Originally Posted by ohreally (Post 188885)

No, I agree with you. My point was NOT that we lock up all blacks and give a pass to whites. We lock up everything that moves sideways for an eternity. (I was against locking up Martha Stewart.) But the consequence is that we end up committing the worst kind of social engineering in the black population by destroying the black family: just as WWI destroyed the family in France by killing or maiming half of all male bachelors, we are tearing apart the fabric of black society with our incarceration policy. Between the ghetto and the prison, the US has successfully recreated the plantation system. So when I hear, especially from a libertarian, "We've kicked the racism syndrome," I think of the Bourbon dynasty who'd forgotten nothing and learned nothing.

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 188894)

Exactly, and for obvious historical reasons. Americans are obsessed by race in a way that is incomprehensible to contemporary Europeans because Europe never had the problem of slavery and segregation. Nor did it have, before the middle of the 20th century, much immigration from non-European countries. There has always been a lot of mixing of nationalities within Europe (25% of "native" French people have a grandparent born in some other European country---Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Russia, even Germany).

Contemporary Europeans see immigrants not as distinct races but as distinct national/cultural/religious groups, which is not to say that there is no prejudice against them. But the prejudice takes the form of xenophobia, i.e. a rejection of populations that are perceived as foreign, unassimilated and perhaps unassimilatable (the latter is the view of extreme nationalist parties like Le Pen's Front National). Racial prejudice is something quite different.

Could Europeans do a better job of assimilating these groups? No doubt, but assimilation is a two-way street. And Europeans, or the French at any rate, expect immigrants to make an effort to learn the language and culture of their adopted country, to become good "républicains" (in the French sense).

Originally Posted by dieter (Post 188892)

It is absurd to attest superior race relations to the US vs. Europe, when the very discourse and framing of the European immigration issue as a an issue of race would be unspeakable on this side of the pond. The casual conversations about race, whites, blacks, asians, etc. that are perfectly mainstream and normal in the US, including on Bloggingheads, would be categorized as extreme and vile racism in Europe.

This poses huge problems for those who try to explain american politics to european audiences. In a post presidential election debate, an austrian intellectual who has spent some time in the US, casually und unthinkingly talked about how race relations played into the election in a manner that would be perfectly acceptable and mainstream in the US. A female journalist, who didn't know much about the US, was absolutely shocked that he would introduce vile "race theories" into the debate. The professional US correspondents tried to diplomatically pacify the situation somewhat. They usually ignore the issue.

Most europeans have a Hollywood view of the United States. They assume that racism exists in the form of some rural rednecks and sheriffs being mean to the odd black guy who happens to stumble across their way. Europeans assume that almost no blacks live in the racist southern states.

The wider political implications, tensions and so on are virtually unknown, even to most who frequently reference the US as either a positive or negative role model. Much like american pundits who talk about "Europe" and don't know anything about it.

So what about Europe
Immigration in Europe is perceived as an issue of culture and socio-economics rather than race. Even common stereotypes reflect this, like "polish car thieves", "romanian burglars" and "nigerian drug dealers". Nobody assumes that drug dealing is somehow tied to "blackness". Neither do Africans themselves associate around "blackness" but rather differentiate themselves according to nationality (Nigerian, Somali, Ugandan, etc.)

Moynihan's claim that Europeans don't ever accept immigrants as compatriots is blatantly untrue, accent or not. Assimilated or well integrated immigrants are accepted.
It gets problematic with assimilated immigrants from groups that are otherwise not well integrated. Their immigrant background is recently highlited against their wishes. So for example famous athletes, actors, comedians, businessmen, after having been accepted for decades and whose ethnic background was unknown to most or irrelevant to them and to the public are nowadays frequently asked to speak authoritatively about the immigration issue. This is meant as a well intended embrace, but has frequently the opposite effect on the person at hand.

In the US it is actually the government which constantly reminds Americans about race in its census forms, etc. The very idea of a race category on census forms would be likened to the Nuremberg Laws over here.

Europeans are fooled by the american dream
Europeans are disappointed that immigration doesn't work as Americans have advertised it (through Hollywood, the melting pot concept, tropes like "E pluribus unum"). It is assumed that we must be doing something wrong and have insufficiently copied the American model. This includes the right wing populist parties who frequently point to the US or Canada as a model (lack of welfare for immigrants; strict criteria for green cards etc.). The left on the other hand claims that Americans are more accepting of foreigners and that they wouldn't move out of a neighborhood, just because of immigrants coming in and high proportions of immigrant kids in school districts. The equivalent american "white flight" phenomenon is unknown.

Americans on the other hand are puzzled about what the fuzz in Europe is all about, because they don't believe in their own marketing in the first place.

Originally Posted by brucds (Post 188870)

To argue that MSNBC is an equal or greater purveyor of lies and bullshit than FOX is evidence of insanity or idiocy. NO ONE can document the amount of horseshit and hysteria that emanates from Beck and Hannity on MSNBC.That's a fact. Shove it if you don't like it.

And that's not to mention the sick bastard Ailes, who runs the show.

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 188896)

Name them, please.

If three of them are going to be Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, and Geraldine Ferraro, I invite you to save yourself the bother.

Originally Posted by ohreally (Post 188885)

No, I agree with you. My point was NOT that we lock up all blacks and give a pass to whites. We lock up everything that moves sideways for an eternity. (I was against locking up Martha Stewart.) But the consequence is that we end up committing the worst kind of social engineering in the black population by destroying the black family: just as WWI destroyed the family in France by killing or maiming half of all male bachelors, we are tearing apart the fabric of black society with our incarceration policy. Between the ghetto and the prison, the US has successfully recreated the plantation system. So when I hear, especially from a libertarian, "We've kicked the racism syndrome," I think of the Bourbon dynasty who'd forgotten nothing and learned nothing.

Originally Posted by bjk (Post 188907)

Dieter's comments are interesting. That explains why, when I explained racial gerrymandering to a German political scientist, he was so surprised and shocked. But then he went to one of his American colleagues and confirmed that racial gerrymandering was very real . . . he couldn't believe it. I was surprised at his surprise.

Originally Posted by operative (Post 188853)

I will give you that there is a disparity in executions for the same offense between whites and blacks, so we do need to start executing more white people.

Originally Posted by look (Post 188909)

Is this a distinction without a difference? Tell me, would the average French parent be equally sanguine if one of their children were to marry a Turk or a Nigerian?

How is mon cher frere today?

Originally Posted by Winspur (Post 188919)

Beck is not stupid, insofar as he knows how to carry on a campaign of right-wing slander against a prominent Jew without looking too much like Rich Iott. He can convince enough viewers that he is a nice Mormon boy to keep raking in his millions.

(Rich Iott was the Republican Nazi fetishist who ran for Congress this year in Ohio and lost).

Originally Posted by operative (Post 188923)

I think that's a grossly unfair charge against Iott. His son was a history buff, and sometimes history buffs do quirky things like dress up in historical uniforms. He's no more a "Nazi fetishist" than someone who participates in a Civil War reinactment is a "Confederate fetishist."

Originally Posted by dieter (Post 188892)

It is absurd to attest superior race relations to the US vs. Europe ...

Originally Posted by operative (Post 188923)

I think that's a grossly unfair charge against Iott. His son was a history buff, and sometimes history buffs do quirky things like dress up in historical uniforms. He's no more a "Nazi fetishist" than someone who participates in a Civil War reinactment is a "Confederate fetishist."

Originally Posted by Fluffy Foo Foo (Post 188926)

I tend to agree. It's just dudes who are interested in military history. Not that big a deal. That said, conservatives gave some Democrat campaign leader/strategist a hard time for having been photographed wearing a Waffen SS t-shirt. That guy just happens to be into collecting SS items.

Whatever, I say.

Originally Posted by db63 (Post 188924)

I wouldn't want a candidate who dressed up as a Confederate soldier either. It seems that doing so does not necessarily imply that one is a racist, but rather that one is completely tone deaf to the ways in which historical memory affect individuals living today. People shouldn't be barred from dressing up like their favorite SS or Confederate soldiers, but it seems completely legitimate for voters to determine they don't want a candidate representing them if they believe the candidate lacks the tact and foresight to see how their constituents would respond to their dressing up as a Panzer division that helped the Einsatzgruppen kill Jews.

Originally Posted by operative (Post 188913)

Alan Colms (sic), too, and I think there was someone else but I forget their name. But I forgot that you get to decide which liberals count as actual liberals. That way even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary you can continue with your illusion that Fox had no idealogical balance on election night. Basically, you will dismiss any liberal who goes on Fox as not really a liberal.

Originally Posted by operative (Post 188927)

Yeah it's something that's just a partisan game, really. There's a difference between being a history buff and actually being a Nazi fetishist, like Human Rights Watch's propagandist against Israel was (http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/200...-obsessed.html)

Originally Posted by operative (Post 188915)

Racial gerrymandering is pretty regularly defended by liberal political scientists--it's a way of ensuring that minorities actually have representation in Congress.

Originally Posted by osmium (Post 188917)

This is a good discussion, but like stop pounding on the table and fidgeting with the computer.

Originally Posted by db63 (Post 188924)

I wouldn't want a candidate who dressed up as a Confederate soldier either. It seems that doing so does not necessarily imply that one is a racist, but rather that one is completely tone deaf to the ways in which historical memory affect individuals living today. People shouldn't be barred from dressing up like their favorite SS or Confederate soldiers, but it seems completely legitimate for voters to determine they don't want a candidate representing them if they believe the candidate lacks the tact and foresight to see how their constituents would respond to their dressing up as a Panzer division that helped the Einsatzgruppen kill Jews.

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 188925)

I think you and Florian should just set this aside, and instead respond by saying, "Eh, so what. Because what about the Eurostep? Huh? Now who's superior?"

;)

(Actually, I think it should be called the Argentinestep, because the D Wade clip looks like someone spent someone a little time watching Manu Ginobili.)

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 188903)

I don't want to defend the proposition that "the US is superior to Europe on race relations" or anything like that. I do not know nearly enough about Europe to have a meaningful view. I will say that though I was surprised to hear it said, Michael's having lived for a time in Europe and Adam's perspective (part black, and Jewish) made me think the claim had more credibility than if it had just been someone like, say, me -- a white guy who has only lived in the US -- saying it.

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 188903)

I will also say that I am not sure if I understand your meaning correctly in your opening paragraph, but my first impression of it makes me think that, at some point, refusing to discuss race-related issues at all does not seem particularly healthy. If you are trying to say that it is not talked about it because it simply doesn't occur to anyone to talk about it, outside of a few fringe characters, okay.

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 188903)

Again, this seems somewhat ... I can't decide on the right word ... to be in denial, maybe? ... on the part of that journalist who didn't know much about the US. I can accept just not knowing to some degree, but it is hard for me to grasp the thought that a person educated enough to be a journalist at the level where she would be talking to other, world-traveling journalists would not at least be able to get that, well, yes, the US has had a long and difficult history involving race and race-related issues, and so it shouldn't be too surprising that there remain at least echoes.

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 188903)

That seems odd. Not that I'm not sure there are equally large gaps in my knowledge about Europe.

Originally Posted by look (Post 188910)

Thanks for the interesting insights, dieter. Do you think maybe there is a deep denial of racism if race cannot be casually discussed? The female reporter's reaction seems ultra-PC.

Originally Posted by glennhowardsecure (Post 188921)

When torture (or lynching or slavery) has been denounced as un-American, existing or proposed American practice is being castigated as not in accord with extolled American ideals, such as humaneness, the rule of law, and liberty. This is not a move to denounce the evils referred to as inconsistent with deprecated American practice. Instead, it is rather like decrying double negatives as un-grammatical. Descriptively, double negatives are part and parcel of the grammar as used. It is a prescriptive grammatical norm that urges us to eschew them. For the enemies of evils to deprive themselves of the formidable "un-" weapon, however wised-up that might be, were less than wise.

Of course, the questions, "What are the American ideals that we cherish, or ought to cherish?" and "How are they to be put into practice?" are as fraught as any other questions posed across political and ideological divides.

Originally Posted by dieter (Post 188946)

I fail to see how Blackness and Jewishness bestows superior understanding of Europe.

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 188922)

Ca va, et toi?

I can't answer you question with precision because so many young people in France reject mariage in favor of civil unions or "concubinage." But according to numbers I have seen, about 25% of all mariages annually in France are "mixed" (all nationalities), and half of those are with Maghrébins (Arabs from North Africa) and Africans, split evenly. Turks are not a very large population in France.

Moreover, 35% of "beurs"* are married to "français de souche" (native born French). And I just read a Figaro article which said that 27% of French parents would disapprove if their child married an Arab, 21% an African, and 14% an Asian.

"Beur" is verlan (slang) for Arab (second generation), without racist connotations.

Originally Posted by dieter (Post 188946)

Hiphop is mostly coastal.

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 188952)

Southern hiphop is pretty big. Outkast, for just one example.

There are also a ton of movies set in the South, although that doesn't mean they get shown in Europe, I suppose.

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 188952)

(I also have an African-American friend who did not have the experience that Austrians did not see race in the least when she was studying there, but I can't speak to whether I'd agree with her impressions.

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 188952)

It just causes me to be a little skeptical about this idea that the way Europeans talk about ethnicity/national original is so unlike the racism in the US. There's also the way people talk about gypsies, which I found common in Italy, for example.)

Originally Posted by dieter (Post 188953)

Outkast? What is distinctly southern about them?

Originally Posted by graz (Post 188957)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_hip_hop



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGdJpMfXha4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWgvGjAhvIw

Originally Posted by dieter (Post 188953)

More importantly. Hollywood movies are dubbed in most countries. So "ebonics", or rather the black sociolect gets completely lost.

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 188959)

I though the claim was simpler -- that Europeans didn't think black people lived in the South. Are you saying that they wouldn't know if a movie was supposed to be in the South?

Originally Posted by dieter (Post 188892)

It is absurd to attest superior race relations to the US vs. Europe, when the very discourse and framing of the European immigration issue as a an issue of race would be unspeakable on this side of the pond. The casual conversations about race, whites, blacks, asians, etc. that are perfectly mainstream and normal in the US, including on Bloggingheads, would be categorized as extreme and vile racism in Europe.

This poses huge problems for those who try to explain american politics to european audiences. In a post presidential election debate, an austrian intellectual who has spent some time in the US, casually und unthinkingly talked about how race relations played into the election in a manner that would be perfectly acceptable and mainstream in the US. A female journalist, who didn't know much about the US, was absolutely shocked that he would introduce vile "race theories" into the debate. The professional US correspondents tried to diplomatically pacify the situation somewhat. They usually ignore the issue.

Most europeans have a Hollywood view of the United States. They assume that racism exists in the form of some rural rednecks and sheriffs being mean to the odd black guy who happens to stumble across their way. Europeans assume that almost no blacks live in the racist southern states.

The wider political implications, tensions and so on are virtually unknown, even to most who frequently reference the US as either a positive or negative role model. Much like american pundits who talk about "Europe" and don't know anything about it.

So what about Europe
Immigration in Europe is perceived as an issue of culture and socio-economics rather than race. Even common stereotypes reflect this, like "polish car thieves", "romanian burglars" and "nigerian drug dealers". Nobody assumes that drug dealing is somehow tied to "blackness". Neither do Africans themselves associate around "blackness" but rather differentiate themselves according to nationality (Nigerian, Somali, Ugandan, etc.)

Moynihan's claim that Europeans don't ever accept immigrants as compatriots is blatantly untrue, accent or not. Assimilated or well integrated immigrants are accepted.
It gets problematic with assimilated immigrants from groups that are otherwise not well integrated. Their immigrant background is recently highlited against their wishes. So for example famous athletes, actors, comedians, businessmen, after having been accepted for decades and whose ethnic background was unknown to most or irrelevant to them and to the public are nowadays frequently asked to speak authoritatively about the immigration issue. This is meant as a well intended embrace, but has frequently the opposite effect on the person at hand.

In the US it is actually the government which constantly reminds Americans about race in its census forms, etc. The very idea of a race category on census forms would be likened to the Nuremberg Laws over here.

Europeans are fooled by the american dream
Europeans are disappointed that immigration doesn't work as Americans have advertised it (through Hollywood, the melting pot concept, tropes like "E pluribus unum"). It is assumed that we must be doing something wrong and have insufficiently copied the American model. This includes the right wing populist parties who frequently point to the US or Canada as a model (lack of welfare for immigrants; strict criteria for green cards etc.). The left on the other hand claims that Americans are more accepting of foreigners and that they wouldn't move out of a neighborhood, just because of immigrants coming in and high proportions of immigrant kids in school districts. The equivalent american "white flight" phenomenon is unknown.

Americans on the other hand are puzzled about what the fuzz in Europe is all about, because they don't believe in their own marketing in the first place.

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 188929)

Untrue. I'd say Joe Trippi and Kirstin Powers are, broadly speaking, liberals. Whether FoxNews had "balance" in Election Night, of course, is doubtful. But who cares. It's not like I'd ever watch that channel.

And you're perfectly free to call whoever you want a liberal. As I've said before, when you're far enough out on the right, of course centrists are going to look liberal to you, just as gnats call horseflies "tall." This is why I don't care for labels of this sort -- they're well-nigh meaningless.



Why don't we not? As I've also said before, the use of objectively is a particularly lame attempt to assert one's opinion is fact. That word is overused like few others, and almost always inappropriately. Just because you're feeling defensive about what FoxNews and its viewers call "liberals" and thereby can't stop sputtering, it doesn't make your subjective judgment something everyone would agree is beyond dispute.

I do notice you've backed off from "five," though. So I guess you're already acknowledging my point deep down.

Also: "idealogical" deserved a "(sic)" of its own. And for future reference, be advised that Google is there to help.

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 188961)

From your account, it seems Europe has the exact same racial issues that Americans have with the added disadvantage of being too politically correct to talk about it to the point that they (if you are representative) won't even admit that their racial issues are indeed about race.

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 188961)

It never occurs to even the most racist southern redneck in America that a black person is not an American.

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 188939)

Why would somebody, anybody, object to someone participating in a civil war reenactment? How is that "tone deaf" in any way?