Bradley Effect

[Sbane]

I think phil has a point here. Europe is much more xenophobic than America. There is a complicated racial problem here for sure but we are much more accepting of immigrants of every stripe. If we were to exclude the deep south, I would say America is much less racist and xenophobic than Europe.

[HardRCafé]

Off topic - They aren't African Americans if they're from Africa and living in Germany. That's the problem with the hyper PC crowd.

Maybe off topic, but also the best point out of the whole thread.

[minionofmidas]

I'm saying it isn't as big of a deal because they aren't as much of a minority and the seven Scottish Prime Ministers are proof that people don't care as much about Scots rising through the ranks.

That's, basically, what I am saying. People don't care. Not any more. Not for a long time. People in England, that is (Scots are quite a different matter, as viz. the SNP successes). The differences are ancient history - and there is a long history of racial violence and resentment there - just as, after such a long time, being Black in the US "should" be. That it isn't is a historical exception that YOU - White Americans, that is, not Keystone Phil. Darn the loss of the second person singular in English - need to explain. For it is quite the massive exception (though not entirely without partial parallels elsewhere. I can think of a few. Still, you need to be looking for a group a) too small to "take over", but too large to be ignored and sidelined without special effort - 3% to 25%, say - b) ignored and sidelined for centuries, c) despite a tradition of general popular participation in the body politic, and d) without even the outlet of  "crossing the line" and be assimilated as individuals instead of as a group. Tall order.)

And you probably need to have been raised within its parameters to NOT be shocked and outraged a little whenever it rears its ugly head again, and to think there's anything normal about it. That doesn't mean you need to share all the racist assumptions under the sun to do so.
And of course, that latter paragraph applies to other unappealing peculiarities in other countries of the world as well. Including here.

[Sbane]

If all countries, I would say, despite significant protests and her ultimate rejection of the post, that India's election of Sonia Gandhi was most impressive, considering that not only is she Italian, born in Italy, grew up in Italy, did not acquire Indian citizenship until age 37, and is a Roman Catholic. Of course, she was elected as leader of the Congress party and not on an individual ticket.

And then those despicable fools at the BJP threatened to go on a hunger strike if she became PM.  Doesn't matter that she has done more to help the poor than the BJP ever will. Oh well at least we got Manmohan singh.

[opebo]

Humanity? No. Americans? Certainly.

As Richard Nixon once put it, enumerating classes of Americans he considered too dumb to vote: "Whites, Blacks, Mexicans, and the rest."

I think that comment pretty much applies everywhere.

Not really - many other countries are reasonably well governed, have 'labour' or moderately other moderately center-left parties, etc.  The american voter really is much more self-destructively gullible and dumb than any others I can think of.

[Хahar 🤔]

Humanity? No. Americans? Certainly.

As Richard Nixon once put it, enumerating classes of Americans he considered too dumb to vote: "Whites, Blacks, Mexicans, and the rest."

I think that comment pretty much applies everywhere.

Not really - many other countries are reasonably well governed, have 'labour' or moderately other moderately center-left parties, etc.  The american voter really is much more self-destructively gullible and dumb than any others I can think of.

It's because of the frontier mentaily, of blind indivisualism. Most other countries haven't had that.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The Saxony example is rather poor, especially since the counter-example of Deval Patrick (and before him Douglas Wilder) exist. Paterson too but he arguably doesn't count.

I'll agree with Phil about the Scottish PM thing too. Don't know much about Kashubians though they are still white, frankly that might be more of a parallel to some really stereotypically Italian guy being elected President than a black.

[??????????]

I think phil has a point here. Europe is much more xenophobic than America. There is a complicated racial problem here for sure but we are much more accepting of immigrants of every stripe. If we were to exclude the deep south, I would say America is much less racist and xenophobic than Europe.

Yes the deep south is so racist :



So actually, if you exclude the south America is a more "hateful" nation, overall. Of course, I don't necessarily believe in the idea of a "hate crime" but for the sake of this thread I will accept it as a reality. If you want to keep slamming the South please come up with some facts first.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That map is misleading since it deals with raw numbers, not per capita rates. I also suspect it underreports in some states, only one racially motivated crime in Alabama in 2006? LOL. I'd also laugh at the thought of only one black on white racially motivated crime in Alabama.

[??????????]

That map is misleading since it deals with raw numbers, not per capita rates. I also suspect it underreports in some states, only one racially motivated crime in Alabama in 2006? LOL. I'd also laugh at the thought of only one black on white racially motivated crime in Alabama.

The South has been more tolerant overall as compared to North eastern states. The worst period in southern history was between 1865 - 1965 and a lot of the racism that developed during reconstruction was due to yankee influence on southern state governments.

[Хahar 🤔]

That has a lot more to do with the way things are reported than anything else.

[Keystone Phil]

That map is misleading since it deals with raw numbers, not per capita rates. I also suspect it underreports in some states, only one racially motivated crime in Alabama in 2006? LOL. I'd also laugh at the thought of only one black on white racially motivated crime in Alabama.

The South has been more tolerant overall as compared to North eastern states.

Agreed

[opebo]

That map is misleading since it deals with raw numbers, not per capita rates. I also suspect it underreports in some states, only one racially motivated crime in Alabama in 2006? LOL. I'd also laugh at the thought of only one black on white racially motivated crime in Alabama.

The South has been more tolerant overall as compared to North eastern states.

Agreed

This is irrelevant as the entire country is profoundly racist.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Obviously there are no racists in the Northeastern metropolitan areas.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Then why hasn't a black served as Prime Minister in the U.K., for example?

Outside the dock districts of a handful of ports (Bristol, Cardiff, Liverpool etc), Britain did have a black population of much note until the 1940's and they weren't more than a tiny, tiny, tiny minority until the late 1950's or so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Blacks make up around about 2% of the population here. This compares with about 12% in the U.S.

[Sbane]

Obviously there are no racists in the Northeastern metropolitan areas.

You think income might have something to do with that? The northeast has its share of racists that is not to be doubted.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Saxony example is rather poor, especially since the counter-example of Deval Patrick (and before him Douglas Wilder) exist. Paterson too but he arguably doesn't count.

Saxony was an independent country (more or less, most of the time) until the middle of the 19th century and is more culturally (and etc) distinct from the German norm (not that there really is such a thing is there... um... let's say average... er...) than Massachusetts is from the American norm. And Blacks form a much higher % of the population of Virginia than the U.S as a whole.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, but I think that's part of the point here. 19th century ideas of "race" have no real currency outside the United States.

[minionofmidas]

These were just the examples I came up within the first 15 seconds of thinking, anyhow.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You think income might have something to do with that?

In part, maybe (though that hardly answers things and sets off a whole new set of questions). But the truth is that suburbs like those on Long Island were built with the purpose of residential segregation in mind. And, ever since, plenty of people (estate agents, for instance) have done all they can to make sure that things stay the way that they are.

[minionofmidas]

Yeah, the idea that American race problems are a purely Southern phenomenon is pretty much 100% absurd.

Although the idea that the South is far more tolerant than the rest of the country is I think right up there with it...

[Keystone Phil]

Then why hasn't a black served as Prime Minister in the U.K., for example?

Outside the dock districts of a handful of ports (Bristol, Cardiff, Liverpool etc), Britain did have a black population of much note until the 1940's and they weren't more than a tiny, tiny, tiny minority until the late 1950's or so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Blacks make up around about 2% of the population here. This compares with about 12% in the U.S.

Yeah, I checked up on that. I always thought it was more.

Your first statement is confusing though. You say that there was a black population "of much note" in the 1940s and then you go on to say that it was very small in the 1950s.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I always thought it was more.

People tend to, even here. For instance, Tottenham (working class, ethnically kaleidoscopic (though that almost goes without saying in London these days, frankly*) district in north London) is often thought of as being a "black area". The parliamentary constituency is about 28% black and the figure in Tottenham itself is, IIRC, lower.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah... what I meant is that before the '40's we're talking a few thousand sailors and their families, in the late '40's and early '50's a couple of tens of thousand or so. Often without their families. They came over when anti-immigrant hysteria lead to a tightening of restrictions, leading to a campaign to "beat the ban".

*That is the link in London between "working class" and "ethnically kaleidoscopic".

[Sbane]

You think income might have something to do with that?

In part, maybe (though that hardly answers things and sets off a whole new set of questions).

Here in California it is indeed by income that segregation happens. Lower income areas like Oakland and Richmond are heavily black and hispanic with the whites and Asians living mostly in the hills above them. There are also lower income asians but they tend to go to SF and poorer areas around San Jose. But that is not to say that the rich areas of the bay area have no hispanics or blacks. Some places like Dublin have a lot of blacks but there is a qualification test, income. Livermore, the city next to us, will not allow the BART to be extended there because they would have to allow the building of apartments and they are just not ok with that. Is it because they fear blacks and hispanics? The answer is that they fear low income people of every stripe, and they are disproportionately black and hispanic.

[Хahar 🤔]

You think income might have something to do with that?

In part, maybe (though that hardly answers things and sets off a whole new set of questions).

Here in California it is indeed by income that segregation happens. Lower income areas like Oakland and Richmond are heavily black and hispanic with the whites and Asians living mostly in the hills above them. There are also lower income asians but they tend to go to SF and poorer areas around San Jose. But that is not to say that the rich areas of the bay area have no hispanics or blacks. Some places like Dublin have a lot of blacks but there is a qualification test, income. Livermore, the city next to us, will not allow the BART to be extended there because they would have to allow the building of apartments and they are just not ok with that. Is it because they fear blacks and hispanics? The answer is that they fear low income people of every stripe, and they are disproportionately black and hispanic.

What passes for racism here is usually class warfare, yes.

[minionofmidas]

I always thought it was more.

People tend to, even here.

People tend to underestimate how much 2% is. People just are generally excruciatingly bad at estimating percentages when they don't see the universe (in the maths sense) all in one place at one time.

Walk down the street. Count the people you see. 2% is one in fifty. That's not a fringe group. 5% - our parliamentary threshold over here - is one in twenty. That's a giant group - far too large for anybody in their right minds to defend their exclusion from representation, when you really think about it.