Why do so many immigrants come to the US if it's racist?

Post Reply New Topic

You stand corrected, QFT. I don't believe the US is a "racist" country.

I'm also not a complete "liberal." I don't like some aspects of the "left."

I'm just not a believer that statistics is always the way to go....

I'm not going to automatically believe that some black person in the street is "lazy" because it seems likely, "statistically," that he/she is "lazy."

Thats good that you don't think that.

And the context in which I was bringing up other points was just to refute this claim by funeralxempire. Since the "statistical" issue the funeralxempire brought up is not exclusively due to racism, there has to be another "statistical" explanation. Hence I brought one up. One statistical trend to explain the other statistical trend, basically. Nothing to do with judging the individuals.



I won't either. When I go down the street, I can normally see by the way people carry themselves whether they are lazy or not. Sometimes I run into white people that I judge as lazy and sometimes I run into black people that I judge as hard working. However, there is a "statistical tendency" that I see "more" lazy-looking blacks than lazy-looking whites, hence the observation.

Now, if I see a hard-working black I won't say "oh I don't believe he is really hard working because all those other blacks I saw yesterday look lazy". I won't do that. I judge that hard-working black as an individual and say well, that person is hard working.

Then you might ask what was the point of my talking about statistics? Well, here is the point. Funeralxempire said that USA is a racist country, and used as an evidence a "statistics" that blacks are less successful than whites. Now, as you agree with me yourself, its not true that it USA is a racist country. So, logically, there has to be an alternative explanation for the statistical observation that funeralxempire made regarding blacks being less successful. The alternative explanation I can think of is another statistical observation, the one I made, that they are statistically less hard working.

Now, if you don't worry about statistics altogether, then it won't matter that they are statistically less hard working, since your black wife as well as your black friends "are" hard working. But, apparently, funeralxempire "does" worry about statistics -- well one "aspect" of statistics. So I addressed that aspect of statistics that funeralxempire worries about by talking about the other aspect of statistics that would provide an alternative explanation for it.

Whites were enslaved. Indentured servants are, in effect, slaves, and the British had no qualms with abusing the lower classes as it suited them. African slaves showed genetic traits that the British believed made them superior laborers and rationalized enslaving them for being intellectually inferior. The argument was that slaves experienced an improved quality of life as slaves, anyway.

But that’s not my focus. The British viewed themselves as superior to everyone else, period. They didn’t care about the rights of Frenchmen or Irishmen because only the English were fit to rule the world. Their treatment of the colonists as less than English was what sparked the revolt that became the American revolution. The British eventually ended slavery in their territories under their own initiative, something Americans failed to do. Systemic racism is not what this country was built on since it isn’t a distinctly English feature. If that were the case, we’d have ended slavery before war broke out over it.

I never heard of them. Can you tell me who they were?



Can you be more specific on how they abused them?



But this belief is one of the forms of racism, isn't it.

You seem to assume that racism is something that has no justification. But I disagree. Everything has justification in a mind of a perpetrator. The issue is whether the beliefs quoted in that justification are racist or not.



I don't think they wanted to rule the world. I thought it was quite the opposite in fact: their original intention was "no foreign entanglements". Now, in the 20-th century, things changed and America "did" begin to rule the world. But I don't think thats what they intended in the earlier centuries.



So by colonists, in the context of American revolution, you mean whom?

If you mean Americans (since they were the ones that wanted independence) then they were of British origin, too. So you can't say it is British supremacism then.

If you mean native Americans or blacks or some other minority groups, then I don't see how American revolution would be relevant since they continued to pursue those policies after the American revolution.



a) I agree racism is not specific English feature

b) That, however, doesn't stop English people from being racist. If racism is a human nature, and English people are still human, they can also be racist

c) I agree that you can't say "America was built on racism". Racism was one of the *attributes* of America, but it wasn't its main foundation. If you take racism away, you will still have America.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, there were people who wanted to migrate to the New World who were white Englishpeople. Many of these people wanted to start a new life, since they were poor and stymied in England. Many of these people could not pay the ship's fees.

In lieu of paying those fees, they signed a contract wherein they would be "indentured servants" for (usually) 7 years. This was similar, in some ways, to serfdom during medieval days. They were bound, as servants, to the person whom they were "indentured" to--so, they were not totally "free."

The difference between indentured servitude and slavery----is that indentured servitude wasn't a permanent condition; it usually lasted 7 years, though people could "buy their freedom" before the 7 years were up.

Well it seems me that a lot of people are using the word racism to describe so many things that are not actually racist and people are so sensitive and so easily offended by so many things, now that everyone is afraid to say anything, worried about it being racist and possibly, and so many people are paranoid as a result, unless I'm wrong?

This might sound harsh of me to say, but it seems that if 9/11 happened today, and the US found out it was Al Qaeda that did it, the US woud be too afraid to respond against it because they would feel that it would be too racist to do so. Or maybe I am wrong, and it's not that bad?

Because our military + our banana companies have turned their countries into ****holes?

How exactly did they do it? With Iraq, maybe. But what about India or Africa?

Not always, but often. If someone is black or Asian and has a very Finnish first name, they're usually either been adopted to Finnish families at young age or have lived in the country for generations. Last names don't give people away as easily because they often change when people get married. Plus, Finns having Swedish last names is also very common due to historic reasons, so the name can't really tell if someone's family has recently moved here or has been here for generations.

I'm just gonna talk about racial discrimination due to the topic... of course, since majority of Finns are white and I'm also white, it's very likely that I'll never witness the worst of Finnish racism, much less experience it, but I feel like I can still say something.

Anonymous hate speech in the internet is very common, especially towards black people, though Asians do get their part, too. However, one can't really say how racist that makes the country since the writers are anonymous; it could very well be that there's a small but very active group of people who write most of it. Sometimes people write racist stuff in the internet with their own names, but they get attacked and judged fast when they do, especially if they're white. And if they're a white right wing politician, it's more of a rule than an exception that they receive death threats for it (which by the way is obviously not okay no matter how many N -words someone uses.)

Some people yell insults in the street to people of racial minorities. It's mostly black people who face this, but after covid started spreading, this type and the anonymous internet racism towards Asian people rose rabidly.

Getting physically attacked because of one's race is either very rare in Finland, or if it isn't, people barely report it. But since attitude towards racism is pretty much zero tolerance policy, I think it's safe to assume that it is indeed very rare.

One group that has it hard is... what's the politically correct word? The Romani, perhaps better known as Gypsies but I've heard that that term's not okay, face a lot of suspicion. It hasn't been too long since it was in the news that some guard in a store had pretty much stalked a Romani person for the twenty minutes they were in the store. Obviously, the guard got in trouble... if you look at statistics, they do cause a lot of trouble here, but it doesn't make it right to stalk some individual member of the group who hasn't done anything. Had the person already had a history of shoplifting, that'd be another story.

Then, there's the matter of employment. Some racial minorities, especially the black, say it's harder for black people to get jobs here than white people, but I'm not sure how true that is and even if it is, why is it harder. I mean, my name is about as Finnish as it can get and I'm white, yet I had a hard time getting a job. And I know lots of other people who've been in the same situation, so white people often have it hard trying to find a job, too. But I don't know, maybe the black have it harder. Of course, it's good to remember that if their language skills aren't on native level, it makes perfect sense that people would rather hire someone else, someone whose language skills are on native level, for that makes it easier to communicate.

Also, white people face racism here too, though to a much smaller extend. I'm usually paler than an average Finn, I get it from my dad plus I'm often anemic, and some black people have used words like "powder face", "milk face", "snow woman" etc. of me. Since they were of different race than me and spoke by referring to my skin color, that's racist, isn't it? This all happened in school, yet they didn't get in trouble. But sometimes some people called those black people with the N -word, and they got in to horrible trouble. That's the right thing to do of course, but there was a double standard since only the white people got punished for practicing racism, but the black people didn't.



Eh... what if a very hard working person is just having a lazy day? Or looks lazy because they're on their way home from a very tiring day of work? Or what if a normally very lazy person just happens to be very motivated when you happen to meet them?

Actually you have to give British all the credit.

They did all the hard work with genocide all those pesky native people in Australia, Canada, NewZealand and the United States.

They then enslaved millions, dug up the ground, cut all the trees, killed all the animals and polluted the environment.

These immigrants wait till all the hardwork was done then come here and live off the us and have the gall to call us names!.

Sheesh!

I get your point.

That IS pretty much true of Australia and New Zealand.

But though I give you a thumbs up... its not exactly really literally true of the US.

When we fought the Brits for independence in 1776 only the narrow strip of land between the Atlantic and the Appalachian mountains (the first 150 miles of the 3000 mile long nation to be) had had the natives subdued. And one of the reasons why some of the colonists rebelled was because the British crown was being too nice to the natives, and wouldnt allow us White Americans to venture beyond the Appalachians to steal land from the Indians farther west.

So most of the Indian wars were fought after independence. News of the Little Bighorn(the most iconic battle of the Indian wars) hit the papers while the US was celebrating its first Centennial in 1876.

But if woman's last name changed because she got married, then her kids would inherit her husbands genes too, not just hers. So the last name that the kids would have "would" in fact reflect part of their genes. It is just that it won't reflect all of the genes but only dad's part. But that is always the case.

So I guess if one approaches the race based on "one drop rule" then one would say "okay, at least there is some small portion of black in order for last name to be such and such" and discriminate based on that. But, of course, that also means that people who got black genes from the mother's side would get away since that won't affect their last name.



But they would still be Swidish genetically, regardless of whether they moved just recently or many generations ago.

Here is the Russian outlook on this. So they had two words for Russian: "Rossiyanin" which means Russian citizenship, and "Russky" which means Russian genetics. They also had two words for Jewish: "Iudey" which means Jewish religion, and "Evrey" which means Jewish genetics. So in my case I am Rossiyanin but I am not Russky -- thats because I have Russian citizenship, but my genetics is Jewish rather than Russian. So I am Evrey for having Jewish genetics. Also, when they say "natsionalnost" what they mean is genetics (in contrast to America where "nationality" means citizenship). So even though I have Russian citizenship, my nationality is not Russian: my nationality is Jewish. But no I don't have Israeli citizenship. That doesn't change the fact that my nationality is Jewish since nationality has nothing to do with citizenship. Also Russian and Jewish are not the only two nationalities out there. There are a lot more, such as Ukrainian, Belorussian, Finnish, Sweedish, etc. And back in the days of Soviet Union they had nationality in the passport. If someone has one parent with one nationality and the other parent with another, they can choose which nationality to put in the passport. If they have both parents with the same nationality (as is the case for me) then there is no choice.

But, in any case, here is what I was trying to say. Lets say someone lived in Russia their whole life, and their parents and grandparents, etc. they all lived in Russia and never stepped a foot into Ukraine. But lets say that the great-great-great-parents fare from Ukraine. That person's nationality would still be Ukrainian and thats what they will put in the passport. So, by this criteria, in the situation that you are describing, it doesn't matter if that person moved from Sweden recently or many generations ago: their nationality would still be Swedish, which means that their last name won't be misleading.



Thats interesting. In English-speaking sites, hardly anyone ever writes things with their own name. I mean for example here on wrongplanet, most people's user names are not their own names. Are you saying in Finnland its different and they like to put their real names as their user names?

By the way, I used to post with my real name back in the 1990-s as well as the first decade of the 2000-s. But thats because, back in the 1998, when I just discovered internet for the first time, I didn't know any better. I thought that was how people were supposed to write. I remember in that message board I was participating back then (MGH Neurology Web Forum) they asked for both name and email. Now, I didn't have email back then (I only learned to use email a year later) but I didn't realize that entering email is optional. I thought it won't post unless I enter the email. So I decided to enter my mom's landlord's email. I had no idea what it was, so I just guessed. From what I know now, I guessed wrong, so if someone were to try to email him that way, it wouldn't have worked. But back then I didn't know that the system doesn't care whether I enter it correctly or not (in fact it doesn't even care if I enter it at all, which I also didn't know). So I was like "I hope it is correct, I hope it is correct" (assuming that it would refuse to post otherwise) And then when it posted I was like "lucky me, it was the correct email" (which it wasn't from what I know now).

In any case, I thought I was the only one who posted with real name. It is interesting to hear that people in Finland do that too.



Yeah, in America they don't do that. In America its mostly blacks that act aggressive, and not just to whites but to each other too. And then there are stats that there are a lot more black victims of violence than white victims that are supposed to be a proof of white-on-black racism. But the part that they overlook is that most of those crimes are actually black-on-black rather than white-on-black. And the reason there are more black victims than white victims is simply because blacks are interacting with their fellow blacks more often than whites do, since they tend to live in the same neighborhoods. Basically, black neighborhoods are dangerous. Since blacks live there more, they are exposed to that kind of danger more. Yet it is falsely blamed on white racism.



Thats actually the first time I hear that this term isn't okay. Is it like the Finnish thing? In both Russia and the US its okay to use that word (although in Russian it would be tsygane, but it means the same thing). They are viewed with suspicion in Russia, for pretty much the same reasons you described. At the same time in Russia they sometimes like to listen to Gypsies singing so I guess they have interest in some of their culture, but they won't trust them very much. I don't know about the US though, since in US everyone tries to be politically correct. I haven't encountered many Americans talk about gypsies so I just don't know.



By stalk you mean sexually or you mean just being overly vigilant they won't steal something?



What happened to him?



Yeah I agree with you. Although it is a no-win situation. Either some innocent gypsies get unfairly punished or the gypsies that aren't so innocent get to steal stuff. So its hard to find a middle ground.



Yeah I tend to agree with you. In America it often happens that a certain organization simply has high standards but then blacks claim it is only making it hard for them because they are black. In actuality it wasn't because of their color, the standards were equally high for everyone irrespective of race. But blacks still claim its because of color. Now, since being accused of racism is a very bad place to be, sometimes they would give black people what they were asking for in order not to be accused that way, so they use it as a type of leverage.

This also affects education system too. My mom's now-deceased landlord used to be a math professor and he was invited my mom and, sometimes, my dad to weekly meals they had every friday night at the restaurant. So my dad told me that, in one of those meals, they were discussing the reasons why American education is so bad. One thing they said is that if the schools were to raise their educational standards, it is anticipated that the students that fail would be disproportionally black (not because of racism but because blacks tend to under-perform). If that were to happen, the schools would be accused of racism (even though in reality the standards would be high for everyone, both white and black -- but that won't matter: since blacks would be the ones failing, that would lead to accusations in racism). So, in order to avoid such situations, the standards of American education are kept low, so that the black students can pass.



In America, if someone says something along those lines they would be accused of racism too. They would claim it is "discrimination on the basis of language". Of course language has nothing to do with race. But in America sometimes they also use the word "racism" as an umbrella term to include any kind of cultural discrimination.

Thats why I disagree with the statement that America is a racist country. As you see, it tries to bend backwards not to be.



I am sorry the kids were treating you that way. This must have really hurt. People shouldn't judge each other based on looks.

In America it won't have a racial connotation. Yes, American kids would also bully a kid with paler skin; but white kids would be just as likely to bully that kid as black kids would. Because it won't be about the kid being "white" but rather it would be about the kid being "weird".

I think it touches upon the way race is viewed differently in different countries. If race is literally about skin color, then sure: someone with pale skin is "further away" from blacks than someone with regular skin. But if race is also about behavior, culture, and so forth, then this is no longer the case. Now, in America, I noticed that the distinct behavioral features of blacks are applicable to blacks born and raised in America, but not so much to the ones that moved there from Africa first generation. Which might look surprising to the outsider, but that is the case. So could it be that the blacks in Finland are more similar to first-generation blacks in the US, and thats why it became more about their color rather than their personality?



I am sorry you had to go through this. It must be hard to face bullying where the teachers don't even try to stand up on your behalf. You mentioned in a different thread that your parents took you to special school partly in order to keep you from getting bullied. So were you bullied about your skin in the special school too, or was it just in the regular school?

And yes in America they also have that double standard where using racial slurs against whites is okay but using them against blacks is racist. And I totally agree with you it is unfair. But it is so widespread that it is hard to do anything about it. Basically whites are the only racial group against whom people can be racist and get away with it. At least in the US.



By lazy I don't mean your regular laziness, I mean a very obvious situations. Let me give you an example. So next to my mom's house there is a grocery store. In front of the store, on an asphalt, there is a vomit, that has been there all those months I been living here and nobody did anything about it. In front of the doors of that grocery store there are like two or three people hanging around. I don't know if they are the same people or different, I don't remember faces very well. But they are always there, and they look pretty dirty. Now, do you think you would like any of those people, regardless of their race? Probably not. As it happens, they happened to be black.

Now let me give you a different example. So I had a girl in one of my physics classes, she was super smart, I was always going to her to ask questions and she was very helpful. As it happens, she was black too. But she didn't carry herself as black. She carried herself as white. And it was actually an interesting feeling when I would think of her as a white girl and then think "oh she is black, thats really strange".

So clearly, the first set of black people are lazy, while that black girl clearly isn't. Now, I encountered a lot more black people that are similar to people in front of that grocery store than black people similar to that girl. However, not all black people are like the ones in front of grocery store. I can think right now of a number of ones that aren't. Thats why I am saying it is about statistics.

Last edited by QFT on 20 Mar 2021, 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I thought the first settlers to Australia were criminals that were sent there as a punishment. Are you saying that

a) The work was done first, and then criminals were sent there after it was done

b) The criminals themselves did all that work

c) After Australia was no longer viewed as prison and normal people were there, they did the work then

By the way, one thing I was wondering about is how come Australia isn't reputted of having high crime rate, at least not from anything I heard. How come the criminal people that were in Australia first didn't pass the criminal tendencies to their offsprings?



At least in America its not just immigrants that say that. There are plenty of born-and-raised Americans that say that too. But I guess you can say they are still immigrants in a sense that their ancestors didn't come to the US in Mayflower but instead came a few generations later. I actually know only ONE family who descended from people that came on Mayflower, and they are very patriotic and proud of their country. I don't know how much it applies to others that came on Mayflower since I only know one family and that is it. But if others that came on Mayflower are equally patriotic, then you would be right in saying that it is "immigrants" who aren't.

But what about Australia? Is it true that in Australia people whose ancestors were the first settlers are more patriotic? Or is it different since nobody wants to be proud of their criminal past?

Most of our immigrants are coming from Latin America... and yeah look at all the ****ed up things we have done throughout the Americas.

Perhaps 'criminal tendencies' are the result of circumstances and not something that's passed through family lines.

I didn't mean genetics, I meant the mindset. If parents are criminals, why wouldn't they raise their kids as such?