Support NeoGAF

[B-Dubs]

I'm fairly sure this is empirically untrue. The World Values Survey records consistent differences in attitudes towards race and racism across different countries; there's no standard level of racism every society adheres to.

And the rise of the racist right wing and hatred of Roma in Europe is what exactly?

Seriously, every time GAF has a Roma thread European posters get banned by the truckload.

Edit: and you misread my post. They appear to be less racist because it's not an issue they always deal with like we do in the US. Black footballer get called monkies on the regular in Europe.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

And the rise of the racist right wing and hatred of Roma in Europe is what exactly?

Seriously, every time GAF has a Roma thread European posters get banned by the truckload.

Edit: and you misread my post. They appear to be less racist because it's not an issue they always deal with like we do in the US. Black footballer get called monkies on the regular in Europe.

This is now becoming a rather poor response on your behalf. Firstly, I'm not even necessarily talking about Europe. Could be Canada, for example, which typically records much better scores than the US in racial tolerance surveys. Secondly, even if I was talking about some European countries, the comparison would be to specific European countries, such as the United Kingdom (which again performs rather better than the United States), rather than comparing the United States to the entirety of Europe, a collection of 51 highly heterogeneous societies, some of which are indeed far more racist than the United States. This isn't intended to be a US vs Europe dickwaving contest, I have little interest in that. Thirdly, most Western European far right parties are not particularly distinguishable from Trump in terms of policy stance. Marine le Pen's policies are probably actually slightly more moderate than Trump's, for example.

But fine, suppose I accept your highly dubious assertion that all societies are equally racist and there's nothing we can do about this. Where does this leave us with respect to low-income white Trump voters who are voting on account of racism? Do we simply exclude them from the political process in perpetuity?

 

[B-Dubs]

This is now becoming a rather poor response on your behalf. Firstly, I'm not even necessarily talking about Europe. Could be Canada, for example, which typically records much better scores than the US in racial tolerance surveys. Secondly, even if I was talking about some European countries, the comparison would be to specific European countries, such as the United Kingdom (which again performs rather better than the United States), rather than comparing the United States to the entirety of Europe, a collection of 51 highly heterogeneous societies.

But fine, suppose I accept your highly dubious assertion that all societies are equally racist and there's nothing we can do about this. Where does this leave us with respect to low-income white Trump voters who are voting on account of racism? Do we simply exclude them from the political process in perpetuity?

I'm not saying they're all equally racist, I'm saying that the US isn't necessarily more racist than other countries.

 

[Y2Kev]

I think Sanders' appeal with white men in the middle class was that he spoke to people who felt marginalized economically-- their livelihoods were being exported by coastal elites and their towns and cities were neglected as corporate America did better and better. Trump, on the other hand, attracted people who felt they were being marginalized because black people and Messicans were coming into power.

Trump's base had a higher median income than Sanders' did, and even Clinton's! Let's just call it for what it is-- Trump's base was a bunch of racists and people who don't like being told they need to stop behaving like pigs. Period.

He has no other appeal. Nothing he said or proposed even approached coherent.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I think Sanders' appeal with white men in the middle class was that he spoke to people who felt marginalized economically-- their livelihoods were being exported by coastal elites and their towns and cities were neglected as corporate America did better and better. Trump, on the other hand, attracted people who felt they were being marginalized because black people and Messicans were coming into power.

Trump's base had a higher median income than Sanders' did, and even Clinton's! Let's just call it for what it is-- Trump's base was a bunch of racists and people who don't like being told they need to stop behaving like pigs. Period.

He has no other appeal. Nothing he said or proposed even approached coherent.

What do we do about this, then? He did just win the primary nomination of one of the great American political organizations. It's not particularly strange to suppose that a Trump-like candidate would be expected to win again; this was probably not just a single aberration.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm not saying they're all equally racist, I'm saying that the US isn't necessarily more racist than other countries.

Well, no, obviously not. That was never what I was saying. It is, however, rather more racist than at least some countries. Does that give us some sort of idea as to the policies we ought to pursue?

 

[Y2Kev]

So I actually typed up and then deleted a response. It was basically saying how I'd spend a ton of money on education to get these people functional job training in better positions, but I realized saying education is the key ignores the racial dimension.

I have no idea. People are scared and some people blame Messicans. Others blame trade. Others blame both.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I think Sanders' appeal with white men in the middle class was that he spoke to people who felt marginalized economically-- their livelihoods were being exported by coastal elites and their towns and cities were neglected as corporate America did better and better. Trump, on the other hand, attracted people who felt they were being marginalized because black people and Messicans were coming into power.

Trump's base had a higher median income than Sanders' did, and even Clinton's! Let's just call it for what it is-- Trump's base was a bunch of racists and people who don't like being told they need to stop behaving like pigs. Period.

He has no other appeal. Nothing he said or proposed even approached coherent.

The thing is, I also don't think this is true, on reflection. Suppose any given person is equally likely to be racist. Well, if racism was the motivating factor behind Trump's success, and any given person is equally likely to be racist, Trump ought not to have had any specific demographic concentration at all. That's not the case. He did much better among those with low-incomes and those without college degrees compared to other Republicans. If we're saying that racism is the sole motivating factor behind voting Trump, that therefore means there is some correlation between racism and not having a college degree or having low income (as an example). Does that give us some clue as to how to combat racism in America?

Not to mention: Trump-like candidates have run before (e.g. Buchanan) and did not win the nomination. Does that mean America has become more racist? That people are more strongly motivated by racism?

 

[Y2Kev]

I don't agree that any given person is equally likely to be racist. I think people who are less educated, travel less, and interact less with people of color are more likely to be racist. So yeah, I think there's a correlation between racism and not having a college degree or being poor (and resenting people "takin ur jerb").

So you'd think the solution is just to educate everyone and get them to talk to some black people. I don't know if black people would agree or disagree that's the way to fix it though. I'd be interested to see what people think.

I think there was a study or a poll or something that came out this year that showed the most racist communities were those where there were no minorities.

edit: I think Buchanan basically made it acceptable in the party to be outwardly racist. His speech at the convention in particular damaged the Republican party severely. That party is angry and the climate worked. If it were Trump vs. Rubio vs. Cruz from the outset, Trump wouldn't have won. He benefitted from the damage the tea party did over the last six years, the divided field, and the republican elites being utterly incompetent.

 

[User 463088]

So I actually typed up and then deleted a response. It was basically saying how I'd spend a ton of money on education to get these people functional job training in better positions, but I realized saying education is the key ignores the racial dimension.

I have no idea. People are scared and some people blame Messicans. Others blame trade. Others blame both.

I think you're on the right path, really.

We continue to push education, training and rebuilding the economy. We work to transition people from the jobs that aren't coming back to the jobs of the future. If certain working class whites get pissed that the benefits also go to the icky brown people, that's their issue. We are not on the losing side of this argument morally, intellectually or demographically.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I don't agree that any given person is equally likely to be racist. I think people who are less educated, travel less, and interact less with people of color are more likely to be racist.

I agree. Does this mean that someone most concerned with eliminating racism in America ought to vote for the policy bundle which offers the most extensive support for education and economic mobility/economic reforms such as minimum wage increases?

 

[royalan]

So I actually typed up and then deleted a response. It was basically saying how I'd spend a ton of money on education to get these people functional job training in better positions, but I realized saying education is the key ignores the racial dimension.

I have no idea. People are scared and some people blame Messicans. Others blame trade. Others blame both.

This is currently where I am.

The policies the Democrats push aren't the issue; they substantially do more to benefit the less well-off, and if that was all there was to it we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Every "What can the left do to appeal more to the white working class?" argument I've read seems to boil down to playing up social/fiscal services and policies without giving off the impression that creating a level playing field for underrepresented groups is also on the agenda...which, no.

 

[Y2Kev]

I agree. Does this mean that someone most concerned with eliminating racism in America ought to vote for the policy bundle which offers the most extensive support for education and economic mobility/economic reform?

Ceteris paribus, probably. But like I said, I'm white and would like to know if black people / Latinos / Asians felt that way as well. I suspect there is a lot of distrust. The idea that the government needs to spend a lot of money furthering the lot of poor white people after minorities in this country have been shafted for decades so that minorities can be better off in the end I suspect would create some skepticism.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Racism in America is probably in part caused by the fact that America has extreme segregation.

Newly released census data, analysed by the Brookings Institution, shows black-white segregation is modestly declining in large cities, but it remains high. If zero is a measure for perfect integration and 100 is complete segregation, analysis from Brookings showed most of the country's largest metropolitan areas have segregation levels of between 50 to 70.

According to the Brookings report, "more than half of blacks would need to move to achieve complete integration".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35255835

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Ceteris paribus, probably. But like I said, I'm white and would like to know if black people / Latinos / Asians felt that way as well. I suspect there is a lot of distrust. The idea that the government needs to spend a lot of money furthering the lot of poor white people after minorities in this country have been shafted for decades so that minorities can be better off in the end I suspect would create some skepticism.

These government policies wouldn't target poor white people, though. They'd target poor people full stop, which is something that impacts minorities more given minorities are more frequently poor. You therefore achieve two benefits: the immediate amelioration of the condition of minorities by offering greater economic security, and the longer term erosion of racism as economically insecure and less-educated white communities become more secure and better educated. What solution would be better than this?

 

[Wilsongt]

Low-in come Americans like Trump because they think he offers real change and tells it like it is. They know their fucked and that only the lazy and minorities get helped by the democrats.

From talking to a few of them in my workplace and my area, that's what I have gathered why they like Trump...or they hate Hillary because she is a crook and a liar and you can't trust her.

Low income, white Americans are also racist and xenophobic as fuck, which is also why they like Dump.

 

[Y2Kev]

These government policies wouldn't target poor white people, though. They'd target poor people full stop, which is something that impacts minorities more given minorities are more frequently poor. You therefore achieve two benefits: the immediate amelioration of the condition of minorities by offering greater economic security, and the longer term erosion of racism as economically insecure and less-educated white communities become more secure and better educated. What solution would be better than this?

That doesn't work, I think, because racist poor whites think minorities are "takers." We know that poor whites are the largest recipient of government support, but that has not resulted in the attitudes towards government support you'd think that would create.

I dunno. I have no idea.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That doesn't work, I think, because racist poor whites think minorities are "takers." We know that poor whites are the largest recipient of government support, but that has not resulted in the attitudes towards government support you'd think that would create.

I dunno. I have no idea.

Why do you think the Sanders campaign attracted more support than the Clinton campaign amongst poorer whites, despite offering a more significant/generous welfare system? That doesn't fit with your analysis that poorer whites, perceiving minorities as "takers", prefer policy bundles with less generous welfare provision.

 

[User 463088]

These government policies wouldn't target poor white people, though. They'd target poor people full stop, which is something that impacts minorities more given minorities are more frequently poor. You therefore achieve two benefits: the immediate amelioration of the condition of minorities by offering greater economic security, and the longer term erosion of racism as economically insecure and less-educated white communities become more secure and better educated. What solution would be better than this?

The problem is a lot poor white people don't think they're poor in the governmental sense. To them, "poor" is code for African American, Latino, or lazy. (Or a combination of the above). Your explanation poses the problem with this viewpoint--these policies would be perceived as helping minorities more than whites.

You're also simplifying the views that a lot of poor whites have, i think.

 

[Y2Kev]

Why do you think the Sanders campaign attracted more support than the Clinton campaign amongst poorer whites, despite offering a more significant/generous welfare system? That doesn't fit with your analysis that poorer whites, perceiving minorities as "takers", prefer policy bundles with less generous welfare provision.

I thought Clinton actually attracted the poorest of the poor and then Sanders had the middle class.

I could be wrong here, but I thought I read something that said she won every income class.

here: http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/how-clinton-won/

 

[B-Dubs]

I thought Clinton actually attracted the poorest of the poor and then Sanders had the middle class.

That's what the exits said.

 

[pigeon]

These government policies wouldn't target poor white people, though. They'd target poor people full stop, which is something that impacts minorities more given minorities are more frequently poor. You therefore achieve two benefits: the immediate amelioration of the condition of minorities by offering greater economic security, and the longer term erosion of racism as economically insecure and less-educated white communities become more secure and better educated. What solution would be better than this?

They probably wouldn't, though, because these policies would be designed and implemented by racists, and we already know that when that happens the policies don't benefit minorities to anywhere near a proportional degree.

I feel like, by your argument, I would rather focus on voting for politicians who are willing to directly ameliorate the short-term effects of racism. If you are right and racism varies mostly with education and economic opportunity, then in the long term, as GDP and productivity continue to increase, people will all stop being racist without us having to do anything about it. (Another way to put this is "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." My way is pithier, though.)

 

[shinra-bansho]

I thought Clinton actually attracted the poorest of the poor and then Sanders had the middle class.

I think she attracted the poorest of the poor, because they're minorities often. But maybe not poor whites. Although, this is just off memory of exits.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I thought Clinton actually attracted the poorest of the poor and then Sanders had the middle class.

I could be wrong here, but I thought I read something that said she won every income class.

here: http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/how-clinton-won/

That's because Clinton had overwhelming minority support and minorities are poor. I'm fairly sure Sanders won low-income whites, hence his victories in states like West Virginia; I'll try and find the source.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

"We'll reduce racism with a better economy" sounds like a really dumb Socialist idea considering that the economy in the 1960s was pretty fucking great.

Only one paper even studied this and it was a bullshit experimental psychology paper.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Source here: http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/_memos/tds_SM_Levison_Trump_not_winning_vf.pdf

for three states at least (Michigan, Illinois, Ohio).

 

[Y2Kev]

That does sound intuitive to me (that he won poor whites).

 

[B-Dubs]

That's because Clinton had overwhelming minority support and minorities are poor. I'm fairly sure Sanders won low-income whites, hence his victories in states like West Virginia; I'll try and find the source.

West Virginia isn't a good example to use FYI.

 

[shinra-bansho]

West Virginia is really not a good example to use, given the amount of GOP general election and/or racist hate Obama voters in the mix.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

"We'll reduce racism with a better economy" sounds like a really dumb Socialist idea considering that the economy in the 1960s was pretty fucking great.

Only one paper even studied this and it was a bullshit experimental psychology paper.

But racism was receding in the 1960s. This is the same decade that the Civil Rights Act was passed in. There's obviously not some magical on/off switch; a good economy doesn't make racism disappear overnight. However, sustained egalitarian periods seem to be associated with declining racism; conversely, sustained disegalitarian periods with increasing racism.

But okay, suppose this isn't true. Why is low income or reporting having low economic security correlated with voting for a racist candidate?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That does sound intuitive to me (that he won poor whites).

Alright, so why might this be the case? Again, to return to the point, it doesn't fit your analysis that poor whites are unwilling to vote for generous welfare schemes because of the perception of minorities as "takers".

West Virginia is really not a good example to use, given the amount of GOP general election and/or racist hate Obama voters in the mix.

Fortunately I found a source examining other states that were not West Virginia.

 

[pigeon]

But racism was receding in the 1960s. This is the same decade that the Civil Rights Act was passed in. There's obviously not some magical on/off switch; a good economy doesn't make racism disappear overnight. However, sustained egalitarian periods seem to be associated with declining racism; conversely, sustained disegalitarian periods with increasing racism.

But okay, suppose this isn't true. Why is low income or reporting having low economic security correlated with voting for a racist candidate?

Wait, we already know why this is in America. Both are correlated with being in the South.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Wait, we already know why this is in America. Both are correlated with being in the South.

Okay, but this is a sufficiently strong correlation that it seems very probable there are causal chains at work here. Is it lives in {South -> low income -> more likely to be racist}, or is it {lives in South -> more likely to be racist} and {lives in South -> low income} but {low income -/-> more likely to be racist}? If the latter, what do we do about the South?

 

[Y2Kev]

Alright, so why might this be the case? Again, to return to the point, it doesn't fit your analysis that poor whites are unwilling to vote for generous welfare schemes because of the perception of minorities as "takers".



Fortunately I found a source examining other states that were not West Virginia.

Well, like I said, "all else being equal" and I think there are too many things not equal to really figure out why people vote the way they vote. I have said at least three times that I have no idea how to fix this, but I'd be interested in hearing what minorities think.

 

[shinra-bansho]

The exits I'm finding really only have race x education, not race x income, although the two are very likely to be related.

Ohio she won all race and education groups.
Illinois she lost both white college and non-college.
Michigan she lost both.

 

[Y2Kev]

DAMN YOU MICHIGAN

Cut all funding to Michigan. Oh wait. There's already no funding going to Michigan.

 

[Teggy]

There is so much history in the black/white segregation that I don't think simply making the economics better for everyone is going to solve anything. For example, I live in a nice suburban middle class neighborhood. Nothing too fancy, all the houses are around 2k square feet. Any time a house comes up for sale it gets picked up immediately because it's a friendly, safe neighborhood. It's all white to my knowledge, but a nice place for anyone to live. But why would a black family want to move in and be surrounded by white people?

That's the kind of situation that exists in a lot of places, and I think fixing that is going require really talking out loud about it, and really working on it. Are people willing to do that?

 

[pigeon]

Okay, but this is a sufficiently strong correlation that it seems very probable there are causal chains at work here. Is it lives in {South -> low income -> more likely to be racist}, or is it {lives in South -> more likely to be racist} and {lives in South -> low income} but {low income -/-> more likely to be racist}? If the latter, what do we do about the South?

But there are preexisting historical event chains that led to both. The South is more racist because its income depended on slavery (because of crop cycles, geography, and urban centers), and it's poorer because its income depended on slavery (and thus it wasn't as industrialized as the north, and thus it suffered more from emancipation, and thus its already comparatively smaller infrastructure was damaged more during the war, and thus they suffered disproportionately from the post-Jim Crow strategy of deliberately stalling investment in infrastructure).

That's why they call it the original sin!

 

[User 463088]

Alright, so why might this be the case? Again, to return to the point, it doesn't fit your analysis that poor whites are unwilling to vote for generous welfare schemes because of the perception of minorities as "takers".
.

Actually, YouGov found that racial attitudes (ie. givers vs takers) is related to political ideology moreso than economic status.

There's essentially no difference between working class whites and middle class whites. So, the better question is why are working class whites more conservative. And, I think the answer is pretty obvious.

Liberal ideology has a correlation to higher levels of education, more exposure to different people and ideas, etc. We cannot ignore the religion component either. An Evangelical probably cannot (or will not) ignore our stance on abortion and LGBT rights even if our economic policies help them more.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

There is so much history in the black/white segregation that I don't think simply making the economics better for everyone is going to solve anything. For example, I live in a nice suburban middle class neighborhood. Nothing too fancy, all the houses are around 2k square feet. Any time a house comes up for sale it gets picked up immediately because it's a friendly, safe neighborhood. It's all white to my knowledge, but a nice place for anyone to live. But why would a black family want to move in and be surrounded by white people?

That's the kind of situation that exists in a lot of places, and I think fixing that is going require really talking out loud about it, and really working on it. Are people willing to do that?

What does that mean in policy terms? Also, isn't that what we have been trying to do and failing with? As Y2kev's article earlier argued, the problem is that there's a psychological resistance to talk when it comes from certain positions. Is just talking going to be sufficient? Surely that talk needs to talk place in a certain context before it will be acknowledged? A stable, secure environment?

 

[Y2Kev]

Hate to be a douche, but they're probably correlated.

Liberal whites = more educated, higher incomes

 

[Spoiled Milk]

If the latter, what do we do about the South?

You're an Aussie, though.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

But there are preexisting historical event chains that led to both. The South is more racist because its income depended on slavery (because of crop cycles, geography, and urban centers), and it's poorer because its income depended on slavery (and thus it wasn't as industrialized as the north, and thus it suffered more from emancipation, and thus its already comparatively smaller infrastructure was damaged more during the war, and thus they suffered disproportionately from the post-Jim Crow strategy of deliberately stalling investment in infrastructure).

That's why they call it the original sin!

Right, so what's the solution? I mean, I'm presuming we're not just willing to write the South off as a lost cause, but I've certainly not seen many political candidates talking about the necessary policies to reduce societal racism rather than just state-institutional racism.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You're an Aussie, though.

I'm pretty cosmopolitan, to be honest. Proletarier aller Länder vereinigt Euch and all that.

 

[Y2Kev]

I kind of wonder what the country would look like if we let the south go.

Right, so what's the solution? I mean, I'm presuming we're not just willing to write the South off as a lost cause, but I've certainly not seen many political candidates talking about the necessary policies to reduce societal racism rather than just state-institutional racism.

I mean, if there were one, wouldn't someone have pursued it in the last fifty years?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I mean, if there were one, wouldn't someone have pursued it in the last fifty years?

They might well have; you're being rather charitable to the American political system if you suppose that meant they got anywhere.

 

[User 463088]

Hate to be a douche, but they're probably correlated.

Liberal whites = more educated, higher incomes

I'd agree with that, sure.

I would argue that poorer whites have the tendency to be more economically liberal and more socially conservative. Bernie's campaign was, consistently, about economical liberalism. He only made racial/social issues part of his campaign when he was forced to, and he never spoke about them in the same way that Hillary did. This was never an issue where he appeared to be insanely comfortable speaking about.

So, while Bernie was pushing more liberal economic policies, I think his lack of specificity (and lack of integration of) liberal social policies helped him among working class whites. That helps to explain why he won the people who wanted the nominee to be more conservative than Obama.

Also, let's not ignore the power of the penis.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

I'm pretty cosmopolitan, to be honest. Proletarier aller Länder vereinigt Euch and all that.

Privileged upper class white! How could you ever understand the plight of the poor white Southerner? They are just trying to preserve their way of life. Cosmopolitanism is a fancy way of saying you live without love for your mother land! Sad!

 

[TheFatOne]

What does that mean in policy terms? Also, isn't that what we have been trying to do and failing with? As Y2kev's article earlier argued, the problem is that there's a psychological resistance to talk when it comes from certain positions. Is just talking going to be sufficient? Surely that talk needs to talk place in a certain context before it will be acknowledged? A stable, secure environment?

What more can we do? We talk, we introduce bills, we try and change the law to help them, and in return the racists spit in our faces. We have tried everything, and they continue to do the same bullshit over and over again. That shit is tiring. Every effort we try to do to help them is immediately met with resistance. When we try and have a serious conversation about the way minorities are treated by the justice system it's immediately met with skepticism. Shit one of the major political parties in the U.S has been actively stoking the fires and courting racists for 40+ years. At this point it's become clear to me there is nothing we can realistically do about racism in the U.S. The only thing that is going to change it is time. When the U.S. becomes a minority majority, and their votes become irrelevant then and only then we might be able to make a real dent.

 

[RastaMentality]

Governments likely can't reduce societal racism. You just have to reduce the institutional segments that hurt minorities most (moreso than societal racism) and hope for the best. Also, not electing assholes like trump that legitimize racist speech can go a long way.