I noticed that in the USA people are often strongly divided based on whether they identify as being “black” or “white”. Basically many people there make this a big part about their identity and separate communities based on it to the point where they developed different cultures and even different ways of talking and behavior solely based on whether they identify as “black” or “white”.
As far as I understand it’s based on the brightness of their skin color because of slavery but it’s not quite clear to me who is considered “black” or “white” since I’ve seen many people who for example have very bright skin and seem to have almost no African ethnicity but they still identify and talk/behave as “being black”.
I wonder why they still have this culture and separation since segregation ended in 1964.
Because in other regions like South America such as Brazil for example this culture doesn’t seem to exist that much and people just identify as people and they talk, behave and connect the exact same way no matter the skin brightness. People such in South America seem way more mixed and seem to not have this type of separation like in the USA based on external features like skin, hair or eye color.
To me it kind of feels like this is a political and economic reason in the US that they purposefully want to divide people for their gains. Because the extent to which this seems to have been normalized in Americas every day conversation both in private and in public/commercial spaces feels like brainwashing. And I wonder if this will ever improve since it seems to go as far as people being proud about these racist stereotypes and think this is completely normal. But considering the broader global context and America’s historical background it doesn’t seem normal. Especially with Americas context of slavery you would expect there to be strong efforts of fighting these stereotypes and having a political leadership that doesn’t see “color” and only judges based on individuals personality.
Those systematic issues aren’t racist issues tho. It makes sense the descendants of literal slaves brought from tribes from Africa and the descendants of native tribes in the Americas who didn’t even invent the wheel, not even the Aztecs, Mayans or Incas, would have ended up poorer today than the descendants of people from developed civilisations that built huge trans-oceanic vessels. Only literal Star Trek-ian communism could have changed that, even real life communism doesn’t and didn’t suddenly make janitors rich and college educated managers poor. Look at any Eurasian country with no history of migrations or colonies and the poor people there today are the descendents of poor people from a couple hundred years ago, and the rich people today are the descendents of rich people from a couple hundred years ago.
The real issue is the lack of social mobility. Some countries have more of it, some less. The way to achieve it is through stuff like real and strong safety nets and welfare and good universal free education and policies such as a progressive inheritance tax, not through racial measures.
Racial measures exist and have a purpose in divided societies where the racial groups are divided and don’t see eye to eye and don’t understand each other’s issues and therefore each group needs proper democratic representation which also means some amount of economic strength.
In a society where people aren’t actually racist, or racially divided, those kind of measures would only breed resentment because some poor people would be overlooked because they aren’t of the “right” colour, in this case not dark enough. So these anti-racism measures would just create more racial drama.
You can’t use a one-size fits all solution to two different countries with a different cultural situation. And considering neither of these two countries is at an extreme of a possible position, the real solutions are more nuanced gradient policies, skewing one way in one country, and the other way in the other.
a) OP is talking about racial divides, not only racism. b) Makes sense, sure. Whether it’s acceptable is another question. You don’t need full-on communism to erase historical inequality. Even capitalism holds a promise of meritocracy, even though it routinely fails to deliver. In the real world, wealth tax and free universal education can go a long way. But accepting that the descendants of slaves are still poorer than the descendants of their masters and considering it to be anything else than a huge problem is seriously fucked up.
Also, Scandinavian social democracies are pretty egalitarian.
I implied no such thing, thankfully. I just think it’s really hard if not impossible to focus policies on those descendants of slaves and the descendants of the slave-owners without catching other people in the cross-fire if the policies are done on racial basis. Why not just make policies that help all poor people, regardless of race, especially in societies where the line between descendants of slaves and the descendants of the slave-owners has become highly blurred? It would take longer to equalize the wealth that way, but there’d be less drama along the way.
Sure, that’s a different problem entirely. I’m a big proponent of universal income, universal education, and taxing billionaires out of existence.
I don’t think it’s possible to make up for historical (and soon to be historical, for that matter) injustice by paying for it. I am convinced we need to create a society where these injustices are not decisive for your possibilities in life. So I think we agree on this point.
(Within the academic debate on this, I find the idea of justice in acquisition to be pretty appealing. In particular the article Self-Ownership and Equality: A Lockean Reconciliation by Michael Otsuka from 2006. It’s behind a paywall with its original publisher, but if you search for https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.1998.tb00061.x on sci-hub you’ll find it. It’s less than 30 pages and a pretty light read, as far as I remember)