It's almost like the media is deliberately choosing a divisive angle at every problem. COVID impacts small businesses regardless of their owners' race or gender or sexual preference. It's a perfect "common enemy" that would normally help people unite. Like finding and sharing clever ways of reducing transmission while running your shop, or moving as many things as possible online. But nope, this wouldn't get as many clicks as forcing people to clash over their differences instead of working together in search of a common solution. Divide-and-conquer in action.
We're in the midst of the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. We destroyed small businesses but Wal-Mart/Amazon is making money hand over fist, not to mention the trillions in bailout/spending while John Q Public got a couple thousand bucks.
If you want to pull something like that off it's best if you can keep the low status people arguing about masks and melanin.
Facebook and Google also destroyed small, local newspapers, magazines and generally local advertising places.
All this revenue is siphoned from around the world so that it can be hoarded in offshore tax havens and not even taxed in the US. At least, if you rob us blind in the rest of the world, have the decency to do something useful with the money :-)
They're doing their part by keeping us angry about melanin, masks, and pronouns. The more "sophisticated" among us will chatter on about which political party will be taking point position in the wealth transfer, but that's all we get. It's grifting season and every politically connected business has a role to play.
A "common enemy" dynamic is not guaranteed even when/if the enemy is a non-metaphorical enemy army. The opposite dynamic can also unfold, as well as the more common many-against many dynamic with multiple, competing, fluid alliances. See the Syrian civil war for a recent example.
When the "enemy" is a disease, disaster or somesuch... I think the opposite often emerges. In fact, these things tend to produce exactly this kind of thing. Hardening of identities, conflict between groups, blame... In Jewish history, for example, epidemics and plagues yielded some of the darkest times.
Times of plenty are better for solidarity, usually. When times are tough, people group. People conflict... unfortunately.
Yes the media will try to piss everyone off, because it is profit driven and pissing people off is the best way to fuel engagement. Anger memes spread the best. It's a mixture of a profit-driven business and the competition with other profit-driven businesses which leads them to act this way. The game needs to be redesigned if you want them to play differently.
In either case, it's more important to be educated to know that the media is divisive, and that the only way to overcome media bias is to increase one's bandwidth of information: read all the major news outlets. Don't just rely on one news source. Get to know who owns which papers and always keep an eye out for conflicts of interest when reading about certain subjects.
The problem with articles like this—apart from the politically constructed racial category of “Asian”—is that there is no support for anything apart from a lot of narrative and a few anecdotes. Asians have by a good margin the lowest covid death rate of any race, despite being much more likely to live in hard hit urban areas: https://www.apmresearchlab.org/covid/deaths-by-race
The article’s discussion of the “model minority” stereotype is also a clumsy attempt at racialization. The article points to low-income Asian groups like Burmese. But those groups aren’t poor because they’re Asian, they’re poor because they’re economic immigrants and often refugees. Burmese, in particular, are the most recent major Asian immigrant group. 85% of Burmese Americans are first-generation immigrants, while 80% of Japanese Americans are native born. Less than half of Burmese Americans speak English fluently.
But Japanese Americans were also predominantly economic migrants at one point. The important question the article overlooks is income mobility. Asian kids raised in the bottom quantile of income have by far the highest income mobility of any group. 27% will end up in the top quantile by adult hood—almost double the rate for white kids. There is no reason to believe that the Burmese will be any different than say the Vietnamese. Large scale Vietnamese refugee immigration mainly occurred from 1975-2000. As a result, most Vietnamese Americans have been here 20+ years. In that time, Vietnamese Americans have achieved economic parity with whites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U.... So have Laotians and Cambodians, who immigrated, mostly as refugees, around that same time period.
I can’t help but feel like articles like this are an attempt to racialize Asians and make them identify as a marginalized minority group, instead of as individuals who are in the process of achieving upward mobility. Calling the long-standing economic trends a “myth” is borderline deceptive and risky. Clearly something is working. But if you make people think that it isn’t working, you might inadvertently break it.
> Getting tested for COVID-19 didn’t seem like an option for the Rongs. The rumor was that the tests were expensive. Rong also feared the reaction from neighbors.
> “If you test positive, everyone would be scared of you,” said Rong. “Everyone would think you are the devil.”
then:
> Asian case-fatality rate nearly triple that of all other groups in San Francisco County
If a group gets tested less CFR would go up for that group.
But “Economic parity with whites” doesn’t mean sh﹡t when a racial group (edit: not even a racial group) is discriminated in college admissions, corporate leadership roles, etc., which are some of the most vital external decisions for upward mobility. (These are very widely documented so don’t ask me for citations. You can easily find hundred-comment-strong threads on these topics within this very site.) If anything it means the group has managed to “succeed” despite all the racial/cultural roadblocks, and the efforts they put in are not proportionally repaid.
“Individuals who are in the process of achieving upward mobility” — that’s the actual myth. More like work as hard as you can, we’ll randomly select three out of ten to put into the pool of potential upward mobility with all fifty of that other group.
I know some people prefer equality of outcome and don’t feel the slightest shame about pushing down hardworking folks based on their ancestries if that’s what it takes to achieve a semblance of equality and diversity. I can’t have a productive conversation with those people. Actually, you know what, I’ve hardly ever seen anyone convincing anyone on this or any other divisive topic, so here’s my opinion, I don’t care what anyone thinks about it, and I’m not gonna further comment on this.
A lot of the statistics about Asian under representation in leadership positions evaporates when you account for the fact that Asians are quite a bit younger in average than whites. While the percentage of Asians in the population overall is 6-7%, the percentage of Asians in the 60+ cohort is only 4-5%. Also, Asians are a rapidly growing group that mostly comprises immigrants not born in the US. It’s not necessarily a sign of discrimination that there is a lag between when Asians arrive in the US, when they reach economic parity, and when they achieve leadership positions that might require a higher level of being established, US citizenship, many years of company service, etc. As a result of the fact that the Asian population is growing rapidly, you’re looking at statistics that may not be in equilibrium.
Asians account for about 3.7% of Fortune 500 Board seats, which isn’t that far off from the 4-5% of the age cohort you’d expect to have a high level position like that. More important, they account for 8% of new board appointments: https://www.statista.com/statistics/547958/percentage-of-new.... Asian new appointments has tracked the overall percentage of population quite well for the last decade. If anything, Asians are on their way to being a bit over-represented in corporate board seats.
most people's definition of asian refers to the far east (and southeast) asian. India is somewhat explicitly excluded, even tho geographically they are on the same continent as "asians".
I think you will just have to get used to it. It's the same as referring to USA as America - excluding all of South America.
Asians in the UK means Indians, Asians in the US frequently refers to East Asians.
Although in the US, I feel like the ethnicity question is more about pinning down what socioeconomic class you’re in, so the options will lump all of Asia together.
Yep, that's what I'm talking about in the other thread. 0 comments on efficient weight loss techniques, and almost 10 about who should be counted in which pandering group. Wake up, people, identity politics is eating you alive.
The US's weird obsession with "race", a concept that the entire world agrees does not exist does not help. Everything is done through the prism of "race relations", as if that had any sense.
It's not being asian that makes you survive Covid. It's cultural and societal habits. Go to any asian country and you will most likely see people wearing masks when they're sick. Even before covid.
>I can’t help but feel like articles like this are an attempt to racialize Asians and make them identify as a marginalized minority group, instead of as individuals who are in the process of achieving upward mobility. Calling the long-standing economic trends a “myth” is borderline deceptive and risky. Clearly something is working. But if you make people think that it isn’t working, you might inadvertently break it.
Economically us asians are doing quite well but that's not the only aspect of racism that exists. We're marginalized in different ways. It's hard to put into words what this is exactly. Quantitatively you can see an aspect of this in low asian representation in Hollywood but it's much more deeper than that. See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsWTFeP1hno&t=3s
As you can see from the video it's not even about economics. It's something else that's deeper because the most insidious thing about it is that huge amount of Asian women sort of have this attitude against their own race as well. It's a subtle sentiment that no one really talks about so it comes out in different ways.
The examples are related to dating but I'm not talking about dating specifically. There is something going on terms of class divide and perspective that is influencing the dating game as a side effect. We talk about class in terms of money but clearly something else is going on with class here that is seperate from money.
It's really something that's hard to pinpoint and as a result I feel a lot of articles like this are written in place of the actual problem.
I would've liked if people recognized more about the "social" struggles Asians face in America (and Europe) rather than the economical one, since this is not invisible but rather very visible, just that people don't notice it. Which means everyone as individuals can do more about these issues...
The way media & entertainment propagate the normalization of still making fun of Asians[1], affect not only Asians in America but also in Europe. (We in Europe have this weird self-perception that racism is more of an US thing, and the only resemblance of that here is either Nazis or Islamophobia.) People might not realize this but it does have a quite deep historical root [4]
One thing about the article though. Not so surprising that the (elderly) Asian Americans have low trust for the government when the government track record to them is:
* the Asians were the first to be targeted by explicit ethnic/national immigration ban[2]
* American citizen who married Asian could lose their citizenship[3].
* Yellow Peril[4]
* and now, disguised as good-will, through Affirmative action actively creating disadvantage to enter higher education. (or higher positions)
"The most stubborn misconception about this population is that its members can be uniformly measured at all. A population of 20 million strong, representing more than 50 distinct ethnic groups, Asian Americans have some of the widest variances in corporate success, education, and income."
OK, so how then do we get a coherent article about the plight of Asian American small-business owners?
Are there not a multitude of experiences?
Or is the article saying there is a common vector e.g. racial discrimination that affects all Asian-American small businesses even though they have diverse resources, experiences, distribution and successes?
Do non-Asian-American small businesses contend with similar headwinds to Asian American small businesses?
I'm not criticising TFA or disputing any data it presents - just trying to get a handle on what it is saying.
It’s easy to say this until you’ve had someone yell this at you on the street in order to harass you.
Just call it something else. It’s not that hard. There are lots of diseases from lots of other places that we somehow manage to refer to without tying it to the place from which it originated, or from which people think it originated.
Because had the Chinese government acknowledged the Wuhan outbreak early, and done a local lockdown instead of trying to shove it under the rug, there would be no pandemic. Quite a reason to be pissed off at it (mind you, specific government and not an abstract "race").
You will notice that most of those names don't come from people living in that place and frequently those diseases were actively named to denigrate the locals.
Or they're not named in recent times, but instead in times when using slurs was a leisure activity.
Plus the egregious case of the "Spanish" flu that might have originated in the US but Spain was unlucky to be talking openly about it.
I appreciate these articles because it highlights how circumstances can change for a group of people at any moment. The old saying, "First they came for ... then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me" rings in my mind.
It's important we highlight these struggles and do our part in supporting them... you might find yourself in a similar situation one day. With that I'd encourage folks to read more about BLM, Uighur concentration camps, Palestine, etc. Even if you feel powerless in stopping oppression the very least you could do is be aware and spread the word.
I agree completely, as an Indian-American in the tech industry. I have experienced first hand discrimination against my technical and communication skills.
One thing I have a lot of trouble grasping is that the Indian population is not represented in articles addressing discrimination against "Asians", despite being a part of Asia.
If we keep focusing on identity instead of merit, everyone will feel discriminated and miserable. It's not like the "majority" vilified by the media is the army of clones. If you look closer, you'll see that someone is shy, someone else can't tolerate loud sounds, others get stage fright, or have a whiny voice, or an asymmetric face or whatever. It just used to be that people would focus on their strong sides, and find something useful they could bring to the table based on them, so others would respect them regardless of their weaknesses, and everyone was happy. But now we are celebrating the demise of merit, standardization of a human-hour billed at a minimum wage, and are spending most of our time fighting over who's a bigger victim.
> I have found most Americans don't see India as part of Asia for whatever reason.
East Asians have a very different culture than Indians; it doesn't really make any sense to lump them together. Dropping the "East" from "East Asian" is just being a bit lazy (because honestly, it is kind of clunky).
It's just a nomenclature thing. Genetically your people are more similar to people from Europe then the "asians" the article refers to. The article uses the word "asian" but technically the article is just referring to people who have certain facial features that are similar to people from China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam... etc. You are asian yes, but in terms of facial features you are in a very separate category than the previous countries I mentioned.
I'm not sure what is the proper term here. I've seen the terms "mongoloid" and "oriental" used to refer to my people but I've also seen things written about how these terms are dated and considered to be insulting. I have found no other word to refer to "asians" the way the article refers to "asians."
It's strange that it's so hard to find a term here as there is a very clear cut category here. Whatever... it's just words.
I would respond to your query and say that "mongoloids" have a very different experience with racism in the US than Indian people due to a multitude of factors one of them being that most Indians already know English.
Qualitatively speaking, in the software world Indians are easily dominating that arena over "mongoloids" so it's a completely different experience.
Whatever hardships Indian people are going through would imho warrant a completely separate article to cover that topic.
I think you’ll find that’s strictly an American definition of “Asian”.
In the UK “Asian” definitely includes people from the Indian sub-continent. See the BBC Asian Network for the example.
Also your claims about genetic similarities and differences between races will need some supporting evidence as they sounds very much like personal opinion.
>I think you’ll find that’s strictly an American definition of “Asian”.
No, that's just colloquial usage of the term "Asian" in America. The official definition we use in America is the same as the UK version.
>Also your claims about genetic similarities and differences between races will need some supporting evidence as they sounds very much like personal opinion.
This is pretty common knowledge. "Mongoloids" branched off on a different ancestral line somewhere during the migration out of Africa. It happened roughly around the middle east with "mongoloids" migrating east on the north side of the himalayas and Indian people moving east to the south. The genetic markers when sampled from populations actually display this genetic separation geographically. In fact the grouping of Indians and "mongoloids" is far more natural and appropriate than the term "Asian"
This is pretty common knowledge from different facial features between Indians and Asian people. But if you want to get technical there are actually genetic markers that correlate geographically with racial physical features. The marker for "mongoloids" is called Haplogroup C-M217, also known as C2 (and previously as C3). It is a Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup. It is the most frequently occurring branch of the wider Haplogroup C (M130). It is found mostly in Central Asia, Eastern Siberia and significant frequencies in parts of East Asia and Southeast Asia including some populations in the Caucasus and Middle East.
The haplogroup C-M217 is now found at high frequencies among Central Asian peoples, indigenous Siberians, and some Native peoples of North America. In particular, males belonging to peoples such as the Buryats, Evens, Evenks, Itelmens, Kalmyks, Kazakhs, Koryaks, Mongolians, Negidals, Nivkhs, Udege, and Ulchi have high levels of M217.
The picture represents the frequency of the historic appearance of Haplogroup C-M217 among native populations with white representing very very low frequencies and the legend in the picture representing higher frequencies.
You will note that C-M217 is basically almost never shows up in India and is highly correlated with the geographic distribution of "mongoloid" facial features found from China going all the way to Native Americans in North America.
Now examine Haplogroup L-M20. Haplogroup L-M20 is also a human Y-DNA haplogroup, which is defined by SNPs M11, M20, M61 and M185. As a secondary descendant of haplogroup K and a primary branch of haplogroup LT, haplogroup L currently has the alternative phylogenetic name of K1a, and is a sibling of haplogroup T (a.k.a. K1b).
The presence of L-M20 has been observed at varying levels throughout South Asia, peaking in populations native to Balochistan (28%), Northern Afghanistan (25%) and Southern India (19%). The clade also occurs in Tajikistan and Anatolia, as well as at lower frequencies in Iran. It has also been present for millennia at very low levels in the Caucasus, Europe and Central Asia. The subclade L2 (L-L595) has been found in Europe and Western Asia, but is extremely rare.
The picture of the haplogroup linking Europe and India is illustrated here:
You will note that this haplogroup extends from India across the middle east into Europe which is consistent with the ancestral migrations of prehistoric humans and also with the caucasian features that Indians and Europeans share.
The story is more complex than this however. These Haplogroups only represent frequencies of two genetic markers. In reality what we interpret as race is an amalgamation of many many genetic and physical features. An individual needs to only have an average amount of these features for our visual cortex to recognize someone as "mongoloid" or "indian."
Because I chose to use a singular genetic marker to show the correlation between physical features, genetic features and geographic distribution you can actually find a flaw that arises from the use of a single genetic marker: Although japanese people and chinese people look alike, they do not share Haplogroup C-M127. Go ahead and look at the picture again above... you will see that japan is white, indicating a very low frequency of haplogroup C-M127 despite physical similarity. The reason for this is outside of the scope of this topic.
That being said it is still possible to find correlation between genetic similarities, physical features and geographic distribution with just two haplogroups because the correlations are very very high. This response serves as proof to show that what I said isn't my opinion. It is more representative of your lack of knowledge misleading you to believe that I am stating my opinion rather than a commonly known fact.
Most people know how use vision and sight to identify these genetic similarities just by looking at faces. It's totally obvious to normal people. However,some people get so politically correct that they lose the ability to to use common sense to see these similarities. People like you... For these people we need to use raw science to show you just how misguided your thought process is.
>My flawed argument was based on India and China sharing a land border and that shared genetic markers are found on both sides of it.
This is not flawed reasoning. Despite Indians and Chinese people possessing unique genetic markers, people in India and China do still share genetic markers from earlier haplogroups. If you go far enough back into human ancestry we can find a markers arising out of Africa that all humans in Asia and Europe share.
>I’m not sure there’s any need to cheapen your point by making personal attacks.
It's not a personal attack. I assume your conclusions are irrationally influenced by the current "woke" trend that's taking over America today. I say this because my conclusion can be arrived at trivially with zero technical jargon.
The same conclusion can be derived from just looking at people. The similarity in facial features between Indians and Europeans and the marked contrast between Chinese and Indians makes my expose into the genetics quite unnecessarily pedantic. It hinders conversation by forcing me to go into details in order to state the obvious.
Correct conclusions can be arrived at in significantly less time if people utilized a combination of common sense and scientific evidence where it is deemed necessary. If I didn't choose to troll this thread with a mile long document of terminal evidence then very likely this conversation would have ended without a real conclusion despite the obvious fact that Indians and Chinese look different enough to be classified as following different branches in the ancestral tree.
> I think you’ll find that’s strictly an American definition of “Asian”.
Well, yes, American media are going to use the American definition of "Asian". This is an article on Vox, not the BBC.
> In the UK “Asian” definitely includes people from the Indian sub-continent.
It is my understanding that the UK term isn't more inclusive, it just refers to subcontinentals instead of orientals, since for historical reasons that's who's present in England.
> Also your claims about genetic similarities and differences between races will need some supporting evidence as they sounds very much like personal opinion.
Don't be ridiculous. Yes, Indians are much more closely related to whites than Asians are. You don't need to support basic well-known facts.
Recall that Indians were usually "white" under US law (there are some exceptions) until pressure from Indian activists in the Nixon administration got them reclassified.
> Don't be ridiculous. Yes, Indians are much more closely related to whites than Asians are. You don't need to support basic well-known facts.
Recall that Indians were usually "white" under US law...
I’m sorry but that is not a “basic well-known fact” that is just conjecture.
Dubious, now repealed, racial laws are not a sound basis on which to hang an argument.
If you want to make that claim stick you’d need to do a peer reviewed comparison of DNA and prove it.
If you really want to play this game consider that China and India share a border.
Where do the people 20 miles on either side of that border fit in your racial hierarchy?
I guess you can keep resorting to ad hominem or you can admit this is not settled and India is a genetically diverse place.
If you pick a different haplogroup such as O-M122, which is believed to have originated in China, you’ll see that is highly present in northern India showing that that border is porous, Himalayas or not.
Notice how the modal component in Indian groups is the "Europe" component. Notice how the East Asian groups share almost nothing with the European groups.
And the next time you want to have an argument in public, please try to make sure you know at least a little bit about the topic. Come on.
Then that person might be the US Census Bureau, which defines (or, rather, has had defined for it) the following racial categories (and more, but these two are relevant to the discussion):
“White – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
⋮
“Asian – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.”
This also basically reflects the general use of the terms in the US, except that a lot of people would would consider Semitic people to be two additional separate races and not part of White, and/or would separate out those from the subcontinent as distinct from “Asians”. It's important to understand that while some of the racial terms have names of continent, they are about a particular model of racial identities, not continental boundaries.
Yea, the US has shown great historical leadership in naming people accurately. Thank God they just called the people there Indians and didn't go all the way and called the place India as well.
So the world has much more sense than to take it's cues from the US, in these matters atleast.
Yay for the oppression olympics, whoever claims the most oppression the loudest gets attention. All you're incentivizing is increasing claims of oppression, not any improvement. Admitting any improvement would hurt the position.
Yeah, the other things Asian American small-business owners are subjected to is being the butt of violent inner-city riots supported by major political parties.
Anyone who denies this has forgotten roof Koreans and the effects that the LA riots (and that the BLM riots today) are having on Asians.
EDIT; people downvoting me need to see reality. This stuff is reported in Asian outlets all the time, but the American mainstream media will tell you sweet stories of Asian business owners 'supporting' BLM riots. You have to remember that these people, including my parents, have come from countries where it is normal to publicly say whatever you need to to appease the majority group. My mom and dad, like most Asians, will say whatever needs to be said to keep their family safe, even if they disagree. Americans do not understand Asian culture at all.
I share this same sentiment as a Chinese American and I wouldn't be surprised if other Asians rolled their eyes at the riots that took place. No one talks about the BS that Asians have to deal with let alone know about them (i.e. affirmative action + minor minority myth = discrimination towards Asians, discrimination/crime towards Asians by blacks), but we're not gonna whine about this because that's just not what we do, we carry on working hard and not succumbing to victim mentality (i.e. when was the last time you saw an ALM organization).
Asian people don’t make an “Asian Lives Matter” because they’re not regularly targeted by police. They do however tend to lead efforts against affirmative action programs because they tend to reduce the number of Asian Americans who qualify for things. Painting this as an issue of other minorities being whiny is not a very nice characterization.
Another way to look at it is, they cannot be nicely boxed into a big voting block, so they don't get campaigns that conveniently coincide with elections and fizzle out soon after.
Asians are regularly targeted by police. Brown skinned Indians often look arab and are subject to the same racial profilings. One need only look at history (hello bellingham riots) to see rampant violence against asians that typically goes ignored due to asian cultural pragmatism.
> Yeah, the other things Asian American small-business owners are subjected to is being the butt of violent inner-city riots supported by major political parties.
Indeed. Also from the 2015 Baltimore riots: "Looters Take Everything But a Family’s Pennies / Chinese store-owners and a soldier who fought in Afghanistan both return to find their hometown transformed into a war zone." https://np.reddit.com/r/news/comments/34cu4j/baltimore_loote...
No, that's the thing. You, like many scientific materialists are asking for some study that shows you causality. The requirements of an IRB make it such that you most likely couldn't study this, and if you can, the timeliness of the study would lag 5-10 years behind usefulness.
You only have to walk around Koreatown now to see this. The people who make the policy that govern lives are not waiting around for the IRP to approve the study. I suggest you attempt to experience the life, or talk to those who have, while waiting for links to studies that prescribe outcomes related to current events.
I'm Asian, the guy didn't ask for a scientific study. He just asked for clarification which you did give in the second paragraph. Give him a break.
Yeah asians are victims of racism, but that doesn't preclude other races from criticising a statement for being unclear.
I would say to the parent parent poster that next time you can ask those questions without directly stating that the comment was: "extremely vague, charged, and lacking in nuance." Even though I agree that what you said is true, most humans are incapable of ingesting those words in an unbiased way and will likely misinterpret it as an insult. Ironically, the comment itself was "lacking in nuance."
I’m not saying anything regarding general anti-Asian discrimination in America. (On that point, I agree with others in this thread: they face discrimination in education and tech jobs, among other places).
But that’s not at all related to what I asked. I simply asked for clarification between BLM and anti-asian violence. I don’t need a peer-reviewed study.
We don’t know each other’s political beliefs or life experiences. If you were asking about Trump rallies and anti-asian violence I’d ask the same thing.
Political reporting is primarily about shaping current events to fit a predefined narrative. Contrary evidence is cleaved from the story if it doesn't fit the agenda.
It is hypocritical when the authors paint themselves as concerned with the plight of an identity category, but downplay negative outcomes when it contradicts their agenda. From my perspective this shows how little these supposedly compassionate voices actually care. They're simply exploiting the situation to score political points.
This isn't unique to Asian-American identity politics. If you look you can find it across the entire spectrum of identity politics. The obvious solution in my view is to concern ourselves with the plight of individuals as individuals, not members of a specific tribe. Treating individuals equally was at the core of liberalism, but today it has been overtaken by philosophies that put membership in an identity category before the individual. The outcome is predictably divisive and toxic.
Why plural? There's only one major party in the US that did not condemn the violent riots and looting. “They’re not gonna stop. And they should not.” -- Kamala Harris, VP candidate
Yes, evidently, unless you arrest and prosecute the rioters and looters, which is something "progressive" DAs refuse to do.
> did indeed condemn the rioters
If you read the article, you will see that she did not. She said that they "should not be confised" with protesters, but did not condemn them explicitly. Nor could she condemn, because the official democratic narrative is that the protests are "fiery but peaceful", which they're anything but.
Yes the United States has been historically plagued by racial injustices. If you'd like more to be listed, consider the Tulsa Race Massacre and Seneca Village. Maybe the Trail of Tears.
I don't see your great point in posting this.
Hell, IIRC, the whole Cali gun ban thing is because a certain group of white people didn't like black people legally walking on the capital with guns. Imagine if they would've wanted to make an example out of roof Koreans as well.
.png){kind=link}