No, it's a pragmatic use. When you're persecuted, burned in furnaces, kept in concentration camps, gassed, etc -- and the rest of the population don't lift a finger about it, if not cheering, then you don't sit to ponder whether 100% of the German population does that to you, or it's just 70%, or maybe "merely" 30%.
>Do you allow non-Jewish Americans to resent Jews for their dramatic over-representation in positions of power, influence, and information gate-keeping (e.g. journalism, entertainment media, the Supreme Court, Congress, academia, the Federal Reserve)?
They sure are allowed to suspect people of the same roots helping out each other -- as opposed to a meritocracy. But even so, that's nowhere even remotely close to what the Jews themselves suffered, it's so lighter an offense that it's not even in question.
Besides, it's not what you "allow" or not "allow". It's what people will do anyway.
>Do you allow non-Black Americans to resent blacks for their disproportionate violence and anti-social behavior; for their dramatic over-representation in entertainment media; and for the astronomical net tax burden they foist upon everyone else (just over $10,000 per black American per year)?
Allowing it or not, they do. And if one statistically lives in areas where e.g. blacks are predominantly doing crimes, or they have suffered (like a friend who was shot in Atlanta mowing his lawn, because some dude had to get "initiated"), they also get to be fearful and even resentful. It's pragmatic, and it includes the whole group (and not just the bad apples in it) for plain statistical reasons. You can never know exactly all the actual bad apples (it's not like someone will hand you a list in advance) to avoid. But you learn to be more careful when around group A or B in certain situations or surroundings, for purely statistical reasons.
That's not the same as racism -- just a generalization. Heck, you can consider blacks perfectly equal, and capable of anything any white can do, and persecuted unjustly by the police, and redlined, and so on, and still not want to walk alone through central Los Angeles at 3:00 AM.
Southern slave owners, on the other hand, were racist without any provocation -- if anything, they DID the provocation by abducting and enslaving people, and they still considered them inferior.
(Not sure about the $10K per black/year amount. Even if true, it could be a drop in the bucket compared to state owned recuperations for past deeds such as, I dunno, the whole slavery thing. Continuity of state and all --
countries still pay for what they did in wars decades and centuries ago).
>When you abuse the word "they", it's going to be abused back at you.
>
No, it's a pragmatic use. When you're persecuted, burned in furnaces, kept in concentration camps, gassed, etc -- and the rest of the population don't lift a finger about it, if not cheering, then you don't sit to ponder whether 100% of the German population does that to you, or it's just 70%, or maybe "merely" 30%.
Hey, just curious - if you'd change this historical example to a situation where persecuted people were able to actively organize and defend themselves from being killed (organize a self-defense force, then an army, build a wall around, etc), but overall population around them would still want to do it and cheer when it happens, would you call this racism? Because this example is not hypothetical and is routinely called "racism" and "evil" in mainstream western culture.
