YoungDemCA
YoungDemCA's JournalIf Kate Steinle had been a woman of color...
...we would never have even heard of her.
Except, of course, if it had been a white man who had shot a woman of color. Then we'd be hearing all kinds of justifications and excuses from the Right.
None dare call it racism.
EDIT: This post should not be taken as a minimization of the horrific killing of Kate Steinle, by any means.
If you want to tackle economic inequality then you must address racism FIRST
Evidence in support of my statement:
Politicians and journalists fuel these racist narratives. President Ronald Reagans famous denunciations of welfare queens and a strapping young buck buying steak with food stamps offer quintessential examples of the former. As for the latter, political scientist Martin Gilens finds that network TV news and weekly newsmagazines portray the poor as substantially more black than is really the case. In fact, the elderly constitute less than 1 percent of the black poor shown in these magazines (compared with 5 percent of the nonblack poor) and the working poor make up only 12 percent of poor blacks (compared with 27 percent of poor non-blacks).
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2016/2/racism-undermines-support-for-government-spending.html
Why Doesnt The US Have A European-Style Welfare State?
A natural generalization of the race-based theory is that Americans think of the poor as members of some different group while Europeans think of the poor as members of their own group. Racial differences between the poor and non-poor in the US will tend to create the perception of the poor as other in the US, but geographic or social isolation might do this as well. If the poor in the US are more geographically or socially isolated, this might create a situation where non-poor Americans have little sympathy for the poor. Furthermore, as Lipset (1996) noted, (page 133) several polls suggest that a large majority of white American, believe that African Americans would be as wealthy as whites if they tried hard enough.
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/glaeser/files/why_doesnt_the_u.s._have_a_european-style_welfare_state.pdf
The dominant reason - by far - for why the American welfare state/social safety net (which, in a capitalist economy, is the main line of defense against economic inequality) is so stingy (and increasingly so) is because a majority of white voters of ALL classes don't want to pay taxes for programs that would benefit "those people." You can't simply make existing economic programs universal and "colorblind", for inequality has not just skyrocketed in recent decades between the haves and the have-nots, but between white and Black Americans (and other PoC) as well.
Racism is embedded into the very foundations of our economy and our society. You can't change that just by raising the economic position of Black folk - something that, BTW, can't and won't happen anyway as long as white supremacy and all of the racist entitlement that goes along with it aren't rooted out.
It is remarkable to me that Jews are blamed for both capitalism and communism
Cognitive dissonance, anyone?
Historically speaking, how and why did these economic resentments of Jews develop?
Why Black Voters Are the Most Rational Voters of 2016
Were not simply jumping out of a crashing national plane, so to speak (because where else can we go, considering our statistical lack of social mobility, anyway?). Yet we do suddenly find ourselves escalating communitywide survival mode.
All because most white Americansthrough dominant social, political and economic normsstill maintain the privilege of shredding up institutions and starting from scratch when the mood strikes. Sure, many may get nervous when visualizing President Trump. But that doesnt stop 30 percent of white Democratic Sanders supporters in this McClatchy-Marist poll from saying that they wont support Hillary Clinton in the general election. For them, theres always a light at the end of the tunnel. You shouldnt be surprised, then, when Megyn Kelly softball-interviews Trump or when Operation Humanize Trump proceeds at full media speed.
Nonwhite voters, on the other handparticularly black votershave a better, more practical sense than that ... given expertise with dark tunnels, broken promises and lots of busted streetlights. Weve actually been in this episode before. Theres nothing really funny about Trumps political rise, nothing really reassuring about it. And so, even when 35 percent of African-American voters (in that same McClatchy survey) might say theyd like to see a Sanders nomination, only 18 percent of nonwhite voters opt out of voting for Clinton. In the latest YouGov poll (pdf), you also catch that disparity in common sense between insane white voters and largely rational black voters: A near 40 percent of whites believe that Sanders shouldnt help Clinton win the general at all, compared with a combined 63 percent of African Americans who are like, Really, son?
http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2016/05/why_black_voters_are_the_most_rational_voters_of_2016.html
On the Bush tax cuts: even assuming that they didn't increase the federal budget deficit...
....which I don't buy for a second, they certainly had incredibly adverse economic effects for everyone but the top 1%; namely, the massive acceleration of income and wealth inequality, as well as the reduction of labor's share of national income in favor of non-labor income that went almost exclusively to the super-rich.
We will be collectively paying the price of that massive Robin-Hood-in-reverse redistribution scheme for decades to come.
Matt Bruenig's reputation on Twitter was as "a relentless bully with a nasty online entourage"
Important article for many here on DU to read and consider. There are real lessons to be learned here; hopefully, progressives learn the right lessons.
Obviously, Bruenig is not responsible for the online behavior of his peers. (It is the nature of mobs, online or otherwise, to make responsibility diffuse.) He himself, however, insults people in starkly personal terms. Hes been taunting Walsh for being old for months now. Recently, when she objected, he threw information about her condo, presumbably unearthed by one of her trolls, in her face: But hey keep on gentrifying Harlem with your million dollar apartment you woke self-proclaimed centrist. (Bruenig declined to comment for this piece.) During a recent argument with Filipovic, he tweeted, its just funny that you are such a hack that you deny actual facts when they disrupt your preferred framing. He wrote that the writer Megan McArdle was a complete human failure at business, mocking her inadequacy and incompetence at the thing she spent many years trying to accomplish. He later wrote that this sort of insult-laden prose stirs and inflames people, which I find funny. People call this trolling.
They do indeed. Bruenig makes no apologies for being cruel to those he considers class enemies. As he and some of his allies see it, perfidious neoliberals regularly take sadistic policy positions while using demands for civility to escape the consequences. To read the daily internet happenings on poverty in the US is to basically just watch a parlor game of elites opine in extremely uncivil ways about the plight of people that they dont afford any dignity, humanity, or decency, he once wrote on his personal blog. On social media, he turns that contempt back on the people who he believes deserve it.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/is_matt_bruenig_a_populist_martyr.html
This might be a stretch on my part, but perhaps one reason for the bond between Hillary and PoC...
...has to do with the fact that she too has been on the receiving end of bigotry (albeit sex/gender-based bigotry) and discrimination, vile hatred and outrageously offensive remarks, and is widely perceived by much of white America (especially white men, but also, admittedly and unfortunately, a significant number of white women) as a "threat" to the "traditional values" of "our country" (i.e. white America's country)?
Let's face it...just as the American media and the white public has held President Obama to an impossible-to-meet standard (a standard which they would never even consider holding a white man to), so too has Hillary been held to a similar double standard. Just as President Obama must constantly walk a very fine line between being perceived as "too Black" to be not seen as a threat or "not Black enough" to authentically represent the interests of the Black community (and other PoC, for that matter), so too must Hillary constantly walk a fine line between being perceived as "too feminine" to be taken seriously and being considered "a rude, shrill bitch." I strongly suspect that the Black community - that is to say, Black people, and most Black voters in particular - have picked up on this, ever since the early days of Bill Clinton's Presidency, when Hillary clearly and confidently stated that she was not interested in being a "submissive" or "deferential" First Lady...not by a long shot.
Which leads me to the commonalities between how Hillary is stereo-typically perceived, and how Black women are stereo-typically perceived by white America. Simply put, both Hillary and Black women are accused of being "overly assertive" or even "aggressive" because they don't conform to traditional white, middle-class gender norms. In other words, they are not being ladylike. And thus, the double bind that both Hillary (and other ambitious, Type A personality women, in business, politics, and the like) and Black women find themselves in: the more they assert themselves, with confidence and without shame, as strong, driven, and capable women, the more their womanhood (and by extension, their very humanity) is denied and degraded, and the more outright hostility, abuse, and - potentially - violence they face from men (usually, white men) as well as those women who enable and enforce sexism in general. And people still seriously wonder why so many women are reluctant to seek out leadership roles, or shy away from them altogether!
IMHO, all of the above could very well be a significant explanation for why so many Black voters embrace Hillary. But that's just my view; I'm curious to read those of all you fine folks here in the African-American Group!
What do Dylann Roof, Elliot Rodger, and several other mass shooters have in common?
Besides being murderous assholes, of course.
It's not just that they're white men (who BTW, are easily the most likely demographic to own guns - particularly white conservative men); think about who their targets were...
IMHO, this aspect of gun violence deserves far more consideration than it gets, particularly as it pertains to mass shootings in public spaces (which is quite possibly the most horrifically cruel and barbaric way for someone to demonstrate his anger and resentment toward society - a society that, in the warped and entitled minds of all too many white men, somehow owes them everything simply because they are white men). Not only are these shootings inherently anti-social in the extreme, they are a direct assault on the very values that most Americans - and most people, all over the world - hold dear: freedom (from fear especially - the freedom from the fear of violence, in this case), equality, peace, co-existence, community, solidarity, and love for one's neighbor, one's brothers and sisters. These shootings are truly an attack on the very notion and ideal of a public space where people from every background imaginable can come together and live in peace and harmony with one another.
This is very important for us to understand if we are serious about combating and defeating this horrific threat to our lives, our communities, and our values. This ideology of entitlement and violence must be stopped, and must be stopped yesterday. Too many good, innocent, and loving souls have lost their lives due to the senseless actions of these anti-social pricks. I, for one, have had enough.
Solidarity!
It's economic anxiety about black and brown people being "lazy moochers" or "taking our jobs"
And at the heart of it is the fear that many white Americans have of losing the privileges that come with being a demographic majority - remember, whites will no longer be a majority in this country within a couple of decades. They are deathly afraid of losing their privileged status in comparison to "those people." That, IMO, is at the core of Trump's support.
For those who think that "economic anxiety" is behind Trump's rise...
...just remember that the median household income of Trump voters is over $70k.
If anything, the economic fears of Trump voters are intimately tied up with racist fears of "illegals" and brown and black people in general "taking our jobs" or "sucking up welfare benefits." Which, in case you hadn't noticed, are exactly the types of racist tropes that have been staples of the Republican voter base for quite a while now.
Furthermore, a lot of Trump's support is rooted in the fear of many whites that they will be the victims of "genocide" via "permanent demographic replacement" (actual quote from a Trump supporter who I had the misfortune of meeting). These people are not voting in good faith, and they certainly aren't being driven by anything more than irrational fears and racial hatred.
We must understand the nature of the Trump phenomenon if we are to effectively counter it.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: CA
Home country: USA
Member since: Wed Jan 18, 2012, 11:29 PM
Number of posts: 5,714