|
On June 13 2007 08:12 HappyFeetO_O wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2007 07:23 boghat wrote:On June 13 2007 07:04 HappyFeetO_O wrote: My answer to this question is...duh?
Of course there is still segregation. I don't even have anything to say on the subject, really. People will always alienate certain people, and I bet it's almost impossible to find someone who isn't racist, even subconsciously, against a group of people. For example, I don't like Indians. There's no reason for it, and I get along with them fine. But everytime I meet a new Indian person, I begin slightly hostile for no apparent reason. I don't act on what I feel whatsoever, but I'm aware of this strange thing. Just because you are a racist doesn't mean everyone is. Thanks for the purposely inflammatory one-liner with no real substance. I said I doubt you can find someone who does not subconsciously hold some sort of bias. I'm not sure what in my post makes you think I'm so unreasonable as to assume everyone is the same as me. I chose to use myself as an example as it if familiar. Get off my dick, 99% of the posts of yours I've seen have been you trying to pick arguments. You said:
On June 13 2007 07:04 HappyFeetO_O wrote: I bet it's almost impossible to find someone who isn't racist, even subconsciously, against a group of people. That is implying almost everyone is a racist, which would include me. I don't like being labeled a racist because I am not, not even subconsciously. You're lucky I'm not Indian or I would be on your dick a lot harder.
I don't try to pick arguments, but I do point out and correct stupidity when I see it. People don't like to admit when they say something stupid so an argument usually ensues. My main objective is to eliminate stupidity however. Obviously one of the reasons you seem to think everyone is racist is because you are racist yourself so I was simply pointing out that just because you happen to be a racist doesn't mean everyone is like you. And you don't have to take it so personally because you said yourself you were a racist in the first place.
|
On June 13 2007 08:00 Sean.G wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2007 07:47 Hawk wrote:On June 13 2007 07:33 Sean.G wrote:On June 13 2007 07:22 snowbird wrote: segregation
The policy and practice of imposing the separation of races. In the United States, the policy of segregation denied African-Americans their civil rights and provided inferior facilities and services for them, most noticeably in public schools.
- this is the segration the school book talks about, the word 'segregation' is being used as a specific historical term, with a certain definition and thus should not be mixed up with general segregation. and in that sense, segregation has ended.
Yes, I guess it might be a question of definition. Nevertheless, if the book means that there no longer is any official segregation, then it should say so, and perhaps even define the word segregation according to how the author(s) of the book is/are using it. Don't you agree? I think the word you're looking for is racism, not segregation. Given all the rights groups, it's pretty hard to segregate anything. I am not looking for any word. I know for sure that racism exists today all over the world including in America. What I am wanting your opinion on is whether or not you believe this racism is wide-spread enough to create segregation throughout the whole country even though it officially has ended. At least that's what I think I'm asking! What you're talking about is social limitations that might be placed on minorities, for instance making them unable to get jobs as good as I can get, preventing them from living in my (white) neighborhood and going to a better school. I obviously dont know what it's like to be a minority, but im sure situations like this exist. However, I dont think its as big of a hurdle as you try to make it, even where I live in the south which is infamously racist (people dont even try to hide it here). A lot of the middle class areas around my city are made up of a large percentage of Indians, Chinese, etc, that have only been established here for a few generations or less.
It's true that the low-class areas are predominantly black, but I dont think the reason for this is so much inherent racism as it is classism, where these families have been caught in a vicious cycle of poverty. This poverty could stem from racism in the past, but the truth is that there is oppurtunity now for them to break out of it, it would just take a lot of work.
|
This is an interesting discussion. Obviously America has taken major steps towards leveling the playing field so to speak, but there still exists some racism/inequality within the country.
To be fair, you are talking about a relatively young country still, and even though America was founded on the the premise of allowing all races, creeds, religions, a safe place to live and worship, there was still OFFICIAL racism/segregation as recent as 50 years ago. Hell, America didn't abolish slavery until the mid 1800's so that means it was LEGAL to own people in this country less than 200 years ago.
Thinking about that from a historical perspective, 200 years is only a small blip on a timeline. In other words, America as a country is not far removed from being officially racist. It is going to take more than 200 years to completely remove that kind of thinking from the concsiousness of the country.
In my opinion, America has taken huge strides towards becoming completely non-racist. The problem is with expectation; people expected that once these anit-racist policies were put into place that everyone would suddenly not be racist. That is just too much to ask. I feel like in another 50 years we will see marked improvement as far as social equality amongst races.
Sorry if some of that sounded like rambling. There is just so too much to cover on a topic this huge for one message board post to hold - I could talk about people of different races being racist by nature, the blending of race lines through breeding, economic inequalities playing a part, etc. but it would just take too much time.
Nice topic though - quite intellectually stimulating.
|
De-facto segregation is not necessarily the same as racism, as this assumes that races have no inherent characteristics which will naturally create social groups. Looking at early American immigration, there was segregation not only between races but nationalities, and as late as 1900 a marriage between a Polish-American and Irish-American would still be considered a mixed-marriage. Now, racial social mobility occurs in America (and Canada) with such naturalness that Americans are inclined to believe that exceptions to this rule are accidents of history. After all, today an Irish-American, German-American, Ukrainian-American and Jewish-American are equally WASP and a good number of second or third generation Oriental or Hispanic immigrants are assimilated to a greater extent than would be possible anywhere else in the world. It's probably too much to read into the racial segregation. In their social relations, Americans are fairly pragmatic, and even most "racists" would not mind the society of a black or hispanic person who has the manners and habits of the greater "melting pot" The fact that most do not is a matter more complicated than one-sided social rejection.
|
On June 13 2007 08:18 Sean.G wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2007 08:08 HeadBangaa wrote:Wiki: Segregation may be de jure (Latin, meaning "by law")—mandated by law—or de facto (also Latin, meaning "in fact"); de facto segregation may exist even illegally. De facto segregation may be maintained by means ranging from in hiring and in the rental and sale of housing to certain races to vigilante violence such as lynchings; a situation that arises when members of different races mutually prefer to associate and do business with members of their own race would usually be described as separation or de facto separation of the races rather than segregation. ... In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the right of U.S. states and localities to mandate racial segregation. In 1913, President Woodrow Wilson ordered the segregation of the federal Civil Service. In 1948, President Harry S. Truman ordered the desegregation of the U.S. military; in 1954 the Court, in Brown v. Board of Education, largely reversed Plessy; over the next twenty years, a succession of further court decisions and federal laws, including the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and measure to end mortgage discrimination in 1975, would completely invalidate de jure racial segregation and discrimination in the U.S., although de facto segregation and discrimination have proven more resilient. Sean.G, you are confusing 'de facto segregation', conventionally known as 'racism', with 'de jure segregation', conventionally known as 'segregation'. Clear? So basically there are "two types" of segregation, and the segregation my book is referring to is the "de jure segregation". right? The de jure segregation doesn't exist any more, but the "de facto segregation" does. Thus, there still IS segregation in the US (or call it "separation of the races" or whatever). The question then is: is it caused by racism or not?
De facto segragation doesn't occur only in the US. It occurs all over the world. I think the right question for you to ask is: does it occur in the US more than most other countries? And I say no.
|
On June 13 2007 08:06 tKd_ wrote: yes there's segregation but without discrimination. asians like to hang out with asians, indians with indians, white people with white people. this is not always true or we'd be fucked but you definitely see it everywhere
indians = asians. -_- the assumption that asian immediately means a chinese, korean, or japanese person that some of you have is myopic, and perhaps racist in itself. you guys probably mean no offence, as these 3 races make up the bulk of ethnic-asian citizens in the states, but i'm sure the thai, vietnamese, filipino, indian, etc etc people wouldn't be amused.
|
On June 13 2007 08:44 dementus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2007 08:06 tKd_ wrote: yes there's segregation but without discrimination. asians like to hang out with asians, indians with indians, white people with white people. this is not always true or we'd be fucked but you definitely see it everywhere indians = asians. -_- the assumption that asian immediately means a chinese, korean, or japanese person that some of you have is racist in itself. you guys probably mean no offence, as these 3 races make up the bulk of ethnic-asian citizens in the states, but i'm sure the thai, vietnamese, filipino, indian, etc etc people wouldn't be amused.
when people say "Indian" they usually mean "native American", not "Indian" as in a person from India.
|
ahh, my apologies for the rant then. i thought native americans were called just that. however, i still believe that this asian = japanese, korean, or chinese equation holds true for a few people out there. i personally don't find it offensive, but being told "errr dude i thought you were asian, you're not!" by some guys when i visited my cousin in connecticut was weird..
|
Braavos36362 Posts
there's plenty of institutional segregation caused by racism in US society today
for example a lot of times black families are not sold houses in predominantly white neighborhoods, or denied loans or other ways to break into said neighborhoods. or they face subtle or aggressive racism when moving into those areas and thus don't go there. it happens.
that's just one example, i'm sure there are many others, especially with regards to the education system, that can be described better by someone more knowledgeable than me on the subject.
yes people tend to hang out with others of their own race, but that's not really where segregation exists. it exists in jobs, schools, communities, etc, not in your friend group. it's just not technically legal or as prevalent, but even today it's still there though.
sean.G, dementus is right. in america, "indian" means a person from india. 99.9% of the time it's used it means someone from india. there are so few native americans and everyone knows they are called native americans, except in like old west movies or when saying "indian reservation" or "indian casino".
|
Someone mentioned same race fuck themselves, actually I thought previously that racial mixture is a criterion for the lack of racism in society, but then saw some bbc article about racism in Brasil.
While we're at it does anyone have experience with (come from) a country where racial mixture is common and willingness to share thoughts about this?
|
Sorry to kind of switch topics, but there is a show called "College Hill" that takes some black people from Cali and some black people from the Virgin Islands and put them into a house to live together. Throughout the entire season there is segregation in the house and for a 2-month span it is like a battle between two rival gangs struggling to get their rightful share of Capri suns and waffles (actually a serious statement lol).
It is interesting that even in African communities there is a lot of segregation just between themselves, maybe even more so then we know about. If you get a chance to watch the show, and can get past the annoying banter, it is actually quite interesting to see how these two different types of people of the same race segregate, argue and even fight in almost every episode.
To the OP, there is still segregation everywhere in the world, not just the US. People always seem to identify with people that are most like them. Perfect example is when you are in high school, all you have to do is walk into a cafeteria and you will see different continents of tables eating lunch. While segregation by law is in fact illegal, forcing people to associate with others is also wrong.
edit: TO HOTBID: I think that the term "indian" actually varies depending on where you are from. I can tell you that from living in a "mountain state" that the term "indian" actually is used more for a "native american". I can see how it would be used differently to you because you are from New York right? But I think people from the MidWest, or even West would disagree with you for the most part.
|
On June 13 2007 08:58 Hot_Bid wrote: sean.G, dementus is right. in america, "indian" means a person from india. 99.9% of the time it's used it means someone from india. there are so few native americans and everyone knows they are called native americans, except in like old west movies or when saying "indian reservation" or "indian casino".
Then I apologize. I have clearly misunderstood.
I myself always say "native American" when referring to native Americans, and I have always become irritated when people say "Indian" when they usually mean native American. I'm glad that's not the case in your country. Here in Europe I think people tend to call native Americans "Indians" a little too often..
|
On June 13 2007 08:44 dementus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2007 08:06 tKd_ wrote: yes there's segregation but without discrimination. asians like to hang out with asians, indians with indians, white people with white people. this is not always true or we'd be fucked but you definitely see it everywhere indians = asians. -_- the assumption that asian immediately means a chinese, korean, or japanese person that some of you have is myopic, and perhaps racist in itself. you guys probably mean no offence, as these 3 races make up the bulk of ethnic-asian citizens in the states, but i'm sure the thai, vietnamese, filipino, indian, etc etc people wouldn't be amused. Saying indians = asians is geographically correct but not necessarily racially correct. India is a subcontinent and is racially different from the East Asian countries. I don't see how further subdividing Indians from other Asians is racist because it is racially warranted. Also you could further subdivide Asia into East Asia (China, Japan, Korea), Southeast Asia (Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia), South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh), and Southwest Asia (Middle Eastern countries). All regions have distinct racial groups.
I don't think thinking of East Asia when thinking of Asia or Asians is necessarily racist. They have the biggest population and the most "Asian" physical characteristics. People from the different regions of Asia need different racial labels because they are racially different so labeling East Asian peoples as "Asian" isn't that big of a deal. It's mostly all words and not much to do with actual racism. Having your race labeled Asian instead of Indian or Southeast Asian or Middle Eastern shouldn't be something to fight over even if all these places and races are technically on the continent of Asia.
Also I was going to mention this but Hot Bid did it for me first:
On June 13 2007 08:58 Hot_Bid wrote: sean.G, dementus is right. in america, "indian" means a person from india. 99.9% of the time it's used it means someone from india. there are so few native americans and everyone knows they are called native americans, except in like old west movies or when saying "indian reservation" or "indian casino".
|
On June 13 2007 09:05 kidd wrote: While segregation by law is in fact illegal, forcing people to associate with others is also wrong.
Absolutely a good point. I'd be interested in hearing more examples of segregation caused by racism like e.g. Hot_Bid spoke about. I find it quite interesting to hear about these things. And of course, the US is naturally not the only country where this happens. I just chose to limit the discussion to the US because it is what my book is talking about.
|
legally there is no segregation.
there will ALWAYS be some sort of racism. we ARE human beings.
|
On June 13 2007 09:00 0z wrote: Someone mentioned same race fuck themselves, actually I thought previously that racial mixture is a criterion for the lack of racism in society, but then saw some bbc article about racism in Brasil.
While we're at it does anyone have experience with (come from) a country where racial mixture is common and willingness to share thoughts about this?
well i'm from singapore, which has a history of being a port of call when it was occupied by the british. immigrants from china, india, arabia, and europe settled down here joining with the indigenous ethnic malays. as such, we have a multi-cultural society. i wouldn't go as far as to say we are 100% racially integrated, and we're no la-la land, but cases of racism are isolated, and nowhere common as they used to be. racial riots in the mid 20th century were widespread, but i think relations between the races have reached a certain level of understanding, and tolerance.
mixed race couples marriages are becoming more and more common; i myself came from an indian father and a peranakan (chinese malaysian) mother. english is taught as a first language, so racial integration is eased. i grew up playing, and schooling with eurasian, malay, indian and chinese kids, and i have picked up a bit of the languages along the way. since singapore practices conscription, i served 2 years in the army, bunking and going on exercises and missions with fellow men of a myriad of economic, racial, and social backgrounds. an interesting thing i observed was that 2 extremely racist chinese and malay dudes in my platoon ironically became the best of pals after our term ended. as such, i have confidence that conscription does lend its hand to social stability in singapore.
obviously there are some lingering hints of suspicion of other races, but in the past 5 years the only kind of racism i've encountered is the playful, bantery type with my friends. we're not perfect, but i think an acceptable level of coexistence, which may one day lead to true cohesion has been attained here.
dear god, i sound like i'm writing for my government.
|
On June 13 2007 09:07 boghat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2007 08:44 dementus wrote:On June 13 2007 08:06 tKd_ wrote: yes there's segregation but without discrimination. asians like to hang out with asians, indians with indians, white people with white people. this is not always true or we'd be fucked but you definitely see it everywhere indians = asians. -_- the assumption that asian immediately means a chinese, korean, or japanese person that some of you have is myopic, and perhaps racist in itself. you guys probably mean no offence, as these 3 races make up the bulk of ethnic-asian citizens in the states, but i'm sure the thai, vietnamese, filipino, indian, etc etc people wouldn't be amused. Saying indians = asians is geographically correct but not necessarily racially correct. India is a subcontinent and is racially different from the East Asian countries. I don't see how further subdividing Indians from other Asians is racist because it is racially warranted. Also you could further subdivide Asia into East Asia (China, Japan, Korea), Southeast Asia (Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia), South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh), and Southwest Asia (Middle Eastern countries). All regions have distinct racial groups. I don't think thinking of East Asia when thinking of Asia or Asians is necessarily racist. They have the biggest population and the most "Asian" physical characteristics. People from the different regions of Asia need different racial labels because they are racially different so labeling East Asian peoples as "Asian" isn't that big of a deal. It's mostly all words and not much to do with actual racism. Having your race labeled Asian instead of Indian or Southeast Asian or Middle Eastern shouldn't be something to fight over even if all these places and races are technically on the continent of Asia. Also I was going to mention this but Hot Bid did it for me first: Show nested quote +On June 13 2007 08:58 Hot_Bid wrote: sean.G, dementus is right. in america, "indian" means a person from india. 99.9% of the time it's used it means someone from india. there are so few native americans and everyone knows they are called native americans, except in like old west movies or when saying "indian reservation" or "indian casino".
ah, it seems i wasn't clear and made a mistake. i meant to say indians are also asians. it'd be stupid if i, someone living in southeast asia, went "ZOMG guyz, indians are the only azns lawl"
|
On June 13 2007 08:58 Hot_Bid wrote: there's plenty of institutional segregation caused by racism in US society today
for example a lot of times black families are not sold houses in predominantly white neighborhoods, or denied loans or other ways to break into said neighborhoods. or they face subtle or aggressive racism when moving into those areas and thus don't go there. it happens.
that's just one example, i'm sure there are many others, especially with regards to the education system, that can be described better by someone more knowledgeable than me on the subject.
What's that called when you dont sell to blacks? i coudlnt find the right term.
That still goes on today (i think there were claims of it over in New Orleans) but its a lot less prevelent. I know up until the 80s it was common in the tri state area. Not so much now, its more southern states, your traditional confederate states.
but I dont get the education segregation. Are you talking about colleges, because there's no way in hell that blacks or minorities are segregated from colleges. They get every single benefit imaginable.
|
|
On June 13 2007 09:29 gameguard wrote: segregation =/= racism
We already know that, but nevertheless, a lot of segregation is caused by racism.
That's where the two terms connect.
|
|
|
|