In February, I had the chance to travel to Palm Springs, California to participate in the TED conference, where I gave a 9-minute presentation on race and the 2008 election. In particular, I looked at whether race had negatively impacted Barack Obama's vote in states like Arkansas and Tennessee, where he performed worse than most polls anticipated and also worse, in some cases, than John Kerry had four years earlier.
My conclusion was that race probably had been a factor. In fact, it doesn't exactly take a genius to figure this out, because in about 35 of the 50 states, the exit polls explicitly asked voters whether race had been a factor in their decision. Although there were racist voters in every state -- and although there were also voters in every state who voted for Barack Obama because of his race -- respondents in more rural, less educated states (like Arkansas or Tennessee) were more likely to say that they had voted for John McCain (that is, against Barack Obama) because of the race of the candidates.
This does not mean, however, that we should simply throw up our hands in the face of apparent racism. Rather, the very fact that manifestations of racism are predictable probably also implies that racism is, at least to some extent, solvable. Anyway, I won't give away too many more details away about the talk, which is embedded below the fold.
By the way -- speaking at TED was really hard! Not because I'm shy in front of an audience -- I'm not particularly so -- but because the standards set by others talks is very, very high and most of the people speaking there have accomplished far, far more interesting things than I ever will. For a few of my favorite examples, see here, here and here.
4.24.2009
Race and the 2008 Election, Revisited
by Nate Silver @ 11:35 AM...see also 2008 post-mortem, bradley effect, race
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

101 comments
It's just as bad to vote for Obama because he's black as it was to vote for McCain because he's white.
I don't excuse racism of either sort.
Excellent job at the TED conference.
Your first link to other interesting talks is broken. I think it should have this link:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html
Keep up the great work!
Well said Wayward Son. Can we please move away from this issue.
I really liked that. Mostly becuase I didn't get to see you in Ames Monday, due to it being just a little too far from Davenport.
@Nate: the link to the first "here" that you provide doesn't work.
Excellent talk, Nate!
Wayward Son, there were conceivably reasons other than race for an intelligent voter to choose Obama. McCain... less so.
What the hell?
Okay, prior to Election Day itself.. hell, on Election Day itself, everyone and their brother, including Nate Silver, was loudly proclaiming that race would be a drag on Obama's margin of win. I can remember my Black roomate getting angry with me because I voted for Obama in the primary, and she insisted that he'd never make it to the White House.
By the time the day itself came around, everyone was tense and worried about declaring victory too soon, like that would jinx everything. Michael Moore had an article in Rolling Stone telling everyone not to declare victory too soon.
We were all such nervous nellies about race then. Now, we seem to have forgotten the collective neurosis and have adopted the opposite idea-that Obama won because he's Black.
I have a pretty crazy idea, you ready for it?
Obama won because he was the best possible candidate.
That's it. That's all. Sorry to be so anticlimactic for everyone out there that has a race fetish and was hoping for me to say that his electoral success was somehow tied to his skin color. I won,t say that people didn't notice or that some folks didn,T take that into account when weighing their options-the press sure as hell hyped it to death, if nothing else-on the whole, I think the role race played was vanishingly small.
This doesn't mean there's any less significance to the fact that we finally, after 500 years of treating Black people very badly, elected a Black guy to the presidency. On a meta-level, its significant.
On the individual level, I think Obama won because he's calm, smart, and his ideas were sound and well-reasoned. He can give an amazing speech, he's attractive, and he knows what the fuck he's doing. I don't thik his race was either a boost or a drag on his success.
I would kinda like to see the day when its neither a boost or a drag on anyone's success, and maybe when we stop separating ourselves into this odd little categories. I have ancestors on two continents, so what does that make me? Am I White or am I Asian? Which box do you want me to fit into? Both? And what about the gay thing, you never even give me a box to fit into for that. Aren't all these boxes kinda dumb? Should I have one that designates whether I tend to wake up facing the left or the right of the bed?
Would that be a factor in my 'electability'?
I found your talk interesting, but I must admit I am not convinced by your "solutions." I really don't know the answer myself, but I suspect that part of the problem is driven by self-selection. Do people that have less education and live in monoracial neighborhoods do so by choice or by inertia. (Along the same lines maybe their is a premium on highly educated, multiracial neighborhoods that makes it difficult for a less well educated, monoracial dweller to 'crack'. Obviously you take the intertial view, but I'm not sure I'm convinced.
Great talk, Nate. You were definitely in some rarefied company. One could spend many, many hours browsing all the fascinating talks on the TED website (it's cool that they post them for public viewing, since it takes a few G's *and* some serious bona fides just to be accepted to the conferences).
Matt,
In both examples, I was referring to the exit polls discussed in Nate's posting that allowed people to explain why they voted for either candidate. If they picked race, then they are racists.
Of course, they are at least honest racists, since they admitted it.
Doesn't Gelman's post from March 23 ("It's Not About Appalachia") on this blog sort of contradict your argument here?
http://tinyurl.com/cm3vfj
In other words, it seems that this kind of racism gets worse as you move further into the Deep South.
DUDE - you spoke at TED! How cool is that... Ever since I learned about TED I've wished to attend or ever do anything interesting enough to get to present - probably not going to happen. Congrats on an excellent opportunity!
Obama won the largest share of white support of any Democrat in a two-man race since 1976.
Obama became the first Democrat to also win a majority since Jimmy Carter with the near-unanimous backing of blacks.
He won 43 percent of white voters, 4 percentage points below Carter’s performance in 1976 and equal to what Bill Clinton won in the three-man race of 1996.
Fully 96 percent of black voters supported Obama.
Could you imagine the outcry if McCain received 96% of the white vote? There is such a huge double standard regarding race in this country.
Obama would have won if he was any color, even purple. That said, Nate is making the point the race was a factor at the margins - and that is just good reporting.
Nate - be proud to be bald! Us bald guys should stick together...
Eh, that's not even remotely the same issue as racism. It's just the result of blacks overwhelmingly identifying with the Democratic Party. Al Gore got 92% of the black vote, and he's about the whitest guy on the planet.
@ GROG : So you're saying that blacks and other minorities should vote for racists?
Really, it's like saying the Jews should have voted for Hitler.
Richard -
If McCain got 96 % of the white it would be astounding since many of us white folks are democratic.
Here is the problem with your comparison - during the 1960's one of the primary drivers to forming the modern democratic party was support for blacks and desegregation, when repubs actually still wanted whites only bathrooms. Would you vote republican if you were black? Repubs threw blacks under the bus...
Its not about race. Its not even quite about education. Its about a monlithic way of thinking. Its about the majority of Americans who never leave a 50 mile radius of where they were born and never experience/see another view of the world.
I really liked the Arkansas/NYU exchange idea. I think it would be just as beneficial for the New York city kids as well.
All you Ds have to be careful when you start painting large sections of the population with the same brush you are no better than the Republicans you hate so much. How would you feel if you actually lived in Arkansas listening to that talk. These broad brushes further divide the country and make the Fox News/MSNBCs of the world even more powerful thant they already are.
Oh no. Democrats are making the world worse by noticing that the Republican Party's sphere of influence happens to be shrinking to the approximate borders of the Confederacy.
Stop it, Democrats! If you continue, you're going to force the poor, innocent Republicans to start openly discussing secession and assassinating the President.
@ Nova Middle Man
There are many educated, unbigoted people in Arkansas.
There are probably just as many who are not.
When the first sign you read when leaving Missouri south on US-65 into Arkansas is "Highway Cleanup Provided by the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan," it doesn't help the "stop being polarizing" argument. Remember - tolerance is not the blind acceptance of all, including the intolerant; tolerance is the principled rejection of intolerance.
Careful there, fred. You said:
Here is the problem with your comparison - during the 1960's one of the primary drivers to forming the modern democratic party was support for blacks and desegregation, when repubs actually still wanted whites only bathrooms. Would you vote republican if you were black? Repubs threw blacks under the bus...Actually, it was the Southern Democrats that were the primary force behind whites only bathrooms. The civil rights legislation was actually the product of cooperation between Republicans and Northern Democrats. The shift of blacks to the Democratic Party didn't really emerge until after the civil rights movement, when Nixon pioneered the southern strategy to capitalize on the popular backlash to the civil rights movement in the south.
Why does it matter? Because it's important to realize that "Democrat" does not equal "always right." I see it again and again that people are hoping/crowing about for the "demise" of the Republican party. I'm still holding out hope for the evolution of the Republican party.
Nate that was an excellent presentation. I have one minor quibble with your idea of 'cultural exchange' college students - I think there needs to be a way to get at them at an earlier age. I can give an example from my own family. My grandparents on my father's side were horrible, horrible racists (think of the most horriffic example of racism an you will be very near the mark). I, thank God, was raised by my Mother, who ironically came from the Appalacian Mountains, to believe that racism is a terrible thing. On the other hand my step-brothers were raised by my Father and thus fell more under the influence of my Grandparents' way of thinking. They spent lavish amounts of money sending my step-brothers to private schools, not for the purpose of getting a better education but "to keep them away from the blacks." In fact this private school came into existence the year after busing was instituted for the area to try to de-segregate the schools. By the time my step-brothers reached college age the attitudes of hatred had become ingrained. The step-brother nearest in age to me but still about 10 years younger than me received multiple degrees from major US universities and he obtained a doctorate from Oxford University. While at Oxford his roommate was an Arab Muslim. Despite his being exposed to other ethnic groups and his superior education, my step-brother to this day is highly racist, ignorant of other cultures and highly intolerant of other religions. A lot of that was taught to him by my Father and Grandparents but it was reinforced through segregation and the teachings of his private school. I'm not sure what the answer is to situations like this, which I bet in the south are not that uncommon.
Nate, when you get the chance I would love to hear more about your theories regarding the subburbs and the cul-de-sac 'Wisteria Lane' neighborhoods. I too love city life and wouldn't trade it for the world. Living in DC I detest our 'burbs. Going out into Loudoun County it is dreary procession of strip mall followed by housing development followed by strip mall followed by housing development. The sheer uniformity of the architecture alone I would think would lead to a uniformity of thought.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans have the majority of votes in this country locked up. In between, the vast middle of independents lean either left or right depending on who is more likely to take care of all the bullshit Joe Sixpack would rather ignore so he can get back to the business of working, raising a family, and playing video games with his friends over a few beers. So long as the average American feels like you can take care of the shop while he's out fishing, you get the job.
McCain was senile, Palin looked like a walking disaster. Obama was pretty mellow and calm, seemed to know what he was doing, and was more likely to avoid nasty situations involving drafting Joe Sixpack's 18 year old son for military service.
Thus, the whinging of both sides is largely ignored much in the same way that the minor gripes and the gossip mill at the office are ignored by the boss. Let them blow off steam so long as nothing serious comes of it.
The Democrats response to not getting what they want is threatening to leave. "I'll move to Canada!" The Republicans response is more violent and disruptive.
Which is why the GOP is losing share value so rapidly. Joe Sixpack, remember, owns the shop called America. If his employees quit, it's bothersome for a few days/weeks until he can hire a replacement, and then that's over. If his employees are talking about setting fire to the store after robbing the place, or of attacking the other employees in some sort of mutiny, that's a little more of a problem.
The whiny, "Give me a 5 cent raise or I'll quit!" employee is annoying. The "Give me a 5 cent raise or I'll kill your wife" employee is just begging to be dragged out of the shop in handcuffs.
So, I say, let the secession talk continue, and the civil war threats. Bring it on, because the more you people talk like that, the less likely you are to win another election in the next half century.
It's not me you have to worry about. I'm not the vast majority of the electorate. So intimidating me into submission will solve nothing.
Scaring the shit out of the electorate by talking about widespread civil unrest over a tax cut does not lead to long term political employment, however.
Zack-
I generally agree, I was talking about the outgrowth of the civil movement, when the repubs went right to try to win the south - and it worked. Interestingly, now the south is all the repubs reliably have...
Actually, the reoubs playing the race card to pit poor whites against blacks awas still going on under Reagan...
Your speech was interesting although the end seemed rushed. Your recommended exchange student solution interests me greatly, but I think you need to take it further. I would love to see an analysis of 'mixing' factors such as in-state college attendance rates, average housing turnover, etc. The goal would be to discover interaction rates for each pair of states (or similar cultural regions, etc). Programs that support 'mixing' would seem to reduce racism and support tolerance/progressiveness.
Secondly, I do see a tangible difference between the enthusiasm the black community showed for 'their chance' at winning the election. This is a first for them, much as it would have been for women through Hilary. Had this been the first time a white man had run for president, I wouldn't mind the Arkansas-mindset.
Finally, regarding the suggestions you made about other speakers, the first link didn't work (I imagine this was Jill Bolte Taylor judging from the link). I enjoyed them greatly. I couldn't help thinking of Ender's Game when listening to P.W. Singer's robot warrior presentation.
Nate,
Your discussion of spatial land-use patterns, social isolation, and racism was fascinating--particularly impressive given the brevity of the talk.
ha.. good talk and it belongs on Ted. I also like the dig on Schaumberg. Man I don't understand how anyone lives there, people there are so unbelievably rude.
Re being "rushed," I think Nate was under a very strict time constraint. The talk was very well constructed, clear, interesting. No time to lay out big theory.
Was there a q&a afterwards, Nate?
Aren't we fighting against human nature in the end. Most people if given a choice prefer lving in a homogenuous area. There have been studies done that show Rs like living with Rs and Ds like living with Ds.
For all the people saying they like cities I suspect most of you live in yuppie sections of cities. There are many parts of cities that are terrible places to live filled with crime drugs and poor performing schools.
NATE,
Good job speaking. You always have awesome and interesting topics. You should consider being some sort of professor of statistical politics or something.
I was most intrigued by the city-block (OCD) vs. winding (ADD) methods of street-making. Winding streets are incredibly annoying. I remember during a GOTV in October we had to go deep into a neighborhood just to start or something and there were roads every which way.
It would be interesting to see a block-styled suburb--I never even thought such a concept was possible.
There is a charm to the waviness, but I'm sure it would be better as a bl...grid!
Oh and finally now that I've gotten off-topic, I like how you think the style may affect political beliefs and beliefs on race.
That piece of East Lansing looks like some 4th dimensional being was playing around. It's all warped.
Interesting analysis.
You know, I was surfing the googles and ran across Obama's current ratings, particularly his job approval ratings.
Here are the last 10 ratings.
Poll Date Sample Approve Disapprove Spread
RCP Average 04/14 - 04/23 -- 61.8 31.4 +30.4
FOX News 04/22 - 04/23 900 RV 62 29 +33
Gallup 04/21 - 04/23 1547 A 65 28 +37
Rasmussen Reports 04/21 - 04/23 1500 LV 55 44 +11
Pew Research 04/14 - 04/21 1507 A 63 26 +37
Associated Press/GfK 04/16 - 04/20 1000 A 64 30 +34
National Journal/FD 04/08 - 04/14 1200 A 61 28 +33
Cook/RT Strategies 04/08 - 04/11 833 RV 60 30 +30
Ipsos/McClatchy 04/02 - 04/06 1138 A 63 33 +30
CNN 04/03 - 04/05 1023 A 66 30 +36
If you average eight of those minus Rasmussen, you get 63 approve, 29 disapprove. Rasmussen stands at 55 approve and 44 disapprove.
What does LV have to do with Obama's approval ratings? Is Rasmussen trying to redefine approval ratings or is there no standard way of gauging the populaces approval of a President?
Anyways, happy Friday!
Nate,
Excellent analysis and historiographical representation of racism's influence in the election
Hey,Statler N Waldorf - great post!
GROG wrote -
Fully 96 percent of black voters supported Obama.
Could you imagine the outcry if McCain received 96% of the white vote? There is such a huge double standard regarding race in this country.Typical right wing illogical argument.
Of course there would be outcry, since 35 to 60 percent of whites have voted Democrat in every modern election, and such a change from the usual pattern would indeed indicate overwhelming racial prejudice.
Meanwhile, as Wayward Son pointed out -
Al Gore got 92% of the black vote, and he's about the whitest guy on the planet.Do you get it Grog? African-Americans are always a heavily Democrat demographic.
We all know that if Alan Keyes (who was, by the way, Obama's senate race opponent) ran against a white Democrat, Keyes would lose the black vote, heavily. Indeed, Keyes and other black candidates have been on the ballot in other general elections, just not as Democrats, and have not received much of the black vote. The Green candidate in the 2008 election was black, yet she did not receive much of the black vote.
This is obviously the only US general presidential election in which there was a Democratic black candidate, yet black voters have preferred the Democrat in all presidential elections since the 1930's, and have rejected black Republicans in many local elections, and rejected black third party candidates in several presidential elections.
I would suggest, therefore, that continuing to argue that African-Americans choose only on the basis of race, as GROG implies, in contradiction to the obvious historical record, is what borders on racism.
For full disclosure, I am as white as Al Gore.
@harold
Look at the black vote in the Democratic primary. Why did so many black people vote for an unknown and inexperienced black candidate?
Your excuse that blacks usually vote for democrats does not work there.
For all those who seem to think that an african american voting for Obama was as racist as a white guy from Arkansas refusing to vote for Obama because of his race, well if there were any african americans voting for Obama because he is black, they weren't voting against McCain because of his white skin. Its a subtle, and yet in the end vital difference.
@markymark
Congratulations on posting one of the stupidest statements I have ever seen on this website. Given the competition, that's really quite an accomplishment.
On a side note, is anyone willing to explain why a huge majority of blacks voted for Obama in the Democratic primary? Or are people here just afraid to admit that many black voters are racist?
Why am I being stupid John? A black guy goes into a voting both and with pride at the first opportunity he has had to vote for a black guy, casts a vote for Obama.
A white guy goes into a booth and pulls the lever (or whatever!) for McCain because he is scared about a black guy being President.
Those are two very different instincts.
Now don't get me wrong, I am sure that there were some African Americans voting against white America, but I would guess a very very small fraction of Obama's vote was voting negatively. Nate's evidence suggests 14% of McCain's voters in Arkansas were voting against Obama purely because of the color of his skin.
jbz7890 -
Look at the black vote in the Democratic primary. Why did so many black people vote for an unknown and inexperienced black
Your excuse that blacks usually vote for democrats does not work there.Does not compute.
I didn't make any "excuses", I alluded to the absolutely obvious fact that black voters have chosen the Democratic candidate even when the Democrat was white and an African-American candidate was on the ballot (but not as the Democrat).
I didn't even comment about the primary. However, now that you bring it up, you're wrong about that, too.
Obama was obviously NOT either "unknown" or "inexperienced". I think he was clearly the strongest candidate in the Democratic primary. For full disclosure, I initially supported a different primary candidate, but supported Obama by the end, due to his performance.
Your clear insinuation is that African-Americans will support an African-American candidate regardless of all other factors, at least in the Democratic primary. But you have no evidence to support this inflammatory and intuitively incorrect assertion.
Presented with a highly competent black candidate in the primary, African-Americans were predisposed to support him, and I'm sure that this would be true of any other identifiable social group. A highly competent Lithuanian-American candidate would very likely do well in a primary, among Lithuanian-American voters, all else being equal. That isn't such a big deal. However, someone who refused to support a highly competent candidate who was Lithuanian-American, purely because of their ethnicity, would be rightly accused of being an anti-Lithuanian-American bigot. There is a difference.
I don't know what motivates people to repeat, repeat, and repeat the unsupported claim that black voters are driven almost exclusively by candidates' race, when this is not what we see.
Someone also made the ludicrous comment that "Obama would not have won if he was not black". But polls strongly indicate that a white Democrat would have won in 2008.
I don't think it’s possible to have a rational discussion with people who are too afraid to admit that black people might be racist.
You guys act like black people are cautious and pensive in their voting practices.
I'm hate to say it (because I know everyone will just dismiss me as a racist, which I am not), but blacks the least educated group of people in this country, and their average scores on most intelligent tests are usually one standard deviation below the white average (whether this difference is genetic or environmental is irrelevant; they still score lower on intelligence tests).
But now I hear that blacks are political mavens who vote for the "sophisticated" candidate while trailer trash whites just vote for the white candidate.
Give me a break.
jbz
Your argument tends to fall down in that some, at least, of those black racists, who do of course exist, would be the kind of people who would accuse Obama of being too white, simply by running for President, and not vote for anyone.
I'm more concerned with the general notion on this forum that blacks vote more carefully than (or as carefully as) whites.
That's simply absurd.
For instance, if these "trailer trash whites" in Arkansas and Alabama represented the stupidest 15% of the white population, they would still be as smart as the average black person. So by insulting this small group of white people, one insults half of all black people, and if this small segment of the white population is racist, then that would suggest that a much larger proportion of the black population is racist.
jbz7890 -
I don't think it’s possible to have a rational discussion with people who are too afraid to admit that black people might be racist.Of course some African-Americans are racist, that has nothing to do with your previous claim.
You guys act like black people are cautious and pensive in their voting practices.I'm sure many of them are, but that's not what I said.
I'm hate to say it (because I know everyone will just dismiss me as a racist, which I am not), Actually, you've made it very, very clear that you are.
but blacks the least educated group of people in this country, and their average scores on most intelligent tests are usually one standard deviation below the white average (whether this difference is genetic or environmental is irrelevant; they still score lower on intelligence tests).Again, this has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
It's quite ironic that someone whose posts are as illogical as yours would insulting the intelligence of others.
The subject of intelligence tests is actually a complex one; it's a subject about which I know a great deal, and about which I can tell that you know almost nothing.
But now I hear that blacks are political mavens who vote for the "sophisticated" candidate while trailer trash whites just vote for the white candidate.No, you didn't hear that, because no-one said anything like that.
The bigot here is YOU.
I grew up in a poor household in a largely white rural area myself.
Give me a break.You don't deserve a break.
@harold
How did I know this was coming? Simple minds are so predictable...
jbz7890 -
Also - here's a quick quiz question for you. If group A scores one standard deviation below group B on some test, if test scores are distributed normally in both groups, and if the standard deviation is the same in both groups, what percentage of group A have a score higher than the mean of group B?
That's a simple question, so if you can't answer it, be embarrassed.
Also, for whatever reason, Jewish-Americans and Asian-Americans have higher than average scores on standard intelligence tests. Yet those demographics also favor Democrat candidates.
By no means do I endorse any repulsive racist interpretations of IQ tests; I'm just noting the illogical nature of the claims implied above.
Ew. Sarah Palin PAC ad's?
About 16%...I just used 15% in my previous post because it was an easier number with which to work.
And I love how you contradict yourself. You say that blacks do not have lower IQs, even though they score lower on IQ tests, but you say that Asians and Jews have higher IQs because they score higher on IQ tests.
Not really worth discussing what words are appropriate to use with someone who swears so freely for no good reason.
A bit off topic for the current post, but Tedisco has conceded (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/24/new.york.house/). Good to see that this race apparently isn't going to be as drawn out as the other one.
For some reason this website switches between john and jbz.
John/jbz -
I usually don't insult people for stupidity, because lots of stupid people are kind and decent. The problem with you is not that you're stupid.
But you're stupid.
And I love how you contradict yourself. You say that blacks do not have lower IQs, even though they score lower on IQ tests, but you say that Asians and Jews have higher IQs because they score higher on IQ tests.God you're stupid.
"IQ" is the score from an IQ test.
Stupid and racist. What a way to go through life.
jbz, if you remember, before large numbers of white voters and caucus-goers supported Obama and showed he had a real chance to win the Democratic nomination, most black Democrats supported Hillary. And I say this as a New York Democrat (if you must know, I'm "white" by American but not Nazi/KKK standards) who was opposed to Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Obama was my third choice, after Kucinich and Edwards (we see how that one turned out), but I was pretty happy to support him.
So your real problem isn't why black Democrats didn't consider mere years of political experience to be the most important criterion for presidential candidates this year, but why so many white voters also had other criteria. Because everybody knows that purely on years of experience, McCain would have won.
So why are you picking on black Obama voters and not white ones? We know the answer, and so do you.
@ Statler
From http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/43818
"To add trolls, from your firefox browser select 'Tools'->'Greasemonkey'->'Manage User Scripts'. Select '538TrollRemover' and click 'Edit'. Add any new trolls to the trollList array near the beginning of the script.'
I haven't tried it yet.Let me know how it works.
Grog,
If you think that African-Americans don't think about anything but the color of the candidate's skin when in the voting booth, explain this:
Some background:
Baltimore City is a majority AA city (in 2007 an estimated 64% of the city residents were AA, and that number is now slightly declining - in the 2000 census, it was determined that 64.3% of the city's population was AA). The city became majority AA during the late 1950s/early 60s.
With that background:
In 1992, Barbara Mikulski (Polish, Catholic, thus WHITE) was the Democratic Party candidate, and received 86.8% of the vote in Baltimore City. Alan Keyes (the same idiot who ran against Obama in Illinois in 2004) was the Republican Party candidate (and if you don't know, Kooky Keyes is BLACK). Keyes received 13.2% of the vote in Baltimore City.
Hmmm. Shouldn't Keyes have received a lot higher vote if the AAs only based their vote on skin color???
In 2006, the Democratic Party candidate was Ben Cardin (of European Jewish ancestry, thus not African-American), and he received 74.5% of the vote in Baltimore City. The Republican Party candidate was Michael Steele (yes, the SAME Steele who is now the chairman of the Republican National Committee). Steele is of African-American ancestry, and really played up his African-American roots at the same time downplaying his Republican registration to the point of not mentioning it at all in his campaign. Steele won 23.2% of the vote in Baltimore City.
Hmmm. Shouldn't Steele have received a lot higher vote if the AAs only based their vote on skin color???
Yes, anecdotal, but it PROVES that at least in Baltimore City, African-Americans do NOT just look at the color of the candidate's skin when they go to the polls on election day.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
P.S., My thanks to Ken for initially responding to Grog and thus getting my attention to the idiocy of what he/she/it stated, as I usually just scroll past the posts made by idiots (Grog, Nova, PK, the horse/donkey offspring rider, and other assorted ilk), wishing to spend my time more productively by reading the posts of much more intelligent posters.
Great talk, but I am not convinced by your thesis that living in monoracial environments drives racism. In the Democratic primaries, the greater the diversity of the state electorate, the most likely the state was to vote for Hillary Clinton. Harvard social scientist Robert Putnam has published studies demonstrating that social trust has an inverse relationship to racial diversity. Sometimes, unfortunately, familiarity breeds contempt.
Robino said...
In the Democratic primaries, the greater the diversity of the state electorate, the most likely the state was to vote for Hillary Clinton.
US (2007 Census estimates):
White - 80.0%
African American - 12.8%
Others - 7.2%
So by the standards of Robino, Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina, whose populations differ more than the US as a whole, assuredly went for Hillary Clinton?
Virginia - 73.2% White, 19.9% AA, 6.9% Other
Maryland - 63.6% White, 29.5% AA, 7.9% Other
North Carolina - 74.0% White, 21.7% AA, 4.3% Other
Let's see how the primaries turned out:
Maryland (more diverse than the US as a whole, therefore for Clinton?)
Obama - 60.66%
Clinton - 35.78%
Hmmmm - something wrong there
Virginia (more diverse than the US as a whole, therefore for Clinton?)
Obama - 63.66%
Clinton - 35.47%
Hmmmm - something wrong there
North Carolina (more diverse than the US as a whole, therefore for Clinton?)
Obama - 56.14%
Clinton - 41.61%
Hmmmm - something wrong there
Maybe if we expand it a bit?
South Carolina - 68.6% White, 28.7% AA, 2.9% Other
(more diverse than the US as a whole, therefore for Clinton?)
Obama - 55.42%
Clinton - 26.49%
Hmmmm - something wrong there
Four out of 50 states, and not all states held primaries. We're already at 10% wrong. Need we go further?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
So race matters. But diversity--white voters living alongside African-American and Asian and Latino voters--also matters. Before last night, Obama had won overwhelmingly white states and those with African-American populations large enough to tilt the race. Meanwhile, Hillary had scored victories in places black enough for race to be injected regularly into the language of politics but not black enough for that group to be decisive. The trend continued in Pennsylvania on Tuesday.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080505/bahadur2
Robino,
Do you regularly listen to the talking points of the Mark Penn school of idiocy, or reality?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Another interesting case regarding the causes of racism is Germany. Since the fall of communism, there have been several incidents of racially motivated violent acts in East Germany, far more than in West Germany. Also, the right-wing network of propaganda, youth organizations and activistsis much stronger in East Germany than in West Germany, even though West Germany is richer and more populated (actually, just because).
Now, East Germany does actually have less immigrants than West Germany, supporting your "who-do-you-live-with" theory. In fact, some of the violent acts in East Germany were directed against shelters of asylum seekers far outside of the cities. Immigrants and "indigenous" people of East Germany are already kept apart because of these violent acts, but this seperation might in fact just reinforce these racist tendencies.
Also, the population of East Germany is less educated and poorer in general. If you're educated and want to pursue a career, you move to West Germany which turns East Germany into a country of the old and the "losers". I guess that this characterization also suits Appalachia and Arkansas well.
"It's just as bad to vote for Obama because he's black as it was to vote for McCain because he's white. I don't excuse racism of either sort."
I think that's a bit simple. It's entirely understandable that blacks were enthusiastic about supporting the first black candidate with a real shot at becoming president. As with anything else, history and context make a difference.
The assertion that blacks voting for a black candidate is just like whites voting for a white candidate is simplistic. Afro-Americans voting for an Afro-American candidate is more like Irish-Americans voting for an Irish-American candidate, Italian-Americans voting for an Italian-American candidate, Jewish-Americans voting for a Jewish-American candidate, Asian-Americans voting for an Asian-American candidate...
John said
'For instance, if these "trailer trash whites" in Arkansas and Alabama represented the stupidest 15% of the white population, they would still be as smart as the average black person. So by insulting this small group of white people, one insults half of all black people, and if this small segment of the white population is racist, then that would suggest that a much larger proportion of the black population is racist.'
------------------------
I was debating whether or not to respond to this, DNFTT and all, but I was always taught to point out racism wherever I saw it, and boy is that the most racist thing I have EVER read on a forum such as this.
First off, I don't believe that it is intrinsically insulting someone, or even a group, to say that they voted for McCain out of fear of a black president (A fear after all that was propulgated by the right wing, what with photograhs of Obama in native Kenyan gear, reports of his attending madrassas, and an obsession with Jeremiah Wright, amongst others). I think that at times that is a perfectly reasonable response. That doesn't make it a good thing however.
There is little evidence that black people voted for Obama out of an irrational fear of what a McCain presidency would mean. (Did anyone ever say in 2008, if McCain wins I am frightened that slavery will come back to America, in the way that some white people said 'I am worried that Obama is a terrorist'?)
I don't know what you are basing your assertion that the most stupid 15% of the white population is as intelligent as the average African American, but all I can say is that it makes no sense at all, and if you want to substantiate it please produce some statistics to do so.
It is not clear to me that you've quite proved the causation rather than correlation point. Surely more racist people choose more segregated communities. It is plausible that being in a less segregated community cause people to be less racist, but you haven't really provided us with any evidence of that.
Education, on the other hand, seems like it almost surely is causal in the right direction -- it is very unlikely that being less racist causes you to get a better education (unless, of course, it means that you are less afraid to attend those multi-racial campuses...)
Hey, Nate. You misstated the number of EVs Obama got.
He got 365, not 375.
It's cool. We all misspeak sometimes.
Great work!
Nate,
Another possible solution to add to the set, bring back the draft in the form of Universal Service. There are any number of good reasons to do this but the 'mixing' effect is both real and lasting. I speak as a retired Army guy who experienced both the draft and non-draft eras.
JT
Mike in Maryland
In most elections AA vote 90%+ Democratic
Michale Steele got 20+ percent
That means at least 10+ percent voted just because he was black.
Here is the main point ok. Because Obama was black millions of blacks voted for the first time in years and/or were actively invovled in campaigning. If he was not black these people would have never voted/gotten involved. The data proves it high african american districts had turnout up to 50% higher than 2004. Obama would have not carried North Carolina or Virginia. Those are the facts it appears that your leftwing hack brain is too small to figure that out.
"The assertion that blacks voting for a black candidate is just like whites voting for a white candidate is simplistic. Afro-Americans voting for an Afro-American candidate is more like Irish-Americans voting for an Irish-American candidate, Italian-Americans voting for an Italian-American candidate, Jewish-Americans voting for a Jewish-American candidate, Asian-Americans voting for an Asian-American candidate..."
White Americans voting for a white candidate? You can attach all of the motivations and spin to it that you want, but the fact is, allowing race (or in some of the examples you posted above, perceived national origin) to inform your voting patterns IS, BY DEFINITION, RACIST.
Not that there is anything wrong with that. Most of the commentators here are making the assumption that racism is automatically and inherently bad. It's perfectly fine for blacks to want to vote one of their own into office. Having a black president is, quite understandably, a source of pride for them. Similarly, voting against Obama because he is thought to be a Muslim is ignorant, but not entirely unreasonable. Islamic terrorism has left scars on the American public that will not fade for decades.
I would also ask how many of the liberal commentators here support the policy of affirmative action. Affirmative action is completely racist: people are accepted into schools or hired because their skin happens to be a certain color. However, it is an entirely reasonable argument that decades of mistreatment have left blacks in a position where that sort of help is needed to elevate their lots in life.
Is there such a thing as good racism?
Wayward Son, let us clarify a few things. Voting for Obama ONLY because he is black, is perhaps as bad as voting for McCain because he is white. However, I would not categorize voting for Obama because he is qualified AND black with voting for McCain only because he is white. First, Obama is qualified to be President; second, there are benefits to our ethnic minorities who lack education and income in seeing someone they identify with as President. Even as a confidence booster, when one thinks they are capable, one more actively engages in their society, a positive thing.
Okay, I'll take the bait.
1) re: affirmative action. Affirmative action is a corrective measure, intended to redirect employment practices which have only until recently encouraged institutional bigotry. There will come a point in time when the habitual patterns of centuries past (which were abolished by law only 40 years ago) are finally broken. On that day, affirmative action will no longer be needed, and should be jettisoned. We are not there yet, however, we do move in that direction, and shall arrive.
2) re: voting patterns informed by race. Personally, my decision was not based in race. I saw Clinton as having a sense of entitlement and inevitability, which struck me as arrogant-one does not inherit the Presidency, one must earn it, no matter what your pedigree may be. I saw McCain as senile and Palin as crazy. I saw Obama as calm, reasonable, and able to think things through even during moments of desperation. Therefore, the choice of voting for him, both int he primary and the general election, seemed logical.
There are those who did vote for or against him based on his ethnicity. I cannot and do not pretend to speak for them, as I am not one of them. I voted for the best possible candidate. The fact that he is Black was irrelevant to my decision.
I am rather surprised that anyone is still talking about his race. I mean, he's been President for almost 100 days now. Why don't you define him by what he's done, by the merit or lack thereof that he has exhibited so far? Unless you are a cavedweller, odds are pretty good that you know him by now. Can't you judge him by what he's done or not done? Isn't that the ideal behind the American Dream?
3) The Muslim issue. No, this is not understandable. Tim McVeigh was a christian terrorist that caused a pretty amazing amount of destruction to this country, and yet you do not consider it reasonable to distrust all christians. In fact, while there was one single day of atrocities committed on the American mainland by fundamentalist Muslims, the number of incidents involving christian terrorists are countless. Eric Rudolph, Paul Hill, Ben Smith, The Order, Matthew Hale, the KKK, the Army of God, fundamentalist Mormons and Monte Miller-all psychopathically convinced that the christian god ordered them to kill. In fact, christians have caused more destruction in the USA than Muslims ever have. Should I distrust anyone that has a christian sounding name? of course not. So why should I judge Obama for his Muslim-sounding name?
Now, let me ask you this: Why do you hate America? Don't you support our President? Do you want the christian terrorists to win? If you hate American democracy and pluralism so much, why don't you move to an ethnically homogeneous theocracy-like Iran? I'm sure you and Achmedinijad have more in common than you realize. After all, the Iranians do consider themselves to be Aryans. Maybe you're related.
A lot of people here don't know the definition of racism. Being selective on the basis of race is not racism by definition. Racism is the belief that all members of a certain race are inherently inferior or superior to members of another race.
Affirmative action (which I do not support in its current form, FYI; rather, I think it should be class based) is not premised on the notion that minorities are inherently inferior/superior to whites. Hence, it is not racist, even if it is selective on the basis of race.
Check out the CNN exit polls. More of Obama voters focused on race as an important factor than McCain voters. Case closed.
"Affirmative action (which I do not support in its current form, FYI; rather, I think it should be class based) is not premised on the notion that minorities are inherently inferior/superior to whites. Hence, it is not racist, even if it is selective on the basis of race."
In affirmative action, people in protected classes (blacks, Hispanics, women) are preferred over people who are not in those classes (whites, Asians, men) even if the ones protected are equally or slightly less qualified than their majority counterparts. In effect, these people are being held to a lower standard. It's like saying "I know you scored lower on that test, but it's okay, you're black. We'll let you into our school anyway."
Holding someone to a lower standard because of their race IS believing that they are inherently inferior, whether or not that is the stated intent. So by your definition, affirmative action, or any system that selects based on race, IS racism.
"1) re: affirmative action. Affirmative action is a corrective measure, intended to redirect employment practices which have only until recently encouraged institutional bigotry. There will come a point in time when the habitual patterns of centuries past (which were abolished by law only 40 years ago) are finally broken. On that day, affirmative action will no longer be needed, and should be jettisoned. We are not there yet, however, we do move in that direction, and shall arrive."
Affirmative action is racist and, in some cases, good policy for the exact reason you just stated. My point is that the two are not mutually exclusive, and racism is not necessarily a bad thing.
My personal belief about affirmative action is that the most qualified person should always win, but in the event of a perfect tie, it should go to the person who has had the least advantages growing up. This doesn't necessarily need to be because of race. I can think of several children I knew growing up who had very wealthy parents, every advantage you could think of, and were black.
I don't agree that a suburban neighborhood on a grid means there's more, or better, interaction with neighbors, as opposed to a neighborhood with cul-de-sacs. My last house was at the end of a cul-de-sac and in the first year, we got to know 5 neighbors moderately well, and became real friends with one neighbor. My current house is on a grid in the suburbs. We have become acquainted with one neighbor, but I cannot name any of our neighbors, and we certainly aren't friends with them. Cul-de-sacs are insular and I can see why the hypothesis might come to mind that there's less neighborly interaction; but on a grid you also need gathering points, and the gathering points in a cul-de-sac are more amenable to getting invited to someone's house, etc.
I can think of several children I knew growing up who had very wealthy parents, every advantage you could think of, and were black..
Are you kidding me? How about the greatest advantage of them all? BEING WHITE!
You miss my point entirely.
Affirmative Action is neither racist nor is it the consolation prize for having had a shitty life.
Affirmative Action is corrective. That means it is there to correct something, to change it into something else. The employee does not need correcting. We're not trying to reward or penalize the employment candidate for their race. We are trying to correct a tendency that has been conditioned into American employers for 500 years, specifically, the tendency to judge a new applicant on external factors unrelated to their merit. The employer is being corrected, not the employee. Therefore, our consideration is not to select the employment applicant that had the harder life.
The goal is a meritocracy. We are rapidly advancing toward that, as is evidenced by the growing number of women and minorities in government. However, we see several groups still woefully underrepresented. There is as of yet only one Black Senator, two Buddhist and one Muslim Members of Congress, and less than 50% female representation in either chamber or on the SCOTUS. There are no sitting Native American justices and the ratio of Hispanics in government does not match their percentage in the general population. As for GLBT people, we have one lesbian and two gay men in Congress and no Senators, no justices, and not yet even a President.
Once the tendency to consider these external factors as a barrier to employment are lifted, as will be reflected by the electorate's willingness to select candidates based on merit alone, and therefore yielding the approximate same proportion of these minorities in government as exists int eh general population, then Affirmative Action will no longer be needed, as we will have achieved something much closer to the desired meritocracy.
Were this a racist scheme, the goal would not be meritocracy or proportional representation in government and other forms of employment, not would it be temporary. Then, the goal would be a permanent majority of any one particular group in government or in employment.
In other words, assuming a normal distribution of merit across the entire population, with a large enough sample size, minority groups should exhibit the same proportion of merit as the larger majority population does. Therefore, if we are hiring based on merit alone, the same proportion that exists in the general pop will exist in the workforce.
If there are, say, 16% of the population that is Black, then approximately 16% of the total workforce should be Black. 51% of the American population is female (why are they considered a minority? Over half is a majority), then 51% of the total workforce should be female. roughly 6% is gay male and about 8% lesbian, so you should see those same proportions showing up int he workforce as an aggregate whole.
Further, the same distribution int he general pop should exist at all levels, including in government. Since American Indians make up 1.5% of the US population, there should be at least 1 Native American Senator and 6 Congressmen, for example. When we get at least close to this kind of representation coming spontaneously out of the electorate with no manipulattion by government to produce it, it will mean that we are close enough to a meritocracy to jettison Affirmative Action.
This probably won't happen until after the older generations have died off. It could just be me showing pride in my generation, but I have noticed that the older folks are more bigoted than we are. For instance, my sexuality is not really a big deal to most folks my age. It only seems to be a problem for you older folks. Further, I find that most of my friends voted for Obama based on his merits as a candidate, and the ideas he represented being alot like our own. Race is something I hear the Baby Boomers talking about all the time.
So, I guess I'm just patiently waiting for you folks to pass on so we can enjoy a country where hard work and dedication to your craft is what matters more than some outdated bigotry that just makes you look so damned old to us.
The greatest beneficiaries of affirmative action policies and programs are not blacks, but white women. It's also a truism that there have always been more legacies - children of mostly rich, white alumni of universities - than recipients of any kind of consideration on the basis of minority race or ethnicity. So why do you suppose we hear so many more complaints about the, um, "uppity" black folks who supposedly benefit so disproportionately from special consideration? Do I make myself clear?
"Are you kidding me? How about the greatest advantage of them all? BEING WHITE!"
The "advantage" of being born white is that you have a higher chance of being born into a better standard of living. Were I a poor white kid, given the opportunity to trade being white for wealth and a great education, I would gladly do so.
"Affirmative Action is corrective. That means it is there to correct something, to change it into something else. The employee does not need correcting. We're not trying to reward or penalize the employment candidate for their race. We are trying to correct a tendency that has been conditioned into American employers for 500 years, specifically, the tendency to judge a new applicant on external factors unrelated to their merit. The employer is being corrected, not the employee. Therefore, our consideration is not to select the employment applicant that had the harder life."
If the goal is a meritocracy, admissions and job applications need to be completely race-blind. For the most part, if affirmative action is not in play, they ARE. The problem is that black children are not being educated well enough to be represented in these high places. I'm sure that is a position you can agree with.
Hiring underqualified minorities is not solving the problem, it is simply masking it. And like I said before, regardless of what the intentions are, it is racist.
"So, I guess I'm just patiently waiting for you folks to pass on so we can enjoy a country where hard work and dedication to your craft is what matters more than some outdated bigotry that just makes you look so damned old to us."
My generation will die off long after yours. I'm 18 years old.
"The greatest beneficiaries of affirmative action policies and programs are not blacks, but white women. It's also a truism that there have always been more legacies - children of mostly rich, white alumni of universities - than recipients of any kind of consideration on the basis of minority race or ethnicity. So why do you suppose we hear so many more complaints about the, um, "uppity" black folks who supposedly benefit so disproportionately from special consideration? Do I make myself clear?"
This is a truism? Has there been any study whatsoever done on this subject? If so, I would love to see it.
@saneone:
This article from Wikipedia is not authoritative, but is a start on looking at the influence of "legacies" (i.e., children of previous graduates) in (mostly private) college admission decisions.
"The problem is that black children are not being educated well enough to be represented in these high places. I'm sure that is a position you can agree with."
I don't know if you meant how this sounds, but this categorical statement comes off as somewhat racist.
"Hiring underqualified minorities is not solving the problem, it is simply masking it. And like I said before, regardless of what the intentions are, it is racist."
Again, you seem to be suggesting that all minorities are inherently underqualified. The reality is that, at the highest level, admissions to top universities are flooded with so many roughly equal applications that the decision is largely arbitrary anyway (and is often merely determined through connections). There are plenty of people of all colors out there with 4.0 GPAs and near-perfect SAT scores. Affirmative action merely assures that the proportion of qualified minority candidates reflects the proportion of their population in society.
"Affirmative action is racist and, in some cases, good policy for the exact reason you just stated. My point is that the two are not mutually exclusive, and racism is not necessarily a bad thing."
My point is that you're falsely conflating racism with selectivity based on race. While the latter can be discriminatory, it does not necessarily reflect the specific ideology of racism.
Actually, it will be race-blind, after the tendency toward racist hiring practices is corrected. That's the point of Affirmative Action. It's like how the point of nicotine gum isn't because you can't smoke indoors and you need a fix, it's to help you quit smoking. Well, American employers have been conditioned for half a millennium to base their hiring decisions on race in such a way that women and minorities are disadvantaged, and effect which is countered by Affirmative Action. We're trying to break a bad habit here, you see?
The irony in all this is that actual supporters of Affirmative Action are actually racist when you think about it.
In essence supporters of Affirmative action are saying someone they can't get a job on their own merit and need help inferring that they are somehow inferior.
Actually all affirmative action is supposed to be is an effort to market or advertise toward "underperforming" groups in an effort to get a greater pool of untraditional applicants. Selective hiring only legally applies if you have an equal woman/AA/hispanic vs a white male. In those cases only it would go to the former group. All other opportunities are required by law to based on merit.
@nova_middle_man
So if you acknowledge that racial discrimination in society puts a group at a disproportionate disadvantage, then you're a racist?
That's some really crazy spin.
Again, you guys don't really have a clear conception of what constitutes racism.
nova-middle-man said
The irony in all this is that actual supporters of Affirmative Action are actually racist when you think about it.
In essence supporters of Affirmative action are saying someone they can't get a job on their own merit and need help inferring that they are somehow inferior.
Actually all affirmative action is supposed to be is an effort to market or advertise toward "underperforming" groups in an effort to get a greater pool of untraditional applicants. Selective hiring only legally applies if you have an equal woman/AA/hispanic vs a white male. In those cases only it would go to the former group. All other opportunities are required by law to based on merit.
------------------------
I think this gets to the heart of the problem about more conservative views about affirmative action. NMM is assuming that the minority being hired must automatically be less qualified, able to do a job. I don't quite know how affirmative action works in ALL cases, but often in my experience, it is not hiring someone less qualified, it is hiring someone equally qualified, but using there race or gender as a determining factor. (Sort of- well both these two people are great for the job, but I have one white guy and one black guy, we will hire the black guy'.)
Now that is not fair on that individual white person. And you would hope that after 40 years that AA would be less necessary. I get the feeling that over the next 20 or 30 years it could be faded out generally. But I do think that right now it is still necessary.
theonlysaneone posted, in part, as follows:
"If the goal is a meritocracy, admissions and job applications need to be completely race-blind. For the most part, if affirmative action is not in play, they ARE."
What's your evidence that race usually plays no part in hiring decisions, when hirers are left completely to their own devices? It seems to me that you've really summed up the naive core of one sort of objection to race-conscious correctives in hiring, education - and above all, recruitment.
I'd hasten to add that I am strongly opposed to UNQUALIFIED individuals of any sort being hired for jobs. Only prejudiced people or people who misunderstand what affirmative action is supposed to be and do believe that's what it is and does. Before affirmative action, somehow, no women were qualified to be firefighters? No blacks were qualified to be firefighters in Memphis? No blacks or women were qualified to be professors at or attend certain universities? And when they were forced to end their discrimination on paper, they suddenly changed their mindsets 100%?
Someone else will search literature for proof that more white women than black folks have benefited from affirmative action policies, but just use a little logic and think about the numbers of people involved, and it'll be pretty obvious. Are you aware, for example, that men tend to do better on college entrance exams like the SATs than women, but yet are in general less likely to succeed in college (demonstrating that the bias in SAT results is counter-predictive on the basis of sex)? Are you further aware that for some time now, a clear majority of college students has been female? Think back to all the court cases that forced fire departments, for example, to successfully integrate women. Etc., etc. Blacks are around 11% of the U.S. population, while women are a small majority. So who do YOU think it's most benefited?
MarkyMark
First of all once again thanks for being a voice of sanity on the left. I think you actually misinterpreted my post. I agree with your definition of affirmative action but many here have different views of what it actually is/should be.
I repeat it is highly ironic and racist to state that a specfiic group of people needs a handout to be able to get a job which is what many on the left are arguing here
A white kid and a black kid born in 1980 in the same town attending the same schools there is no difference and yet the black kid can go to college with much lower test scores and abilites. And contrary to the intent of affirmative action can also in many cases get a job just because of the color of his skin. Not only does this rightly infuriate the white kid the black kid is always left wondering am I actually good enough do I deserve this or is it just because of what color I was born with.
MLK is rolling over in his grave.
If we are going to have an equal society we need real equality.
Racial preference is racism and is wrong white, black, purple, green or yellow.
nova_middle_man:
Let me make it clear that I don't support "reverse discrimination" of the type that the Supreme Court correctly invalidated years ago in the Bakke decision. That said, this kind of blithe assertion is not magically true, just because it feels right to you for it to be true:
"A white kid and a black kid born in 1980 in the same town attending the same schools there is no difference"
For this to be true, it would have to be true that no-one bases any part of their judgment on a person's skin color anymore. I think the term "magical thinking" applies to such an assertion. Racism was built over hundreds of years; how soon do you think it would totally disappear from everyone's minds, such that there REALLY is "no difference"?
I truely believe that for a majority it is true.
Ok so there are some small areas in rural white America. I would argue there are just as many places in urban black america that think the white man is still out to get them and use that as a crutch instead of respecting and working to improve their community.
A company has 100 employees. All of the 100 employees are white. The company states that it can't hire anyone but white employees because no non-whites apply.
Sounds plausible, doesn't it?
Upon further inspection, we find that the company does not do any advertising about job openings, but lets word of mouth spread the word that there is a job opening. It is only the top management that is entrusted to spread the word about the job opening. Further, the management are all members of all-white country clubs and other societies (such as the club for former employees of the specific company), etc.
What if the company actually advertised the job openings, the qualifications for such jobs is taught at the University 10 miles down the road? And taught to students who are not all white?
The above scenario is one that Affirmative Action addresses. AA is not designed as a 'quota machine', but rather to find why minorities are not hired, and what steps the company needs to take to hire minorities.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
nova_middle_man:
Your claims about a "crutch" work very well on the other foot. How many whites use claims about "reverse discrimination" as a crutch to avoid doing things to better themselves? Do you think it's mostly the highest-qualified whites who spend lots of time thinking about or complaining about affirmative action programs?
You can believe anything you want, but you might want to examine some studies of UNCONSCIOUS attitudes toward race and take them into account, even if their results bother you (as they should bother all of us):
"Unconscious bias test" Google results
You know something, I live in a majority Black community and am half-White, half-Asian. Yeah, I stand out like a sore thumb sometimes.
There are some awkward social interactions at times. I remember one time overhearing a co-worker at this part-time summer job I took before going to college talk about how she met this white guy, but he was nice. I noticed that she felt she had to add that last part almost any time she met a white guy that had been nice to her. As if to say, most white guys don't, and if she didn't add a qualifier, the normal thing to assume was that they weren't.
New Orleans is a city with a long and brutal story of race relations. The place where they used to sell slaves is still there, part of the park downtown. Nearby, the Iberville Estates is low-income housing that is almost exclusively Black, wedged between the French Quarter the Tremé, and a quiet little neighborhood whose name escapes me at the moment. Most people downtown talk derisively about the crime problem int he Iberville, and say that it brings down the property values and they should just bulldoze the thing. Nobody ever talks about where the people that live there would go to live. I guess they just wish they'd all go away, just disappear.
Segregation is illegal today, of course, although this is a recent development. The Iberville is practically all Black not because anyone says white people have to live here and black people have to live there, or that they can't live together. Its that way because, even today in 90% African-American New Orleans post-segregation and after Affirmative Action, the best paying jobs still go to the whites that live here, and the only people who are poor enough to have to live int he Iberville are Black.
It says something about a neighborhood when even the homeless people avoid it. Its known locally as a killing field, a place where crack, smack, and guns are the only law there is. I remember walking over by there on my way to Armstrong Park. I wandered a little too close to the Iberville, and this older Black guy put his hand on my shoulder and led me across the street, away from the place. He said something about how dumb kids like me should watch where the hell I'm going, and do my parents know where I am, and wanted to know if I was into drugs or something, as if that was the only reason why anyone would ever go there.
Uptown there is the Garden District, where two of the main Universities in town are. Clean streets, elegant old homes-and by that I mean old-some are older than the city you live in, mister. Old money lives up there too, and alot of it. Some of those used to be plantations. They're all very far from that place they used to sell slaves, which is walking distance to the Iberville. Oh yeah, almost everyone there is white.
Am I to believe that the reason why a kid that grows up in the Iberville is somehow stupider than the kids that grow up in the Garden District? That by some weird chance of luck, all the hard working people live uptown, that the people born downtown lack merit? Well, I don't believe that.
There is still a form of segregation here, even if it is not written in the law books. Its written in people's minds, and its very hard to erase. Like that older lady at the summer job I had, whose impression of white people was that the nice ones were the rare exception.
We still need Affirmative Action, and will, until New Orleans' past is finally laid to rest.
Nice story but affirmative action is NOT going to change what is occuring.
Its pretty interesting how views are shaped by personal experiences.
You have described a ghetto neighborhood. There are thousands of ghetto neighborhoods some are black some are hispanic some are white some are asian and some are mixed. I don't know if there is a solution to ghetto neighborhoods. Its like pouring money down a sinkhole.
The current trend is to demolish them (aka no more entire section 8 neighborhoods) When you have that high of a concentration of poverty, drugs, unemployment, low skills, and hopelessness the only way to make a dent in the problem is to eliminate such a high concentration of factors living together.
The thing is there will ALWAYS be poor people and there will always be ghetto neighborhoods. We can have affirmative action for the next 50 years and I bet you there will be little change in the neighborhood. Its generation upon generation of neglect, ignorence and hopelessness and the only way to break it is to split it up.
I'm okay with mixing the section 8 homes in with the regular ones. I think the problem these folks face is that, since most of the wealth in New Orleans is concentrated in the white neighborhoods (and it is-you see fresh pavement uptown, potholes downtown), the cops don't bother going to the Iberville anymore. They go where the tax base-and their paychecks-are.
That's what I'm trying to describe here, you see. Segregation is gone, sort of. The law doesn't prevent services from reaching Black people explicitly anymore, but still those services are denied to them down here.
This has to change. I want a level playing field where anybody, no matter what their skin color, has an equal chance of success. I want a society where the only thing that determines if you make it or not is how hard you bust your ass.
To do that, you have to uproot the tendency toward racism from employers
There is a very similar siutation in Washington DC with several of the areas across the Anacostia river.
I'm not really sure how racism from employers fits into the equation.
In DC at least there are very few employment opportunities/small businesses period. Now this is admittedly a Republican spin idea :-p but I think helping enterpenuers in troubled regions would go a long way towards fixing the problems. You could even give a bonus for local enterpenuers.
The drug/crime isssue would still be a problem but this would the job situation at least and ensure some pride of ownership in the community. Maybe over time people from the community could actually take over the bussinesses.
There is of course tons of history on this. Asians and Indians often started businesses in ghetto type regions and some have become very wealthy due to these actions. The trick is providing security to help the businesses thrive adding more employees which adds more income to the area which reduces the dependence on illegal activity for income.
Nova middle man
I don't disagree that just employing someone because they are a particular race is wrong. But I would question whether or not America is race blind enough yet to get rid of Affirmative Action entirely. (Of course it could be argued that affirmative action is one thing that continues the racism).
I think its a policy that is not explained well enough, and its historical context is not explained well enough. What I personally don't agree with is quotas, but I do think there is nothing wrong with using affirmative action as a tie breaker during a selection process.
I also think it works. Look at how effective the Rooney rule is in the NFL. Its 20 years since the first African American Head Coach was appointed in the NFL (Art Shell). By my calculation 6 teams currently have African American Head Coaches, (the Steelers, Colts and Buccaneers are all on their 2nd AA Head Coach), and a further 7 have had an AA head coach in the past. 2 have won the Superbowl. Its not that you have to give jobs to African Ameriocas, but there is clearly benefit to giving them the opportunity to show they are capable.
It fits in because the primary modes of wealth distribution in New Orleans are inheritance, investment and wages. The first two are great if you have someone to inherit money from or enough money to make an initial investment-and nobody in the Iberville does. That's why opening a small business there would be impossible for the people that live in that neighborhood-as low as the property values around there are, you still have overhead-and that will run you much more than they're getting from SSI or TANFF.
The only hope they have of getting the capital together either to start their own businesses or to escape from the Iberville is through wages. Now, the choicest jobs in New Orleans go to the whites, as a general rule. If you look around town, you will see the better paid workers are generally several shades lighter than the lower paid workers.
That means the people in the Iberville are screwed. No job means no escape from poverty.
This must change
Thanks for keeping this going. I feel we are really getting somewhere. I hope its been good for you as well.
We have the same trend again in Washington DC. So why are very few of the high paying jobs going to African Americans. I would argue that the individuals in many cases are not qualified.
How do you fix that? improve education. Uhoh the public school system in DC and New Orleans are pretty terrible. So how do you fix that.... another republican idea :-p. School choice. Providing an alternative education (way out) to escape the cycle of low paying jobs and despair.
That Jill Bolte Taylor talk was amazing, extremely moving.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html
I can see how you thought 'gee, here's a high bar' (but you did well :] )
キャッシング
インプラント
クレジットカード 現金化
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment