African American
Related: About this forum*AA GROUP* Ever notice how, in the discussions re: the "1%" vs. the "99%"
There's remarkably little talk about how working class white men have historically (and currently) benefited from higher wages than women workers as well as workers of color, having higher-paying occupations with more benefits open to them, and being catered to in terms of housing and other aspects of public policy (and politics in general)...in short, how the vast majority of working class people are invisible in their status as workers, whose work is degraded and devalued, and who are constantly shouted down by a comparatively privileged minority?
I missed the memo that revolutions were supposed to be led by people who are resentful that "distractions" like "identity politics" (oh noez, the issues of the womenz and black and brown folk are being considered too! What a bunch of CORPORATE DEMOCRATIC WHORES) are robbing them of air time for their conspiratorial rants against "Wall Street" or "the Clintons" or the "1 percent". I missed the part where women, Black, Latino, Asian, and other marginalized voices were considered "too divisive" because they weren't focused on some generic "economic inequality" that didn't even consider the unique oppression (which definitely includes, but is by no means limited to economic issues) that women, PoC, LGBT persons, those suffering from physical and/or mental disabilities, and others experience in this society. I guess when I wasn't looking, what is "progressive" or"left-wing" had been redefined to give preferential treatment to middle-class white men.
We're truly living in Bizarro World these days.
Gman
(24,780 posts)It's pretty much impossible to beat their decades long work for equality for all. Some have worked just as hard. But these days no one has worked harder.
And a certain Senator from Vermont has been conspicuously absent from that fight.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)The Clintons have done little but market themselves. Your comment is a joke. Bernie marched and sat-in with MLK when Hillary was a Republican throughout college. He's been fighting for the people the entire time while Bill locked up millions of minorities for drug possession...more than Bush and Reagan combined. And Hillary??? She was labeling young black kids Super Predators.
Number23
(24,544 posts)You would think that after the AA community almost thoroughly rejected Sanders -- and I'm sure that these idiotic "points" about how Bernie marched with MLK that his white supporters find ever so important for some inexplicable reason was a huge part of the reason why -- you guys would have enough sense to stop touting them.
But no, here you are in the African American Group telling this same, sad, sorry story. Just stop. Please.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)She said she should stay in the race through June in 2008 because and I quote,"Remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June 1968." Can you believe that. What was she implying. If Sanders said that he would be ripped to pieces and rightfully so.
Number23
(24,544 posts)initially? And what does your post have to do with this OP?
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Have a nice night. And please don't let the truth ruin it for you.
JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts)Disruptive and rude to Group Host
Number23
(24,544 posts)over minority voters or attract sufficient numbers of the Dem base.
No wonder you guys are not only losing so thoroughly but see conspiracies under every rock.
Squinch
(50,934 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)Sanders NEVER sat in with MLK
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)AntiBank
(1,339 posts)Response to Gman (Reply #1)
cliffordu This message was self-deleted by its author.
Number23
(24,544 posts)I haven't seen you in forever, this is the first post of yours in the AA group and THIS is what you want to talk about? The "Bernie marched with MLK" stuff?
Sorry, you didn't go with the tired "marched" with trope. You went with "took a picture with" which I guess means... something.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)There: all gone.
Number23
(24,544 posts)that statement. And yet, black folks have shown convincingly that we still have far more faith in her than Sanders.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I paid for Matlab; I might as well use it.
Here's the poorest three black and white quintiles, over the past half-century.
Similarly, here are male and female median incomes over the same period.
A few things stand out:
1. The narrative of "stagnant wages" seems to mean "white male wages are somewhat stagnated while women's and PoC's wages at least begin to catch up".
2. The second-poorest black quintile is roughly making as much as the poorest white quintile nowadays. They caught up in the 1990s. You know, that "economy that didn't help wages". Ditto the third-poorest black quintile and the second-poorest white quintile -- honestly the extent to which they now match up is kind of eerie.
3. Although the poorest 20% of whites are making more than 40% of African Americans*, they still feel cheated by rising AA incomes, because they're making roughly what they made in 1971 while African Americans are making significantly more than they were in 1971, at all income levels. They look at those wages as "theirs", and want them "back".
3a. When white people talk about wanting stuff "back", nothing good ever comes of that...
* (That's not quite what I mean: someone at the 20th percentile of whites is making more than someone at the 40th percentile of African Americans; this more or less extends all the way down, if you make more than N% of whites you generally make more than 2N% of blacks)
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Thanks!
Squinch
(50,934 posts)I'm white. The truth of this is undeniable, unless you are working very very hard to deny it.
Raissa
(217 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)it pisses them off that women compete with them for money and jobs now--they haven't been so bold as to state outright that they resent Black people for rising up too, but they manage to express it in a dozen other ways.
Squinch
(50,934 posts)It's like when the dog sticks his head under the sofa and thinks no one can see him.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Squinch
(50,934 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Truly idiotic.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)sexism and racism are used to make the 99% become enforcers against the rest of the 99%
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Last edited Sun May 22, 2016, 11:24 PM - Edit history (1)
Remind me of which segment of the working class doesn't want to pay taxes to fund programs for "those people" - even when said programs benefit the same people raging against them.
Remind me of which segment of the working class responded with violence and then fled their neighborhoods when Black people and other PoC started moving in.
Remind me of which segment of the working class pulled their kids out of neighborhood public schools once Black and Latino kids started attending those schools.
Remind me of which segment of the working class had to be dragged kicking and screaming into an era of equal rights for women and minorities - and with many people in that segment of the working class still not accepting that women and minirities are equally deserving of rights and opportunities.
Remind me of which segment of the working class has historically monopolized leadership among working class organizations (labor unions, for example).
Remind me of which segment of the working class, despite still having objectively more power and advantages in society than the rest of the working class, longs for the days when women and minirities "knew their place."
And lastly, remind me of which segment of the working class has historically been as much an obstacle to solidarity among all workers and marginalized peoples as they have been part of the drive toward progressive social change.
The "0.1" didn't "cook up" these divisions, they've been embedded into the foundations of Anerican society since colonial times. And though the wealthiest Americans (who, I would note, are a group that is overwhelmingly dominated by white men and their families) are the largest beneficiaries of those divisions, that doesn't mean that working and middle class whites (particularly white men) haven't themselves internalized those divisions and utilized their comparatively fortunate positions in society to their advantage - at the expense of those less fortunate or less well off. Not by a long shot.
There can be no unity among us until we acknowledge the role that whites, especially white men, and including a significant segment of working class whites, have had in maintaining and reinforcing economic and social divisions and heirarchies. There can be no unity unless we constantly challenge racism, sexism/misogyny, homophobia, nativism, and other systems of social dominance and oppression that operate everywhere - even in our own ranks as progressives . But that's apparently too "divisive" a conversation for many progressives to handle. Such a shame.
PS: insert the obligatory #NotAllWhites and #NotAllMen hashtags here, just to be clear. I'm not talking about those who have demonstrated empathy toward and solidarity with ALL who experience economic and social oppression, and who have shown a willingness to learn from those who are most marginalized by society. That's not who this is directed at, so calm down if you feel offended or picked on. But even so, all of us must keep these things in mind if we want to seriously work toward unity and solidarity.
snot
(10,515 posts)Squinch
(50,934 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the hashtag part.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Could you please trash this forum? Thank you.
Squinch
(50,934 posts)Shovel up ALL the tired and debunked talking points!"
Proving the OP, of course.
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)really is a microcosm of Bernie's problems with AA outreach. There's always someone with a canned "Clinton Bad, Bernie marched with MLK" post in response and it's usually tone deaf.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Last edited Sun May 22, 2016, 07:31 PM - Edit history (1)
to never learn from the multiple mistakes made by their candidate and his supporters.
I honestly believe that some of them think that if they keep typing "it's class, not race1!!" and "identity politics BAD!!!1" the rest of us will see the light and join their desperately moronic team. It's incredibly sad.
JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts)Racially Divisive Posts.
I'm not seeing anything divisive in here - are you?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)"Talking about race" = "being racially divisive"
I am getting so done with all of this. By "all this" I mean GDP and all the insanity that starts there and then permeates the rest of DU.
JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts)You were banned for being pesty and acting the fool.
I have GDP trashed.
It's nothing but nonsense. I get called to jury on average three times a day and it is always some nonsense in GDP.
Can't wait until it's gone so I can get back to getting dragged into the religious groups. I never thought I'd write that.
Number23
(24,544 posts)to whine in the very forums that they'd get ONE chance to shit in before the ban hammer gets laid down are the worse ones.
To be honest, I'm not exactly pleased with the number of blatantly pro-Hillary posts in this forum but considering that black people have supported Hillary something like 6-1 over Sanders and not to mention the number of attacks that black politicians and causes have taken from Sanders supporters and the fact that many blacks simply do not feel that Sanders has ever had any significant interest in our issues, I think we've allowed them just to try to even the balance here.
This primary has revealed alot of racial and sexist crap that's not going to be going away anytime soon. The illusion that some white liberals have clung to that there is no racism or sexism on the left has been shattered, probably forever.
JustAnotherGen
(31,798 posts)Has a long history of being disruptive back here.
And I agree on the blatantly pro Hillary posts - but with the sum of this campaign and how alienated black people feel in general in this country - for some of the reasons you defined -
I'm hesitant to stop folks from posting it back here.
Th r big picture - America is very alienating to black people. We bring that here and everywhere and posters at DU take issues that have nothing to do with them personally.
Squinch
(50,934 posts)Yallow
(1,926 posts)Middle class means you at least have a pot to piss in.
Only one candidate actually talks about the poor, and the working poor, and wants to give them $15 an hour.
Who wants to INCREASE Social Security, and stop outsourcing.
Who wants every single American to have health care IMMEDIATELY.
Mr. Clinton did help some POC while president, and brought many out of poverty. He also locked a bunch up with his bs crime bill, made it practically impossible for many to get ahead with his Republican Welfare Reform Beat Down legislation.
Then he signed Graham Leech Bliley, which helped Wall Street destroy millions of POC's retirement security.
Sorry, there is only one candidate who has been working for minorities HIS WHOLE POLITICAL CAREER and it isn't Mrs Clinton.
Hate to have to break it to the pie in the sky folks so plainly.
Good response.
Warpy
(111,224 posts)but they're still getting paid more than POC and women of all colors. Most of them have noticed the losses but they still can't see how much privilege they've retained.
Privilege only becomes visible when its loss is threatened.
Response to YoungDemCA (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)Our country should have improvements in education as a priority.
But its difficult for me to place 'free college' before improving the quality of education pre-k through high school first.
Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #29)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
newblewtoo
(667 posts)can win without the working class white vote? I think that is the essential question being asked here. Further, how does that candidate convince the white working class to vote against what is in their perceived best interest? Remember we have been down this route before and managed to create a class of Archie Bunker Raygun Democrats. How similar it all is beginning to seem. They put up a populist demagogue we counter with a self described socialist and a wholly owned crony capitalist. Then we segregate the party racial and sexual dogma and viola, you are looking at president tRump.
The winner of this election will face a country which seems to be the most divided of my lifetime. Think long and hard on how that person will deal the opposition.
ismnotwasm
(41,974 posts)Articles like these outline why--pure racism in its unadulterated form. The so-called economic driven fears, while real, do not mask the racism. Millennials, who are overwhelmingly supporting Sanders OR Trump are not going to overcome this deficit.
It's one of the purist lines of thought mixed with polling that cements my support for Hillary. I will not be a part of racist America, to the best of my ability. The assumption that AA's are on all on welfare, are all poor, are all uneducated, except for a few "good" ones, is so disgustingly racist, I can't begin to express it
Specifically, whites were bewildered and infuriated with liberals who defended rioting communitiescorrectly noting the decades of deprivation and abuse that led to those violent outburstsand pushed anti-poverty programs to address the underlying conditions. Black incomes rose while at the same time, many white incomes were beginning to stagnate or even fall. Why was the government spending our tax dollars on them, working-class whites asked, when they destroy their neighborhoods and refuse to work, and were losing our jobs and our homes? In Nixonland, historian Rick Perlstein captures the basic attitude by relaying this comment from a white construction worker, directed at George McGovern, Theyre payin people who are on welfare today doin nothin! Theyre laughin at our society! And were all hardworkin people and were gettin laughed at for workin every day!
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/democrats_can_t_win_white_working_class_voters_the_party_is_too_closely.html
Also read: What If Everything You Knew About Poverty Was Wrong?"
But if that's the case, why does the WWC continue to loathe Democrats so badly? I think the answer is as old as the discussion itself: They hate welfare. There was a hope among some Democrats that Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare reform would remove this millstone from around Democrats' necks, and for a few years during the dotcom boom it probably did. The combination of tougher work rules and a booming economy made it a less contentious topic.
But when the economy stagnates and life gets harder, people get meaner. That's just human nature. And the economy has been stagnating for the working class for well over a decadeand then practically collapsing ever since 2008.
So who does the WWC take out its anger on? Largely, the answer is the poor. In particular, the undeserving poor. Liberals may hate this distinction, but it doesn't matter if we hate it. Lots of ordinary people make this distinction as a matter of simple common sense, and the WWC makes it more than any. That's because they're closer to it. For them, the poor aren't merely a set of statistics or a cause to be championed. They're the folks next door who don't do a lick of work but somehow keep getting government checks paid for by their tax dollars. For a lot of members of the WWC, this is personal in a way it just isn't for the kind of people who read this blog.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/11/can-we-talk-heres-why-white-working-class-hates-democrats
Here is an round-table type article that could have come out of Senators Sanders campaign playbook:
Take that crutch away and the electoral arithmetic becomes so dire that GOP strategy will have to change simply to remain competitive. True, a more moderate and reasonable Republican party would attract more voters who now vote Democratic, but overall it would be a plus for progressive governance by improving the climate for legislation that actually addresses social problems.
Is there reasonable hope that such a coalition can be formed? We believe there is.
Start with the evolution of the white working class itself. Over time, we expect that generational change will make the white working class more liberal and open to progressive agendas. This will occur as white working-class Millennials gradually take the place of generally more conservative white working-class Baby Boomers and older Americans.
Democrats generally receive greater support among Millennial white working-class voters than among older white working-class voters. This gap peaked in 2008 when Obamas margin was 30 points better among 18-29 year old white working class Millennial voters than among their older counterparts.
This generation gap is partially explained by the fact that white working class Millennials are substantially more liberal on social issues. For example, in the 2012 National Election Study, 54 percent of white working class Millennials thought gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to legally marry, compared to just 34 percent of older white working class cohorts. They are also more likely than older cohorts to be secular in religious orientation, another indicator of liberalism. In the 2012 Democracy Corps post-election survey, 33 percent of white working class Millennials reported no religious affiliation
compared to 14 percent of their older counterparts.
http://thedemocraticstrategist-roundtables.com/?page_id=60
Millennials once again, as welcome as they are to the Democratic Party, and politics in general, as exciting as it is to see them engaged, are being told that the Democratic Party is corrupt. Past its due date so to speak, they are told with no historical context, the assumption being that current economic and social ills are the fault of Democrats rather than an obstructionist Republican Party, told these things by downplaying the dangers of a struggling Republican Party--which can be compared to an alligator caught in coyote trap. It's a very dangerous road to travel politically, and this is WHY we end up with a monstrosity like George W. Bush. The republicans sold their soul to The Tea Party, which garnered them a whole lot of nutjobs in congress, but subjected the party to stress lines of fracture--which is why you have a potential President Trump. They will do anything to recover momentum, and I, for one want to see true progressive change, not the backlash of Republican congressional majorities.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)This cohort is making itself irrelevant to the Democratic election map (speaking as a white voter here)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2012/11/08/president-obama-and-the-white-vote-no-problem/
Obama's 39 percent showing among white voters matched the percentage that Bill Clinton received in 1992 -- albeit it in a competitive three-way race -- and exceeded the percentage of the white vote earned by Walter Mondale in 1984, Jimmy Carter in 1980 and George McGovern in 1972.
And, Obama's showing among white voters mattered less than did Mondale's or Carter's because the white vote accounted for significantly less of the overall electorate in 2012 than it did in either 1984 or 1980. In fact, the white vote as a percentage of the overall electorate has declined in every election since 1992.
The Archie Bunkers already vote with the Republicans.