| ▲ | rayiner 3 days ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | cosmicgadget 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| While I agree that no one should have their identity defined by their ethnicity, that does not describe many of these books. Perhaps none, it's presumptuous to say that an author writing about oppression wants to increase divisiveness. Beyond that, there is no shortage of people in favor of book bans that absolutely believe in ethnically-defined identity. |
| |
| ▲ | rayiner 3 days ago | parent [-] | | If you’re in a room full of white people and you’re reading a book about Chinese railroad workers, then you’re correct that’s not divisive. If you add some asian kids, and then treat the Asian kids indistinguishable from the white kids—everyone is a modern american reading about history—that’s also not divisive. But what you have in schools today is an additional layer on top of that, where the non-white kids are treated differently than the white kids. The non-white kids are encouraged in subtle and not-so-subtle ways to identify with the oppressed people in the books in a way the white aren’t. At my kids school, they have racially segregated “affinity” groups to facilitate this. My daughter was invited to the weekly “black girl magic” lunch once a month (because I guess that’s the math for a half white half south asian kid). I know that sounds like something I just made up but it’s absolutely true. This is because academics and authors who write this stuff really do believe in racial identity and solidarity. Specifically, they generalize african american racial identity and solidarity and politics to all non-whites. If you walk into a book reading for some of this stuff, you’ll find way more people promoting “brown people” ethnic identity and solidarity than you will find people promoting “white people” ethnic identity and solidarity at a Trump rally. The vast majority of both white and “brown” Trump supporters just want to go back to the 1990s where we didn’t “talk about race.” | | |
| ▲ | kristjansson 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > [90s] didn’t talk about the race “April 26 1992. There was a riot in the streets tell me where were you” | |
| ▲ | Eddy_Viscosity2 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How does banning the handmaid's tail fix any of these problems exactly? | |
| ▲ | cosmicgadget 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's not an ideal situation for sure. Some want their heritage to be their identity. Some do not. Academia tries to accommodate both. Meanwhile we are slowly trying to fix the lingering effects of centuries of injustice where solidarity is one of the few tools to fight people in power who want to return to unjust times. I'm not sure the best option is to vote for the country club guy whose public statements strongly indicate reports of his private statements on race are accurate. The guy who has kept Stephen Miller around for a decade and talked the proud boys into being the armed second wave of Jan 6. Then pardoned them. Speaking for myself, even if Trump is somehow the shining light of a post-discrimination society (after failing to do so in his first term), it can't possibly offset the damage he wants to do the economy, consumer protection, and national security. | |
| ▲ | TimorousBestie 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > My daughter was invited to the weekly “black girl magic” lunch once a month (because I guess that’s the math for a half white half south asian kid). > This is because academics and authors who write this stuff really do believe in racial identity and solidarity. Beverly Bond, who holds the trademark, was an influencer avant la lettre. She wanted to make a brand—looks line like a clothing line, followed by a TV show, then a podcast. I get that it’s tempting to blame everything on radical leftist academics or whatever but that’s not what happened here. This is simply capitalism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Girl_Magic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_Bond | | |
| ▲ | hollerith 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Most people who aren't radical Leftists aren't going to agree with you that radical Leftists aren't primarily responsible for the experience described by Rayiner just because a personal profit motive was involved in addition to the ideological motive. You might believe that if an ideological Leftist motive can be kept separate from motives of personal enrichment, then it cannot do significant harm. But most US voters would disagree with you about that: they believe that it can be harmful to believe that there is an oppressive structure at the center of American society if in fact there is not an oppressive structure at the center of American society. | | |
| ▲ | TimorousBestie 3 days ago | parent [-] | | When people say “radical leftists caused my gout” or “fascists gave me arthritis” I think they should stop for a second and consider where lies the proximate cause of their inconvenience, instead of clinging to convenient, if emotionally satisfying, myths. Your assumptions about my motives are incorrect. | | |
| ▲ | Chris2048 2 days ago | parent [-] | | What is the ridiculous effect attributed to "radical leftists" you are responding to that you believe is the same as "caused my gout"? |
|
| |
| ▲ | rayiner 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don’t think the issue is radical leftist academics. For the most part, it’s overly empathetic normie liberals who feel distress when they hear what the radical leftists are saying and lack discernment to sort through what minority kids really need to succeed. |
| |
| ▲ | const_cast 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The non-white kids are encouraged in subtle and not-so-subtle ways to identify with the oppressed people in the books in a way the white aren’t. Well, um, yeah. That's because white people just aren't oppressed. Its the same way I don't identify with feminist literature. I can read it, understand it, enjoy it - but I can never fully relate, because I'm not a woman and the way I experience the patriachy will always be different. Of course black people identify with or relate more to something like the color purple. That doesn't mean the color purple is racist. | | |
| ▲ | Chris2048 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > the way I experience the patriarchy will always be different Then how can you evaluate feminist literature to be accurate? | | |
| ▲ | const_cast 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The same way I evaluate my doctor to be doing a good job - trust. Your experience in life will always represent a tiny tiny fraction of one percent of all experiences. If you require a "see it to believe it" approach, you will live and die closed-minded. That does not mean I need to blindly trust feminists, however. |
|
| |
| ▲ | UltraSane 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I truly cannot fathom how anybody can listen to Trump talk for more than 5 minutes and read more than one of his moronic truth social posts and his constant lies and then still be a supporter. | |
| ▲ | jtanderson 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Is your example here a bit oblique to the point? I see this more of a failing of the people to properly appreciate and discuss/process the contents of the book, and as well as, in my opinion, socially overcompensating for the diversity in the room? I definitely see your point around a lot of people trying to be so inclusive, they end up being somewhat racist. But I see this more of a lack of proper cultural empathy/education -- go figure, Dunning-Kruger is everywhere all the time. But as you said, > This law is about what books are in public libraries. So why would we ban the books, rather than encourage reading them and having the more meaningful discussions focusing on heritage rather than identity? As a slightly more abstract aside, identity anything to me is a slippery slope because it will always automatically encourage one to make assumptions; it's a mental shortcut to say Person A == Person B iff PersonA.identity == PersonB.identity. Given that education is hard, learning is hard, and life is hard, I think we need to at least emphathize and appreciate that teachers and the the education system in general need to often fall back on these sorts of mental shortcuts. But that's we need to really invoke our right, privilege, and duty of grassroots participation. Why not walk into that book club that's overcompensating and help them learn what is making you uncomfortable? You might be surprised at how ignorant they were of their own mistakes and that they're willing to learn from your perspective. | | |
| ▲ | rayiner 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > I definitely see your point around a lot of people trying to be so inclusive, they end up being somewhat racist. But it’s not inclusiveness at all, it’s a caste system. In academic liberal spaces, non-whites are not “included” on the same terms as whites. We are bucketed into a separate caste subject to different standards and expectations. And that caste system plays out in routine social interactions, because white people afraid of being called “racist” will not treat you the same. Calling it “heritage” instead of identity doesn’t change anything. Your average second-generation non-white American has weak ties to any non-american society. My kids have no meaningful ties to Bangladeshi society, only superficial ones. They can’t, and they wouldn’t even like it if they did. So the only outcome of talking to them about their “heritage” would be to encourage them to see themselves differently from their peers based on connections that are at best superficial. As to your point about “banning”—we’re not banning the book club. This law is about school libraries. People are voting for what kind of ideas their children are socialized into, which is one of the fundamental rights as a parent. | | |
| ▲ | dctoedt 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > People are voting for what kind of ideas their children are socialized into, which is one of the fundamental rights as a parent. Wait, I thought you were all about how Western society has gone too far in the direction of individual rights? And assuming your "fundamental rights as a parent" premise (purely for the sake of argument): The rest of us have a pretty-compelling interest in how each other's kids — our future fellow adults — are being raised. | | |
| ▲ | rayiner 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I agree the community has a strong interest in how children are socialized. That’s exactly what’s happening here: Florida voters have exercised their power over government schools to vindicate the community’s right to decide how children should be socialized. You’re also proving my point about why it’s so critical to strictly control who is allowed into your community. Once people are allowed into the community, they get to participate in deciding how the community collectively socializes children. That means communities have a strong interest in excluding people who aren’t like minded. | | |
| ▲ | dctoedt 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > You’re also proving my point about why it’s so critical to strictly control who is allowed into your community. "Strictly control[led]" is a line-drawing function — and needs to remember that life is a movie, not a snapshot, and so patience is needed. EDIT: Growing a society seems not unlike raising children: Society needs kids to grow into adults, and sometimes that means gritting your teeth and being patient .... Example: Many of my own immigrant ancestors, those on the non-Aryan branches of our family tree, probably wouldn't have been let in under today's MAGA criteria. (Even my German-immigrant ancestors faced hostility from the "real Americans.") Yet each successive generation in this country has done just a bit better, thank you very much. Example: In this morning's home-delivery Times, Cardinal Dolan is quoted as recalling about the decades-long progress of the Irish migration to America — who were definitely considered ubermenschen by many American nativists of the time: <quote> “He [19th-century Archbishop John Hughes] was frustrated about raising money,” remarked [Cardinal] Dolan, who wore Hughes’ pectoral cross on a cord around his neck as he described the new artistic addition. “He said, ‘This cathedral will be built on the pennies of immigrants.’” Dolan noted that by contrast, raising $3 million to underwrite the creation, installation, lighting and conservation of the Cvijanovic mural took less than a day — paid for, he added with a chuckle, by “the big checks of the grandchildren of the immigrants.” </quote> (Emphasis and extra paragraphing added; my first-generation Irish-American grandmother told of seeing signs here and there: No Irish need apply.) https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/14/arts/design/st-patricks-c... |
|
| |
| ▲ | jtanderson 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I can’t quite read this without feeling there some significant over-generalizations and assumptions being made. My experience with people of various races, cultures, and backgrounds has not exhibited any unilateral caste system mentality. I’ve spent plenty of time in academia and, while it certainly has issues, has not been quite so dystopian. In the end, if we’re just comparing anecdata, this isn’t going to be productive. | | |
| ▲ | rayiner 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | JD Vance had a comment about his Appalachian ancestors who “built this country with their bare hands.” Find a white person to say something similar in one of your liberal places. Then find a black or mexican american person to say something similar. You know what the reaction would be even if you’ve never experienced it first hand. That’s the caste system: among other things, ethnic identity is condemned for one caste, while being lauded in the other caste. There’s dozens of other examples, of course. Admissions, hiring, and promotions are often subject to explicit or implicit racial considerations. It’s naive to believe that the same people who are required by institutional policies to think about your skin color when they hired you or admitted you or when they decided to promote you or give your a research grant aren’t thinking about it in daily interactions as well. | |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ethbr1 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I hear what you're saying, and agree with large parts of it. Ethnic background shouldn't override individual autonomy. But... > The vast majority of both white and “brown” Trump supporters just want to go back to the 1990s where we didn’t “talk about race.” ... there's certainly a chunk of Trump supporters who would like to go back to the 40s and 50s version of US "not talking about race" (or the 1910s for not talking about women). It'd be nice if the reasonable people from both parties could ignore their extremist wings, get to together, and realize they have more in common than different. | | |
| ▲ | nobody9999 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >... there's certainly a chunk of Trump supporters who would like to go back to the 40s and 50s version of US "not talking about race" (or the 1910s for not talking about women). Actually, it's back to 1868[0] at least that they'd like[1] (rolling back birthright citizenship) to go. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14160 | |
| ▲ | rayiner 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > there's certainly a chunk of Trump supporters who would like to go back to the 40s and 50s version of US "not talking about race" (or the 1910s for not talking about women). This is a relatively small number in comparison to the chunk of Harris supporters who would call color blindness “racist.” In my own experience, “brown” ethno-narcissism and ethnic tribalism is more accepted, and even encouraged, among liberals than white ethno-nationalism is tolerated among conservatives. This is a result of the political incentives of the respective parties. Republicans don’t need white nationalism, they can win when minorities are assimilated into the what the dominant Anglo-American culture (what the left might call “multiracial whiteness”). That’s basically what’s happened in Florida: Hispanics retain their culture in the way Irish and Italian Americans do, but don’t have a strong ethnic identity that is politically motivating. | | |
| ▲ | ethbr1 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Republican's don't need white nationalism, and it undoubtedly hurts them on the whole, which is why it's surprising they continue to let those voices speak for them. E.g. it's hard to get more racist than Stephen Miller, but I suppose that's normalized when you're on Jeff Sessions' staff. | | |
| ▲ | rayiner 3 days ago | parent [-] | | White nationalists are people who dislike Usha Vance because she’s Indian. Stephen Miller is an ordinary nationalist who wants to slow down immigration enough so that everyone assimilates into Anglo-American culture and norms, instead of of changing U.S. culture. Let me ask you this: you acknowledge that India is different from Vermont, right? And you acknowledge that ethnic enclaves of recent Indian immigrants (say in New York), are culturally different from Vermont? Is there any way in your world view for someone to say that they think the culture of Vermont is better, and they oppose immigration that would change the culture and make it more like India (or Latin America)? Put differently, what could a non-racist version of Stephen Miller do while seeking to maintain the Anglo-American character of the U.S.? Or do you think that race and culture are so intertwined that non-racism requires us to accept Vermont becoming more like India or Latin America? | | |
| ▲ | CyberDildonics 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Stephen Miller is an ordinary nationalist who wants to slow down immigration enough so that everyone assimilated into Anglo-American culture and norms, instead of of changing U.S. culture. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/stephen-mi... https://www.thedailybeast.com/stephen-miller-is-what-we-thou... https://www.vice.com/en/article/stephen-millers-racist-email... https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/stephen-miller... There are dozens of similar articles. | | |
| ▲ | rayiner 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Those articles are all sourced from the same SPLC hit piece, and are laundering someone’s accusations of “racism” without defining the term, or engaging in guilt by association. The folks at SPLC are cultural relativists. They think culture is just superficial things like food, and doesn’t contribute to material circumstances. The only reason India or Mexico are poorer and more disorderly, in their view, is oppression from whites. In that worldview, any opposition to immigration can only be based on skin-color “racism.” Is that your view? | | |
| ▲ | CyberDildonics 3 days ago | parent [-] | | https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/13/us/politics/stephen-mille... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/18/us/politics/stephen-mille... https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/after-stephen-miller-s-w... https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/stephen-mi... | | |
| ▲ | rayiner 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Each of those articles is sourced from the same SPLC hit piece, and SPLC embraces cultural relativism. I’m curious why you won’t answer my question. Does non-racism, in your view, require people to accept immigration that changes America’s culture? Is there a non-racist lane for people who want Vermont or Salt Lake City to remain culturally Anglo-American (regardless of ethnicity)? | | |
| ▲ | kristjansson 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This whole line of reasoning is underpinned by such a fundamentally dim view of American[1] culture that it's hard to believe you and others who espouse it think yourselves its advocates. The unique, defining feature of our culture is precisely its ability to incorporate every other, and reproduce itself among them and their children. The consistent lane you're looking for is "let come those that will. give them all the freedoms and all the burdens of being American, and that's what they'll become. The character of our places might change, as they have in the past and as they will again in the future, but they will be no less American as long as they're full of people seeking liberty, justice, and the opportunity to better themselves and their families." [1] and it is _American_ culture, not Anglo-American. | | |
| ▲ | rayiner 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > The unique, defining feature of our culture is precisely its ability to incorporate every other, and reproduce itself among them and their children. First, you're conflating America's effectiveness in Anglicizing immigrants with absorbing foreign cultures, which has happened surprisingly little. Our national institutions remain quite Anglo, even though there's pockets of different cultures all over the country. Second, most good things about American culture trace back to its Anglo roots: https://scholarworks.brandeis.edu/esploro/outputs/book/Albio.... Legalism, orderliness, disposition towards freedom and free markets, entrepreneurialism, egalitarianism, etc. Areas where we've seen cultural change have been negative. For example, one thing we've lost is the WASP austerity. I know some older folks from New England who grew up learning that "food is for fuel, not enjoyment." Amazing! It's a downgrade that we lost that! > and it is _American_ culture, not Anglo-American. No, it's Anglo-American culture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tINJhf1Zs1Q&t=618s. The Anglo countries remain incredibly similar to each other culturally and economically despite the U.S. breaking off from England almost 250 years ago. America is different from England in many ways, but in more or less the same ways it was always different from England. |
| |
| ▲ | jacquesm 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | All immigration changes culture. And the United States is probably the best proof of that that you could possibly wish for. Anglo-American culture is a very tiny slice of American culture. Your position is essentially statist: you want the world to stay the way you found it. But the world evolves and it does so on a timescale that that is noticeable on a single human life span. Like that whole groups of people have to sit at the back of the bus (if they're allowed on in the first place), write books on how to survive while driving in certain parts of the country and like that they suddenly have rights. And the countries they were forcibly imported from had cultures noticeably different from the one where the Anglo-American (and Dutch, and German and other countries besides) owners (or so they claimed) people came from. If you want to emigrate to a place that is static then you will quickly find out that you can't, not really. Switzerland has been trying to do this since forever and is failing badly at it, other experiments in the same direction have led to civil wars and ugly offshoots like apartheid. You either accept that any immigration at all will change culture or you will have to drastically reduce your exposure to the world around you to maintain the illusion. Capital loves immigration: it provides for cheap labor. That's the end of your static culture. And good thing too. | | |
| ▲ | rayiner 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > And the United States is probably the best proof of that that you could possibly wish for. Anglo-American culture is a very tiny slice of American culture. On one hand, this isn't true. At the national level, our laws and institutions are still predominantly Anglo, because all the Dutch, Germans, Irish, and to a lesser extent, Italians and Eastern Europeans, assimilated into that culture. On the other hand, the places where that is the least true, like Chicago and New York City, only underscore my point. Governance in those cities is terrible because much of the political bandwidth is consumed on issues of fairness and redistribution between groups that are at odds with each other instead of building subway lines or cleaning the streets. > Your position is essentially statist: you want the world to stay the way you found it Not at all, I want to iterate on the culture that produced the United States, instead of doing a massive "git pull" from the cultures that produced India or Mexico. If you worked at Google, would you hire tens of thousands of Kodak or GE lifers en bloc? Of course not. > You either accept that any immigration at all will change culture or you will have to drastically reduce your exposure to the world around you to maintain the illusion. If that’s the choice, I’d choose the latter. But I don’t quite agree with the dichotomy. Our H1B cap is just 65,000 people. If you spread them around the country, we could maintain an economic edge while minimizing foreign influence. High-skill immigrants who came to the U.S. pre-H1B, and ended up by the handful in small town america here there was a nuclear research lab or whatever ended up highly assimilated. > Capital loves immigration: it provides for cheap labor. That's the end of your static culture. And good thing too. Putting aside that this reads like a right-wing parody of WEF talking points, do you really believe that the result of these changes will make American culture more orderly, efficient, functional, and democratic than say Massachusetts in 1950? (Or your own homeland of the Netherlands prior to its experiment with mass immigration?) | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > On one hand, this isn't true. Ask the native Americans whether or not this isn't true. > Not at all, I want to iterate on the culture that produced the United States That culture is built on violence, slavery, racism and oppression. Iterating on it seems to have brought out its worst elements rather than its best elements. Half the country, including you, voted for a caricature of what a decent human being should be like as president. And you are now 200 days into an assault on your economy and freedoms and you still refuse to see what the end game looks like. That culture? The 1950's are not coming back. And that's not a bad thing. > Our H1B cap is just 65,000 people. That's just one form of immigration, why stop there? What about refugees? Oh, right, the USA is good at waging war but then ignores the refugees that inevitably are created, that's for the rest of the world. Handy, being a continent sized country an ocean away. > If you spread them around the country, we could maintain an economic edge while minimizing foreign influence. Foreign influence is minimized by limiting the use of money in politics which is an easy avenue into the heart of the political system. Immigrants - as a rule - do not have the vote. > High-skill immigrants who came to the U.S. pre-H1B, and ended up by the handful in small town america here there was a nuclear research lab or whatever ended up highly assimilated. Small town America is a lot more racist than you think. They didn't so much end up assimilated, they ended up scared to go out of their houses. If you think you are assimilated and that small town America is accepting and nice you should try to live in the places with < 10,000 inhabitants where the White Master Race is the dominant majority. You'll see - very quickly - how they look at you. Your USA experience is for the most part informed by living in the larger cities. I've spent a lot of time in rural America (~ a year in total) , easy for me to do since I'm white. What people say in private is hair raising, and really opened my eyes to how deeply embedded racism is in the United States. > do you really believe that the result of these changes will make American culture more orderly, efficient, functional, and democratic than say Massachusetts in 1950? I don't know about that. But I also don't think that the current political mainstream in the United States cares about orderly, efficient, functional, and democratic elements of the USA unless it benefits the 'in-group' to the exclusion of everybody else. This whole discussion reminds me of a guy sitting on a branch cutting the live side with a saw while sitting on the dead side. All of those elements that you wish for have been put in place against massive pressure from the people that you support. And they'd love to go back to Massachusetts, 1950. But without you, and your kids. Your wife is - probably - safe. But you can bet that ICE showing up at your door - or your parents, for that matter - at 4 am is going to be very bad news. And they won't care who you voted for either. As for that 'Dutch Experiment': it isn't limited to the Netherlands, and by and large the Surinam immigrants have disappeared into background noise on account of their relatively low numbers. But when they first came here (just before Surinam became independent) there was a lot of outcry about this. Now, so many years later there is still a fairly large number of people that identify as such here, most of them live in the three big cities, because of small town racism. The predominantly Turkish and Moroccan immigrants have set up their own regional presence, some of them have held very strongly to their original identity and stepping into their homes is like stepping into a time/space displacement machine. But they - as a rule - are friendly, incredibly hard working and because they value family a lot more than the original inhabitants and their offspring tend to do, have a fantastic social network around them. Again, due to racism and very overt discrimination their kids have - for some fraction anyway - grown up frustrated. They see all this wealth around them and the skin color based ceiling is so strong that only very few of them manage to break through. The end result of this is that a fraction of them rather than being 'kept in their place' by the whites here - who think these people will never be successful and who deserve to work in crap jobs no matter how intelligent or capable they are. It will take many generations until this has reduced, but there is some - very slow - progress over time. I see more and more people with such backgrounds in positions of influence and some power and wealth and they are the beacons that the next generation will hopefully set course by. It will take many more decades until they are no longer pushed down as a group, and, unfortunately, they are not usually helping and neither are their parents. Intermarriage is rare, which would be one way to reduce the barriers between the various groups. Romanians, Poles and other people from Eastern Europe have moved here in fairly large numbers. As a rule they are doing fine, even though the newspapers love to magnify the few cases where they are involved in legal or traffic issues. Syrians and other refugees have not integrated well at all. They have been here only a very short time and are slowly displacing the older immigrant groups for the lowest income jobs. I've had very little interaction with them. But the various asylum seeker places that are dotted across the country are best compared with open air prisons where our bureaucratic engine driven by overt hatred tries to discourage them from staying here. There are far better ways of dealing with this but unfortunately my vote is only just as heavy as that of the racists. It will be decades more before these people too have made this place our home. Ukrainians, who are here in surprisingly large numbers have integrated in record time. They have learned the language and have assimilated very quickly, to the point that you have to have an ear for it to spot them. They are everywhere and they seem to love it here. It helps that their culture and ours was already closely parallel, besides the Orthodox Church component which quite a few still formally subscribe to (religion, in NL, was on the way out until immigrants brought it back). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | ryandrake 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You're (arguably correctly) nit-picking OP's choice of the phrase "brown people." We can debate whether it makes sense to lump "brown people" together or not for the purpose of describing Republicans' attitudes toward human rights, but it would probably be more accurate to just reword OP's statement in more general terms: "Republicans have been transparent that they want to dehumanize out-groups." The point would still stand, and we avoid the distraction of whether "brown people" exist as a distinct group. |
| |
| ▲ | tracker1 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I would argue that most Republicans don't give a flying fuck what race someone is, and doesn't feel it should make a difference in terms of political opinion or approach to solving issues. All the struggle sessions in the world won't actually change or fix anything other than to foster divide that has only increased in the past couple decades. A lot of it straight out of communist doctrine in order to tear down society. This isn't to say that racism doesn't exist, but it's not nearly as big as most make it out to be, and there's far more anti-white hate than there is white racism today. White racism is absolutely outcast as a rule today and the typical Republican wants and has nothing to do with it. | |
| ▲ | rayiner 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | ryandrake 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | To your first point, I'll just say this isn't the first time in history various groups of people (however you want to group them) have by a wide margin voted for a politician who is actually antagonistic towards them. This behavior seems to rhyme all throughout history. Weird to have to define dehumanization but OK. Dehumanization is to deprive people of their positive human qualities. We're about to get political so this is likely way off topic at this point. A common, recurring theme in Republican "culture war" rhetoric and policy is to carve out and target various groups (however they/we want to define that group), ignore those groups' positive qualities, amplify their negative qualities, and portray those groups as "lesser humans than us," ultimately for the purpose of depriving them of rights/freedoms/wealth/livelihoods/etc. Evidence of this target -> dehumanize -> disenfranchise cycle abounds. If we can't agree on at least that baseline, then there's probably no productive way to proceed with a discussion. Yes, the other side divides and groups people, too, and we might not like that. But I'd argue it's for the purpose of uplifting already-vulnerable groups rather than knocking them down. I'd love to live in a world where nobody does this grouping, but we're obviously not there yet. | | |
| ▲ | dogleash 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > I'd love to live in a world where nobody does this grouping, but we're obviously not there yet. The only way to get there is to go there. I remember back when I was a kid and realized anti-discrimination was the feel-good message hiding the real message to continue discriminating but now with the correct standards. I sat all day wondering what people 100 years from today would think of our current standards. I reasoned they'll be as forgiving to us as we are to people from 100 years ago. The person from 1925 would argue they're better than someone from 1825. Ok, sure, but that doesn't make Jim Crow a good thing. The contemporary standards on how to discriminate will always be justified in the contemporary social context. That's how the cycle perpetuates. The only way to get to the world where nobody does the grouping is to live that life as much as possible today. | |
| ▲ | rayiner 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Evidence of this target -> dehumanize -> disenfranchise cycle abounds. If we can't agree on at least that baseline, then there's probably no productive way to proceed with a discussion. We don’t agree on this. Republican efforts are focused on preserving the dominant American culture and norms, which we think are good. At least in the race context, what engenders backlash is not minorities having rights, but them coming together to assert distinct interests as a group to seek changes in the dominant culture. > Yes, the other side divides and groups people, too, and we might not like that. But I'd argue it's for the purpose of uplifting vulnerable groups rather than knocking them down. We agree on this. But I would submit that intent matters less than effect. For one thing, these “vulnerable groups” are less vulnerable than assumed. For example, Hispanics are economically assimilating with whites at about the same rate as Italians or Irish. For another, the well-intentioned divisiveness itself harms minorities. Ethnic identity and solidarity is a toxic force minority communities. It hinders economic and social assimilation, and empowers bad actors within the community. I want to live in a community where, if a Bangladeshi commits a crime, the other Bangladeshis have more solidarity with the white police who come to arrest the criminal than with their co-ethnic. I think this is one reason why even poor Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in America have so much better economic mobility than their counterparts in Europe or Canada. | | |
| ▲ | ryandrake 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I'd like to see more group identity and solidarity along economic class lines than ethnic/racial lines. It feels like this is where the real war is happening, and the racial, ethnic and nationality blamed problems are distractions and mere first order derivatives of the actual problem which is unequal economic power. Unfortunately, neither side seems to be acknowledging or addressing that problem. |
|
| |
| ▲ | lern_too_spel 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The problem with that rephrasing is that OP certainly meant to include hispanics (who are the largest group of “brown people”) in the country OP didn't say anything about non-white Hispanics and other non-white people as a group. He is not suggesting anything about a group identity there. He is simply stating the fact that Trump treats them differently because Trump sees them as a group, including removing books and history about these people. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jddj 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Do you think the colour purple and the bluest eye should be banned from schools? |
| |
| ▲ | zeroonetwothree 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Surely it depends on the grade, right? I wouldn’t want my 2nd grader reading them | | |
| ▲ | davorak 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Do we need the government to write a law and ban the color purple, and similar, from being taught in second grade? I am not a fan of the government doing that level of micromanagement in most circumstances. | | |
| ▲ | tracker1 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Are you okay putting Penthouse magazine (or similar) in elementary schools? I'm guessing you aren't... people have to draw lines somewhere on this. There's a difference between restricting by age, making available to all and actually assigning material to children. Not all materials are appropriate for elementary school libraries. And I'm not even talking about The Color Purple specifically. Also, none of this stops a parent from buying a book for their children they feel is appropriate for their child. | | |
| ▲ | davorak 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Are you okay putting Penthouse magazine (or similar) in elementary schools? I think the law that the judge is ruling on here does not effect a ban of penthouse or similar material in elementary schools. The preexisting laws already had that kind of material banned in elementary schools. | |
| ▲ | kjkjadksj 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Is the reason there is no Penthouse magazine in the school library from a law though? No, it is from common sense. | | |
| ▲ | tracker1 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Can you clarify what the difference between policy or law is at a given level? Not everyone agrees as to where the line is for "common sense" and will definitely push boundaries beyond what a community would generally agree to. Laws at a higher level are just "common sense" codified. | | |
| ▲ | kjkjadksj 3 days ago | parent [-] | | There is so much in life that is deferred to someones best judgement that if we stopped just to annotate and attempt to codify all these 100 such actions each person in positions of power or authority might take a given workday, it would take a century. Not all mountain out of molehill arguments need to be engaged with I think is the broader lesson we need for our times. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | didibus 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If I understand, you're saying that you support banning common literary books in libraries? And likely so do most of Florida constituents, even Asians and Hispanic? But I'm not able to square that with what you said about ethnic identity. |
| |
| ▲ | rayiner 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Your confusion follows from your premise that this is about “banning.” This is about what books are made available to kids in school libraries. It’s a response to a trend in education, which has embraced teaching non-white kids to embrace ethnic identity and think of themselves as oppressed. Florida Hispanics see these trends as well, and one reason they overwhelmingly supported DeSantis for re-election is that’s not the worldview they want their own kids to have. They don’t want their kids to think of themselves as “Hispanic” (which is an artificial political construct anyway) and have teachers assign them books about how Hispanics are “marginalized.” | | |
| ▲ | didibus 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Your confusion follows from your premise that this is about “banning.” This is about what books are made available to kids in school libraries Maybe I'm wrong, I didn't look into the details. But it appeared to be a ban to me. If all they did was say: "these are the books that must be made available at school libraries" That would be very different, and we wouldn't be talking about a ban. But if they specifically targeted certain books (who might have not even been at all the school libraries to begin with), and said here are the books that are not allowed to be made available... I mean, that's called a ban. I support your desire to make sure your kids feel at home and are able to, like everyone else, consider themselves American. I'm from an immigrant family, and it bothers me when people ask "what am I", I'm American, and they're always like... Come on! What are you really? And it's like, dude, you're also 'not really" American, you're German, you're British, etc. Except we're all really American, born and raised. So I'm with you on that point, and the "born and raise" part, yes it means you should be raised the same as well, raised American. Where I'll have to disagree with you, is that the books made available and the school curriculum isn't about any of this. It should focus on education, kids shouldn't be dumb, they need to learn history and it's effects, they should engage with hard topics and real problems, they should be exposed to well reasoned and intelligent diverse opinions from all sides, etc. You don't achieve that by selectively banning books whose narrative you personally don't like. If you came at me complaining that the current selection of books and curriculum goes against that, that it's pigeonholing kids into "brown" and "not brown", and so on, I'd be like, damn right that's a problem, and I'd put forward the same argument I'm making now for why it's an issue that needs addressed. But like I said, banning books just feels like pigeonholing and propaganda the same that you're trying to avoid just someone else's agenda. | |
| ▲ | xorcist 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Any which words we choose about it, we're still talking about a government mandate which books are not ok to read. I don't doubt your personal experiences, but the leap to blacklisting literature is a huge one and doesn't follow logically at all. While this is a ground one should tread most carefully, surely you can see the historical precedents? | | |
| ▲ | rayiner 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Again, this is about school libraries. You can’t retreat to the libertarian bailey. Educating and socializing children necessarily requires the government to pick a viewpoint. Especially against the backdrop of librarians, who are certainly have embraced a particular viewpoint and are pushing it on kids. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | TimorousBestie 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > If my kids want to understand her roots, they can read a book about the Mughal Empire. Do you really believe history books are immune from book bans? Historically speaking, they’re usually first against the wall. I wonder what PragerU has to say about it. |
| |
|
| ▲ | mjmsmith 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Curious why you removed "sexual identity" after racial identity. |
| |
| ▲ | rayiner 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Because I edited the post to make a more specific point with respect to what’s happening in Florida. | |
| ▲ | mlnj 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because their argument will be immediately defeated with the current push to remove gay-marriage from law. |
|
|
| ▲ | alistairSH 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You're talking about the guy and party that believe slavery was a good job training program. FFS, this isn't hard - they don't even bother with the dog whistles any more! |
|
| ▲ | ppqqrr 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| No offense, there’s conservatives who want to ban books because they understand the value of literature and education… you’re not it, you should try reading the books they’re trying to ban, because it’s you they’re trying to keep away from reading those books. |
|
| ▲ | lern_too_spel 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Trump won over 40% of asians and nearly 50% of hispanics last year. I can't find a single exit poll that says Trump won over 40% of the Asian American vote. > I hate the idea that my kids would think that they have more in common with another ethnic Bangladeshi in Queens than she does with a random person in Appalachia. Nobody is claiming otherwise. They're only saying that on the narrow topic of racism, Trump and many (though certainly not all) of his supporters will treat your daughter differently than they do a random light-skinned Appalachian. |
| |
| ▲ | rayiner 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Pew’s extensive analysis of the 2024 election results has Trump winning 40% of asian voters and 48% of hispanic voters: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/26/voting-patte... Your point about hypothetical racist Trump supporters is wrong for two different reasons. First, I’ve been to Appalachia, and my wife is from rural Oregon, and nobody has ever treated me differently. My brother in law (part black, part Samoan, looks like the Rock) went to a Trump rally and Marjorie Taylor Green came to him to introduce herself. In practice, the people who draw attention to my skin color in embarrassing and demeaning ways are white liberals. Second, building a “brown people” identity around the possibility that someone will occasionally treat you differently is bizarre. I don’t claim that my experience as a brown guy (who has spent a lot of time in the rural south and rural west coast) is universal. But if my family and I haven’t noticed it, that suggests a ceiling on how pervasive it could be. It’s positively grotesque to encourage kids to construct an identity that doesn’t reflect them as individuals, because someone, somewhere, might occasionally treat them differently based on skin color. | | |
| ▲ | overfeed 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You sound like you're old enough to have lived through the aftermath of 9/11, I'm glad to hear you didn't experience any racism due to your skin color. | | |
| ▲ | rayiner 3 days ago | parent [-] | | There was no “aftermath of 9/11.” I was in high school after 9/11 and went to college in the south (which was full of white guys from Georgia/Alabama/Tennessee) when we went to war in Iraq. | | |
| ▲ | overfeed 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > There was no “aftermath of 9/11.” For you there wasn't, and like you said earlier, there's no representative "brown person" experience. I have first-hand experience that's the definitely included an aftermath, one person stopped wearing hijab after being taunted, another started going by "Mo", and yet another - who's not even muslim - started dyeing her hair a color much lighter that its natural color to better pass as white. | | |
| ▲ | rayiner 3 days ago | parent [-] | | You’re just proving my point. Three thousand americans were killed in an attack by Muslims and that’s all that happened. If that had happened in India there would have been ethnic cleansing. | | |
| ▲ | Thiez 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Your country did gleefully kill millions of innocent brown people in response to 9/11, it's just that they mostly lived in the middle east. You've apparently dehumanized them to the point where their deaths just… slipped your mind. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | lern_too_spel 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Your "extensive" Pew analysis has error bars of +/- 10% for the Asian groups and certainly doesn't show "over 40%" but something that rounds to 40%. Other exit polls all show less than 40%. It's great that you haven't experienced racial discrimination. This hasn't been the experience of people applying for housing at Trump properties. https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/117470/documents/... > In practice, the people who draw attention to my skin color in embarrassing and demeaning ways are white liberals. Explain to me how putting up Confederate monuments is so we don't "erase history" but removing historical notes about Native Americans, not mentioning a holiday celebrating freedom for all Americans except to disparage it, and removing information about Trump's impeachment is not. I'd like to understand any other explanation than that Trump and his supporters don't see Native Americans or black Americans as "real" Americans, which is what people mean when they use the word "dehumanizing." Is there any other way to explain it than by using skin color? That is why "white liberals" (why are you bringing their skin color into it) bring it up — the only reasonable explanation involves skin color. Nobody in this thread is suggesting that anybody build an identity around it. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-restoring-confederate-nam... https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/5444429-racist-monu... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/juneteenth-trump-too-many-non-w... https://www.kqed.org/news/12049405/muir-woods-national-monum... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/08/11/smit... | | |
| ▲ | rayiner 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Your "extensive" Pew analysis has error bars of +/- 10% for the Asian groups and certainly doesn't show "over 40%" but something that rounds to 40%. Other exit polls all show less than 40% That means it could be 50%. “Exit” polls in general aren’t reliable, especially with the mail in voting. Pew isn’t an exit poll, it uses massive surveys. That’s consistent with other data points. Blue Rose Research found that Trump probably narrowly won naturalized citizens: https://data.blueroseresearch.org/hubfs/2024%20Blue%20Rose%2.... Most of those folks are hispanic or asian. Another data point: lots of majority asian precincts in new york and new jersey flipped to Trump. Trump outright won Flushing, Queens. Jamaica, which has a heavy Bangladeshi population, shifted from D+83 to D+31 (which would mean roughly 35% Trump). | | |
| ▲ | lern_too_spel 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > That means it could be 50%. And it could be 30, but you said for sure it is over 40. > "Exit” polls in general aren’t reliable, especially with the mail in voting. That's why all of them also do phone interviews, and that's how they're consistent with each other. > Most of those folks are hispanic or asian. We're talking about Asians. They are not even close to comprising most naturalized citizens. > Jamaica, which has a heavy Bangladeshi population, shifted from D+83 to D+31 (which would mean roughly 35% Trump). 35 is less than 40. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | FireBeyond 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > won reelection (by 20 points) among both white and hispanics and one of the diverse states in the country How did he do with African Americans? |
| |
| ▲ | tracker1 3 days ago | parent [-] | | A cursory search didn't really reveal this breakdown in the handful of articles I looked at. There is mention that black turnout was a bit lower than other racial groups though. Without specifics, most likely carried more black men than previous elections, while losing with more black women. This seems to be the overall trend in general regarding Republican and Democrat voting from what I've observed. |
|
