Eyeballing the results of this study, things that don’t affect whiteness of a school: racism, history, geography, or media attention to racism.
Things that do: how technical is it?
Don’t Filipinos count as Hispanics for legal purposes?
That’s… actually a good question.
As for technical schools drawing more white people (and Asians), that sounds like something closer to persistent cultural problems earlier in the pipeline.
Regarding arguments around race and racism.
I would argue that we haven’t actually tried having social policy that doesn’t suck yet. A combination of factors produced by our society and policies incentivize bad outcomes.
You get the outcome the incentives produce. To change the outcome, one must change the incentives.
HoneyBites, the subject of the OP is literally denying people the right to vote based on their race and sex. If you don’t think that would increase resentment, and that resentment increase racism, for whites, but you think doing the same to blacks would increase resentment by blacks, then you don’t think whites are human.
I really don’t understand white nationalists who think antebellum slavery was a good idea - even from a self-interest perspective.
Like, you guys do realise how the people you hate so much got to the Americas, right?
For people who say blacks can’t swim, you seem surprisingly convinced that we crossed the Atlantic without help.
The first White Nationalist I’ve met in a while does indeed think that the Atlantic Slave Trade was a bad idea, and roughly for that reason.
From a regular Nationalist perspective racializing slavery was also a dumb idea since it essentially created a separate ethnicity in a group that could have been fully integrated, causing expensive and politically-divisive rifts in society that last to this day, undermined the nation’s moral character, undermined national morale, etc. And that’s before even accounting for the ordinary moral damage it did in terms of unnecessary human suffering, which was enormous.
Of course if one is the kind to practice mass racialized slavery, one may not be the kind to give thought to the long term implications of mass racialized slavery on others in general.
Anyhow, this discussion of China and racism got me thinking about how American companies talked about how only jobs that Americans didn’t want would be getting outsourced to China, and that it was nothing to worry about.
Which, like, implicit racism. China isn’t going to climb the ladder of production and become a fierce competitor because? What, are they just not cool enough?
Backstage at MADE New York alum Adam Selman, September 2017.
Photo by @smallgirlbiglens.
Every Decade a New Ethnicity is “In” - is it the New Gingers This Time?
Our Seven Expert Panel Debates
I was trying to ask Google why Japanese prefectures are called prefectures and I accidentally a racism:
I think the hilarity comes partly from the fact that when I stop the question at “Why are ___nese…” before I get to a noun, there is still a broken English nounification of the adjective that can happen if your standards are lax enough. And anywhere that you can ask “Why are Chinese smart?” without getting corrected on your grammar is probably also a place where you won’t get corrected on your racism. You have to be extra smart and well educated and enlightened to realize that everyone is definitely exactly the same everywhere.
Well, like, is it technically incorrect grammar?
In English, we put the plural status as part of the noun, but the Japanese language uses things like counters and the noun 日本人 does not actually specify whether you are referring to one or more Japanese people, as “neko” does not specify the number of cats, and so on. Japanese also doesn’t have an a/an/the attached to the noun.
So, if we adopt either a descriptivist mindset or some sort of cultural prescriptivist mindset, it could be argued that Japanese/Japanese is valid just as ninja/ninja and German/Germans. That also brings up that there is no simple plural form such as “Germans”, and I don’t think anyone anywhere will approve of “Japaneses”. (Wow, “Japaneses” sounds really racist.)
So I guess it’s down to whether the listeners/readers socially approve of it, much like “Brits” is okay, but “Japs” and “Nps” were both part of pretty damned racist WW2 propaganda and are thus permanently prohibited, even though all three are just shortenings of national names.
- Mic.com/Slate/BuzzHuff, 2025
The issue with racism is that it violates the principle of justice as individual. Someone is being made to suffer for something someone else entirely did, united only by surface characteristics. (E.g., being black is not an ideology and does not cause behavior in the absence of a cultural context which makes it ideological/cultural/political.)
So breaking the principle of individual justice to combat racism probably isn’t such a great idea.
However, while race does not intrinsically alter behavior, culture, ideology, and religion do. Some of this is mostly just aesthetics, like architecture or food. But some of it has much deeper consequences, like multigenerational cousin marriage, or “honor” killings.
However, unlike race (currently), culture is fortunately somewhat mutable. There are limits, however, particularly with regard to ideology.
I guess what I’m saying here is that America should limit the number of North Korean refugees it takes after the War, until it can be determined how safe former adherents of Juche coming over in one mass are, but should be willing to take many thousands of refugees from South Korea after Seoul is destroyed. In-kind aid should be delivered instead, and infrastructure reconstruction should proceed with more funding than originally scheduled.
There is a vulnerability (yet another one anyway) in the wokeosphere open for a troll to exploit: simply running around claiming people are white.
Because in practical terms standpoint theory means your race determines your speaking value in the progressive stack, and because bad SJ types will be more likely to believe this kind of accusation, it would be quite dangerous to one’s social standing. I won’t go into further details because I don’t want to encourage it, but defense on this would not be easy.
For my part I see this kind of vulnerability as an indictment of the system itself. Its axioms and patterns make it essentially unsolveable without either tight restriction of access or changing to something else.
The irony that the opposite probably wouldn’t work on White Nationalists isn’t lost on me.
Several people on rattumb have discussed the theory of race as spurred by a class-based desire to divide workers. They’ve been generally somewhat baffled by it, and I’d like to explain more, because I don’t know if they’ve heard the full version.
The theory goes like this.
In the 17th century South, poor whites (mainly indentured servants at this time) and blacks tended to work together and at times had children together. They possessed an amount of camaraderie and solidarity. In fact, they had so much solidarity that they started a rebellion arguing for more land and stronger defense called Bacon’s Rebellion. While eventually put down, the rebellion spooked the planter class.
The planters realized that indentured servants were much too unruly and likely to cause trouble; from this point forwards the percentage of indentured servants in the Southern colonies dropped while the percentage of slaves increased.
Moreover, as more slaves arrived, the color line started to develop. Laws deliberately separated blacks and whites, preventing intermarriage and imposing restrictions on blacks, thereby creating servitude as a racial institution in the American South.
The development of the initial color line in America was likely based on the planter class’s desire to exploit and retain control as a divide-and-conquer tactic. Later capitalists would use the system to their advantage after it had been established.
I’ve been thinking about this for a while since I started being more interested in politics again (and more Nationalist). Bloody Southern Plantation owners managed to cost this country an enormous amount of blood and treasure through their sloth, create an entire ethnic group (with bonus ethnic tension) within the country where one didn’t exist before, and create problems that we’re still dealing with the fallout of over two hundred years later.
I still wouldn’t alter the timeline if I could because this timeline is guaranteed to avoid thermonuclear war until at least 2017 (also because literally rewriting history would constitute mass murder), but if we could fork another one off, I’d love to see what America could become if a few key figures could be prevented from starting the country down this path.
I’m not sure how accurate this representation of events is, though.
