In public policy, the majority (caucasians) are prob the most racist here,
What makes you assume this? Sure, they’re overrepresented in media so you’ll probably hear more, but I don’t think they’re particularly more or less racist as a group.
I think I misread, do you mean public policy as in legislation? If so, it’s a very weird statistic I don’t see the purpose of: you’ve implied they’re the only racial demographic who had the power to create policy, and they included racist policies. So yes, the only group would be the most racist in that group no matter how racist they are or others are. They’re the only one you’re choosing from. What’s the point of that?
But, really, they’re not the only ones who dictate public policy. Let’s (hypothetically, completely made up and not indicative of real life) assume a parliament of 80% ‘caucasians’, 10% asians, 5% middle easteners and 5% aboriginal australians.
If 45% of the caucasians, 80% of the asians, 60% of the middle easterners and 80% of the aboriginals voted for a racist policy, it has a majority and ‘passes’. In these made-up numbers, the vast majority were by far the least racist (as a whole) and not even majority pro-racist-policy. So no, just because they’re the ones with the power to pass legislation doesn’t logically imply they are the most intense of the group. Of course, these are made up numbers to illustrate the mathematics, not only do I have no idea of real numbers, they would also depend on the policies and on subjective opinions of whether a policy is indirectly racist or not, and so on.
Grouping races by if they are ‘more/less’ racist is arbitrary pointless stereotyping. Being racist isn’t a racial quality (a cultural quality maybe!), and ironically, assuming a race to be more racist is literally racism.
To answer your original concerns, what makes you assume minority groups have implicit solidarity? I think they should and it’s within their best interest, but they often don’t. If you don’t like anglo-saxons and you don’t like chinese, for whatever racist reason, where’s the contradiction? Or if you think [minority] is getting all the attention that YOU want! I see that crabs-in-a-bucket junk all the time.
Because we minorities are humans at the end of the day, nothing more, nothing less.
White people are not the only ones capable of bigotry or prejudice, and they are also not the only ones capable of the evils that one group’s hatred, aversion, or mistrust of another can beget— it just so happens that they were the ones who ended up with enough political/economic power to act on their hostility to other groups on such a large scale in the current era.
For example, I’m from a Mexican family and my paternal grandparents can sometimes be pretty racist. Hell, if I’m honest, I myself used to have prejudices and bigotries that I’m not too proud of.
There is nothing about being a minority that makes you a saint. There is nothing about being a minority that makes you superhuman. Minorities are human beings and have all human flaws (no exceptions!).
Racism is a flaw present in human beings. Minorities can be racist.
Violence is a flaw present in human beings. Minorities can be violent.
Infidelity is a flaw present in human beings. Minorities can be unfaithful.
<X> is a flaw present in human beings. Minorities can be <X>.
all people are extremely racist, it’s part of our nature. white people are just the only ones that have had the power to do such terrible things about it. you could argue others have done worse, but i think it’s an unarguable fact that white people have done it to a larger extent than anyone else. and it’s only because they could, not because they were any more prone to it than anyone else.
btw, empathy is also an integral part of our nature, so through conscious effort and exposure, we can realize that we are not as different as we think, and counteract the natural urge to be racist
This is not the place to debate the merits of anarchism itself. While discussion is encouraged, getting in your “epic dunks on the anarkiddies” is not. As a result of the instance’s poor moderation policies and hostility toward anarchists by default, lemmygrad users are encouraged not to post here, though not explicitly disallowed if they aren’t just looking to start a fight.
What makes you assume this? Sure, they’re overrepresented in media so you’ll probably hear more, but I don’t think they’re particularly more or less racist as a group.
Isn’t the majority of any country the most racist people in terms of public policy? Since minorities don’t dictate public policy.
I think I misread, do you mean public policy as in legislation? If so, it’s a very weird statistic I don’t see the purpose of: you’ve implied they’re the only racial demographic who had the power to create policy, and they included racist policies. So yes, the only group would be the most racist in that group no matter how racist they are or others are. They’re the only one you’re choosing from. What’s the point of that?
But, really, they’re not the only ones who dictate public policy. Let’s (hypothetically, completely made up and not indicative of real life) assume a parliament of 80% ‘caucasians’, 10% asians, 5% middle easteners and 5% aboriginal australians.
If 45% of the caucasians, 80% of the asians, 60% of the middle easterners and 80% of the aboriginals voted for a racist policy, it has a majority and ‘passes’. In these made-up numbers, the vast majority were by far the least racist (as a whole) and not even majority pro-racist-policy. So no, just because they’re the ones with the power to pass legislation doesn’t logically imply they are the most intense of the group. Of course, these are made up numbers to illustrate the mathematics, not only do I have no idea of real numbers, they would also depend on the policies and on subjective opinions of whether a policy is indirectly racist or not, and so on.
Grouping races by if they are ‘more/less’ racist is arbitrary pointless stereotyping. Being racist isn’t a racial quality (a cultural quality maybe!), and ironically, assuming a race to be more racist is literally racism.
To answer your original concerns, what makes you assume minority groups have implicit solidarity? I think they should and it’s within their best interest, but they often don’t. If you don’t like anglo-saxons and you don’t like chinese, for whatever racist reason, where’s the contradiction? Or if you think [minority] is getting all the attention that YOU want! I see that crabs-in-a-bucket junk all the time.
Reading too much into my message comrade
Because we minorities are humans at the end of the day, nothing more, nothing less.
White people are not the only ones capable of bigotry or prejudice, and they are also not the only ones capable of the evils that one group’s hatred, aversion, or mistrust of another can beget— it just so happens that they were the ones who ended up with enough political/economic power to act on their hostility to other groups on such a large scale in the current era.
For example, I’m from a Mexican family and my paternal grandparents can sometimes be pretty racist. Hell, if I’m honest, I myself used to have prejudices and bigotries that I’m not too proud of.
There is nothing about being a minority that makes you a saint. There is nothing about being a minority that makes you superhuman. Minorities are human beings and have all human flaws (no exceptions!).
all people are extremely racist, it’s part of our nature. white people are just the only ones that have had the power to do such terrible things about it. you could argue others have done worse, but i think it’s an unarguable fact that white people have done it to a larger extent than anyone else. and it’s only because they could, not because they were any more prone to it than anyone else.
btw, empathy is also an integral part of our nature, so through conscious effort and exposure, we can realize that we are not as different as we think, and counteract the natural urge to be racist
They’re just people, so they can be racist as well.