6 ms·

Ah, friend, America was importing people from Africa. Indeed “import” is rather more apt in this case than the several other you’ve ignored (e.g. the mass immig

by w0de0 3mo ago

Ah, friend, America was importing people from Africa. Indeed “import” is rather more apt in this case than the several other you’ve ignored (e.g. the mass immigration from Vietnam at the finish of that war). What a horridly dull country it would be were your understanding nearer the truth; what a betrayal of its dream to wish it as you see it; how silly you would seem to your know-nothing antecedents so lumping “Europeans” as one (it is an irony that in their comparatively more nuanced racialism they at least understood a little more of that continent’s ethnic and cultural diversity).

Dig1t 3mo ago
Up until 1965 the US had strict origin requirements for where immigrants could come from and it was capped at a relatively low number throughout much of the 20th century. Yes actually up until 1990 the US was overwhelmingly European ancestry, just go look at any demographic data from before 1990. Many states were 90+% white and indeed many were even higher. The places with African slave descendants in the US were the main sources of “diversity” and were of course the ones with lower social trust and higher crime/poverty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_d...
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- w0de0 3mo ago
  In which specifics does “low social trust” differ from “high xenophobia”? Is fear of the other a morally neutral emotion? Do you suppose your response to an ethnically or culturally different neighbor differs from some your ancestors’? If it does, would you say your response is morally superior? If so, why? If so, how did you acquire your more enlightened approach?
  - Dig1t 3mo ago
    [flagged]