How come the most individualistic countries have often been the most institutionally racist?

[dog_eat_dog]

I dont think anglo-saxon countries never was really that "individualistic" though.. maybe libertarian is better word.

[Mortimer]

How is it that Anglo-Saxon countries like the USA and South Africa, which at one level put the greatest emphasis on individual liberty, private ownership and profit and are relatively disdainful towards very tight-knit families and communities, at the same time also put so much emphasis on race? These are the countries which explicitly by law forbade mixed-race relationships and enforced segregation in everything from housing to schools to hospitals to even banks and post offices. The point is that racism is not a form of individualism, but is a very perverse form of collectivism, because people are judged by their skin colour, ancestry and ethnic affinities rather than by their individual achievements and character. In short, how does this square with what are otherwise highly individualistic cultures?

great points. they also think their system is superior and talk about "freedom" and how they will bring the world "freedom" but are racists

[Peterski]

http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity....ne,%202015.pdf

[Tooting Carmen]

I dont think anglo-saxon countries never was really that "individualistic" though.. maybe libertarian is better word.

Still doesn't square with the collectivism involved in racism.

[Tooting Carmen]

If you believe in some "invisible racism and micro-aggressions", etc., then you are a fool.

I don't. I am talking about the not-too-distant past and its legacy, and the fact that such restriction and laws based on race go against Anglo-Saxon individualism.

[Incal]

Because they are totally introvert and autistic and hence, lack total empathy.

[KMack]

How is it that Anglo-Saxon countries like the USA and South Africa, which at one level put the greatest emphasis on individual liberty, private ownership and profit and are relatively disdainful towards very tight-knit families and communities, at the same time also put so much emphasis on race? These are the countries which explicitly by law forbade mixed-race relationships and enforced segregation in everything from housing to schools to hospitals to even banks and post offices. The point is that racism is not a form of individualism, but is a very perverse form of collectivism, because people are judged by their skin colour, ancestry and ethnic affinities rather than by their individual achievements and character. In short, how does this square with what are otherwise highly individualistic cultures?

Can't speak for S. Africa. USA in many regards all about tight knit families and communities. It is also a transient society in many large metro areas where people job hope and move around. The Media and the non married urban dwellers IMO often resent those that stayed in their hood, married younger had a family. We have a bit of war of words with urban dwellers vs. Suburban Rural dwellers. Much of the "racial" news in the USA is fabricated by the media. As an example cops shooting blacks. 2 times more white people are shot and killed by the police than blacks, in the USA. (some are unarmed bad shootings). Rarely does this ever make the news. News programmers editors have a group think mentality.

USA is a massive melting pot of people who have come from all corners of the planet, and for the most part get along very well. Any race or mixed race person can marry anyone in the USA, been that way for 50 plus years, see Loving Vs. Virginia. (White man Black Women marriage). Any state sponsored segregation is 100% illegal, same for hiring practices.
We even had state sponsored affirmative action hiring that guaranteed some blacks to get hired. Up until post WWll USA was kinda segregated based on country of origin.
Irish, Italians, Germans, Poles, Chinese, Greeks, WASPs, etc., all had their own hoods. In split hoods there would be 2 churches like St. Patricks for the Irish and St. Boniface for the Germans. In the USA we had Chinatown, Little Italy, Greektown, and then later on came Puerto Ricans who had their hoods, not unlike Jamaicans and Dominicans etc.

The explosion of the creation of the Suburbs and Interstate Highway System kinda changed all of that, and people moved to hoods that reflected their class or socio economic position.
Protestant, Jew, Catholic, Baptist all living in the same sub division. BTW most Black Americans live in the Suburbs now out of the inner city, many do not know this.

[Argentano]

There is no such thing as institutionalized racism anymore. There is equality before the law and equality of opportunities. Different average outcomes of various races are due to genetic (and to some extent also cultural) differences between the races - including differences in genotypic intelligence and in heritable traits of character.

so if your ancestors were slaves 150 years ago and segregated (no investment, no positions of power,huge poverty) 50 years ago that doesent have anything to do with todays average outcomes? Do you really believe that?

It seems this people wanted to be able to vote 50 years ago

[XenophobicPrussian]

But you are still missing the point here - emphasising race goes against individualism, as it boxes people into pre-ordained groups with their respective expectations and limitations.

because people back then didn't value social stigmas(hypocrisy, like the one you're trying to point out here) or other non-sense over prosperity and doing what's in their best interests.

[Wadaad]

What do you mean?

he means 'liberty' in America was defined by not being a nigger.