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

Post Reply New Topic

It's difficult to address a problem if one can't discuss it openly. The choice of language really ought not be what causes outrage here though, the fact that outrage (and even violence) is used to silence conversations on this topic should be.

I'm aware that some people sometimes get offended when this topic is discussed from the perspective I tend to discuss it from but the fragility of people who don't want to have to come to the realization that their society was built on massive theft and unequal treatment doesn't change the fact that their society was built on massive theft and unequal treatment.

Party 1: This is something that happened.
Party 2: WAHHH YOU HURT MY FEELINGS!! ! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!

That's not a productive conversation but the problem isn't with Party 1.

I think the problem is really with both parties. With Party 1, it's more complex than just saying "this happened," because 1) Is he lying/is this factual? 2) If not lying or is factual, do we come to the right conclusions about what it MEANS? When a conservative doesn't like the message, you get death threats. When a liberal doesn't like the message, they erode your legal rights to exist. And depending on who wields more political party, laws are selectively enforced or ignored at will.

Even I, an Evangelical Conservative***, can see how stupid it is to keep a tight control over who can/can't immigrate to the United States. Just open the borders already. If someone comes here and commits a crime, they face the same consequences native-borns do. But if I openly disagree with others like me who strongly advocate for closing our borders, then I lack common sense.

But I agree with my conservative colleagues using immigrants as a power base to promote an unhealthy agenda that seeks to erode rights and guarantee a free lunch to those who haven't earned it, to those who are not seeking work but rather wealth redistribution, that it is wrong. I believe people are their own ideas and productivity. We are more than block-voting cattle. And for that we are evil, greedy raaaaaaacistsssssss who make all our wealth off the backs of the poor. I can point out there are bloated government policies keeping people poor and enable corporations to exploit the poor, but then the other side will come back with, "Hey, how would like a big, fat, juicy, stimulus check?" I think everyone being allowed to participate in the system also means allowing everyone to win, while the other side can't conceive of anyone as being anything but losers.

The problem being that for those who actually think for themselves, who don't agree at all with one side but isn't in total agreement with the other, there's no way to actually win. The two parties you mentioned, yeah, there are too many conversations when people get offended, threaten each other, file lawsuits, ignore laws instead of changing them, riot/loot/destroy property/etc. I don't accept the premise that conservatism is entirely wrong. But being right doesn't have to mean being stupid. The best way to "win" an argument like the two party model you gave here is to just not get into the conversation in the first place.

***I mean roughly conservative. Conservative Evangelical values most closely represent my ideals than anything else. But I do have a problem with what most people associate with the Conservative and Evangelical labels.

Saying colonialism was inherently harmful and racist is factual. Saying that white supremacy was ingrained in American culture for as long as American culture can be said to have existed is factual.

These are the sorts of statements that provoke angry emotional responses that are intended to silence the discussion. The backlash used to come from a much broader swath of society so it seems we might be closer to be able to have these discussions openly but there's still a ways to go.

Racism doesn't explain everything.
Disparity in any area of life is always blamed on race first. (It sells books!) But there are many factors that show that race is usually the least significant aspect of an individual in respect to their ability to achieve. Especially in the USA.
But, believe whatever makes you happy. I'd rather rely on my own abilities and achieve as best I can (without guarantee) than be content with victim status.

Recognizing that systemic issues exist doesn't inherently mean accepting victim status. Dragging out the same tired canards that always get used to invalidate reasonable concerns doesn't actually address those concerns.

Structural issues in law enforcement, healthcare and education are relevant even if they're not the absolute whole of the problem. People should be able to expect the same level of treatment when interacting with these sorts of services and that's not true for all communities.

You can talk about relying on your own abilities all you like but some people have additional hardships imposed upon them for no fault of their own, recognizing this doesn't amount to conceding defeat in life.

Colonialism at least with regard to the United States was hardly harmful. Both the Natives and the English (and don't forget the French) richly benefited from trade with each other.

I also disagree that it was white supremacy. It was English supremacy. The founding of the United States was not built on "certain inalienable rights" as human beings, but rather as British subjects. Don't forget it was British policies, not "American" policies, that allowed the southern territories to become so dependent on slave labor. Passing laws to give blacks special recognition and protection was entirely unnecessary. Just enforce the laws already on the books that protect freedom. The creation and enforcement of victim classes contributes more to white supremacy in the present day because those who are supposedly "protected" have a more difficult time breaking their dependency on the policies that keep them in victimhood. But white supremacy ingrained into our culture? Not really. The abolition of slavery caused the failure of an entire society and economy already. I understand that white supremacy exists, yes, but it does not now have quite the hold on society as one might think.

But you are absolutely right regarding attempts of the "offended" to silence opposition. The discussion is worth having.

I think both parties have various things that hurt their feelings. If democrats say that the main obstacle of black person's progress is racism, then republicans say it hurts their feelings. If republicans say that the main obstacle of black person's progress is that they are not as hard working, then the democrats say that hurts their feelings.

Note that the first statement is not any more factual than the second one, because by racism I didn't mean past racism (which IS factual) I meant the current one. And also I didn't mean that current racism merely exist (yes there is KKK) I meant that current racism is the main thing that holds back black people. That very last statement isn't factual. And, as far as "blacks not being as hard working", that is something that can be "observed" if you interact with a lot of black people (I didn't say all of them are, I said a lot). White racism on the other hand is harder to observe, because people that are racist know enough not to say it in the open and they keep it to their friends. Yes, that last statement admits that racism exist. But the point is that it is harder to observe. So how are you saying its more factual?

Also if liberals were the ones that are open for discussion, why is it that they are the ones that invent hate speech laws. Not in the US, since there is First Amandment, but in countries like Canada and some European countries? I guess its possible that conservatives would like speech laws on their side too, they just don't have a power to do it. But this is a speculation. The factual part is that we see the speech laws on the liberal side. So liberals aren't all that open to discussion.

That is an interesting thought. But the fact that British couldn't enslave whites but they could enslave blacks, doesn't this still suggest that whites were viewed as superior to blacks? In other words, it would be a combination of white supremacy and British supremacy. The part thats white supremacy is that blacks could be enslaved but whites couldn't. The part thats British supremacy is that British could own slaves but other whites couldn't.

Also I believe they had racial immigration policy that would require them to define "whiteness" beyond just British. I heard there were some white ethnicities that weren't deemed as white. For example, Irish weren't considered white. I don't know why. But I thought the white ones were more than just British?

I've known MANY hard-working black people in my time. And I've known MANY lazy white people as well.

My wife is black, and she's accumulated almost half a million dollars working as a nurse's aide and an LPN. She's 72 years old, and still works double shifts.

I wasn't talking about "all", I was talking about trends. I mean, as far as the concern "why can't blacks succeed" that is also about trends too: "some" blacks do succeed. So lets look at the following parallels:

Observation 1:

a) There are some hard working black people
b) There are some successful black people

Observation 2:

a) There is a statistical tendency that blacks are less hard working
b) There is a statistical tendency that blacks are less successful

If you put it this way, then you see that success pretty much matches the amount of hard work. Fair and square. But if you choose to only pay attention to part "a" of Observation 1 and part "b" of Observation 2, then it would seem like there is racism. But that is really due to the bias in your own observation.

Now, it is still logically possible to make a case that there is racism by saying that the tendency among black people not to succeed is higher than the tendency not to be hard working. But answering yes or no to that one is a lot harder to do by simply looking. A mere layman observation would show both tendencies but it won't show you which one is more prominent. Now, you can make a sociological study on that one with actual numbers, but that doesn't seem like what liberals are doing. Liberals just want to insist that its racism and leave it at that.

Some of the reason why black people are less successful in general----is because barriers are placed before them by the "greater society." This might lead to some black people being lazy through feeling futile.

Then again, unfortunately, there are black people who are just lazy.

I don't go by statistics when I assess a person, or even a whole race. People who go by statistics do not understand there might be complex reasons why statistics manifest themselves.

If you don't go by statistics, how can you then say that "America is a racist country": not all people in America are racist, so this is a statistical statement too.

The point is that you can't have it both ways. Either you are looking at statistical statements, or you don't. If you do look at statistics, then you can talk about the level of racism in the country, but then you should also talk about the level of laziness across racial groups. Or if you don't look at statistics, then the question about a laziness of a group of people is off the table, but then the question about the level of racism of a country would be off the table too.

And by the way even from the statistical point of view its not true that America is more racist than other countries. It "is" probably more racist than Canada, Australia and "perhaps" some parts of Western Europe, but it is a lot less racist than Africa, Asia, Middle East and Eastern Europe. But my point remains: in order for even the question about "level of racism in a country" to be on the table, one has to put "all" statistical questions on the table, and vice versa. You can't have it both ways.

P.S. I realize you weren't the one who was saying that America is a racist country. So maybe you disagree with that statement too, in which case I apologize for assuming you agreed with it. I guess I was just thinking you did because you seemed to defend the "liberal" side. But you are welcome to correct me if I assumed wrong.

Last edited by QFT on 19 Mar 2021, 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well it's hard to tell how bad racism in the US actually is when everyone seems to be calling each other a racist, over anything that person may not like, it seems.

Institutional racism is the result of systemic bias. Little things like negative stereotypes can have widespread consequences if they're widely believed, especially among people who are trusted with authority. Things like widespread abuses of power wouldn't have the same emotional toll if there wasn't always a chorus of people demanding receipts every single time and then trying to make excuses when the evidence is shown.

It is a topic where sometimes individual incidents are difficult to be 100% certain of all of the motives involved and how exactly they all were balanced, that said they undeniably add up to patterns that aren't exactly hard to notice.

I don't believe racism is anywhere near as bad as it's being represented, right now. That's typical, though, since blowing things out of porportion creates fear. Fear and division are very effective tools used by the ruling class.