Are people in the US racist?

oggy420 wrote:

i get my news from the real news network online. Non-profit journalism is where the truth is. And there are way too many people who still accept what they see on tv news channels. I mean when these channels spend millions of dollars on PR campaigns to brainwash you that what you're watching is "fair and balanced" it's easy to see why so many people are uneducated about politics and the economy.

It's weird because i sort of remember you calling yourself someone who considers themselves to be somewhere between a libertarian socialist and an anarchist (which makes it weird that you would blast Chomsky). But what i continue to read from you seems to be the exact opposite. The same pro-capitalist by any means necessary as long as the status quo is untouched mentality that pretty much made us the single most hated country and civilization in the world. And any time i bring up any type of suggestion for change for the better or social improvements i get blasted for having utopian ideas and am told that people who like to change things for the better are the worst thing ever created and are responsible for everything bad in the history of the world.

I am only asking for what we are told this is. I want a truly representative government. Representing the masses. Not just the elite like we have now. I want honesty and integrity brought back in to politics. I want the government to consider what the people want before they consider what big business and corporations want. I want a fair money system that isn't designed to create instant debt. I want central banks expose for being the corrupt warmongering institutions that they are. I want our country to stop invading other countries and raping them of their natural resources without giving a penny to the people of that nation. I want a true open door policy, not the facade of one. I want the United States to focus on the problems at home instead of focusing on expanding their global empire.

I am not asking for a perfect world as you suggest. A perfect world to me would have no religion or government or monetary system at all. That is not what i am calling for. I am asking the people in in control of our lives to be responsible and to stop recklessly running this country into the ground. Fixing the current system would take a lot of work and isn't gonna happen without some major change or incident occurring.

It's amazing. I show you data that demonstrates that what you say in the bold is untrue and yet you just serenly maintain your claim without feeling any need to provide data to support it.

The US the most hated nation in the world? Huh. You need to go look at immigration data. People vote with their feet. Guess where they try to come more than anywhere else?

http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/charts/5.1.shtml

WTF is a "libertarian socialist?" I believe in individual freedom (with only the most necessary limitations) above everything else. Socialism is immoral.

You want to see what Chomsky-ist beliefs ultimately leads to? Well he supported the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. I mean they only killed what 2 million peasants?

“If a serious study… is someday undertaken, it may well be discovered… that the Khmer Rouge programmes elicited a positive response… because they dealt with fundamental problems rooted in the feudal past and exacerbated by the imperial system.… Such a study, however, has yet to be undertaken.”

Your rant in your middle and paragraph is standard Chomsky-ist claptrap. A series of "wants" without any concern for unintended consequences, no concernt hat you might actually make things worse, with no recognition of the contradictions and with no outline of an approach to get there or even any willingness to question if it is possible.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Quote :

I am only asking for what we are told this is. I want a truly representative government. Representing the masses. Not just the elite like we have now.

No you don't.

Geeze ain't THAT the truth.

well im speaking on personal experiences. Not some random poll of a small percent of the population. There were barely over 1,000 people polled for that survey.

Libertarian Socialist - Libertarian Socialism recognizes that the concept of "property" (specifically, the means of production, factories, land used for profit, rented space) is theft and that in a truly libertarian society, the individual would be free of exploitation caused by the concentration of all means of wealth-making into the hands of an elite minority of capitalists.

here is a link for you too check out now - http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libsoc.html

and while Chomsky has made mistakes with his comments and now recognizes the brutality of the Khmer Rouge regime , let's not act like the capitalist system hasn't committed countless atrocities against humanity. I don't think you need me to give you examples.

And while he was wrong about the Khmer Rouge regime, he was right about some things...

"Any detailed examination of Chomksy's comments on Cambodia should begin with his comments in the wake of Lon Nol and Sirik Matak's 1970 coup, which overthrew Prince Norodom Sihanouk, and brought to power a staunchly pro-American regime. In Cambodia, prior to the coup, the war in neighboring Vietnam had been held largely in check. Fighting was limited mainly to the border areas, where large numbers of Vietnamese communists had set up sanctuaries inside Cambodian territory. After the coup, Sihanouk promptly allied himself with the rebels, and in June, 1970, Chomsky wrote a long article in the New York Review of Books, outlining the dire consequences of American involvement in Cambodia. Despite some misleading remarks, it is, on the balance, a very astute analysis. Chomsky accurately predicted the repercussions of Sihanouk's alliance with the rebels:

"Speculating a year ago about the prospects of the Cambodian rebels for success, Michael Leifer wrote that these prospects 'will depend (discounting external factors) not only on the exploitation of genuine grievances but also on an ability to identify with the nationalist cause for which Prince Sihanouk has been the most ardent and passionate advocate. This would seem unlikely.' Before March 18, this was a reasonable assessment. Now, however, Sihanouk, the 'most ardent and passionate advocate' of the national cause, the person whom one American expert described as being 'a significant expression of the Cambodian people's will,' has identified himself with the rebels. It is doubtful that the right-wing Lon Nol government, with its narrow urban base, can counter this popular force or win it over."(3)

His remarks on the U.S. invasion, too, were fairly accurate:

"It is a virtual certainty that great victories will be claimed in the Cambodian invasion, and that the military will release reports of arms caches and rice destroyed, military bases demolished, and much killing of 'North Vietnamese,' i.e., people who find themselves in the way of an American tank or in an area bombed or strafed. So many reputations and careers are at stake that glorious victories are guaranteed.

"Furthermore, some of these reports may even be correct. On probabilistic grounds alone, one would expect that American military intelligence can't always be wrong about everything. The headquarters of the Vietnamese resistance forces and the bases that they use for R-and-R must be somewhere, and they may well be found and destroyed during the American-Saigon sweep. Whether the invading troops will withdraw remains to be seen. That the countryside will be devastated and its population removed or destroyed is reasonably certain. Very probably, if these territories are abandoned by the invading forces, some, at least, will be joined to the area on the South Vietnamese side of the border as an extended free fire zone."(4)

Chomsky's article underscores an important point: With the coup, the delicate balance that had kept Cambodia out of a wider war collapsed. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces poured across the border, and the Vietnamese communists suddenly retreated deeper into Cambodia, mauling Lon Nol's forces along the way. War soon enveloped the entire country. These events confirmed Chomsky's 1970 predictions."


And while you write off all of my ideas as utopian and say that i don't think about the consequences you fail to tell me exactly how what i want is wrong and what the consequences are. I mean from what i've gotten form our brief exchanges is basically that : any idea for social improvement is wrong. That we should leave things the way they are and that things aren't as bad as they seem. Well im sorry that my conscious won't let me accept that weak line of thinking. I see myself as a political and human rights activist in the making. Right now im in the learning mode. I can admit that there is still much i don't know, but i am on a quest to learn as much as possible. But i can recognize what is right and what is wrong. Capitalism and the Global Market used as an excuse to overthrow governments and steal natural resources and privatize economies is wrong. Central banks having a monopoly on the monetary system is wrong and so is the interest they charge us when they loan us the money. The gap of wealth growing between the small group of elite capitalist and the working class is wrong and no one will convince me that it is right.

oggy420 wrote:

well im speaking on personal experiences. Not some random poll of a small percent of the population. There were barely over 1,000 people polled for that survey.

Libertarian Socialist - Libertarian Socialism recognizes that the concept of "property" (specifically, the means of production, factories, land used for profit, rented space) is theft and that in a truly libertarian society, the individual would be free of exploitation caused by the concentration of all means of wealth-making into the hands of an elite minority of capitalists.

here is a link for you too check out now - http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libsoc.html

and while Chomsky has made mistakes with his comments and now recognizes the brutality of the Khmer Rouge regime , let's not act like the capitalist system hasn't committed countless atrocities against humanity. I don't think you need me to give you examples.

And while he was wrong about the Khmer Rouge regime, he was right about some things...

"Any detailed examination of Chomksy's comments on Cambodia should begin with his comments in the wake of Lon Nol and Sirik Matak's 1970 coup, which overthrew Prince Norodom Sihanouk, and brought to power a staunchly pro-American regime. In Cambodia, prior to the coup, the war in neighboring Vietnam had been held largely in check. Fighting was limited mainly to the border areas, where large numbers of Vietnamese communists had set up sanctuaries inside Cambodian territory. After the coup, Sihanouk promptly allied himself with the rebels, and in June, 1970, Chomsky wrote a long article in the New York Review of Books, outlining the dire consequences of American involvement in Cambodia. Despite some misleading remarks, it is, on the balance, a very astute analysis. Chomsky accurately predicted the repercussions of Sihanouk's alliance with the rebels:

"Speculating a year ago about the prospects of the Cambodian rebels for success, Michael Leifer wrote that these prospects 'will depend (discounting external factors) not only on the exploitation of genuine grievances but also on an ability to identify with the nationalist cause for which Prince Sihanouk has been the most ardent and passionate advocate. This would seem unlikely.' Before March 18, this was a reasonable assessment. Now, however, Sihanouk, the 'most ardent and passionate advocate' of the national cause, the person whom one American expert described as being 'a significant expression of the Cambodian people's will,' has identified himself with the rebels. It is doubtful that the right-wing Lon Nol government, with its narrow urban base, can counter this popular force or win it over."(3)

His remarks on the U.S. invasion, too, were fairly accurate:

"It is a virtual certainty that great victories will be claimed in the Cambodian invasion, and that the military will release reports of arms caches and rice destroyed, military bases demolished, and much killing of 'North Vietnamese,' i.e., people who find themselves in the way of an American tank or in an area bombed or strafed. So many reputations and careers are at stake that glorious victories are guaranteed.

"Furthermore, some of these reports may even be correct. On probabilistic grounds alone, one would expect that American military intelligence can't always be wrong about everything. The headquarters of the Vietnamese resistance forces and the bases that they use for R-and-R must be somewhere, and they may well be found and destroyed during the American-Saigon sweep. Whether the invading troops will withdraw remains to be seen. That the countryside will be devastated and its population removed or destroyed is reasonably certain. Very probably, if these territories are abandoned by the invading forces, some, at least, will be joined to the area on the South Vietnamese side of the border as an extended free fire zone."(4)

Chomsky's article underscores an important point: With the coup, the delicate balance that had kept Cambodia out of a wider war collapsed. U.S. and South Vietnamese forces poured across the border, and the Vietnamese communists suddenly retreated deeper into Cambodia, mauling Lon Nol's forces along the way. War soon enveloped the entire country. These events confirmed Chomsky's 1970 predictions."


And while you write off all of my ideas as utopian and say that i don't think about the consequences you fail to tell me exactly how what i want is wrong and what the consequences are. I mean from what i've gotten form our brief exchanges is basically that : any idea for social improvement is wrong. That we should leave things the way they are and that things aren't as bad as they seem. Well im sorry that my conscious won't let me accept that weak line of thinking. I see myself as a political and human rights activist in the making. Right now im in the learning mode. I can admit that there is still much i don't know, but i am on a quest to learn as much as possible. But i can recognize what is right and what is wrong. Capitalism and the Global Market used as an excuse to overthrow governments and steal natural resources and privatize economies is wrong. Central banks having a monopoly on the monetary system is wrong and so is the interest they charge us when they loan us the money. The gap of wealth growing between the small group of elite capitalist and the working class is wrong and no one will convince me that it is right.

1. Almost ALL polls are polls of around 1000 people. Please take a basic statistics course.
2. The inherent contradiction in that definition of libertarian socialist is just too damned funny.
3. The notion that you can in any way defend or try to deflect from Chomsky's moral failure reflects a clear inability or unwillingness to think critically on that issue.
4. "Look at what those guys did" is NEVER a justification or a valid argument. Two wrongs really cannot make a right.
5. I haven't TOLD you what is wrong or what the consequences are of thinking like yours can be. I have SHOWN you. The Soviet Union, Communist China, Hitler, Pol Pot, the Indian Civil War and I can go on and on. If 200,000,000 dead aren't enough? I don't what might be.
6. You continue to argue a false choice. The choices are not stagnation or the kind of sweeping changes you endorse. There is an intermediate postion that recognizes mankind's inherent limitations, has learned, or tried to, from his catastrophic failures at implementing sweeping change rapidly and therefore espouses small, incremental changes brought about by individuals acting freely so that if they are damaging, the damage is limited. If they are useful they will expand as they are found so.
7. I get that you are in learning mode. Good for you! So am I. Stay that way all your life. But the notion that "I can recognize what is right and wrong" flagrantly contradicts that. Being open minded means thinking "I am EXPLORING THE POSSIBILITIES" and my mind is NOT fixed.
8. "No one will convince me" is hardly the statement of an open minded person in learning mode.

I will repeat to you the best piece of intellectual advice I ever got. It was from a professor of mine at Swarthmore. Paraphrasing "You never learn anything from someone who agrees with you. If you want to learn? Spend almost all your time reading the thoughts of those you disagree with."

I've read 6-7 of Chomsky's books. The linguistics ones display a startling genius. I think. I'm not sure I always understood him.The idea that language pre-dates thought is staggering in its implications. The books he wrote outside of his expertise (Manufacturing Consent, American Power etc) are polemics at the end of the day. But I read him because I generally disagree with him along with guys like Fucoult and the Frankfurt School etc.

Have you read Hayek (Constitution of Liberty) or Friedman or Mill (On Liberty) or Sowell or Hume (on Human Nature)or Smith (especially Theory of Moral Sentiments)? If you haven't? Put them on your list. Best case? You learn things (always a positive). Worst case, you learn to hone your arguments (never a waste of time).

Thanks for your thoughts.

i really fail to see how my ideas of government fit that Hitler and communism. What i am asking for is a true democracy. Not communism or socialism, even though the term socialism is often misunderstood and linked to things that are not socialism at all.

Hmm. I can see your point. some things i said in the last post were contradictory. I'll take the advice. I dont think im presenting my ideas the way i really mean to. I know that sweeping change isn't going to happen and might have consequences that i can't quite grasp at this point. Dramatic change usually does. Basically i am just pointing out things that just seem or feel wrong to me. I still have much to learn though.

While i disagree with your idea of libertarian socialist contradicting it's self, i understand that you are thinking of those terms differently than i am.

anyway going out for the night. Good convo marble. To be continued...

oggy420 wrote:

i really fail to see how my ideas of government fit that Hitler and communism. What i am asking for is a true democracy. Not communism or socialism, even though the term socialism is often misunderstood and linked to things that are not socialism at all.

Hmm. I can see your point. some things i said in the last post were contradictory. I'll take the advice. I dont think im presenting my ideas the way i really mean to. I know that sweeping change isn't going to happen and might have consequences that i can't quite grasp at this point. Dramatic change usually does. Basically i am just pointing out things that just seem or feel wrong to me. I still have much to learn though.

While i disagree with your idea of libertarian socialist contradicting it's self, i understand that you are thinking of those terms differently than i am.

anyway going out for the night. Good convo marble. To be continued...

Let's narrow things down to just one issue. I seriously doubt you want a TRUE democracy. That is one man, one vote with EVERY issue put to a referendum with whatever the majority says goes.

In a TRUE democracy 51% of the people can vote to imprison/ banish/sterelize/ disfigure/take the property of/kill the other 49% legally.

That is also known as mob rule.

You certainly can't mean that.

Have fun tonight and be safe.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Quote :

I am only asking for what we are told this is. I want a truly representative government. Representing the masses. Not just the elite like we have now.

No you don't.

Quote :

In a TRUE democracy 51% of the people can vote to imprison/ banish/sterelize/ disfigure/take the property of/kill the other 49% legally.

I'll hop back in on this topic because I think it's important but I'll try to narrow down my focus and get back to the OP's question.

So let's start with what's racism in the US:

oggy420 wrote:

racism is a conditional learned behavior. Racism to me is when someone has negative feelings about someone based on RACE ALONE. For example if you take 2 people who have all of the same characteristics and behaviors and you accept one because he is a certain race and reject the other because they are a different race, that is racism to me.

This is what I call race prejudice, stereotyping, bigotry, etc. My experiences (educational, lived, observed) are that racism is larger than that. The key thing with racism is the concept of power. So racism is when those negative feelings have a meaningful impact on people's lives, and a system is in place where one race(s) is at an advantage or disadvantage. Here are a few examples:

An Irish kid enrolls into a traditionally all black college and receives poor grades because of his skin color, and doesn't graduate. (Irish students, and anyone who looks similar, won't likely be able to do well at that school).

A Filipino woman is denied a job as a waitress because the restaurants believe her people have dirty eating habits. (Filipinos, and anyone who looks similar, won't likely be able to work at that restaurant).

10 Korean students beat the bag out of one of their classmates every day because she's Japanese. Something similar to this happens every year to different students. (Japanese students, and anyone who looks similar, will likely suffer bullying and its side effects at that school).

So racism is when negative feelings have an impact within a certain structure.

To Marble's point that racism isn't a learned conditioned behavior I agree that it probably did not start out that way. Animals have ways of knowing who is and isn't in their immediate group even within the same species. Race is an easy indicator, especially when areas were more homogeneous. The cause of "racism" could have been as simple as the implied threat of something different. However, humans have gained rationality to overcome our instincts. We have the ability to understand people beyond what they look like. And a major problem with racism today is that stereotypes and prejudices are passed down from generation to generation and become ingrained in the culture.

oggy420 wrote:

Im not saying that. I know that there are a lot of racist people in this country. But to say America is racist means that everyone who lives here is racist and that is not true. I am not a racist and i don't discriminate. When i meet a new person i don't instantly see the ways we are different. Instead i see how we are the same and what we have in common.

A lot of people in our country are racially prejudiced and racially biased. Within every race. On the other hand, a lot of people look beyond people's differences and focus on similarities. The problem is the balance of power in the system favors certain races, genders, classes, etc. But to focus on race, the whiter you are the more advantages you have in the US. The OP's post showed what happens in an experiment of what happens when people of different races steal a bike. It's not a coincidence that this is the case. And even if you want to make the argument, "the black kid is a more likely suspect" it only goes to show how being black is a disadvantage.

To the comments that blacks do all the crime and killing that may be true. But another part to that is blacks are more targeted, more easily convicted, punished harsher, reported more often, and living in poorer, more desperate conditions. A lot of that has to due with the fact that slavery was literally designed to dehumanize people and since those days there has been an active effort to keep blacks oppressed and unstable. Native Americans have also been very violently oppressed and not recovered since the founding of the US. The Irish, Italians, Jews, and many Europeans immigrants were similarly ill treated upon their arrival here, but they have been able to assimilate as a part of "white" culture over time.

There is a discrepancy in how people are treated that can be directly correlated to race. I think that makes people in the US part of a racist society, but it doesn't make the people racist. On an individual basis and in general we are more tolerant of our differences as people than most other places in the world. But we still have a ways to go.

Gumby wrote:

I'll hop back in on this topic because I think it's important but I'll try to narrow down my focus and get back to the OP's question.

So let's start with what's racism in the US:

oggy420 wrote:

racism is a conditional learned behavior. Racism to me is when someone has negative feelings about someone based on RACE ALONE. For example if you take 2 people who have all of the same characteristics and behaviors and you accept one because he is a certain race and reject the other because they are a different race, that is racism to me.

This is what I call race prejudice, stereotyping, bigotry, etc. My experiences (educational, lived, observed) are that racism is larger than that. The key thing with racism is the concept of power. So racism is when those negative feelings have a meaningful impact on people's lives, and a system is in place where one race(s) is at an advantage or disadvantage. Here are a few examples:

An Irish kid enrolls into a traditionally all black college and receives poor grades because of his skin color, and doesn't graduate. (Irish students, and anyone who looks similar, won't likely be able to do well at that school).

A Filipino woman is denied a job as a waitress because the restaurants believe her people have dirty eating habits. (Filipinos, and anyone who looks similar, won't likely be able to work at that restaurant).

10 Korean students beat the bag out of one of their classmates every day because she's Japanese. Something similar to this happens every year to different students. (Japanese students, and anyone who looks similar, will likely suffer bullying and its side effects at that school).

So racism is when negative feelings have an impact within a certain structure.

To Marble's point that racism isn't a learned conditioned behavior I agree that it probably did not start out that way. Animals have ways of knowing who is and isn't in their immediate group even within the same species. Race is an easy indicator, especially when areas were more homogeneous. The cause of "racism" could have been as simple as the implied threat of something different. However, humans have gained rationality to overcome our instincts. We have the ability to understand people beyond what they look like. And a major problem with racism today is that stereotypes and prejudices are passed down from generation to generation and become ingrained in the culture.

oggy420 wrote:

Im not saying that. I know that there are a lot of racist people in this country. But to say America is racist means that everyone who lives here is racist and that is not true. I am not a racist and i don't discriminate. When i meet a new person i don't instantly see the ways we are different. Instead i see how we are the same and what we have in common.

A lot of people in our country are racially prejudiced and racially biased. Within every race. On the other hand, a lot of people look beyond people's differences and focus on similarities. The problem is the balance of power in the system favors certain races, genders, classes, etc. But to focus on race, the whiter you are the more advantages you have in the US. The OP's post showed what happens in an experiment of what happens when people of different races steal a bike. It's not a coincidence that this is the case. And even if you want to make the argument, "the black kid is a more likely suspect" it only goes to show how being black is a disadvantage.

To the comments that blacks do all the crime and killing that may be true. But another part to that is blacks are more targeted, more easily convicted, punished harsher, reported more often, and living in poorer, more desperate conditions. A lot of that has to due with the fact that slavery was literally designed to dehumanize people and since those days there has been an active effort to keep blacks oppressed and unstable. Native Americans have also been very violently oppressed and not recovered since the founding of the US. The Irish, Italians, Jews, and many Europeans immigrants were similarly ill treated upon their arrival here, but they have been able to assimilate as a part of "white" culture over time.

There is a discrepancy in how people are treated that can be directly correlated to race. I think that makes people in the US part of a racist society, but it doesn't make the people racist. On an individual basis and in general we are more tolerant of our differences as people than most other places in the world. But we still have a ways to go.

I don't agree with all of tht and I'm kinda done with this discussion, but my compliments. That was one hell of a post. Thanks for the thoughts.

Im racist, I am not proud that I am racist but I know I am just the same.

I'm not racist. Though there are those who would believe I was.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

timthebim wrote:

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Thank you marble. People in the US, specifically white people, the target of this character assassination attempt(racist in it's own motivation you could argue) as a whole are probably the least racist race on the planet in 2010.

I would have to agree.

Don't really know the answer to that. What I can say is of the 20ish or so nations I've been to they either were ethnically homogenous or worse than the US. Canada might be the exception. Canuckistanis are pretty good at the live and let live thing.

I would have to agree with that, being Canadian. I love Americans (my wife is one) but there really is more racism in the States than up here. Here are a few reasons for that:

1) A much shorter and less intense history of slavery; along with the spirit of welcoming those fleeing slavery (that underground railroad was going someplace, after all)

2) A large, rich country with relatively few people in it and a tradition of social programs such as universal health care so few people feel like any one group is "a drain on the system" as is so often floated by racists in the US.

3) A bi-lingual, bi-national foundation. The French influence in Canada (official language, etc.) sets the stage for accepting that there isn't one particular type of "Canadian" that everyone has to conform to. Ironically, Quebecers are some of the most racist people in Canada; probably due to the fact that "multiculturalism" means by definition that their status as the minority in a "bi-cultural" society is diminished. That and French people suck

4) The general attitude toward minority and immigrant communities that Canada should be a "mosaic" rather than a "melting pot". That is, you don't have to abandon your heritage and be melted down to conform to some mythical mold.

comedy on the f/c aspect.

I would have to agree with that, being Canadian. I love Americans (my wife is one) but there really is more racism in the States than up here. Here are a few reasons for that:

1) A much shorter and less intense history of slavery; along with the spirit of welcoming those fleeing slavery (that underground railroad was going someplace, after all)

2) A large, rich country with relatively few people in it and a tradition of social programs such as universal health care so few people feel like any one group is "a drain on the system" as is so often floated by racists in the US.

3) A bi-lingual, bi-national foundation. The French influence in Canada (official language, etc.) sets the stage for accepting that there isn't one particular type of "Canadian" that everyone has to conform to. Ironically, Quebecers are some of the most racist people in Canada; probably due to the fact that "multiculturalism" means by definition that their status as the minority in a "bi-cultural" society is diminished. That and French people suck

4) The general attitude toward minority and immigrant communities that Canada should be a "mosaic" rather than a "melting pot". That is, you don't have to abandon your heritage and be melted down to conform to some mythical mold.
[/quote]

ADDRESSING:

1. A less intense history of slavery? Can you name one group in the entire world that has never been tainted by slavery? Slavery of our fellow man is not an American virtue, it is a human one.

2. What you call "social programs" I call institutionalized subservience to the government. You have a crappy health care system, according to my doctor who is moved here from Montreal and set up practice. However I must congratulate the countries of socialized medicine Canada, Germany, and GBR! you all each have one of the top 50 hospitals in the world compared to the U.S. which only has 35 of the world's top 50 Hospitals...see the difference?

3. Multiculturalism? You know, when the Italians, Poles, and Germans moved here, within 1/2 a generation they had 80% of them speaking English, hence they advanced quickly. My ex-Wife has a cousin who is 3rd generation here and she can speak only a little English. She and her stupid family blame their lack of moving up on racism against Latinos instead of their inability to communicate with the rest of the country within which they live. Hence, her 18 year old cousin will end up working as a maid next to her Mom and Grandma at the fucking Hilton in Miami. The French do suck.

4. This is the dumbest thing you said. Go to New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Texas, Michigan, Minnesota...Just come to the U.S. and it is nothing but other cultures. Chinatown, Little Italy, Hymietown (sorry, Jesse Jackson joke), Frankfort, Little Havana, Louisiana, etc. Not only have they kept their heritage, they have adapted it to the country with which they have chosen to live.


http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top1000.asp

Andrew the Raider King wrote:

I would have to agree with that, being Canadian. I love Americans (my wife is one) but there really is more racism in the States than up here. Here are a few reasons for that:

1) A much shorter and less intense history of slavery; along with the spirit of welcoming those fleeing slavery (that underground railroad was going someplace, after all)

2) A large, rich country with relatively few people in it and a tradition of social programs such as universal health care so few people feel like any one group is "a drain on the system" as is so often floated by racists in the US.

3) A bi-lingual, bi-national foundation. The French influence in Canada (official language, etc.) sets the stage for accepting that there isn't one particular type of "Canadian" that everyone has to conform to. Ironically, Quebecers are some of the most racist people in Canada; probably due to the fact that "multiculturalism" means by definition that their status as the minority in a "bi-cultural" society is diminished. That and French people suck

4) The general attitude toward minority and immigrant communities that Canada should be a "mosaic" rather than a "melting pot". That is, you don't have to abandon your heritage and be melted down to conform to some mythical mold.

ADDRESSING:

1. A less intense history of slavery? Can you name one group in the entire world that has never been tainted by slavery? Slavery of our fellow man is not an American virtue, it is a human one.

2. What you call "social programs" I call institutionalized subservience to the government. You have a crappy health care system, according to my doctor who is moved here from Montreal and set up practice. However I must congratulate the countries of socialized medicine Canada, Germany, and GBR! you all each have one of the top 50 hospitals in the world compared to the U.S. which only has 35 of the world's top 50 Hospitals...see the difference?

3. Multiculturalism? You know, when the Italians, Poles, and Germans moved here, within 1/2 a generation they had 80% of them speaking English, hence they advanced quickly. My ex-Wife has a cousin who is 3rd generation here and she can speak only a little English. She and her stupid family blame their lack of moving up on racism against Latinos instead of their inability to communicate with the rest of the country within which they live. Hence, her 18 year old cousin will end up working as a maid next to her Mom and Grandma at the fucking Hilton in Miami. The French do suck.

4. This is the dumbest thing you said. Go to New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Texas, Michigan, Minnesota...Just come to the U.S. and it is nothing but other cultures. Chinatown, Little Italy, Hymietown (sorry, Jesse Jackson joke), Frankfort, Little Havana, Louisiana, etc. Not only have they kept their heritage, they have adapted it to the country with which they have chosen to live.


http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top1000.asp

[/quote]

Ok, let's see here:

1) True, slavery is not uniquely American. However, pretending that the influence of slavery on the history of the US isn't a massive factor in race relations in your country is disingenuous and simply ignorant.

2) Canada's health care system may not be perfect, but I'll take it eight days a week over a system that allows families to go bankrupt simply because they happen to get sick. And how many of those "top hospitals" are actually accessible to anything other than the upper middle class in the US?

3) Not sure what you're getting at there. English should be the only language anyone speaks?

4) Segregated ghettos do not equal multiculturalism. In fact, they are the exact opposite of the "mosaic" I was talking about, where cities and communities reflect the actual nature of varied races, rather than separating them into "little" whatevers. To me, adapting to the country you live in means actually sharing it with other people, not hiding out with your own kind.

Tobe06 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

timthebim wrote:

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Thank you marble. People in the US, specifically white people, the target of this character assassination attempt(racist in it's own motivation you could argue) as a whole are probably the least racist race on the planet in 2010.

I would have to agree.

Don't really know the answer to that. What I can say is of the 20ish or so nations I've been to they either were ethnically homogenous or worse than the US. Canada might be the exception. Canuckistanis are pretty good at the live and let live thing.

I would have to agree with that, being Canadian. I love Americans (my wife is one) but there really is more racism in the States than up here. Here are a few reasons for that:

1) A much shorter and less intense history of slavery; along with the spirit of welcoming those fleeing slavery (that underground railroad was going someplace, after all)

2) A large, rich country with relatively few people in it and a tradition of social programs such as universal health care so few people feel like any one group is "a drain on the system" as is so often floated by racists in the US.

3) A bi-lingual, bi-national foundation. The French influence in Canada (official language, etc.) sets the stage for accepting that there isn't one particular type of "Canadian" that everyone has to conform to. Ironically, Quebecers are some of the most racist people in Canada; probably due to the fact that "multiculturalism" means by definition that their status as the minority in a "bi-cultural" society is diminished. That and French people suck

4) The general attitude toward minority and immigrant communities that Canada should be a "mosaic" rather than a "melting pot". That is, you don't have to abandon your heritage and be melted down to conform to some mythical mold.

VERY nice post.

Canadians feel there is less "racism" there and that "America is racist" often. I hear it a lot from Canadians. That is just based on the fact America is much larger culturally and populationwise, and has a much deeper history of racial integration with more publicity, and naturally more growing pains. Since WW2 though, America is the archetype nation in the European/Western culture for non-European integration. I find it shocking that a nearly entirely historically white country like Canada can say we're the racist ones when we did all the heavy lifting in terms of civil rights. All Canada did was play along. Europeans often the same thing, which is equally as odd because America is the reason every European nation is racing to see who can mongrelize themselves out of existence first.

You have the McDonald's suburb culture without the civil rights history, must mean you're less racist eh Canada?

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Canadians feel there is less "racism" there and that "America is racist" often. I hear it a lot from Canadians. That is just based on the fact America is much larger culturally and populationwise, and has a much deeper history of racial integration with more publicity, and naturally more growing pains. Since WW2 though, America is the archetype nation in the European/Western culture for non-European integration. I find it shocking that a nearly entirely historically white country like Canada can say we're the racist ones when we did all the heavy lifting in terms of civil rights. All Canada did was play along. Europeans often the same thing, which is equally as odd because America is the reason every European nation is racing to see who can mongrelize themselves out of existence first.

You have the McDonald's suburb culture without the civil rights history, must mean you're less racist eh Canada?

Let me get this straight - because the US had such ingrained and systemic racism that you needed a civil rights movement to acheive the same rights all Canadians already had, that makes you the "archetypial" nation for cultural integration? Seriously?

Nah, you aren't racist; racists would never use terms like "mongrelize" when refering to a nation. Oh, wait . . .

I knew someone would bite on mongrelize. In the same stroke he paints an entire nation as bigots he unwittingly does the exact same thing.

Also, what kind of revisionist history do they teach the kids in Canada if they think the nation walked down a different civil rights path? The rights Canadians already had? Holy smokes.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

I knew someone would bite on mongrelize. In the same stroke he paints an entire nation as bigots he unwittingly does the exact same thing.

Never said all Americans were bigots; that's untrue and I would never imply that. I'm simply saying Canadians are less racist in general than Americans. Here are a couple facts which back that up:

1) Slavery ends in Canada 1833 (last slaves actually sold in Canada 1820); technically Canada does not become a nation until 1864, therefore "Canada" never did have slavery. Slavery ends in US 1863 (technically).

2) Blacks granted the right to vote in Canada 1834. Blacks granted the right to vote the USA 1870 (reality of free votes in Southern US given poll taxes, lynchings, KKK, etc. - 1960s)

3) Jim Crow Laws mandating segregation of public facilities never existed in Canada.

Not trying to say Canada isn't racist; it is. Just pointing out that Canada does not have the same history of systemic and legislated racism that the USA has.

There are presently 27 million slaves in the world. That may be more than ever before. (Please do your own research). People are limiting slavery to Whites enslaving Blacks. Old story. We have sexual slavery, Africans enslaving Africans, etc. So while all these millions of people are being enslaved around the world and in some cases, even here in the US, we're stuck with discussing 19th century racial problems? To be honest, both Canada and the US have done a lot to civilize it's people against barbaric acts like slavery. What about those suffering now? If I started to write about it, I'd be on here all day (literally).
(Little note: As far as America is concerned, I think it may be the most competitive country in the world. This denotes what "M.L. King Jr." called "The Drum Major Instinct." The obsession of man to be on top. However competitive institutions like US sports are intergrated like never before. We're not a perfect nation, God knows that. I'm not suggesting that life is fair here. It is NOT. However, given the psychological make up of people here, we're trying like hell to go in the right direction. I think our problem now is "Political correctness." If you really look at it, it poses the danger of putting our race relations to a pre "Civil Rights era."

4445Frank wrote:

There are presently 27 million slaves in the world. That may be more than ever before. (Please do you own research). People are limiting slavery to Whites enslaving Blacks. Old story. We have sexual slavery, Africans enslaving Africans, etc. So while all these millions of people are being enslaved around the world and in some cases, even here in the US, we're stuck with discussing 19th century racial problems? To be honest, both Canada and the US have done a lot to civilize it's people against barbaric acts like slavery. What about those suffering now? If I started to write about it, I'd be on here all day (literally).
(Little note: As far as America is concerned, I think it may be the most competitive country in the world. This denotes what "M.L. King Jr." called "The Drum Major Instinct." The obsession of man to be on top. However competitive institutions like US sports are intergrated like never before. We're not a perfect nation, God knows that. I'm not suggesting that life is fair here. It is NOT. However, given the psychological make up of people here, we're trying like hell to go in the right direction. I think our problem now is "Political correctness." If you really look at it, it poses the danger of putting our race relations to a pre "Civil Rights era."

Good post. I totally agree with your point about slavery, especially considering that depending on how you define it almost everyone on earth is a "wage slave" to some extent or another.

And I agree that new world nations like Canada and USA have to set an example and lead the way on issues of social justice. Finding a balance on "political correctness" is a challenge, but it's all about how that debate gets framed, e.g. non-violently, and with a mutual respect and civility on all sides.

You're generalizing the entire nation based on the Southern part of the nation.

Just guessing i'd say most "normal" whites, blacks, latinos, and asians et al, have mixed feeling about race issues, it's hard not to.
Maybe it's just because i'm "white" but rightly or wrongly, it seems to me that whites are the race and/or ethnicity most accused of being racist. This is due in great part to the fact that whites of european descent (non-hispanic) are in the majority, and make up around 70% of the U.S. population.