[quote]Spartiates wrote:
<<< Does “blackness” cause that, or is it merely coincidental, and a bunch of other factors (that coincidentally impact black folks more) cause it?
I don’t think anything about skin pigmentation causes any of that, therefor, statistics on the skin-pigmentation are useless, unless it can be shown that racism is really at work, and forcing blacks into that position. Is that what’s happening?[/quote]
I’m not faulting you because I have no illusions that people would or should have read my posts here, but I have made it as clear as the English language is capable of conveying that “blackness”, I’ve even used that exact word, is NOT the cause in any way.
I reject any theory that explains the deplorable state of much of the “black community” (I really do hate that label) in terms of “wellll, that’s just how black people are”. I reject that and have stated right here in this thread on this very page that that’s how all people are if put in the same position in large numbers.
Well, this whole thread was about “Why do people consider Tea Partiers racist?”
And I was trying to say, “Well, this refers to a real phenomenon, actually, and here’s what’s known about it. You can judge it racist or not, wrong or not, as you choose, but there is this statistical relationship between Tea Parties, a specific subset of conservative views, and views on race.”
It’s an academic discussion because I’m trying to find common ground – trying to make claims that I have a shot of convincing people of. If I were to say “Tiribulus, don’t be a conservative,” I wouldn’t have much luck, would I?
As for how to fix social problems among minorities – I’m the last person in the world qualified to have an opinion on that. I don’t have the personal experience and I haven’t read much in that area either. I’ll say that there are people who have done their research who disagree with you. But basically I’m out of my depth there.
Where you have committed faithful loving responsible families, crime is generally low and character is generally high. Where you don’t you have Detroit. You get paid in Detroit to not have a faithful committed loving responsible family. In this case Detroit is overwhelmingly black. Research done.
Detroit is the perfect microcosm of the devastating effects of attempting to force social justice. People who attribute that to genetic “blackness” are racists. People who don’t aren’t.
Leftist eggheads can sit in their classrooms and coffee shops with their noses in the air and “research” til the end of time. THAT is the simple truth.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
When you have two groups that statistically are highly opposed on political questions, would you call those groups political allies or political antagonists?
[/quote]
This is where I have a problem with your line of thought. The tea party is a group with some form of collective platform, being that it is a political group. Participating in the tea parties does mean that the person agrees to certain political positions.
Being black is entirely different. Black is not a political group. A person who is black does not agree with any specific political stance. There is no collective black platform. You cannot therefore treat black as a political group. You can only reasonably treat them as individuals. It is completely unreasonable for a black person to oppose the tea party on the basis of being black.
I object completely to you using race as a political group. It simply is not so and makes no sense to do so.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
When you have two groups that statistically are highly opposed on political questions, would you call those groups political allies or political antagonists?
[/quote]
This is where I have a problem with your line of thought. The tea party is a group with some form of collective platform, being that it is a political group. Participating in the tea parties does mean that the person agrees to certain political positions.
Being black is entirely different. Black is not a political group. A person who is black does not agree with any specific political stance. There is no collective black platform. You cannot therefore treat black as a political group. You can only reasonably treat them as individuals. It is completely unreasonable for a black person to oppose the tea party on the basis of being black.
I object completely to you using race as a political group. It simply is not so and makes no sense to do so.[/quote]
This is of course true in terms of anthropology, but in practice “black” pretty much is a political group. At least as far as the ones who are active at all. When you have 90 plus % guaranteed to one party and platform for decades that is practically even if not actually a political group.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
When you have two groups that statistically are highly opposed on political questions, would you call those groups political allies or political antagonists?
[/quote]
This is where I have a problem with your line of thought. The tea party is a group with some form of collective platform, being that it is a political group. Participating in the tea parties does mean that the person agrees to certain political positions.
Being black is entirely different. Black is not a political group. A person who is black does not agree with any specific political stance. There is no collective black platform. You cannot therefore treat black as a political group. You can only reasonably treat them as individuals. It is completely unreasonable for a black person to oppose the tea party on the basis of being black.
I object completely to you using race as a political group. It simply is not so and makes no sense to do so.[/quote]
This is of course true in terms of anthropology, but in practice “black” pretty much is a political group. At least as far as the ones who are active at all. When you have 90 plus % guaranteed to one party and platform for decades that is practically even if not actually a political group.[/quote]
So you agree with a black person opposing political groups based on race? While it is true there is high correlation, causation is not a given. I seriously doubt that being genetically black causes liberal ideology. Logically she is assuming a causal relationship that isn’t there. It would probably be more appropriate to assign a causal relationship to community, economics, education, and on and on and on.
If Black is in no way genetically causal to liberal, you cannot logically flow from being black to opposing political ideology.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So you agree with a black person opposing political groups based on race? While it is true there is high correlation, causation is not a given. I seriously doubt that being genetically black causes liberal ideology. Logically she is assuming a causal relationship that isn’t there. It would probably be more appropriate to assign a causal relationship to community, economics, education, and on and on and on.
If Black is in no way genetically causal to liberal, you cannot logically flow from being black to opposing political ideology.[/quote]
I agree. Unless race is specifically an issue, or has been an issue with a political party or ideology. Liberalism, like the classic liberals who founded our county, has tended to more anti-racist than the relative conservative movements. When there as slavery, the liberals (back when the Republicans were the liberals) were the anti-slavery party. During the civil rights movement, when race really was an issue, it was the liberals (not a cross section of all sides of the political spectrum) who primarily took up that cause. There is an historical memory of this, that’s not just going to vanish because racism doesn’t have the wide-reaching impact in quality of life it once did.
Just like all those Dixiecrats who put Reagan in the White House, and were only registered democrats because of the historical stigma associated with Republicans in the South (something Reagen helped them overcome).
We are now at a place, where racism is no longer institutionalized, and like the Dixiecrats with Reagen, it’s now “okay” for minorities to vote non-liberal without it being explicit that they are voting against their self-interest. But, short of a Reagan-like figure getting in there, I imagine it will be a slow process: most people across the political spectrum vote for, and identify with, the same party their entire voting lives.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
<<< So you agree with a black person opposing political groups based on race? While it is true there is high correlation, causation is not a given. I seriously doubt that being genetically black causes liberal ideology. Logically she is assuming a causal relationship that isn’t there. It would probably be more appropriate to assign a causal relationship to community, economics, education, and on and on and on.
If Black is in no way genetically causal to liberal, you cannot logically flow from being black to opposing political ideology.[/quote]
I agree and you spent this entire post dealing with the anthropological aspect which is what I stated is certainly not a political group. There is no causal relationship between being genetically anything and politically anything. Blacks have essentially been paid to be liberal. They have been bombarded for generations now with “white America owes you, here is their payment”. The tragic history of this nation lends shallow credibility to that idea. All, but the very strongest individuals of any race would resist buying into that. I’ll say it again. If there were a magic button that would transform all black people into white people and vice versa beginning about 1600 and assuming history took the same course we would have the exact same situation with the races reversed.
All I’m saying is that most blacks being liberal by a huge margin, one could be forgiven for referring to them informally as a political group. Why not? It’s not a truism and it’s not causal, but what difference does that make in practice? Here is a group that shares by a vast majority a political viewpoint.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
I certainly wasn’t claiming that genetics cause anybody’s political views. History and culture can.
And I think Spartiates hit the nail on the head.[/quote]
At least for me, didn’t think you were. As for this other guys post? I think I go along with the spirit and overall thrust, but would need some clarification of some of his details to be sure. I will say that the few black conservatives I’ve met personally are some of the most clear thinking solidly constitutional constructionists you can imagine.
One ol boy, another customer of mine, who happened to have Fox News on in his house told me "I did 2 tours in Nam and got shot… twice, fighting communists, only to come home and wait a while for us to put one in the whitehouse. He has his Purple Hearts above his desk along with a few other decorations. I wish I could have recorded the 3 or 4 minutes he went on. He had no idea what my views were if any when this started and clearly didn’t care. He was the customer, I was in his house and was a captive audience working on his computer. He could have written one of my posts here. He also never mentioned Obama’s race even once though he is very black.
I got up, turned around and chuckled a little as I told him “you and I are going to get along quite famously brother”. He really REALLY gets it. He is a man first, an American second and black somewhere else down the list. I am on my knees pleading with black America to see themselves the way this man does.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
I certainly wasn’t claiming that genetics cause anybody’s political views. History and culture can.
And I think Spartiates hit the nail on the head.[/quote]
If you are substituting a culture or socio-economic group for the term “black”, I think you would do better to address the group directly. There is no need to assign a genetic qualifier of race to the mix because it doesn’t hold water. There is a big difference between culture and race.
For example I would think most “black” people are truly of mixed race. By your classification what % black does a person have to be to qualify? Any? More than half? Are you judging on skin tone alone?
It is more correct and productive to speak of culture than race, they are not the same thing.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
I certainly wasn’t claiming that genetics cause anybody’s political views. History and culture can.
And I think Spartiates hit the nail on the head.[/quote]
If you are substituting a culture or socio-economic group for the term “black”, I think you would do better to address the group directly. There is no need to assign a genetic qualifier of race to the mix because it doesn’t hold water. There is a big difference between culture and race.
For example I would think most “black” people are truly of mixed race. By your classification what % black does a person have to be to qualify? Any? More than half? Are you judging on skin tone alone?
It is more correct and productive to speak of culture than race, they are not the same thing.
[/quote]
There was an interesting book review in the New Yorker on “Whiteness”
Haven’t read to book, just the review. It’s interesting how in the US, though, historically, if you had any non-white (whatever the liquid definition of white was at the time: remember, there was a time when Italian and Irish were not white in America) you are considered whatever non-white group you have some blood of.
Obama’s mom is “white”, but Obama is our first black president (huh?).
I agree with you, culture is what matters, race is coincidental, and with all the moving around an mixing, more liquid than ever.