I'm sorry to say that Mr. Tam is careless with the facts. First, I should be quite clear that racism is endemic and,I suspect, probably incurable. The situation remains unacceptable in the US, although it is clearly world's better than it was in Lincoln's day (when he exhibited what we would consider intolerable racism). I lived and taught in Korea for eight years -- and it was said that 60% of Koreans felt marrying anyone not Korean was unacceptable. As a boy in an area with many Germans, Polish jokes were common. When in New Zealand, I was told jokes that disparage Australians. The D.C. editor for the Norwegian newspaper "Aftenposten" told me a joke that disparaged Swedes (there are many of these, too). Mr. Tam says that Asians cannot own property under an amendment to the Florida Constitution. That is false. Here is the amendment, Article 1: " "The ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law." This amendment also says "No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability." The amendment is aimed at ILLEGAL immigrants, not Asians or anyone else who enters the country and is eligible for citizenship. Because this was false, I looked further. Mr. Tam says that China had a female head of state. I didn't think so, but I checked. That was false. I believe he is referring to Soong Ching-ling, wife of Sun Yat-sen, the leader of the 1911 revolution. She became a person of some importance in the People's Republic of China, and was one of two vice-presidents. When she was nearing death she was given an HONORARY title of president. She was never head of state. Mr. Tam also takes a newspaper article on employment in the tech industry as evidence of racism. It may be, but that cannot be determined by the statistic -- USA Today says the percentage of black and Hispanic graduates is higher than the percentage hired (about double). The statistic may be correct, but we have no way of knowing whether this reflects the grades and recommendations for these students. There is an old saying: there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. It is foolish to rely on so little data. So Mr. Tam, in my view, should not have been accepted by TED, if it wants to provide "ideas worth spreading." Misinformation cannot be the basis of anything useful to the society.
Fredric Williams I've been generally ignoring the comments section on this thing for some time but I'd like to correct some misconceptions. 1) What I'm referring to is the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was repealed by every state except for Florida. Experts argue that isn't enforceable, but it is racist relic: news.wfsu.org/post/70-years-after-us-repeals-chinese-exclusion-act-flas-still-stands 2) I was referring to Wu Zetian, China's first and only empress. There have been others as well, but she was certainly the one with the highest profile. 3) No, the article was not about employment in the tech industry or about graduation rates. It stated that despite having a tech degree, minorities were not being hired. Before making assumptions, one should ask questions first
***** Your exact words are "Florida's State Constitution still has a law imbedded in it that prevents Asians from owning property. When a measure was on the ballot to remove this law, Floridians voted to keep it!" You were not referring to the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was a FEDERAL law repealed many years ago. You do have a source for your misunderstanding, but did not bother to check to see if your source -- a radio station -- was correct. When challenged by me, you did not check, but came up with another lie -- that you were referring to a Federal law. The vote in Florida was on the amendment, which I quoted. It is specific and quite clear. You refer to a newspaper "story about how in the tech industry minorities are not hired. Black and Latino youth, college graduates, coming from the same top prestigious schools as white graduates, aren't even being interviewed by tech companies." The story in question from USA Today, October 13, 2014, is titled "Tech jobs: Minorities have degrees, but don't get hired." In your response to my criticism, you claim "the article was not about employment in the tech industry" -- that is false. Read the title (or the article). Your response then claims "minorities were not being hired." The article says "On average, just 2% of technology workers at seven Silicon Valley companies that have released staffing numbers are black; 3% are Hispanic." So minorities are being hired, even if perhaps more should be. You, of course, ignore the data showing that more than twice as many Asians are employed as might be expected from the graduation rates for Asians -- and that Whites are treated less favorably. When challenged by me, you resorted to another lie to cover your original misstatement. If you read the newspaper article critically, you might also have noticed that the numbers are not directly comparable. Counted employees are "technology workers" while the pool of talent referred to is those with degrees in computer science and engineering. The two groups are significantly different. The article also mixes data from 179 universities in Canada and the US with comments about "prestigious" universities -- and notes that graduates of the top computer science schools (Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, Carnegie-Mellon) and UCLA are the most sought after. There are prestigious universities (Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and others) that are not highly ranked computer science schools. Finally, you now say that in your talk about women heads of state you were referring to a Chinese Empress from 1300 years ago. But that is another lie. Here is what you say in your talk: "And, women have been elected as heads of state and, and appointed as head of state in countries like China, India, and Pakistan. Yet somehow you don't see people clamoring to claim the end of sexism in those countries." India and Pakistan didn't exist as countries until the 1940s -- not 1300 years ago, and mixing leaders from such disparate periods would be preposterous. An empress from 700 A.D. would not be relevant to the issue of modern sexism. Since Wu Zetlan was neither elected nor appointed to her title, you could not have been referring to her. Finally, in your response you casually and falsely claim "There have been others as well." Please correct the Wikipedia entry if it is wrong when it reports "Wu was the only female emperor of China in four millennia." I believe no reasonable person would think your response is honest. You were not referring to someone from 700 A.D./C.E. in your talk. To do so would make no sense at all. You then advise me "before making assumptions, one should ask questions first." I made no assumptions -- I did research. Before making speeches, I suggest you do the same. And when challenged, if you have not done your homework, I suggest you do research before responding. You might read, for your edification, an essay written nearly 400 years ago by Francis Bacon. It is titled "Of Truth" and explains the benefits of learning, believing, and acting on the truth. Then, perhaps, you will not lie. Without such wisdom, when caught in lies, you may continue to come up with new lies. Perhaps you were hoping that those who read your response would think I was careless. Was I? I think the evidence speaks for itself.
Fredric Williams Sorry, initial message got cut off there. The federal amendments in the FL state constitution were embedded in during a series of laws based off of the Chinese Exclusion Act. There are numerous other sources for that, that was simply a typo. You're misinterpreting statements; for example, Wu Zetian, as well as the numerous other women who have led China aren't the same as the women have been elected or appointed as heads of state in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. For example, India has had Indira Gandhi as prime minister; Benazir Bhutto was prime minister in Pakistan. I didn't state that their women heads of state were 1300 years ago, etc. If you're just here to argue, I'm sorry to leave you disappointed. I just wanted to clarify the record on some gross misinterpretations but it seems your bias - and your false assumption that this entire talk wasn't fact checked by nearly 50 scholars and several university researchers before being approved for release - is preventing an open discussion.
He lost me with his "I'm not attracted to Asians" bit. That's nonsense. I'm not attracted to girls under 5 feet or over 6 feet. I'm not attracted to redheads. I'm not attracted to women with certain accents. I'm not attracted to women over 50, or over 200 lbs. Don't I have the right to determine for myself what kind of woman I want to date without being called a heightist, or a redheadist, or an accentist, or an ageist, or a weightist? People like this are trivializing the whole issue of racism. If you want to lock Asians up in an internment camp or ship them all home, that's a race problem. If you prefer blondes, that's not racism. Comprende?
The girl who said she doesn't date asians might be doing that based off their physical appearance. You call her prejudice, but everyone has a preference for who they want their partner to look like
sure you can have a type and then you can have exclusionary nature and heavy generalizations. Racial preferences reduce individuals to ethnicities. When we make such assumptions that members of a certain race possess a certain characteristic, by definition is racism. Preferences are subconscious , prejudices are conscious. Claiming superficial qualities determine compatibility doesn't necessarily make you a racist, but it makes you a prejudice shallow human.
Nick there's alot of truth in what yu say,,And I'm a black man,,.. I'm not physically attracted to Koreans, however I think they are extremely intelligent, interesting people, but I'm personally not attracted in a sexual way,,dosent mean I'm racist,,but we do have our preferences,,,,, thin line here ,,,.
My standards of physical attraction make me a racist. That's pretty clear and inescapable. Which leads me to the conclusion that being racist just isn't that big a deal. I'm in no way interested in adjusting my sexual preferences in order to purge myself of racism. Guess I'll just be a racist and be ok with it. *See what you did there?*
I love the argument about not dating someone of a certain race. Does he not understand racism is the belief one race is superior to another? Who you're attracted to isn't a choice.
Is the invitation sincere? I don't suffer directly because of racism, meaning that I am white, and middle class, and am a male. This puts me into the speakers target group, which is to say: I fall into that group by acts of direct intenton, or by passive intention, or by the terms of defining what racism is, am ignorant of my racism. It is true: most white people are afraid to discuss the matter. When I say white I mean well educated white people of a certain income who have attended college. It is because they live a sheltered life that they have adopted a fantasy of a progressive society where the distruction of racism has been all but ended. It is true that a predominante percentage of whites don't see the racism going on. It is true. There are people who are white, middle class, and male, who don't indulge in a collective fantasy, however. They are in some way or another a minority within the "whites" that the speaker carelessly groups together. (The fact that a person is silent does not always mean they are willing contributors to racism. Quiet the contrary-they may simply be unsure they are allowed to join any conversation, or that the minute they talk they could be breaking rules of conduct, by which I mean social rules, or to use the mythical term "political correctness".) I have no reason to believe the speaker is insincere. So for that reason I put it to him: Do you want "white" people to just listen, or do you want a real conversation? P.S. The woman mentioned who was not attracted to people of particular ancestry could actually not be attracted to the speaker, and not for racist reasons. Certainly it would be racist for her to say: "White women don't date non white men." or some such general exclusion. I often hear "people of color" (another loaded double standard in language) say I am not attracted to white people. Is this not a prejudice based on race? Or can only white people make such racist judgments? Also: saying "whites" is as general as saying "Asian". There are whites from all over Europe. It is because of reasoning like this that I become skittish. Believe it or not: some white people are desperate to talk about racism, but are too afraid to do so.
David Henson I'm so late, but I like your comment. In another TED Talk this speaker suggested talking with someone about racism instead of talking TO them about it. That's what makes the difference in the conversation and perhaps one's understanding of the issues. Most times people just want to scream about "facts" that generalize an entire group, when there are millions of examples to the contrary. An actual two-sided conversation is definitely what's needed. I wish more people were willing to ask questions and listen to the responses.
But she didn't say that she couldn't have an emotional conection, she just said "Hey, you are not atractive to me" Is that racist? I don't find, triceratops sexy, they are not atractive to me, and that's why I wouldn't fuck a triceratops, 'cause I don't find it atractive... AM I BEING RACIST? Am I being racist to all triceratops because of that? OF FUCKING COURSE NOT! I don't like corean pop music groups, am I being racist to coreans? No, I'm just saying I don't like it, or that at least I don't like it as much as some other things. I agree with everything else on the video, but, seriously, that just make it impossible for me to take someone serious.
Uh, that's not what he said she said. He said she said, "I'm not attracted to Asians..." which she may have found to be a nicer way to say "I'm not attracted to you" if Simon had in fact asked her for a date. He just said he had met a woman who... Your triceratops example is lame.
The speaker completely lost me after saying that, if you don't find a certain race particularly attractive, it's racism. I tuned the rest of this out after that. And before the SJW snowflakes flame me, it's no different than saying that you're not attracted to blondes or redheads.
This isn't racism... More black people get arrested because there are more black people in poor cities such as Detroit, or dangerous cities such as Chicago, same with education. Not being attracted to certain races isn't racism whatsoever. This speaker is just *special*.
The story of the black teenager being pepper sprayed in his own house is a valid example. His contention that the name of his band would not have been questioned if he was any other race is not backed my evidence. Complete conjecture on his part. As to his legal case with regard to his band name, he appears to simply assumed that the lawyers are all only white. This is also conjecture on his part. He explained that he was fighting against The U.S. patent and trademark office. He suggested that they said "We are committed to diversity and there are many Asian Americans who work in our office..." He has shown zero proof that the Asian Americans who work in the office are not working on this case, nor has he shown that the Asian Americans who work in the office were not involved in the denial process because they found the band name derogatory or offensive to Asian people. Complete conjecture on his part, zero evidence.
There's a third factor: culture. If one objectively examines differences in many aspects between races they will understand that generally the differences are caused by culture.
Everybody is on top of the other points where he dropped the ball. My personal favorite was how he dozens of times says 'whites' and 'blacks' but almost always said Asian-Americans lol
it is built into culture for supremacy not by individuals but by those in charge. It is why they bleached flour, sugar, say white is pure and it is no more pure than any color. like when they say as white as snow. snow has a lot of colors in just like brown or black or tan. bleached teeth, black sheep as if black sheep is bad or wrong and then painted pictures of black sheep. Scriptures and jesus never said black sheep being lost it was the lost sheep as lost. Blacks clain the word nigga as their they claim in own it. That creates racism.The word is slang to the word in the dictionary. Don't own it. Don't talk about slavery or own it like victims talk about it as it is happneing now still to all peoples Now and stop talking and owning it. It was happening all over the world whenblacks were slaves in the Usa. Chinese were harder because they kept their language and would go home. black had lost all contact with black in their country indeed some blacks sold each oter out just like am indians did in the Usa for power money territory. but don't claim it as a weakness. Acknowledge its not an inferior experience. Jes don't see themselves as inferior. blacks must stop laughing about and being proud of some of the behaviors because it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy and the kids take it on to realte fit in to a culture that looks like them in features. blaks need to get some of the old 14 century literature and learn the languages of their fore fathers like others do and foods maybe take the DNA and see where are the various peoples they are made up from. because if they have been in the USA since 1800's they prob have something else in them too. Something called the emotion code is about when a link is broken and trauma suffered by ancestors is handed down like dna and when you fix the emotion you fix the issue even in t the spirit world into future generations. Blacks suffered a lot depression self defeatism during those slaveryyears and then after more by KKK ... so those hurt angry feeling etc or still stuck in some emotion DNA. Same with American Indian
I have nothing to back it up, but my intuition, but, i believe that racism is pretty dam hardcoded in every humans biology. Xenophobia was an instinct that keept small nomadic family groups alive and reproducing, instead of having their lives and or resources taken. if this holds true, people can't be "colorblind", and coexistence without discrimination is impossible, then the "soulution" to completely and utterly end racism is either compulsory genetic modification, genocide of all but one race, or complete segregation. i don't like any of those options (even if a nation of entirely segregated societies might be the lesser of those evils. homogeneous societies would have a lot less discrimination.
Well I notice he doesn't mention how many times higher east Asian household incomes are even than Whites. W.on.W crime being 4-6 times higher but the White population being greater than 6 times more meaning an actual lower rate of crime in the population & being the majority setting the normal rate for comparison
I agree with 99 % of this but I am sorry, if I am not attracted to a person that happens to be of a different ethnicity than I, that does not make me a racist. It only means I am not physically attracted to that person. Sexual selection is one of the basic concepts that make up evolution theory. It simply states, I do not find this individual attractive for reason A so I am not interested in making babies with that individual. It could be racist if your justification is based upon the race of the individual and I give him credit for pointing out that the person he was talking about did say she was not attracted to Asians but, to say that the reason she is not attracted to Asians is because of racism is bullshit. There could be a myriad of reasons why she is not attracted to Asians but by calling racism, you have made a choice not to ask why that is and to make a blanket statement about a person you don't know. I am a white male and I am generally not attracted to blonds. when I had hair, I was also blond. so is it the blond hair I am not attracted to? Nope. It is my experience that makes me more wary. I have had better experience with women of other hair colors. That's it, nothing else.
This guy is way off. At the beginning he lists a bunch of stereotypes about black people and then goes on to say "we" as if those same stereotypes apply to him as an Asian man which they don't.
*_"In the face of these staggering statistics, either you have to believe that people of color are naturally criminally inclined, that they're somehow genetically wired to performed poorly in school, that they're predisposed to have bad credit... or you believe that there's a systemic wide issue, in our health, education, financial, government sectors."_* My impression is that most people believe neither of these, but believe that it is an attitude problem, that society has told people of color that they're subjected to racism and have a steeper hill to climb, and in so induced a culture of hopelessness and self-pity which discourages them from achieving. I know right, far fetched, but my impression is that this is what people actually believe.
Hi Simon. Going to point out something about that police story about the black kid. I think the amount of pepper spray may have been too much. However, in a house with pictures of white kids and if they are NOT near any pictures with him in it; their reaction is perfectly fine. And why didn't you mention the difference between white men and asian men. Asian men on AVERAGE makes more than white men. Trevon was shot by a hispanic man, not white. Because white people don't care about being reported on the crime like that. Black lives have more influence in media especially the news. Your talk began out great. The discussion involving skin color is important. But your talk frames white people as the problem. I understand your idea here. Its the idea to call a spade a spade, but we can't. People, like the woman not interested in asian men, are labeled as racist. You do share a lot of PHYSICAL characteristics with others who ancestry is traced by to Asia. Good Day
I really think races exist in humans but not in a bad way. My point of view is that white people are white, black people are black, etc. These observations are true but do not have any more consequences for the people of that race. For example, you would not conclude that blacks are thieves just because they're black, but you could say that most of them have black hair. Now, if we use my definition of races, the interesting thing is that even though races exist, there is no way of being racist. Because except for those observations, all humans are equal, whatever their race may be. Now I am going to agree that by not acknowledging the existence of racism in our societies, it will never go away. We're being hypocrites. We have to accept the idea that races exist but do not embed any bad or good qualities of a race over another. What we should try to eliminate is culturalism, which would be "the belief that all members of each culture possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that culture, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another culture or cultures." Because we cannot be put into a "category" just because of our race. But cultures are generally misunderstood, misinterpreted or just disregarded for their differences from the judges' culture. "Racists" are afraid of the cultures they supposedly hate. It's the same thing as being afraid of change, because it is one. The hard thing with cultures is that they do not change a lot over time. As so, when people of a certain culture disagree with another culture, the disagreement will last basically forever. Disagreements lead to plenty of things, one of them being hatred. But because when things are different, we like to know how different they are from each other by comparing them and thus ultimately trying to know which one is the best. This is a common reaction which lead people to think that they are right when saying that people fitting in a "race" or culture are inferior to others (which they are not). Ultimately, to "solve" the problem of racism we have to try and understand the cultures of the people that are disregarded. In the case of disagreements, we have the right to disagree but that is it!(except for things that threaten rights or laws in which case the culture would be outside the law which makes the law decide what to do). But in my opinion, most humans are incapable of that (understanding) because of their egocentricity and their ego so it's basically a lost cause.
+Blagatt "...we have the right to disagree but that is it!(except for things that threaten rights or laws in which case the culture would be outside the law which makes the law decide what to do)" Sorry but this fragment doesn't make a lot of sense. Why? Because laws of different countries are also different, as they come from a cultural background. So in order to determine which cultural behaviours violate the law you still need to decide WHICH law you are using as a benchmark. and we're back to the same issue of (example) stoning people to death should be illegal, because it is illegal according to the law of western countries. Don't get me wrong: of course I think stoning people as a punishment for let's say illicit sex is wrong and should be illegal. But in order to do that we have to say that "our"laws are BETTER than the laws of countries where stoning is allowed. Which is the very problem you are trying to overcome according to your comment.
PruskiWawrzyniec Stoning people is condemned by the human rights. Moreover, laws are not set in stone: they have to change over time to fit the societies they are ruling. Stoning is a very old way of punishing people and doesn't fit our time. If laws are different then it's another story. Some culture could be banned in a certain country because of not respecting the human rights for example and I do not see any problem with that. If anyone of that culture were to not respect the human rights they could be punished and/or sent to the culture's original country. Also, it's not bad to think that some laws are better than others, we just should not compare cultures. After all, I never said we shouldn't think a culture isn't right. Especially in the case where the culture encourages behaviour that do not respect human rights or other fundamental rights. In that case the culture should probably improve and try to respect those since they are so important. On the contrary, let's say it is illegal to wear headscarves in a certain country, the culture should not change because of that since this law -is stupid- not fundamental but is a cultural choice based on opinions.
Blagatt I think you missed my point: "Stoning people is condemned by the human rights." It is condemned by OUR (western) human rights. The human rights that WE (western culture) have established. It is not condemned by laws, rights or culture in some countries. "Also, it's not bad to think that some laws are better than others, we just should not compare cultures" Laws come from culture, not the other way around. It is legal to chop off hands of a thief in some countries, because it has been historically done this way for ages. So my point is: if you are comparing laws, you are ultimately comparing cultures. "Some culture could be banned in a certain country because of not respecting the human rights for example and I do not see any problem with that. If anyone of that culture were to not respect the human rights they could be punished and/or sent to the culture's original country." Fully agree with this part. and here is the essence of what I'm saying: we shouldn't look at cultures/laws as good or bad, logical or illogical. We should simply stick to: western culture is good in western countries, eastern is good in eastern countries etc. With some exceptions of course, but nevertheless this is the main assumption we should be aiming for I think
4:30 BULLSHIT ALERT! Isn't one allowed to be more sexually attracted to a certain group of people just based on the looks? I mean most people would be more attacked to slimmer people than fat people who might not even be able to affect their weight as easily as other. and the lady (At least as far I know) Didnt say anything about them being super smart or any other prejudices Agree or disagree?
***** I mean active thinking that one race is bad without any reason or a stupid. What you are saying is that once you even divide up humans in races then you are racist. With your definition everyone is racist cos everyone has at least a tiny prejudice about a certain race but that is also missing the point of the video so you are the dumb one here... sry
***** You are saying that the racism you are describing is a big problem but is it such a big problem that every race has prejudices over other races? these dont even have to be bad. Of course no one should be judged at all based on their race but there is no real way around that
Around the three minute mark, he says "we" when referring to people of color and how they are perceived as being more dishonest. Very few white people consider asians to be on the same level as latinos or blacks. And at about the 9.40 minute mark he talks about how white families have such a higher net worth than blacks or latinos. Why did he not mention asians? They have a higher net worth than whites. At the 10 minute mark he refers to a newspaper article about how latinos and black tech grads are not even interviewed for tech jobs, only whites. Why did he not mention asians? Does he expect us to believe that tech companies think that ASIANS do not make good computer programmers? Or is he trying to mask the strong possibility that if a company has to make a choice based only on GPA between an otherwise unknown asian and an otherwise unknown white with exactly the same GPA, that they will choose the asian? Again at 10.40 he refers to people of color as "us". If there is really such a thing as white privilege, then asians share in it.
Hi, Let me address some of these issues for you. The reason why at 9:40 I discuss the disparities between whites, hispanics, and blacks but not with Asian Americans, is because the data is limited and often not reported. Unfortunately, Pew Research and some other institutions presents Asians as monolithic, grouping together communities (failing to distinguish between Asians and Asian Americans, let alone individual community groups), and therefore creating biased information. Though even grouped together, Asians do not enjoy a higher net worth than whites - it's close, but again that figure is distorted (see "Doubly Divided: The Racial Wealth Gap" by Lui, The Racial Wealth Audit by Shaprio et al, and "Why the inequality debate must consider race" by Fudge et al to start). Regarding the newspaper, it's because the article didn't contain any information about Asian Americans. We're often not included in these studies or even discussions of race. Asian Americans are people of color, and yes, we do face disparities in terms of poverty, healthcare, education, immigration policy, credit, and numerous other areas.
Additionally, it's troubling that you rely on stereotypes of Asians - computer programmers, really? Unfortunately, it's these troubling insistence on the model minority myth that exacerbates disparities in nearly ever measurable area of the public sector. For example, the policy brief published by The Education Trust showed that Asian Pacific Islander students in CA had some of the poorest education outcomes because institutions falsely assumed that Asians were performing the best and therefore did not extend critical services (a similar study revealed the same issue here in the Pacific Northwest). For the same reasons, Asian Pacific Islanders have some of the worst health disparities - due to the model minority assumption. There's no such thing as Asian or Asian American privilege - that notion is based on false, cherry-picked data that isn't supported by a close examination of the facts. Numerous sources have addressed that issue, this Salon piece being an excellent start for one: www.salon.com/2014/08/29/bill_oreillys_asian_privilege_disgrace_the_fox_news_host_needs_some_basic_history_lessons/
This isnt only about asian, but generally stereotypes in america that critically impacts other races than whites. Be honest, but the negative actions europeans did in the exploration age really benefitted european countries to this day even, even america.
He mentioned the earnings gap between whites/blacks and whites/hispanics. But failed to mention the earnings gap between whites/asians. Leaving out relevant information because it doesn't fit your narrative does nothing to forward the conversation.
When we talk about equal rights it means equal opportunity in the same situation. A middle class African American has the same chances towards education as a Middle Class White American. But stating that the Black people are the majority of lower income doesn't real mean racism. It means economical inequality. The chances for a poor white person are just as shitty as poor black person. Just because America has such horrible wealth differences doesn't mean racism. You actually have to argument how this came to be with arguments people can validate. But is more an idea people have.
so many of you people don't know your own history and make ignorant statements like you just made. their has never been equal opportunity for anything at any time in this country! Search the internet for any subject, at any time you want to, and you'll find that white people have ALWAYS had an advantage not matter what the issue is or was PERIOD!!!
Rashid, except now we live in a world where Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, and Koreans all earn more than whites in the so-called "land of white supremacy." So........what mental gymnastics will you use to ignore that?
Whaaaaaaaaaaaa white girls won't date me. It's a preference. My husband is Chinese/Viet and I am very attracted to him. I find it HILARIOUS that an Asian guy, who is part of the most privilaged group in all of the west (highest income, highest level of education, least likely to be incarcerated, least likely to be on public assistance) is crying for black people. I know my husband really hates when other Asian people talk FOR him, or are outraged on his behalf, and black people feel the same way, a lot of the time. Also, I only clicked because your name is Simon Tam. #FireflyFan
Is this guys talking about predugices and not rasicm? And technically Asians have it easier and are more commonly better off than white and black people. They do better in school, get better jobs and get payed more. So how is someone that is privileged able to speak for those who are not privileged? I dont know, never studied exactly what being racist actually is. Feel free to tell me im wrong.
Isn't him stereotyping, "a conversation with the average white person..," racist in and of itself? Whether or not it's intentional, I feel prejudice in that statement, which as he said, prejudice is the base of racism.
This makes sense, sadly. I was lucky enough in my childhood to live in areas where I went to school with Asian and black children. I saw that people who were not white were just like me. And my parents did a good job of letting us know that racism was something that really filthy, low class, brain dead gutter trash believed in. People who were racist had some kind of brain disease. Hopefully terminal. Hating someone because of their skin colour, country of origin or their religion is just stupid. We all have a skin colour, we all came from somewhere else ( unless we are aboriginal) and some of us have religion. So we should hate someone for being like us? By the way, I may be an old painfully white chick, but I could almost date you. You are well spoken, smart, cute, AND A MUSICIAN! But, God, I can't stand that tie! Eradicate racism by any means necessary.
Sandra Nelson So your parents taught you to consider "low-class" people as filthy, brain-dead gutter trash? Gosh, very enlightened -- how is it better than racism, exactly? And "aboriginal" is either everyone native to a place (born there) or they are descended for people who came from Africa originally -- even if their ancestor(s) immigrated to their current location 50,000 years ago. So Africans would be the only aboriginals -- if in Africa.
@@FredricWilliams Australia was part of Pangaea and has the most unchanged, unadulterated DNA in both animals and human animals, therefore Aboriginal. That's from everything I've learned; if the narrative has been updated please enlighten me.
This is my third time this month stumbling over a variation of "I'm not sexually attracted to X ethnicity- damn, you're a racist!". Saying that there exist outward physical traits which are typical (but not absolute) for people with a genetic origin from certain geological regions is an observation. Claiming that it is possible to say anything about a person's abilities, behaviour or qualities based on said outward traits, is racist. What I don't get to follow, is that it is racist to say that you are not sexually attracted to one (or more) such group of outward physical traits? The speaker says that the woman was racist because she assumed that "[billions of asians] share some superficial quality which would make it impossible to make an emotional connection". First of all, "not attracted to" and "Impossible to make an emotional connection" are somewhat different in gravity. Secondly, whilst claiming that there is any outward trait shared by every single person originating by recent decent from the continent of Asia is factually wrong, it does make sense to say that there are tendencies in appearance that are typical for the region. The woman is allowed to not be sexually attracted to any trait, including such traits of appearance. If someone told me "I'm not attracted to you, because I'm not attracted to Europeans", I'd infer that my specific appearance was not attractive to the person, that the person believes my appearance to include physical traits most commonly found in people from Europe, and that the person believed that the looks which appeal to him/her are more typical of a different region. Allthough it is an unnecessary consolation towards someone to point out how slim a group of appearances fall within one's "attractive" range, it is still a matter of sexual preference, and not racism, as far as I'm concerned.
So wonderfully incisive and timely! Thank you for this teaching tool for adults who would rather this be a fleeting "condition". If you are not on the receiving end of racism, it is so easy to try and ignore. Thank you for work!
I'm glad a talk like this was brought up. Thank you, Simon & TED, for orchestrating this tough conversation that is very much, and unfortunately will be, a constant issue that relates to race. I doubt much will be done to end such a nasty disease because it is so commonplace in a majority of societies, but bringing awareness to the issue might bring more reception to the open-minded.
People on the receiving end of this inherited misfortune have a responsibility to be calm, non-violent (physically and emotionally) and compassionate when dealing with this issue. If we frame it as an us vs. them, then the folks in power will just push back, and push hard. It's a very tricky jedi situation. The only way to destroy our enemies is to make them our sincere friends. That's my 2 cents. I sincerely wish you, Matthew Williams, great strength, patience and support. It's a hard road here but we're all in it together, one big dysfunctional family...
Hal337 Thanks for your insight and analysis, Hal. Even though I'm late, and I'm sorry for that, I believe education and leaving intolerance and bigotry out of parley and not bringing it up in situations is another great way to combat this issue without hurting anyone. With a better education about how certain societies function we can have a better insight on how to help people instead of categorizing and relying on satires that may lead to negative, uneducated views which very well may feed some racist thoughts, but its just my point-of-view.
Sorry if this offends anyone, just wanted to make a "few" points - 3:00 - Or three, you believe neither. You don't believe that people of color, of which Asians on average are doing better than whites, are doing better or worse as a result of their skin color, but equally don't see evidence that it is systemic in nature whether it goes one way or another. Maybe, you just believe that people tend to do well based on the environment they're born into, after all an Asian kid in a respected neighborhood in California is going to be socialized differently than, well anyone who is socialized in Detroit, or "the slums" or "Ghettos" of any city. 4:00 - So people are racist for finding certain phenotype more attractive than others? I'll agree with you when I've blinded myself... Also, people tend to make generalizations because what they have seen up to that point. It's not like she could meet an Asian guy she does find attractive and start dating him right? 4:36 - Other than trying to say prejudice can happen to anyone and it being based on "race" is bull, let me give you an easy example. People have been prejudice against homosexuality, so I didn't know that (according to you) homosexuality is racially exclusive. And the only thing that's racist in that statement is the idea that prejudice can be about nothing but race and that it only happens to people of certain races. 5:05 - I will say that police do need more training, because based on what was said this does seem bad. But if you would like you use anecdotal evidence to make a point then there is no point in arguing. Also, and I'm not arguing that the police shouldn't have done something different, from what I can find and the statements made here police were told there was a thief, went into the house assuming there was a thief, found no evidence that he was living there based off of the phenotype displayed by the pictures and the lack of pictures of him (because science apparently doesn't matter anymore), and then proceeded to go overboard towards someone who (as far as reports tell) did not turn aggressive. 6:00 - If the name "The Slants" is still available, it's obviously never had someone try to use it before. I'm sorry, but assuming that people of other races haven't tried to use the name, and again assuming that it is primarily because you're Asian is... questionable. Also, it's believed that only white people cannot use the "n word" yet you don't speak about that? It's more likely that, unlike with the "n word" some people felt that the name "The Slants" was so offensive that no one should use it. Now, I don't think that it was right, but I also think that a word that is seen as offensive should be either banned for everyone or that everyone should be allowed to use it without fear. 6:50 - Normally racism constitutes intention to do so. Though that way of thinking may be dying out among some. 7:00 - Asian American leaders? First of all, tribe mentality? Second of all, leaders who "speak for a specific race" tend to not speak for a specific race. They speak on their own beliefs even if the majority of that race do not believe the same thing. For example, the Boston Museum of Fine Arts was putting on an event where Americans could wear Kimonos while at the museum, as a way of displaying the beauty of clothing. While, according to reports I am finding, some Asian American's stood in protest, Native Asians seems to be counter protesting. A common point being made was that this was less about "cultural appropriation" and more about simply sharing a beautiful aspect of another culture. Guess who won thanks to fear of the economic issues of being called "racist." 7:30 - So if they asked for the opinions of the Asian people whom they worked with and they disagreed with you, then you would not accept them as representing Asian Americans? So do they have to agree with you to be considered representatives of Asian Americans, in your eyes? 7:58 - The application is vastly different, compared to what? If a white band calls itself "The Crackers" it might meet less resistance because it's towards a "non minority group" which "doesn't need to be protected." African Americans do tend to get arrested more, but they also disproportionately cause more crimes based on the population. Men are much more likely to receive harsher punishments when it comes to crime and sentencing, but men also commit most of the reported crimes. So what do you want? Murderers and people who commit fraud to be let go because the race they belong to has reach a max amount of crimes that can be reported? That we consider every single case, no matter the circumstance or situation, to be exactly the same? 8:24 - One, what were the demographics of the people who voted for this law? Two, the argument was made about a law that allowed discrimination and it was stated that Floridians voted to keep it. Then In the next sentence it was said that "unaware voters uphold laws that are..." So people that were not aware of the law are racist too? 9:20 - Yet Asian families tend to do better than white families, black families, and Latino families if I recall. The ones who are not doing as well tend to be more recent in their immigration. Another fascinating point could be made about how Asian Americans tend to live in bigger cities rather than smaller towns and counties. This makes it harder and more expensive to buy a house and pass on the assets you get from the house to your children. 9:30 - Could that be a result of there, on average, being more and better education in areas that are predominantly light skin (European or Asian Countries) compared to countries like Africa or the Middle East, or is the only possible variable that determines that outcome racism to you? Also, a study by Pew showed that 61% of "Recent Asian Immigrants ages 25 to 64 have a college degree." 10:00 - Did they have the same resumes? Did they apply to the companies and accept the interview? Did they get a job offer straight out of college which bypassed the need for interviews? Or is the automatic assumption of racism the only possible way? Also, there is no mention of Asian Americans again in this point... 10:20 - I doubt many people pretend racism doesn't exist at all, but accepting everything the news says without confirmation, reliable sources, or evidence that anyone can access and come to a conclusion on is not the best way to stay informed, or make a well structured point. 10:40 - White people's opinion when speaking on race, with facts stated, is still largely devalued. 11:18 - (Confirmation Bias?) The "race card" does get played and talked about when it happens, and it's normally followed by denunciations based on "white privilege." 11:26 - B on B crime tends to get reported on more because it's disproportionate based on demographics, "W on W crime is 4 to 6 times higher" because there are about 4-6 times more white people in the US, and a large amount of the crime isn't gang related with W on W (Sorry if that's inflammatory). Also, speaking on disproportionate news compared to the number of crimes, a police officer killing someone is disproportionately covered compared to the number of people killing each other if I recall, so why are you only putting a magnifying glass to one issue? 11:40 - No, discrimination against the disabled compared to "non-whites" is not the same. The comment about a Black president is meant to show how far we've come, and display were we are, not erase all that brought us to that point. 12:06 - No, you don't see people claiming "the end of sexism" in those countries, but since censorship is something you do see in those countries I feel like we can both speculate why. Also, if you look back at history, you normally only hear about people fighting for "women's rights" when the country is prosperous. "Racism - The belief that one race is innately dominant to all others." Though the definitions may slightly vary based on where you find it, I fail to see how you can tell if something is "racist" unless you know they did it because they either felt their own race was superior or that your race was inferior. I find what he is saying to be very dangerous just like the studies behind "micro aggression" and "Unconscious Bias" (or whatever the specific term is) because it allows people like him to come up with the beliefs and reasoning behind other people's actions with little to no proof. Not to mention the science and methods behind micro aggression, unconscious bias, and the like have been criticized since their conception. Not because of "white privilege" either, because the reliability of the tests are very low. One day you could be a racist and the next you might not be, that is what happened when people were retested. Also, just to make the point can you stop saying "people of color"? When it comes to how we perceive light, the color white is an amalgamation of all colors, and also white is still a color. So thank you for excluding the color white from colors because it doesn't fit what you're saying.
Hiring has less to do with race and more to do with easy and fast communication. They like to hire people that understand what you mean the first time and can explain what you mean in terms they understand readily. Race plays a part in facial cues, word choice, timing, etc. If you had a choice between 2 candidates for a job, and one of them was hard to get a clear picture of what he was trying to say, but the other could communicate simply and was well understood, would you really hire them equally?
+modern geek amazing ...everyone is in agreement with what he is saying, but might not have the courage to admit these truths within a group of people.
Not dating asians isn't racist. You cannot control your physical sexual attraction. If you are not physically attracted to asians because of something that you cannot help, you are not racist as racism is a conscious decision or choice to actively discriminate against a race.
Kroatowa Racism, by definition is a belief that members of a particular race are inferior to another, and is also accompanied by a conscious prejudice or discrimination against these people. Since it is a) A belief and B) A conscious decision Not being sexually attracted to a particular race is not racist, as sexual attraction is neither a belief nor a conscious decision. If you think sexual attraction IS a conscious decision, then I guess that you're supporting the psychio-christian homophobes. Since that's what they also believe.
***** As an avid fan of TED, I came across your talk. I found it interesting, slightly utopic and a bit white-blaming. I am not an apologist as I am not white. I found it interesting because of the way you fashioned it. It wasn't a harangue or a display of statistics about racism which is how many anti-racism talks tend to be. I found it utopian because of what you aim to achieve. Believe me, I am against discriminating people on the basis of physical attributes, but not all of us think alike. We shall always have some people in our neighbourhoods, in our political system, in the corporate or in the university admissions committee who might want to discriminate and be selective on basis of colour, nationality or race. Lastly, my gripe about it being a bit white-blaming. When you cite data about the net worth of a white family or the hiring discrepancies between whites and non-whites or the police harassment of the blacks/latinos, can you demonstrate that these discrepancies are purely due to racism? In essence, can you establish that it's cause-effect and not correlational? On an aside, I would like to hear your experiences about how mixed race people are treated or what challenges they face.
As a "white" person, as such grouped in with all other "white" people, regardless of the fact that there are as different kinds of whites, from different nations in Europe, with different cultures and heritages, I instantly took offense because I felt like the speaker is insincere. I never doubt for a second that racism exist today as much as it did a 100, or a 1,000 years ago. Still, if the speaker sees all whites as a group which is pretty much the same, then how can I be led to believe he would ever desire a white persons contributions to a dialogue about racism. I sense a disingenuous person more than a person who wants to get people engaged in a taboo subject, by which I mean it is taboo for whites in our politically correct modern social climate for a group that is blamed for racism to talk about it without being discouraged to do so.
David Henson Saurabh Malkar I personally did not see this particular Ted Talk within the realm of white-blaming. As displayed in history minority groups seeking social or civil change in relation to their experiences must beseech the majority group. It took white men to free the slaves, past civil rights reform, allow women to vote, pass gay marriage laws....etc. When I listened to the talk I hear a man describing a system that adversely effects some segments of the population in comparison to others. Someone else's framing to the topic may cause them to be defensive or dismissive or even have an issue with being grouped under the assumption that all white people are in the same position when it comes to race relations. Is it possible it was a simply an appeal to the majority culture, as diverse of a population that falls within that group, that was labeled as "white people"? Racial discussions should not be about blaming one person or dismissing another but rather seeking to find a commonality and trying to understand others view points and experiences. I took his aim to sincerely being opening needed discussion on race relations as evidenced by the statistics he presented on "white families" perception of current state of racial biases in the US. It seemed to have presented view points and supporting statistics that many in the majority culture do not have to think about. Overt individual racism is not the prevailing issue anymore. It's remnants in various systems of our government is the bigger issue. So when looking at statistics and asking if its purely due to racism I would respond as yes and no. In the criminal justice system specifically, since it is my field of education, it is clear that race is one part of a multiple variant issue within mass incarceration but it is also one that's often overlooked or denied. National crime rates fluctuate with few spikes and evidence shows there are no significant differences between white or black drug usage and sale in our country; despite these facts the US incarceration rate has steadily skyrocketed up across the past 40 years disproportionately affecting the African American Community. When discussion such issues with friends and colleagues I've found you can cite socioeconomic class, gender, or anything else except race as a major determinant for any specific phenomenon. Race is uncomfortable and people demand either overt proof and supporting stats to the already blatant statistical evidence until you can provide any other reasonable explanation other than race. I'm not saying its the only problem in our nation but I agree with the speaker that the way we approach it and discuss it here is a major problem, and if nothing else I'm glad his talk is inciting discourse.
***** I agree. I don't think the intention of the speaker is to "white blame" either. But I do think that talking about racism by whites is perceived differently than when other races do. This is only natural, because I cannot really understand what a person of color endures because I am white. I can listen, and try and be a better human, however. I can try and be more compassionate and strive not to contribute to racism, and be a better listener. I do believe there are a lot of good non-racist whites that are afraid of this topic, and don't know how to talk about it, and are dying to talk about it more openly. I appreciate your response. This is what I hoped someone would do.
+raymon perkins I never accused him of "white-blaming". There is a a sense that he thinks of "white" being a separate group exclusive to other races, and that only "whites" are guilty of this crime against humanity. And when is it possible for one race to speak for all others?
I want to start by saying I watch a ton of TEDx Talks, as I find many of them inspirational, educational, or at minimum, entertaining. This was none of those things. If this post is too long, skip to the bottom. The problem (intentionally or not) that Simon has in this speech, as well as many commenters below, is using the word "racist" as a blanket statement, equalizing every action when in fact there are different degrees. It's like saying intentionally stepping on someone's foot is bad. Of course it's bad, but so is murder, but those two things are clearly not on the same scale. What Simon is saying, in my opinion, is totally hypocritical, and he seems to be searching for things to blow out of proportion simply for shock value. Case in point, calling a woman racist for not being attracted to Asians. Did that sting a little? Probably. Was it racist? To a degree, sure. Did it require a far more personal and condescending retort? Absolutely not. What Simon did was take it to a level it had no business being, by making his own assumptions, which he himself outlines in his speech. I myself am a white male who lives in Shanghai, China (and have lived in far smaller cities and townships for several years prior. I have a house in a town of a few thousand people, and am the first white person to have ever been there), and believe it or not, racism against me is prevalent. I've had things thrown at me, been taken to the police station and screamed at for things I didn't do, been punched, slapped and kicked. I also get stared at about fifty times a day, and get my picture taken quite often as well for no apparent reason. Those things are all definitely race-driven, but I would have to be a complete moron to put them all on the same scale. Here, there's a Chinese saying that basically translates into "You think too much" (basically, "Don't sweat the small stuff"), and I think that applies here very well. Don't risk your mental health and sanity on trivial nonsense by putting way more thought into making things worse, when you can simply take it at face value and let it go. Just because it hurts your feelings doesn't mean it needs to be categorized, filed and labeled so that you can call yourself a victim. Obviously I'm not saying racism doesn't exist, nor am I saying it's not a problem. What I am saying is that if garbage like this stopped getting lumped in with serious racial issues like police stereotyping and workplace profiling, then it would be an easier subject to talk about rationally and productively. I'm not claiming to be an expert on this, nor am I trying to break new ground and solve racial issues worldwide. I'm just putting my own thoughts and opinions down, take it or leave it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If this was tldr, just think of it this way; If I was hitting on a girl who later told me that she is gay, should I get bent out of shape and call her sexist? Of course not. Stop reading so much into things in an attempt to label them as racist, sexist, etc. so that you justify calling yourself a victim.
8:14 If that was the case, how does my Dad, aunt, and uncle, all of whom are Asian, own the property they live on in Florida? They bought their houses they did not lease or rent. Am I missing something here? Asians absolutely do own property in FL. My Dad is in real estate and makes a living selling homes and property to his predominantly Asian clientelé.
Maybe you should research the information you are missing, unless you aren't intelligent enough to find it. And in that case, I apologize for assuming you were.
When it comes to the 'not being attracted to certain groups of people, makes you racist thing...' I think many people who got offended by this are confusing intent with implication. Just because you don't INTEND to be racist doesn't mean that what you're saying or your attraction, doesn't still have racist implications. True. Attraction is very complex. I believe that it's largely subconscious. There could be many factors that have played into why we are attracted to what we are attracted to. Also, because attraction is subconscious, no one and not even ourselves, can really know why we're attracted to what we're attracted to. But because we live in the type of society that we do (which based on how I define racism, is a white supremacist society), saying certain things or having certain attractions will always lead to implications of racist prejudices, biases and/or conditioning. This also goes into the fact that different people define race and racism, differently. For this reason, there is always going to be misunderstanding surrounding topics like this. I perceive racism as white supremacy. So when someone says that they aren't attracted to any group that isn't classified as white, I hear, "I am not attracted to people who aren't white because they are inferior to white people." For me, racial superiority based on being white is racism. So I am going to perceive that as racist. It doesn't matter what your intent is, in saying that. It will always have racist implications because we live in a society where whiteness is the standard and everything else is cast as inferior to it.
The speaker lost me around 3:30 when he said that increased incarceration rates among blacks demonstrates a clear racial problem. He said this ignoring the reality that poor men tend to participate in crime more than middle class or affluent ones and that blacks are disproportionately poor. Not saying that police racism doesn't exist. It does. But drawing a conclusion based on outrageous statistics as he did without considering a well understood factor like that blows his credibility out of the water. What other conclusions will he draw in this talk without considering all factors involved? If he can't think his approach through any better than that, then I don't care what he has to say.
"Poverty causes crime! But black people (who are poorer) don't commit more crime! It's just white racism that inflates the stats!" The "logic" from progressives makes my head spin.
Everyone attacts the white man ... Everyone u meat is racest . doesnt mater skin color .... We have lots of kinds of dogs but they r all still dogs .... You wouldnt use a pug to protect ur family. You would use a bigger dog like a pitbull .... Thats Nots racest against the pug . thats just noticing animals are built different for different purposes
If this is a race, why do so many of us have to run this race with a ball and chain around our ankle? Or both ankles chained together. Doesn't seem like a fair race to me. But what do I know I am an invisible man in this race(Cheyenne and Arapaho). Respect the wind and save the water!!! Iron Eyes Cody can't be the only one crying 😢.
She's not attracted to Asians. "What she was really doing was presenting over a hundred different ethnicities and cultures as if it were monolithic." What a horrible observation. She simply isn't attracted to Asians. Would you rather her list all Asians' names? She's presenting them NOT as a culture, NOT as ethnicities, NOT as lesser beings, but as a comprehensible category of people to whom she isn't attracted. I'm not attracted to the taste of chicken. I'll go as far as to say I'm more attracted to the taste of beef. Those poor chickens have it bad since I presented many breeds of chickens as if it were monolithic. I must be a racist. When you begin these types of arguments - YOU become the problem.
hate to burst your bubble on the "hipster" thing.its been done.its ALL been done.every new generation comes along and thinks that it the FIRST ONE to be into this or that or whatever the cool thing is for that time.I did it when I was a young punk.Kanye discovers Paul M. hahahahahahahaha( sorry had to thro that in)
I'm sorry to say that Mr. Tam is careless with the facts. First, I should be quite clear that racism is endemic and,I suspect, probably incurable. The situation remains unacceptable in the US, although it is clearly world's better than it was in Lincoln's day (when he exhibited what we would consider intolerable racism).
I lived and taught in Korea for eight years -- and it was said that 60% of Koreans felt marrying anyone not Korean was unacceptable. As a boy in an area with many Germans, Polish jokes were common. When in New Zealand, I was told jokes that disparage Australians. The D.C. editor for the Norwegian newspaper "Aftenposten" told me a joke that disparaged Swedes (there are many of these, too).
Mr. Tam says that Asians cannot own property under an amendment to the Florida Constitution. That is false. Here is the amendment, Article 1: " "The ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law." This amendment also says "No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability." The amendment is aimed at ILLEGAL immigrants, not Asians or anyone else who enters the country and is eligible for citizenship.
Because this was false, I looked further. Mr. Tam says that China had a female head of state. I didn't think so, but I checked. That was false. I believe he is referring to Soong Ching-ling, wife of Sun Yat-sen, the leader of the 1911 revolution. She became a person of some importance in the People's Republic of China, and was one of two vice-presidents. When she was nearing death she was given an HONORARY title of president. She was never head of state.
Mr. Tam also takes a newspaper article on employment in the tech industry as evidence of racism. It may be, but that cannot be determined by the statistic -- USA Today says the percentage of black and Hispanic graduates is higher than the percentage hired (about double). The statistic may be correct, but we have no way of knowing whether this reflects the grades and recommendations for these students. There is an old saying: there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. It is foolish to rely on so little data.
So Mr. Tam, in my view, should not have been accepted by TED, if it wants to provide "ideas worth spreading." Misinformation cannot be the basis of anything useful to the society.
Fredric Williams I've been generally ignoring the comments section on this thing for some time but I'd like to correct some misconceptions.
1) What I'm referring to is the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was repealed by every state except for Florida. Experts argue that isn't enforceable, but it is racist relic: news.wfsu.org/post/70-years-after-us-repeals-chinese-exclusion-act-flas-still-stands
2) I was referring to Wu Zetian, China's first and only empress. There have been others as well, but she was certainly the one with the highest profile.
3) No, the article was not about employment in the tech industry or about graduation rates. It stated that despite having a tech degree, minorities were not being hired.
Before making assumptions, one should ask questions first
***** Your exact words are "Florida's State Constitution still has a law imbedded in it that prevents Asians from owning property. When a measure was on the ballot to remove this law, Floridians voted to keep it!" You were not referring to the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was a FEDERAL law repealed many years ago. You do have a source for your misunderstanding, but did not bother to check to see if your source -- a radio station -- was correct. When challenged by me, you did not check, but came up with another lie -- that you were referring to a Federal law. The vote in Florida was on the amendment, which I quoted. It is specific and quite clear.
You refer to a newspaper "story about how in the tech industry minorities are not hired. Black and Latino youth, college graduates, coming from the same top prestigious schools as white graduates, aren't even being interviewed by tech companies." The story in question from USA Today, October 13, 2014, is titled "Tech jobs: Minorities have degrees, but don't get hired." In your response to my criticism, you claim "the article was not about employment in the tech industry" -- that is false. Read the title (or the article). Your response then claims "minorities were not being hired." The article says "On average, just 2% of technology workers at seven Silicon Valley companies that have released staffing numbers are black; 3% are Hispanic." So minorities are being hired, even if perhaps more should be. You, of course, ignore the data showing that more than twice as many Asians are employed as might be expected from the graduation rates for Asians -- and that Whites are treated less favorably. When challenged by me, you resorted to another lie to cover your original misstatement. If you read the newspaper article critically, you might also have noticed that the numbers are not directly comparable. Counted employees are "technology workers" while the pool of talent referred to is those with degrees in computer science and engineering. The two groups are significantly different. The article also mixes data from 179 universities in Canada and the US with comments about "prestigious" universities -- and notes that graduates of the top computer science schools (Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, Carnegie-Mellon) and UCLA are the most sought after. There are prestigious universities (Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and others) that are not highly ranked computer science schools.
Finally, you now say that in your talk about women heads of state you were referring to a Chinese Empress from 1300 years ago. But that is another lie. Here is what you say in your talk: "And, women have been elected as heads of state and, and appointed as head of state in countries like China, India, and Pakistan. Yet somehow you don't see people clamoring to claim the end of sexism in those countries." India and Pakistan didn't exist as countries until the 1940s -- not 1300 years ago, and mixing leaders from such disparate periods would be preposterous. An empress from 700 A.D. would not be relevant to the issue of modern sexism. Since Wu Zetlan was neither elected nor appointed to her title, you could not have been referring to her. Finally, in your response you casually and falsely claim "There have been others as well." Please correct the Wikipedia entry if it is wrong when it reports "Wu was the only female emperor of China in four millennia." I believe no reasonable person would think your response is honest. You were not referring to someone from 700 A.D./C.E. in your talk. To do so would make no sense at all.
You then advise me "before making assumptions, one should ask questions first." I made no assumptions -- I did research. Before making speeches, I suggest you do the same. And when challenged, if you have not done your homework, I suggest you do research before responding. You might read, for your edification, an essay written nearly 400 years ago by Francis Bacon. It is titled "Of Truth" and explains the benefits of learning, believing, and acting on the truth. Then, perhaps, you will not lie. Without such wisdom, when caught in lies, you may continue to come up with new lies.
Perhaps you were hoping that those who read your response would think I was careless.
Was I?
I think the evidence speaks for itself.
Fredric Williams Sorry, initial message got cut off there. The federal amendments in the FL state constitution were embedded in during a series of laws based off of the Chinese Exclusion Act. There are numerous other sources for that, that was simply a typo.
You're misinterpreting statements; for example, Wu Zetian, as well as the numerous other women who have led China aren't the same as the women have been elected or appointed as heads of state in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. For example, India has had Indira Gandhi as prime minister; Benazir Bhutto was prime minister in Pakistan. I didn't state that their women heads of state were 1300 years ago, etc.
If you're just here to argue, I'm sorry to leave you disappointed. I just wanted to clarify the record on some gross misinterpretations but it seems your bias - and your false assumption that this entire talk wasn't fact checked by nearly 50 scholars and several university researchers before being approved for release - is preventing an open discussion.
+Simon Tam Did you really just accused someone else of making assumptions? Bear in mind that most people reading this have just watched your video.
Given the current tumultuous setting of America. Simon Tam, your presentation was very illuminating and simple. You did an outstanding job!!
He lost me with his "I'm not attracted to Asians" bit. That's nonsense. I'm not attracted to girls under 5 feet or over 6 feet. I'm not attracted to redheads. I'm not attracted to women with certain accents. I'm not attracted to women over 50, or over 200 lbs. Don't I have the right to determine for myself what kind of woman I want to date without being called a heightist, or a redheadist, or an accentist, or an ageist, or a weightist? People like this are trivializing the whole issue of racism. If you want to lock Asians up in an internment camp or ship them all home, that's a race problem. If you prefer blondes, that's not racism. Comprende?
The girl who said she doesn't date asians might be doing that based off their physical appearance. You call her prejudice, but everyone has a preference for who they want their partner to look like
sure you can have a type and then you can have exclusionary nature and heavy generalizations. Racial preferences reduce individuals to ethnicities. When we make such assumptions that members of a certain race possess a certain characteristic, by definition is racism. Preferences are subconscious , prejudices are conscious. Claiming superficial qualities determine compatibility doesn't necessarily make you a racist, but it makes you a prejudice shallow human.
Nick there's alot of truth in what yu say,,And I'm a black man,,.. I'm not physically attracted to Koreans, however I think they are extremely intelligent, interesting people, but I'm personally not attracted in a sexual way,,dosent mean I'm racist,,but we do have our preferences,,,,, thin line here ,,,.
My standards of physical attraction make me a racist. That's pretty clear and inescapable. Which leads me to the conclusion that being racist just isn't that big a deal. I'm in no way interested in adjusting my sexual preferences in order to purge myself of racism. Guess I'll just be a racist and be ok with it. *See what you did there?*
We are all equal yo, we all look the same on the inside
We don't all look the same on the inside. I have a biology degree.
Lkonae Should that matter?
OkamiReborn Of course our differences matter.
Lkonae But should they matter in a negative way
Lkonae I just said in a negative way
Loved the talk. Simon, you spoke more eloquently and rationally than I ever could about this!
I love the argument about not dating someone of a certain race. Does he not understand racism is the belief one race is superior to another? Who you're attracted to isn't a choice.
Is the invitation sincere?
I don't suffer directly because of racism, meaning that I am white, and middle class, and am a male. This puts me into the speakers target group, which is to say: I fall into that group by acts of direct intenton, or by passive intention, or by the terms of defining what racism is, am ignorant of my racism.
It is true: most white people are afraid to discuss the matter. When I say white I mean well educated white people of a certain income who have attended college. It is because they live a sheltered life that they have adopted a fantasy of a progressive society where the distruction of racism has been all but ended. It is true that a predominante percentage of whites don't see the racism going on. It is true.
There are people who are white, middle class, and male, who don't indulge in a collective fantasy, however. They are in some way or another a minority within the "whites" that the speaker carelessly groups together. (The fact that a person is silent does not always mean they are willing contributors to racism. Quiet the contrary-they may simply be unsure they are allowed to join any conversation, or that the minute they talk they could be breaking rules of conduct, by which I mean social rules, or to use the mythical term "political correctness".)
I have no reason to believe the speaker is insincere. So for that reason I put it to him: Do you want "white" people to just listen, or do you want a real conversation?
P.S.
The woman mentioned who was not attracted to people of particular ancestry could actually not be attracted to the speaker, and not for racist reasons. Certainly it would be racist for her to say: "White women don't date non white men." or some such general exclusion. I often hear "people of color" (another loaded double standard in language) say I am not attracted to white people. Is this not a prejudice based on race? Or can only white people make such racist judgments?
Also: saying "whites" is as general as saying "Asian". There are whites from all over Europe. It is because of reasoning like this that I become skittish.
Believe it or not: some white people are desperate to talk about racism, but are too afraid to do so.
David Henson I'm so late, but I like your comment. In another TED Talk this speaker suggested talking with someone about racism instead of talking TO them about it. That's what makes the difference in the conversation and perhaps one's understanding of the issues. Most times people just want to scream about "facts" that generalize an entire group, when there are millions of examples to the contrary. An actual two-sided conversation is definitely what's needed. I wish more people were willing to ask questions and listen to the responses.
But she didn't say that she couldn't have an emotional conection, she just said "Hey, you are not atractive to me" Is that racist?
I don't find, triceratops sexy, they are not atractive to me, and that's why I wouldn't fuck a triceratops, 'cause I don't find it atractive... AM I BEING RACIST? Am I being racist to all triceratops because of that? OF FUCKING COURSE NOT!
I don't like corean pop music groups, am I being racist to coreans? No, I'm just saying I don't like it, or that at least I don't like it as much as some other things.
I agree with everything else on the video, but, seriously, that just make it impossible for me to take someone serious.
Uh, that's not what he said she said. He said she said, "I'm not attracted to Asians..." which she may have found to be a nicer way to say "I'm not attracted to you" if Simon had in fact asked her for a date. He just said he had met a woman who... Your triceratops example is lame.
Racism is no the problem, the problem is race-mixing. Without race-mixing there would be no problems of racism to speak of.
The speaker completely lost me after saying that, if you don't find a certain race particularly attractive, it's racism. I tuned the rest of this out after that.
And before the SJW snowflakes flame me, it's no different than saying that you're not attracted to blondes or redheads.
You missed the point...
This isn't racism... More black people get arrested because there are more black people in poor cities such as Detroit, or dangerous cities such as Chicago, same with education.
Not being attracted to certain races isn't racism whatsoever.
This speaker is just *special*.
The story of the black teenager being pepper sprayed in his own house is a valid example. His contention that the name of his band would not have been questioned if he was any other race is not backed my evidence. Complete conjecture on his part.
As to his legal case with regard to his band name, he appears to simply assumed that the lawyers are all only white. This is also conjecture on his part. He explained that he was fighting against The U.S. patent and trademark office.
He suggested that they said "We are committed to diversity and there are many Asian Americans who work in our office..." He has shown zero proof that the Asian Americans who work in the office are not working on this case, nor has he shown that the Asian Americans who work in the office were not involved in the denial process because they found the band name derogatory or offensive to Asian people.
Complete conjecture on his part, zero evidence.
This was awesome Simon! So insightful And thought provoking!
Why do TED talks suck these days
Nick Bultman This is a tedx talk. They are different.
There's a third factor: culture. If one objectively examines differences in many aspects between races they will understand that generally the differences are caused by culture.
Watch The Alternative Hypothesis, or Sean Last's videos on race differences. Very comprehensive and filled with studies to back up their claims.
Thank you for being honest.
Everybody is on top of the other points where he dropped the ball. My personal favorite was how he dozens of times says 'whites' and 'blacks' but almost always said Asian-Americans lol
Well, what race label has this country created to apply to the Asian people?
Clever title, excellent - and often surprising - talk.
Jesus christ, this comments section is absolute filth.
I can see what drew you all here, though. It's not hard to figure out.
Blockistic You have absolutely NO idea what comment sections I have read before...
This dude sounds like he was COACHED to give this speech.
there should be more speakers like this in today's world.
Respect bro, respect.
it is built into culture for supremacy not by individuals but by those in charge. It is why they bleached flour, sugar, say white is pure and it is no more pure than any color. like when they say as white as snow. snow has a lot of colors in just like brown or black or tan. bleached teeth, black sheep as if black sheep is bad or wrong and then painted pictures of black sheep. Scriptures and jesus never said black sheep being lost it was the lost sheep as lost. Blacks clain the word nigga as their they claim in own it. That creates racism.The word is slang to the word in the dictionary. Don't own it. Don't talk about slavery or own it like victims talk about it as it is happneing now still to all peoples Now and stop talking and owning it. It was happening all over the world whenblacks were slaves in the Usa. Chinese were harder because they kept their language and would go home. black had lost all contact with black in their country indeed some blacks sold each oter out just like am indians did in the Usa for power money territory. but don't claim it as a weakness. Acknowledge its not an inferior experience. Jes don't see themselves as inferior. blacks must stop laughing about and being proud of some of the behaviors because it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy and the kids take it on to realte fit in to a culture that looks like them in features. blaks need to get some of the old 14 century literature and learn the languages of their fore fathers like others do and foods maybe take the DNA and see where are the various peoples they are made up from. because if they have been in the USA since 1800's they prob have something else in them too. Something called the emotion code is about when a link is broken and trauma suffered by ancestors is handed down like dna and when you fix the emotion you fix the issue even in t the spirit world into future generations. Blacks suffered a lot depression self defeatism during those slaveryyears and then after more by KKK ... so those hurt angry feeling etc or still stuck in some emotion DNA. Same with American Indian
I have nothing to back it up, but my intuition, but, i believe that racism is pretty dam hardcoded in every humans biology. Xenophobia was an instinct that keept small nomadic family groups alive and reproducing, instead of having their lives and or resources taken. if this holds true, people can't be "colorblind", and coexistence without discrimination is impossible, then the "soulution" to completely and utterly end racism is either compulsory genetic modification, genocide of all but one race, or complete segregation. i don't like any of those options (even if a nation of entirely segregated societies might be the lesser of those evils. homogeneous societies would have a lot less discrimination.
But sometimes you wanna date someone of that race it’s called a type
stereotypes are not formed from falsehoods or imaginary notions
I'm just here for the drumset
Well I notice he doesn't mention how many times higher east Asian household incomes are even than Whites.
W.on.W crime being 4-6 times higher but the White population being greater than 6 times more meaning an actual lower rate of crime in the population & being the majority setting the normal rate for comparison
This guy needs to grow his brain more.
One of the best talks on here..👏👏👏
Think about how illegal immigration has taken over and they are killing higher wages.
TED, always lowering standards of intellectualism.
I agree with 99 % of this but I am sorry, if I am not attracted to a person that happens to be of a different ethnicity than I, that does not make me a racist. It only means I am not physically attracted to that person. Sexual selection is one of the basic concepts that make up evolution theory. It simply states, I do not find this individual attractive for reason A so I am not interested in making babies with that individual. It could be racist if your justification is based upon the race of the individual and I give him credit for pointing out that the person he was talking about did say she was not attracted to Asians but, to say that the reason she is not attracted to Asians is because of racism is bullshit. There could be a myriad of reasons why she is not attracted to Asians but by calling racism, you have made a choice not to ask why that is and to make a blanket statement about a person you don't know. I am a white male and I am generally not attracted to blonds. when I had hair, I was also blond. so is it the blond hair I am not attracted to? Nope. It is my experience that makes me more wary. I have had better experience with women of other hair colors. That's it, nothing else.
Fantastic speech, I respect this guy
I think some people are sick because I love all color.
Thinly disguised self promition.
Oh, black names, are from the most part, Hebrew names also African names. :) I know, it's confusing.
Anise singer shalom. sister Anise, daughter of zion.
This guy is way off. At the beginning he lists a bunch of stereotypes about black people and then goes on to say "we" as if those same stereotypes apply to him as an Asian man which they don't.
*_"In the face of these staggering statistics, either you have to believe that people of color are naturally criminally inclined, that they're somehow genetically wired to performed poorly in school, that they're predisposed to have bad credit... or you believe that there's a systemic wide issue, in our health, education, financial, government sectors."_*
My impression is that most people believe neither of these, but believe that it is an attitude problem, that society has told people of color that they're subjected to racism and have a steeper hill to climb, and in so induced a culture of hopelessness and self-pity which discourages them from achieving. I know right, far fetched, but my impression is that this is what people actually believe.
bj0rn and that is part of it...it is expectation and law of attraction. If you expect it, by law of attraction it will happen. You look for it.
Give racism a chance!
Hi Simon.
Going to point out something about that police story about the black kid. I think the amount of pepper spray may have been too much. However, in a house with pictures of white kids and if they are NOT near any pictures with him in it; their reaction is perfectly fine.
And why didn't you mention the difference between white men and asian men. Asian men on AVERAGE makes more than white men.
Trevon was shot by a hispanic man, not white. Because white people don't care about being reported on the crime like that. Black lives have more influence in media especially the news.
Your talk began out great. The discussion involving skin color is important. But your talk frames white people as the problem. I understand your idea here. Its the idea to call a spade a spade, but we can't. People, like the woman not interested in asian men, are labeled as racist. You do share a lot of PHYSICAL characteristics with others who ancestry is traced by to Asia.
Good Day
I really think races exist in humans but not in a bad way. My point of view is that white people are white, black people are black, etc.
These observations are true but do not have any more consequences for the people of that race. For example, you would not conclude that blacks are thieves just because they're black, but you could say that most of them have black hair.
Now, if we use my definition of races, the interesting thing is that even though races exist, there is no way of being racist.
Because except for those observations, all humans are equal, whatever their race may be.
Now I am going to agree that by not acknowledging the existence of racism in our societies, it will never go away. We're being hypocrites.
We have to accept the idea that races exist but do not embed any bad or good qualities of a race over another.
What we should try to eliminate is culturalism, which would be "the belief that all members of each culture possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that culture, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another culture or cultures." Because we cannot be put into a "category" just because of our race.
But cultures are generally misunderstood, misinterpreted or just disregarded for their differences from the judges' culture. "Racists" are afraid of the cultures they supposedly hate. It's the same thing as being afraid of change, because it is one.
The hard thing with cultures is that they do not change a lot over time. As so, when people of a certain culture disagree with another culture, the disagreement will last basically forever. Disagreements lead to plenty of things, one of them being hatred. But because when things are different, we like to know how different they are from each other by comparing them and thus ultimately trying to know which one is the best. This is a common reaction which lead people to think that they are right when saying that people fitting in a "race" or culture are inferior to others (which they are not).
Ultimately, to "solve" the problem of racism we have to try and understand the cultures of the people that are disregarded. In the case of disagreements, we have the right to disagree but that is it!(except for things that threaten rights or laws in which case the culture would be outside the law which makes the law decide what to do).
But in my opinion, most humans are incapable of that (understanding) because of their egocentricity and their ego so it's basically a lost cause.
+Blagatt "...we have the right to disagree but that is it!(except for things that threaten rights or laws in which case the culture would be outside the law which makes the law decide what to do)"
Sorry but this fragment doesn't make a lot of sense. Why? Because laws of different countries are also different, as they come from a cultural background.
So in order to determine which cultural behaviours violate the law you still need to decide WHICH law you are using as a benchmark.
and we're back to the same issue of (example) stoning people to death should be illegal, because it is illegal according to the law of western countries.
Don't get me wrong: of course I think stoning people as a punishment for let's say illicit sex is wrong and should be illegal. But in order to do that we have to say that "our"laws are BETTER than the laws of countries where stoning is allowed.
Which is the very problem you are trying to overcome according to your comment.
PruskiWawrzyniec Stoning people is condemned by the human rights. Moreover, laws are not set in stone: they have to change over time to fit the societies they are ruling.
Stoning is a very old way of punishing people and doesn't fit our time.
If laws are different then it's another story. Some culture could be banned in a certain country because of not respecting the human rights for example and I do not see any problem with that. If anyone of that culture were to not respect the human rights they could be punished and/or sent to the culture's original country.
Also, it's not bad to think that some laws are better than others, we just should not compare cultures. After all, I never said we shouldn't think a culture isn't right. Especially in the case where the culture encourages behaviour that do not respect human rights or other fundamental rights. In that case the culture should probably improve and try to respect those since they are so important.
On the contrary, let's say it is illegal to wear headscarves in a certain country, the culture should not change because of that since this law -is stupid- not fundamental but is a cultural choice based on opinions.
Blagatt I think you missed my point:
"Stoning people is condemned by the human rights." It is condemned by OUR (western) human rights. The human rights that WE (western culture) have established. It is not condemned by laws, rights or culture in some countries.
"Also, it's not bad to think that some laws are better than others, we just should not compare cultures" Laws come from culture, not the other way around. It is legal to chop off hands of a thief in some countries, because it has been historically done this way for ages.
So my point is: if you are comparing laws, you are ultimately comparing cultures.
"Some culture could be banned in a certain country because of not respecting the human rights for example and I do not see any problem with that. If anyone of that culture were to not respect the human rights they could be punished and/or sent to the culture's original country."
Fully agree with this part. and here is the essence of what I'm saying: we shouldn't look at cultures/laws as good or bad, logical or illogical. We should simply stick to: western culture is good in western countries, eastern is good in eastern countries etc. With some exceptions of course, but nevertheless this is the main assumption we should be aiming for I think
PruskiWawrzyniec Alright I agree with you, laws are bound with cultures. That's actually a really good point!
Blagatt Cool
just appreciating every hate comment, whenever the truth is told they get so upset... it's laughable to certain extent
Lawl reverse discrimination against the able bodied and the denial card. This guy. 😂😂😂
4:30 BULLSHIT ALERT!
Isn't one allowed to be more sexually attracted to a certain group of people just based on the looks? I mean most people would be more attacked to slimmer people than fat people who might not even be able to affect their weight as easily as other.
and the lady (At least as far I know) Didnt say anything about them being super smart or any other prejudices
Agree or disagree?
***** I mean active thinking that one race is bad without any reason or a stupid.
What you are saying is that once you even divide up humans in races then you are racist.
With your definition everyone is racist cos everyone has at least a tiny prejudice about a certain race but that is also missing the point of the video so you are the dumb one here...
sry
***** You are saying that the racism you are describing is a big problem but is it such a big problem that every race has prejudices over other races?
these dont even have to be bad.
Of course no one should be judged at all based on their race but there is no real way around that
This guy has issues sadly. Where was he educated?
i thought he was going to make a lot of racist jokes :(
I agree with everything he said, but "give racism a chance" is a horrible name
+Bob Bob You didnt get it. build a bridge and get over it.
Irony
Nigerian households earn more than white ones, that goes for Asian households too.
This was probably the most racist ted talk I've ever seen.
Around the three minute mark, he says "we" when referring to people of color and how they are perceived as being more dishonest. Very few white people consider asians to be on the same level as latinos or blacks. And at about the 9.40 minute mark he talks about how white families have such a higher net worth than blacks or latinos. Why did he not mention asians? They have a higher net worth than whites. At the 10 minute mark he refers to a newspaper article about how latinos and black tech grads are not even interviewed for tech jobs, only whites. Why did he not mention asians? Does he expect us to believe that tech companies think that ASIANS do not make good computer programmers? Or is he trying to mask the strong possibility that if a company has to make a choice based only on GPA between an otherwise unknown asian and an otherwise unknown white with exactly the same GPA, that they will choose the asian? Again at 10.40 he refers to people of color as "us".
If there is really such a thing as white privilege, then asians share in it.
Hi,
Let me address some of these issues for you. The reason why at 9:40 I discuss the disparities between whites, hispanics, and blacks but not with Asian Americans, is because the data is limited and often not reported. Unfortunately, Pew Research and some other institutions presents Asians as monolithic, grouping together communities (failing to distinguish between Asians and Asian Americans, let alone individual community groups), and therefore creating biased information. Though even grouped together, Asians do not enjoy a higher net worth than whites - it's close, but again that figure is distorted (see "Doubly Divided: The Racial Wealth Gap" by Lui, The Racial Wealth Audit by Shaprio et al, and "Why the inequality debate must consider race" by Fudge et al to start). Regarding the newspaper, it's because the article didn't contain any information about Asian Americans. We're often not included in these studies or even discussions of race. Asian Americans are people of color, and yes, we do face disparities in terms of poverty, healthcare, education, immigration policy, credit, and numerous other areas.
Additionally, it's troubling that you rely on stereotypes of Asians - computer programmers, really? Unfortunately, it's these troubling insistence on the model minority myth that exacerbates disparities in nearly ever measurable area of the public sector. For example, the policy brief published by The Education Trust showed that Asian Pacific Islander students in CA had some of the poorest education outcomes because institutions falsely assumed that Asians were performing the best and therefore did not extend critical services (a similar study revealed the same issue here in the Pacific Northwest). For the same reasons, Asian Pacific Islanders have some of the worst health disparities - due to the model minority assumption. There's no such thing as Asian or Asian American privilege - that notion is based on false, cherry-picked data that isn't supported by a close examination of the facts. Numerous sources have addressed that issue, this Salon piece being an excellent start for one: www.salon.com/2014/08/29/bill_oreillys_asian_privilege_disgrace_the_fox_news_host_needs_some_basic_history_lessons/
This isnt only about asian, but generally stereotypes in america that critically impacts other races than whites. Be honest, but the negative actions europeans did in the exploration age really benefitted european countries to this day even, even america.
This is because it would ruin his liberal bs speach.
He is speaking on racism in general - not racism for just particular races. Are you that stupid?
He mentioned the earnings gap between whites/blacks and whites/hispanics. But failed to mention the earnings gap between whites/asians. Leaving out relevant information because it doesn't fit your narrative does nothing to forward the conversation.
When we talk about equal rights it means equal opportunity in the same situation. A middle class African American has the same chances towards education as a Middle Class White American. But stating that the Black people are the majority of lower income doesn't real mean racism. It means economical inequality. The chances for a poor white person are just as shitty as poor black person. Just because America has such horrible wealth differences doesn't mean racism. You actually have to argument how this came to be with arguments people can validate. But is more an idea people have.
so many of you people don't know your own history and make ignorant statements like you just made. their has never been equal opportunity for anything at any time in this country! Search the internet for any subject, at any time you want to, and you'll find that white people have ALWAYS had an advantage not matter what the issue is or was PERIOD!!!
Rashid, except now we live in a world where Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, and Koreans all earn more than whites in the so-called "land of white supremacy."
So........what mental gymnastics will you use to ignore that?
Whaaaaaaaaaaaa white girls won't date me. It's a preference. My husband is Chinese/Viet and I am very attracted to him. I find it HILARIOUS that an Asian guy, who is part of the most privilaged group in all of the west (highest income, highest level of education, least likely to be incarcerated, least likely to be on public assistance) is crying for black people. I know my husband really hates when other Asian people talk FOR him, or are outraged on his behalf, and black people feel the same way, a lot of the time. Also, I only clicked because your name is Simon Tam. #FireflyFan
remove political correctness, and we should be able to embrace race and talk about it meaningfully and truthfully.
Is this guys talking about predugices and not rasicm? And technically Asians have it easier and are more commonly better off than white and black people. They do better in school, get better jobs and get payed more. So how is someone that is privileged able to speak for those who are not privileged? I dont know, never studied exactly what being racist actually is. Feel free to tell me im wrong.
Oh how funny: My comment where I, in a very nice tone, explained why he is mislead in some points got deleted. Well, why could that be?
Isn't him stereotyping, "a conversation with the average white person..," racist in and of itself? Whether or not it's intentional, I feel prejudice in that statement, which as he said, prejudice is the base of racism.
This makes sense, sadly. I was lucky enough in my childhood to live in areas where I went to school with Asian and black children. I saw that people who were not white were just like me. And my parents did a good job of letting us know that racism was something that really filthy, low class, brain dead gutter trash believed in. People who were racist had some kind of brain disease. Hopefully terminal.
Hating someone because of their skin colour, country of origin or their religion is just stupid. We all have a skin colour, we all came from somewhere else ( unless we are aboriginal) and some of us have religion. So we should hate someone for being like us?
By the way, I may be an old painfully white chick, but I could almost date you. You are well spoken, smart, cute, AND A MUSICIAN! But, God, I can't stand that tie!
Eradicate racism by any means necessary.
Sandra Nelson So your parents taught you to consider "low-class" people as filthy, brain-dead gutter trash? Gosh, very enlightened -- how is it better than racism, exactly?
And "aboriginal" is either everyone native to a place (born there) or they are descended for people who came from Africa originally -- even if their ancestor(s) immigrated to their current location 50,000 years ago. So Africans would be the only aboriginals -- if in Africa.
Fredric Williams Clearly said that people who are racist are low-class, filthy, brain dead gutter trash.
Sandra Nelson Yes, but have mercy on the bigoted souls. They are a product of abuse to think that way
Thanks for being you
@@FredricWilliams Australia was part of Pangaea and has the most unchanged, unadulterated DNA in both animals and human animals, therefore Aboriginal. That's from everything I've learned; if the narrative has been updated please enlighten me.
I would love to debate this guy and destroy his logic to smithereens.
What are your counter arugements?
This is my third time this month stumbling over a variation of "I'm not sexually attracted to X ethnicity- damn, you're a racist!". Saying that there exist outward physical traits which are typical (but not absolute) for people with a genetic origin from certain geological regions is an observation. Claiming that it is possible to say anything about a person's abilities, behaviour or qualities based on said outward traits, is racist. What I don't get to follow, is that it is racist to say that you are not sexually attracted to one (or more) such group of outward physical traits?
The speaker says that the woman was racist because she assumed that "[billions of asians] share some superficial quality which would make it impossible to make an emotional connection". First of all, "not attracted to" and "Impossible to make an emotional connection" are somewhat different in gravity. Secondly, whilst claiming that there is any outward trait shared by every single person originating by recent decent from the continent of Asia is factually wrong, it does make sense to say that there are tendencies in appearance that are typical for the region. The woman is allowed to not be sexually attracted to any trait, including such traits of appearance.
If someone told me "I'm not attracted to you, because I'm not attracted to Europeans", I'd infer that my specific appearance was not attractive to the person, that the person believes my appearance to include physical traits most commonly found in people from Europe, and that the person believed that the looks which appeal to him/her are more typical of a different region. Allthough it is an unnecessary consolation towards someone to point out how slim a group of appearances fall within one's "attractive" range, it is still a matter of sexual preference, and not racism, as far as I'm concerned.
Agreed
Dude was just bitter because she didn't want his small weiner.
Saying that you're racist that you don't like a skin tone or some features of an ethnicity means that unless you're bisexual you're always a sexist.
So wonderfully incisive and timely! Thank you for this teaching tool for adults who would rather this be a fleeting "condition". If you are not on the receiving end of racism, it is so easy to try and ignore. Thank you for work!
Asians have the best income in the country.
Irrelevant. You're the problem.
This guy ignores the concept of culture / environmental influences that could affect peoples actions or preferences. Very narrow view.
I'm glad a talk like this was brought up. Thank you, Simon & TED, for orchestrating this tough conversation that is very much, and unfortunately will be, a constant issue that relates to race.
I doubt much will be done to end such a nasty disease because it is so commonplace in a majority of societies, but bringing awareness to the issue might bring more reception to the open-minded.
People on the receiving end of this inherited misfortune have a responsibility to be calm, non-violent (physically and emotionally) and compassionate when dealing with this issue.
If we frame it as an us vs. them, then the folks in power will just push back, and push hard. It's a very tricky jedi situation. The only way to destroy our enemies is to make them our sincere friends. That's my 2 cents.
I sincerely wish you, Matthew Williams, great strength, patience and support. It's a hard road here but we're all in it together, one big dysfunctional family...
Hal337 So be calm while constantly being attacked? What kind of sense is that?
Hal337 Thanks for your insight and analysis, Hal. Even though I'm late, and I'm sorry for that, I believe education and leaving intolerance and bigotry out of parley and not bringing it up in situations is another great way to combat this issue without hurting anyone.
With a better education about how certain societies function we can have a better insight on how to help people instead of categorizing and relying on satires that may lead to negative, uneducated views which very well may feed some racist thoughts, but its just my point-of-view.
Hal337 greed will not allow them to change or else they would have.
Matthew Williams ed
also it's not racist to not be sexually attracted to people of a certain race... but he got butt hurt.
I honestly don't see why this is on TED. Basically going out of his way by using bigger words to tell us shit we already know
This guy is spreading hate (but it's good hate).
The Whites in the audience look so uncomfortable😂😂
Yes, millions of people from Asia share superficial traits, that's obvious to everybody. How is that prejudice?
"When you speak to a white man about racism, it usually goes like this [...]"
Sorry if this offends anyone, just wanted to make a "few" points -
3:00 - Or three, you believe neither. You don't believe that people of color, of which Asians on average are doing better than whites, are doing better or worse as a result of their skin color, but equally don't see evidence that it is systemic in nature whether it goes one way or another. Maybe, you just believe that people tend to do well based on the environment they're born into, after all an Asian kid in a respected neighborhood in California is going to be socialized differently than, well anyone who is socialized in Detroit, or "the slums" or "Ghettos" of any city.
4:00 - So people are racist for finding certain phenotype more attractive than others? I'll agree with you when I've blinded myself... Also, people tend to make generalizations because what they have seen up to that point. It's not like she could meet an Asian guy she does find attractive and start dating him right?
4:36 - Other than trying to say prejudice can happen to anyone and it being based on "race" is bull, let me give you an easy example. People have been prejudice against homosexuality, so I didn't know that (according to you) homosexuality is racially exclusive. And the only thing that's racist in that statement is the idea that prejudice can be about nothing but race and that it only happens to people of certain races.
5:05 - I will say that police do need more training, because based on what was said this does seem bad. But if you would like you use anecdotal evidence to make a point then there is no point in arguing. Also, and I'm not arguing that the police shouldn't have done something different, from what I can find and the statements made here police were told there was a thief, went into the house assuming there was a thief, found no evidence that he was living there based off of the phenotype displayed by the pictures and the lack of pictures of him (because science apparently doesn't matter anymore), and then proceeded to go overboard towards someone who (as far as reports tell) did not turn aggressive.
6:00 - If the name "The Slants" is still available, it's obviously never had someone try to use it before. I'm sorry, but assuming that people of other races haven't tried to use the name, and again assuming that it is primarily because you're Asian is... questionable. Also, it's believed that only white people cannot use the "n word" yet you don't speak about that? It's more likely that, unlike with the "n word" some people felt that the name "The Slants" was so offensive that no one should use it. Now, I don't think that it was right, but I also think that a word that is seen as offensive should be either banned for everyone or that everyone should be allowed to use it without fear.
6:50 - Normally racism constitutes intention to do so. Though that way of thinking may be dying out among some.
7:00 - Asian American leaders? First of all, tribe mentality? Second of all, leaders who "speak for a specific race" tend to not speak for a specific race. They speak on their own beliefs even if the majority of that race do not believe the same thing. For example, the Boston Museum of Fine Arts was putting on an event where Americans could wear Kimonos while at the museum, as a way of displaying the beauty of clothing. While, according to reports I am finding, some Asian American's stood in protest, Native Asians seems to be counter protesting. A common point being made was that this was less about "cultural appropriation" and more about simply sharing a beautiful aspect of another culture. Guess who won thanks to fear of the economic issues of being called "racist."
7:30 - So if they asked for the opinions of the Asian people whom they worked with and they disagreed with you, then you would not accept them as representing Asian Americans? So do they have to agree with you to be considered representatives of Asian Americans, in your eyes?
7:58 - The application is vastly different, compared to what? If a white band calls itself "The Crackers" it might meet less resistance because it's towards a "non minority group" which "doesn't need to be protected." African Americans do tend to get arrested more, but they also disproportionately cause more crimes based on the population. Men are much more likely to receive harsher punishments when it comes to crime and sentencing, but men also commit most of the reported crimes.
So what do you want? Murderers and people who commit fraud to be let go because the race they belong to has reach a max amount of crimes that can be reported? That we consider every single case, no matter the circumstance or situation, to be exactly the same?
8:24 - One, what were the demographics of the people who voted for this law? Two, the argument was made about a law that allowed discrimination and it was stated that Floridians voted to keep it. Then In the next sentence it was said that "unaware voters uphold laws that are..." So people that were not aware of the law are racist too?
9:20 - Yet Asian families tend to do better than white families, black families, and Latino families if I recall. The ones who are not doing as well tend to be more recent in their immigration. Another fascinating point could be made about how Asian Americans tend to live in bigger cities rather than smaller towns and counties. This makes it harder and more expensive to buy a house and pass on the assets you get from the house to your children.
9:30 - Could that be a result of there, on average, being more and better education in areas that are predominantly light skin (European or Asian Countries) compared to countries like Africa or the Middle East, or is the only possible variable that determines that outcome racism to you? Also, a study by Pew showed that 61% of "Recent Asian Immigrants ages 25 to 64 have a college degree."
10:00 - Did they have the same resumes? Did they apply to the companies and accept the interview? Did they get a job offer straight out of college which bypassed the need for interviews? Or is the automatic assumption of racism the only possible way? Also, there is no mention of Asian Americans again in this point...
10:20 - I doubt many people pretend racism doesn't exist at all, but accepting everything the news says without confirmation, reliable sources, or evidence that anyone can access and come to a conclusion on is not the best way to stay informed, or make a well structured point.
10:40 - White people's opinion when speaking on race, with facts stated, is still largely devalued.
11:18 - (Confirmation Bias?) The "race card" does get played and talked about when it happens, and it's normally followed by denunciations based on "white privilege."
11:26 - B on B crime tends to get reported on more because it's disproportionate based on demographics, "W on W crime is 4 to 6 times higher" because there are about 4-6 times more white people in the US, and a large amount of the crime isn't gang related with W on W (Sorry if that's inflammatory). Also, speaking on disproportionate news compared to the number of crimes, a police officer killing someone is disproportionately covered compared to the number of people killing each other if I recall, so why are you only putting a magnifying glass to one issue?
11:40 - No, discrimination against the disabled compared to "non-whites" is not the same. The comment about a Black president is meant to show how far we've come, and display were we are, not erase all that brought us to that point.
12:06 - No, you don't see people claiming "the end of sexism" in those countries, but since censorship is something you do see in those countries I feel like we can both speculate why. Also, if you look back at history, you normally only hear about people fighting for "women's rights" when the country is prosperous.
"Racism - The belief that one race is innately dominant to all others." Though the definitions may slightly vary based on where you find it, I fail to see how you can tell if something is "racist" unless you know they did it because they either felt their own race was superior or that your race was inferior.
I find what he is saying to be very dangerous just like the studies behind "micro aggression" and "Unconscious Bias" (or whatever the specific term is) because it allows people like him to come up with the beliefs and reasoning behind other people's actions with little to no proof. Not to mention the science and methods behind micro aggression, unconscious bias, and the like have been criticized since their conception. Not because of "white privilege" either, because the reliability of the tests are very low. One day you could be a racist and the next you might not be, that is what happened when people were retested.
Also, just to make the point can you stop saying "people of color"? When it comes to how we perceive light, the color white is an amalgamation of all colors, and also white is still a color. So thank you for excluding the color white from colors because it doesn't fit what you're saying.
Hiring has less to do with race and more to do with easy and fast communication. They like to hire people that understand what you mean the first time and can explain what you mean in terms they understand readily. Race plays a part in facial cues, word choice, timing, etc. If you had a choice between 2 candidates for a job, and one of them was hard to get a clear picture of what he was trying to say, but the other could communicate simply and was well understood, would you really hire them equally?
Thinly disguised band promotion.
Too much to disagree with, so I'll just say he's wrong and make this short
🙌🏾👏🏽everything that he said was nothing but facts
I could hear a pin drop in that room!
+modern geek amazing ...everyone is in agreement with what he is saying, but might not have the courage to admit these truths within a group of people.
Not dating asians isn't racist. You cannot control your physical sexual attraction. If you are not physically attracted to asians because of something that you cannot help, you are not racist as racism is a conscious decision or choice to actively discriminate against a race.
Actually, technically you are. You're just not maliciously and intentionally racist.
Kroatowa
Racism, by definition is a belief that members of a particular race are inferior to another, and is also accompanied by a conscious prejudice or discrimination against these people.
Since it is a) A belief
and B) A conscious decision
Not being sexually attracted to a particular race is not racist, as sexual attraction is neither a belief nor a conscious decision.
If you think sexual attraction IS a conscious decision, then I guess that you're supporting the psychio-christian homophobes. Since that's what they also believe.
+CrusaderZav I'm not here to argue bro. Take this W friend and go on about your hopefully good day! :D
Kroatowa
I'm not arguing. I'm simply stating the definition of a particular word and reasoning logically about it's implications.
+CrusaderZav I here ya and I love you too! :D
***** As an avid fan of TED, I came across your talk. I found it interesting, slightly utopic and a bit white-blaming. I am not an apologist as I am not white. I found it interesting because of the way you fashioned it. It wasn't a harangue or a display of statistics about racism which is how many anti-racism talks tend to be. I found it utopian because of what you aim to achieve. Believe me, I am against discriminating people on the basis of physical attributes, but not all of us think alike. We shall always have some people in our neighbourhoods, in our political system, in the corporate or in the university admissions committee who might want to discriminate and be selective on basis of colour, nationality or race. Lastly, my gripe about it being a bit white-blaming. When you cite data about the net worth of a white family or the hiring discrepancies between whites and non-whites or the police harassment of the blacks/latinos, can you demonstrate that these discrepancies are purely due to racism? In essence, can you establish that it's cause-effect and not correlational?
On an aside, I would like to hear your experiences about how mixed race people are treated or what challenges they face.
As a "white" person, as such grouped in with all other "white" people, regardless of the fact that there are as different kinds of whites, from different nations in Europe, with different cultures and heritages, I instantly took offense because I felt like the speaker is insincere. I never doubt for a second that racism exist today as much as it did a 100, or a 1,000 years ago. Still, if the speaker sees all whites as a group which is pretty much the same, then how can I be led to believe he would ever desire a white persons contributions to a dialogue about racism. I sense a disingenuous person more than a person who wants to get people engaged in a taboo subject, by which I mean it is taboo for whites in our politically correct modern social climate for a group that is blamed for racism to talk about it without being discouraged to do so.
David Henson Saurabh Malkar I personally did not see this particular Ted Talk within the realm of white-blaming. As displayed in history minority groups seeking social or civil change in relation to their experiences must beseech the majority group. It took white men to free the slaves, past civil rights reform, allow women to vote, pass gay marriage laws....etc. When I listened to the talk I hear a man describing a system that adversely effects some segments of the population in comparison to others. Someone else's framing to the topic may cause them to be defensive or dismissive or even have an issue with being grouped under the assumption that all white people are in the same position when it comes to race relations. Is it possible it was a simply an appeal to the majority culture, as diverse of a population that falls within that group, that was labeled as "white people"? Racial discussions should not be about blaming one person or dismissing another but rather seeking to find a commonality and trying to understand others view points and experiences.
I took his aim to sincerely being opening needed discussion on race relations as evidenced by the statistics he presented on "white families" perception of current state of racial biases in the US. It seemed to have presented view points and supporting statistics that many in the majority culture do not have to think about. Overt individual racism is not the prevailing issue anymore. It's remnants in various systems of our government is the bigger issue. So when looking at statistics and asking if its purely due to racism I would respond as yes and no. In the criminal justice system specifically, since it is my field of education, it is clear that race is one part of a multiple variant issue within mass incarceration but it is also one that's often overlooked or denied. National crime rates fluctuate with few spikes and evidence shows there are no significant differences between white or black drug usage and sale in our country; despite these facts the US incarceration rate has steadily skyrocketed up across the past 40 years disproportionately affecting the African American Community. When discussion such issues with friends and colleagues I've found you can cite socioeconomic class, gender, or anything else except race as a major determinant for any specific phenomenon. Race is uncomfortable and people demand either overt proof and supporting stats to the already blatant statistical evidence until you can provide any other reasonable explanation other than race. I'm not saying its the only problem in our nation but I agree with the speaker that the way we approach it and discuss it here is a major problem, and if nothing else I'm glad his talk is inciting discourse.
***** I agree. I don't think the intention of the speaker is to "white blame" either.
But I do think that talking about racism by whites is perceived differently than when other races do. This is only natural, because I cannot really understand what a person of color endures because I am white. I can listen, and try and be a better human, however. I can try and be more compassionate and strive not to contribute to racism, and be a better listener. I do believe there are a lot of good non-racist whites that are afraid of this topic, and don't know how to talk about it, and are dying to talk about it more openly.
I appreciate your response. This is what I hoped someone would do.
+raymon perkins I never accused him of "white-blaming". There is a a sense that he thinks of "white" being a separate group exclusive to other races, and that only "whites" are guilty of this crime against humanity. And when is it possible for one race to speak for all others?
I want to start by saying I watch a ton of TEDx Talks, as I find many of them inspirational, educational, or at minimum, entertaining. This was none of those things. If this post is too long, skip to the bottom.
The problem (intentionally or not) that Simon has in this speech, as well as many commenters below, is using the word "racist" as a blanket statement, equalizing every action when in fact there are different degrees.
It's like saying intentionally stepping on someone's foot is bad. Of course it's bad, but so is murder, but those two things are clearly not on the same scale.
What Simon is saying, in my opinion, is totally hypocritical, and he seems to be searching for things to blow out of proportion simply for shock value. Case in point, calling a woman racist for not being attracted to Asians. Did that sting a little? Probably. Was it racist? To a degree, sure. Did it require a far more personal and condescending retort? Absolutely not. What Simon did was take it to a level it had no business being, by making his own assumptions, which he himself outlines in his speech.
I myself am a white male who lives in Shanghai, China (and have lived in far smaller cities and townships for several years prior. I have a house in a town of a few thousand people, and am the first white person to have ever been there), and believe it or not, racism against me is prevalent. I've had things thrown at me, been taken to the police station and screamed at for things I didn't do, been punched, slapped and kicked. I also get stared at about fifty times a day, and get my picture taken quite often as well for no apparent reason. Those things are all definitely race-driven, but I would have to be a complete moron to put them all on the same scale. Here, there's a Chinese saying that basically translates into "You think too much" (basically, "Don't sweat the small stuff"), and I think that applies here very well. Don't risk your mental health and sanity on trivial nonsense by putting way more thought into making things worse, when you can simply take it at face value and let it go. Just because it hurts your feelings doesn't mean it needs to be categorized, filed and labeled so that you can call yourself a victim.
Obviously I'm not saying racism doesn't exist, nor am I saying it's not a problem. What I am saying is that if garbage like this stopped getting lumped in with serious racial issues like police stereotyping and workplace profiling, then it would be an easier subject to talk about rationally and productively.
I'm not claiming to be an expert on this, nor am I trying to break new ground and solve racial issues worldwide. I'm just putting my own thoughts and opinions down, take it or leave it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this was tldr, just think of it this way; If I was hitting on a girl who later told me that she is gay, should I get bent out of shape and call her sexist? Of course not. Stop reading so much into things in an attempt to label them as racist, sexist, etc. so that you justify calling yourself a victim.
what happened for the police officer to need to use pepper spray ... ... ...
8:14 If that was the case, how does my Dad, aunt, and uncle, all of whom are Asian, own the property they live on in Florida? They bought their houses they did not lease or rent. Am I missing something here? Asians absolutely do own property in FL. My Dad is in real estate and makes a living selling homes and property to his predominantly Asian clientelé.
Unless of course it is just an old law in our State Constitution that no one follows anymore?
Maybe you should research the information you are missing, unless you aren't intelligent enough to find it. And in that case, I apologize for assuming you were.
Leave this country they said, No worries, this isn’t really your country I said.
All the white people in the audience look so uncomfortable I can't
I have been getting less tolerant recently with no excuse. I am determined to improve that.
Don't forget Americans can't owe land in Thailand so don't make Florida sound so bad
When it comes to the 'not being attracted to certain groups of people, makes you racist thing...' I think many people who got offended by this are confusing intent with implication. Just because you don't INTEND to be racist doesn't mean that what you're saying or your attraction, doesn't still have racist implications. True. Attraction is very complex. I believe that it's largely subconscious. There could be many factors that have played into why we are attracted to what we are attracted to. Also, because attraction is subconscious, no one and not even ourselves, can really know why we're attracted to what we're attracted to. But because we live in the type of society that we do (which based on how I define racism, is a white supremacist society), saying certain things or having certain attractions will always lead to implications of racist prejudices, biases and/or conditioning. This also goes into the fact that different people define race and racism, differently. For this reason, there is always going to be misunderstanding surrounding topics like this. I perceive racism as white supremacy. So when someone says that they aren't attracted to any group that isn't classified as white, I hear, "I am not attracted to people who aren't white because they are inferior to white people." For me, racial superiority based on being white is racism. So I am going to perceive that as racist. It doesn't matter what your intent is, in saying that. It will always have racist implications because we live in a society where whiteness is the standard and everything else is cast as inferior to it.
The speaker lost me around 3:30 when he said that increased incarceration rates among blacks demonstrates a clear racial problem. He said this ignoring the reality that poor men tend to participate in crime more than middle class or affluent ones and that blacks are disproportionately poor. Not saying that police racism doesn't exist. It does. But drawing a conclusion based on outrageous statistics as he did without considering a well understood factor like that blows his credibility out of the water. What other conclusions will he draw in this talk without considering all factors involved? If he can't think his approach through any better than that, then I don't care what he has to say.
"Poverty causes crime! But black people (who are poorer) don't commit more crime! It's just white racism that inflates the stats!"
The "logic" from progressives makes my head spin.
Everyone attacts the white man ... Everyone u meat is racest . doesnt mater skin color .... We have lots of kinds of dogs but they r all still dogs .... You wouldnt use a pug to protect ur family. You would use a bigger dog like a pitbull .... Thats Nots racest against the pug . thats just noticing animals are built different for different purposes
If this is a race, why do so many of us have to run this race with a ball and chain around our ankle? Or both ankles chained together. Doesn't seem like a fair race to me. But what do I know I am an invisible man in this race(Cheyenne and Arapaho). Respect the wind and save the water!!! Iron Eyes Cody can't be the only one crying 😢.
She's not attracted to Asians. "What she was really doing was presenting over a hundred different ethnicities and cultures as if it were monolithic." What a horrible observation. She simply isn't attracted to Asians. Would you rather her list all Asians' names? She's presenting them NOT as a culture, NOT as ethnicities, NOT as lesser beings, but as a comprehensible category of people to whom she isn't attracted.
I'm not attracted to the taste of chicken. I'll go as far as to say I'm more attracted to the taste of beef. Those poor chickens have it bad since I presented many breeds of chickens as if it were monolithic. I must be a racist. When you begin these types of arguments - YOU become the problem.
hate to burst your bubble on the "hipster" thing.its been done.its ALL been done.every new generation comes along and thinks that it the FIRST ONE to be into this or that or whatever the cool thing is for that time.I did it when I was a young punk.Kanye discovers Paul M. hahahahahahahaha( sorry had to thro that in)
i like what he says but everyone is racist not just whites...
Really should have titled this differently. "Give _discussing_ racism a chance" wouldn't be that hard, would it?
Any one else find it weird he said "we" twice when talking about blacks?
Nope
This video didn’t age well lol