> Google is doing this to stand in support against violent acts that have targeted the Asian community, and COVID-related business closures over the last couple of years.
Doesn't labelling businesses as Asian-owned make it easier for the attackers to target them in the future?
If you look at FBI data it’s not a widespread problem. But I guess instilling fear and then offering comfort sells. I see the “stop hate” in places where there is the least likelihood people would be attacked, you know richer suburban areas with very little crime…
Burglars, on the other hand, are known to do their research while picking their targets. They use chalks to draw symbols to mark houses that are easy to break into (eg symbols to mark the owner is elderly, woman, nobody at day time etc)
What is "Asian"? Growing up as a Pakistani kid in the US, people would always say how I'm not really Asian. To them, only people from east or south-east Asia counted under that label. Any census-style questions still had me marking as Asian, but there was always a bit of dissonance there.
I can maybe see the desire/appeal for a label that means "all Asians except those from the Indian subcontinent, middle-east, or central Asia", but it's always been curious to me that society in America just adopted the word "Asian" for that purpose while excluding so much of "Asia" from falling under that label.
Who are these people who think having enough parking spaces is a bad thing?
The closest I can think of are people who think parking minimum regulations should be removed, so that stores and house owners can decide for themselves how much parking they want to put in; certainly a far step different from not wanting an adequate number of parking spaces.
I've been to places where it's been $30 to park in a garage that was a 10-minute walk from where I needed to go (and I walk fast). This seems like a clear example of "not enough parking". This city had a parking minimum which was already only barely being met, so removing it would have made this already bad situation way worse.
White supremacists burned that bridge (or cross) long ago. The idea of being "proud" to be white only conjures up one thought for even the most lightly informed about our nation's history.
Usually, the point of identifying minority owned business is to allow people to perhaps help make up for historical (or even modern) oppression and help people from those groups overcome systemic issues that have likely made success more difficult for them. White people as a group have not been systemically oppressed.
I think it's pretty ugly to get a head start in a race and then feign harm when anyone tries to boost up the people that got held up at the starting line so they can at least get within range of those that got the headstart.
> I think it's pretty ugly to get a head start in a race and then feign harm when anyone tries to boost up the people that got held up at the starting line so they can at least get within range of those that got the headstart.
A gold star for your effort Jjeaff, but I'm still about 110% convinced that holding any group of people back for the sins of others is racist and morally wrong, not effective, counterproductive, and certainly no longer necessary.
Why should I care what white-supremacists (other people who happen to have a similar skin color to mine) think? I have nothing of any substance in common with them.
> The idea of being "proud" to be white only conjures up one thought for even the most lightly informed about our nation's history.
Twice defending Vienna from Ottoman sieges? Retaking Spain from the Moors? The failed last stand at Constantinople before the city, and Byzantium itself, fell to Muslim conquerors? Ending the Barbary slave trade, that raided Europe for centuries, kidnapping two million slaves into the Muslim world? Holding off the Mongol invasion? Or maybe you mean inventing antibiotics and the tractor? Or germ theory and the transistor?
Of course you're right. The trans-Atlantic slave trade (ignore the Arab trans-Saharan slave trade) is the only thing "white pride" conjures up. The propaganda has been incredibly effective, erasing all white history from the public mind except that which can be used to shame them.
> White people as a group have not been systemically oppressed.
Yes, all the barely or not-at-all held-off invasions I listed aren't oppression. Nor was the blood tax much of eastern Europe had to pay the Ottomans [1], nor the Pontic genocide [2]. It was always all sunshine and rainbows for the white man, that has never faced an external threat in all of Europe's history.
You could say this is the founding ideal of the US ("founding" since 1903, when The New Colossus Poem was mounted on the Statue of Liberty). All the battles for freedom and survival are reduced to "storied pomp", and the Colossus of Rhodes, built to celebrate the defence of that city, is re-interpreted as an ode to violent conquest, "With conquering limbs astride from land to land;". Your country has asked you to believe that Europeans and European-Americans never faced an external threat, never had to fight for survival, never lost such a battle, and never contributed anything to the world but violent conquest.
And you obliged whole-heartedly obliged, because you are a good person.
Obviously talking about white Americans, not Europeans. White Americans have never been systemically oppressed. Your reaction to the OP is a textbook case of white fragility [0].
White Americans are descended from Europeans, and the post was talking about being proud to be white, not "white American". Though I don't see why oppression is a requirement for pride - does achievement not suffice?
And "white fragility" is simply a way to dismiss objections without addressing if they are factual. So in that sense, your use of the term is correct. Any resistance is "white fragility", and the only way to avoid that accusation is to submit to and agree with every attack against whites.
maybe it would be easier for them to consolidate everything under "minority owned" and then let me filter them out of my search results, that would be progressive right?
Is a Shawarma shop asian because the middle east is in asia. How about Afghan food, it is solidly central asia. Is sri lankan asian how about indonesian or malay? Indian?
I mean I think all these are asian it would just feel inappropriate if this ended up with only east asian places labeled as asian. Why not just use the country's name? I hope Googlers know "asian" isn't a race outside of "social construct" regional similarities in cuisine hower exist so maybe southeast-asian but I would prefer to know what country. Are they serving kimchi for sure or nah??
You can't think of a reason? For example: You bring your friend there, they are from that country, they try their language, it doesn't work, embarrassing moment for everybody.
Doesn't labelling businesses as Asian-owned make it easier for the attackers to target them in the future?