Germans have accepted collective guilt for the Holocaust, and have come to terms with that, even though a minority first voted Hitler into power-and, as a consequence of this collective acknowledgement, popular support for Nazism has been purged from German culture.

In contrast, a large proportion of South African whites tend to equivocate when asked if Apartheid, which was voted for for generations of whites, before they voted it out, was bad (spoiler alert: it was evil, and I'm not going to relitigate why on HN again). The Truth and Reconcilliation Comission allowed for those who committed physical acts of violence to confess their crimes in return for forgiveness, but the broader plunder and evil of apartheid remains unacknowleged by much of white South Africa (and its diaspora), and it means that racism still permeates SA society.

Working class people are hurting all over the world. But the economic pain felt by Germans in Weimar Germany didn't excuse the Holocaust. They were voting for anti-Jewish violence, as much as they were voting for VW Beetles and autobahns. Similarly, the suffering of Boers at the hands of the British didn't excuse Apartheid.

I'm not equating the scale or scope of Trump's actions with the Holocaust or with Apartheid, but I do think that those who chose to vote for him did so with their eyes wide open, and knew what he stood for. Trying to forgive them, or excuse their actions before they acknowledge their own culpability is not healthy for anyone.

Explain how the EO is racist. Blocking a country is not racist. If the EO was "Persians are not allowed in" that'd be different.

And homophobe? A gay man spoke at the RNC to huge applause (even made a comment on how getting upset over transgender bathroom use is pointless).

These kind of careless accusations just make everyone ignore real charges of racism.

Indeed."Muslim" is not a race. Perhaps a better word would be "bigoted" or "discriminatory" not "racist"?

If we are going to be splitting hairs: are Persians a race, or are they an ethnicity?

And of course it's discriminatory! That's sort of, like, the whole point. All the existing immigration policies are discriminatory. That's why I (Canadian) can go basically anywhere, but someone from Central America can't.

So Trump campaigned on a promise to ban Muslims from entering the US. He then instituted a blanket ban on entry from 7 overwhelmingly Muslim countries. Are we splitting hairs again implying that these two things are a coincidence because the wording of the EO happened to avoid a blatantly unconstitutional formulation?

Do people really think Somalia is some kind of Isamic power-player versus Saudi Arabia or the Emirates?

These countries were not picked randomly because they "Muslim". There is a long standing animosity against them. A retired US general in 2007 said: “We’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran...”[1].

And now which countries are banned: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen... that's 6 out of the 7 named above.

Now please do not read this as a defence of the executive order. Whatever its intentions, it was poorly implemented and applied with seemingly no thought to the political fallout or the disruption to peoples' lives. Green card holders in America deserve better than no-notice before being detained at the borders.

However, it seems to me that every one of the countries named is currently embroiled in a civil war or has strong non-governmental forces within its borders----that is the commonality that they share.

[1] http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-count...

I don't follow..a religious minority in a Muslim majority country would by definition not be Muslim. Why is this surprising?

Thus this is actually a worse order than a straight out ban on muslims from these countries would be.

If Trump supporters want to appeal to the left, they shouldn't assume all Hillary supporters are liars, in favor of obstruction of justice, and want to go to war with Russia. Likewise, if you want to appeal to Trump supporters, which is what you'll have to do to get their votes in the next election, you're not going to get very far by calling them racists, homophobes, etc.

Because that's a tough decision to make. You might decide that the media is wrong, you might decide that your kids are the most important thing, or you might decide that principles are worth more. Either way, it's not simple, it's very complicated.

Get rid of your television and replace your cable news subscription with a library card.

If we REALLY want to solve these sorts of problems, we need to:

1. Stop playing team sports with our votes, and be willing to look for the best options in third-party candidates. Sure, we may lose a few elections initially, but if we keep pushing, eventually we'll win. We can never achieve greatness by settling for the "evil of two lessers," as we did on both sides of the political fence last year.

2. Force our elected officials to stick to the checks and balances of the Constitution, and eliminate things like executive orders, which are in place solely to short-circuit Congress.

3. Get new blood in Washington. Stop voting for morons like Orrin Hatch, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Mitch McConnell; or better yet, push for term limits and the elimination of exorbitant retirement benefits for these public servants. We cannot "drain the swamp," as Donald likes to say, until we, as voters, stop defecating into it with our suffrage.

The government is one of the biggest hinderances for minorities, and the Democrats are just as culpable as the Republicans, if not more so. If we're going to fix this issue, we need to fix the corruption in Washington, as well as in our states and local communities.

They used to call Trump also an anti-semite in the same sentence. Now he is down to just a racist and homophobe. Have I missed something?

edit: don't let little things like jewish son-in-law, daughter converting to judaism and inauguration rabbi fool you.

I believe you are operating on a higher level of the Maslow hierarchy of needs than many people if your primary concern is about equality, and not about food, shelter, and a job.

So no, Trump didn't get elected because people desperate for a job were willing to overlook his hate.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/e...

Check out the swings in the race section. If there hadn't been a massive swing towards him from blacks and hispanics, he might not have won.

And despite that Hillary still won the popular vote by 3 million votes. She did pretty well across the board and in an election as close as this one almost any single thing could have flipped the outcome.

> There is no way Hillary or any other democratic candidate could match that.

So, black people vote for a "charismatic" candidate, but when they are left with a mediocre candidate and a candidate that (as is argued) hates them, they decide "Hey, the guy that hates me is better than someone who isn't so charismatic"?

Just look at the graphs here:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trump...

White people elected Trump, minorities rejected him. Fact.

Not necessarily if they also viewed Clinton far less favorably than Obama; support of one party by any group in one election vs. another isn't a sign of absolute support for that party's candidate, it's a sign of relative support of that candidate compared to the alternative.

Tell that to Asian Americans:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U...

Do you want the possibility of a job? Does it matter if your disadvantaged, Muslim, first-generation American friend - or his/her parents - gets the shaft so that you can have a happy home and a job?

Does having a job mean that I have to be careful not to be out in the sun because then I look arab? With good reason, too - my grandmother was first generation american. Her parents were from Syria.

Does having a job mean that my bi-racial niece and nephew have to deal with alt-right led government?

Does it mean that I have to hide the fact that I'm bisexual?

It isn't enough that I have food and shelter. I want others to have the same, otherwise, I'm simply sharing and having less on whatever paltry sum the overlords will pay out. It isn't like there is a real social safety net to rely on.

This could be quite interesting. I'm sure I have picked up on some of this now -I'm an immigrant. My spouse knows all this stuff about me, and I was able to let go of some of the familial baggage. It is really freeing, at least for me.

But I don't know if that would be the case other places. I'm in Norway, and the culture tends to be (publicly) accepting of folks and treating folks as equals. Obviously this has its limits and there are some downsides. Discrimination and racism persist nonetheless. The king, though, puts out inclusive statements and it makes me feel better about being here. I'd love to know if such things were the norm or not - and I'd love to see that data.

I realize that the democratic candidate was less than ideal.