Before the U.S. invasion, Iraq had an integrated society, with different religions inter-marrying, and different religions working in government.
After the U.S. took over, people were chosen for state work according to religious quota (something new to iraq), and religion became a 'big deal' in regards to putting food on the table.
General dislikes turned into conflicts.

The "Shia v Sunni" thing is more hyperbole for western audiences, than it is a matter of recent history.
Saddam mostly oppressed areas rife with insurgent groups. Conflict festers and spreads. People die, their families/friends become militant, then they die, and their families/friends become militant, etc, etc, etc. Families/friends live near each other, so it spreads geographically. Eventually you find cities or regions that have managed to upturn.
Like any city/region, similar people tend to live together. So you in effect have groups/cultures vs government.
Hence why the internal conflict was by city/region (just like it is/was in Syria), and why it had a cultural flavor.
Granted, there is always some backlash that spills into a community at large, when a portion of it is identified as a 'problem'. Point is, there was not some eugenic ethnic/religious conflict going on.

The real 'oppression by religion' is happening today.
Neighborhoods have become mono-religious. Minorities have left their neighborhoods and fled to regions that are mostly 'of their own kind' - because nobody wants to stick around to see if they become the next target.

Best thing that can happen now is what happened to Syria after WW2 : Some other power steps in, chops up the country into smaller pieces, and populates each piece with a particular culture (eg. Syria was taken by Britain and France, split up, and became Syria + Lebanon + Jordan - granted the post ww2 split of Syria had more to do with the the last gasps of colonialism, and less to do with stabilization. 'Fun' note : It's the Syrian expulsion the French colonial rulers in the 1970's, and the subsequent French 'black eye', that set the tone for why France is so happy to support whoever wants to overthrow the Syrian government.).

-scheherazade

Indeed, however with small exception I thought we were being fairly civil. That said, we all know what to expect from the 'little f*#king thing'. It's why the admins are constantly on his ass, and he may be banned again.

My point about veracity was that one has to trust the 'reporting' by others who may have an agenda to further. Without first hand knowledge, it's difficult for some (like me) to give full trust in ANY reports. I tried to read the first link you provided, but it started with a 'letter' to Saddam and I admit I didn't go farther.
As I recall, the numbers were more in the 1-300K dead from the ethnic cleansing (I have 175K in my head, but I don't know if that's right). I was old enough to watch the reports live when it happened in the 80's-90's and worry I might be drafted. I have not intended to imply Saddam wasn't terrible, only to imply he was not as bad as possible.

What I've seen so far from ISIS were hundreds if not thousands of 'prisoners' marched to their execution after surrender, even after swearing allegiance to ISIS, reports of mass rapes, village destruction, 'warnings' to all those not in line to leave or die, takeover of 1/2 the country in weeks (or less), all by 5000 people. Reports are that they are gaining members, allies, and massive amounts of money and arms. For their size, they appear to be worse than Saddam, who had hundreds of thousands, if not millions at his disposal. If you multiplied the videoed crimes of ISIS in just the last week by 200+, you would understand my point that they seem worse than most weeks of Saddam's rule....when you consider their respective sizes.
I'll hope you are correct, and ISIS is soon to be wiped out, but it's certainly not happening yet. No matter how it plays out, you are certainly right that ugly times are ahead for Iraq.

So, it seems you are saying that racism only counts if it's systemic and endemic, but not when it's only on an individual scale?
As a white boy, I WAS part of the "ethnic minority" (while simultaneously being part of the overall "ethnic majority"), I lived in East Palo Alto when it was the murder capital of the US and over 90% "minority". I repeatedly encountered racism against whites in a community that was predominantly black. Does that not count because they only held power in their community (where I lived)? Does it not count because I eventually moved? I don't understand...why would that not be "real scale" racism by a minority group against an "ethnic majority"?
It seems to me like you are stretching to say institutional racism is only one sided because it's MOSTLY one sided.
I feel like most of your examples are really more about (perceived) social/financial status than race....not entirely but mostly.

Yes, I am not entirely convinced by the term "reverse racism" either, but that's the one he used so I opted to let it stand.

Nonetheless, it's interesting how people can remain stuck on the label and miss the bigger point.
Yes "racism is racism", but that's not what he is talking about. Let's use a simple example: you're a white guy out in the street (of a western country, that is), minding your own business, when suddenly you are insulted by a black guy out of nowhere. He hates white folks. That guy is an evil racist, you got that right. He even snatches your wallet. You've been mugged by a racist. It sucks. It's an event in your life, but tomorrow will be another day.
Now let's compare that to being a black/colored/minority person: The police can stop, frisk, and detain you. Any day. You may be refused service at some restaurant. Any day. You may not be let in a club. Any day. You may not get that job. You may not get that apartment. If where you live really sucks, you may be in for a mugging or lynching on a seasonal basis. It won't happen all the time of course, but it will happen again and again, with a frequency and severity you will never be able to predict, and when it happens you will have no recourse. It's not 'an event', it defines you life. You expect it around every street corner.

So you and I can encounter a racist, but someone from a minority does experience racism (in other words, they've encountered so many racists in their life they've stopped counting: they talk about 'racism', not 'racists'). These are completely different things. There is simply no way you can actually live that level of oppression if you are not part of a minority.

And this is what he meant. He's not saying that there are no non-white racists, or no racists aiming at whites. He is saying there's no way you can experience actual real-scale racism, as it happens in society, if you yourself are part of the ethnic majority. Quite the difference.

TL;DR: racist != racism

This whole show's premise fails simply because it takes place in Silicon Valley, yet features no Asian ethnicities, which unarguably own Silicon Valley.

Essentially that's already how it is in a lot of the world.

When I got married in NZ we had a secular wedding that was essentially a glorified marriage licence signing.

When my friends got married they had a religious ceremony that was.... essentially a glorified marriage licence signing.

As far as the state is concerned, you're married when you sign the documentation. Whatever else you do around that (secular, religious, whatever) is irrelevant.

As for gay weddings and churches, no-one is suggesting forcing churches to perform gay marriages. But once again, this is really, really simple. If you run a business*, you cannot discriminate against either your customers or employees on the basis of ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation.


* and no, there is no special exemption for your business if your business includes art.

So just to be clear, if an artist is homophobic, that's ok?

How about sexist? If I hire a photographer for a corporate event to celebrate the hiring of a new female CEO, it's cool for them to say "nah, I think women should be home raising kids"?

How about racist? How about discriminating on religious grounds? How about just ugly people? "I would shoot your wedding, but frankly, you're both just hideous and let's face it you don't need photos reminding you of that"

Fuck that.

The difference between the real situation of someone being discriminated on sexual orientation and @Darkhand's ridiculously contrived example of being forced to write a song about hating cats is that hating cats is perfectly socially and legally acceptable. Discriminating against people based on ethnicity, gender or orientation is not.

If you "take photos, make videos, design clothes" you're not an artist, you're a business. Your business happens to include art but you're already "whoring" yourself by offering your services for money. And the price of doing business is that you agree to abide by laws, one of which says that you cannot discriminate based on certain attributes.

OTOH, if you're a landscape artist who's commissioned by an oil company and you want to say "nope, I am not ethically comfortable with you" then yes, you have the right to refuse.

Really? I understand racial insensitivity, but is this a fair expectation of diversity in a fictional place that takes place in Scotland? Sure, the name is completely off, but it feels like the rest of this anger is misplaced on an author who is not trying to tell a story on themes of racial diversity.
To top it off, crowds react strongly and positively to enthusiastic and impassioned anger, further building the bravado of this poetic "slam" piece.
If Rowling is trying to tell and cast a story reflective of the local demographics, it doesn't appear inaccurate.
Scotland isn't the same type of "melting pot" America has come to be. Again, perhaps the expectation has been created that all cultures must have the demographic diversity that America has established. Remember, the character she is referring to is actually Scottish.

Scottish population by ethnic group (Scotland 2011 Census)

Percentage of total
White Scottish - 84.0%
White Other British - 7.9%
White Irish - 1.0%
White Gypsy/Traveller - 0.1%
White Polish - 1.2%
Other White ethnic group - 1.9%
White Total - 96.0%

Pakistani - 0.9%
Indian - 0.6%
Bangladeshi - 0.1%
Chinese - 0.6%
Other - 0.4%
Asian Total - 2.7%

Caribbean - 0.1%
Black - 0.0%
Caribbean or Black Other - 0.0%
Caribbean or Black - 0.1%
African - 0.6%
African Other - 0.0%
African Total - 0.6%

Mixed or multiple ethnic groups - 0.4%
Arab - 0.2%
Other - 0.1%
Other ethnic group Total - 0.3%

im no statist but this video is so childishly naive as to be laughable.

might as well call the free market jesus.

jesus is the way and the light.
follow jesus for salvation.
only jesus can absolve you of your sins.

this is about power.
if the libertarian is willing to acknowledge that the government is bloated and corrupt but unwilling to recognize the abuse of power wrought by corporations...because the corporation is part of the "free market"...they can end their sermon right there.

i am no longer interested.

if a libertarian preaches the importance of individual sovereignty and individual rights but dismisses that they are part of a community in a larger society.
they can proselytize at somebody elses door.

if a libertarian wishes to shower me with the glories of private property and ownership but ignore the importance and basic human dignity of the very workers who produce everything for those private owners.

then i say unto them that they wish to enslave their fellow man and the freedom they seek is for them alone and the rest of humanity be damned all in the name of profit and greed.

they can take their cult of ayn rand and masturbate somewhere else.

UNLESS....
they are willing to admit that:
1.as @VoodooV pointed out,we live in a society and a society is populated by PEOPLE.

2.that people deserve more than just the right to trade freely (which i agree with) but that human dignity and compassion,and yes..the right for life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

3.that the corporation is actually MORE vicious than a government.a corporation is amoral by design! so if we are going to address the abusive powers of government,the abuses of corporations should be recognized as well.

4.the argument that corporations would not exist without governments is a canard.that may have been true in 1910 but no longer.there are corporations that have a higher GDP than most nation states.

5.the argument that governments start wars are only half-truths.can you guess what the other half is? thats right! banks and corporations using their power and influence to oppress third world nations...through the use (or abuse to be more accurate) of this nations military.see:smedley butler.

6.while a non-state would be amazing i am not naive enough to believe it could ever happen in our lifetime.yes many arbitrary borders have been penned by empires but there will always be lines drawn by cultural,religious and ethnicity..lets be honest.

7.while i do not share voodoos optimism in this democratic representative republics current health status (i feel it is broken and dysfunctional),it is a FAR better thing than the authoritarian,totalitarian system that is the american corporation.unless they went all democratic on me and i didnt get the memo.

8.government does have a role in our society,though it should be limited.
defense (not illegal and pre-emptive wars of aggression).
fraud control and law enforcement.
roads,fire,police,education and health,because thats what a society does for each other.
we take care of each other.
you dont like that? move to the mountains..have fun!

9.the corporate charter should be re-written."for the public good" should be re-instated for one thing.
a.i was talking to a libertarian and he used the term "non-aggression" and i really REALLY liked this.so a corporation will be held responsible for any and all:destruction to the ecology (local and abroad),destruction of peoples health,home and property.externalization of any sort will be seen as "aggression" and the CEO and all officers will be held liable to be paid by:dissillusion of company of jail time,they can choose.
b.a corporation is NOT a person and ZERO funds will be drawn from company money to purchase a legislator.they may spend as much money as they wish from their own personal accounts,but ALL contributions shall be made public over a certain amount.
c.any corporation that has been found to pay their workers so little as to put the burden on the tax payer shall be found performing an "aggressive" act against the american people and shall either pay the amount in full or forfeit their company.

dammit.im rambling ...again.
but oh baby am i digging this non-aggression dealio!

can i rewrite the corporate charter?
please please please please.....

*promote the discussion

I think the reason "we do that", is because such a large proportion of our resident's roots in the United States go back no more than 100 years, and there are SO MANY different cultures and ethnicities you can encounter, especially in Urban areas. Oftentimes an ethnicity or culture will live in a specific town or part of a city and will preserve much of their culture and tradition. I guess we could pretend like everyone is the same, but there ARE differences in culture and tradition, and i think we only use those terms when we are acknowledging/talking about those things. I don't know how that differs from where you are from, but maybe the difference for us is the sheer size of the country and its diversity means we have much larger clusters of people with a shared or common foreign ancestry and so they get more attention?

However, I don't think "African American" or "Hispanic American" are used as commonly as you think, aside from the news where topics like racism and affirmative action get more exposure, and a way to delineate differences is necessary. Or when we want to figure what kind of food to eat for dinner

Yeah it's amazing huh, and 'FUCK YOU WHALES, as wail.The examples of native American and Anglo acting for convenience-sake as an analogous gesture is mute, they were ignorant savages back when....Better, stronger, faster is what the world is about nowadays, eh?

That folks can't understand the consternation of someone who may regard Japan with the contempt for the state of their psychological baggage of mindfuck that created the "today of Japan" that should be clearly seen by all humans with a conscience what can be seen clearly by the entire world with half a fucking brain, is not a concern...Love the Japanese, but they like all nations, cultures and peoples are hard-pressed to do the work needed to un-fuck themselves into the next paradigm of 'humans being' as fast as the planet's urgency warrants, all are guilty of an inevitability of self-immolation.

Japanese, Russians, the Swiss, and cunts with no ethnicity or countries that they know of, seem to suffer from the same state of illusion the entire world finds themselves suffering. Plus, females of all cultures are treated for the most part like shit by their males....kind of like most folks sit back and let those aquatic mammals closest to humankinder be so fucked .Incorrect? Provide examples or throw us in some penalty box and cry racism, or any 'ism' box, you fucking morons.

Are we, OVER-generalizing, or is herding mammals into an enclosure and poking them with sticks something that looks a-ok and sanction-able by sane, thoughtful peeps?? I would not wish this fate on a single Japanese citizen be they native or expatriate. Dolphins have cocks, just like humans do.

Have yourselves herded into an enclosure and experience what happens.

Oh and, fuck rules. Always have, always...will.

(Slinks-off to eat a dolphin sandwich and don boots and a vest made from similar hide, and read Mein fucking Kampfire, under the glow of a human-skin nightshade made from faux beaver.)

@chingalera

Just so we're clear, I don't want you to leave the Sift, nor do I want you to tone down your anti-establishment commenting. I only went to @dag because you violated Sift commenting guidelines (see http://videosift.com/faq#comments specifically the part about "blatantly racist comments"). Dag agreed and you got a warning.

No one is banning you, no one is saying you don't belong here, no one is even saying "play nice" in the comment threads.

We're saying the Sift is not a forum for racist commentary. It's already been explained to you why your original comment was racist (i.e. ascribing negative traits to an entire group of people based on their ethnicity*).

No, I don't think that you, personally, are a racist.

But your comment was, whether you believe it or not. Deal with it and move on.

*Just so you're aware, the UN makes no distinction between "race" and "ethnicity" when discussing racism and racial discrimination. That is why I'm not engaging you in your attempts to justify your comments on the basis that you don't believe in races or the allegations that by calling out racism, I am somehow endorsing the notion of "races".

@chingalera

If you don't see how overgeneralizing in a derogatory sense an entire population based on their ethnic heritage (I'm pretty sure you weren't referring to the millions of European, American, Australian, South-east Asian, African, Middle Easter, etc. people who live in Japan) is racism then you truly belong on YouTube and not on the Sift. And yeah, if you had said Australians were dysfunctional savages that would not have been racist but just as stupidly xenophobic, overgeneralized, and stereotypical.

Here's the thing, though, I think you absolutely know all this. You're just, as usual, trying to be counter-Sift-cultural--trying to stir the pot, so to speak.

You are free to criticize Japanese culture. Here's the thing about "criticism" though--it's derived form the word "critical" as in "critical thinking." Unfortunately, I don't see any critical thinking going on in your posts here. You spewed a bunch of overgeneralized stereotypical bullshit (see this video--you're clearly not interested in truth but in evoking emotions in people) and when you got called on it, instead of providing any sort of evidence to make your case you tried to cover it up with some ad hominem and anecdotes.

I'm not asking you to not criticize Japanese culture. I'm not asking you to be politically correct or polite even. I'm not even asking you to stop "stirring the pot" on the Sift (because Zeus knows, sometimes the Sift needs it). I am, however, specifically asking you to not insult the intelligence of the Sift community by couching blatantly racist/stereotypical/overgeneralized statements in a faux-rational manner.

The first person to cry 'racist' is usually the racist him/herself-
Japan
Ethnicity
Race?
Fuck Racism.

*edit-Another question? If I had written, 'Fuck Australia' after bashing her culture's shortcomings would you have been as quick to use the the 'cry racism' model so easily considering her peoples are a compendium of a mixed-bag similar to the America you expatriated from, equally as complicit in crimes against humanity at large and isolationism? You got yer crazy bag of fucks there as well expat, check a mirror.

I hold no racist views towards the Japanese, I am trashing a culture's savage and mundane aspects Mr. Official warning, and whom or what did I offend I would ask? YOUR sensibilities sir?

The Japanese suffer as a peoples because of the backlog of baggage they carry into the future-I do not discount their contributions to the planet, the shining aspects of their culture, HOWEVER. I do recognize their dysfunction and regret and lament their dwindling numbers, the erosion of families, their skewed sense of sexuality and their treatment of the female within their culture. Ask any Japanese woman of the age of 20 and not one will tell you that she has not been sexually exploited or violated in a public place. Sure, it's fun to watch and giggle at their television, their obsessions and odd social practices but form whence does the spectacle arise, from what psychological mindfuck that reaches much further back than Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

Oh the IRONY of someone so self-important and all-powerful as to pass judgement on intent or meaning without first inquiring as to the motivation for the word.

Fuck em I suppose, is what set you off Dagmar-Pretty strong a statement I suppose but not so much in the context of the motivation behind my problem with their culture-on-the-skids.

Evolution IN Action

Skin color > than ethnic/religious/sexual orientation. Jews are treated white over black people. If we cannot understand this we don't understand true racism. (Yes, millions of Jews were killed in the Holocaust and in many other atrocities, but if there had been blacks in their place, blacks would have taken priority.)

So yeah, I would say Jesus was white. A white Jew, like John Stewart perhaps. Now he wasn't Anglo American, that's for sure.