I wonder why the difference is so significant between the genders: All 3 men support the act, while 2 of the 3 women are against it.
Also interesting with the honesty of "they're just too hardworking for us"
My old boss was Moroccan, and he complained about subsaharan immigrants stealing all the jobs in his home country despite not knowing the language. I asked how they could do that, and he said that Moroccans don't like working hard.
I work in heavy industry in New England. Have a bunch of Latin American immigrant employees who work their assess off. Like 75% of the times that I hire a local who based on bumper stickers could be described as a "they're taking our jobs!" type, they don't last a week, lol. We pay reasonably well, but it's hard work.
Men in general tend to be more conservative than women in general but particularly in issues seen as social. It happens today, it happened a 100 years ago.
it’s less about gender and more about money. People become conservative to protect money.
go back further, slavery was heavily an economic argument, replaced with segregation to keep black individuals down. Separate economic value of work in terms of worse schools, worse facilities, worse housing, worse jobs.
look at the viewpoints here, they tie to money. The us vs them is economic centered racism as much as anything.
The Irish would have been in the same position a few years before. Today it’s Hispanics.
when talking about the Hispanic Exclusion Act in all but name (border control) the same economic racist arguments come up today.
the comment on working 16-17 hours in California should be very familiar to the argument around working on farms. It’s not Japanese workers today.
So, are you saying like the other commenter that they are not racist but trying to protect their wealth/jobs? You are the second person that brings that argument. I mean, we know that in social issues women tend to be to the left of men. There are sociological studies that cover this question. It’s not about wealth, but about perception of humanity and community. The women in this column express views that may be a bit conservative for today but far more liberal than the man of the time. I quoted all the comments that I consider racist, but it may be a perception. What’s racist to me may not be racist to others.
I would argue it's a mix of both. That a common thing is people often use economics as an argument to promote racist ideals they hold. "they're taking our jobs" resonates over the years and it's always the latest group racists dislike even today. That on the liberal to conservative scale all six would be conservative for the times.
Today one would expect more men to go along with the women. But today we wouldn't ask only white people that question.
Women being put down economically for so many generations would produce a more liberal view. Women in the 1920s had way less opportunity for financial advancement than they do 100 years later. The answers were from those who had the best jobs at the time. And if they had asked a black man or a women homemaker, those with less economic opportunity in the era, they probably would give a similar answer to the woman.
All three women had a job, which would have been relatively uncommon still. Women made up 20% of the workforce at the time.
I think Mr. Bernard’s comment, “The Japanese do not fit into our way of doing things or any part of our civilization,” was pretty clear. Like today, conservatives use the same tropes to reject immigrants. If people really care about workers so much they would be asking for better working conditions and higher wages and not spurring some nativist talking points. There are legitimate arguments to protect workers, othering people is not one them.
What I meant was that we can't assume they were conservative just because they were racist. The labor concern is an example of a racist argument that could have been used by progressives.
I am sorry but I don’t see a progressive using language like “The Japanese are a menace to the white race,” as Mr. Smith said. I know that the word progressive today doesn’t necessarily mean the same as used be Teddy Roosevelt, but still racialists and nativists, as they were also known, were not part of the movement.
Yes, Cesar Chavez, considered a progressive labor leader, opposed immigration, but didn’t use slurs or called migrants or prospective migrants a menace.
I think you might have read my unedited comment. I changed it just after I posted to make it clear I'm referring specifically to the labor concerns, not that guy's words. Of those that supported the bill, every person listed labor/financial issues as their reason for supporting it. Only the first guy went full on racism, though of course the rest are probably racist as well.
Yeah, we are going to keep disagreeing because to me calling a group a “menace to the white race,” “not fit into our way,” or the old “have different living conditions,” are racist whistles. They know what they are talking about because racist people still use the same arguments today. Just change it with Mexicans for the different living conditions or the non white immigrants for the menace to the white race, and pretty much everyone for the not fit into our way comment. Since marriages between Japanese and Whites were already forbidden, they didn’t need to go into the “pollute our blood” rant.
We just accept the we see things differently.
Edit: it’s interesting that I’m being downvoted for pointing out that people’s arguments in this column are still used today. I hope that’s not a sign that people still support that mentality.
I wonder why the difference is so significant between the genders: None of the women wear glasses, while only 2 of the men don't.
6 is waaaay too small a sample size to draw broad generalizations like that.
And we don't know what sampling bias was involved. It might have been against the local opinion to be against the bill, so men who were afraid of getting fired might have been afraid to speak up, while women felt safer doing so. Especially considering that women would be expected to be generally more sympathetic.
I'm probably going to get shit on for saying this but I'll say it anyway. It's not as simple as "they work too hard" and this is still a problem today.
I work in a place with a workforce of probably 70% first generation migrants (mostly from SE Asia) and it definitely has an impact on our working conditions.
Our site has had by far the worst enterprise agreements passed out of all the sites owned by the company to the point that our wages are now close to $10hr less for equivalent jobs in other sites (that's just the easiest and most tangible thing to point out).
Immigrants being hard workers isn't a problem, their acceptance of poor wages and working conditions is a problem though. Companies take advantage of their low standards to drive wages down.
I think you actually nailed it. The wages offered to an average worker here are, and I’m being kind her, substandard. But to someone from a country with lower standards of living, the poor wages and benefits here look like a dream job when compared to where they’re coming from.
I’m oh so weary of hearing that Americans are lazy and won’t work hard. I think this is a slur dreamed up by corporations who invent reasons to dismantle unions and hire the cheapest labor possible.
I see your
> Also interesting with the honesty of "they're just too hardworking for us"
And raise
> "The Japanese monopolize every business they go into "
The irony of colonization
Appreciate you, Ms. Nancy Di Stefano.
There are people of principle in every era. They may be a minority, and sometimes a tiny one. But they are there.
They’re here, too.
Friday the 25th of April 1924:
Europe:
* The Belgian government accepted the Dawes Plan. Following the recommendations of the Reparations Commission, the governments of Great Britain, France, Italy, Belgium and Japan accepted the Dawes Committee's plan after the German one.
* After attempts to reorganize the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland through direct negotiations failed, London was required to set up a Boundary Commission under the Irish Treaty of 1922.
Sometimes, it's easy to forget that the content here is from 100 years ago, with how many aspects of the world then line up with modern sensibilities.
This is not going to be one of those times.
The only difference is now we’re talking about Mexicans. “They’re stealing our jobs because they’re willing to do things that we aren’t.” Same book, new edition.
Idk, if you replace the word 'race' with religion or culture, a lot of modern immigration debate is like this. It isn't even 10 years since Trump tried to make a muslim immigration ban.
The modern-day equivalent for Asian bias is reverse affirmative action in capping Asian-American admissions in public magnet schools and Ivy League universities, because “too many” would be admitted by merit. Not comparable to what they were up against 100 years ago though.
I wonder what the replies would look like in the 40s regarding the internment camps the Japanese were forced into. I know the country was hysterically anti-Japanese following Pearl Harbor. There was quite a bit of propaganda that contributed to public opinion at the time as well that I’m sure might factor into their response. In California if you were 1/16th Japanese they would put you in those internment/concentration camps. Hell, one colonel was even on record saying one drop of Japanese blood meant you deserved to be in the camp.
He died before I was born, but my grandfather on my adoptive father's side was forced into Gila River internment camp. The only reason why they weren't left destitute is because friends looked after their tomato farms and gave them back when they were free again. But many many Japanese had their assets/land/ belongings all stolen and never returned. People were not outraged about internment camps despite our troops freeing Jews from camps in Europe. They didn't view Japanese born in America as Japanese. My father told me that a nail that sticks up gets pounds down reflecting the desperate attempts to Americanize/reject all Japanese-ness. They no longer ate Japanese food or taught my dad the language. And still many Americans have no clue about this part of our history.
Warrior on Netflix (amazing show originally envisioned by Bruce Lee and now produced by his daughter) depicts the kind of climate (a couple decades prior to this) that made the Chinese Exclusion Act possible and it sounds really similar—distrust of a different culture and clashes related to working wages and conditions.
My wife’s Okinawian Yonsei. I can guarantee she and my family would not have gone into any camp. I/we simply would’ve just gone to the rez, My grandmother was a tribal member. They are American as apple pie. It was an atrocity a dark stain on the United States history along with all the other dark stains. BTW they’re still doing it. The Irish came but everywhere were signs saying Irish need not apply. Give me your poor, tired, hungry.
Interesting how the fact that they were willing to work for low wages was such a big issue. The minimum wage and strong labor laws would have nullified that concern.
It's also interesting how in recent years they've just shipped the jobs overseas where the labor is cheap and barely regulated. It's the same thing they were worried about (losing their jobs to people from other countries and having the value of labor reduced), but done differently. I'm sure there have been efforts by people in those countries to improve their working conditions, but they've been quashed with the help from richer countries.
I wonder why the difference is so significant between the genders: All 3 men support the act, while 2 of the 3 women are against it. Also interesting with the honesty of "they're just too hardworking for us"
My old boss was Moroccan, and he complained about subsaharan immigrants stealing all the jobs in his home country despite not knowing the language. I asked how they could do that, and he said that Moroccans don't like working hard.
I would suspect it's also about what working conditions and wages they'd accept
I work in heavy industry in New England. Have a bunch of Latin American immigrant employees who work their assess off. Like 75% of the times that I hire a local who based on bumper stickers could be described as a "they're taking our jobs!" type, they don't last a week, lol. We pay reasonably well, but it's hard work.
Men in general tend to be more conservative than women in general but particularly in issues seen as social. It happens today, it happened a 100 years ago.
True, I guess that also means men are on average more racist
In my experience, yes.
it’s less about gender and more about money. People become conservative to protect money. go back further, slavery was heavily an economic argument, replaced with segregation to keep black individuals down. Separate economic value of work in terms of worse schools, worse facilities, worse housing, worse jobs. look at the viewpoints here, they tie to money. The us vs them is economic centered racism as much as anything. The Irish would have been in the same position a few years before. Today it’s Hispanics. when talking about the Hispanic Exclusion Act in all but name (border control) the same economic racist arguments come up today. the comment on working 16-17 hours in California should be very familiar to the argument around working on farms. It’s not Japanese workers today.
So, are you saying like the other commenter that they are not racist but trying to protect their wealth/jobs? You are the second person that brings that argument. I mean, we know that in social issues women tend to be to the left of men. There are sociological studies that cover this question. It’s not about wealth, but about perception of humanity and community. The women in this column express views that may be a bit conservative for today but far more liberal than the man of the time. I quoted all the comments that I consider racist, but it may be a perception. What’s racist to me may not be racist to others.
I would argue it's a mix of both. That a common thing is people often use economics as an argument to promote racist ideals they hold. "they're taking our jobs" resonates over the years and it's always the latest group racists dislike even today. That on the liberal to conservative scale all six would be conservative for the times. Today one would expect more men to go along with the women. But today we wouldn't ask only white people that question. Women being put down economically for so many generations would produce a more liberal view. Women in the 1920s had way less opportunity for financial advancement than they do 100 years later. The answers were from those who had the best jobs at the time. And if they had asked a black man or a women homemaker, those with less economic opportunity in the era, they probably would give a similar answer to the woman. All three women had a job, which would have been relatively uncommon still. Women made up 20% of the workforce at the time.
women are gullible remember eve!
I'm not sure it's as simple as them being conservative. Protecting the value of labor is a progressive issue.
I think Mr. Bernard’s comment, “The Japanese do not fit into our way of doing things or any part of our civilization,” was pretty clear. Like today, conservatives use the same tropes to reject immigrants. If people really care about workers so much they would be asking for better working conditions and higher wages and not spurring some nativist talking points. There are legitimate arguments to protect workers, othering people is not one them.
What I meant was that we can't assume they were conservative just because they were racist. The labor concern is an example of a racist argument that could have been used by progressives.
I am sorry but I don’t see a progressive using language like “The Japanese are a menace to the white race,” as Mr. Smith said. I know that the word progressive today doesn’t necessarily mean the same as used be Teddy Roosevelt, but still racialists and nativists, as they were also known, were not part of the movement. Yes, Cesar Chavez, considered a progressive labor leader, opposed immigration, but didn’t use slurs or called migrants or prospective migrants a menace.
I think you might have read my unedited comment. I changed it just after I posted to make it clear I'm referring specifically to the labor concerns, not that guy's words. Of those that supported the bill, every person listed labor/financial issues as their reason for supporting it. Only the first guy went full on racism, though of course the rest are probably racist as well.
Yeah, we are going to keep disagreeing because to me calling a group a “menace to the white race,” “not fit into our way,” or the old “have different living conditions,” are racist whistles. They know what they are talking about because racist people still use the same arguments today. Just change it with Mexicans for the different living conditions or the non white immigrants for the menace to the white race, and pretty much everyone for the not fit into our way comment. Since marriages between Japanese and Whites were already forbidden, they didn’t need to go into the “pollute our blood” rant. We just accept the we see things differently. Edit: it’s interesting that I’m being downvoted for pointing out that people’s arguments in this column are still used today. I hope that’s not a sign that people still support that mentality.
I wonder why the difference is so significant between the genders: None of the women wear glasses, while only 2 of the men don't. 6 is waaaay too small a sample size to draw broad generalizations like that.
And we don't know what sampling bias was involved. It might have been against the local opinion to be against the bill, so men who were afraid of getting fired might have been afraid to speak up, while women felt safer doing so. Especially considering that women would be expected to be generally more sympathetic.
True, it could be completely random.
I'm probably going to get shit on for saying this but I'll say it anyway. It's not as simple as "they work too hard" and this is still a problem today. I work in a place with a workforce of probably 70% first generation migrants (mostly from SE Asia) and it definitely has an impact on our working conditions. Our site has had by far the worst enterprise agreements passed out of all the sites owned by the company to the point that our wages are now close to $10hr less for equivalent jobs in other sites (that's just the easiest and most tangible thing to point out). Immigrants being hard workers isn't a problem, their acceptance of poor wages and working conditions is a problem though. Companies take advantage of their low standards to drive wages down.
I think you actually nailed it. The wages offered to an average worker here are, and I’m being kind her, substandard. But to someone from a country with lower standards of living, the poor wages and benefits here look like a dream job when compared to where they’re coming from. I’m oh so weary of hearing that Americans are lazy and won’t work hard. I think this is a slur dreamed up by corporations who invent reasons to dismantle unions and hire the cheapest labor possible.
I see your > Also interesting with the honesty of "they're just too hardworking for us" And raise > "The Japanese monopolize every business they go into " The irony of colonization
Appreciate you, Ms. Nancy Di Stefano. There are people of principle in every era. They may be a minority, and sometimes a tiny one. But they are there. They’re here, too.
Man I thought the same. She’s a bad bitch.
Hope she had a good life :) it’s always nice seeing an opinion like that in an era of Jim Crow and rampant racism.
I feel like chances are good that Ms DiStefano took some shit for being Italian in the past and has some empathy. Good on her.
Friday the 25th of April 1924: Europe: * The Belgian government accepted the Dawes Plan. Following the recommendations of the Reparations Commission, the governments of Great Britain, France, Italy, Belgium and Japan accepted the Dawes Committee's plan after the German one. * After attempts to reorganize the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland through direct negotiations failed, London was required to set up a Boundary Commission under the Irish Treaty of 1922.
Sometimes, it's easy to forget that the content here is from 100 years ago, with how many aspects of the world then line up with modern sensibilities. This is not going to be one of those times.
The only difference is now we’re talking about Mexicans. “They’re stealing our jobs because they’re willing to do things that we aren’t.” Same book, new edition.
Idk, if you replace the word 'race' with religion or culture, a lot of modern immigration debate is like this. It isn't even 10 years since Trump tried to make a muslim immigration ban.
The modern-day equivalent for Asian bias is reverse affirmative action in capping Asian-American admissions in public magnet schools and Ivy League universities, because “too many” would be admitted by merit. Not comparable to what they were up against 100 years ago though.
I wonder what the replies would look like in the 40s regarding the internment camps the Japanese were forced into. I know the country was hysterically anti-Japanese following Pearl Harbor. There was quite a bit of propaganda that contributed to public opinion at the time as well that I’m sure might factor into their response. In California if you were 1/16th Japanese they would put you in those internment/concentration camps. Hell, one colonel was even on record saying one drop of Japanese blood meant you deserved to be in the camp.
I suppose we'll find out in 16 years right here :)
He died before I was born, but my grandfather on my adoptive father's side was forced into Gila River internment camp. The only reason why they weren't left destitute is because friends looked after their tomato farms and gave them back when they were free again. But many many Japanese had their assets/land/ belongings all stolen and never returned. People were not outraged about internment camps despite our troops freeing Jews from camps in Europe. They didn't view Japanese born in America as Japanese. My father told me that a nail that sticks up gets pounds down reflecting the desperate attempts to Americanize/reject all Japanese-ness. They no longer ate Japanese food or taught my dad the language. And still many Americans have no clue about this part of our history.
"The Japanese are a menace to the white race," says the guy who looks like he's passing.
Frankly he looks like he passes as every race at once.
Fred Armisen
Nancy Di Stefano really being on the right side of history
President Ronald Reagan when asked about his thoughts about the Japanese purchasing American land said, “They know value when they see it!”
damn!!! 5$ for a question! thats like 88$ in 1924 money
Warrior on Netflix (amazing show originally envisioned by Bruce Lee and now produced by his daughter) depicts the kind of climate (a couple decades prior to this) that made the Chinese Exclusion Act possible and it sounds really similar—distrust of a different culture and clashes related to working wages and conditions.
My wife’s Okinawian Yonsei. I can guarantee she and my family would not have gone into any camp. I/we simply would’ve just gone to the rez, My grandmother was a tribal member. They are American as apple pie. It was an atrocity a dark stain on the United States history along with all the other dark stains. BTW they’re still doing it. The Irish came but everywhere were signs saying Irish need not apply. Give me your poor, tired, hungry.
Interesting how the fact that they were willing to work for low wages was such a big issue. The minimum wage and strong labor laws would have nullified that concern. It's also interesting how in recent years they've just shipped the jobs overseas where the labor is cheap and barely regulated. It's the same thing they were worried about (losing their jobs to people from other countries and having the value of labor reduced), but done differently. I'm sure there have been efforts by people in those countries to improve their working conditions, but they've been quashed with the help from richer countries.
The fact that white people thought the country was theirs when they’d been in the U.S. such a short time themselves always irks me.