Discrimination II

It would be hard to find a clearer illustration of the topic than this article (written from the vehemently discrimination-negative left). The stakes are so clear that detailed commentary is entirely otiose. Some snippets:

The contrast was stark. One group of South Asians had become objects of fear and derision and targets of immigration enforcement and extra-legal violence. Another group of South Asians was being heralded for their social, economic, and cultural contributions to the United States. … the complexities that lay beneath the surface of “South Asian” identity were flattened into a powerful binary; South Asian Americans were either model minorities or national threats. … But this was not merely a post–9/11 phenomenon. In fact, the division between the feared and the desired, the denigrated and the celebrated, has been a defining feature of South Asian racialization in the United States for over one hundred years. … for decades, federal immigration laws and popular culture have worked together to make these distinctions, to distinguish desirable from undesirable South Asians. … Between 1904 and 1917 … xenophobia and Indophilia were not simply contradictory attitudes that played out in two separate social spheres — that is, South Asians were not simply denigrated in political debates over immigration restriction while they were simultaneously celebrated in popular culture. Instead, each sphere generated its own set of distinctions between who was desirable and who was not, and each set of distinctions reinforced the other. … the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, the 1885 Alien Contract Labor Law, and the 1917 Immigration Act were never straightforward acts of Asian exclusion, nor was the 1965 Hart-Cellar Immigration Act — the law that is credited with ending the exclusion era — an act that fully “opened the door” to Asian immigration. All four of these Acts — in effect and in intent — helped define who within Asian populations was welcome and who was not. … the so-called exclusion laws introduced a logic that certain South Asians were admissible — or desirable — because of their class, education, and profession. This was ultimately the logic enshrined in the “occupational preferences” provisions of the 1965 Immigration Act; the legislation brought thousands of South Asian doctors, engineers, and other professionals to the United States in the 1970s and 1980s, while keeping working-class migration to a minimum. … Orientalism is a double-edged set of ideas, standards, and expectations. In the realms of both immigration law and popular culture, the desired and the denigrated have always been inextricably linked; they are defined in relation to one another, with a line drawn between them.

As with most leftist tirades, the effect of this discussion is to engender appreciation for those few fraying fibers of sound public policy and cultural discernment that might otherwise be overlooked. I’m willing to grant the possible advantages of further, more minute discrimination. The fact that discrimination is occurring at all, however, is an indication that — even in this advanced stage of Cathedral dominion — sanity is not altogether dead.

Discriminate between these guys …

… and these guys?

Hell, yeah.

April 10, 2015admin 14 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

14 Responses to this entry

  • Discrimination II | Neoreactive Says:

    […] Discrimination II […]

    Posted on April 10th, 2015 at 9:00 am Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:


    One might also discriminate between the pawns and the Rooks as well.



    Posted on April 10th, 2015 at 9:14 am Reply | Quote
  • Toddy Cat Says:

    That seems to be the new leftist mantra; “How dare you discriminate against people based on what they do and how they act!” Remember when we were supposed to base our treatment of people on “the content of their character “.(ie. how they act and what they do) How racist!

    As Adam said to Eve in the old cartoon “My dear, we live in a time of great transition…”


    Posted on April 10th, 2015 at 5:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    Yeah none of ‘us’ are nothing alike. My southasian component which I thought for the long time was the majority is potentially as low as 15%…, the majority is some indo-iranian and the rest some NE + caucasian mix(15-30%). Apparently derived from alexander’s army in the area, there’s a rumor the linguistic derivation of my ethnic group derives from ‘goth’.

    Very nrx:


    “Nobilitas is a study of the history of aristocratic philosophy from ancient Greece to the early twentieth century that aims at providing an alternative to the liberal democratic norms, which are propagated today as the only viable socio-political system for the world community. Jacob reveals that, contrary to popular belief, the social and cultural development of European civilization has, for twenty-five centuries, been based not on democratic or communist notions but, rather on aristocratic and nationalist notions. Beginning with the political philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, and continuing through Renaissance and Baroque aristocratic philosophers, the German Idealists, and English and Italian nationalists, the study ends with the transformation of aristocratic philosophy in nineteenth century Germany into racist elitism. As such, the study includes a survey of the philosophical bases of racism and anti-Semitism. These topics have been systematically excluded from academic and political debate since the end of the last Great War. This study is a pioneering work in understanding and changing political ideologies.”

    “Alexander Jacob is an Indian-born academic and author. He received his Ph.D. in the History of Ideas at Pennsylvania State University with an essay on Henry More’s A Platonick Song of the Soul. He has also worked at York University and conducted research at the University of Toronto. “


    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    Of course, ‘nobility’ is a good thing, but fetishising atavistic notions of ‘nobility’, only according to the superficialities of melodramatic cliche, is pointlessly regressive & ignoble after Modernity. Such a nostalgic commodification necessarily leads to ironic reversal & social manipulation.

    “His outmoded sense of honour rendered him sensible to my scheme and ductile to the veriest suggestion,’. Blackamoor sneered.
    ‘A strange state of affairs,’ Marvin mused, ‘when a man’s honour dishonours a man.’
    Inglenook bent his head and said nothing.” (Robert Sheckley, “Mindswap”: 1966)


    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    ??? We have many sons of the ex-nobility who integrate perfectly with modernity and many people follow today.


    Artxell Knaphni Reply:


    I wasn’t talking about people, or even the ‘nobility’ as a class of people. Rather, it is contemporary receptions of the notion of nobility that were referred to.

    Posted on April 10th, 2015 at 7:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    Eventually, whatever discriminatory structures are utilised, their animating logics of impetus are autonomous, destined to consume those who articulate them. Could some distant form of AI satisfy their criteria? No, because there are fundamental contradictions at the root. Old models of expediency, based on unanalysed atavistic needs, can only constitute misplaced guidance.
    For whose temporary convenience are these discriminatory transactions conducted? After centuries of ‘policy’, of selective expediencies, what has been achieved but the reflexive effects of a chosen ignorance. Without genuine understanding, the cycle can only carry on.
    The monotheistic fervour of an Occident that produced ‘Modernity’ & the ‘spirit of Kapitalism’ is the same mania as that which generated Islam. If you’re going to discriminate against ‘undesirables’, against chronic psychopathology, you’d have to rule against both Europeans & Middle Eastern ethnicities.
    South Asia & the Far East have been traversed by Occidental depredations for over a millenia, so it’s pointless to apply any kind of metric to current affairs; you’d only be looking at a con(s(train))ed & coerced reflection. There are always different perspectives, though.


    I’ve mentioned Kerala before:

    “Political awareness among the common people including children is quite high,[citation needed] thanks to its history of Social Reformers like Sree Narayana Guru, Shree Chattambi Swamigal, Ayyankali etc., Leftist Movements and the unique political situation that exists in Kerala. Political history in Kerala shows a trend of an alternating elected Right wing and Left government, which results in an increase in public welfare activities, much to the benefit of the common man. In each town square, political parties maintain their icons – a statue of Indira Gandhi or a portrait of Marx, Engels, and Lenin in careful profile. Strikes, agitations, and stirs, a sort of wildcat job action, are so common as to be almost unnoticeable. Anthropologist Bill McKibben says “Though Kerala is mostly a land of paddy-covered plains, statistically Kerala stands out as the Mount Everest of social development; there’s truly no place like it.”

    “The prevalence of education was not only restricted to males. In pre-Colonial Kerala, women, especially those belonging to the matrilineal Nair caste, received an education in Sanskrit and other sciences, as well as Kalaripayattu (martial arts). This was unique to Kerala, but was facilitated by the inherent equality shown by Kerala society to females and males, since Kerala society was largely matrilineal, as opposed to the rigid patriarchy in other parts of India which led to a loss of women’s rights.

    The rulers of the Princely state of Travancore (Thiruvithaamkoor) were at the forefront in the spread of education. A school for girls was established by the Maharaja in 1859, which was an act unprecedented in the Indian subcontinent. In colonial times, Kerala exhibited little defiance against the British Raj. However, they had mass protests for social causes such as rights for “untouchables” and education for all. Popular protest to hold public officials accountable is a vital part of life in Kerala.”

    “Kerala, a state in India, is a bizarre anomaly among developing nations, a place that offers real hope for the future of the Third World. Though not much larger than Maryland, Kerala has a population as big as California’s and a per capita annual income of less than $300. But its infant mortality rate is very low, its literacy rate among the highest on Earth, and its birthrate below America’s and falling faster. Kerala’s residents live nearly as long as Americans or Europeans. Though mostly a land of paddy-covered plains, statistically Kerala stands out as the Mount Everest of social development; there’s truly no place like it.”


    Kerala is South India, the pure essence of India. These people are naturally civilised. The further North & NorthWest you go; wherever there has been Occidental influence & intermixing; the more corrupt, stupid & violent are the people. (I wrote the preceding prior to SanguineEmpiricist’s comment. No insult was meant.) My background is Indian, but not South Indian.
    Keralan income is $300 a year. That would produce utter social breakdown in Europe, the Middle East, & the USA. Given all the exploitations & problems of those places, to speak of any “Occidental civilisation” is oxymoronic, always has been. ‘Regime’ is far more appropriate.


    Of course, the crass stupidity & barbarism of so called ‘fundamentalism’ is undesirable. But British rule in India was decidedly ignoble; amongst all the atrocities, the de-industrialisation, & the ‘wealth drain’, it tactically supported the very elements you find so undesirable now. Those elements were already an Occidental implementation.


    R. Reply:

    >>the de-industrialisation<<

    How could British rule cause 'de-industrialisation'.. in an agrarian land?


    Artxell Knaphni Reply:


    From what I can remember, India had the best shipbuilding indstry in the world. It could build bigger & better ships than anyone else. The British took the techniques & destroyed the industry.
    Indian textiles were an international trade. Though a ‘craft’ industry, exports were considerable. Britain didn’t merely compete, it banned weaving, allegedly cutting the hands of weavers who transgressed the ban. Britain banned all foreign trade, too. We’re not only talking about British technology giving a production advantage, there was a full-scale shutdown of Indian industry.
    Everything Britain spent in India, & in Britain, on anything connected with India, was extracted from India.


    Blogospheroid Reply:


    Indian here. Genealogically, from a tamil speaking district which went to kerala (Kerala’s language is malayalam) in the states division (Let’s not get into my ancestry, it’s COMPLICATED and highly off-topic)

    India wasn’t de-industrialized perse. India was a land for which I think the correct term is “over-optimized for the agrarian age”. India had towns and cities, which were run with tributes from an agricultural economy. It had a trade network with the entire old world run from sailing ships. It had endogamy prohibited using the gotra system and far and wide exogamy prohibted by the caste system. This was to assure a decently coherent populace without going into the over-clannishness of the arab world.
    Now it is true that the British had a very long policy of looting India via unfavourable tariffs, but I think that the Indian system would have suffered anyway from the black swan event of large scale fossil fuel usage. It simply wasn’t designed / evolved for it. If the british had not dominated India so completely, something like the cutting of the chinese melon would have happened.

    If the unfavourable tariffs had not done it, Indian handlooms would have been outcompeted one day by the power looms of Europe.

    India was going to be dragged into the new era, kicking and screaming.

    Indians are naturally civilized, south indians more so. If i do say so myself, that is a statement I agree with. South India has had remarkably less crime for its per-capita income level when compared with the rest of the world. It has been the centre of most of the IT for which indians are becoming notorious.

    I think the main concern with India is the abstract thought required for the future world is not something that seems to be natural to a majority of the populace who are farmers or artisans running ancient traditions. The brahmins and merchants might do ok, but I guess the smartest fraction of them already hold passports of some anglo nations.


    Posted on April 11th, 2015 at 2:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    I hereby humbly suggest that people refrain from knowing discussions of “capitalism” until such time as they can demonstrate a passing familiarity with the First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics. See David Friedman’s “efficiency proofs” here:


    A reading of George Orwell’s essay, “Politics and the English Language”, might also be in order.


    admin Reply:

    Crazed utilitarian humanism (in the Friedman piece) — but good.


    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 2:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    @I still fail to see how your response is correct at all.


    Posted on April 12th, 2015 at 5:50 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment