree that racial issues have always been a topic in American politics. from the colonial period, to secession from Brittan, to the failed secession of the south, to the civil rights movements, to now.

That said, the relative importance of the issue and satisfaction obviously shifts over time. Gallop polling shows that that by many metrics, perceptions of racial Injustice are at a multi-decade high. It is interesting that far fewer people feel that black people are treated fairly than in the late 90's. It would be interesting to see data going back even further.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/352544/larger-majority-says-rac...

So the actual issue that we've started talking about how our obsession with race effects the people on the losing end of that deal.

>. It is interesting that far fewer people feel that black people are treated fairly than in the late 90's. It would be interesting to see data going back even further.

It seems intuitive to me. If you have a problem and then activists put in a ton of time to make that problem more visible, its going to change people's perceptions of social issues. For example, if you asked people in 1990 and 2020 if the Catholic church adequately protects children from sexual predators, you're probably gonna get a pretty drastic difference in responses.

Keep in mind my point was that the political emphasis on race is at a high point.

I agree that if activist put a lot of emphasis on this and make it more visible that this feeling will be stronger. That doesn't negate the point above, it supports it.

Sure, people can argue over how productive the additional attention is for actually resolving issues, but that's not what I'm trying to do. I merely staying that attention is very high right now

>Keep in mind my point was that the political emphasis on race is at a high point.

A high point compared to what? The 90s? You have some recency bias in your understanding of this topic.

> agree that if activist put a lot of emphasis on this and make it more visible that this feeling will be stronger. That doesn't negate the point above, it supports it.

You didn't make a point, you said something was 'interesting' which I commented on because its really not, it just makes sense.

>Sure, people can argue over how productive the additional attention is for actually resolving issues, but that's not what I'm trying to do. I merely staying that attention is very high right now

I think you're mostly trying to backtrack a hot take

I'm honestly not sure what part of what I said you are objecting to.

People are more aware than in the 90's. You don't find that interesting but I do. Cool?

My point was that the US cares about race a lot right now. Generally and relatively. Do you disagree?

If you have a central point you are trying to convey, stop beating around the bush and say it.

It goes back much further than that, literally to the founding of the country. Our constitution has provisions specifically protecting the slave trade. The way we elect our president was designed specifically to give slave owners more power. Racism is an integral part of US history and always has been. You literally cannot make sense of US history without it.

Slavery goes back a lot further than the founding of the US, and is important context for broad swaths of History.

Regarding the election of the president, I assume you're talking about the 3/5 compromise. I think this had the opposite impact of what you're claiming.

It gave white male voters in the south less power. Representation based on total human population would have given them more.

If you were voting white male in the North, your representation was based on the total population of your state, including those that cant vote, i.e. women and children.

In the south, your total population for the purposes of proportional representation was reduced lower than the total human population of your state

Not so. The 3/5 rule and the Electoral College gave slaveholders drastically more power than they should have had.

If the president was elected strictly based on votes cast, the North would have dominated every election.

Not only did the South have completely disenfranchised slaves who nevertheless added to their masters electoral votes, but they also had much more limited franchise even for white males.

The constitution was set up to let the South prevent the vast majority of their people from voting without giving up much political power as a result.

Neither of this North nor the South supported proportional representation based on both votes cast. Your assertion that the 3/5 compromise the South more electoral power begs the question in comparison to what alternative. If you're hypothetical is that became more power than the number of Voters, then sure. But no one at the time was advocating for proportional representation based on the number of men in the state.

Nobody supported the vast majority of people voting. The Electoral College was never based on voter numbers.