This isn't true. In Denmark, just south of Sweden, organized crime by migrant gangs has far overtaken the native biker gangs in part because the tolerance of the migrant gangs for extreme violence, including of civilians, is much higher. Just as an example, bikers would never use civilians to send a message but this was a tactic employed by "Blågårds Plads" when they went in and started shooting civilians in Christiana. We've also seen a huge spike in rape cases attributable to migrants.
If you look over my post history, I'm resolutely against the new racist politics of our parties but your messaging is wrong on its face. I don't turn the numbers into fuel for further racism, however, unlike my fellow Danes. I blame the government for not having a plan to absorb the migrants they refuge. The Danish state creates the ghettos (which fuels the violence) by concentrating migrants in single neighborhoods. What should be happening is homing migrants evenly over the whole of cities and commiting to educating those people they take in.
But no, I don't think acceptance or tolerance of these egregiously violent actions is the right move. This is a country where women feel safe enough to walk alone at night at 3 am. And that's worth fighting for.
Being of migrant descent isn't the same as being a migrant, not everyone fails to integrate in the society but this is urgently raising problem so far with no solution in sight.
The Langley prototype fell into the Potomac like a sack of wet cement, and cost 20 times in government funding what the Wrights spent on their entire R+D program. Langley clearly had not solved any of the problems necessary for controlled, powered flight.
There's a context implied, but not explicitly stated here.
Being "blind to race" means that the context in which the other person exists is being ignored. Seeing things like race and gender mean that you are keeping context in mind when interacting with people.
Systemic racism isn't necessarily about your personal intent, but it is about the results of your actions. Being blind to race effectively results in supporting the racist status quo. Being blind to sexism effectively results in supporting the sexist status quo.
The current default for American society is white. PoC have a different lived experience, and white people don't often know what it is like to have that lived experience. Similarly, richer people lack an understanding of what poverty implies about the lack of choices.
> Being "blind to race" means that the context in which the other person exists is being ignored.
No, it does not. It means that the colour of their skin is ignored. If a white family has the same socio-economic status as a family of colour, should we treat them differently simply based on colour?
I think you mean we should assume the family of colour is actively discriminated against so they can't be in the same socio-economic group, but at the same time you claim that "systemic racism isn't necessarily about personal intent"...?
> Similarly, richer people lack an understanding of what poverty implies about the lack of choices.
This is probs what you actually want to control for, but it's easier to go for the low-hanging fruit that's also culturally fashionable right now, I get it.
My view is certainly coloured by being a white Eastern European living in Western Europe. Not all white people have the same background, certainly not in Europe. I'm sure there are shades of white in America as well. Point being: colour is only an easy proxy for the real issues that need solving.
Here's my "race-blind" take: give help to the people who need it, in the way that they need it. The implementation can then have a race-driven approach, but the policy is race-free. Or is that not good enough?
A major cultural shift needed in Europe is acceptance, not tolerance.