Consider that this is the majority consensus in Japan and China. Imagine going to japan and saying "guys, this workplace is far too asian, what we really need here is some more indians, africans and arabs to get this workplace into the 21st century".
I think most people here could see that not going over well. Would we then think of china and japan as mostly racist?
I don't really want to get into racist/racial debate on HN, other than to say it's not some tiny opinion only held by white supremacists and neo-nazis.
That and you will find if you look into the research on race differences (eg: genetic influences on IQ) that these topics are not even close to be declared settled and are still hotly contested.
> Would we then think of china and japan as mostly racist
Actually yes. I don't think that's far-fetched by our standards. And on the whole I'm quite proud of the distance we in the West have travelled on this issue.
However - the reason we're where we are is because slavery, colonialism and immigration have rather forced us to confront the issue in a way that other nations have not needed to.
People in China are in fact racist by Western definitions. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15745355 for details. As I said in that comment, it's not because they're _bad_ people; it's a natural outcome of the way humans stereotype.
They are both pretty openly xenophobic, no? I didnt think that was in any debate. If your point is that racism isnt the sole province of white people - yes, thats worth remembering. White American liberals (which I am) seem to struggle with allowing their world view to incorporate things like this.
No, I feel that the point is rather different, pointing towards a difference between xenophobia and racism.
In USA, the nation is mixed, heterogenous, and thus being anti-diversity unavoidably involves some discrimination of your fellow citizens, being an asshole to some groups of them; and justifying this discrimination tends to require some racist arguments.
In homogenous countries like Japan, the issue is different - you can easily consider other races/ethnicities as equally good/valid/etc while at the same time being anti-diversity, favoring near-zero permanent immigration; i.e. a simple status quo position "the other races are nice, let's visit, chat, trade, exchange experiences but let us stay here and let them stay there" is feasible, unlike USA.
In USA, acknowledging "there's us and there's them" race separation divides the country, in Japan the same thing can unite it. Treating members of another race as guests that are different/separate from your group is reasonable in homogeous nations and horrid in "melting pot" nations.
> In USA, the nation is mixed, heterogenous, and thus being anti-diversity unavoidably involves some discrimination of your fellow citizens, being an asshole to some groups of them; and justifying this discrimination tends to require some racist arguments.
I'm anti-diversity not because I don't believe races exist, I'm anti-diversity because I think hiring people for the color of the skin is itself racist. Affirmative action has made me skeptical of every woman or "diverse" person in high places, because when I see their authority, all I think about is how they had an edge just because of their biology.
I really don't care about natural racial diversity, it's inevitable in our country. However, I'm not really a fan of cultural diversity. A culture defines what is expected from one another socially, and without any set norms, people have no predictable way to interact, which is no good IMO. I understand that multinational corporations are required to allow for multiculturalism so they can behave globally, but I don't see why local areas can't have their own cultures.
I have reasoning behind my opinions, but because they are currently taboo, the only way I can discuss my opinions are on anonymous forums like this. That's sad to me. I may be wrong, there may be a flaw in my reasoning, but because I can't discuss them in public, the discovery of those flaws becomes delayed.
I think it is an unsettling reaction to have your predominant thought upon seeing a woman or non white male in a position of authority to assume it is because of their gender or race. I find it hard to believe you are not able to find other logical reasons for ot, so it sounds like a choice youve made to view the world through that lense.
There might be other logical reasons that they are in power, but even knowing that affirmative action made their sex or race a factor and that my biology would work against me if I were to apply for their position is enough to make me jealous and bitter about it. I think affirmative action sows divides because of it, and is probably counterproductive nowadays.
If discrimination based on race or sex is bad, then why is affirmative action good?
I can speak from my own experience only as I dont study the statistics, but in 20 years of work as a white male I can categorically say ate that my race and gender has never been a hindrance in my career progression. I dont doubt the possibility exists, but I do not based on my network feel its to any noticeable degree. As in, I havent ever observed it happen, as a hiring manager myself or by a hiring manager.
As to your second part, as to what its origin is, its clearly in response to a multigenerational systemic suppression of certain classes. That is not in debate, and frankly from my white male perch, I continue to see firsthand much more of the lingering slights and biases against certain classes and groups, that affect their career and their inclusion, than I ever have any anti white male sentiment or anti white male advancent credo.
So in summary - I really dont think much has changed, and that isnt a good thing.
> its clearly in response to a multigenerational systemic suppression of certain classes.... I continue to see firsthand much more of the lingering slights and biases against certain classes and groups, that affect their career and their inclusion, than I ever have any anti white male sentiment or anti white male advancent credo.
This statement shows a big divide between our worldviews. You believe that they fail to succeed in our country because they are part of a disadvantaged group, while I believe it's because they either 1) lack the money to earn social status signals required to start a career(degree, social network), or 2) their culture prevents success. There are plenty of disadvantaged white folk who are held back by those two issues too, yet mainstream media calls them "privileged" because they happen to be white, despite the fact that they grew up poor, live in an economically depressed area, work manual labor, and have a culture that doesn't strive for more.
Sure, historic racism would explain why the divides aren't symmetrical, but I think the whole nation would be better if our politicians would focus on economics instead of identity politics.
I dont think we have a divide, my view just includes racism and sexism as things black people and women have to deal with, in addition to what you list for white males. Its not either or. So I guess my question to you is, since you know racism and sexism exist...why are you so wed to subtracting it from their equation?
Otherwise we agree. I come from a very white, very depressed region. I understand the dynamics well.
As to the govt, I believe the vast majority of all social programs do deal with things on an economic basis. So I dont see the conflict. Once again, not an either or. Most things arent.
I'd like affirmative action removed because I believe it does more harm than good nowadays, and maintains racial and gender divides. I think it was necessary when implemented when rampant, blatant, extreme racism and sexism was the norm, but that just simply isn't the norm nowadays.
I know my negative emotional reaction to seeing a "diverse" leader is racist and sexist, but that's not going away while their advantage is codified in every single corporate handbook in the country.
I think you have a point, but I don't tend to think to consider the current state of all nation states and their dominant cultures as static. 1000 years from now, I imagine much will have changed. Which may or may not involve closed nations to address many of the same issues we in America face. I think we can see this in Europe now.
I mean if xenophobic is defined as preferring your own race compared to others then I guess pretty much the entire world is xenophobic except white liberals in western countries.
China or Japan doesn't (in recent decades at least) put nearly the same amount of effort into destabilizing other countries that they have no cultural affinity with compared to countries like the US.
To me, I would consider these actions more "racist" or "xenophobic" than restricting immigration to prevent excessive racial/cultural diversity. To me this is the rise and fall of nation states 101. More diversity in race and cultures leads to more conflict. You can't have a race riots between two races that don't live in the same nation.
To take this a bit away from race, just look at the middle east. Countries like iraq are doomed constant civil war because of the racial/cultural lines which are commonly expressed through religion sects. I think it would be pretty fair to say that without diversity, iraq as a nation would be much more stable and prosperous.
If it's xenophobic to understand race exists and the human condition is one that accepts race at a foundational level, then I guess we are all born Xenophobic. I personally don't believe in living by original sins.
To me you conflate culture and religion with race. Which is often or at least usually the basis of racism. I dont think race is foundational, in really any way that matters.
China is less homogenous than you might think, and Japan has groups that face discrimination too even if the divisions are less obvious to Western eyes. And people do criticize Japan's relatively xenophobic attitudes.
More to the point, even if you were correct about their racial homogeneity that would not be a model that the United States can or should seek to emulate.
Everything I've experienced and read about China (I'm American and lived there for a year) leads me to believe that Han Chinese in China are extremely racist. Look at how they treat their own ethnic minorities, for example (Tibetans, Uighurs, etc.).
I know less about Japan, but everything I've read suggests that Japanese are also extremely racist.
I think most people here could see that not going over well. Would we then think of china and japan as mostly racist?
I don't really want to get into racist/racial debate on HN, other than to say it's not some tiny opinion only held by white supremacists and neo-nazis.
That and you will find if you look into the research on race differences (eg: genetic influences on IQ) that these topics are not even close to be declared settled and are still hotly contested.