# Racism in the U.S. vs Europe



## Polednice

I came across a little discussion on some other site which I didn't think was accurate, so I thought I'd ask the members here their opinions.

The people suggested that racism is more rampant in a casual manner throughout Europe than it is in the U.S., and that our American friends are perhaps more sensitive to the topic because of their own particular history of slavery (after all, we all took part in it).

Personally, I can accept that the more vocal people, and people in the media, perhaps make a bigger, more melodramatic issue out of racism in the U.S., but given my (admittedly little) experience travelling to Philadelphia, I would say that the U.S. has a greater _institutionalised_ racism problem. Every country in the world is going to have casual xenophobia, but everywhere I turned in the U.S., _all_ of the lower service jobs were held by black people, and it was rather jarring. It was particularly noticeable when I went to the Museum of Art, where every single guard/attendant was black and something like 90+% of visitors were white. I've never seen anything like that in the UK, or elsewhere in Europe.

Your experiences?


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Racism has become a coded language in the US; for instance, calling the president a secret muslim or calling his authenticity as an American citizen into question. The really egregious racists have learned to play on xenophobia while still letting their tools feel tolerant and accepting.


----------



## Ukko

My experience (somewhat outdated, I stopped traveling in the early '90s) is that casual, open racism regarding blacks - and not related to financial status - is more common in Europe (including England) and Australia than it is in the US outside the South. The South is 'special'. I can't speak to other, ethnic prejudices, because of extremely limited experience


----------



## Timotheus

The effects of institutional racism aren't easily undone, so it's hard to make a judgement about the present level of racism by comparing poverty levels. 

Generally there's no one who can legitimately say they have more than anecdotal knowledge for their own city, let alone their own country, let alone another country entirely...


----------



## kv466

While I've never truly experienced it outright, it's there...I mean, maybe I feel as if I haven't felt it because I'm not easily offended and don't even think along those terms...still, it bothers me when (usually an older) a white American with blond hair and blue eyes guy needs to speak with me as happened the other day with AT&T service...they've never met me but decide to speak to me in spanish(!!)...this really bothers me and I do think it's racist...I mean, I know the guy has probably dealt with thousands of latinos and he'd rather just get 'er done instead of dealing with a language barrier but at least give me the chance...what bothers even more is that I have always taken the English language very seriously and have always been a great fan of literature and writing in general...what bothers is that this person who is practically talking down to me saying "poor favour...nesayseeto soo banyo" instead of talking and seeing what I do in response; well, chances are their writing and vocabulary skills are probably far below any level I was ever even at in high school. Then again, now that is I being prejudiced.


----------



## mmsbls

regressivetransphobe said:


> Racism has become a coded language in the US; for instance, calling the president a secret muslim or calling his authenticity as an American citizen into question. The really egregious racists have learned to play on xenophobia while still letting their tools feel tolerant and accepting.


I agree strongly with this assessment. Overt racism is certainly not a thing of the past in the US, but it has been suppressed since the 1960's.

I will always remember a particularly unpleasant example from a major TV network. President Obama gave a fist bump to his wife. Many people in the US (including children) know that fist bumps are a recent way of giving a "high five" or saying "right on". The anchor showed the President's fist bump and asked, "Terrorist fist bump?" suggesting that Obama was giving a secret terrorist signal. Of course the anchor did not accuse Obama of anything, but the implication was clear. Many older white Americans know nothing of fist bumps, and presumably many assumed Obama was guilty of subverting the US and trying to turn it into a Muslim state.

I read a paper which suggested that racism in the US plays a major role in explaining why European countries are more generous to poor people than the US is. Specifically the abstract says, "Racial animosity in the US makes redistribution to the poor, who are disproportionately black, unappealing to many voters."

The view was that racial minorities are more prominent in the US and more commonly associated with lower incomes. People are in general happy to give money to those similar to themselves but less happy to give to other races.


----------



## Guest

I can say that, during my time in Southern Germany and Switzerland, there was definite racism and animosity directed towards the African refugees from places like Nigeria and the Sudan. I was approached numerous times by these people, asking me to teach them how to talk like an American, because they thought they wouldn't be looked down on as much if people thought they were Americans. I personally knew an African-American living in Switzerland with a Swiss wife who experienced racism for his marriage to a white Swiss woman.


----------



## Sid James

I think at least in the USA, there are people at the top of the political tree - like President Obama - who are from minority backgrounds. This can be tokenism, but at least this is happening, a generation ago this was probably seen as impossible. I'm not sure if there are minority people high up in business, but our American members can fill us in on that. In any case, President Johnson's civil rights bill was one of the most important things to happen in the USA during that time (the 1960's). Indeed, where it not for America's involvement in Vietnam at the time, Johnson may well have come to be seen as the most responsive and forward looking of American political leaders. But given what went on with USA world affairs then, his part in doing these kinds of good things at home were overshadowed.

The thing that really worries me about Europe is the anti-Semitism and neo-Facsism. People like Italian President Silvio Berlusconi who has quoted Mussolini, and his attitudes have been compared to him, are simply no good news for the political sphere there, they talk to me of extremes. The Jews were wiped out in Europe during the Holocaust, but many countries are still quite anti-Semitic. I'm cynical of Europe's greatness or progressiveness in regards to this. They've gotten so many things wrong in the past & they forget what happened back then (at least the extremists do).

Here in Australia, successive governments have also done a lot to improve race relations and decrease disadvantage among minority groups. But government policy can change quickly for the better, but public attitudes take longer. I think former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's apology to the stolen generations - Aboriginals who were taken from their parents for being partly white, eg. that derogatory term "half-castes" - was a step in the right direction. It was symbolic, but it was needed, it couldn't be swept underneath the carpet any longer. A decade before the apology, there was "debate" about whether they could be called a generation, semantic bullsh*t like that, totally derailing the issue. Conservative historians can sit in their ivory towers far away from the lives that were ruined by these misguided policies. & not to forget that there were many white people who were treated the same bad way in foster homes back then, and I believe that there was a later apology to them as well by the churches, who ran most of these homes.

Basically, I think we must not forget these things that happened in history to our peril - from the slavery in the USA, the Holocaust in Europe, the stolen generations & other things in Australia...


----------



## Head_case

Polednice said:


> I came across a little discussion on some other site which I didn't think was accurate, so I thought I'd ask the members here their opinions.
> 
> ... I would say that the U.S. has a greater _institutionalised_ racism problem. Every country in the world is going to have casual xenophobia, but everywhere I turned in the U.S., _all_ of the lower service jobs were held by black people, and it was rather jarring. It was particularly noticeable when I went to the Museum of Art, where every single guard/attendant was black and something like 90+% of visitors were white. I've never seen anything like that in the UK, or elsewhere in Europe.
> 
> Your experiences?


When my girlfriend visited a native Indian reservation in the US, it challenged her perception of the US, declaring itself as the land of the free ... only to find itself confronted with the problem of hypocrisy, when dealing with domestic issues, such as the Native Americans.

Cultural divisions, between those herded into reservations and left in state dependency and high rates of alcoholism; Latin speaking Americans, and encapsulated pockets of Americans (like the Pietdietsch minorities), don't transmit across the airways as obviously as skin tone differences perhaps. Then again, racism is only one fragmentary dimension of a disdain or bias against those others...religious persuasion; political persuasion; economic wealth; manifestations of physical illness like the modern leper; mental illness; any illness; absence of illness - the pathology of normalcy; too many children; no children; not being married; being homosexual; being menopausal; being too intelligent; wearing your pants beneath your underwear line - all kinds of discrimination feature in modern society, in any country, not specific to the USA nor the UK - usually worse in bumpkinsvilles and hicksvilles than in cities.

Well I'm not so sure racism really is marked by social class or job description. In England, the majority of nurses in many hospitals are Filipino or foreign; doctors too are more likely to be foreign recruits, due to a shortage of homegrowns. Engineers - Polish, or European; shop owners, foreign names or foreign looking. Security guards are also stereotypically profiled - they all look like bouncers. More likely, those who are prejudiced ... cannot find any work. Thus - the young and unemployed in France; or in Spain, who feel discriminated against....or who are discriminated against, if we believe fodder newspapers' surveys, which tell us that yoof is reported favourably, around 12% of the time in newspapers, and reported negatively over 56% of the time. Now in England, there is a young and unemployed underclass, who parade their arrogance and refusal to ever want to work. This mentality .... is nothing akin to the nature of racism, but the arguments spouted by such youths, are that ... 'foreigners are taking away _our_ jobs' (if only they weren't too lazy to work). Thus ... the justification for racism locally here...in some quarters.

Still - the times I've been the United States - the experience of speaking in what is considered, Queen's English in the USA was kinda fun. I'm sure someone else who speaks with a minor Swahili accent visiting the USA, might have a different experience from my callow experience there. I can see that there is unease within a multicultural and pluralistic society, as large as the USA offers, in stirring up debate about racism, and that accepting things as being generally okay on the surface, is better than pricking the conscience of society and debating racism openly.

There are always opportunistic touts and carpetbaggers waiting to pounce in from all sides, on discussions of race. Fact is, the United Kingdom has had queens and female prime ministers: a newscommentator once commented on Barack Obama's role as president ... as being easier to attain, than that of a female.

In this respect - yes there is something fundamentally different in the biases/prejudices of English/British society, compared to that of the United States. However there are many other countries, where more or less of an example of prejudice exists - each has their own, and each would prefer its own nationals to critique their own, rather than some unwelcome foreigner, commenting and comparing his country with his own


----------



## Head_case

PS -


> when I went to the Museum of Art, where *every single guard/attendant was black *and something like *90+% of visitors were white*. I've never seen anything like that in the UK, or elsewhere in Europe.


 Just wondering why you infer this is an example of racism.

Maybe the guards are black because only white visitors are likely to steal from the MOMA


----------



## Sid James

A friend of mine read about an "experiment" done in the UK, with regards to racial bias in the job market there. A pool of jobseekers with Indian background sent out their CV's or resumes to a number of employers. One half of the group sent the resumes with their own Indian sounding names. The other half changed their names to Anglo sounding names. You can guess the results of this survey, only or mainly the ones with white names were called for an interview. & when they were called, they were inevitably turned down because their Anglo names didn't match their appearance. I'll have to ask the friend to give me a reference of this study. I think it raises some interesting points about racism & bias in the job market...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

When my girlfriend visited a native Indian reservation in the US, it challenged her perception of the US, declaring itself as the land of the free ... only to find itself confronted with the problem of hypocrisy, when dealing with domestic issues, such as the Native Americans.

Cultural divisions, between those herded into reservations and left in state dependency and high rates of alcoholism; Latin speaking Americans, and encapsulated pockets of Americans (like the Pietdietsch minorities), don't transmit across the airways as obviously as skin tone differences perhaps.

The treatment of the Native Americans (Indians) is of course a shameful part of the history of the US. However, I believe you have grossly misrepresented the Indian Reservations of today. The Reservations were established years as land reserved for the Native American populations. At the time, a great majority of the native American were indeed herded onto this land. Today the reservations are managed by the Native American tribes and are even afforded a degree of sovereignty within the nation as a whole. This has allowed some tribes to become quite wealthy through the operation of gambling casinos in states where gambling is otherwise illegal. There is no law or institutional enforcement that prohibits the Native Americans from leaving the reservations and living elsewhere, and indeed, a majority of the Native American population in the US lives off the reservations. A good deal of the land set aside as Indian Reservations is less-than-ideal and many of those living on the reservations are living in poverty. Of course the same can be said of those living in the poor urban neighborhoods in big US cities, or in any number of isolated rural areas such as Appalachia. In all of these communities, a great many of the population do not wish to leave because this would entail leaving "their people"... turning their back upon their culture and heritage. many within each of these communities are suspicious... resentful... even dismissive of the one thing that might help them to succeed: education. What other alternative do we have other than throwing untold billions of dollars that we don't have to rectify the poverty which is the heart of the problem?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Sid James said:


> Here in Australia, successive governments have also done a lot to improve race relations and decrease disadvantage among minority groups. But government policy can change quickly for the better, but public attitudes take longer. I think former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's apology to the stolen generations - Aboriginals who were taken from their parents for being partly white, eg. that derogatory term "half-castes" - was a step in the right direction. It was symbolic, but it was needed, it couldn't be swept underneath the carpet any longer. A decade before the apology, there was "debate" about whether they could be called a generation, semantic bullsh*t like that, totally derailing the issue. Conservative historians can sit in their ivory towers far away from the lives that were ruined by these misguided policies. & not to forget that there were many white people who were treated the same bad way in foster homes back then, and I believe that there was a later apology to them as well by the churches, who ran most of these homes.


I agree with your arguments. The state of Aboriginal affairs in this country will never be solved just from giving Aboriginals continued special privileges and funds. I am rather sick of seeing money and opportunities continually wasted on attempts to solve this social problem, where parts of the Aboriginal community remain unseen equivalent to third world nations, right here, hidden away.

I also think a lot of it, more than any other factors, need to come from the Aboriginal communities themselves, to want to integrate into society and make an effort on their part to want to succeed. There is really only so much legislation, special privileges and money can do.


----------



## Sid James

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> ...I also think a lot of it, more than any other factors, need to come from the Aboriginal communities themselves, to want to integrate into society and make an effort on their part to want to succeed...


Well this kind of self-determination process has been happening to a degree, esp. in Queensland. Aboriginal lawyer *Noel Pearson *canvassed some of these problems, issues & the histories behind them in his The Light on the Hill speech over ten years ago now. Yes, some of the statistics are appalling, eg. Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders make up only 2 per cent of our population overall, but they make up 30 per cent of our prisoner population. On the positive side, things like making certain Aboriginal communities alcohol free zones, as determined by Aboriginal local leaders themselves, have been examples of moving forward. Howard's intervention into the Northern Territory is controversial because it was imposed in the old top-down way, with little or no consultation (of course, the abuses happening there was an emergency, so quick action was required). This is a complex area, but some progress has been made in Aboriginal affairs, it's just that these things will not be solved overnight.

Mr Pearson incidentally said some things in that speech about the polarities of class, which apply to both white Australians and Aboriginal Australians -



> ...Classes are treated as political constituencies and labelled with evocative and provocative terms such as "the battlers" and "the mainstream" and "the forgotten people" and "the elites". The theory of the dynamics and operation of class society, as explained in the analysis of the early international labour movement, has been largely discarded. It does not inform policy....


In other words, dealing with these issues the political system has to get rid of the old ideological divides & cliches and actually engage the grassroots in practical solutions. Basically, cutting the bullsh*t & delivering things with consultation, or at least some degree of it, not just the old dogmatic top-down approach that has lead absolutely nowhere in the past. The old ways of thinking about Aboriginal affairs or just race relations here in general are now slowly changing towards a more consultative and democratic approach, which I think is good & is giving promising results...


----------



## Almaviva

@ the OP, your interpretation that blacks working at the museum while whites visit it is proof of racism is strange to say the least. Don't mix social class with race. In my place of work there are poor white people who work as janitors, and rich black people who work in managerial positions. Historically blacks have been poorer than whites but this is not in itself proof of racism.

This said, of course racism in the United States is rampant, but at least it is socially frowned upon (with the PC mentality) and there have been initiatives to equalize things a bit (like the equal opportunity and affirmative action measures). It is also notable that our president is black. Currently I think it is very unlikely that a Turkish German will become prime minister in Germany or a French Arab with ancestors from the Maghreb will become the president of France or a black Italian with ancestors in Somalia will become Italy's prime minister. So in a sense racism here is both worse (given our past of slavery) and better than in Europe.

About blacks in positions of power, they are a minority in such positions to a smaller degree than their chunk of the population, but in certain places like Atlanta you do find a prosperous black business community.


----------



## Sid James

To our American members, to what extent are things like "positive discrimination" or "affirmative action" done in the USA today? I know that Republicans have traditionally been against this, Democrats more for it. I have heard that universities have a quota of students that have to be African American. Is this correct? What about other practical ways you guys know that are being used to include minorities in say getting a bigger/better slice of the pie - eg. in terms of education, employment opportunity, etc. Indeed, Polednice's example of staff in the museum being black might be a form of these types of policies. In Australia, there are certain positions that can only be taken by Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Australians, esp. in terms of government jobs...


----------



## Almaviva

Sid James said:


> To our American members, to what extent are things like "positive discrimination" or "affirmative action" done in the USA today? I know that Republicans have traditionally been against this, Democrats more for it. I have heard that universities have a quota of students that have to be African American. Is this correct? What about other practical ways you guys know that are being used to include minorities in say getting a bigger/better slice of the pie - eg. in terms of education, employment opportunity, etc. Indeed, Polednice's example of staff in the museum being black might be a form of these types of policies. In Australia, there are certain positions that can only be taken by Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Australians, esp. in terms of government jobs...


American universities are allowed to consider race as a _factor _in selecting the students they'll invite to enroll, but are not allowed to establish quotas or higher number of points in measurements. Basically what they're allowed to do is, all things being equal in grades, etc., a minority student may be invited to enroll rather than his/her exact white counterpart. Affirmative action and equal opportunity laws in the work place also don't provide quotas, but rather, encourage minorities to apply and prohibit discrimination (which still happens).


----------



## graaf

I remembered this thread when I saw this:
http://uk.video.yahoo.com/theonion-...less-overt-season-1-ep-3-on-ifc-26591670.html


----------



## kv466

Sid James said:


> To our American members, to what extent are things like "positive discrimination" or "affirmative action" done in the USA today? I know that Republicans have traditionally been against this, Democrats more for it. I have heard that universities have a quota of students that have to be African American. Is this correct? What about other practical ways you guys know that are being used to include minorities in say getting a bigger/better slice of the pie - eg. in terms of education, employment opportunity, etc. Indeed, Polednice's example of staff in the museum being black might be a form of these types of policies. In Australia, there are certain positions that can only be taken by Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Australians, esp. in terms of government jobs...


Let me tell you, Sid...while I know the reasoning behind it was simple, it bothered me tremendously that the last time I had to hire someone and knew exactly who I wanted because this person was the best qualified. I could not hire him. This person did not speak spanish and it was a prerequisite that they did. I am of hispanic heritage and speak and write in spanish without flaw. Still, I have never approved of this type of 'selection'. Maybe the next time the employee would have to know Creole as well; in that case, I wouldn't even be able to hire myself!


----------



## Ukko

graaf said:


> I remembered this thread when I saw this:
> http://uk.video.yahoo.com/theonion-...less-overt-season-1-ep-3-on-ifc-26591670.html


Whatever the video means to you, the reality is that racism cannot be banned, bigotry cannot be excised, from the minds of people. Tito's experiment probably makes that obvious to you, _Graaf_, and the Reconstruction experiment in the US should make it obvious to everyone.


----------



## Almaviva

graaf said:


> I remembered this thread when I saw this:
> http://uk.video.yahoo.com/theonion-...less-overt-season-1-ep-3-on-ifc-26591670.html


I surely hope that you understand that The Onion is a satirical website that posts fake footage for humoristic purposes, right?
Just saying, one never knows.


----------



## schigolch

kv466 said:


> While I've never truly experienced it outright, it's there...I mean, maybe I feel as if I haven't felt it because I'm not easily offended and don't even think along those terms...still, it bothers me when (usually an older) a white American with blond hair and blue eyes guy needs to speak with me as happened the other day with AT&T service...they've never met me but decide to speak to me in spanish(!!)...this really bothers me and I do think it's racist...I mean, I know the guy has probably dealt with thousands of latinos and he'd rather just get 'er done instead of dealing with a language barrier but at least give me the chance...what bothers even more is that I have always taken the English language very seriously and have always been a great fan of literature and writing in general...what bothers is that this person who is practically talking down to me saying "poor favour...nesayseeto soo banyo" instead of talking and seeing what I do in response; well, chances are their writing and vocabulary skills are probably far below any level I was ever even at in high school. Then again, now that is I being prejudiced.


Reading this makes me wonder...

See, I'm a blond and blue-eyed guy. When in the States, usually New York, I've done this many times. Of course, my spanish is far better than your "poor favour" example, but I'm wondering now if at least some people that I've addressed like that during all those years have been feeling patronized... My God, I hope they didn't, but for sure I will think twice next time before doing this.


----------



## Ukko

kv466 said:


> While I've never truly experienced it outright, it's there...I mean, maybe I feel as if I haven't felt it because I'm not easily offended and don't even think along those terms...still, it bothers me when (usually an older) a white American with blond hair and blue eyes guy needs to speak with me as happened the other day with AT&T service...they've never met me but decide to speak to me in spanish(!!)...this really bothers me and I do think it's racist...I mean, I know the guy has probably dealt with thousands of latinos and he'd rather just get 'er done instead of dealing with a language barrier but at least give me the chance...what bothers even more is that I have always taken the English language very seriously and have always been a great fan of literature and writing in general...what bothers is that this person who is practically talking down to me saying "poor favour...nesayseeto soo banyo" instead of talking and seeing what I do in response; well, chances are their writing and vocabulary skills are probably far below any level I was ever even at in high school. Then again, now that is I being prejudiced.


Poor fávor, eh? The guy didn't have much of a shot at conversation if you didn't have English, did he? I've been in that fix in Mexico and Puerto Rico and Spain. After my slightly better attempt, if the guy didn't have English he would hold up a hand, say 'uno momento', and call for help. In Germany all I had to say was 'guten morgen', and the addressee would usually respond in English.

I can only tell you that in Vermont, from a native, you would not hear 'poor fávor', no matter how Latino your appearance. If you didn't have English it would be a matter of gestures, strange facial expressions, and scratching lines in the dirt.

[I think I appreciate your annoyance,_ Kv466_, but assuming insult may be a stretch.]


----------



## kv466

You're right...it is more of an annoyance but just one that recurs often.


----------



## graaf

Almaviva said:


> I surely hope that you understand that The Onion is a satirical website that posts fake footage for humoristic purposes, right?


You mean, bulls**t is NOT the most important issue in election year? 


Almaviva said:


> Just saying, one never knows.


Especially if one is named Almaviva! :devil:



Hilltroll72 said:


> Whatever the video means to you, the reality is that racism cannot be banned, bigotry cannot be excised, from the minds of people. Tito's experiment probably makes that obvious to you, _Graaf_, and the Reconstruction experiment in the US should make it obvious to everyone.


I didn't know it will hurt that much, I thought it will make some people laugh. Yes, Tito's experiment was one of many failed experiments, just like Mao's Great Leap Forward, Cromwellian republic and French "Paris Commune". I think that what EU is doing right now is another adventurous experiment, I'm afraid it might end as bad as others, but then again, Europe didn't have large scale war since WW2 - maybe this is the price? 

I guess I owe you guys a Serbian joke at Serbian expense:

Serbian kid talks with American kid.
Serbian kid: You Americans are so stupid - and you also don't have any history!
American kid: Maybe, but you Serbs are so stupid that soon enough you're not gonna have any geography!


----------



## Almaviva

graaf said:


> You mean, bulls**t is NOT the most important issue in election year?
> 
> Especially if one is named Almaviva! :devil:
> 
> I didn't know it will hurt that much, I thought it will make some people laugh. Yes, Tito's experiment was one of many failed experiments, just like Mao's Great Leap Forward, Cromwellian republic and French "Paris Commune". I think that what EU is doing right now is another adventurous experiment, I'm afraid it might end as bad as others, but then again, Europe didn't have large scale war since WW2 - maybe this is the price?
> 
> I guess I owe you guys a Serbian joke at Serbian expense:
> 
> Serbian kid talks with American kid.
> Serbian kid: You Americans are so stupid - and you also don't have any history!
> American kid: Maybe, but you Serbs are so stupid that soon enough you're not gonna have any geography!


Seriously, mate, sometimes I encounter people who take The Onion seriously.
You're well informed and all, but like I said, one never knows. It happens, trust me. I've seen it.
Nice joke, by the way.

If I haven't made it clear before, here you have it, for clarification purposes: I must say that I like you, graaf. Sometimes you have an anti-American stance that rubs me the wrong way but so do 90% of all the people on this planet (I do think that one day they'll look back and think that the American hegemony stretch wasn't that bad after all), and you do temper it with some insightful observations.
So, I wouldn't expect *you* to be fooled by The Onion, but like I said, it happens. Sorry, no offense intended.


----------



## Almaviva

schigolch said:


> Reading this makes me wonder...
> 
> See, I'm a blond and blue-eyed guy. When in the States, usually New York, I've done this many times. Of course, my spanish is far better than your "poor favour" example, but I'm wondering now if at least some people that I've addressed like that during all those years have been feeling patronized... My God, I hope they didn't, but for sure I will think twice next time before doing this.


Schigolch, but why is it patronizing? For one thing, Spanish is one of the official languages of the City of New York. Second, why is it patronizing when someone makes an effort to address a person in his/her mother tongue? It can as well be a sign of respect. I believe that *thinking* that it is patronizing would make sense if one thought that the Spanish culture is somehow inferior to the Anglo culture, which in my book it isn't, and I bet, it isn't in yours either, with much better reason.

Maybe one should rather feel proud of the ability of some Anglo or Nordic-looking person to make an effort and speak Spanish.

@kv466, I think you should rather feel proud of your heritage. Miami is an interesting place, since it sits on the border of the Anglo and the Hispanic cultures. It is more lively than many Anglo-only cities in North America.

When someone tries to talk to you in Spanish, why don't you try and appreciate the person's effort, instead of feeling that the person is putting down your culture?


----------



## Ukko

graaf said:


> [...]
> I didn't know it will hurt that much, I thought it will make some people laugh. Yes, Tito's experiment was one of many failed experiments, just like Mao's Great Leap Forward, Cromwellian republic and French "Paris Commune". I think that what EU is doing right now is another adventurous experiment, I'm afraid it might end as bad as others, but then again, Europe didn't have large scale war since WW2 - maybe this is the price?
> 
> I guess I owe you guys a Serbian joke at Serbian expense:


You don't owe me a Serbian joke (unless there's a better one than that  ).

Regarding experiments, I am discouraged about the health of my country's experiment in representative democracy; I think it's in very bad shape, maybe beyond saving. Way more young people need to care; need to get to 'whippersnapping'.

Sorry about the Doom & Gloom. Comes with being old and tired.


----------



## schigolch

Almaviva said:


> Schigolch, but why is it patronizing? For one thing, Spanish is one of the official languages of the City of New York. Second, why is it patronizing when someone makes an effort to address a person in his/her mother tongue? It can as well be a sign of respect. I believe that *thinking* that it is patronizing would make sense if one thought that the Spanish culture is somehow inferior to the Anglo culture, which in my book it isn't, and I bet, it isn't in yours either, with much better reason.
> 
> Maybe one should rather feel proud of the ability of some Anglo or Nordic-looking person to make an effort and speak Spanish.


No, I think kv466 has a point here.

See, if I find in New York (or any other city in America) a blond, blue-eyed person like me, I always address him first in English. However, if I find a "latino" looking person, I use Spanish.

To me, this was just a kind of automatic rule, of course there is no racism involved at all, and even less of a feeling of cultural superiority (Spanish is my own culture), but I understand now thinking about this:

1.- I was doing something based on appearance (and I have been wrong sometimes, as the person was not even latino, or couldn't talk Spanish!).

2.- For people like kv466, my behaviour could seem patronizing, and I don't want this to happen.


----------



## superhorn

Racism is a universal phenomenon, just as prejudice in general is. No country or group of people has a monopoly on it. For example, the Chinese can be highly racist. 
In China's far west province Xinjiang, the native people, the Muslim Uygur Turks , are being horribly treated by Beijing. 
The Uygurs are one of the Central Asian Turkic peoples, closely relates to the Uzbeks, Turkmen, Kazakhs and Kyrgyz., and the people of Turkey. They are Turks, not Chinese, and call their vast desert land East Turkestan, which was taken over by China in the 1950s.
Beijing has moved a large number of Han Chinese to Xinjiang, and is trying to suppress Uygur culture and the Turkish language there. Chinese are given preference for job opportunities and protests are brutally repressed. Many Uygurs have been imprisoned,tortured and executed. The Chinese hate the Uygurs for their Caucasian features(some are more Mongolian looking), their Muslim faith and foreign culture.
Many Uygurs have escaped to the Central Asian republics, Turkey ,Europe and elsewhere. Several f the prisoners in Guantanamo were Uygurs who were trying to escape from China and were mistaken for Muslim terrorists, despite the fact that the Uygurs are peaceful moderate Muslims and pro American. They detest Muslim fanatics. Beijing's brutal treatment of these ethnic Turks is blatantly racist. 
About one thousand years ago, Turks from this area began to overrun what is now Turkey and Iran and brought the Turkish language to this region.


----------



## sabrina

I think people may be quite racist at an individual level. They not necessarily express it. Most manage to dissimulate their real feelings. President Obama is neither black, nor white! He won the presidency because his mother was white. It is a great, wonderful step though. It was the time to realize skin color does not mean anything.
In Europe things are different, as some states are national, secular but changing gradually. GB is quite different. 
But people are notoriously angry not necessarily against race, but also religion/politics.


----------



## Almaviva

sabrina said:


> President Obama is neither black, nor white! He won the presidency because his mother was white.


 He won the presidency because his mother was white?
I think he won the presidency because people were sick and tired of the Bush administration, and Obama's opponents were an out-of-touch old man who said that the fundamentals of our economy were solid with a VP candidate that didn't have any intellectual weight.
I think the skin color of Obama's mother didn't play any role on his election whatsoever.
Anyway, I should remain on topic.
I do agree that PC speech in America has dissimulated, not eliminated racism.


----------



## Ukko

Almaviva said:


> He won the presidency because his mother was white?
> I think he won the presidency because people were sick and tired of the Bush administration, and Obama's opponents were an out-of-touch old man who said that the fundamentals of our economy were solid with a VP candidate that didn't have any intellectual weight.
> I think the skin color of Obama's mother didn't play any role on his election whatsoever.
> Anyway, I should remain on topic.
> I do agree that PC speech in America has dissimulated, not eliminated racism.


I think Obama won because his opponent didn't have solid plutocratic support. (.)


----------



## Lenfer

I think he won for three reasons.

1. There will have been some people who voted for him becuase he was black but so what?

2. The Republicans had been in power for 8 years and made a right mess of America's image and it's finances.

3. No sane person would have voted for McCain only to have him die in office and give that idiot women the keys to the red button!


----------



## Almaviva

The bottom line is, he won thanks to a combination of factors - some that I quoted, some that Hilltroll quoted, some that L'Enfer quoted, maybe others.
His mother's skin color definitely wasn't one of them, in my opinion.


----------



## sabrina

I agree his mother colour was of little importance, but I still think it could have been a factor among people not entirely sure. I like to think the anti Bush sentiment was important, because from outside, Bush was catastrophic for America. I really wonder how did he get the second mandate.


----------



## graaf

sabrina said:


> I really wonder how did he get the second mandate.


Terror scare. The moment his ratings go down, there's a new tape by Osama bin Laden, and his ratings are soaring.


----------



## samurai

No, he got the second "mandate" just as he got his first "win" over Al Gore; he and his cronies stole Ohio with the aid of their rigged Diebold vote counting machines. The first time Bush and his allies shamboozled Florida and then staged a mini-riot to terrorize the people assigned to do the "recount", so in effect there was never a complete recount done. The second time, against John Kerry, they were able to siphon enough votes from Kerry in Ohio to ensure that "W" won, *IMHO*, of course.


----------



## Sid James

In terms of what member* superhorn *has said regarding the Uygur people of China - where there's a majority there'll always be a minority (or several of them, of these minority groups). It's human nature for the majority to have the upper hand and their hands on the reigns of power. However, in terms of good government ("good" for example in the long term, for future generations, for maintaing a stable civil society, etc.), it's necessary to have some level of input from minority groups &/or their representatives.

Here in Australia, at least we have a number of Aboriginal members of parliament & also Aboriginal people working in government in different ways/positions. Aboriginal people will never have as much power or money than the white majority here, but their voice is heard & this (one hopes) will prevent the injustices done towards them in the past, as well as maybe improve their lives now (which is a complex issue, but positive things are being done now, whereas in the past it was all just shoved under the carpet)...


----------



## Lenfer

Thought I would add to this as I thought of this when I was in the bath. (all my good ideas stem from there)

I was thinking if anyone thought "A black guy? No way oh wait his Mother was white you say? Alright then..."

They would have to be racist are not just normal racist but pillow covers on heads racist and they have gone for the white chap who's mother I can't say for sure but most likely was also white.

At the end of the day he won and theres no going back in time if there was I'd have gone back in time and stopped *Jeb Bush* "loosing" *Al Gore's* votes in *Florida*.

I'd also go back in time to see some classical music "live" of course and maybe buy loads of gold...


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Lenfer said:


> 3. No sane person would have voted for McCain only to have him die in office and give that idiot women the keys to the red button!


It's called accelerationism. Vote for the crazies who think they can talk to Jesus, watch everything blow up, and start from scratch.

Yeah, not the most viable philosophy.


----------



## Ukko

Lenfer said:


> Thought I would add to this as I thought of this when I was in the bath. (all my good ideas stem from there)
> 
> I was thinking if anyone thought "A black guy? No way oh wait his Mother was white you say? Alright then..."
> 
> They would have to be racist are not just normal racist but pillow covers on heads racist and they have gone for the white chap who's mother I can't say for sure but most likely was also white.
> [...]


You obviously have no idea of what constitutes 'black', everywhere in the 'white' world that I know of. One half black is the same as all black.

Historically, the official Cuban recipe was applied unofficially elsewhere. 1/8th black equaled black; 1/16th black equaled white.

:tiphat:


----------



## Taneyev

You guys sound very much as the Nuremberg laws.


----------



## Ukko

Odnoposoff said:


> You guys sound very much as the Nuremberg laws.


Note that both the Cuban 'plan' and the Nazi 'plan' are no longer functioning; that's what I meant by 'historically'. But it's true that the fractional blackness and the fractional Jewishness values are similar, if not identical.

My paternal grandfather used to say that his grandmother on his father's side was an Indian princess. One of my nieces' research confirmed that this was not the case; no princesses anywhere. Even if that Indian 'princess' had been real, she would be too far back for me to claim Indianness - damn it. I could start a casino.


----------



## Sid James

I think the issues about the ethnicity of Pres. Obama brings up what a murky thing "race" is. I think that ethnicity or "race" is one part of the big picture of what a person is, or how he defines himself. There are other related things like culture, religion, milieu that contribute to our identity. Boiling things down to just "race" is too simplistic & it can lead to things like the uglier side of racism, eg. segregation, apartheid, (& at worst) genocide. Someone said there's only one race & that's the human race. I think I agree with that in many ways...


----------



## Lenfer

Hilltroll72 said:


> You obviously have no idea of what constitutes 'black', everywhere in the 'white' world that I know of. One half black is the same as all black.
> 
> Historically, the official Cuban recipe was applied unofficially elsewhere. 1/8th black equaled black; 1/16th black equaled white.
> 
> :tiphat:


Um a little confused but I trying to be scarcastic. If someone was not going to vote for him becuase he was black but then changed their mind as he found out his mother was white then they are obviously racist and they wouldn't vote for him as he was black. No matter what colour his Mother was.

That's the point I was trying to make. I don't know a grreat deal about "black" people or "white" people to me they are just people.


----------



## Ukko

Lenfer said:


> Um a little confused but I trying to be scarcastic. If someone was not going to vote for him becuase he was black but then changed their mind as he found out his mother was white then they are obviously racist and they wouldn't vote for him as he was black. No matter what colour his Mother was.
> 
> That's the point I was trying to make. I don't know a grreat deal about "black" people or "white" people to me they are just people.




You are ignoring an important factor - Obama had an opponent; well, the VP candidate was so _distinctive_ that Obama had two opponents. If the voter had antipathy for 'blackness' and antipathy for the opposition in close balance, the white mom could be enough to tip the scale. Voters can be motivated by the _strangest things_.

:devil:


----------



## CountessAdele

I can't really speak for my whole nation, I've only ever been in the south, and I definatly can't speak for Europe. I can tell you about my home town and my experiances though. I live in a small rual city in Alabama. This city used to, and I stress the USED, be a "sundown town".

I remember one day my granny telling me about when she first saw a black man, I couldn't believe she'd never seen a black man till she was in her teens, anyway she gave me a lecture that day about how she wouldn't want me or any of us grandkids to marry someone of a different race. Her reasoning was that while she knew we were smart and would pick a nice person, it would be our mixed children who would suffer for it being picked on and what not. I kept quiet, it doesn't do any good to argue with granny, but the whole time I was thinking 'Not today' 'Not anymore' 'Maybe that's how it was then...' etc. 

That very uncomfertable talk had me curious as to what my parents and brothers thought so when I got home we all talked about it. My dad seemed to have no problem, he said as long as we chose a good person their skin color didn't matter. My mom on the other hand was more hesitant, she agreed with my dad but I could tell she wasn't being totally straight with us, and after I told them Granny's reasoning she said she sort of agreed with it. Dad again had no problem. Later away from our parents my brothers and I talked about it and all agreed that we didn't care and wouldn't care if one of us fell in love with someone of a different race. We were also all surprised at our mom.

Anyway the point I'm trying to make is that with time things change, when Granny was a little girl she'd never seen a black man, but I've grown up seeing them in movies, on tv, and everyday in life. I'm used to interacting with other races and seeing other races portayed positively in todays culture, and Obamas election is the first election I was old enough to care about so it doesn't seem that strange to me. So for me and for future generations, at least from my point of view, things will only get better. 

But having said that as things change people might get bored and come up with something else to be prejudiced about.


----------



## Ukko

I'm sorry to have to tell you, _Countess_, that the hypothetical 'mixed' children you and your black husband make will be disadvantaged. We haven't got all the way there yet, and the last mile will be the slowest.

Mrs. Obama is a highly intelligent woman, who is knowledgeable on the subject; you could write her a letter of inquiry.


----------



## CountessAdele

I'm aware that we aren't _there_ yet and I agree we do have a ways to go, my point is things _are_, and continue to improve, slowly but surely. It's a matter of time, at least from my point of view. Again I want to stress that everything I've said has been my own thoughts and feelings on the matter I'm not trying to speak for anyone else or make assumptions about how other people are treated. :tiphat:


----------

