Yup
Sadly some people still haven't learnt to to treat people as individuals, without regard to race or colour
▼
deleted
· 1 year ago
Well, the decision to pin something on a specific race and/or color and/or religion is a very individual one, I'll give you that. As an example: pretty much any key industry is dominated by rich men, some of them are muslims, some are christians, some are hindi, some are jews. To specifically mention people with "funny small hats" is a very individual decision to act anti-semitic. Not that hard to grasp, innit?
Let's play a game called "Is it prejudice or experience?" Question: what makes me believe that the reply to this will be a thumbs down, not an articulated argument?
You were proven correct with a disappointing swiftness.
It’s a touchy subject and of course people can be racist against whites- and there is this uncomfortable and difficult place where… it’s easy for me to say “why mention race at all” in such complaints- races aren’t councils where every member acts on orders in a unified front, so when we group by race we imply a sameness which is inherently problematic. There is some importance there though. In the sense that yes, if you look at all the highest paying jobs and a disproportionate majority of them are held by a single type or group- there may be issues of equity and opportunity. When you have direct evidence like… 200 odd years of systemic and social oppression… to pretty concretely show that such disparities aren’t some fluke… that does help paint a picture. But it is still rough. In the US North East it is classically the case that a large number of Nurses are of Caribbean decent. On the west coast it was long a thing that
nursing and much staffing in the medical field was by Filipinos. Of course a sport like basketball or football (American) a huge percentage of players are black or POC.
Is this a case where other groups don’t have opportunity in these fields or a case where the dominant groups in these fields dominate those fields because they don’t have other opportunities, or is it something else or a combination of factors? It is difficult often to say and perhaps ultimately these things can be open to interpretation. We are also subject to perceptive bias. So we might feel like we suddenly are seeing many green cars after buying a green car. Are there suddenly more green cars? Did you buying a green car trigger a fad? If we look at data we can often get some idea. Samples from traffic cameras or vehicle records can show us the number of green cars by date and give some insight to those perceptions. It could just be that you notice green cars or are in an area where green cars happen to be
uncommonly represented. So we do have to remember that observation is only a single step in deduction. We believe we observe something, a majority of nfl players are black. We can check the data. In that case- the data supports the observation. A lot of black football players. Ok. So now though- we can’t jump to a conclusion yet. We can’t just say the fact that most nfl players are black proves the nfl is racist against Asians or doesn’t offer opportunities to white players. People like to skip steps or often mix up the order. They’ll come up with a conclusion, then use observation to “prove it” and then say they are done, maybe then go look up facts to support their observations if they are particularly thorough.
But why would we need to bring race up if black players aren’t in a unified conspiracy to keep others out..? Well… we might or might not need to address race. It depends. If we observe and data supports racial disparity, figuring out causes and ultimately
Addressing those causes can require us to examine race. Saying something like “more basketball players aren’t Asian because Asians are short” is problematic. We know of at least one Asian NBA player in recent history who was quite tall, and many Asians are tall. Many are muscular or athletes. So why so few Asian NFL players or really- most major US sports? Well… saying that Asians are short is a generalization and if we try to apply that universally it is racist- but biologically there are often differences in general sizes and bone structures between people. We can’t always tell someone’s ancestry by looking at them but humans are pretty ok at figuring out a broad region or ethic group or genetic family of a person by visual cues.
So that’s an u comfortable place. Eugenics is racist bunk science but we know that blonde hair or red hair or certain cancers or other conditions are sometimes much more prevalent or exclusively carried by certain genes. Myths about Africans and some genetic physical superiority for manual work and athletics have haunted the past few centuries and have dark legacies, various beliefs about intelligence and character or morality being in your genes- so we are understandably wary to start discussions that deal with there being certain probabilities that can be definitively traced to genes and often to ethnicity in a historical period- anyone can get sickle cell anemia but it is more prevalent in certain groups. The other huge problem there is that acknowledging these things not only links back to those shameful fallacies like eugenics,
They can inevitably create concepts of inherent genetic and thusly racial or ethnic superiority or inferiority. People of a certain type being stronger or smarter or more resilient. People from groups that fairly exclusively or more commonly have certain diseases or allergies or other regressive traits or disadvantageous traits as “inferior” at a basic level. It can be viewed as “proof” by some of their own superiority or fitness for a task. If society believes red heads are genetically better at business- people wanting to succeed in business often might consciously or unconsciously favor red heads. So there are perils to the truth in that many are ill equipped to think. It’s blunt but some people just aren’t thinkers. They might even try their best but they will be often and terribly wrong when drawing their own conclusions, or when right may arrive by luck- like a child getting a single math problem correct despite not knowing how to get the correct answer through calculation. luck.
So why and when is rave important? Well- we CAN do some generalizing. It’s a dirty word and we covered it is problematic- but generalization is practical and scientific if we remember to conceptualize it as a general and a place holder while we narrow in on data.
So it starts with groups. A job or industry Can be a group- so our NBA players let’s say. Then we observe similarities between people and group them. The common thing people do at least in this age is to observe an idea of race. So we see lots of black players in the NBA and few Asians. So now we have some groups. Not all black people or white people or Asians are the same or even very similar. we need to dig further.
If we examine the dominant group in detail, their education, career history, parenting styles and upbringing, socio economic status, psychological traits etc- we look for groups there. “Rich kids” “poor kids” single parent, those who excelled at academics and those who didn’t, personality types.
We can then examine the less dominant groups and look for those same factors. We can then compare the similarities between our larger groups- often there are good odds that within a competitive field we can find that certain traits and histories are often common- in any top level competitive field you’ll often find people are… competitive.. driven… disciplined in their field, motivated, etc for example. But you might uncover some seemingly odd similarities. You might find that the top people in a field wether in a dominant group or not overwhelmingly come from “farm towns” or divorced homes. Any information we gather might be significant or might be coincidence or anomaly. Too early for conclusions.
We then must gather data from our larger groups outside - including jobs and socio economic status. This is where we can start to possibly see some generalities. Sometimes things are culturally specific. You might not see a lot of a certain group working in sales because their cultural beliefs in general are that the industry is somehow dirty or taboo for example. A culture as a whole may prize certain things and money is not always a primary motivator- religions and beliefs, prestige, traditions and heritage and more can factor in. Sometimes disparities can be attributed to culture in this way, and while that culture can apply broadly, there are of course people who don’t adhere as strictly to that culture or at all or are willing to step outside tradition and are progressive or non conformist etc.
So what applies as a generalization doesn’t necessarily apply universally. People often conflate the terms and concepts which leads to biases and such- the differences between an understanding that many “middle easterners” are Muslim and most Muslims do not eat pork vs. The assumption that someone who looks “middle eastern” must not eat pork. Of course there are non Muslims that don’t eat pork and there are Muslims that do eat pork and you might meet a “middle eastern” non Muslim that doesn’t eat pork because it doesn’t fit their lean protein nutrition plan or they just don’t like it. So we must be careful with generalizations.
But if we find certain factors- let’s say that 80% of a workplace and job is race A, and we find that in that position 97% of people are from low socio economic backgrounds. So we look at the area where workers to that job come from and we see that races B and C are represented at 5% of households in low socio economic status and race A is represented at 90% of households at low socio economic status. 20% of the job is made up of races B and C, and when surveyed we discover that those from races B and C in the job are 97% low socioeconomic status. So what we have is a picture that points to that particular job not being biased towards people of a given group necessarily- among all races the common factor is low socio economic status. In simple terms- the job is mostly done by poor people and there are more poor people from group A than B and C combined.
So now we need to examine the community and try to discover why group A is so disproportionately poor to groups C and D. There is little support generically beyond possible predisposition to health conditions that are expensive and prohibitive (we can easily confirm those as a factor or remove them) to support a genetic reasoning for the disparity. There could he cultural factors, culture and history are often intertwined so we can examine those factors.
It’s a rabbit hole and seldom free from any need for interpretation but in the end we can find that sometimes “racial disparities” are in fact coincidental- that either people of a given race aren’t any more or less represented by race so much as people of a given race happen to be more likely to share some other factors that lead to that disparity and are not directly related to any sort of advantage or disadvantage per se, or that there is no unifying or compelling reason and by the laws of statistics these things can happen.
Other times such disparities can be to present inequities or historical ones which have created biases and led to unequal opportunity die to created bias. And sometimes it is a sort of natural consequence of general differences. One culture or group may emphasize values or priorities or traits or practices that tend to naturally lead to success in certain areas while others do not in general. In a hypothetical culture where requests and courtship and business deals were made by singing and responses are and rewards are determined by the quality of singing- we might expect that many of those persons might find success in or even dominate industries where a talent for singing is a key to success as most members of that culture will likely have been singing their whole lives with strong motivation to do well, and families will likely have generational knowledge and experience in teaching and improving singing. Conversely a culture where singing is not generally done or even is seen as..
.. vulgar might not produce many or any star singers. It is a fair generalization then to say culture A produces good singers and culture B is less likely to- but it is problematic to meet someone from culture B and assume they cannot sing. There may be members of culture B who sing wonderfully. Of course this is culture right? Enter a complication. Race and e think city are not intrinsically linked. There are often links between race and ethnicity, but the two are not fundamentally tied. So there are distinctions to be drawn between a racial group and an ethnic group and then demographics within that group and so on. It is also the case that if group A practice and sing their whole lives… when those who keep the traditional culture from group find themselves amongst other cultures- there is no guarantee that their traditional singing, no matter how masterful and artful, will be pleasant to others.
If we look at the pop music or general music charts through much of the world- a 20 minute undulation is generally not on them. Opera generally does not top overall charts for some time. So of course, even though these things can take skill and be beautiful and masterful or artful- they may not be to the sensibilities of other cultures or translate to skills that are valued by others. So if the singing of group A is a lifelong skill but it is of a type that doesn’t generally have mass appeal outside their cultural familiarity and doesn’t translate to the type of vocal skills that are valued by mass markets of others, then despite their seeming advantage group A could even be at a disadvantage in singing related industries in this example!
So there are layers and complexities and context.
The overall point is that race and discussion of it are tricky subjects. Even race itself is subject to interpretation as race is an artificial grouping that doesn’t rely on any well defined and exclusive universal things. Race most often groups people by some arbitrary similarities in appearance traits and sometimes overlaps cultural or generic histories but ultimately we can constantly see across the globe those many cases where there are questions of where to categorize certain groups or differences in whom is categorized as what. Mexicans and Thai and Filipino can be quite dark skinned but in the US are not generally considered “black” outside or within their groups for example.
Many black people have curly and/or textured hair but not all do and people have curls or texture who are not “black.”
So it isn’t skin color that defines “black” in America- and there are those of predominantly African or other ancestry who have very light complexion but may self identify or be identified as “black.” Of course there aren’t genes that identify people as “black” though in America the term often conflates to some form of African ancestry. Filipinos may self identify as many “races” or groups including “Filipino” “Asian” “Pacific Islander” etc. there are those within the Filipino community who do not consider themselves Pacific Islander or do not consider themselves Asian and there are Asians who don’t consider Filipinos Asian or Pacific Islanders who don’t consider Filipinos Pacific Islanders. Who decides?
To that same- in many parts of the world- the Philippines and Mexico, parts of South America etc, they may consider reven those of their “racial group” to be “black” and use the term “black” to refer to dark skinned country men who may have very similar ancestry but are… darker. “White” can be a broad group and at various times and places many of asian ancestry are or have been considered “white” while at other times or places they are “othered” or slurred as a separate race and at other times are considered to be “POC” etc. it depends who you ask and where and when. “White” can be an ethnic Eastern European country or a non specific ethnicity of Americans or EU citizens with lighter skin tone. When we look at the history and culture of certain Eastern European countries they can vary greatly from a general non ethnic specific “white” history and culture. Non specific “white” is generally conflated to ties to Christianity- where especially in certain white ethnicities Islam or other
beliefs have strong history and prominence. General “white” is often conflated to Western Europe and a linguistic history stemming from Latin or a narrow band of latin influenced roots. Asia as a continent is huge and diverse and as a region or grouping more so. There is a lot of complex history there and likewise there are many differences in history and culture and language and religion and other key aspects between “Asian” cultures and groups, genetic differences and more that don’t strongly connect for thousands of years perhaps even. So it is often a matter of convenience or what is most familiar that drives any particular person or wider group to create these distinctions by which they label “races.”
So rave is this imprecise and I’ll defined thing already, but we as humans have some necessity in cognition to quickly and generally group things and people for identification and classification so as a letter of convenience or necessity, we use these systems as suits a given demographic or individual.
So there are factors in determining the potential relevance of race and we do have to be careful that we are not only using the grouping correctly and in a way that makes sense, but that the grouping needs to be used at all.
It’s the “story rule,” if someone cuts you off in traffic and you mention their “race” or such- unless that detail is relevant to the story you wouldn’t mention it. In your mind, or to your thinking the mind of the listener, that detail is either of material importance
or shapes perception. “I’m at the store and this Mexican boy is crying because his father was deported..” in a story about or relating to immigration policy at the US Mexico border- that’s important. He isn’t a Hungarian child, he is being impacted by something specific and your story relates your feelings on that or is attempting to convey your view point to others.
“So I’m at the ATM and this big black guy is behind me and I’m scared…”
If you are scared someone might rob you at an atm, their race is not important to the story unless you believe that race is inherently more likely to rob you, or that you believe your listener believes that and so the detail makes the event more valid or conveys through empathy a feeling of fear. “Big black guy” is historically and even presently a common “boogie man” used when someone wants to impart a sense of danger or dominance. The two are often used together in that context.
There is an entire history around the concept of black men and the fragility of certain other men, we spoke on myths of African ancestry and physical prowess, “big penis” is a common joke/belief relating to “black” people, many traditional myths essentially reinforce the idea of physically powerful, imposing, dangerous, often un intelligent racial identity. Multiple cultures in America for example have various taboos and paranoias about “black men stealing their women” or such- being with a woman after a black man etc. the penis thing and the size thing and the violence thing and all of those myths are tied to this concept of the big black boogie man whom oftej in these conceptions is only vested or kept at bay by superior intelligence or culture. So that story of the “big black man” standing too close or coming out of nowhere or challenging you to a fight or whatever- that extraneous detail of “race” is a clear example of where there is a bias and entertaining that bias is reinforcing
Ignorance and prejudice. So we must be careful when speaking on race that race is even relevant. As detailed above often race is not. Though race CAN be relevant and because race is a construct as discussed, when race IS relevant that can often end in a deduction that disparity is caused by some racially motivated bias or inequity.
So it’s tricky in that race can be important but isn’t always important. Can be relevant but isn’t always. It is tricky because of various sensitivities and historical realities.
And of course, the fact that racism exists doesn’t change reality. There is a racial stereotype that whites are white collar criminals. To assume a white collar crime was committed by a white suspect because whites are predisposed or disproportionately represented in white collar crime is racist- but if you catch a white person red handed doing a white collar crime- we also can’t say it is racist to convict them of the crime they did actually commit. The circumstances that led
there might factor in to sentencing and consideration but we can’t generally say they excuse the crime. But understanding why this person and perhaps why disproportionately in generally a certain group is represented in those statistics can not only help us mitigate those crimes but also perhaps address underlying inequities or issues in society.
So when it is ok to say “Latinos this” “whites this” “Asians this” or so forth? When is it ok to blame the Jewish people for something…?
At the least the information needs to be relevant. Being wronged by an individual generally doesn’t implicate all similar individuals or a group. Being wronged by a group like gymnasts doesn’t implicate the dominant race in gymnastics representation or administration.
Tl:dr- in america we are often ok with a general indictment of “white privilege” or privileged whites because that is a group. A unit. We have TONS of proof and evidence that self identified whites actively conspired as a group to consolidate wealth and power while marginalizing others we have evidence and proof through most of American history the majority of self identified white people actively participated in or were complicit in a structured and organized effort to consolidate power and wealth for “whites.” They supported and even championed laws and practices and social systems and economic systems to consolidate wealth and power to whites and deny it to others. In a specific bid to keep anyone not white out or maintain a general status based on the drawing of racial lines.
When you say or imply that Jewish people are to blame- you are inherently accusing that a similar conspiracy organized across all or the majority of Jewish persons has been enacted to consolidate control and wealth for Jewish persons while keeping out those who are not Jewish. It is a simple matter to say that is not the case in most all instances where such accusations are made historically. There is more nuance to it than that but this is the tldr so I’m not getting into it- it is a simple matter of established facts and circumstance. Simple reasoning. A dirt bag is a dirt bag regardless of the larger group you might put them in, and any group can have dirt bags relative to the group. You can split hairs all you want but when you implicate a group the group must actually be culpable of the implication otherwise you have individuals who happen to be able to be classified in a larger group.
My mind is blown. What’s next, are we going to start passing laws? Like- what if a person read some kids a book… while wearing a dress, but then someone wore a dress and read kids a book… while having the letter “M” on their birth certificate? Americans probably wouldn’t care right- that’s such a silly distinction isn’t it?
See- a problem with, a test for, delusional thinking, is wether one’s beliefs and actions are internally consistent AND align to reality.
So wow. People are different. Stop the presses. Kanye West releases “N$$$ in Paris” and america sleeps, but if Eminem dropped that album, general outrage. As though there could be some difference between the two men and some key fact in history that might make that important.
An American President addresses the world and points out where the country needs work, State of the Union. A foreign president gives a speech and talks about America’s problems and Americans get upset… hmmmm….
For the slower kids who are still not getting this, when you talk about the transatlantic slave trade and practices of American racism through history, Jim Crow laws and police brutality and these things… do you think these experiences mean much or anything to the average African who’s entire family as far back as they know of has lived and generally thrived in Africa? Do you think the average multi generational “African American” that traces their history back to transatlantic slavery and knows nothing of their history or genetics before that- do you think that they have the same sensitivities and possible biases concerning tribal and national politics in Africa that an African might? They are both “black,” and yet their history diverges. The things they are sensitive to often diverge. Their lives experiences are different.
If the really slow kids still aren’t getting this- the Jewish people have suffered thousands of years of persecution, violence, exclusion and marginalization. Slavery. Often they have been targeted because they have excelled or thrived in certain industries- often industries that they were forced into or told were the only industries they could work in.
Jewish “purges” and social movements that have resulted unjustly in Jewish deaths and losses of liberties and property have often began in history with cries of “wealthy oppressed” picking a grievance in their personal lives, blaming it on the Jews, conflating the Jewish people with control or monopolization or conspiracy and thusly implicating them in the complaints of anyone else who might feel similar gripes or can find advantage in turning opinion against the Jewish people, and then where these things are accepted and absorbed, and no one has put a stop to it- bad things often happen.
There is a level of sensitivity there and historical prudence- “whites,” especially “white Americans” as a singular identity have not faced that sort of genocide. Have not faced being marginalized in society and having their homes and businesses and families and lives ripped away for the crime of “being white.” Far right but jobs would like to paint a picture that things like representation and measures to mitigate historical injustices that have disadvantaged certain groups disproportionately are some “white purge,” but the reality of the numbers don’t support those types of paranoid delusion or persecution complexes. Jews can show the math. There are Jews alive today who can tell you first hand, show you the scars even, if what happens when a nation sleeps through cries the Jews are to blame.
Sadly some people still haven't learnt to to treat people as individuals, without regard to race or colour
Let's play a game called "Is it prejudice or experience?" Question: what makes me believe that the reply to this will be a thumbs down, not an articulated argument?
It’s a touchy subject and of course people can be racist against whites- and there is this uncomfortable and difficult place where… it’s easy for me to say “why mention race at all” in such complaints- races aren’t councils where every member acts on orders in a unified front, so when we group by race we imply a sameness which is inherently problematic. There is some importance there though. In the sense that yes, if you look at all the highest paying jobs and a disproportionate majority of them are held by a single type or group- there may be issues of equity and opportunity. When you have direct evidence like… 200 odd years of systemic and social oppression… to pretty concretely show that such disparities aren’t some fluke… that does help paint a picture. But it is still rough. In the US North East it is classically the case that a large number of Nurses are of Caribbean decent. On the west coast it was long a thing that
Is this a case where other groups don’t have opportunity in these fields or a case where the dominant groups in these fields dominate those fields because they don’t have other opportunities, or is it something else or a combination of factors? It is difficult often to say and perhaps ultimately these things can be open to interpretation. We are also subject to perceptive bias. So we might feel like we suddenly are seeing many green cars after buying a green car. Are there suddenly more green cars? Did you buying a green car trigger a fad? If we look at data we can often get some idea. Samples from traffic cameras or vehicle records can show us the number of green cars by date and give some insight to those perceptions. It could just be that you notice green cars or are in an area where green cars happen to be
Addressing those causes can require us to examine race. Saying something like “more basketball players aren’t Asian because Asians are short” is problematic. We know of at least one Asian NBA player in recent history who was quite tall, and many Asians are tall. Many are muscular or athletes. So why so few Asian NFL players or really- most major US sports? Well… saying that Asians are short is a generalization and if we try to apply that universally it is racist- but biologically there are often differences in general sizes and bone structures between people. We can’t always tell someone’s ancestry by looking at them but humans are pretty ok at figuring out a broad region or ethic group or genetic family of a person by visual cues.
So it starts with groups. A job or industry Can be a group- so our NBA players let’s say. Then we observe similarities between people and group them. The common thing people do at least in this age is to observe an idea of race. So we see lots of black players in the NBA and few Asians. So now we have some groups. Not all black people or white people or Asians are the same or even very similar. we need to dig further.
If we examine the dominant group in detail, their education, career history, parenting styles and upbringing, socio economic status, psychological traits etc- we look for groups there. “Rich kids” “poor kids” single parent, those who excelled at academics and those who didn’t, personality types.
It’s a rabbit hole and seldom free from any need for interpretation but in the end we can find that sometimes “racial disparities” are in fact coincidental- that either people of a given race aren’t any more or less represented by race so much as people of a given race happen to be more likely to share some other factors that lead to that disparity and are not directly related to any sort of advantage or disadvantage per se, or that there is no unifying or compelling reason and by the laws of statistics these things can happen.
The overall point is that race and discussion of it are tricky subjects. Even race itself is subject to interpretation as race is an artificial grouping that doesn’t rely on any well defined and exclusive universal things. Race most often groups people by some arbitrary similarities in appearance traits and sometimes overlaps cultural or generic histories but ultimately we can constantly see across the globe those many cases where there are questions of where to categorize certain groups or differences in whom is categorized as what. Mexicans and Thai and Filipino can be quite dark skinned but in the US are not generally considered “black” outside or within their groups for example.
So it isn’t skin color that defines “black” in America- and there are those of predominantly African or other ancestry who have very light complexion but may self identify or be identified as “black.” Of course there aren’t genes that identify people as “black” though in America the term often conflates to some form of African ancestry. Filipinos may self identify as many “races” or groups including “Filipino” “Asian” “Pacific Islander” etc. there are those within the Filipino community who do not consider themselves Pacific Islander or do not consider themselves Asian and there are Asians who don’t consider Filipinos Asian or Pacific Islanders who don’t consider Filipinos Pacific Islanders. Who decides?
So there are factors in determining the potential relevance of race and we do have to be careful that we are not only using the grouping correctly and in a way that makes sense, but that the grouping needs to be used at all.
It’s the “story rule,” if someone cuts you off in traffic and you mention their “race” or such- unless that detail is relevant to the story you wouldn’t mention it. In your mind, or to your thinking the mind of the listener, that detail is either of material importance
“So I’m at the ATM and this big black guy is behind me and I’m scared…”
If you are scared someone might rob you at an atm, their race is not important to the story unless you believe that race is inherently more likely to rob you, or that you believe your listener believes that and so the detail makes the event more valid or conveys through empathy a feeling of fear. “Big black guy” is historically and even presently a common “boogie man” used when someone wants to impart a sense of danger or dominance. The two are often used together in that context.
So it’s tricky in that race can be important but isn’t always important. Can be relevant but isn’t always. It is tricky because of various sensitivities and historical realities.
And of course, the fact that racism exists doesn’t change reality. There is a racial stereotype that whites are white collar criminals. To assume a white collar crime was committed by a white suspect because whites are predisposed or disproportionately represented in white collar crime is racist- but if you catch a white person red handed doing a white collar crime- we also can’t say it is racist to convict them of the crime they did actually commit. The circumstances that led
So when it is ok to say “Latinos this” “whites this” “Asians this” or so forth? When is it ok to blame the Jewish people for something…?
At the least the information needs to be relevant. Being wronged by an individual generally doesn’t implicate all similar individuals or a group. Being wronged by a group like gymnasts doesn’t implicate the dominant race in gymnastics representation or administration.
See- a problem with, a test for, delusional thinking, is wether one’s beliefs and actions are internally consistent AND align to reality.
So wow. People are different. Stop the presses. Kanye West releases “N$$$ in Paris” and america sleeps, but if Eminem dropped that album, general outrage. As though there could be some difference between the two men and some key fact in history that might make that important.
An American President addresses the world and points out where the country needs work, State of the Union. A foreign president gives a speech and talks about America’s problems and Americans get upset… hmmmm….
Jewish “purges” and social movements that have resulted unjustly in Jewish deaths and losses of liberties and property have often began in history with cries of “wealthy oppressed” picking a grievance in their personal lives, blaming it on the Jews, conflating the Jewish people with control or monopolization or conspiracy and thusly implicating them in the complaints of anyone else who might feel similar gripes or can find advantage in turning opinion against the Jewish people, and then where these things are accepted and absorbed, and no one has put a stop to it- bad things often happen.