Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Looking at the experience of black Britons through an American lens

persuasion.community

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 394 posts

Re: Looking at the experience of black Britons through an American lens

#311

Post by sergiotapia »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #253
justinclift wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean it sometimes is Trying to think of an example of it being a problem, but am drawing a blank. Any ideas?

A common example would be profiting from cultural developments or ideas from cultures that had been historically looked down upon or disadvantaged by your own, particularly when doing so in a disrespectful manner. For example – a white European artist designing fabrics and prints with traditionally African patterns, without acknowledging the contribution or involving members of that community, would sit uneasily with…

lol, are you african? Why are you getting offended on behalf of people? Laughable!

I'm Bolivian, when I see someone selling clothing with indigena designs I love it because it reminds me of home.

Re: Looking at the experience of black Britons through an American lens

#312

Post by luckylion »

taylodl wrote: post #273
luckylion wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The melting pot metaphor was replaced by a salad bowl, wasn't it? Assimilation (which is the melting pot) is now considered a crime against humanity and the whole "separate but equal" is the new hotness.

It was, and that's not altogether bad. A melting pot implies homogeneity and the loss of one's identity and history. A salad bowl is a pleasant mixing of everything, with each component still retaining its identity - a carrot is still a carrot, a radish is still a radish, and so forth. The irony is if I want to celebrate the zest of a radish then I'm told I'm being insensitive and appropriating the radish culture. As…

The problem with salad is that there are people who don't care much for some ingredients and won't touch them. There's no such issue with strained soup: you either take it or leave it, there's no picking and choosing, the differences between the ingredients literally melt away (well, or they get chopped up!).

Re: Looking at the experience of black Britons through an American lens

#313

Post by nathias »

nobody9999 wrote: post #227
nathias wrote: post #7

I never even heard of anyone being as racist as americans are when trying not to be.

>I never even heard of anyone being as racist as americans are when trying not to be. As I'm an American, feel free to reject my comment out of hand. That said, yes there's plenty of racism in the US. Sure, it's fun to sneer at Americans and feel superior. Knock yourself out. However, you seem ignorant of reality and of history. In many cases the issue isn't that most Americans are actively thinking about how inferio…

Thank you for giving a nice example. You people assume so much and know so little ...

Re: Looking at the experience of black Britons through an American lens

#314

Post by lucideer »

StavrosK wrote: post #293
lucideer wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have citations for this? My own experience of the term's usage is to simply imply that racism is part of a system's inherent structural definition, rather than being purely reliant on individual/group biases. In particular in Europe, one very simplistic example of this is the systemic intolerance of nomadic peoples. This is not limited to individuals discriminating against nomadic people, but rather that legis…

Sure: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0415952786 https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565 > My own experience of the term's usage is to simply imply that racism is part of a system's inherent structural definition, rather than being purely reliant on individual/group biases. By that definition, all racism is systemic racism, since the system is made up of people.

I haven't read any of Feagin's research, but from reading that article's commentary on Feagin's research, it outlines a highly US-centric approach to defining systemic racism, which would imply that systemic racism, by definition, cannot exist outside of the US.

I don't know enough in the field to know if Feagin's definition is a popular one worldwide, or even within the US, but it seems somewhat reductive on first reading.

If systemic racism cannot occur outside of the US, what then should we refer to racism that is "systemic" as?

> By that definition, all racism is systemic racism, since the system is made up of people.

Technically, I would agree, but going that far seems somewhat pedantic.

Re: Looking at the experience of black Britons through an American lens

#315

Post by aebtebeten »

mothsonasloth wrote: post #76

I used to think Britain and the USA had a dominant but equal share in exporting culture since the 50s. We had the Beatles, they had Elvis. We had Jaguars, they had Mustangs. (this is deliberately simplified example) However the internet has made everything smaller and the dominant force in tech is in the USA. Sure there are spikes in influence of Asian and other cultures (Gangam K-pop etc.) but most of it gets churne…

> communism isn't cool btw

These communists might beg to differ: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPeLF-qi6X0&t=11

(but tbh they're nominally communists in a country with billionaires, hedge funds, and retail investors, while the nominally capitalist US is a surveillance state doing its utmost to pursue industrial policy with public means, so I'm not sure how one is supposed to be able to tell the difference anymore. That's part of why I've decided, for my own idiolect, to use Eastasia and Oceania, respectively.)

Edit: I guess they'd say 牛逼 instead of cool. Maybe 酷?

Re: Looking at the experience of black Britons through an American lens

#316

Post by varispeed »

jsiepkes wrote: post #73
varispeed wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read that Poland has quite draconian drug laws. Such laws are what institutionalised racism is based on in the US - it comes from the premise that people from disadvantaged background will be more likely to be involved in drugs than other groups - this is of course not true, as person living on handouts is just as likely to take drugs as a rich person working in banking sector. It's what law enforcement is being fo…

No one is saying all these countries are without their own problems. What's being said is that their problems are different then the ones in the US. And these problems need to be discussed and addressed in a narrative and setting that suites the country and cultural they are applicable to. Not by applying some US template. Also...Poland has draconian drug laws, draconian drug laws in the US led to institutionalised r…

I am just saying to Poland is likely oppressing groups of people, just not based on race. They use the same tools, however.

Re: Looking at the experience of black Britons through an American lens

#317

Post by varispeed »

snakeboy wrote: post #87
varispeed wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read that Poland has quite draconian drug laws. Such laws are what institutionalised racism is based on in the US - it comes from the premise that people from disadvantaged background will be more likely to be involved in drugs than other groups - this is of course not true, as person living on handouts is just as likely to take drugs as a rich person working in banking sector. It's what law enforcement is being fo…

I imagine the statistics are hard to get accurately (a rich person who never gets arrested isn't going to be counted as a drug user unless the study is done via survey), but is it really true that a poor person is just as likely to take drugs as a rich person? Intuitively it doesn't seem quite right, and it's hard to be rich if you are addicted to something truly destructive.

Using drugs is natural for intelligent beings. It is similar like saying only poor people listen to music. Everyone does it, but the propaganda is focused on people who governments deem undesirable.

Re: Looking at the experience of black Britons through an American lens

#318

Post by 082349872349872 »

finnthehuman wrote: post #309
taylodl wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was, and that's not altogether bad. A melting pot implies homogeneity and the loss of one's identity and history. A salad bowl is a pleasant mixing of everything, with each component still retaining its identity - a carrot is still a carrot, a radish is still a radish, and so forth. The irony is if I want to celebrate the zest of a radish then I'm told I'm being insensitive and appropriating the radish culture. As…

>A melting pot implies homogeneity and the loss of one's identity and history. That's the contemporary narrative, yes. In another light it's just saying "E pluribus unum." Before it became uncouth to express a spirit of national unity or civic pride, the melting pot was a way of expressing that who we are is defined by our coming together to participate in the great project we call our nation. And as part of that, we…

E pluribus unum is a bit reminiscent of the fascis. I'm currently searching for a word for the rods, all trimmed to the same length à la Procrustes, that constituted fasces, and will report back here if I manage to find it.

(a different motto, unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno, not only mentions the relation of the parts to the whole, but also that of whole to its parts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24661326 )

Edit: so far I've learned only that the axe was the securis and that holders of high office would have their servants put the fascis on the ground, instead of holding them aloft, when they wished to emphasise they were on the people's side of an issue. Still no word for the individual rods, however.

Re: Looking at the experience of black Britons through an American lens

#319

Post by doctor_eval »

waheoo wrote: post #297
doctor_eval wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not pushing a view on racism, I’m saying that the OP’s statements are clearly racist. I just applied the dictionary definition of the term. I never said that racism was white/black, but I was writing specifically in the context of European racism against Aboriginals in Australia, which happens to be fairly black and white. I’m happy to discuss racism in other countries, but that wasn’t the topic at hand. Of cours…

As someone who does experience racism on the regular I don't have quite the same level of trouble discerning racism from biggotry. One is extremely diminishing and the other is a pretty easy to write off as ignorance, differing upbringing, and a general intolerance of difference. If you need me to spell out a clear cut example of racism it's a few comments earlier where you assumed I was white and discounted my views…

I'm sorry that you experience racism regularly. It's unacceptable. If I've said something that you consider racist then I sincerely apologise.

You are right that I thought you were white. It is because you said, "don't start calling all white people racist for being nothing but white". I apologise for the assumption.

You did, however, call me a moron, which doesn't really strike me as arguing in good faith.

You also said this:

> The aboriginal people of Australia face real problems. The police isn't one of them.

If you live in Australia and you don't think that cops are, at least until relatively recently, a huge part of the problem with Aboriginal welfare, then maybe you missed the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody [0]. I was in high school when that stuff went down, I remember how many people were being killed, and the fact stands that Aboriginal people are 10x more likely to die in prison than Europeans.

"The key finding of the royal commission was that Aboriginal people are more likely to die in custody because they are arrested and jailed at disproportionate rates. That remains as true in 2020 as it was in 1991." [1]

> For what it's worth, "statistically, aboriginal people commit more crime. Studies have shown that this is because of chronic health and economic issues which have never been adequately addressed by any Australian government" Was pretty much the gist of what I was getting

But that's not what you actually said.

> I thought that was pretty obvious given the context and adding the context doesn't really make my statement any more or less factual.

Mate, there was very little context in what you wrote. If I took you the wrong way then I apologise, but maybe you can accept your part in this too. Maybe you didn't express yourself as well as you might have. That's cool, but how you express yourself is not my responsibility.

> if you took my remarks on good faith it wouldn't have been a problem. But that is the problem

You called me a moron!!

> with this American narrative

...and you assumed I'm American? Or that I don't have my own reasoned narrative? That's not really good faith now is it?

> everyone is too busy trying to win, nobody is trying to look at facts for what they are and find the common ground therein.

When you say that "Aboriginal people just commit more crime", that's not a fact, it's a tautology; of course they commit more crime, they are generally poorer and sicker, because of how they've been treated. I'm pretty sure that poor white people commit more crime too. Aboriginality has nothing to do with criminality; and just because a statement is true, through some twisted logic, doesn't mean it can't also be racist.

That doesn't mean that I think you are a racist; I have no idea. But I do think what you said is.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_into_Aborigin...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jun/11/death...

edit: add quote

Re: Looking at the experience of black Britons through an American lens

#320

Post by StavrosK »

lucideer wrote: post #314
StavrosK wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0415952786 https://www.thoughtco.com/systemic-racism-3026565 > My own experience of the term's usage is to simply imply that racism is part of a system's inherent structural definition, rather than being purely reliant on individual/group biases. By that definition, all racism is systemic racism, since the system is made up of people.

I haven't read any of Feagin's research, but from reading that article's commentary on Feagin's research, it outlines a highly US-centric approach to defining systemic racism, which would imply that systemic racism, by definition, cannot exist outside of the US. I don't know enough in the field to know if Feagin's definition is a popular one worldwide, or even within the US, but it seems somewhat reductive on first r…

Well, Feagin defined systemic racism, as a concept it's US-specific.

> If systemic racism cannot occur outside of the US, what then should we refer to racism that is "systemic" as?

I don't know, I sincerely don't understand your definition. How can a country be comprised of racist people but have a system that isn't, or vice versa?

Post reply on HN