It's pretty obvious that there has been an enlarging wealth gap and poverty rate has increased. What I don't understand is that the current narrative is to attribute such unfortunate events to systemic racism. Shouldn't we at least look at class difference, shift of industry trend, impact of policies, i.e., take the holistic view?
I contend that the real tragedy of American politics is that what ought to be class/labor issues gets sidetracked into race issues. If poor whites would stop thinking in terms of race and instead think in terms of class and economic justice then real progress could be made. Lyndon Johnson had a famous quote about just this.
Upper-class whites are obsessed with race, especially in the last few years.
Every news story - and the news comes from the upper whites - gets twisted into something about race, as in this case. Every tech company, every Hollywood studio, every academic institution are vibrating with energy to find and fight racism; overflowing with programs and policies about race. Hell, even the Oscars can't be won by white guys making movies about white guys any more - it's in the rules!
To say it's the poor whites who are "thinking in terms of race" too much is utterly absurd. Where's the evidence that they're thinking in terms of race more than the academics or NYT? You'll hear way more about race in a random sample of discussions at the NYT than you possibly could at a NASCAR event.
The people thinking too much in terms of race are the upper-class whites, and they do this to justify their superiority over the lower whites by borrowing morality points from the (in this narrative) victimized non-whites.
Yes, upper class are obsessed with race and are enacting superficial policies that do little to help people who really need it. They are content to do things that make it appear to be addressing a problem but not doing things that would actually address those problems. For instance, upper class people rarely advocate for changing the way k-12 schools are funded. They rarely advocate for increasing the pay and resources of public defenders. They rarely advocate for reforming a justice system that caters to those who can afford a lawyer and crushes those who can’t.
The obsession with race by the political class gets lower class whites to lose focus on real reform that would benefit everyone. So instead of saying why can’t poor people afford justice they have their attention shifted on the crimes committed by POC and the need for more cops and harsh penalties and whatnot. Instead of saying we need better pay, better health and child care the focus is on welfare deadbeats. This list goes on.
The focus on a large numbers of issues in the U.S. is about race rather than about class. News media and whatnot fuel this because fear sells. It’s gets more viewers to talk about out of control black kids terrorizing whites than it is to talk about school reform, prison reform, culture reform, etc.
Fair enough, but since about the 90's I don't recall much in the news about "out of control black kids terrorizing whites".
COPS isn't even on the air any more, you know.
These days it's pretty much wall-to-wall "out of control white cops terrorizing black kids". There was a big thing about it last year, as you recall.
Before that there was a thing about "out of control white kids terrorizing a native elder" which turned out to be a total lie as well.
Trying to think of any major news story about "out of control black kids terrorizing whites" in any recent decade. Last I know is the Central Park jogger case from the 1980's.
Genuine question: how can poor whites join with POC, given how the systemic racial injustice narrative has developed? I would be worried about a “this protest isn’t about your situation, white person” response. (Given the current tenor)
> I would be worried about a “this protest isn’t about your situation, white person” response. (Given the current tenor)
A genuine question of my own: what has planted this worry in your mind? What tenor do you speak of? The demographics of the US mean that any policy that POC want to enact has to also be supported by enormous numbers of white people; that POC-friendly policies have ever passed is evidence that working with white people is par for the course.
To attempt to answer your original question, it depends on what you mean by "join".
The simplest answer is to bring it back around to class and recognize the shared fight against intergenerational poverty: support social programs that disproportionately benefit the poor of all races e.g. a livable minimum wage, expanded worker protections, public healthcare, etc.
If what you mean instead is to start a conversation about the unique ways in which poor whites are disadvantaged, well that's fertile ground but it also requires acknowledging that whites and poor whites have schismed into, effectively, entirely different races (they don't intermarry, they don't socialize together, they hold different values, have different cultural touchstones, etc). That's a difficult conversation to have, and you're going to find a lot of resistance from plenty of poor whites who still want to associate their identities with a holistic "whiteness" that they still long to be a part of. But someone has to start the conversation, even if it's uncomfortable, because the alternative is that the powers-that-be continue to wield that longing as an instrument by which to motivate poor whites to vote against the social programs that would benefit them.
There is the widely accepted concept of an ally. You could be one. You'll be a second-class citizen. You'll have to supplicate for your place. For the 'space you take up' as they like to say. You'll need to keep up with the latest woke thinking on TikTok and Twitter, so you know how you're expected to think, believe, feel, speak, and act, in order to keep your probationary status as an ally. And it'll always be probationary. I'm not going to, but you could.
Ah, if only it was actually about empathizing and showing respect. Wouldn't that be something.
This is such a startlingly uncharitable response that I don't know how to react. Where is this coming from? Who said anything about being a self-proclaimed "ally"? What do TikTok and Twitter have to do with this? It sounds less like you're here for a conversation about race and class and more like you have a need to unpack the distorted perceptions that one internet subculture has for another internet subculture.
This comment wouldn't read much different if you had included the phrase "white genocide" somewhere. I recommend you consider from where these prejudices are sourced.
I don’t know what white genocide is, much less how it relates to anything I wrote. What you think you read probably isn’t what I thought I wrote. I was dryly lamenting the options available to progressives who are uncomfortable with the theory and praxis of the kiddies these days.
My prejudices, if you insist on playing that card, come from listening carefully to exactly the people who demand I shut up and listen. I actually go to great lengths to understand their point of view. Before I judge them.
I'm not certain what you're asking or what you mean by "planted." The word "planted" implies that an idea with no basis in reality was put into this person's head. Seems like a strange way to word it if you're asking that question in good faith.
Anyway, I'm not speaking for the person you responded to, my point here is simply that there are people with loud enough voices saying "white people" should "shut up." That is what I see as part of the current tenor, which would mean that some white people aren't going to bother engaging in this.
The quote that shows up in several of those links:
"I’m no longer engaging with white people on the topic of race. Not all white people, just the vast majority who refuse to accept the existence of structural racism and its symptoms."
It sounds like you have answered the above poster's question about how to join in: by "accept[ing] the existence of structural racism and its symptoms".
> The word "planted" implies that an idea with no basis in reality was put into this person's head.
As I explain in my post, it cannot have basis in reality due to the provable existence of democratic decisions in favor of POC that have not merely included white voters, but often were comprised of a majority of white voters.
To say that someone is telling whites to "shut up" is to misrepresent your own cited headlines: "shut up and listen". If someone wants you to listen, it is self-evident that they want your help. You don't ask someone to listen if you don't care what they think or what they do. If someone in need asks another for help, the very first thing they will want to do is have the other person listen to what they need. And if someone is telling someone else to shut up so they can ask for help, that suggests that they think their cry for help is being drowned out.
Here's a reminder that you obliquely asked another commenter what "planted" an idea into their head. I'm not sure why you would demand other people talk to you in the way you want to be talked, especially when you just did this.
There exists bitterness towards white women, who "joined" the civil rights movement in the 60s. The criticism is they stopped fighting once their issues were starting to be addressed.
The whole idea of reframing around class is to say "I know you think race is the primary differentiator, but I really think it's class/money/power". That is a negation of BLM, whose purpose is to bring attention to black Americans' rate of being murdered by police.
Remember the response to "All Lives Matter"? (Putting aside the bad faith actors), a number of people think police violence in general should be the #1 priority. The responses are often, "yes, all lives matter - but right now we're talking about black lives." Remember the cancer-walk comparison? If you show up to a breast cancer walk, trying to talk about prostate cancer, you're being a jerk. (The analogy here would be to show up to the breast cancer walk talking about how it's not even about cancer - all diseases need more awareness.)
It's very complicated. Attention is a limited thing, and while it'd be great if we could care about BLM and poor whites and addicts and immigrants, that doesn't seem to be how the public's collection attention works. Reframing the problem might be a better solution, but I don't think progressives would be receptive towards the reframe.
Thanks for the thought provoking discussion. I personally agree with your statement that it's really about the "shared fight against intergenerational poverty", but I'm not brave enough to try and lead the reframe because I think both sides would reject it. I think this route would address many of the core issues that have led to the Trumpworld voters, who don't care what the stance is as long as someone is fighting for them.
I think it starts by treating them with respect and engaging with them as human beings with their own minds, thoughts, fears, and concerns. If you approach it through the lens of "How do I get X group to sign up to Y platform", people will quickly figure out that you aren't engaging with them at all. Your well-meant and genuine intentions will go nowhere.
My suggestion is that you can start with what the demographic in question cares about. Then look sincerely at if what you're trying to do actually addresses those real, sincere, valid concerns in a way that's comprehensible to a relatively ignorant person who is perhaps justifiably suspicious of being tricked.
Really you just have to frame it as such. There is a distinction here, race issues tend to deal with the interface between citizens and the government (police among other things) where class issues tend to deal with the interface between corporations and the government.
This is a gross oversimplification, but I think the takeaway is it's ok to have spaces for both discussions.
I'd also add that both discussions are happening concurrently. The race issue is big right now, but economic justice is still a central topic. Occupy was a good example even if not a well organized one.
There is a resistance from any movement, when they have the national attention, and another movement speaks up. It seems there is a perception that the public can only care about one thing at a time.
My guess is that any attempt to reframe away from race, towards social class, would be strongly opposed by key interests. That makes it very difficult to get into the conversation, and creates infighting between marginalized groups.
So maybe it turns out this sociology/governance stuff is more complicated than my engineers bias wants to admit. How do you make a decision when the complexity makes prediction useless?
That's a good point. I suspect maybe we're overthinking things a bit. Most movements that enter the spotlight have spent a good amount of time growing behind the scenes beforehand. We can push for class reform without framing it as reframing race issues and wait for its time in the spotlight later.
In the US and UK's most recent national elections, there were two candidates who sought to build multi-ethnic coalitions of working people, and did a pretty good job of it considering how much hate and slander they received from the media and their own parties.
The template for a movement is out there, and we're not as divided as you think. Just ignore academics and journalists lol.
'The narrative' doesn't unconditionally control what people do. There are also multiple narratives out there and people get to subscribe to the one they want. If someone builds up an income-based coalition then the idea of 'systemic racial injustice' will fade away in favour of looking for more money.
It sounds like you're saying that the poor whites are the one pushing the systematic racism view of the problem. Since it seems clear to me that that's not the case, I am confused by this view. Am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
Edit: Since this got downvoted already, I'll try to clarify? I'm confused by what appears to be the opinion of the poster and asking for clarification so that I can better understand them. If you're going to downvote me, at least be helpful and provide some sort of answer to the question.
Edit: Changed the word agenda to "view of the problem", since it's possible that was being interpreted in a way it wasn't meant.
I am definitely not saying that poor whites are the ones pushing the notion of race over class. I’m saying they’ve been taught by media to view things in terms of race rather than class. Race has been used by the ruling class to stifle economic justice. It’s been used to divide the lower class.
It seems like 'the issues' are being framed in ways that are convenient for the political parties. The Democratic and Republican parties each get about the same support (plus or minus 5%) from various 'classes' (as defined by income or wealth quintiles), but get very different support from different ethnic groups (national origin, and not just race has a big impact).
That said, I think your class-based paradigm is just as badly flawed.
Yeah, class-based paradigm could well be deeply flawed as well. I just wish people could evaluate our situation from all angles instead of following certain narrative only.
Poor whites DO focus on economic issues. That's why Trump was able to promise bringing back manufacturing & coal jobs to win over a large segment of voters.
The problem is that all of the Democrat/liberal/left-wing (whichever label you prefer when discussing the core American political divide) completely denies the existence of poor whites and explicitly rejects helping them. For the past 50 years all of the focus on social justice and structural inequalities have been focused exclusively on the urban poor, racial or sexual minorities, etc.
If you're a poor white kid from a trailer park in West Virginia, you might face all the expected problems - poor education, widespread substance abuse, lack of role models, lack of resources... but there's no college scholarships for you, nobody trying to admit you to their university, nobody trying to hire you or promote you.
I spent 2 years as a social worker in West Virginia. The poor whites I worked with weren't racists and weren't stupid. They were just born into poverty and a system which pretends all whites are privileged oppressors.
I'm from Ohio, and OSU considers students from the Appalachian region of Ohio as underrepresented students and has specific scholarships for them as well as makes them eligible for many more general diversity/inclusion scholarships. Also first generation college students (of any race) qualify for some diversity programs as well. I know other colleges in Ohio, like Ohio University, had similar programs.
I think syops criticism applies to the combined dynamic of the 2 American political parties and mainstream narratives, rather than either one specifically.
The upper class needs some way to turn the middle against the lower--otherwise how can they justify their share of the wealth? Currently that way has to do with melanin.
If we can figure out how to leave racism behind, and I surely hope we can, they'll have to find a new way to divide us. I wonder what it'll be.
Why would you think poor whites are to blame? If anything they are getting even more shafted than minorities: there is 0 sympathy if not outright hatred for poor whites, males in particular. Witness the opioid holocaust.
I would instead blame all the elites that profit from the unfortunate but very real and universal human tendency towards racial prejudice. It is the oldest trick in the book, you identify some sub-group, preferably through something obvious like race, and you blame another groups woes on them. Politicians play that game, the news media plays that game and social networks accidentally machine learn it. It is all obvious and disgusting and treasonous.
You'll notice that the rise in media reporting on systematic racism correlates strongly with the rise in discussions about class difference, industry trends, globalization, etc. The latter was Bernie Sander's platform before he was "challenged" by BLM during the 2016 primary. Not to imply that Sanders didn't previously support BLM, but he rhetoric changed after that. It was clear to me that Sanders thought the primary issue was class and that by addressing that we would improve everyone's life who was affected by the economic troubles due to the issues you mention. It's almost as if someone has something to gain by splitting us apart rather than letting everyone focus on their common issues.
Perhaps that's not the case organically but it seems that way because the media has been beating that drum relentlessly for the past half decade or so, in the process creating the actual strife they had been magnifying.
Class solidarity is non-existent in the US. Racial issues are much more visible. Poverty tends to be chronic and society to this day attempts to dismiss it as laziness or personal failure on the part of the individual, there isn't really anywhere for a flashpoint to happen. Incidents like George Floyd's murder act as a nexus around which debate, protests, and change can form.
The history of the US is far more rasist then it is classist; and there has been far more social movements along racial lines then class lines.
While we have had (successful) class based movements in the past, there is no class based analog in US history to the civil rights movement, or abolition. Even school children understand what Martin Luther King day is about; most American's couldn't tell you what Labor Day is about.
When there was a global movement for class based solidarity, the US found itself on the other side of the fight. (I'm referring to cold war era communism).
Even if a class based approach makes more sense now; there is a lot of institutional and cultural inertia behind a race based approach.
The problems associated with poverty and economic affect both minorities and whites. However, racism adds an extra layer of difficulties on top of the more general problems---and poor whites are some of the strongest supporters of this extra layer. Further, racism has been a problem longer than (the current wave of) poverty and economic inequality. (See, for example, the 1950s and 60s when inequality was lower but racism was much stronger.)
Edit: A corollary of this: the "problems associated with poverty and economic affect both minorities and whites" can be seen as a way to distract attention from the very real problems of racism.
Poverty and economic disadvantage of POC are an obvious affect of 100s of years of oppression and has kept generations of Americans in poverty.
POC are more likely to be poor, far less social mobility, less housing opportunities (loan access as an example), hurt by gentrification, lacking quality education and so much more. Over policing + horrendous and an unfair criminal 'justice' system locking up black and brown kids (this chart is so disgusting [1]) and that's if they don't get shot during a traffic stop or selling lose cigarettes.
LGBTQ face similar hurdles, triple down Trans POC who are killed at a shocking rate with no repercussions most people don't care they are disposable in their eyes.
To your example of poor whites supporting this oppression I don't have data but I have seen this in part of my extended family who live in the south. Systemically poor, no social mobility. Despite being dependent on the social safety net they are hardcore MAGA and overtly blame POC and immigrants as the reason they are poor. One uncle (long story family problem trying to get him housed) refuses to live near black people...
I think part of the idea is that systemic racism lead to class difference, shift of industry trend, impact of policies. If you set people up for failure for one generation to trap them into poverty, it's enough work done to keep further generations trapped too. Just look at how segregated neighborhoods/cities still are. It's mostly because of policy from a long time ago that still has an effect to this day.
Taking the holistic view includes recognizing that systemic racism contributes to those class differences and vice versa: it's a pretty brutal feedback loop, and requires addressing both ends of it in order to fix it.
Well the word 'racism' doesn't appear in TFA that I could see.
However, I think the definition of "systemic racism" has changed to mean the existence of a demographic skew in the bottom and top economic quartiles. In other words, as long as "whites" don't makeup an proportionate percentage of the lowest quartile, and "blacks" don't make up a proportionate percentage of the highest quartile, that is, by definition, systemic racism.
In essence, the term no longer represents a critique on equality, but rather a critique on equity of outcomes.
The people will not be allowed to think about those things. The cathedral doesn't want people to start thinking about occupying Wall Street again, so they will keep everyone distracted with these other things. It's no surprise that every major corporation is loudly pushing woke topics.
