[Zgarbas]

vix86 Wrote:I think they are easily exploited due to the economic situations surrounding the countries.

To elaborate a bit, on the short answers. I don't think things like mail order brides would be nearly as prevalent if the countries that the girls come from, were on a level comparable to the US. However, the fetishization of them would still be there. If the history and the stereotypes that have been built up around these cultures were different, the level of fetishization would also be different. BUT, there would still be men/women that would have a fetish. That fetish would exist simply because that ethnicity would be exotic to them. I think its important to remember that there is probably a biological imperative that exists to drive this as well.

Its important to also remember that East Asia isn't the only place that mail order brides come out of. There are organizations in Russia and Eastern Europe as well, and that's for white girls, not asians. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that organizations also exist in Africa as well. You look hard enough, there are regions of the world where a certain ethnicity is going to be exotic and probably sought after by a certain percentage of the population there.

I agree that exploitation is facilitated by economic conditions, but is there the idea of an ideal Russian/Eastern European bride? Economic conditions obviously mean that a lot of Russian, Eastern European, and Filipino girls are part of the mail-order bride population, but is there an ideal about the Eastern European wife as there is with the Asian one? I am aware of the Westerners who come to my country for sex tourism, but it has more to do with availability and cost than with any particular idealisation of the girls themselves, and their goal is casual sex, not marriage.

I would tend to think that Chinese/Japanese girls would be special on the fetish list as I have not heard a fetish about Vietnamese, Korean girls, etc. (well, probably now with the K-madness Korean girls made the list); if anything, Asian girls tend to have their nationality mislabeled in order to enhance their popularity with foreigners; there's a reason why porn sites have a Japanese section. of course, I don't think that fetishisation is the 100% reason for the sexploitation, but I think they are strongly interrelated, and I think that when it is done on a mass scale it is a product of social values rather than individual preference.

AussieTrooper Wrote:As someone who is about to marry his Japanese fiancé, I find your comment downright offensive.

Did you specifically look for a Japanese wife? Go out of your way with the exact purpose? Have the idea that a Japanese partner would be your ideal before you'd even met one? Was your fiance one of the many Japanese girls that you consistently hit on with little to no regard to their individuality until they responded positively?
If no, then I fail to see why you'd be offended. That is ridiculously common behaviour, and just because you're an exception doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Edit: did you just compare cisgender middle class white people in the US to Jews in 1938?

Zgarbas Wrote:Why do you think so many Westerners come to Japan in hopes of finding a Japanese girlfriend?

i'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people who come to japan in hopes of finding a japanese girlfriend are in fact from other asian countries.

Hitler, anybody? Have we mentioned Adolph Hitler yet? With all the excitement, I've lost track.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[Zgarbas]

A bit too late, Seeroi-sensei.

CureDolly Wrote:It seems to me that the real danger to cultures is the opposite. It is not when non-Christian cultures play with Christianity or Western cultures play with Shinto that any real harm is done. It is when one culture tries to force its religion or ideology in earnest upon another.

I thought of this while reading Tofugu's recent long-form article on the history of homosexuality in Japan, and how a thriving gay/bisexual Edo period gave way to the stifling Meiji period as Japan sought to imitate the West in this unfortunate way too: http://www.tofugu.com/2015/09/30/gay-samurai/ A lot of people have looked at this and thought it natural to condemn cultural appropriation.

AussieTrooper Wrote:Wrong.
ALL racism is detestable. ALL of it.
Wherever bigotry exists, there's someone trying to justify it.

We know this. What you're trying to do is trying to paint anti-racists as "bad" because, for whatever reason, they contradict your agenda.

You're right. All racism is detestable. That's why it's equally as detestable for you to try to demonize the people who frequently bring it up like you tried earlier.

AussieTrooper Wrote:What we are looking at here is a much milder version of that, but the principle is exactly the same. Once you divide society into groups of us and them, and give one an advantage over another entrenched in law

Quote:I think the TV show 'Youは何しに日本へ’　epitomises this welcoming attitude.

Seriously? I think that show epitomises everything that is wrong about the way Japanese people view foreigners. 'Let's gawk at this weird foreign guy while using him as a foil to admire how special we are!' I find it incredibly patronising.
(admittedly, I changed the channel pretty quickly whenever I saw it come on, but that's the general feeling I have from it - the same feeling I get when someone asks out of the blue if I can eat natto)

AussieTrooper Wrote:

cophnia61 Wrote:I think that girl is the racist one because she treats the japanese language and culture as something "other", and talks about Japanese people and Japanese culture as "them..." and "their..." like if she is talking about aliens... If you were practising Russian language I bet she had nothing to say about it ._.

Exactly.
It's funny how those who are always up in arms protesting and pointing out 'racism' everywhere are almost invariably incredibly racist themselves.
'Affirmative action' is another classic example of this. People are looking to apply laws differently, based upon someone's race. If that's not racism, then the word has no meaning.

Affirmative action is widely misunderstood; it can mean a lot of different things but usually it does not mean hiring a less-qualified minority in preference to a more qualified white (or male, etc). This is largely a fiction.

The basic idea of affirmative action is that rather than waiting for discrimination to occur and then dealing with it through lawsuits and such, the law should take pre-emptive steps to make sure that discrimination does not occur. This is the "affirmative" part of it. Applying this does not necessarily mean hiring quotas or the like.

Quote:Once you divide society into groups of us and them, and give one an advantage over another entrenched in law, you have created a tear that no amount of politically correct double talk can heal.

But society is already divided into us and them, whether the law says anything about it or not. If the law does nothing, then the "us" continues to oppress and discriminate against "them".

The idea that if we just don't talk about racism everyone would be equal is a poisonous idea that will prevent true change from ever happening. It's a belief the privileged hold to avoid taking responsibility for problems in their own society. It's the same "I've got mine" mindset that motivates a lot of the contempt for the poor that you see in the US.

[Zgarbas]

aldebrn Wrote:

CureDolly Wrote:It seems to me that the real danger to cultures is the opposite. It is not when non-Christian cultures play with Christianity or Western cultures play with Shinto that any real harm is done. It is when one culture tries to force its religion or ideology in earnest upon another.

I thought of this while reading Tofugu's recent long-form article on the history of homosexuality in Japan, and how a thriving gay/bisexual Edo period gave way to the stifling Meiji period as Japan sought to imitate the West in this unfortunate way too: http://www.tofugu.com/2015/09/30/gay-samurai/ A lot of people have looked at this and thought it natural to condemn cultural appropriation.

Keep in mind that homosexuality as was practiced in Edo was a matter of power and restricted to men. Very young acolytes with very old monks, always male, never two adults, unless one was a prostitute. It was also hidden behind the very sexist idea that (as the Tofugu article puts it) women were '“evil and defiling” by nature.' It had little to do with orientation per se, and the younger male had little say in it (all in all it was oddly similar to pederasty in Ancient Greece). Homosexuality was banned only for about 2 years IIRC, and continued to be practiced quite heavily throughout the 20th century. Also, a lot of Western thought which was emerging on the topic made its way into Japanese literature at a rapid pace, starting with the idea of Urning, which was introduced to Japan by Mori Ogai. Homosexuality was never as taboo as in the West, though some blame the passive attitude towards it to blame for the continued ignorance regarding it (Japan is one of the few developed countries without an anti-discrimination law).

ryuudou Wrote:If you get three chicken strips and your brother gets one chicken strip, and your dad gives your brother two more to even out the plates, you would look like a spoiled brat if you started crying about not getting any. You want two more chicken strips? Sure you can have them if you re-live as a black person for 18 years and take a significant amount of your family's wealth away.

Some pretty big issues with this analogy:

1. Is he my half brother or step brother then?
2. Why is our father still giving us chicken strips at 18 years old?
3. We have the same family.

EDIT:4. Who has more dipping sauce was also not addressed.

cracky Wrote:EDIT:4. Who has more dipping sauce was also not addressed.

What flavor of dipping sauce is also a super important thing to address. #SweetAndSour4Life

Anyway, to update the original topic of this thread- I've been back to the coffee shop twice now, though both times I purposely didn't use the time to study Japanese (I wanted to avoid another scene). I haven't seen the girl since the original encounter so tomorrow I plan on getting back into my routine of morning coffee and Anki.

NinKenDo Wrote:If these people just held their awful views and voiced them occasionally, it would be whatever, but literally everything is a chance to say how every problem in the world is caused by white-males.

oh the irony she is deeply imbued in this one.

ryuudou Wrote:Oh you said it. You just didn't say it directly. The idea that a more diverse team is a less competent team is inherently racist/sexist idea fueled by the belief that white men are the best for the job.

You will often witness this kind of thinking from angry guys on the internet (who are often shitty/mediocre coders that can't handle a little competition) who are mad that women and minorities are now challenging them for positions that they couldn't 40 years.

Did I say more diversity in the work place is bad? No, I said that forcefully inflating the number of particular demographics in the work place is bad. Why is it bad? Because it's discrimination based on physical features. I have absolutely no problem with qualified workers being hired, no matter their race, sex, or whatever (why I'm in favor of blind reviews, and mostly human free hiring procedures), but when you purposefully give a demographic (not an individual, but a collective, comprised of individuals who may or may not need social assistance) allowances that you withhold from others, you're discriminating on features that no one can control.

I'm not a programmer, but the classes I've seen have been significantly more white and male than other classes (and most of my peers in the engineering program were male, but the few women did just as well, so it doesn't seem to be a problem with the school). Most STEM fields are dominated by white males, because they make it through the schooling (these fields have a high failure rate for students as it is). Whether this is because women and racial minorities (well, black people aren't really a minority in my area, but they are who I hear the most about not being a significant demographic in STEM) are dissuaded from these fields by their upbringing, or what, I don' know, but the way to get more women and racial minorities into STEM is to get them to pursue STEM in the first place. You can't fairly increase the number of women and minorities in a field when they aren't there to begin with; that's why I think basing goals off the percentage of applicants would be better, while trying to get more young people interested in it, so that they can overcome any pressure or trends that would keep them from doing so. Again, it's individuals that need to be addressed, not collectives. Saying "we need more women in STEM!" doesn't magically make girls and young women interested in STEM, but introducing individuals through school or community programs would help spark interest that wouldn't have been there otherwise.

The difference between the mindsets like mine and yours is that people like me think that you should judge based on the individual, not collectives. There are many whites in poverty (though significantly less than blacks, if I remember correctly) and without access to good education, just like there are blacks and Latinos, but these programs discriminate against them entirely: not only do they not have financial or social means to get out of their position, but the help that is afforded to other groups doesn't extend to them specifically because of their race; furthermore, because they are white, society expects that they don't really need help, they're just lazy. That is actual racism, not only towards whites, but towards the blacks and other races for assuming they can't do anything without help.

That comic you posted says everything about your position, and none of it is good in the eyes of people like me: it misrepresents a cultural misdeed as the relationship between individuals. While there are still people alive today that experienced actual racism during the Civil Rights movement (and I know people from both sides of that, having spent time with a lot of old people) and the subsequent transitional years, people in the States today live in a society that abhors discrimination, but people are so repelled by what happened in the past that they're not stopping at actual equality (it doesn't help that even more direct State intervention in the way local communities are run is becoming more popular).
What justice is there in discriminating against people that weren't alive in the 60's (or even the '80s) and in favor of others born in the same time? None, it's just as disgusting as any other manifestation of this kind of discrimination.

I'm not so naive as to think that a large group of people with even slight differences among them can keep things civil by themselves, but I'm not so stupid as to think that tight control of every person is a good idea.

@JapaneseRuleOf7
On that note, let's talk about Nazis!
After falling into economic ruin postwar, a lot of Germans were upset and wanted someone to be mad at. The Nazi party, which was not well liked before, managed to work their way into the government by manipulating the fears of the people. Best of all (worst, but best for their rise to power), they told the German people who they could blame for the woes of Germany. Between this satisfaction of hate and the popularity of nationalism with younger Germans, the Nazis were able to take control of the country legally and with little protest (even after being humiliated from a failed coup just a few years earlier).
The takeaway is that racism can be used to temporarily satisfy people in a bad situation, and almost no one will think it's wrong. Doesn't mean it's not wrong, though. The only difference I see here is that we're not going on an ethnic cleansing to remove the whites from Western civilization. Racism is racism is racism, no two ways about it.

RE: "There are no SJWs, but there is a 'Red pill' section and MRAs"
The lack of self-awareness here is baffling... The whole reason these things exist as they do now is because people are telling others that they are racist, sexist, or whatever just by existing, or for little tiny things that have no meaning or were taken way out of context.
And don't tell me you don't see what they've done to feminism (radicals have been a problem since its inception, but no where near this level), atheism (they've turned it into an actual 'ism' instead of a plain lack of belief in gods), video games (corruption is okay, because it's a {perceived or actual minority in the games industry}; now, let's be offended by any depiction or non-depiction of women, homosexuals, the mentally ill, anything that's not a dimensionless blob that does nothing (oh wait, there's something wrong with that too) in video games!), and pretty much everything else they've stuck their noses in. Instead of being what it is and being a group comprised of individuals that have vaguely similar interests, beliefs, or characteristics, they turn it into a collective with an ideology and something that reflects the nature of society and so must be as PC and inclusive as possible (maybe, if people with those ideals actually participated in the communities that were actual communities before they came along, then they'd have their niche too, but no, you have to force the people that don't want anything to do with it to make a small group of people happy).
Let's not forget or ignore the fact that they're going so far as to excuse paedophilia after one of their 'own' got caught distributing child porn. A movement that would excuse such actions is hardly something I trust to have any individual's best interest at heart; it's a purely ideological movement that doesn't care about reality in the least.

@Zgarbas
I think I'm old enough to take whatever @ryuudou wants to say about my user name, no matter how wrong it is (because it's certainly not right, I told the complete truth about it).

I do have to say though, that I find it odd that you'd remove a comment of my displeasure regarding my treatment because it's an 'insult', but you'll allow multiple people to attack my (and others') character by directly and indirectly calling me a racist (and 'white supremacist') because of the idea discrimination in hiring based on race or sex is wrong.
Is it better to be more direct? Then I'll rephrase it: if ryuudou wants to complain about any logical fallacies in my post and use them in an attempt to discredit me, then uses multiple of his own (mostly ad hominem: see all the suggestions that I'm a racist, and thus, have absolutely no arguments of worth in this topic), then I invite him to Edited
Is that really an insult in your opinion? Because, to me, it's clearly a statement saying that a line was crossed, and I'm not happy about it.

If you can't police this thread fairly, then I suggest you close it: you clearly hold a significant bias on this topic, and I'd hate to see this site turn into the kind of place that censors users that don't hold the approved positions on political and social issues (favoring one side is just the beginning).

EDIT:

kapalama Wrote:

NinKenDo Wrote:If these people just held their awful views and voiced them occasionally, it would be whatever, but literally everything is a chance to say how every problem in the world is caused by white-males.

oh the irony she is deeply imbued in this one.

Yes, it's ironic, but only one of these views is being used to change laws and policies... I know I sound like an idiot when I complain about SJWs, but at least I know I'm right (based on actual incidents of bias against people who disagree SJWs or whom SJWs target being upheld by authorities). You know what else is ironic? The professional victims that whine about a couple of death threats or bombing threats towards their own, and then turn around and encourage their followers to 'shut down' things they don't like with the same (and worse) methods. At least the big voices against SJWs discourage taking illegal actions against them.

yudantaiteki Wrote:Affirmative action is widely misunderstood; it can mean a lot of different things but usually it does not mean hiring a less-qualified minority in preference to a more qualified white (or male, etc). This is largely a fiction.

The basic idea of affirmative action is that rather than waiting for discrimination to occur and then dealing with it through lawsuits and such, the law should take pre-emptive steps to make sure that discrimination does not occur. This is the "affirmative" part of it. Applying this does not necessarily mean hiring quotas or the like.

Originally "affirmative action" meant "equality of opportunity" which no reasonable person would quarrel with. Unfortunately over time the term "affirmative action" became perverted into meaning "equality of outcomes" which is of course impossible. This is why "affirmative action" has become a dirty word today.

Zgarbas Wrote:Did you specifically look for a Japanese wife? Go out of your way with the exact purpose? Have the idea that a Japanese partner would be your ideal before you'd even met one? Was your fiance one of the many Japanese girls that you consistently hit on with little to no regard to their individuality until they responded positively?
If no, then I fail to see why you'd be offended. That is ridiculously common behaviour, and just because you're an exception doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

A person's reason for being attracted to another is none of your business. If two people are happy together, your borderline racist attitude towards it is your problem, not theirs.

Whilst over there, I've met Chinese, Turkish and New Zealanders that have Japanese partners too. Do they fit your standard ok, or is your criticism just reserved for western males?

ryuudou Wrote:

AussieTrooper Wrote:Wrong.
ALL racism is detestable. ALL of it.
Wherever bigotry exists, there's someone trying to justify it.

We know this. What you're trying to do is trying to paint anti-racists as "bad" because, for whatever reason, they contradict your agenda.

You're right. All racism is detestable. That's why it's equally as detestable for you to try to demonize the people who frequently bring it up like you tried earlier.

'Anti-racists' - I very much doubt that this title is in anyway appropriate for those who you are trying to refer to.
Every time someone calls themselves 'anti-racist', they seem to be actively pushing for one race to benefit where another does not. That is actively encouraging racism, not opposing it.

As to your cartoon, you do realise that the natural course of that is to pay African Americans for what they endured, and return them to Africa. It's a ridiculous notion. Next you'll be wanting the Norwegians to pay the UK damages incurred during Viking raids. Or we could treat everyone equally, and get on with life.
There's no such thing as 'reverse-racism'. It's a catchphrase to politely attempt to hide the fact that the exact same action is somehow different, depending on who the victim of it is.

yudantaiteki Wrote:The basic idea of affirmative action is that rather than waiting for discrimination to occur and then dealing with it through lawsuits and such, the law should take pre-emptive steps to make sure that discrimination does not occur. This is the "affirmative" part of it. Applying this does not necessarily mean hiring quotas or the like.

You've just described prejudice. Active discrimination by one person in the guise of preventing discrimination from another that hasn't occurred yet. And actually it does lead to quotas. Here, one of the two major political parties does have a quota for it. So, again, if you do not fit the racial or gender criteria that such discriminatory policies are pushing, then you are now a victim without having done anything wrong.

We've seen a massive swing from where in the past it was ok to discriminate against women and non-westerners, wheras now it's ok to discriminate against men and westerners.
It's the same thing. If what you are doing is discriminating against someone on the basis of their race or gender, what you are doing is wrong.

Zgarbas Wrote:Did you specifically look for a Japanese wife? Go out of your way with the exact purpose? Have the idea that a Japanese partner would be your ideal before you'd even met one? Was your fiance one of the many Japanese girls that you consistently hit on with little to no regard to their individuality until they responded positively?
If no, then I fail to see why you'd be offended. That is ridiculously common behaviour, and just because you're an exception doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I think this is a pretty distorted stereotype and not as common as you might think. At least from my small anecdotal world, I know several men who married Japanese women and not one of them were serially dated asian women before they met their wives. The Japanese women I know are a different story, but who am I to criticize their taste in men..

[Zgarbas]

Quote:On that note, let's talk about Nazis

This is one sentence i hope to never hear again.

sholum Wrote:I think I'm old enough to take whatever @ryuudou wants to say about my user name, no matter how wrong it is (because it's certainly not right, I told the complete truth about it).

Whether you can take it is irrelevant. It is a redundant assumption about the personal details of another user which is unprovable and adds nothing to the discussion aside from stating one's personal animosity. Such things are frowned upon in the forum guidelines.

Quote:I do have to say though, that I find it odd that you'd remove a comment of my displeasure regarding my treatment because it's an 'insult', but you'll allow multiple people to attack my (and others') character by directly and indirectly calling me a racist (and 'white supremacist') because of the idea discrimination in hiring based on race or sex is wrong.

'Racist' is not an insult, and is uttered by as a judgment of character following the reading of one's statements. I should mention that I just searched the thread and the word 'racist' was not used alongside your person, only your statements. The only persons referred to directly as a racist in this thread were OP's random conversation girl, yourself (by yourself, in Reply #64 'The fact that you think I'm racist '), and liberals in general, by AussieTrooper. I can throw you a warning for insulting yourself, if you think that being called a racist is a slur and that would please you, but otherwise there were no ad hominems about you being a racist person.

Quote:Is it better to be more direct? Then I'll rephrase it [..]... it's clearly a statement saying that a line was crossed, and I'm not happy about it.

And I'm not happy about you insulting users. That is a line that has been crossed. Consider this a warning.

Quote:If you can't police this thread fairly, then I suggest you close it

I am considering it, not because I hold a significant bias (There is no reason to care that much about opinions on the Internet to censor them, and I am not an advocate of censorship to begin with) but because it's a very aggressive discussion.

Zgarbas Wrote:I agree that exploitation is facilitated by economic conditions, but is there the idea of an ideal Russian/Eastern European bride? Economic conditions obviously mean that a lot of Russian, Eastern European, and Filipino girls are part of the mail-order bride population, but is there an ideal about the Eastern European wife as there is with the Asian one? I am aware of the Westerners who come to my country for sex tourism, but it has more to do with availability and cost than with any particular idealisation of the girls themselves, and their goal is casual sex, not marriage.

Is there a social/personality stereotype about Russian's and Eastern European women? I don't know, maybe? But I think you keep overlooking a big factor in why these women as well as Asian's are sought after. There are physical traits that some men are incredibly caught up on that really attracts them to these women. Maybe with Russian/Eastern European women its the hair color, jaw line, and breasts (I'm guessing). This is what I meant by a possible "biological imperative;" they are driven [subconsciously] by their genes to seek others that they view as more different from them genetically. It doesn't necessarily have to be because "<ethenicity> women are <personality trait>."

Quote:I would tend to think that Chinese/Japanese girls would be special on the fetish list as I have not heard a fetish about Vietnamese, Korean girls, etc. (well, probably now with the K-madness Korean girls made the list); if anything, Asian girls tend to have their nationality mislabeled in order to enhance their popularity with foreigners; there's a reason why porn sites have a Japanese section. of course, I don't think that fetishisation is the 100% reason for the sexploitation, but I think they are strongly interrelated, and I think that when it is done on a mass scale it is a product of social values rather than individual preference.

Well in general, I think all East and South East Asian women are lumped in with "yellow fever." As to why all Asians are Chinese or Japanese, I think that's just because that's the only "type" of Asian that some people know. The whole "all asians look alike"-deal. They are ignorant to the fact that there are other Asian ethnic groups out there. Not to mention, Japan and China are some of the most visible countries in East Asia; they are what people hear about and have heard about. China and Japan are huge economic players, so they are in the news a lot. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand? Not so much.

Also, to the "all porn sites have a Japanese section" thing. That's because Japan has a huge porn industry; I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it even rivals the US's. There is no industry for porn in most other countries in SE and East Asia because its largely illegal

Zgarbas Wrote:

Quote:On that note, let's talk about Nazis

This is one sentence i hope to never hear again.

That was the point, Godwin's Law was mentioned, so I obliged in jest (but attempted to make a real point; I didn't actually say that anyone on here was 'basically Hitler' though); the original sentence said something about taking the Hitler virginity of this thread, but it looked like I was trying too hard to be funny (and failing), so I scrapped it.

RE: affirmative action
I agree with AussieTrooper on this one; when it comes to ensuring a level playing field (equality of opportunity), I'm all for it, but when it's trying to force equality of outcome, it's unjust.

AussieTrooper Wrote:As to your cartoon, you do realise that the natural course of that is to pay African Americans for what they endured, and return them to Africa. It's a ridiculous notion. Next you'll be wanting the Norwegians to pay the UK damages incurred during Viking raids. Or we could treat everyone equally, and get on with life.
.

People can't "get on with life" when they're born into a fundamentally broken system that discriminates against them from birth because of the color of their skin. "treat everyone equally, and get on with life" is a statement of privilege, telling the less privileged to shut up and take what they're given. It comes from the same source as the idea that anyone can work hard and become rich. Pretending that racial problems don't exist perpetuates racism and discrimination. You're complaining about racial quotas instead of about the societal racism that makes people suggest the quotas in the first place.

sholum Wrote:RE: affirmative action
I agree with AussieTrooper on this one; when it comes to ensuring a level playing field (equality of opportunity), I'm all for it, but when it's trying to force equality of outcome, it's unjust.

It's never been about equal outcomes, so what's your point? You're tilting at straw-men. And the simple fact is that even with affirmative action minorities and women still aren't getting enough fair opportunities in the employment sector. If it was gone, it'd be even less.

yudantaiteki Wrote:

AussieTrooper Wrote:As to your cartoon, you do realise that the natural course of that is to pay African Americans for what they endured, and return them to Africa. It's a ridiculous notion. Next you'll be wanting the Norwegians to pay the UK damages incurred during Viking raids. Or we could treat everyone equally, and get on with life.
.

People can't "get on with life" when they're born into a fundamentally broken system that discriminates against them from birth because of the color of their skin. "treat everyone equally, and get on with life" is a statement of privilege, telling the less privileged to shut up and take what they're given. It comes from the same source as the idea that anyone can work hard and become rich. Pretending that racial problems don't exist perpetuates racism and discrimination. You're complaining about racial quotas instead of about the societal racism that makes people suggest the quotas in the first place.

The problem, in the USA anyway, is that no matter how much white people bend over backwards to help blacks (racial preferences in university admissions etc.) they are STILL accused of being racist. The USA has a black president who has fanned the flames of racial division rather than help matters.

john555 Wrote:The problem, in the USA anyway, is that no matter how much white people bend over backwards to help blacks (racial preferences in university admissions etc.) they are STILL accused of being racist. The USA has a black president who has fanned the flames of racial division rather than help matters.

Well, studies have shown consistently that there IS bias against women and minorities. What is far more interesting and nuanced is that the same biases are exhibited by women and minorities against their own cohort.