An interesting comparison

It's not only the perception of danger or violence.

Quote:

Lowell agreed to limit the size of the entering class and to institute recommendation letters and personal interviews. Yale and Princeton followed suit; and soon came the whole panoply familiar to this day: lengthy applications, personal essays, descriptions of extracurricular activities. This cumbersome and expensive process served two central functions. It allowed the universities to select for an attribute the disfavored class was thought to lack — i.e., "character" — and it shrouded the admissions process in impenetrable layers of subjectivity and opacity, thus rendering it effectively impervious to criticism.

"Character" was vague and squishy enough that it could mean just about anything those administrators wanted it to mean. And what they wanted it to mean was Not Jewish. The leaders at the Big Three were aghast at the numbers at New York's Columbia University, which by 1920 was almost 40-percent Jewish. After they instituted Lowell's idea, though, the number of Jewish students in the next incoming classes at those schools fell dramatically. Their plan to fix "the Jewish problem" had worked.

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/04/08/300279224/how-stereotypes-explain-everything-and-nothing-at-all

Quote: AZDuffman

For example, if I point out the issues muslims have historically had assimilating and violence that has happened then a proper response is to show that such a thing is the exception and not the rule. You cannot say, "it is racist to say that!" It shows nothing.

OTOH, though I don't feel up to doing a heavy search on it right now, how many people has general stereotyping itself hurt injured or killed over history.

Did it help kill 6 million jews? Maybe it put some traitorous Japanese people in interment camps, but it rounded up a whole lot of innocent ones. It helped keep black slaves in America slaves. Like I said you could probably go on and on.

Not stereotyping is actually screening non-violent Muslims vs. violent extremists. It's harder than stereotyping. Remember, people have rights to crazy beliefs, as long as they stay within laws. Phelps can hate gays 24/7, he can't plan to kill them. The KKK can protest. Black panthers can march.

Here's some more Muslims.

Quote:

15 million to 20 million Kurds live in a mountainous area straddling the borders of Armenia, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. About 8 million live in southeastern Turkey. * The Kurds are a non-Arabic people who speak a language related to Persian. Most adhere to the Sunni Muslim faith.

Quote: rxwine

OTOH, though I don't feel up to doing a heavy search on it right now, how many people has general stereotyping itself hurt injured or killed over history.

Did it help kill 6 million jews? Maybe it put some traitorous Japanese people in interment camps, but it rounded up a whole lot of innocent ones. It helped keep black slaves in America slaves. Like I said you could probably go on and on.

Not sure what you are trying to get at. The Holocaust was not "stereotyping" it was planned extermination. Japanese Americans were not removed from the west coast due to a threat, they were removed more to deny Japanese spies a community to blend in to and cause sabotage, etc. Black slaves were not "stereotyped," they were, well, a slave class.

I will keep saying it, stereotypes start with a basis in reality. If there was no basis then the stereotype would not have taken hold. People may not want to confront this, but it is reality.

Quote:

Not stereotyping is actually screening non-violent Muslims vs. violent extremists. It's harder than stereotyping. Remember, people have rights to crazy beliefs, as long as they stay within laws. Phelps can hate gays 24/7, he can't plan to kill them. The KKK can protest. Black panthers can march.

Here is the thing, you cannot screen tens of thousands of migrants flowing into a place. And even if you can, as other here have pointed out as well as me, when they enter a host population in large numbers they have an effect, often negative.

If you look at history you will see that never has a native population not been negatively affected by a mass migration of a different culture. No reason to think this time will be different. Sure, there may be some fine people in the larger group, but that does not change the fact.

Quote: AZDuffman

Not sure what you are trying to get at. The Holocaust was not "stereotyping" it was planned extermination. Japanese Americans were not removed from the west coast due to a threat, they were removed more to deny Japanese spies a community to blend in to and cause sabotage, etc. Black slaves were not "stereotyped," they were, well, a slave class.

See, now I'm just flabbergasted at your claim. Stereotyping people had a lot to do with all of this. One is the basis of anti-Semitism and the other two racism.

People who live with racism are like fish who live in water. They don't notice it.

Quote: AZDuffman

I will keep saying it, stereotypes start with a basis in reality. If there was no basis then the stereotype would not have taken hold. People may not want to confront this, but it is reality.
.

Talking to my relatives in upstate New York.
My grandmother used to tell me how tough it was for the Irish
The Irish were viewed as the worst human immigrants ever at the time.
Many signs looking for workers also included no Irish.
The stereotype was lazy, drunk and cannot be trusted.
That was the stereotype. Did this stereotype start with a basis of reality?
I think the stereotype is dead wrong, AZ?
What is the realty regarding the Irish?
I'm 1/2 Irish, willing to confront the worst.
Are the Irish terrible lazy drunks? I think not.

Quote: terapined

What is the realty regarding the Irish?

The Irish make a good example in one way. You could hardly have picked a better group to bring in; they didn't look different, they spoke English, were Christian* like their hosts, were hard working, very ready to assimilate, and I would say non-violent too.

But they came over in large numbers with evidently the poor welcome and well represented. So they had huge problems.

What if they didn't have the other, positive attributes? We would be having problems to this day if assimilation had proved difficult because, well, if they were different in the extreme with violent elements represented.

*Yes, Catholic; this was off-putting to a Protestant majority, but a relatively manageable issue IMO

Quote: terapined

Talking to my relatives in upstate New York.
My grandmother used to tell me how tough it was for the Irish
The Irish were viewed as the worst human immigrants ever at the time.
Many signs looking for workers also included no Irish.
The stereotype was lazy, drunk and cannot be trusted.
That was the stereotype. Did this stereotype start with a basis of reality?
I think the stereotype is dead wrong, AZ?
What is the realty regarding the Irish?
I'm 1/2 Irish, willing to confront the worst.
Are the Irish terrible lazy drunks? I think not.

Hate for the Irish went back hundreds of years. The English had dominated the Irish for centuries as Ireland was not as advanced as England. I was taught in college that the way the English dominated the Irish was the model for how they dealt with the Indians when they arrived here. So the dislike just carried over.

So yes (full disclosure, I am a bit over half Irish) there was a basis in reality. The Irish were a bit of a bunch of drunken potato farmers. Like Gypsies would later be, they were an outcast society, except unlike Gypsies they had land. They had to be all of this because the English dominated them and would have nothing to do with them in society. When you get to this point, alcohol becomes a wonderful thing to escape reality.

When they arrived, the Irish ghettoized same as any other ethnic group did. Non-Irish would have stayed out of their neighborhoods in the matter of personal safety. It would be like black neighborhoods are today. Of course they eventually assimilated but in the end dominated. When I was in grade school and it was still OK to talk about one's nationality you were in the minority if you did not have Irish blood. Cities like Pittsburgh, Boston, and Buffalo became Catholic strongholds. The new culture pushed the old one to the side.

There was a report in the news that a white man planted a bomb at a Walmart because Walmart stopped selling Confederate flags.

Should I be afraid of all white people or only of white men? Do you know how many of them are running loose in the world? Many of them don't want to assimilate to the prevalent culture, they insist on outmoded prejudices and a great many are religious fanatics. perhaps we should keep a closer watch on all whites, or boot them all out of the country. they're a serious danger.

That's how ridiculous all arguments against Muslims, Mexicans, Blacks, Gays, etc. are.